I recently got a map of Japan which was published by George F. Cram of Chicago (USA) in 1899. There are "Taka Isl" , "Matsu Isl" and "Liancourt Rocks" in the Sea of Japan. Korea and Izumo distcrict of Japan were coloured in almost the same colour (light green) as well as these islands, so unfortunately we can't decide which country these islands belonged to. However, as this map is a large one, it would be good to learn the locations of these islands.
The three longitudinal lines in the close-up map (above) indicate the longitude 129 degree, 131 degree and 133 degree (E) respectively from west to east, so you will find Taka Island, that is Argonaut island, locates at less than 130 dgree (about 129 degree 50'). Also you'll find Matsu Island, Dagelet Island or the true Ulleungdo, is located at less than 131 degree (about 130 degree 50'), Liancourt Rocks at less than 132 degree (about 131 degree 50').Here is a Japanese map called "新撰朝鮮国全図" (Newly Edited Whole Map of Chosun Country) which was published in 1894. It has been used by pro-Korean people to insist that Japan admitted Dokdo to be Korean territory. There are two islands in the Sea of Japan - 竹島(Takeshima) and 松島(Matsushima), which pro-Korean people insist as Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo).
If the map below is too small to examine, please visit here: http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/senshin-1894/
If you examine the map precisely, you will notice that the longitudinal line beside Takeshima runs beside Iki island at south, which locates at around 129 degree 40' - so this longitudinal line may mean longitude 130 degree. Then it may mean "Takeshima" in the map is located at about 130 degree (129 degree 50') - it coincides with Argonaut island which was mentioned above. The next longitudinal line runs through Kitakyushu (Kokura) that locates at 131 degree. "Matsushima" in the map is located at the middle of the two lines - it seems as it locates at about 130 degree 40', which is almost the place of Ulleungdo although not very accurate. By the way, as Liancourt Rocks locate at about 131 degree 50' as we showed above, so Liancourt Rocks is out of this map.But there is a problem - the map was not drawn in east longitude based on the Greenwich point but it was drawn in west longitude based on the Japanese standard point at Azabu, Tokyo (139 degree 44' 28" E). The island "Takeshima" in the map is located beside the line "九". The Chinese number "九" means "9 degree W" here, which is similar to "130 degree 44' E". But if this line means "130 degree 44' E", it must run through Kitakyushu because Kitakyushu is located at 130 degree 50', but the line crossed Saga prefecture, one degree west. Instead, the line "八" (8 degree W) which is 131 degree 44' E crossed Kitakyushu. So you can understand that this map is incorrect, as whole the Japanese figure in the map was drawn mistakenly just one degree east. Then, the problem is that we can't decide whether the two islands "Takeshima" and "Matsushima" were also drawn one degree east or not.
1) If the two islands were also drawn one degree east, "Takeshima" in the map (slightly less than 130 degree 44' E, maybe around 130 degree 40' E) should be at about 129 degree 40' E. This is almost the same place as Argonaut island (129 degree 50' E). "Matsushima" which is located at the middle of the lines 8 degree W and 9 degree W (more precisely slightly eastwardly shifted from the middle point; almost 131 degree 30' E) should be 130 degree 30' E which is close to Dagelet island (130 degree 50' E).
2) If the two islands were drawn just the exact places, "Takeshima" is located at about 130 degree 40' E, which is near to Dagelet island (130 degree 50' E) while "Matsushima" is located at 131 degree 30' E, which is almost the middle point between Dagelet island and Liancourt Rocks.
By the way, the east limit of the map is 西経八度 (= 131 degree 44' E) which excluded Liancourt Rocks (131 degree 50' E) - if they tried to draw Liancourt Rocks, the rocks were to be drawn in the margin of the map. But there is no such rocks were drawn in the map.
Considering other maps with Takeshima and Matsushima from the same era (see the references), 1) should be most likely the case. Even if 2) was the case, it didn't always refer to Liancourt Rocks.
References:
東京地学協会編 朝鮮全図 (1894; http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/tokyo-1894/ ) with Ulleungdo - Matsushima at slightly west than 131 degree E,
朝鮮全岸 (1896; http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/koreacoast-1896/ ) with Ulleungdo- Matsushima at around 131 degree E,
日本全図 (1877; http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/nihonzenzu-1877/ ) with
Takeshima at slightly west of 西十度 line = 129 degree 44' E and Matsushima at slightly west of 西九度 line = 130 degree 44' E (which means these are Argonaut and Dagelet islands)
As a result, "竹島(Takeshima)" in the map is highly likely Argonaut island, whcih western maps sometimes called as "Take Isl" or "Taka Isl." while "松島 (Matsushima)" in the map is highly likely true Ulleungdo or Dagelet island, which western maps sometimes called as "Matsu Isl." - so these two islands in the map coincided with "Taka Isl" and "Matsu Isl" in the American map.
Of course, no one can say from this map that Japan admitted Dokdo to be Korean territory.
Pacifist, you are wrong. The island 竹島 (Takeshima-Ulleungdo) is drawn directly South of the Westernmost tip of Korea to the North. See the top of the map. This would put 竹島 (Takeshima-Ulleungdo) at around 130.4 very close to Ulleungdo's real location and much too far East to be considered Argonaut.
ReplyDeleteFrom there Matsushima is drawn even further East of this Ulleungdo. So the positional errors of these islands relative to Korea isn't that bad. The real error on this map was made when the Japanese cartographer traced the form of Japan onto to the map. You can see the whole positioning of Japan is too far East that's all.
So using the location of Japan on this map to determine the position of Ulleungdo and Dokdo to the North is a seriously flawed approach. This is a map of Korea first and foremost. The rough shape and form of Japan's coast was haphazardly traced on afterward.
The map posted by Hosaka is not influenced by Seibold's error.
Even if the map does show Seibol's positioning we cannot simply say the 竹島 (Takeshima) is a ghost island. This is proven by maps like this one that show Takeshima as Korea's Ulleungdo.
TakeshimaIsUlleungdo
Only on maps showing three islands can we confirm Takeshima is a ghost. That is why most maps showing three islands draw Takeshima/Argonaut in a dotted line.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou still can't read the longitude, can you?
Look at the map you mentioned. You may not be able to read Japanese/Chinese characters but there are words 西経八度(longitude 8 degree West)、西経九度(longitude 9 degree West) etc, which mean these longitudes were measured from Tokyo or somewhereelse in Japan's mainland, not Great Britain. And at the same time we can understand that these longitudinal lines were drawn at every one degree.
The longitudinal line which touches Korean peninsula is 129 degree E, so the second line indicates 130 degree E. So 竹島 (Takeshima) in the map locates at less than 130 degree, about 129 degree 50'. This is quite rightly the location of Argonaut in western maps Steve.
Likewise, the next line means 131 degree E and as you can see, 松島 (Matsushima) lies at less than 131 degree, about 130 degree 50' - this is just the location of today's Ulleungdo (that is Dagelet island), Steve.
In order to make it certain, look at Oki islands. It touches the line 133 degree, right? This is quite right in modern maps too.
The same goes for Hosaka's map. Read the longitudinal line by yourself, Steve.
All your fault is inability to read and understand longitudes. go back to school and learn geography.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou still can't read the longitude, can you?
Look at the map you mentioned. You may not be able to read Japanese/Chinese characters but there are words 西経八度(longitude 8 degree West)、西経九度(longitude 9 degree West) etc, which mean these longitudes were measured from Tokyo or somewhereelse in Japan's mainland, not Great Britain. And at the same time we can understand that these longitudinal lines were drawn at every one degree.
The longitudinal line which touches Korean peninsula is 129 degree E, so the second line indicates 130 degree E. So 竹島 (Takeshima) in the map locates at less than 130 degree, about 129 degree 50'. This is quite rightly the location of Argonaut in western maps Steve.
Likewise, the next line means 131 degree E and as you can see, 松島 (Matsushima) lies at less than 131 degree, about 130 degree 50' - this is just the location of today's Ulleungdo (that is Dagelet island), Steve.
In order to make it certain, look at Oki islands. It touches the line 133 degree, right? This is quite right in modern maps too.
The same goes for Hosaka's map. Read the longitudinal line by yourself, Steve.
All your fault is inability to read and understand longitudes. go back to school and learn geography.
Sorry, I posted the same text.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteAs you alreday wrote, Hosaka's map is inaccurate. The eastern limit of North Korea is currently about 130 degree 40' - almost the same longitude as Japan's Fukuoka (Hakata), and the eastern limit of Korean peninsula is about 129 degree 35' - almost the same longitude as Japan's Tsushima. But the figure of Chosun in Hosaka's map seems to be distorted - if the longitude of the eastern limit of North Korea in this map is 130 degree, the western next line must mean the longitude 129 degree. However, if this line was 129 degree line, it must touch Korean peninsula and Tsushima, while Korean peninsula is located at far western place and Tsushima is located at far eastern place.
