竹島問題の歴史

1.9.12

1840 Map - "Karte vom Japanischen Reiche," by Dr. Siebold

The 1840 map of Japan to the left was made by German physician and traveler Philipp Franz Balthasar von Siebold.  During his travels Dr. Siebold spent six years (1823 - 1829) in Japan, where he acquired some detailed maps of Japan and Korea made by the Japanese surveyor and cartographer Ino Tadataka. Siebold combined his knowledge of both Western and Japanese maps to make the map to the left, which is entitled "Karte vom Japanischen Reiche, nach Original-karten und astronomischen Beobachtungen der Japaner : die Inseln Kiu Siu, Sikok und Nippon."

One big problem with the Siebold map is that it included the non-existent island of Argonaut, which was a mismapping of the Korean island of Ulleungdo by the captain of the British ship "HMS Argonaut" in 1789. British Captain James Colnett mismapped Ulleungdo at the coordinates 37º 32' N and 129º 50' E, resulting in the non-existent island of "Argonaut" showing up on many Western maps about 110 kilometers to the northwest of the real Ulleungdo, which at the time was referred to by many Western nations as "Dagelet Island."

Dr. Siebold then labeled the non-existent Argonaut as "Takeshima," which was the Japanese name for Ulleungdo, and the real Ulleungdo as "Matsushima," which was the Japanese name for Liancourt Rocks. Dr. Siebold seems to have mistakenly shifted the names he saw on Japanese maps up from Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks to Argonaut and Ulleungdo, respectively.

Dr. Siebold's mistake caused a lot of confusion for some Japanese, who started to assume the non-existent island of Argonaut was Korea's Ulleungdo and the real Ulleungdo was Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks). The confusion came to a head in 1876 when Japanese businessman Mutoh Heigaku (武藤平学) petitioned the Japanese government
HERE to develop Matsushima, which he believed to be Japanese territory.

As part of discussions in the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to determine the location of Mutoh's Matsushima, Bureau of Documents Director Watanabe Kouki (渡辺洪基) provided two opinions,
HERE and HERE, on the possible location of the island.

Below is a close-up of the portion of the map that shows Ulleungdo (Matsushima) and the non-existent island of Argonaut (Takeshima).




7 comments:

  1. Did Dr.Siebold cause a lot of confusion for some Japanese? I don't think so.

    Siebold's map has nothing to do with the non-existent Argonaut. Siebold didn't know the Argonaut was non-existent when he drew Takeshima co-labeling Argonaut. Argonaut was found to be non-existent 7 years later in 1847. Probably he simply thought Argonaut was the western name for Takeshima(=Ulleongdo) because he clearly understood there were two islands in the East Sea(the Sea of Japan) called Takeshima and Matsushima.

    Thus, the Japanese who referenced the Siebold's map doubtlessly consider Takeshima and Matsushima in his map were the Japanese traditional Takeshima(Ulleongdo) and Matsushima(Dokdo) respectively even though Takeshima was co-labeled with Argonaut. It's sure the Japanese didn't think Takeshima in Siebolds map was non-existent even in their dreams. Conclusively, the Japanese had no problem with Siebold's map.

    Saying " Dr. Siebold's mistake caused a lot of confusion for some Japanese, who started to assume the non-existent island of Argonaut was Korea's Ulleungdo and the real Ulleungdo was Japan's Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks)." is wrong.

    It's because there's no non-existent Argonaut in Siebold's map. There were only Japanese traditional Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matsushima(Dagelet) in his map.

    If Siebold's map caused Mutoh Heigaku a confusion, it was caused probably by the longitude and latitude of Matsushima(=real Ulleongdo), not by the name of Argonaut.

    It's more plausible to say Mutoh's confusion was caused by the maps depicting three islands -Takeshima, Matsushima and Liancourt Rocks. Because in those maps, Matsushima was drawn in the real shape of Ulleongdo.

