竹島問題の歴史

29.10.13

1768 - The first "Map of Japan" which plotted Takeshima was confirmed - ”The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan(改製日本扶桑分里図)"(1768)


The Shimane Prefectural Government has confirmed "The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan(改製日本扶桑分里図)"(1768), which is the original drawing of  "Newly-carved Highway Map of Japan(改正 日本輿地路程全図)"(1779) that serve as the basis of Japan’s claim to Takeshima islets in the Sea of Japan.



It shows "Matsushima", today's Takeshima, northwest of the Oki islands.  "The New Divisional Map of Whole Japan" is Nagakubo Sekisui's hand-written map and two islands, Takeshima(Ulleungdo) and Matushima(Takeshima) are re-rewritten from north-northwest to the right location with the phrase "“Viewing Koryo is just the same as viewing Inshu (=Oki island) from Unshu (=Izumo) (見高麗猶雲州望隠州)”" which are cited form "Inshu Shicho Gohki". The both islands were clearly depicted as Japanese territorial islands.

First and Second editions of Nagakubo's Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu left Takeshima and Matsushima uncoloured along with other several islands including Okinoshima, Kuchinoerabushima, Ezo and Hachijojima, likely because they are remote islands.

Nagakubo made the map based on SEKI, Sokoh's "Description on People and Couties ( 新人国記)" (1701) and Mori Kohan's "The Field Chart of Japan, The Atlas of Japan (日本輿地図 日本分野図)"(1754,) both of which showed Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's. He shifted the direction of two islands apparently based on the phrases from Inshu Shicho Ghoki.

As has already pointed out, Nagakubo had later published historical geography book on China "Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖)"(1835)  and it clearly shows Takeshima/Dokdo as Japanese territory.  He had compiled the fruits of years of study on geography, astronomy and history  into the book. There is no doubt Nagakubo considered both islands as Japanese territory.




Shimane Prefecture also confirmed a rough drafts of "Map of Japan" from the 18th century. (right)

They are the first "whole Japanese map" which plotted Takeshima.





“According to the prefecture, the discoveries include a map draft titled “Kaisei Nihon Fuso Bunrizu” made in 1768 and a rougher draft titled “Nihonzu.”

The maps show islands called Matsushima, the name of Takeshima at the time, northwest of the Oki island chain in what is now part of Shimane Prefecture.

The maps were made by Nagakubo Sekisui, a geographer from Mito in today’s Ibaraki Prefecture. The maps preceded another map called “Kaisei Nihon Yochirotei Zenzu” that was made by Sekisui upon permission from the feudal government of the time that is cited by the current government as the grounds for Japan’s claim to Takeshima.

Nagakubo’s descendants gave the rough drafts to the Takahagi board of education in Ibaraki Prefecture. (Japan Times)”



〈Reference〉
Shimane Prefecture News Release (Japanese)

2 comments:

  1. Kaneganese,

    If you keep saying Nagakubo Sekisui’s 改正日本輿地路程全図 of 1799shows he considered both Ulloengdo and Dokdo as Japanese land, it means you are emphasizing your country’s great and respected geographer was ignorant about the historical fact.


    In Nagakubo’ 改製日本扶桑分里図, both Ulleongdo and Dokdo are depicted as Japanese islands. The problem of this map is it isn’t based on historical fact, which is a serious flaw. In 1696, the Japanese Shogunate officially concluded Ulleongdo and Dokdo were Korean land and prohibited the Japanese to travel there. If Nagakubo viewed both islands belonged to Japan then, it means he was ignorant on the fact or he was showing his personal wish to have those island as Japanese land. No matter what the reason was, this map is just wrong.

    Let’s see Nagakubo’ revised map “改正日本輿地路程全図)"(1779). ((Link)

    In this map, both Ulleongdo and Dokdo are uncolored same as mainland Korea and placed outside of the grid of Japan's longitudinal and latitudinal lines. Nagakubo clearly viewed them outside of Japanese territory. In other words, in his map of 1779, he corrected the problem of his original map "改製日本扶桑分里図" by excluding Ulleongdo and Dokdo from Japan.

    Kaneganese said:

    "First and Second editions of Nagakubo's Kaisei Nihon Yochi Rotei Zenzu left Takeshima and Matsushima uncoloured along with other several islands including Okinoshima, Kuchinoerabushima, Ezo and Hachijojima, likely because they are remote islands."

    Japanese Takeshima logic (or probably Kaneganese‘s logic) is evolving in a sneaky way. What your comment means Ulleongdo and Dokdo were uncolored same as some other Japanese islands, thus Ulleongdo and Dokdo were considered as Japanese land, too.(Let me know if I’m wrong.) Then, how can you explain about the uncolored Korean mainland? Can you say Korea was Japanese land, too because it’s uncolored same as Japanese remote islands? You may realize how stupid your comment is.

    You owe the readers to show the locations of those islands(Okinoshima, Kuchinoerabushima, Ezo and Hachijojima) in the first and Second editions of Nagakubo's map. And I also wonder how they are colored in 改製日本扶桑分里図.

    Kaneganese,
    You brought a very shabby map "日本分野図” to back up your claim Nagakubo considered Ulleongdo as Japanese land. I don’t agree with you saying "Mori Kohan clearly described Takeshima(Ulleungdo) as Japan's territory by drawing the sea route line from Oki to Ulleungdo". Is sea route line related to sovereignty of land? Why is Ulleongdo uncolored same as Korean mainland if Mori Kohan considered Ulleongdo as Japanese land? I already asked those questions to you and I’m still waiting for the answers. Even though we suppose Ulleongdo is depicited as Japanese land, it can be dismissed as wrong.

    As for the "Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖)"(1835), it has the same problem with “改製日本扶桑分里図". If the map doesn’t correspond with the historical fact, it’s nothing but an inaccurate map.

    I have a question. According to Japanese wikipedia, Nagakubo died in 1801, but you wrote "Nagakubo had later published historical geography book on China "Map of Asia and Small Orient(亜細亜小東洋圖)" in 1835. Why is that so?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The link above is not working. Please click here.

    ReplyDelete