So you must know that Hosaka's map is quite inaccurate, Steve. You once wrote that American maps from the 1890's are inaccurate and not reliable. But as every one can see, the American maps are far more accurate.
You must admit that Hosaka's map is not reliable and it doesn't say "Japan admit Dokdo is Korean territory". Anyway, Hosaka's map doesn't cover Dokdo (Liancourt Rocks) if the eastern limit or North Korea was 130 degree E. It only covers 131 degree but Liancourt Rocks is located at almost 132 degree (131 degree 50').
I searched for the standard point of geography in Japan. It is located at Azabu, Tokyo. The place is at 139 degree 44' 28" E, this is the zero point of the measurement in the Meiji era.
ReplyDeleteSo, one degree W means today's 138 degree 44'.
Looking back at Hosaka's map, the point of Takeshima is less than 西経九度 (9 degree W) which means this Takeshima is located at less than 130 degree 44' E, maybe around 130 degree 30' E. This seems to be near to true Ulleungdo which is located at 130 degree 56'- so you may say that "Takeshima" in Hosaka's map is near to true Ullengdo's location but slightly western.
On the other hand, Matsushima in the map seems to be located at the midddle point between 西経八度 (that is 131 degree 44') and 西経九度 (that is 130 degree 44') - so it seems to be at around 131 degree 10'. It is 40 minutes western than Liancourt Rocks and 20 minutes eastern than true Ulleungdo. It is nearer to true Ulleungdo than Liancourt Rocks. And the figure is completely different from true Liancourt Rocks.
The map only depicted until 西経八度 (131 degree 44') so if they depicted Liancourt Rocks (131 degree 52') in this map, the rocks must have been drawn at the very eastern end of the map but they didn't draw the rocks at all.
So again, you can't say from this incorrect map that Japan admitted that Dokdo belonged to Korea.
BTW, as to the map you mentioned in the first posting, Takeshima is seen at 西経十度 (129 degree 44' E) so this is definitely Argonaut island (129 degree 50' E). And Matsushima is located at 西経九度 (130 degree 44' E) - so this is definitely Dagelet island (true Ulleungdo).
"I searched for the standard point of geography in Japan. It is located at Azabu, Tokyo. The place is at 139 degree 44' 28" E, this is the zero point of the measurement in the Meiji era. So, one degree W means today's 138 degree 44'. "
ReplyDeleteGood job, pacifist. Do you mind if I add this new information to my post? It seems my post is referenced in some sites including Wiki. It might help everyone who want truth about Takeshima/Dokdo to understand what kind of guy this Prof. Hosaka is.
Anyway, I really don't understand why anybody could claim this Matsushima to be Liancorut Rocks, which resembles to Ulleungdo and depicted much bigger than "Takeshima". The real Liancourt Rocks are 0.187k㎡（0.073k㎡: east island、0.089k㎡ : west island）altogether and Ulleungdo is 72.82km², which is almost 400 times bigger than Liancourt Rocks. Even if you don't know that "Takeshima" is non-existant Argonaut in fact, it is impossible for anyone to claim that this "Matsushima" is today's Takeshima from its' geographical information.
Hi Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteYes, please feel free to add the information to your post.
Anyway, the Hosaka map has incorrect information which enabled pro-Korean people to claim. But one can't claim the right to own an island relying only on such an incorrect map.
They should prove the firm evidence to own the island but they don't have such an evidence at all so they have to search for this kind of incorrect information... it's a pity.
Pacifist, what are you talking about? This map isn't so bad.
ReplyDeleteIf this map shows Takeshima at 130.4 degrees I'd say it's good enough by those days standards and it cannot be Argonaut. Also look at the distance scale. Argonaut Island is was located only about 90kms away from Korea. This map shows Takeshma (Ulleungdo) much too far to be Argonaut.
Kaneganese, show me a historical map of Japan that depicts Takeshima and Matsushima in their correct form. They rarely if ever do. Also historical maps of Japan show the islands in a variety of locations.
Pacifist, the real pity here is that Japanese maps consistently exclude Dokdo from their own territory or show them as Korean.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteI added some information. Read it and you'll notice your problem.
Gerry,
ReplyDeleteMay I ask you to corrct my bad English? Wasn't it too lengthy?
Pacifist is comparing two uncomparable maps to claim Matsushima in "新撰朝鮮全図" is not Dokdo. In 1899 American map of Japan, Takeshima is Argonaut because there's Liancourt Rocks which is western name for Dokdo. On the other hand, only two islands-Takeshima and Matsushima- are drawn in "新撰朝鮮全図", which means Takeshima is Ulleongdo, not Argonaut and Matushima is Dokdo.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone insists Takeshima is Argonaut, not Ulleongdo in "新撰朝鮮全図" because it is located at the similar longitude to Argonaut, show us any Japanese map during Meiji- era which drew Takeshima and Matsushima in the accurate longitudes. The Meiji-era mapmakers didn't depict Takeshima and Matsushima based on the accurate longitudes.
It's said this map was influenced by Siebold's map, but Siebold didn't intend to draw non-existent Argonaut in the map of Japan. He knew the existence of Takeshima and Matsushima from Japanese maps and draw them in the positions of Argonaut and Dagelet Island without knowing their real longitudes.
As seen in the 1899 American map above, to claim Takeshima is Argonaut, there should be three islands in the Sea of Japan(East Sea)-Takeshima in a broken line, Matsushima in the actual position of Ulleogdo and Liancourt Rocks (or Hornet Rocks). Not every Takeshima in the Meiji-era maps is Argonant.
There is a perfect Meiji-era map proving Takeshima is Ulleongdo, not Argonaut and Matsushima is Dokdo.
The map "大日本府縣全圖(1872)" below exactly depicted Takeshima and Matsushima in the position of Argonaut and Dagelet of the western maps respectively, but I'm 100% sure the pro-Japanese people can't insist Takeshima and Matsushima in this map are Argonaut and Ulleongdo respectively.
大日本府縣全圖1
大日本府縣全圖2
In this map, there is a phrase "高麗ヲ見ル猶雲州隠州ヲ見ルガ如シ 一ニ云磯竹島(Viewing Koryo(=Korea) is like viewing Onshu from Unshu. It's called Isotakeshima(=Ulleongdo)"
This phrase is from the Japanese old document "隠州視聴合記" published in 1667. The author of this book wrote that viewing Korea from Ulleongdo and Dokdo is like viewing Izumo from Oki and people called Ulleongdo as Isotakeshima.
Thus, there's no doubt when the cartographer of "大日本府縣全圖" cited this phrase for his map he believed Takeshima and Matsushma are Ulleongdo and Dokdo respectively. If he had recognized Argonaut in the western maps as an phantom island, he wouldn't have cited such a phrase.
I indirectly proved Takeshima in 新撰朝鮮全図 is Ulleongdo, not Argonaut. Pro-Japanese people are desperate to distort Meiji-era Japanese maps showing Dokdo as Korean land because those maps prove Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal. But no matter how hard they distort Meiji-era maps, they can't make all Takeshima in Meiji-era maps as non-existent Argonaut.
I am not good at English, so I write in Japanese.