    The pro-Japanese people are overemphasizing the influence of western mapping error to Japan. It's not likely the influence of western mapping error caused a lot of confusion to Japan. The point is the confusion started from Mutho's petition for developing Matsushima in 1876 and ended by Amagi's survey to Ulleongdo in 1880. The confusion lasted for only 4 years. Besides, this confusion didn't greatly affect the Japanese perception on their traditional Takeshima and Matushima. How do I know this? Most Japanese maps published after 1880 and before 1905 labeled the Japanese traditional names of Takeshima and Matsushima for Ulleogdo and Dokdo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. sloww

    >>the confusion started from Mutho's petition for developing Matsushima in 1876>>
    1867「大日本沿海略図」
    http://www.geocities.jp/tanaka_kunitaka31/enkairyakuzu-1867/matsushima.jpg
    1870「大日本四神全図」
    http://www.tanaka-kunitaka.net/takeshima/shijinzenzu-1870/09.jpg
    1874「大日本輿地全圖」
    http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/display/each/09/09-090/09-090-0-0.04.006-l.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sloww wrote:

    Siebold's map has nothing to do with the non-existent Argonaut. Siebold didn't know the Argonaut was non-existent when he drew Takeshima co-labeling Argonaut.

    Of course, he did not know Argonaut was non-existent; otherwise, he would not have put it on his map. The fact that he did put it on his map caused the confusion in Japan.

    The Japanese knew Takeshima to be Korea's Ulleungdo, but they Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese. However, when Mutoh Heigaku submitted a petition to develop "Matsushima" in 1876, the description of the island in the petition did not match up with what they knew of Matsushima, so they thought that the Matsushima in Mr. Mutoh's petition might be Korea's Ulleungdo or even another island. That's why the Head of the Bureau of Documents at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote "Oki's Matsushima" (Liancourt Rocks) in his 1876 opinion of the location of Matsushima to distinguish it from the Matsushima in Mr. Mutoh's petition.

    "Opinion on Matsushima - 2"

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sloww wrote:

    It's because there's no non-existent Argonaut in Siebold's map. There were only Japanese traditional Takeshima(Argonaut) and Matsushima(Dagelet) in his map.

    You are talking crazy. The coordinates of Argonaut on the map prove it did not exist because there is no island that those coordinates.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction : Argonaut was found to be non-existent 7 years later in 1847.

    Argonaut was found to be non-existent 14 years later in 1854.


    Gerry Bevers wrote "The fact that he did put it on his map caused the confusion in Japan."

    There are Takeshima and Matsushima co-labeled Argonaut and Dagelet in Siebold's map. Why does it cause the confusion in Japan? He didn't write anything like "Argonaut is non-existent." in his map. There's no way the Japanese were confused by the names of the two islands in his map.



    Gerry Bevers wrote "The Japanese knew Takeshima to be Korea's Ulleungdo, but they Matsushima (Liancourt Rocks) to be Japanese."

    Some Japanese might think that way, but the Japanese document clearly considered Matsushima as Korean land.



    Gerry Bevers wrote "You are talking crazy. The coordinates of Argonaut on the map prove it did not exist because there is no island that those coordinates."

    I'm not talking crazy.
    There's no any clue Argonaut is non-existent in Siebold's map and it's natural because he didn't know Argonaut was non-existent.

    You and I can understand the coordinates of Argonaut on the map proved it did not exist, but it's nonsense the Japanese at that time understood the coordinates of Argonaut on the map proved it did not exist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kumabearさんが上(1/9/12 21:34)で紹介している最後の地図は、とても面白い地図だと思います。

    1874「大日本輿地全圖」
    http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/ashida/display/each/09/09-090/09-090-0-0.04.006-l.jpg

