竹島問題の歴史

14.2.09

1894 Japanese map of Korea "朝鮮輿地図"

This Japanese map of Korea “朝鮮輿地図” was published in 1894 (the 27th year of Meiji) as a reduced copy of Kim Ok-gyun (金玉均)’s map of Korea.


P.S. Sorry, the same map was already introduced by Gerry here:
http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.com/2008/05/1894-japanese-map-of-korea-chosen.html




The preface of the map:

此図ハ前年金玉均氏カ本国ヲ去ル時携帯シ来レル彼邦無二ノ明細分間大絵図ニシテ氏生前姑クモ座右ヲ離サザリシガ先般上海ニ航スルニ及テ何思ケン當地ノ或貴顕ノ方ニ遺シ置ケリシヲ時事ニ感ズル所アリ乞テ之ヲ縮写シ図中八道諸州府県郡兵営水営諸鎮名勝名邑山川岬角港湾島嶼ノ位置一見掌ヲ指スガ如シ彼レ曽テ国力ヲ以テ調査シタルモノ之ニ加フルニ便覧ノ為メ京城元山津釜山浦仁川漢江等附近ノ箇所五区ニ分チ特ニ切図トナシ尚京城ヨリ諸名区ニ至ル里程表ヲ加エ併セテ図ノ縁辺ニ付記セリ坊間往々朝鮮図アルモ未タ如此モノ有ラズ実ニ天下無比ノ明細図也弊堂聊カ報国ノ心ヲ以テ務メテ廉売ヲ●(上の字の下に日)トシ内国人士ニ頒タント欲ス乞フ各所ノ書店ニ就テ購買アランコトヲ


"This map originated from the one and only detailed map of Korea that Kim Ok-gyun had brought with him when he left his country a few years ago. He always had the map with him during his lifetime, however he left it to a certain gentleman when he set out for Shanghai. As I felt it important considering current events, I begged to make a reduced copy of the map. It contained a lot of information including eight districts, prefectures, barracks, naval bases, places of scenic beauty, beautiful villages, mountains and rivers, capes and horns, bays and islands, which can be understood at a glance. It was investigated and made by him with the dignity of his country. I added small maps of five famous places including Seoul, Wonsan, Pusan harbour, Inchon and Hangan and also added a table of distances from Seoul at the rim of the map. There had been many maps of Korea but none of them can be compared with this detailed map. We try to sell this map at a reasonable price with a patriotic spirit, hoping to distribute this map to high-spirited gentlemen within our country. We beg you to buy your copy at your nearest book shop."

Kim Ok-gyun was assassinated in Shanghai on March 28th 1894 (some sources mentioned it was February 29th). [The drawing at the left is from a Korean magazine at that time.] This map was printed on March 1st and published on March 7th 1894, so it seems that the map was published before Kim Ok-gyun’s assassination but the preface mentioned “during his lifetime” and referred to the “current events” which suggested as if he had already been killed when the publication was made.





Anyway, this map was published at such a critical time when Kim Ok-gyun was assassinated and Sino-Japanese war was to take a place. According to the preface, the map was a reduced copy of the original map of Korea made by Kim Ok-gyun. Then, please take a look at the islands in the Sea of Japan. [Please click the map to enlarge]
竹島 (Takeshima/Jukdo) is drawn at about the same longitude as Tsushima (129 degree E long.) and its shape is different from Ulleungdo. Although there are place names such as a river 猪田川 and a mountain 中峰, it is definitely Argonaut island – the phantom island of Ulleungdo. On the other hand, there is an island 松島 (Matsushima/Songdo) drawn at almost the same longitude as Kitakyushu (Kokura/Moji) which is located at around 130 degree 53 minutes E long. The shape and the location are definitely those of Ulleungdo. There are no Liancourt Rocks in the map.




It shows that Korea recognized that they had two islands in the Sea of Japan – Takeshima/Jukdo (Argonaut) and Matsushima/Songdo (Dagelet) but they didn’t recognize Liancourt Rocks to be their territory in the 1890’s. Please remember that the original map was made by Korean government with the dignity of the nation as the preface of the above map mentioned. This is a very important source to understand what happened in 1900 and 1905/1906.