ReplyDelete大日本府縣全圖 １８７２（明治５）
大変興味深い地図です。
① この地図は、ここに紹介されています。
http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/Japan.ArgonautDageletLiancourtRocksMapGallary/1860-80-J.htm
內田晉齊 誌とあります。
② また島根県の報告書にも出ています。
９２ｐ ⑤大日本府県全図 内田晋斎 明治５年（１８７２）
紙本銅版色摺 ４５×３４
http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04_01/index.data/10.pdf
岡宏三氏の解説によれば、この地図の序文に、
「頃日英国「ファベルブラノット」氏ノ著ス所ノ日本図ヲ得、之ヲ閲スレバ地形長短広狭能ク其真ヲ写シ得テ、毫モ誤リナシ、今之ヲ模写シ、新制府県ノ名ヲ附載シ、以テ世人ノ便覧ニ供ス」とあるようです。
たぶん、地図の右下の部分に書いてあるのだと思いますが、写真（９７ｐ図７，８）がありますが、序文の文字は読み取れません。
この、『英国「ファベルブラノット」氏ノ著ス所ノ日本図』に、この緯度・経度の位置にアルゴノートとダジュレーがのっていたんだと思います。そこには、竹島・松島と書いてあったかもしれません。
それをもとに、この地図を作った内田晋斎は、
長久保赤水系統の地図にある
「竹島 高麗ヲ見コト猶雲州隠州ヲ見ルガ如シ 一ニ云 磯竹島」を加えたものと思います。
なお、Slowwさんの引用は「高麗ヲ見ル猶雲州隠州ヲ見ルガ如シ」となっていますが、「見」のあとは「ル」ではなく「コト」です。
英国「ファベルブラノット」氏ノ著ス所ノ日本図をぜひ見たいものです。
なお、岡宏三氏の解説に
竹島と鬱陵島の位置及び注記は、林子平の「三国通覧図説」を踏襲する。
とありますが、
林子平の「三国通覧図説」というよりは、むしろ、この報告書にも載っている長久保赤水の地図（②新刻日本輿地路程全図。図３，４）の系統から来ているものだと思います。「見高麗猶雲州望隠州。竹島一云磯竹島」。
もちろん、文言は、さかのぼれば「隠州視聴合記」ですが。
というわけで、この地図の竹島と松島は、内田晋斎の意識の中では、現鬱陵島と現竹島（＝独島）で間違いないと思います。
色がついているようですが、読み取れますか？
また、右上に３つの蔵書印が見えますが、どこにある地図なんでしょうか？ 「英文のもの」と、「うさぎがついているもの」と、ひらがなで「志んなちミつ井け」（？）と書いてあるものです。
島根の地図（島根県立古代出雲歴史博物館所蔵）には蔵書印はありません。
内田晋斎（うちだしんさい）（１８４８～１８９９）本名：内田嘉一
ReplyDelete教科書編集者、啓蒙思想家。福沢諭吉のもとで活躍したようです。
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%86%85%E7%94%B0%E6%99%8B%E6%96%8E
内田 晋斎（うちだ しんさい、嘉永元年（1848年） - 明治32年（1899年）5月12日）は、明治期の書体研究家、教科書編集者、啓蒙思想家。晋斎は号で、他に芳斎。本名は嘉一。明治24年には、日本で始めての特許開発者ともなったとされる。嘉永元年（1848年）年上総国生まれ。慶応4年（1868年）に慶應義塾に入塾。卒業後、福沢諭吉著の『啓蒙手習之文』の版下作成を任じられ、儒学者・巻菱湖の書風で書かれた書体は評判が良かったといわれる。秀英体が採用した仮名書風の「秀英体A型仮名書風」の構想に深く関わっており、「秀英体B型仮名書風」には宮城玄魚が関わったとされる。また、辞書の日本語訳を最初に横書きにしたのは『浅解英和辞林』（明治4年）とされている。他、数多くの教科書執筆を手がけ、文部省で横山由清、中根叔、南部義舞、片山淳吉の5名で「文法会」を結成した。墓所は谷中霊園。
教科書
『小学中等科読本』
『小学読本』
『小学読本高等科』
『かなづかひはやまなび』
『地学新篇』
『実用読本尋常科』
啓蒙書
『窮理捷径十二月帖』近代デジタルライブラリー
『泰西訓蒙図解』
泰西訓蒙図解 / 田中芳男 訳 ; 内田晋斎 校
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/bunko08/bunko08_c0241/index.html
http://www.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kotenseki/html/bunko08/bunko08_e0084/index.html
内田 嘉一, -1899
ウチダ, ヨシカズ
uchida, yoshikazu
明治４年 文部少助教 内田嘉一
ドイツ語、英語、フランス語の単語をあげ、それぞれの図解があって、なかなか楽しい本です。ちなみに下は、動物（家畜）編。
http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko08/bunko08_e0084/bunko08_e0084_0002/bunko08_e0084_0002_p0004.jpg
http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko08/bunko08_e0084/bunko08_e0084_0002/bunko08_e0084_0002_p0005.jpg
啓蒙手習の文 / 福沢諭吉 編
ケイモウ テナライ ノ フミ
http://wine.wul.waseda.ac.jp/search~S12*jpn?/a%e5%86%85%e7%94%b0+%e5%98%89%e4%b8%80/a{213321}{214c24}+{21372d}{213021}/1%2C1%2C16%2CB/frameset&FF=a{213321}{214c24}+{21372d}{213021}+1899&11%2C%2C16
matsu様・sloww様
ReplyDelete「内田晋斎：大日本府縣全圖 (1872)」と「新撰朝鮮國全圖 (1894)」の説明を有難うございます。
I thank for your interpreting “General Map of Prefecture in Great Japan (1872)” by UCHIDA Shinsai, and “Newly Edited General Map of Chousen Country (1894)”.
matsu様は、内田晋斎の松島竹島は長久保赤水の地図の系統から来ていると解釈されましたが、その見解に同意します。
I agree with Mr. matsu’s interpretation that UCHIDA Shinsai draws Matsushima and Takeshima on the basis of NAGAKUBO Sekisui’s map.
外務省調査官の川上健三氏は（竹島の歴史地理学的研究, 1966）、幕末明治初期の松島竹島を示した３２の日本製の地図や文献の中、１２は伝統的松島（現竹島）と竹島（鬱陵島）を描いている、と説明しました。晋斎の地図はこれに加えることができます。
Mr. KAWAKAMI Kenzo (A Study on the Historical Geography of Takeshima, 1966), investigator of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, interpreted that 12 of 32 Japanese maps and literatures showing Matsushima and Takeshima in the latest Edo and early Meiji days drew traditional Matsushima (now Takeshima) and Takeshima (Ulleungdo). This Shinsai’s map can be added to these.
それ以外の２０の地図や文献は、松島と竹島を西洋製地図のダジュレー島とアルゴノート島として描いているように見えます。
Matsushima and Takeshima in the other 20 maps and literatures seem to have been depicted as Dagelet and Argonaut on the Western maps.
sloww様は、「新撰朝鮮全図」の竹島はアルゴノート島ではなく鬱陵島であり、松島は獨島である、と書かれました。この地図は、pacifist氏が紹介された1894年6月博文館発行の「新撰朝鮮國全圖」ですが、これは、内田晋斎の地図と同様に、伝統的松島竹島を描いている、と私も思います。
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/senshin-1894/
Mr. sloww wrote: In “Newly Edited General Map of Chousen Country”, Takeshima is Ulleongdo, not Argonaut, and Matsushima is Dokdo. The map, introduced by Mr. pacifist, was published by “Hakubunkan” in June 1894. I also think that this Hakubunkan’s map depicts traditional Matsushima and Takeshima, as well as UCHIDA Shinsai’s map.
1894年7月、加藤芳太郎は林正編輯で同名の「新撰朝鮮國全圖」を発行しました。これは国立国会図書館近代デジタルライブラリーで読むことができます。
http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/767582/7
In the year 1894, on July, KATO Yoshitaro published a map of the same title “Newly Edited General Map of Chousen Country” edited by HAYASHI Tadashi. This can be viewed at the Modern Digital Library in the National Diet Library.
この地図の松島は、鬱陵島と殆んど同じ形に描かれ、竹島は松島と同じ大きさです。「清水常太郎：朝鮮輿地図（1894）」の松島竹島も同様なものでしょう。
In this map, Matsushima has nearly the same form as Ulleungdo, and Takeshima is as large as Matsushima. Matsushima and Takeshima on “Map of Chousen (1894)” by SHIMIZU Jotaro are also similar.
これらの地図は、新しい西洋製地図に加えて、「林子平：三國通覽圖説（1786）」や「本多利明：日本並北方圖（1796）」等の古い日本製地図の影響を受けているかもしれません。
These maps may have been influenced by old Japanese maps such as “HAYASHI Shihei: Maps and Illustrations Showing General Views of the Three Countries (1786)” and “HONDA Toshiaki: Map of Japan and North Countries (1796)”, in addition to the modern Western maps.
I am sorry for my poor English. Thank you very much.
Arare,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comment.
"大日本府縣全圖" is just a copy of western maps. The shapes and locations of Takeshima and Matsushima in the "大日本府縣全圖" exactly correspond to those of Argonaut and Matsushima in the western maps. This proves Japanese mapmakers doubtlessly interpreted Argonaut and Matsushima in the western maps are Japanese traditional Takeshima and Matsushima. So it is very misleading for pro-Japanese people to automatically interpret almost all of Takeshima in the maps of 1800s including "新撰朝鮮全図" as non-existent Argonaut.
J.C. Walker's map (1835) 1 2
B. Marzollo's map (1847) 1 2
Arare,
May I ask you a favor? The page of URL(http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/767582/7) you gave can't be found. Is there any way I can view this map?
sloww様 Sorry.