    「竹島」と「松島」が描かれていますが、松島は明らかに「鬱陵島のかたち」をしています。一方で竹島のほうには、ぼやけてしまって良く読み取れないのですが、「見高麗望雲州隠州 一名磯竹島」というようなことが書いてあるようで、伝統的な竹島=磯竹島=鬱陵島についての注記です。
    松島の位置は、東京基準の西経八度と九度の間にあり、(東京はグリニッジ基準東経139度44分)東経131度の鬱陵島の位置です。

    slowwさんは、この「松島」も、独島=竹島だと言うのでしょうか?
    これは明らかに、鬱陵島です。
    しかも上記の注記から竹島も鬱陵島ですから、この地図の「竹島」「松島」は両方とも鬱陵島です。

    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    この地図は、上記の明治大学蘆田文庫のサイトで見ると、目賀田守蔭[編] (明治改正)大日本輿地全圖とあり、1874年ではなく、明治4年辛末(1871年)であるようです。
    (地域検索結果一覧 9-90)

    http://www.lib.meiji.ac.jp/perl/ashida/search_detail?detail_sea_param=loc,9,90,0

    (以下引用)
    (明治改正)大日本輿地全圖;(銅版)明治改正大日本輿地全圖(元題簽) / 静岡 目賀田守蔭[編];東京 慶岸堂主人校圖;門人 一保齋和雪銅鐫
    官許辛末九月 -- 東京書林 中橋東中通下槙町大和屋喜兵衛發兌 -- 銅版(彩色) -- 1舗 -- 40.5×61.6cm(15.6×8.9cm)
    明治四年辛未九月 静岡 目賀田守蔭

    注記・解題
    袋付。袋に「官許辛未晩秋 (明治改正)大日本輿地全圖 画僊堂蔵」。「凡例」中に「…此圖ハ西洋地球萬國圖ヲ切載シ圖形ノ侭ヲ記シテ従來ノ國圖ニ批校シ嶋嶼ノ位置ヲ専ラトシ形勢ノ大略ヲ記載ス(下略)」とある。「東亰ヨリ諸國海上里數ヲ記ス」「東亰築地ヨリ外國港里數」の一覧表, 「長崎港」「兵庫神戸港」「箱舘」「新潟港」「横濱港」図を付す。図中一部木版彩色か。
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    明治4年(1871)の段階で、松島を鬱陵島としていたことが明らかです。

    この地図は、以下にも紹介されています。

    http://takesima03.wiki.fc2.com/wiki/1871%E5%B9%B4%E3%80%80%E5%AE%98%E8%A8%B1%E3%83%BB%E6%98%8E%E6%B2%BB%E6%94%B9%E6%AD%A3%E5%A4%A7%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E8%BC%BF%E5%9C%B0%E5%85%A8%E5%9C%96?sid=364796c091f6254ed7f1ad8d903b49f3

    http://www16.tok2.com/home/otakeshimaoxdokdox/Japan.ArgonautDageletLiancourtRocksMapGallary/1860-80-J.htm
    1871年

    ReplyDelete
  7. 目賀田守蔭(めがた もりかげ 1807文化4~1882明治15)

    http://unkar.org/r/history/1267696594

    文化4(1807)年、旗本目賀田弥左衛門の長男として江戸に生まれ、帯次郎、帯刀と称し、文信と号した。詩歌を好み、弟の介庵と共に江戸南画の総帥、谷文晁の門に入ると、文晁流の実景図の手法を学びそれを得意とした。掲出資料所収の浅間山、霧島山などは、文晁の著した『日本名山図会』(1812年刊)所収のものとほぼ同じ図で、その師弟関係が垣間見られる。妻は文晁の三女、於篤(おとく)。安政元(1854)年、蝦夷地図取調御用出役となり、『蝦夷志料』の編者として知られる前田夏蔭の下で関係資料の収集にあたり、維新後は開拓使御用掛などの役職を勤めた。北方探検家の松浦武四郎とも交流があり、官職を初学童蒙のために解説した『官位百敷草』を刊行し、明治15(1882)年に没した。
    守蔭は、蝦夷地を実地踏査(安政3~5年)した体験に基づき、『北海道歴検(真)図』(守蔭自筆 国立公文書館、北海道大学附属図書館で所蔵)なる実景図の大作を遺したが、北海道以外の地の実景図を描き遺したことはあまり知られていない。