(1) Did the islands in the Edict #41 (1900) include Jukdo (Takeshima/Argonaut)? Did it mean Ulleungdo (Songdo) and Jukdo (Argonaut)?

If the original map of Kim Ok-gyun was made with the dignity of the nation of Korea, it is crystal clear that Korea didn't recognise Liancourt Rocks to be their territory. So the islands in the Edict, "the whole Ulleungdo and 竹島石島 (Jukdo Sokdo)" can't include Liancourt Rocks.


(2) When the chief of Ulleungdo was informed of Japan’s recent incorporation of an island called Takeshima in 1906, didn’t he misunderstand as if one of the two islands, Argonaut (Takeshima/Jukdo) , was incorporated?


In addition, there is a copy of handwriting by Pak Yong-hyo (朴泳孝), who was a comrade of Kim Ok-gyun, at the left upper place of the map. It reads "紹隆三寶" which means "Succeed the three treasures and make them prosper". (Three treasures are nation, people and monarch.)

http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-1/takeshima04-h.html

23 comments:

  1. I recently got this important map. Please correct the translation of the preface if there are any mistakes. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. On 1882.李圭遠's inspection on Ulleungdo and he found the Sign board 「大日本帝国松島」and reported it to Kojong. In addition, he concluded that Usan is one of the old name of Ulleungdo
    When 李圭遠 talked with 高宗 they talking about 松竹島, I guess there are possibility that they watch those Argonaut-Dagelet map by Japan.
    In addition, he heard from Japanese that 日本帝國地圖 and 輿地全圖 they said Ullengdo is Matsushima and he knew it.
    初五日 彼曰 日本帝國地圖 又有輿地全圖 皆稱松島也 故知之 然爲知役事者 今在於本國 都知之矣 問曰 此島名鬱陵 而高麗受之於新羅 我朝受之於高麗 係是幾千年傳來疆土 而爾等 稱曰爾國松島者 亦有何據乎 況幾百年以來 自我朝廷送官弁 間年搜討爾等?知我國法禁 而有是犯 則是有容貸之道 而或知而故犯 則?罪施刑斷不可已 撤役速歸 可也 彼曰 僕等謹諾矣 問曰 伐木用何 歸期擬在何間耶彼曰 何處所用材 僕等?知 歸期 本年八月 船來後事(?七月)


    On 1881 北沢正誠,Mofa's record department staff, he editted 竹島考証 and concluded that One island three names,(朝鮮鬱陵島一名竹島一名松島). This recognization was succeed to 西村捨三 (檜垣's bpss, 檜垣 inspected Ullengdo on 1883 by 西村's order)

    Moreover, on 1883 ,朴永考, who came Japan as missionary(修信使)  and he claims to Japan's 井上馨 about Japanese vising Chosun's Ulleungdo. 井上卿's document there are the text one island three names.(朝鮮鬱陵島一名竹島一名松島)

    After that (1880's~) these Japanese recognization(鬱陵島=松島=于山島/国) is mostly succeed to many records.
    (Ofcourse there are some exception e.g. 1901's mofa's report which 松島-Liancourt Rocks or 張志淵's 大韓新地誌) and this recognization is also suceed to Korean as well

    (But I dont know why they use orthodox style korean maps e.g. 1898.1899.1900 Korean map e.g. 朝鮮地圖,大韓全図 and 大韓與地圖 which shows Chosun's orthdox recognization about Ulluengdo with most prominent adjunctive island of Usando(Jukdo) and south five islands)

    ReplyDelete
  3. ●は、意味からすれば「旨(むね)とし」で良いと思います。

    この地図は本邦初公開ですか。

    ReplyDelete
  4. 島根の竹島研究所の杉原先生がこの地図について杉原通信でお書きになっていたはずです。以前Gerryが紹介してくれたのと同じ版のものでしょう。

