竹島問題の歴史

31.8.12

1852 Weimar Geo Inst. Map - "Das Chinesische Reich"

The following map was published by the Weimar Geographisches Institut in 1852. Among the countries the map shows are Korea and Japan. In the Sea of Japan, the map also shows "I. Dagelet" and "I. Argonaut," which were "Ulleungdo" (Dagelet) and a non-existent, mismapped Ulleungdo (Argonaut).


13 comments:

  1. It is not very important which island the island written on the map is showing.


    The important thing is how people moved really watching the map. One who can not understand it repeats the wrong claim that these two islands are Ulleungdo and Takeshima/Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Chaamiey,

    You are right. Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima/Dokdo) do not appear on the map.

    Anyway, I posted the map because I want to link to it later. The map was one of the maps Mr. Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) referenced in an 1876 letter discussing the possible location of an island referred to as "Matsushima" by Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) in a 1876 petition to develop the island.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Chaamiey,

    In Watanabe Kouki's "Second Opinion on Matsushima," does anyone know what map he was referring to when he wrote チスチーレルノ圖?

    ReplyDelete
  4. In the above western map, there are two islands marked as non-existent Argonaut and Dagelet(=Ulleongdo). Dokdo was not drawn.

    Then, how about the Meiji-era Japanese maps depicting two islands between mainland Korea and Oki land? Are they also non-existent Argonaut and Dagelet(=Ulleongdo) each? No. The two islands in the Japanese map are Takeshima(Japanese old name for Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Japanese old name for Dokdo) respectively. There was no reason Dokdo was not drawn.

    Argonaut is what the westerners made by confusion. There was no reason Japanese drew non-existent Argonaut in the Japanese map.

    The Japanese mapmakers started to copy the western maps like the above map. They drew Takeshima and Matsushima in the position of Argonaut and Dagelet in the western maps respectively. That's why Takeshima and Matsushima in the Meiji-era maps are located at the wrong longitude and latitude.

    There are some Japanese maps depicting Ulloengdo and Dokdo as Korean land. The examples are (朝鮮國全圖,1877) and (新撰 朝鮮國全圖, 1894)

    The pro-Japanese people are desperate to deny those maps. What they do is making Takehsima as Argonaut and Matsushima as Ulleongdo(=Dagelet). In that case, Dokdo disappears. So they insist Dokdo was not drawn and Dokdo was not considered as Korean land in those maps. They just make ill use of western mapping error

    Their distortion of Meiji-era maps seem to be working perfectly well in misleading the ignorant Japanese, which is sad.

    According to their false logic, almost all of the Meiji-era maps omitted Dokdo. Does it make sense? The Japanese have enough reasons not to omit Dokdo in their maps.

    Anyone who like to know the western mapping error and its influence on Japan is welcomed to go here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. チスチーレルノ圖? Sorry, Mr.Bevers, I do not Know about it at all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gerry Bevers様 

    I readチスチ-レルノ圖in Watanabe Kouki's "Second Opinion on Matsushima"「即チスチーレルノ圖」(エムテイ出版刊行『竹島考證』下巻, p.198).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Gerry,
    チスチーレル is wrong.
    即チスチーレルノ図 means "即ちスチーレルの図は".

    国立公文書館 アジア歴史資料センター
    http://www.jacar.go.jp/DAS/meta/listPhoto?REFCODE=A04017259200&IS_STYLE=default&image_num=55
    標題 単行書・竹島考証・下
    p25 25/55

    日耳曼ゴタ「ゲルマン(ゼルマン)」のスチーレルの図

    ReplyDelete
  8. Arare,

    Yes, I have just posted my translation of "Watanabe's "Second Opion on Matsushima," but I don't know what チスチ-レルノ圖 is referring to, so I couldn't translate it into English.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 小嶋日向守,

    I am not sure what you are saying. Instead of "チスチーレルノ圖," I wrote "チスチーレルノ map." Is that wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sorry,
    That was a sketchy explanation.

    即チ スチーレル ノ図

    即チ、→ that is to say / In short / namely

    スチーレル、→Stieler

    ノ、→ of / one's

    圖→ map

    Gotha Stieler atlas
    http://dokdo-or-takeshima.blogspot.jp/2012/04/1875-stieler-atlas-map-of-japan-korea.html

    China (Ostl. Theil), Korea Und Japan. Stieler, Adolf, 1875
    http://www.davidrumsey.com/maps1654.html

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are right, 小嶋日向守, I didn't notice that. I thought the チ is 即チ was part of the map's name. Thanks a lot.

    Do you also happen to know what ヲーベルス is referring to? I also left that untranslated in the document.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gerry,
    I finally penetrated the meaning of the riddle ヲーぺルスの亜細亜図.
    These words were written "キーペルス" and "図" in Watanabe's original manuscript.
    He was a geographer Mr. Heinrich Kiepert in Weimar.
    Please correct your translation as "Asia map in Kiepert's atlas" or "The Map of Asia by Kiepert in Germany "

    Hand-Atlas des Himmels und der Erde (1876)
    50. Asia
    http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/geog_inst/allha45/picslarge/allha1876k050.jpg
    54. Southeast Asia: China, Japan, Indochina, Malay Archipelago
    http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/geog_inst/allha45/picslarge/allha1876k054.jpg

    http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/geog_inst/allha42/picslarge/allha1860k050.jpg
    http://www.atlassen.info/atlassen/geog_inst/allha42/picsxl/allha1869k050.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thank you, 小嶋日向守, but I am a little confused about why the same map was mentioned twice.

    This 1852 Map under which we are commenting was also made by Heinrich Kiepert, so I wondering why "Geographische Institu in Weimar" was mentioned.

    Among the maps mentioned below, aren't #4 and #6 the same map?


    1) The British “Royal Atlas”
    英ノロヤールアトラス

    2) “Atlas Universel,” by Brué of France
    佛ブルーエノ大圖

    3) “Map of Japan and Korea” by James Wyld, geographer to the British Queen
    英女王地理家ゼイムスウイルドノ日本朝鮮

    4) “Map of Asia” by Kiepert of Germany
    日耳曼ヲーペルス亞細亞國

    5) 1875 Gotha: “Stieler Atlas”
    千八百七十五年ゴツタノスチールスノアドラス

    6) map by the Geographische Institu in Weimar
    ウアイマル、地理局ノ圖

    ReplyDelete