ReplyDeletehttp://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/767582/7 is description of Korean geography in Japanese.
URL of the map showing Matsushima and Takeshima in「新撰朝鮮國全圖」“Newly Edited General Map of Chousen Country” edited by HAYASHI Tadashi is:
http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/767582/3 or http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/767582/4
Arare,
ReplyDeleteI found "新撰朝鮮國全圖" and it was my fault I didn't read carefully. Thank you very much.
Arare様
ReplyDelete内田晋斎「大日本府縣全圖」（１８７２＝明治５年）に描かれている「松島」は、竹島＝独島だと思いますが、
「新撰朝鮮國全圖」（１８９４＝明治２７年）の「松島」は、竹島＝独島ではなく鬱陵島です。
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/senshin-1894/index1.html
内田の地図は、左側の島に「竹島」とふっており、右側の島は「松島」（伝統的）と見ていることが分かります。この「竹島」は鬱陵島であり、「松島」は竹島＝独島です
しかし、天城艦の確認（１８８０＝明治１３年）以降、日本政府は、地図にあらわれる「松島」を鬱陵島と認識しました。それ以降の地図の「松島」は、確実に、鬱陵島であると言えます。民間にも、次第にこの認識は浸透していったと思います。
その基準になったのが、内務省地理局が１８８１年（明治１４年）に作成した『大日本府県分轄図』の「大日本全国略図」だと思います。
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/matsushima.jpg
この「松島」は鬱陵島です。いまの竹島＝独島は、いちど日本側の視界からは消えたのだと思います。
さらに言えば、１８７７年（明治１０年）９月の文部省の宮本三平製「日本全図」も、鬱陵島を「松島」としています。この段階で、すなわち天城艦の確認（１８８０＝明治１３年）以前にも、鬱陵島＝「松島」という認識は出ています。
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/nihonzenzu-1877/
さらにさかのぼれば
勝海舟（１８６７＝慶応３年）「大日本国沿海略図」
http://edb.kulib.kyoto-u.ac.jp/exhibit/maps/map028/image/1/n1012010.html
橋本玉蘭（１８７０＝明治３年）「大日本四神全図」
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/shijinzenzu-1870/
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/shijinzenzu-1870/09.jpg
陸軍参謀局 （１８７５＝明治８年）「亜細亜東部輿地図」
http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka/takeshima/asiaeast-1875/
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/asiaeast-1875/05.jpg
の「松島」も鬱陵島です。
韓国の学者は、地図上に「松島」を見つけると、機械的に「竹島＝独島」に比定します。これは学問的には誤謬です。（たとえば、李相泰やホサカ・ユウジなど）
同じことが、「于山島」の扱いにも言えます。
同じ「松島」や「于山島」の名前を持っていても、その実体が何なのかを、史料に基づいて個々に判断していくことが、とても重要です。
それこそが、日韓間の対話を可能にする方法だと思います。
お互いが同意できる比定もありうるはずです。
学問的に明らかに誤謬であることを、一方的に信じ込まされていて、それに疑問をはさむことも、反論することも出来ない韓国の現在の状況は、韓国民にとっても不幸なことだと思います。
>いまの竹島＝独島は、いちど日本側の視界からは消えたのだと思います。
ReplyDeleteそこがポイントですね。「隠岐の彼方には竹島という島と松島という島があるようだ」という知識は細々ながら伝わっていたとしても、それが具体的にどういう島なのかという実際的知識は埋もれてしまったのでしょう。
そういう中で、明治時代になって改めて朝鮮に関心を向けた者たちが西洋の地図を入手して見てみれば、確かに「タケシマ」という島と「マツシマ」という島が書いてある。
「おお、やっぱりあるある。そーかあ、これが竹島でこれが松島なんだな」と思うのは自然の流れだったでしょう。
Examples of maps which show Matsushima 松島 as Ulleungdo 鬱陵島
ReplyDelete「松島」が「鬱陵島」である例
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
文久１年
1861 Royal Atas - "China and Japan"
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/05/1861-royal-atas-china-and-japan.html
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EFKbZg5suj4/T6BJAvYL2ZI/AAAAAAAAAMg/x8kiJbjVmoM/s1600/1861+Royal+Atlas+-+Dagelet+-+Matsusima+-+Argonaut.jpg
Dagelet or Matsusima
Matsusima is Dagelet, not Dokdo but Ulleungdo
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
明治６年
1873 British Nautical Chart of Japan and Korea
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/05/1873-british-nautical-chart-of-japan.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vR4gulvhQok/T5_0Zkpvg6I/AAAAAAAAAME/p-suRHeIlrE/s1600/1873+British+Navy+-+Matsushima+-+Liancourt+Rocks.jpg
Matu sima（Dagelet）
Matu Sima is Dagelet, not Dokdo but Ulleungdo
・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
明治８年
1875 Stieler "Hand Atlas," Map of Japan, Korea, and China
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/04/1875-stieler-atlas-map-of-japan-korea.html
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Px-su0y5y64/T5zYawrxaQI/AAAAAAAAAKQ/HkcD9eG4mdE/s1600/Matsushima+-+Liancourt+Rocks.jpg
Matsu sima（Dagelet I.）
Matsu sima is Dagelet, not Dokdo but Ulleungdo
Liancourt （フランス）, Hornet （英）があり、
幻の「竹島」（アルゴノート）は消えている。
森琴石（もり・きんせき）
ReplyDelete１８７７（明治１０年） 新鐫大日本海陸全圖 附朝鮮琉球
http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/mori-kinsekis-1877-map-of-japankorea
dokdo-takeshima.com のサイトでは、この地図の「松島」を「独島」であるとしています。しかし、その形からみても、この「松島」は、「鬱陵島」と思われます。
江原道に属するとして青色に塗っています。
鬱陵島は当然、江原道でしょう。
この地図は、以下にも紹介されています。
（国会図書館 書誌が詳しい。図なし）
https://ndlopac.ndl.go.jp/F/JV4IS7NVLMAXP74S4XMU1KD9TQCP1IVBJ6V5U99MDGG1IJ2QNB-09686?func=full-set-set&set_number=737889&set_entry=000010&format=999
（カリフォルニア大学バークレー校 拡大可能。鮮明に見えます）
http://luna.davidrumsey.com:8380/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~9~1~23699~100025:Shinsen-Dai-Nihon-kairiku-zenzu---f?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=sort:Pub_Date,Pub_List_No,Series_No;lc:RUMSEY%7E9%7E1&mi=652&trs=1293
上記カリフォルニア大学の地図の出典
https://sites.google.com/site/japanseamerdujapon/Home/japanese-map-describes-chousen-umi--corean-sea
ただし、ここでは「新鐫」（しんせん）を「新撰」と誤っています。
森琴石の地図１８７７（明治１０年）
ReplyDelete「松島」の東に「西経九度」の線が通っています。グリニッジでなく、東京を基準としているようです。森琴石の基準は皇居でしょうか。
皇居は東経１３９度４５分のようですから、
http://blogs.yahoo.co.jp/mie_eim9/62767084.html
西経９度は、単純に９度を引くと１３０度４５分となって、鬱陵島の位置とほぼあいます。
それから、この地図は、明治１０年３月２３日 版権免許 ８月出版 とあります。
ちょうど「竹島外一島」が「日本とは関係ない」と言われた時期とあいますね。
森琴石は大阪の人のようですから、島根県への情報を知っていたかどうかはわかりませんが。
ところで、森琴石は、この地図の原図をどうやって手に入れていたのでしょうか？
陸軍参謀局の地図（１８７５＝明治８年）は、非常に明確に鬱陵島の形を映し出して「松島」としていますが、やはり国家機密でしょうから、一般人の森琴石には簡単には見られなかったと思います。
長久保赤水の経線の基点は、京都御所でしたから、東京遷都後の経線の基点が、東京の宮城(きゅうじょう)になっていたのでしょう。
ReplyDeleteしかし、これを「赤水図」だけの影響と決めつけることは出来ません。matsuさまは勿論ご存じでしょうが、伊能図の経線の基点も京都御所でしたし、長久保赤水よりも古い、森幸安の日本分野図(幸安図)も京都御所基点でした。
Chaamieyさま
話は変わりますが、貴殿には、何かお考えがあって、こちらには、例の第十一号独島問題概論のポスティングはされないのでしょうか。