    1894- Japanese map of Korea, "Chosen Yochizu" (朝鮮輿地図)

    pacifistさんが新たに入手されたことで、この地図が思ったより流布していた可能性が強いことは注目に値すると思います。

    ReplyDelete
  5. chaamiey様

    調べたら同じものがTanakaさんのサイトにありました。

    私としては序文の文章に書いてある意味から、オリジナルの地図は金玉均が朝鮮の国を代表して作った(作らせた)精巧なものであり彼がこれを肌身離さず持っていたという事に注目し、
    (1)朝鮮は1890年代にLiancourt Rocksを自国領と認識していなかったこと、
    (2)1890年代に日本と同じく西洋の地図の影響で幻の島(Argonaut)を含めて日本海に二島あり、いずれも朝鮮領と認識していた可能性があること、
    をお知らせしたかったのです。

    もし(2)が事実だとすると1900年の勅令に出てくる竹島は幻の島(Argonaut)の可能性が出てくる訳ですから面白くなってくる(不謹慎な表現ですが)と思うのです。竹島石島の解釈にはすぐに結びつきませんが・・・

    朝鮮が国を挙げて作った精巧な地図が元だとすると欝陵島首長だった沈某だって日本海に二島があったと勘違いししていた可能性が出てきますから、日本のLiancourt Rocks編入をこの幻の島と誤解した可能性も浮上してきます。

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kaneganese様

    Gerryが前に紹介してくれていたことを全く記憶していませんでした。

    ところでこの地図は最近ネット・オークションで落としたのですが、結構競合者の方がいて、○万円まで競り合って落としました。そんなに数は多く出回っていないと思います。Gerryの紹介してくれた写真も含めて今までのものはすべて同じところ(国会図書館?)からのものです。

    ReplyDelete
  7. I remember Dokdocenter inform this map on 2005.08.31
    They said it was published on 1884, Im not sure it is correct or not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. GTOMR,

    The publication year is 1894, 明治27年, as the map has the publication data. I'm sure that it was their mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  9. pacifist
    Reading the explain about the map in the link now, It is sure "dokdocenter" has misinformation about 1884. your comment "1894" is surely corerct.


    But...I wonder Korean have modern-map producing techology like this on 1896? I know around 1906-1907 Korean have those potential, but considering the maps on 1890's, korean have just a drawing map絵圖 ,rather than modern-design map like 清水's 1894.

    Maybe the base map of the 1894 map is Imperial Army map which dokdocenter explain in the link.I think argonaut and dagelet comes from the Imperial army's map and 清水 add additional information to produce this map, from a Kim's "前年金玉均氏カ本国ヲ去ル時携帯シ来レル彼邦無二ノ明細分間大絵図絵圖".
    If Korea have potential to produce this map, Korean never printed those orthodox design Korean maps late of 19century.

    I have interesting in the text below;
    彼レ曽テ国力ヲ以テ調査シタルモノ
    If we can check when Korea did national-wide survey and did map-making project, It is key to achive original Kim's map. I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GTOMR,

    I agree with your opinion, and I am really interesting in the original map Kim Ok-Gyun made.

    According to the preface, the original map should be a huge one because the preface said that the author made a reduced copy of the original map and the map which was "reduced" itself is fairly a large one. So the original map should be a very large map.

    The original map should have been somewhere in Japan - at least in 1894 it was owned by a Japanese gentleman who was one of patrons of Kim Ok-gyun.

    I've read a news somewhere that Kim had been in Nagano where he left two handwritings for his patron and Ogasawara islands. But he always had to move because assassins from Korea had targeted him, so there is a possibility that the original map can be stored at some local cities in Japan... maybe in your town or..

    ReplyDelete
  11. pacifistさん、

    朴泳孝の添え文については杉原通信で紹介されていました。


    >その3ケ月余りの後発刊された『朝鮮輿地図』の題字と跋文を朴泳孝が書いたのである。
      跋文の頭書には太い字で「紹隆三寶」とあり、その後に二行の細字で「此是佛経語而生此之国民君之三大権也下読之焉」、最後に玄々居士の号と朴泳孝の実名の署名がある。最初の四字は「三寶を受け継ぎ盛んにしょう」で、続いては「三寶とは仏教の経典の仏・法・僧のことだが、現世では国家・民衆・君主それぞれの権利にあたる。その意味をお互いに考えよう」程度の意味で、朴や金が目指す朝鮮での立憲君主制の確立を、『朝鮮輿地図』を見ながら考えて欲しいと呼びかけたのであろう。玄々居士の玄は「はるかなことを思う」の意味で、未来の祖国を考える男との自称である。なお最初の「三寶を受け継ぎ盛んにしよう」と仏教用語を使用しての呼び掛けは、数カ月前に謀殺された同志金玉均への哀悼の心情の発露とも解される。 


    http://www.pref.shimane.lg.jp/soumu/web-takeshima/takeshima04/takeshima04-1/takeshima04-h.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. GTOMR,

    When this conversation took place?

