This map, which was edited by Shimizu Jotaro (Kyoto), printed by Nakada Sadanori (Osaka) and published by Nakamura Yoshimatsu (Osaka), was put on sale in Japan by Shobido (鍾美堂) in August 1894, just after the beginning of Sino-Japanese War . The title of the map is "日清韓三国地図" which means "A map of three countries, Japan, Qing and Korea".The map called "朝鮮輿地図" (Map of Chosun) was made by the same staff just one month before (July 1894). So there is no new information here - both of two islands, 竹島 (Takeshima) and 松島 (Matsushima), can be seen as same as in the "朝鮮輿地図". 
Both of two islands seem to be not coloured, while Korea was painted in light green and Japan was painted in light pink. Some of the Japanese and Korean islands, such as Yakushima (Japan) and Geojedo (巨済島, Korea), were not coloured too. So uncoloured islands didn't always mean they didn't belong to Japan or Korea.The good point of this map is that you can read the longitudinal lines in the map. The island labeled as 竹島 (Takeshima) lies at about 130 degree E which means that it is no other than Argonaut Island (129 degree 50' E). 松島 (Matsushima) is located at about 131 degree E, which is definitely Dagelet Island or Ulleungdo (130 degree 56' E). Unfortunately Liancourt Rocks were not drawn. However, the locations of these islands are quite similar to those in the western maps of the 19th century. That means "Taka I" or "Takeshima"in the western maps from the 19th century is the same as "竹島 (Takeshima)" in Japanese maps in the same era and that is Argonaut island (phantom island). Also it means "Matsu I" or "Matsushima" in the western maps is the same as "松島 (Matsushima)" in Japanese maps, and that is Dagelet Island (Ulleungdo).
Pro-Korean people used to insist that "Japan admitted that Liancourt Rocks belonged to Korea" showing the map called "新撰朝鮮国全図" (Newly Edited Whole Map of Chosun Country), which was made in the same year (1894). (Please look at the following article.)
They used to insist that Matsushima in the map is Liancourt Rocks but it's not true.
Thank you, pacifist.
ReplyDeleteIt is very similar to the map Gerry posted before.
Chosen Yochizu (朝鮮輿地図, 1894), which was originally brought to Japan by Kim Ok-gyun (金玉均 - 김옥균) in 1884.
The publisher(distributer?) is same Shobido (鍾美堂) in Osaka.
Kaneganese,
ReplyDeleteYes, that's right.
I got the map through "Yahoo!Auction" (Yahu-Oku) recently. The back cover of the envelope of the map has an advertisement for the 朝鮮輿地図, which was made by the same staff and was put on sale one month earlier (July 1894) (as I already wrote in the post).
I haven't seen this map "日清韓三国地図" before so that I thought maplovers would like it. (I hope all of Kaneganese, Gerry, gtomr and opp will love it!)
Anyway, there seems to have been rush published this kind of various maps concerning Qing and Korea in 1894 because of the Sino-Japanese War. Also this kind of map booming occured in 1904 when Russo-Japanese War began.
pacifist
ReplyDelete"I haven't seen this map "日清韓三国地図" before so that I thought maplovers would like it. (I hope all of Kaneganese, Gerry, gtomr and opp will love it!)"
Of course, I loved it !! I really appreciate that you collect those maps on your own expence and share with us. I've just written what I noticed.
For me, it is very interesting to study the transition of those maps. For example, though two maps looks alike, Matsushima in this map only has two neighbouring islets on northern shore, while "朝鮮輿地図" has 4 on south, 2 in east, 3 on north. "朝鮮輿地図" has more similarity with 1711 Park's official 鬱陵島図形.
I'm with you, Kaneganese.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in the shape of Matsushima (Ulleungdo) too, so I put Matsushima in large size.
The same staff made it and it was made only one month after the 朝鮮輿地図 (it may have been finished almost the same time), but the shape and islets around it are different....I don't know why.
It is great job that he found this map which one of the map I fail to find the images.
ReplyDeleteI have one part of the same map, this is the first time I saw full images(it is in skydrive).
By the way, it is resemble map I had found before here;(Maybe it is in the skydrive which I'd tell kaneganese long times ago.)
http://www.geocities.jp/kuzuneta/nissinkanmap.htm
This is different name:三国"完全”地圖 and also publisher is bit different name 清水"馬"太郎 instead of ”常”太郎?
gtomr,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information, it is an interesting map too!