そうですね、こちらにも紹介しておきましょう。
ReplyDeleteこれは「特報」と言っていいものだと思いますが、
1955年に韓国政府の外務部が所属職員向けに竹島/独島の領有権争いに関して外務部の立場を説明する「独島問題概論」という冊子を発行しました。この冊子によって、外務部がラスク書簡を、部外に対してはもちろん所属職員に対してもひた隠しに隠していたことが明らかになってしまったわけですが、http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2011/08/1955-introduction-to-dokdo-issue-rok.html
そのほかにもう一点、彼らが1900年勅令41号の「石島」は竹島/独島ではないことを認識していたという事実が明らかになりました。
この冊子には、勅令41号の説明に続いて、「独島をあえて鬱陵島の行政区域に編入したと宣言する必要もなかったのであり、また、ことさらに公的記録を残す理由もない。」、「鬱陵島の行政区画に編入する明示された公的記録が無い」という文章があります。
韓国の政府や研究者がつねづね主張しているように勅令41号の「石島」が独島であるならば、それは「鬱陵島の行政区画に編入する明示された公的記録」であるはずですが、この冊子は「そうではない」と言っているのです。
つまり、韓国政府外務部（現在は外交通商部）は、勅令41号の「石島」と竹島/独島は何ら関係が無いことを知っていたわけです。それにも拘わらず、現在の韓国政府は「勅令41号の石島は独島である」と主張しているわけですから、これは、事実はそうでないと知りながらウソを言っていることになります。
該当の文章を以下に書きます。
『独島問題概論』外務部政務局（1955年）
ReplyDelete第一章 独島についての史的考察
第一節 独島に関する古記録
六 鬱陵島開拓と独島
鬱陵島所属問題が解決した後にも、我が国においては以前のように鬱陵島に人々が入住することを禁止し、隔年に一度ずつ平海郡守あるいは蔚珍県令を派遣して居民の有無を巡審させ、本島所産の大竹、香木、山蔘を採取して可支魚を捕獲した。
ところで、その後、日本は幕府が倒壊し、いわゆる明治維新があり、幕府時代のすべての禁令を解除したのみならず海外進出を奨励するようになったために、日本人は再び鬱陵島に進出し、鬱陵島を松島と変称し、千古手つかずの欝蒼たる木材を盗伐した。そのため、高宗18年辛己（西紀1881年、日本明治14年）に、我が国政府は日本の外務卿代理上野景範に日省録高宗18年５月癸未同文彙考附属編 一辺禁二立己礼曹判書以禁断蔚陵島伐木事抵外務卿書 外務大輔答書 に見るとおり厳重な抗議をすると同時に、この島を空曠のままにしておくことが国防上疎虞であることに鑑み、５月に副護軍李奎遠を鬱陵島検察使に任命し、島内外の形勢を細密に調査した後に従来の方針を変更し、承政院日記高宗１８年辛己６月５日己亥条によれば鬱陵島開拓令が発布され、鬱陵島に入って住む人々を募集した。
この当時は、丙子修好条規以来、日本人の国内に潜行する事件が漸盛となり、彼らに対する戒厳が徹底されている時であった。これと時を同じくして何百年間も堅く閉じられていた門が開かれるや、江原道沿岸の人々は言うに及ばず、全羅道、忠清道地方からも移住する人々が多く、鬱陵島の山谷は年を追うごとに開拓された。
翌高宗19年壬午（西紀1882年）８月に鬱陵島に島長を置き、また、翌癸未３月には参議交渉通商事金玉均を東南諸島開拓使兼管捕鯨事とし、白春培を従事として、また鬱陵島の官守を僉使とし、さまざまな角度から鬱陵島の経営を積極化しようとした。金玉均の開拓事業は未だ就緒の前に甲申政変により挫折してしまい、その隙に日本人の鬱陵島侵掠が次第に公然化していった。
島長は内務部から配置されて島の民政処理に当たったもので、体面維持も困難な程度であったが、光武５年（西紀1901年）に勅令によって鬱陵島を郡に改称し、島長を郡守に改定し、初めて地方行政の一単位とした。独島は記録と実際知識によって早くから知られており、鬱陵島の一属嶼として封禁期においても往来が絶えることがなかったのは前述したとおりで、独島をあえて鬱陵島の行政区域に編入したと宣言する必要もなかったのであり、また、ことさらに公的記録を残す理由もない。
我々の古来の可支島、三峰島、于山等が、従前には海上孤縣の一岩嶼として、問題にしようとしても問題になるほどの事件があったこともなく、それが問題となったのは、日本人の海驢捕獲地として利用してその島根県領として編入したことに始まるのであり、このようになる前に鬱陵島の行政区画に編入する明示された公的記録が無いからといって、独島が鬱陵島の郡守の管轄下にあったという事実を否認はできないのだ。したがって、独島を日本領として通告して来るや、光武10年に鬱陵島郡守が「我国所属独島」と記録して中央政府に報告してきたのだ。
まさにこれは「特報」ですね。
ReplyDelete「独島問題概論」は私も読んでいたのですが、その「意味」を捉えたのはChaamieyさんの大ヒットだと思います。
勅令４１号が、韓国側で「発見」されるのは、「韓国の領土」を書いた李漢基によって、１９６０年代になってからだと思います。よって、１９５５年段階ではこうした認識だったのでしょう。
「光武５年（西紀1901年）に勅令によって鬱陵島を郡に改称し、島長を郡守に改定し、初めて地方行政の一単位とした」と、１９００年の勅令４１号を１年間違えているのも、この段階では勅令４１号についてはっきりと認識できていなかったことを示します。
勅令４１号の存在自体が忘れられていたのでしょう。
今回明らかになったことを一言で評すれば、1955年当時の韓国政府外務部は、「それなりに正直だったようだ」と言えるでしょうか。
ReplyDeleteそれに比べて現代の韓国政府外交通商部は何と評しましょうかね。
それから、別の話ですが、上の文章には「日本人は再び鬱陵島に進出し、鬱陵島を松島と変称し、千古手つかずの････」という文句があります。
現在、1877年太政官指令は竹島/独島を日本の版図外と指示したと言いたがる人があちこちにいらっしゃいます。太政官指令の「竹島外一島」の「外一島」は「松島」だからそれはイコール「竹島/独島」だと思っておられるのでしょうが、しかし、明治時代になってから「松島」と呼ばれた島は実は「鬱陵島」のことであったという事実は1955年当時の韓国政府外務部も分かっていたんですね。
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMatsu wrote (in Japanese) that the Japanese government perceived that Matsushim in the maps is Ulleongdo in 1880, so that it can be said that Matsushima in the mapa after Amagi's survey in 1880 is definitely Ulleongdo and this perception gradually spread to the pubic (since then).
ReplyDeleteIt's historical fact that Amagi surveyed near Ulleongdo and Japanese government concluded Matsushima in the maps influenced by western maps is Ulleongdo in 1880. But this conclusion didn't change Japanese traditional perception Matsushima was Dokdo overnight. Actually it seems Japanese government's conclusion didn't greatly affect the Japanese. In spite of Amigi's confirmation that Matsushima is Ulleongdo, Japanese mapmakers continued to draw and label traditional Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(=Dokdo) in the East sea until Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905. One example is 實測朝鮮全圖(1894)
How can we know whether Matsushima in the maps after 1880 is Ulleongdo or Dokdo? If Matsushima is drawn along with Dokdo by western name such as Liancourt Rocks, it is Ulleongdo. The example is here. If Matsushima is drawn along with only Takeshima in solid line, it's Dokdo. The example is here.
It seems Japanese civilian mapmakers weren't influenced at all by Amagi's conclusion that Matsushima was Ulleongdo. I found there were only 3 maps which depicted Ulleongdo as Matsushima after 1880 and they were all made by Japanese government. Those maps are 世界全圖(1887), 日本本州九州及四国附朝鮮（1891) and 朝鮮全岸（1896). If there are more maps depicted Ulleongdo as Matsushima, please let me know. On the other hand, there are much more civilian made maps clearly depicted two islands Takeshima and Matsushima which are today's Ulleongdo and Dokdo respectively. As can be seen in 満韓新図 made by the Japanese ultra-nationalist group "Black Dragon Society(黒龍会)" in 1904, the Japanese traditional perception on Matsushima as Dokdo continued until the time of Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905.
In conclusion, Japanese government's confirmation Matsushima was Ulleongdo in 1880 didn't affect the Japanese mapmakers' traditional percetion Matsushima was Dodko. Thus, it's very misleading and distorted to say as if every Matsushima in the maps after 1880 is Ulleongdo. Civilian mapmakers clearly and consistently depicted Japanese traditional Matsushima(=today's Dokdo) even after 1880 and regarded Matsushima as Korean land. 新撰朝鮮國全圖 is a perfect example.