    "初五日 彼曰 日本帝國地圖 又有輿地全圖 皆稱松島也 故知之 然爲知役事者 今在於本國 都知之矣 問曰 此島名鬱陵 而高麗受之於新羅我朝受之於高麗 係是幾千年傳來疆土 而爾等 稱曰爾國松島者 亦有何據乎 況幾百年以來 自我朝廷送官弁 間年搜討爾等?知我國法禁 而有是犯則是有容貸之道 而或知而故犯 則?罪施刑斷不可已 撤役速歸 可也 彼曰 僕等謹諾矣 問曰 伐木用何 歸期擬在何間耶彼曰 何處所用材 僕等?知歸期 本年八月 船來後事(?七月)"

    And what do you think about "楮田川" on Takeshima and the shape of Takeshima. I also wonder where those tiny islands around Matsushima(Ulluengdo=Daglet) came from. It reminds me a bit of Akamatsu's handwiting map in 1900.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kaneganese;
    The phrase above is on 啓本草 光緒 8年(1882.05.23 高宗 19) 李圭遠 鬱陵島 檢察
    初五日 踰一大嶺 到道方廳浦 異樣小船一隻 ?泊於浦口・・・・(中略)・・・・彼曰 日本帝國地圖 又有輿地全圖 皆稱松島也 故知之 然爲知役事者 今在於本國 都知之矣
    (1882.五月初五日)

    I guess 楮田川 and 中峯 on this map seems to be added by the 清水 or Kim.
    The Takeshima竹島 is surely in the position of Argonaut.But I dont know the shape come from. For me, the narrow-wide shape would be some Usan's shape.

    The information "楮田川 and 中峯" would quoted from Korean simplified Ulluengdo map,Maybe 江原道圖 or Full Peninsula map Kim owned. But I dont know which map is original.
    If it is from detailed Ulleungdo map they would have drawn Jukdo and Gwaneumdo.
    We know there are many description of 中峯 on Koran orthdox drawing maps. But...Although there are "楮田川" only in this map, most of other map draw "楮田洞"
    There are no description of 楮田川 on the 李圭遠's report.So It may be a information between 1883-1894.

    (if someone knows there are description about 楮田川,let us know)

    ReplyDelete
  14. chaamiey様

    Thanks a lot for the information. I could feel what Pak had thought in those days.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 松島(Daglet)の形は朝鮮国全図 地理局 明治15年にそっくりで、竹島(Argonaut)の形は于山島か西洋系のArgonautにそっくりですね。例えば、大日本朝鮮支那全図 明治15年 武田勝次郎著のような地図を基礎に、細かいところを金玉均の持参した地図、個人的には于山島がなく、川に沿って"楮田洞"と書かれている金正浩の「大東輿地圖」ではなかったかと推測しているのですが、それと地理局の松島図をそれぞれ描いたのではないかと。推測ですけど。半島の地名等を追っていくとより詳しいことがわかるかもしれませんね。

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kaneganese,
    Dagelet-Matsushima on 明治15年朝鮮全図 by 地理局 is bit different with 清水’s map
    It is just a bit different design, number of adjunctive rocks is different.

    清水's map Dagelet design match with 明治9(1876)年朝鮮全図 by Imperial army (Actually Nov.明治9(1875))
    Its geography information consist of those resources as follows, 
    朝鮮八道全圖
    大清一統輿圖
    米英刊行測量海圖

    Most of govemental or public,authorised maps by japan after 1880, Takeshima-Argonaut island is disappeared because MOFA concluded one island three names,(Ullengdo=Takeshima=Matsushima)
    It is hard to think Shimizu's map is based on 地理局's map on 明治15年, because Shimizu's map has Takeshima-Argonaut.

