著者
渡辺 光
出版者
一般社団法人 人文地理学会
雑誌
人文地理 (ISSN:00187216)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.8, no.5, pp.381-393, 1956

1 0 0 0 地理と地図

著者
渡辺 光
出版者
日本地図学会
雑誌
地図 (ISSN:00094897)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.1, no.1, pp.1a-3, 1963
著者
渡辺 光
出版者
公益社団法人 東京地学協会
雑誌
地學雜誌 (ISSN:0022135X)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.61, no.1, pp.1-7, 1952
被引用文献数
2

This article presents a basis for the subdivision of Japan into landform divisions, and to proceed to give the names and locations of the divisions. The fundamental premise in determining landform divisions is a fact that Japan is a single structural and geomorphologic unit from the world or the continental viewpoint, and the whole country is included in the Circum-Pacific Orogenic Zone. Therefore, the orogenc processes that have had much to do in forming the major landforrn features are considered to be the fundamental basis for determining the primary landform units.<BR>The following four primary landform divisions or Regions are differentiated by essential difference in recent orogenic movements, landform features, structures and means of coalescence of those arcs. They are ; A) Hokkaido Proper Region B) Northeast Region C) Central Region D) Southwest Region. The latter three regions are each composed of two or more subregions which coincide with the major tectonic units. Each traditional tectonic unit is taken as an independent subregion. These regions and subregions in turn are divided into districts on the basis of the differing effects of endogenic processes such as natures and amount of earth movements or volcanic activities. The districts are again divided into Sections en the basis of minor landform features resulting from either endogenic or exogenic processes. According to the above items, four regions, eight subregions, 51 districts and 240 sections have been established.
著者
正井 泰夫
出版者
お茶の水地理学会
雑誌
お茶の水地理 (ISSN:02888726)
巻号頁・発行日
no.26, 1985-05-10
著者
岩武 昭男
出版者
東洋文庫
雑誌
東洋学報 = The Toyo Gakuho (ISSN:03869067)
巻号頁・発行日
vol.78, no.4, pp.498-528, 1997-03

Concerning the writings of Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl-allāh Hamadānī, many scholars state that, according to Waṣṣāf, Jāmiʻ al-Tawārīkh was extended to 712. This is based on Quatremère’s misreading of Waṣṣāf’s text. In his autograph manuscript Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf, Waṣṣāf clearly shows that the date is not that of the final completion of Jāmiʻ al-Tawārīkh, but of the compilation of Jāmiʻ al-Taṣānīf, ‘the Collected Works’ of Rashīd. While Waṣṣāf recorded a list of works composing it, a manuscript copied in 710 of Majmūʻa carries a different list of Jāmiʻ al-Taṣānīf al-Rashīdī. The latter list, which was edited by Quatremère, and which we know is also carried in some other manuscripts, has been assumed to be Rashīd’s plan of writings, without correct reading of Waṣṣāf’s text.Furthermore, in the two versions of the addendum to his endowment deed, Rashīd stipulates that his works should be copied every year in Arabic and Persia in accordance with the original edition. Its first version was confirmed, simultaneously with the endowment deed itself, by a qāḍī of Tabriz in Rabī‘ I 1, 709, while its second one was attested in Dhu’l-Ḥijja, 713. The former stipulates for making copies of four titles of his works (Majmūʻa, Āthār wa Aḥyā, Bayān al-Ḥaqā’iq and Jāmiʻ al-Tawārīkh), all of which are included in the list in Quatremère’s edition. In the latter, two titles are added to the first four. Neither of the added ones is included in that list, but one of them, As’ila wa Ajwiba, is easily found in the list in Waṣṣāf’s text.Accordingly, it must be recognized that the list of works in Quatremère’s edition shows the contents of the first compilation of ‘the Collected Works of Rashīd’. He made the first compilation of his collected works before 709, and stipulated for making copies of four titles of them in the addendum to his endowment deed. After he composed other works, he made the second compilation that was completed in 712, and then rewrote the addendum in 713, adding two titles of his works to be copied. The first compilation includes the translations from Chinese. But the second compilation omits them, and includes As’ila wa Ajwiba and a work contradicting metempsychosis, which we can assess as the other work added in the second version of the addendum, Taḥqīq al-Mabāḥith. The replacement of works tells us the gap between the ilkhanid government and the Yuan dynasty in China how deeply rooted Islam became in this period.