Chaamiey様
ReplyDeleteリクエストにお答え戴き、遅ればせながらお礼を申し上げます。
こういう内容の文書は、きちんと英訳すべきものと考えます。
スロウ君も意味不明な駄文を投稿せずに、こういうものを真面目に受け止めて欲しいと思います。
Today, Koreans claim that the Imperial Edict No. 41 is the evidence of Korea’s official declaration on possessing Dokdo because "Seokdo"(石島) in that Edict is just Dokdo.
ReplyDeleteBut, actually,Foreign Affairs Department of Korean Government, in 1955, had confirmed that the Imperial Edict No.41 has nothing to do with Dokdo.
"獨島問題概論(Introduction to Dokdo Issue) 1955” written by Foreign Affairs Department of Korean Government shows today’s Korean Government is developing false claim.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteI am very glad you understood what I wrote in Japanese last time.
Yes.
“the Japanese government perceived that Matsushima in the maps is Ulleongdo in 1880, so that it can be said that Matsushima in the maps after Amagi's survey in 1880 is definitely Ulleongdo and this perception gradually spread to the pubic (since then).
It's historical fact that Amagi surveyed near Ulleongdo and Japanese government concluded Matsushima in the maps influenced by western maps is Ulleongdo in 1880.”
But I disagree;
“this conclusion didn't change Japanese traditional perception Matsushima was Dokdo overnight. Actually it seems Japanese government's conclusion didn't greatly affect the Japanese. In spite of Amigi's confirmation that Matsushima is Ulleongdo, Japanese mapmakers continued to draw and label traditional Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(=Dokdo) in the East sea until Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905. “
I want to ask you how do you evaluate 松島 in the map below.
See the Latitude and the Longitude.
This map was made by Japanese Government in 1881, the next year of the Amagi's survey.
１８８１（明治１４）内務省地理局『大日本府県分轄図』「大日本全国略図」
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/map.jpg
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/senkaku/fukenbunkatsuzu-1881/matsushima.jpg
This 松島 is Dagelet, i.e. Ulleungdo, and 竹島 is Argonaut.
This map influenced very much .The example is below;
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/04/1893-empire-of-japan-from-new-world.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21594572@N08/7073466963/
「大日本帝国」『万国新地図』富山房編 東京 小野英之助 明治26 （普通学全書第16編）
What I said more last time is;
We have to judge 松島 in the maps one by one carefully,
“If Matsushima is drawn along with Dokdo by western name such as Liancourt Rocks, it is Ulleongdo. If Matsushima is drawn along with only Takeshima in solid line, it's Dokdo. “
It’s not a perfect criterion.
We have to see the location (the Latitude and the Longitude).
The size and shape of 松島.
And how 竹島 is shown in the map.
It is necessary to judge synthetically.
We have to see them all, and evaluate which island (Ulleoungdo or Dokdo) the “松島” means.
Korean scholars such as 李相泰 AUTOMATICALLY state 松島 as Dokdo.
It is not right from the academic point of view.
You have shown the Example;
ReplyDeletehttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mNlWS1MY5_o/UCGO0I_DOSI/AAAAAAAAAkE/aAbNDJpw2gg/s640/1882+%EB%8F%99%ED%8C%90%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%A0%EA%B5%AD%EC%A0%84%EB%8F%84what.jpg
But seeing the location (the Latitude and the Longitude) , and the size and shape of 松島, and also how 竹島 is shown in the map,
We can conclude; “This 松島 is Dagelet, I,e. Ulleungdo, and 竹島 is Argonaut, i.e. Ulleungdo.”
And for
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-18cfNGirG-Y/UB9GLiV5WQI/AAAAAAAAAjU/2THigaHsqRE/s1600/1904+%EB%A7%8C%ED%95%9C%EC%8B%A0%EB%8F%84%ED%91%9C%EC%8B%9C.jpg
The line that goes in the left of 松島 is Communication line between Nagasaki and Vladivostok, so this 松島 should be Ulleungdo.
To be funny, the Border Line shows this 松島 belongs to Japan.
The map was made in 1904, so before the incorporation of 竹島.
“The Japanese ultra-nationalist group "Black Dragon Society(黒龍会)"” might think 松島 belongs to Japan.
(This 鬱陵島 should be Argonaut, i.e. Ulleungdo.)
In addition to Matsu-san's comments, The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea also recognized the fact that the Meiji Government called Ulleungdo as "Matsushima".
ReplyDelete(by "Introduction to Dokdo Issue" 獨島問題概論 1955)
Matsu,
ReplyDeleteIf you don't agree Japanese government's conclusion didn't greatly affect the Japanese, please answer the following questions.
1. What do you think about Matsushima in "朝鮮輿地全圖(1875)", 新撰朝鮮輿地全圖(1882)", 實側朝鮮全圖(1894)",
and 朝鮮輿地図(1894) which added 鬱陵島 which is Korean name for Ulleongdo next to 竹島(Takeshima)?
You said 松島 in 満韓新図 is Ulleongdo. You mean 黒龍会 drew two Ulleongdos? You may claim 竹島 in Argonaut position is Argonaut, but you can't claim the island labeled 鬱陵島(Ulleongdo) as Argonaut. The Japanese ultra-nationalist group was not foolish enough to draw two Ulleongdos(鬱陵島 and 松島) missing Dokdo which was already known strategically important for Russo-Japanese war, wasn't it?
You said 黒龍会 did consider Ulleongdo as Japanese land in 1904, which proves you are not knowledgeable enough about 黒龍会. "韓海通漁指針黒" published by 黒龍会 will tell you if 黒龍会 considered Ulleongdo as Korean land or not. Maybe 黒龍会 considered Dokdo as Japanese land, but it was nothing but its wishful thinking.
2. Why did so many Japanese maps after 1880 depict Takeshima(竹島) and Matsushima(松島) instead of Matsushima(松島) and Dokdo's western names such as Yangkodo and Ryankorudo ? I have more than 30 images of Japanese maps which labeled Takeshima(竹島) and Matsushima(松島), but I found only 5 maps(I found 2 more and let me know if there are more.) which labeled Matsushima and western name of Dokdo and they are the copy of western maps. If Japanese mapmakers had been greatly influenced by Japanese government's conclusion Matsushima was Ulleongdo as you insist, there should have been more maps labeling Matsushima for Ulleongdo and western name for Dokdo instead of Takeshima for Ulleongdo and Matsushima for Dokdo.
You wrote that Japanese perceived Ulleongdo=Matsushima even before the Amagi survey in 1880, which is contradictory to your previous statement that Japanese government perceived Ulleongdo=Matsushima after the Amagi survey in 1880. Do you think you can support your statement with those maps-大日本国沿海略図(1867),大日本四神全図(1870), 亜細亜東部輿地図(1875), 日本全図(1880)? As you may know, they were referenced from the western maps. If Japanese government clearly perceived Matsushima in the western maps is Ulleongdo, why did the Japanese officials of Foreign Ministry argue about the Matsushima in the Mutoh Heigaku 's petition? Please don't mislead the Japanese readers.
Matsu,
ReplyDeleteAs to the map "大日本全國略圖" of 1881, it's made by Japanese geographic bureau of the Ministry of Interior(内務省地理局). If you believe Matsushima in this map is Ulleongdo, please answer the following questions.
1. Why did Japanese geographic bureau of the Ministry of Interior draw non-existent Argonaut excluding Liancourt Rocks in the Japanese government official map?
2. If you insist Takeshima isn't Ulleongdo and Matsushima isn't Dokdo because they are at the inaccurate longitudes, please show me any map which depicted Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(=Dokdo) at the accurate longitudes before 1880. The Japanese perceived Takeshima=Ulleongdo and Matsushim=Dokdo at least until 1880. If the longitude is so important to distinguish the real Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) from Argonaut in the late Edo-era and Meiji-era maps. show me any map which depicted Japanese traditional Takeshima and Matsushima at the accurate longitudes before 1880, so that I can compare them with "大日本全國略圖" .
The reason Takeshima and Matsushima are at the wrong longitudinal positions in the Meiji-era maps is the influence from western mapping error. Why are Takeshima and Matsushima in the Siebold's map located in the wrong positions? Are you going to say Siebold regarded Takeshima as non-existent Argonaut and Matsushima as Ulleongdo? I'm sure you know how western mapping error happened and how it influenced the Japanese, but for the readers who don't know, I linked to the document below.
How western mapping error happened and how it influenced Japan.