    There are big map project as follows,
    1864.大東輿地圖
    1872's govemental map
    I heard 大朝鮮国全圖 around 1890's is commonly sold abroad, but I dont know it was based on govemental survey and project.
    (But actually 1890's 大朝鮮国全圖 is same with 1867-1869 "鰈域全図" so it is not national survey, I guess)


    By the way, The map"大日本朝鮮支那全図 明治15年 武田勝次郎"'s information is referenced from 1870's官許"大日本四神全図”.
    橋本玉蘭's map maybe referenced from 1867's 勝海舟's map, which also referenced from Britich chart series #2347 on 1867, reclected on Actaeon's Dagelet information.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I wonder if Amagi crew had surveryed full-coast of Dagelet on 1880? They recorded only East coast of Ullengdo with Boussole Rock . They sailed Dagelet-Ulleungdo-Matsushima twice.


    Correction;
    Britich chart series #2347 on 1867, reclected on Actaeon's Dagelet information is not 1867. It is on 1863.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, in my objective perspective, I don't understand how Japan can claim Dokdo as their own territory when there's loads of historical evidence,which well prove Dokdo has always been Korean territory, found in various documents, namely, books, maps, etc.(not subjective but reliable sources) What Japanese government's now doing is a purely ignorant and ridiculous thing which only reflects its aggression which was shown back in the early 20th century when Japan started to colonise Asian nations. As a matter of fact, Japan's filthy Imperialist mind is not only confined in this case anyway. Japan is doing a lot of jobs to slander their shameful history. They have disputes with Taiwan and Russia over islands as well. Now, I want to ask Japanese people(no offence to them), would you be proud of your country when you see your country doing all these propaganda and distortion of history? In a nutshell, what Japan is doing is merely 'revival of Imperialsim', which is going to terrorise Asia and tear it up into pieces once again in future.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear Su Yeon,

    Thank you for your interesting comment.

    However, your thought is not based on the world standard. I think you were educated in Korea where a different thought concerning Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) has been introduced for many years.

    We have been examined this issue on the basis of scientific eyes and have shown many evidences that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Doko) had not ever been Korean territory in histoiry.

    Korean insistency that "Dokdo is ours" based on the following points:

    1) Dokdo was Usando. And Koreans had known Usando long before Japanese people came to know the island in the 17th century.
    2) Sambong-do or Gaji-do was also other names for Liancourt Rocks which show Koreans knew the island.
    3) In 1900 Korean Edict indicated that Seokdo was included in the Ulleungdo group. Seokdo means Dokdo because of a dialect from a district in Korean peninsula.

    But these items above have been proved all untrue:
    1) Usando was not Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo). Usando may have meant Ullengdo in the early years and it meant Jukdo in later years which is located just next to Ulleungdo. (Please see the maps at gthe right side of this site.)

    Also Japan had many precise maps of Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) which was called as Matsushima in those days in the 17th century. These maps cleary show the two islands, west and east, as today's maps show. However, there is no such map in Korea. All the maps of Usando simply show one island - it indicates that Koreans actually didn't know about Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) in those days.

    2) Sambong-do (Three-peak island) meant Ulleungdo, not Liancourt Rocks. And Gaji-do may have meant Ulleungdo because there were sealions (Gaji) in Ulleungdo in those days.

    3) There is no evidence that Seokdo was Dokdo. In reality, the named of "Dokdo" first appeared in 1903 or 1904 in a Japanese journal but it didn't appear before 1900 when the Korean Edict was announced. It has been said that Korean fishermen were hired by Japanese in early 1900's to catch sealions at Liancourt Rocks and ther hired Koreans began to call the island as "Dokdo (Isolated island)", so the name of Dokdo can't be used in the Edict in 1900.
    It's simply impossible.

    Also many westeren maps in this website clearly show that western countries, the most developed countries in those days, didn't recognise Liancourt Rocks to be Korean territory in the late 19th cenrtury to early 20th century during when Korean Edict was announced (1900) and Japan incorporated the island (1905).

    You can read any information concerning the facts above in this website.