It looks these maps are different, with one was published in Osaka, another one was published in Tokyo. The family name of the ediotors are same but name is different (Jotaro and Masaburo).
Perhaps this kind of maps were rush released in 1894 as people's interest was aroused suddenly.
Matsushima-Ulleungdo (though no name written) in the map has four islets around it...
Thank you, gtomr
ReplyDeleteI'm checking skydrive now, and surprised to see so many resources are uploaded. And I'll recheck the excel file you sent me before.
And yes, you did mentioned about Seokdo could be Jukdo before. I found it in your mail dated back April. I totally forgot about it. Sometimes, your idea seems to be too unique and I can't follow the story. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteI just feel the joke that the relation between 日清韓三国地図 and 三国全図、清水常太郎 and 清水馬太郎 is as if it is SONY and SQNY. or YAMAHA and Yamuda, Honda and Hyundai.
ReplyDeleteToday I got to know anationalist Korean shouted Sprechchor on N.Y times about Liancourt Rocks, but the map seems to be wrong sign of Liancourt Rocks.
In addition, they said Dokdo(Two island), even though Usando be single island.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=5099#comment-197874
ReplyDeletegtomr,
ReplyDeleteYes, I know.
I felt at first that they are just the difference between "元祖温泉饅頭" and "本家温泉饅頭".
I can't explain this in English very well but I meant slight difference in "originator" and "founder", the prefixes that Japanese traditional cake makers used to put before their cake shops.
Anyway, this is a kind of joke too.
I would like to say that 'Japanese Sea' is not correct.
ReplyDeleteI think 'East Sea' is right.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThis is not a site to argue about the Sea of Japan or East Sea, but I would dare to say that almost all western maps from the 19th century mentioned the Sea of Japan, not East Sea. (Please check the maps we introduced.)
East Sea is only a local name for Korean people because the Sea of Japan is located to "south" from Russia and "north" from Japan. And the Yellow Sea is located east of China (so East Sea is Yellow Sea to Chinese people). It is not for a universal name.
Some maps from the 18th century says "Sea of Coree" but north part of Sea of Japan has not contacted with Korean penninsula so that it doesn't fit well.
Sorry, it was written to Iris.
ReplyDeletePacifist wrote "Unfortunately Liancourt Rocks were not drawn."
ReplyDeleteCan anyone explain why Liancourt Rocks(=Dokdo) which Japanese had known and depicted in the maps for such a long time was not drawn in the map of three countries above?
As pacifist wrote, various maps of three countries- Korea, China and Japan - were published in 1894 because of Sino-Japanese War. As far as I know, all of them depicted Takeshima and Matsushima, but none of them depicted an island labelled Liancourt Rocks. Is it just a coincidence? According to Japanese groundless logic, Takeshima and Matsushima in those maps are Argonaut and Ulleongdo respectively and Liancourts Rocks(Dodko) was not drawn. I'm certain it's not just a coincidence.
Probably, Pro-Japanese people can mislead Liancourt Rocks was not drawn in the maps of Korea, but their distortion doesn't work with maps of three countries. There should be Liancourt Rocks or anything indicating Dokdo somewhere in the Sea of Japan(East Sea) on the maps depicting three countries. How could Liancourt/Dokdo suddenly disappear? Japanese mapmakers were ignorant about the existence of Dokdo then? Absolutely not. Everyone knows this is not the case.
The reason all Japanese maps of three countries have no Liancourt Rocks is that they have Matsushima as Liancourt Rocks/Dokdo. The mapmakers used Japanese traditional name Matsushima instead of western name, Liancourt Rocks, for Dokdo. They had no reasons to depict non-existent Argonaut omitting Dokdo in the maps of three countries.
There's no logical base for claiming Dokdo was not drawn in the Japanese Meiji-era maps. It's just a shameless distortion to deny the Meiji-era maps recognizing Dokdo as Korean land.
Sloww, you do not have to mind Japanese maps made before 1905. If you think that Dokdo is Korean territory, you should prove it with Korean documents or maps, of course, if you can.
ReplyDeleteChaamiey,
ReplyDeleteWhat I do in this blog is proving how pro-Japanese people are distorting things related to Dokdo which, of course, include Korean documents and maps. Right now, the most needed for me is to reveal Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was an illegal and unconscientious act.
You can see how I prove Dokdo is Korean land with Korean documents and maps someday. Please wait.