3. If the Japanese government intended to depict Takeshima as Argonaut, she should had drawn Dokdo somewhere between Ulleongdo and Oki island in "大日本全國略圖". It's nonsense to say Japanese geographic bureau of the Ministry of Interior missed Dokdo. Matsushima in this map is colored same as Oki island. If Matsushima is Ulleongdo as you insist, it means Japanese government considered Matsushima (=your Ulleongdo) as Japanese land, which is absolutely wrong. Ulleongdo have never been Japanese land in the history and just 2 years prior to this map, Japanese government declared Ulleongdo belonged to Korea. In other words, Matsushima in this map can't be Ulleongdo. Then, Japanese government considered Matsushima as Dokdo was Japanese land? No. The 1882 version of 大日本全國略圖, corrected the wrongness of 1881 version of 大日本全國略圖 by uncoloring Matsushima(=Dokdo) same as Korean mainland.
大日本全國略圖 of 1882
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMatsu,
ReplyDeleteAs to the Matsushima(=Dokdo) in the size and shape of Ulleongdo, it's also the result of referencing and copying the western maps. Japan didn't measure and find out the form of Matsushim(=your Ulleongdo) herself. The Japanese mapmakers didn't know the real size and shape of Ulleongdo. In western maps, Ulleongdo was mistakenly labeled as Matsushima, but it was real Ulleongdo. The Japanese referenced the western maps and blindly copied the size and shape of Matsushiam(=actual Ulleongdo) naturally for Dokdo based on the name without knowing western map's Matsushima was Ulleongdo. As the result, Matsushim(=Dokdo) in the shape and size of Ulleongdo became to be drawn in Japanee maps.
"朝鮮輿地全圖(1875)", 新撰朝鮮輿地全圖(1882) " and 朝鮮輿地図(1894)
are proving Matsushima is Dokdo even though it was drawn in the shape and size of Ulleongdo. In 朝鮮輿地図, a character "中峯" next to 竹島 tells Takeshima(竹島) is Ulleongdo, thus Matsushima(松島) is Dokdo.
You wrote something like this that Korean scholars automatically interpret Matsushima as Takeshima=Dokdo. Korean scholars fully understand what happened to Japan's perception on Dokdo in 1800s and don't automatically interpret every Matsushima as Dokdo.
It's Japanese scholars who automatically distort Matsushima as Ulleongdo in the Meiji-era maps. They shamelessly distort even another island(=Matsushima) as Ulleongdo in the Dajokan Order which was free of the influence of western mapping error, which is far from the academic approach.
It's not Korean scholars who tell the truth that make the Koreans unfortunate. What makes the Korean sad is the Japanese government's misleading the Japanese people with the distortion of historical facts and claiming Dokdo is Japanese land.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote as follows,
It's very important to understand how the western mapping error influenced Japan on Dokdo(Takeshima) issue. Japanese cartographers of late Edo era started to reference those western maps. They simply traced Takeshima and Matsushima in the western maps inclusing Seibold's map and lableled them 竹島(Takeshima ) and 松島(Matsushima) without knowing the mislocations of two islands caused by westerners. They had no idea of the real shape or location of the islands. Like Siebold, they weren't aware of double mapping of Ulleongdo in the western maps. What matters to them was the existence of two islands , 竹島(Takeshima ) and 松島(Matsushima) which Japan had perceived for long time.
What are Siebold's and westerners' mapping error?
(Translation)
独島（竹島）問題に関して、西洋の地図の誤りがどのように日本に影響を及ぼしたかを理解することは非常に重要だ。 江戸時代末期の日本の地図製作者たちは、これらの西洋の地図を参照し始めた。彼らは単にシーボルトの地図を含む西洋の地図をもとに竹島と松島を描き、西洋人によって引き起こされた二つの島の位置の誤りに気付かないまま、それらに竹島と松島と表示した。 彼らは、それらの島の実際の形や位置については全く知らなかった。シーボルトと同じく、彼らは西洋の地図では鬱陵島が重複して描かれていることが分からなかった。彼らにとって重要なことは、日本が長い年月の間に認識して来た竹島と松島という二つの島がある、ということだった。
You seem to be standing on the half point of the way to reach the truth. You may discover the truth of Matsushima if you consider a little more.
Chaamiey,
ReplyDeletePlease tell me why I'm standing on the half point of the way to reach the truth?
I will offer a hint to you.
ReplyDeleteThat is "One travels watching a map".
Chaamiey,
ReplyDeleteI'm not smart enough to understand your hint. If you are reluctant to give me a concrete reason, that's perfectly ok with me.
I hope you give an obvious reason if you don't agree with me next time.
I have no objection to the part which I quoted from your site. But your conclusion is wrong. So I wrote that you seem to be standing on the half point.
ReplyDeleteChaamiey,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you have no objection to the content on my site. Please spread it to the more Japanese, so that they can know most Takeshima and Matsushima in Meiji-era maps are Ulleongdo and Dokdo respectively even though they are in the positions of western maps. In other words, Meiji-era maps including "新撰朝鮮國全圖" clearly depicted Matsushima(Dokdo) as Korean land.
Most importantly, if the Japanese exactly understand the Siebold's and westerners' mapping error and its influence on Japanese perception on Takeshima and Matsushima, they can find out how Takeshima Reserch Center distorts the Meiji-era maps.
By the way, I'm not interested in your thought on my conclusion. Keep it to yourself.
Sloww,
ReplyDeleteWhat I have no objection to is restricted to only the part which I wrote on 15/8/12 00:36.
Japanese researchers well know how the mapping error happened, even if they are not taught from you.
So, you have gotten closer to their opinion. But yet middle point.
I hope you will find out the truth of Matsushima. I already gave you a hint though it may be a little incomprehensible.
Chaamiey,
ReplyDeleteI also meant the part " What are Siebold's and westerners' mapping error? " ".
If the Japanese fully understands it, they know how Takeshima Research Center distorts the Meiji-era maps including even "磯竹島略図".
matsu様
ReplyDelete伝統的松島は日本側の視界から消えていないことを示します。
matsu様は次のように書かれました：“天城艦の確認（１８８０＝明治１３年）以降、日本政府は、地図にあらわれる「松島」を鬱陵島と認識しました。それ以降の地図の「松島」は、確実に、鬱陵島であると言えます。民間にも、次第にこの認識は浸透していったと思います。その基準になったのが、内務省地理局が１８８１年（明治１４年）に作成した『大日本府県分轄図』の「大日本全国略図」だと思います。この「松島」は鬱陵島です。いまの竹島＝独島は、いちど日本側の視界からは消えたのだと思います。”
しかし私は、天城艦は単に海図に示された松島が鬱陵島であることを確認しただけで、1880年以降も日本における伝統的松島竹島の認識は決して消えていなかったと思います。具体例で示します。
1874年から1879年にかけて、明治新政府は地誌課長塚本明毅主導の下に作られた官撰地誌『日本地誌提要, 8冊, 77巻』を刊行しました。その隠岐國島嶼の項には「又西北に方リテ松島竹島ノ二島アリ。土俗相傳テ云フ。穩地郡福浦港ヨリ松島ニ至ル。海路凡六拾九里三拾五町。竹島ニ至ル。海路凡百里四町餘。朝鮮ニ至ル海路凡百三拾六里三拾町。」と記されています。『日本地誌提要』は1873年ウィーン万国博に出陳した『Carte de l'empire du Japon』の説明書として編纂されました。
『Carte de l'empire du Japon』は日本の領域を実線で表し朝鮮半島や沿海州の海岸は点線で示しています。済州島はありませんが、Matsou I.とTake I.は実線で示され、新政府は日本領と考えていたように見えます。なお、SAGALINは全島、ChisimaはUrup・Yetorofu・Kunashiri・I. Shiukotanの4島だけが実線で描かれています。
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/vienne-1873/
1881年11月、河井庫太郎（1858～？）は日本最初の本格的な地名事典といえる『日本地學辭書, 出版人鈴木敬作, 844pp.』を著しました。彼は松島を「隠岐國ノ西北凡七十里ニ在リ竹島ノ東方ニ位シ穩地郡ニ屬ス」竹島を「隠岐國ノ西北凡百里ニ在リ穩地郡ニ屬ス磯竹島ノ別稱アリ」と記しました。この本に、塚本明毅と渡邊洪基は序文を寄せ、鈴木敬作も跋文を書いています。河井庫太郎は松島竹島を、『日本地誌提要』等を参考にして、正保国絵図（1645年頃作成）以来「竹嶋渡海此湊ニ而天気見合候」と書かれている福浦の位置する隠岐国穩地郡に所属させたのでしょう。
http://kindai.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/993562
翌年、河井庫太郎は内務省地理局地誌課調査掛として任用されました。横山伊徳氏（「内務省地理局文書」目録）によると、河井は鈴木敬作が1882年8月に出版した『朝鮮國全圖』を1882年9月地誌課に寄納しております。松島竹島は『朝鮮國全圖』に示されているとはいえ、鈴木敬作は当然、伝統的松島竹島の認識で描いたと思われます。
http://www.hi.u-tokyo.ac.jp/personal/yokoyama/chirikaken/43stafflist.pdf
1881年6月内務省地理局は塚本明毅監修『大日本府縣分轄圖』を出版しました。その中の「大日本全國略圖」に描かれた松島をmatsu様は鬱陵島とされました。しかし、私は塚本明毅以下の地誌課のスタッフには鬱陵島を松島とする認識は無かったと思います。塚本は、『日本地誌提要』が隠岐から松島（現竹島）・竹島（鬱陵島）までの距離をかなり大きく見積もっていたので、両島を朝鮮寄りに描いたのでしょう。ただし、1862年の小笠原巡視では咸臨丸の航海長を務め母島列島の正確な地図を作った塚本明毅にしては、松島竹島を余りにも朝鮮寄りに描いているのも事実です。そこで下記のようなトンデモ解釈をして遊んでみました。
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2011/08/diplomat-why-dokdo-matters-to-korea.html
における1/2/12 22:35と5/1/12 20:08のコメント。
なお、1882年の地理局測量課『朝鮮全圖』は松島として鬱陵島を描いています。matsu様が云われたように、「史料に基づいて個々に判断していくことが、とても重要です。」
arare,
ReplyDeleteDo you mind if I ask you a question?