    I hope you will understand the situation and think about it without prejudices and on the basis of scientific eyes. GThank you.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Pacifist wrote:

    "It shows that Korea recognized that they had two islands in the Sea of Japan – Takeshima/Jukdo (Argonaut) and Matsushima/Songdo (Dagelet) but they didn’t recognize Liancourt Rocks to be their territory in the 1890’s."

    This is very distorted and false interpretation of “朝鮮輿地図” of 1894.


    The western mapping error didn't affect Korea at all. No way Korea recognized that they had two islands in the East Sea called Argonaut and Dagelet. What Korea at that time exactly recognized was there were two islands called Ulleongdo and Usando(Dokdo) as seen in Korean old maps. If you have any evidence Korea recognized the identity of Argonaut, show me.

    In Kim's original map, there must have been two islands in the East Sea- Ulleungdo and Usando(Dokdo)- like in other Korean old maps. 清水 must have known or guessed Ulleongdo is Korean name for Takeshima and Usando is Korean name for Matsushima. Thus, he changed the Korean names of the two islands in Kim's map into Japanese names in his map.

    Then, how did he know the shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima? I'm sure the shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima didn't come from Kim's map. There's no Korean map depicted Ulleongdo and Dokdo like the way 清水 did. 清水 also didn't measure the shape and location himself. He must have copied western maps or Japanese maps which copied the western maps.

    The shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima in 清水's map are similar to those in British Chart of Japan(1873), "大日本沿海略図(1867)" and "大日本四神全圖(1870)".

    To see how their Takeshima and Matsushima look alike, click HERE

    Pacifist shamelessly siad "There are no Liancourt Rocks(Dokdo) in the map." The words "猪田川" and "中峰" prove Takeshima in this map is today's Ulleongdo and the next island "Matsushima" in the edge of the map is today's Dokdo.

    Kim Ok-gyun didn't draw Argonaut and 清水 also didn't draw the non-existent Argonaut in his map. Kim drew Ulleongdo & Usando and 清水 drew Japanese traditional Takeshima & Matsushima. In other words, Usando in Kim's map equals Japanese traditional Matsushima in 清水's map. Even though it's supposed,by any chance, that Kim copied western maps, he didn't intend to draw the non-existent island "Argonaut" in the map of Korea.



    “朝鮮輿地図” of 1894 is very meaningful in proving Usando was Japanese traditional Matsushima (today's Takeshima=Dokdo). The mapmaker clearly knew Usando(Dokdo) was Korean name for Japanese traditional Matsushima and Usando was Korean land. This map is also a proof Japanese incorporation of Dokdo in 1905 was illegal.


    "Argonaut" is not a magic word for the pro-Japanese people to deny Matsushima in Meiji era maps is Dokdo and Dokdo was considered as Korean land.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is one more Japanese map.

    The shapes and locations of Takeshima and Matsushima in 朝鮮全圖(1876) published by Japanese Army General Staff Office (日本陸軍参謀局) are very similar to those in 朝鮮輿地図(1894).

    朝鮮全圖(1876)

    It's obvious 清水 copied Japanese map for the shape and location of Takeshima and Matsushima.

    Pacifist's intention to lead to the conclusion that “朝鮮輿地図” of 1894 proves (1) Korea recognized non-existent Argonaut caused by western mapping error, (2)Korea didn't consider Dokdo as her land in the 1890s and thus (3) Seokdo in Korean Edict No.41 of 1900 may be related to Argonaut is very, very wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  23. pacifist様
     久しぶりにコメントを寄せられ、お元気そうで何よりです。ビッグニュースの電文の研究でお忙しいところでしょうが、ご貴殿に、お話ししたかったことがあります。それは、以前にpacifist様がこのポスティングに寄せられたコメントに関するものです。
    この、1894 Japanese map of Korea "朝鮮輿地図"が、「序文の文章に書いてある意味から、オリジナルの地図は金玉均が朝鮮の国を代表して作った(作らせた)精巧なもの....」という清水常太郎の序文は思い違いでしょう。この地図はsloww君が、今年(2012年)の5月5日にコメントしたとおり、日本で作られた地図を元にしたものでしょう。
    それは、先日来、matsuさんと私が話題にしていた、酒井如粋の息子たち、渋江信夫と木下孟寛たちが、木村信卿のもとで作った地図だと思えるからです。

