tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post1743117484821251990..comments2024-01-26T17:48:29.804+09:00Comments on Dokdo-or-Takeshima?: 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)Gerry Bevershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14311939520870098017noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-32098556626845630442013-11-05T18:24:32.790+09:002013-11-05T18:24:32.790+09:00The link above is not working. Please click here.The link above is not working. Please click <a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/FHoDOMY9tM_0Ejp-iuyj8CBkHcjcl3mBwBTxAaw2MU_yA7vknQY0jFiRxq-l7j4aIJS96Q-sYQZNvF1VuHuDDaGAG9gZutk6cbWLH_uJQWijI1G8cAXO69Ch" rel="nofollow">here</a>.slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26948035.post-70886342851993433762013-11-05T18:02:43.086+09:002013-11-05T18:02:43.086+09:00Kaneganese,
If you keep saying Nagakubo Sekisui’s...Kaneganese,<br /><br />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. <br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Let’s see Nagakubo’ revised map “改正日本輿地路程全図)"(1779). (<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KGd0UcBDQ/UMlmUoFUgtI/AAAAAAAACVQ/seKtAcxQdmM/s640/%EB%82%98%EC%B9%B4%EA%B5%AC%EB%B3%B4(1779)%EB%8B%A4%EB%82%98%EC%B9%B4.jpg" rel="nofollow">(Link)</a><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Kaneganese said:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Kaneganese,<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <b>1835</b>. Why is that so?slowwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10705001704163840289noreply@blogger.com