Isn't there any possibility Takeshima is Ulleongdo even though it is drawn in a broken line? In western maps such as British Charter of 1873, Argonaut in a broken line is drawn with the name "Takeshima." Thus, the Japanese possibly though Takeshima in western maps is Japanese traditional Takeshima without knowing the identity of Argonaut and Liancourt Rocks?
What do you think about my guess?
大日本府縣全圖 (1872年) 明治五年 内田晋斎
ReplyDeletematsuさまが以前、話題にしていた「しんまちミつ井け」と兎の蔵書印のある地図は、バークレイの図書館のものでした。
拡大して、地図の序文を確認することが出来ます。
Uchida, Shinsai Dai Nihon fuken zenzu.
http://luna.davidrumsey.com:8380/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~9~1~23452~80034:Dai-Nihon-fuken-zenzu---zen---Uchid?sort=Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=q:Dai%2Bnihon%2Bfuken;sort:Pub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No;lc:RUMSEY~9~1&mi=0&trs=1
小嶋日向守さん、拡大可能な地図をみつけていただき、ありがとうございました。
ReplyDelete右下の序文が読めました。
古来、我国、測量ノ術ニ乏クシテ、地図ノ如キモ、大概作者ノ憶見ニ出ツ。故ニ其地形ノ真ヲ得
ルモノ極メテ尠シ。頃日、英国「ファベルブラノット」氏ノ著ス所ノ日本図ヲ得、之ヲ閲スルニ、地形
ノ長短・広狭、能ク其真ヲ写シ得テ、毫モ誤リナシ。因テ、今之ヲ模写シテ、別ニ新制府県ノ名ヲ
附載シ、以テ世人ノ便覧ニ供ス。
明治壬申夏六月 内田晋斎誌
旧漢字にすべきでしょうが、無精して新漢字で起こしてしまいました。
読めなかった経度の数字が読めました。
竹島が約１３０度の位置にあり、松島が約１３１度に位置にありますが、これは英国「ファベルブラノット」氏の地図によったものでしょう。
この地図は、相当に長久保赤水の影響下にある地図だと思いますが、この位置に竹島・松島を描いているとすると、この「松島」も、あるいはもはや鬱陵島なのかもしれません。
たんに丸い形をしただけの竹島・松島と比べると、竹島・松島の形が西洋の地図にのっとっているとも言えるからです。
アラレさんにせっかく賛同していただいた前回の見解を変えるべきかなあ、とも思っています。
sloww様
ReplyDeleteI would like to show here a variety of Japanese knowledge of Takeshima, Matsushima, Argonaut, Dagelet, Liancourt or Hornet Rocks, and Menelai and Olivutsa Rocks.
The first appearance of Argonaut and Dagelet in the maps made by Japanese is in 『重訂萬國全圖』 “2nd Revised World Map” by YAMAJI Yukitaka（山路諧孝, 1777-1861）in 1855. In this map Argonaut is written 「アルゴナウト島即ち竹島」 “I. Argonaut or Takeshima” and Dagelet is written 「ダゲレト島即ち松島」 “I. Dagelet or Matsushima.” YAMAJI is Tenmonkata (officer in charge of astronomy) of the Shogunate government. He seems to believe Argonaut to be traditional Takeshima (Ulleongdo) and Dagelet to be traditional Matsushima (now Takeshima).
In 1862 TEZUKA Ritsuzou（手塚律蔵, 1822-1878）and SABA Ginjirou（佐波銀次郎, 1825-1891）translated “Colton’s Atlas of the World,” in which the two islands were written「タカシマアルゴナハテ島」「マツシマ（タゲレト島）」．
In the Institute of Western Studies (蕃書調所), TEZUKA also made an abridged translation of “Narrative of the Expedition of an American Squadron to the China Seas and Japan, performed in the years 1852, 1853, and 1854, under the Command of Commodore M. C. Perry” edited by F. L. Hawks (1856). Many Japanese intellectuals took much interest in the report of Perry’s expedition.
http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/bunko08/bunko08_c0235/
In “Map of Japan and its Surroundings” attached to the “Narrative,” Argonaut is drawn in a broken line with the word “nicht Vorhanden,” Dagelet od. Matsushima is depicted southeast of Argonaut, and further southeast there are two islets written H. M. Sh. Hornet 1855.
Note: After the Meiji Restoration in 1876-1878, TEZUKA or SEWAKI Hisato (瀬脇壽人), who became the consul in Vladivostok, submitted some petitions to develop Matsushima to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tokyo, but they were rejected by TANABE Taichi (田邉太一), Director of the Communication Bureau. TANABE wrote: Matsushima is Korean Ulleongdo, not within our territory. He also interpreted Matsushima as follows: Matsushima is the name which we Japanese have given, and it is actually Usan which belongs to Korean Ulleongdo.
In 1867 KATSU Kaishu (勝海舟) edited “Sketch Map of Sea along the Coast of Great Japan” （大日本沿海略圖）referring to the British chart. In this map Takeshima is drawn with a dotted line, Matsushima is similar to Ulleongdo in shape, and two islets nearer to Oki Islands are written「リエンコヲルトロック」(Liancourt Rocks)．
In December 1876 the Japanese Navy Waterways Bureau published “Chart of East Coast of Korea” (朝鮮東海岸圖) translated from the Russian chart. In this chart there are Argonaut drawn with a dotted line, Matsushima similar to Ulleongdo, and two islets labeled as「メ子ライ礁」「オリウツ礁」．
http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/korea_eastcoast-1876/
In March of the same year OJIRI Hidekatsu (大後秀勝, 1840-1901), Chief of the Cartography Division of the Waterways Bureau, made “General Map of Sea and Land of Great Japan” (大日本海陸全圖), in which “Argonaut” was not drawn, and “Matsushima” and “Menelai and Olivutsa Rocks” were depicted like those in “Chart of East Coast of Korea”.
The officials of the Navy Waterways Bureau seem not to understand traditional Takeshima to be “Ulleongdo” and traditional Matsushima to be “now Takeshima.”
But, I think, most Japanese intellectuals, including officials in the Ministries of Home Affairs, Foreign Affairs, and Education, understand the two islands Takeshima and Matsushima to be located northwest of Oki.
Sorry for my Japanese English.
arare様,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response to my question. I sincerely appreciate it.
I'm glad to know the first Japanese map depicted Argonaut was published in 1856, which means the cartographer didn't know Argonaut was non-existent.
Tezuka Ritsuzou seemed to understand Argonaut was non-existent. It's new to me there was another Japanese who submitted petitions to develop Matsushima and Tanabe Taichi said same thing to him as what he said to oppose to Mutoh's petition.
I didn't know the map "大日本海陸全圖" by 大後秀勝. ( Is it same map as "大日本海路全図"?)
Reading your information on Argonaut, I reconfirm the Japanese weren't greatly influenced by non-existent Argonaut unlikely the pro-Japanese people insist.
arare様,
Can I ask you one more question? Do you know what happened to the 朴炳渉 's site? His site "http://www.han.org/a/half-moon/" has some problems. Is there any way I can go to his site "半月城通信"? I remember you mentioned about him somewhere in this blog, so I assume you can give me some information about this. You don't need to answer if you don't like to.
Thnak you again for your comment.