    1876年朝鮮全図 明治9年 陸軍参謀局
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/chosenzenzu-1876/
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/chosenzenzu-1876/map.jpg
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/chosenzenzu-1876/09.jpg

    この地図の例言には、以下の記述があります。
    (明治九年 陸軍参謀局 朝鮮全圖)
    例言
    一、此圖ハ朝鮮八道全圖大清一統輿圖、英米國刊行測量海圖等ヲ参訂シ之ニ加フルニ朝鮮咸鏡道ノ人某氏ニ就キ親シク其地理ヲ咨詢シ疑ヲ質シ謬ヲ正シ以テ製スル所タリ。
    一、地名ノ傍ニ國字ヲ以テ韓音ヲ填ムル者モ亦某氏ニ就キテ質ス所タリ。其地名ノ國字ノミヲ以テ記スル者ハ洋人自ラ命クル所ノ者ヲ譯スルニ係ル。
    凡ソ朝鮮ト地脈相通シ舟路相接スルノ諸地ハ特ニ之ヲ掲出シテ以テ其概略ヲ顕ハス。
    一、此圖別ニ附録一篇ヲ副フ。看者之ニ就キテ以テ参考スヘシ。
    ※「地脈」は原文では、「地脉」の表記

    明治八年十一月 陸軍參謀局

    韓国独島センター
    http://dokdocenter.e-homp.com/new/history/map_main.htm?tb=openb_map_japan&curDir=history&idx=16&page=2&searchfield=&searchword=&mode=r
    の説明文は、貴殿の指摘通り、1894年を1884年と間違っているので、金玉均が上海に行ったことまで考えられないことだと、大ポカを続けていますが、

    김옥균은 1881년부터 해마다 일본에 다녀왔다. 발문에 나오는 '전년'이라는 것은 1883년이 아닐 수도 있으며, 그가 그 무렵에 상해에 갔다는 것은 말이 안되는 이야기다. 이는 편집자의 착각이었을 것이다. 그렇지만 김옥균이 휴대했던 지도를 이용했다는 사실을 부인할 수 는 없다. 이 지도는 여러 모로 보아 1876년에 일본 육군참모국에서 발간한 (圖264)와 비슷하다.

    청수광헌의 이 지도는 축척이 1:110만이며 일본리척과 朝鮮里尺을 그려 놓았다. 경위선을 방안선으로 그리지는 않았지만 테두리의 수직선·수평선에 각각 위도와 경도를 알아볼 수 있는 점을 찍어 놓았다. 땅의 높낮이는 우모로써 나타내고 물의 깊이는 표시하지 않았다. 울릉도와 죽도가 각각 죽도와 송도로 기록되었다.

    수록 범위는 산동반도 동부에서 독도까지다. 삽도로는 한강구·원산진·부산항(釜山港) 지도와 더불어 서울지도와 서울 부근 지도가 있으며, 이 밖에 서울로부터 각지에 이르는 이정표가 있다.

    참모국의 지도가 이 지도와 다른 점을 찾아보자. 는 축척이 1:100만이며 경위선이 있고, 우모식 표현에 명암을 가미하였고, 물의 깊이를 삽도뿐만 아니라 본도에도 기입하였다. 수록 범위는 이 지도보다 서쪽으로 넓어서 요동반도(요동반도)까지 포함한다. 삽도로는 이 지도에 나오는 서울지도와 서울 부근 지도가 없으며 그 대신에 대동강 지도가 들어 있다. 이정표는 없다. 무엇보다 중요한 것은 이 지도가 한자만으로 지명을 기록한 데 대하여 참모국의 지도에서는 한자 지명 옆에 현지 발음을 일본 문자로 표기했다는 점이다.

    운양호 사건 과정에서 군대가 만든 군사지도를 이용하여 갑신정변 무렵에 민간용으로 만든 것이 라고 보아야 할 것이다.

    後半の指摘は正しいと思います。ただ当時の大韓帝国の高官たちが、この地図を見ていて、竹島編入の島を勘違いしたということは私も十分にありうることだと思います。

    ReplyDelete