    (川本勉 かわもとつとむ)『国立国会図書館月報』563 2008年2月
    http://www.ndl.go.jp/jp/publication/geppo/pdf/geppo0802.pdf
     「稀本あれこれ-480-『火山温泉ノ記』」から抜粋
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・

    文化4(1807)年生まれということで、地図を描いた1871(明治4年)には、もう64歳ということになります。(死んだ1882年(明治15)は75歳)
    谷文晁の女婿とあります。旗本の長男だそうですから、まだ幕末には間がある若い時代には裕福な暮らしをしていたのかもしれません。明治4年の地図には「静岡」とあり、幕府瓦解後、旧幕臣として江戸から静岡に移ったのでしょう。
    蝦夷地を実地踏査(安政3~5年)し、松浦武四郎とも交流があったということで、千島と樺太の地図が詳しいのでしょう。

    国会図書館opacの目録には、目賀田守蔭の、この地図の改訂版と思われる地図がふたつ載っています。明治8年のものは「慶岸堂主人校圖 門人 一保齋和雪銅鐫」というのが同じです。明治4年地図の「大和屋喜兵衛」と、明治8年、明治14年の「江藤喜兵衛」は同じ人物かもしれません。まだ現物は実見していません。

    1875(明治8)
    明治改正大日本輿地全圖 メイジ カイセイ ダイニホン ヨチ ゼンズ
    目賀田守蔭蔵版1807-1882 || メガタ, モリカゲ東京 : 江藤喜兵衛, [1875.11]
    改正
    地図 1枚 : 色刷 ; 47×85cm (折りたたみ16cm)
    慶岸堂主人校圖 門人一保齋和雪銅鐫
    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    1881(明治14)
    明治改正大日本輿地全圖 メイジ カイセイ ダイニホン ヨチ ゼンズ
    目賀田守蔭 著 1807-1882 || メガタ, モリカゲ 東京 : 江藤喜兵衛, [1881.4]
    増補改正
    地図 1舗 : 色刷 ; 48×86cm (折りたたみ17cm)



    上記『国立国会図書館月報』563に紹介されている『火山温泉ノ記』と『官位百敷草』です。どちらもデジタル資料があります。

    火山温泉記(年代不明)
    http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/2533689
    https://ndlopac.ndl.go.jp/F/7A5CCCYNGJ86BNVBFEGNJBV84P8M15JU22CR6LJMPPT6CYVXJ6-49303?func=full-set-set&set_number=769135&set_entry=000006&format=999

    官位百敷草(1869=明治2)
    http://dl.ndl.go.jp/info:ndljp/pid/786841
    https://ndlopac.ndl.go.jp/F/7A5CCCYNGJ86BNVBFEGNJBV84P8M15JU22CR6LJMPPT6CYVXJ6-41374?func=full-set-set&set_number=769549&set_entry=000004&format=999


    ・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・・
    目賀田(めがた)という珍しい姓からして、1904年に韓国財政顧問となった目賀田種太郎(めがた たねたろう)(1853~1926)とは血族ではないかと思います。

    http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9B%AE%E8%B3%80%E7%94%B0%E7%A8%AE%E5%A4%AA%E9%83%8E

    目賀田種太郎の家系にも「守」という字のつく人がたくさん出てきます。
    男爵 目賀田種太郎(Google eブックス) 36~37ページ
    http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=JNDd7Sog-x4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Ko+Megata+Danshaku+Denki+Hensankai%22&source=bl&ots=dKFiAJMtIZ&sig=jW07Na8kjhM5i9HjcrSLWvumFu8&hl=ja&sa=X&ei=IOpCUNnUGYTnmAX8rIHYBg&ved=0CDMQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ReplyDelete