著者

村井 章介

出版者

国立歴史民俗博物館

雑誌

国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告 = Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History (ISSN:02867400)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.201, pp.81-96, 2016-03

---

本誌第一九〇集に掲載された宇田川武久氏の論文「ふたたび鉄炮伝来論―村井章介氏の批判に応える―」に対する反論を目的に、「鉄砲は倭寇が西日本各地に分散波状的に伝えた」とする宇田川説の論拠を史料に即して検証して、つぎの三点を確認した。①「村井が鉄砲伝来をヨーロッパ世界との直接のであいだと述べている」と反復する宇田川氏の言明は事実誤認である。②〈一五四二年(または四三年)・種子島〉を唯一の鉄砲伝来シーンと考える必要はなく、倭寇がそれ以外のシーンでも鉄砲伝来に関わった可能性はあるが、宇田川氏はそのオールタナティブを実証的に示していない。③一五四〇~五〇年代の朝鮮・明史料に見える「火砲(炮)」の語を鉄砲と解する宇田川説は誤りであり、それゆえこれらを根拠に鉄砲伝来を論ずることはできない。以上をふまえて、一六世紀なかば以降倭寇勢力が保有していた鉄砲と、一六世紀末の東アジア世界戦争(壬辰倭乱)において日本軍が駆使した鉄砲ないし鉄砲戦術との関係を、どのように捉えるべきかを考察した。壬辰倭乱直前まで、朝鮮は倭寇勢力が保有する鉄砲を見かけていたかもしれないが、軍事的脅威と感じられるほどのインパクトはなかったので、それに焦点をあわせた用語も生まれなかった。朝鮮が危惧していたのは、中国起源の従来型火器である火砲が、明や朝鮮の国家による占有を破って、倭寇勢力や日本へ流出することであった。しかしその間、戦国動乱さなかの日本列島に伝来した新兵器鉄砲が、軍事に特化した社会のなかで、技術改良が重ねられ、また組織的利用法が鍛えあげられ、やがて壬辰倭乱において明や朝鮮にとって恐るべき軍事的脅威となった。両国は鉄砲を「鳥銃」と呼び、鹵獲した鳥銃や日本軍の捕虜から、鉄砲を駆使した軍事技術をけんめいに摂取しようとした。The purpose of my present article is to reply to the article of Udagawa Takehisa that appeared in issue 190 of this journal with the title "Another Study of the Introduction of Guns to Japan: As a Counter-argument to the Criticism of Dr. Shōsuke Murai". In my article I examined Udagawa's theory that says, "wakō-pirates introduced and gradually distributed muskets to several places in Western Japan". During my examination of his arguments based on the historical sources I came to the following three conclusions.First, the often repeated statement of the author that says, "Murai states that the introduction of muskets was a direct encounter with the European world", is a misunderstanding of that what I stated in fact in my article. Second, I agree with the author that it is not necessary to think about the year 1542 (or 1543) and the island Tanegashima as the only possible time and place for the introduction of muskets, and that it is possible that wakō-pirates also played a part in the introduction of muskets in other different ways. Still, the problem is that the author does not provide concrete examples or evidences for possible alternatives based on the historical sources that would support this argument. Third, the author's theory, according to which he is interpreting "huopao / hwap'o 火砲(炮) (cannon)" - a word that can be seen in the Chinese and Korean sources in the 1540-50s- as "musket", is a mistake. Therefore, it is not possible to discuss the introduction of musket based on this theory.Based on these conclusions, I examined the following question: What was the relationship between those muskets possessed by wakō-pirates after the middle of the 16th century and the muskets used by the Japanese army during the war in the East Asian world at the end of the 16th century (the so called Imjin war)?It is possible that Koreans saw the muskets of wakō-pirates before the Imjin war, but these muskets had probably no impact on them, and the Koreans did not feel yet the threat of muskets at that time. Therefore they did not create a special word for musket. Rather, Koreans felt apprehension that "huopao / hwap'o (cannon)", the conventional firearms of Chinese origin would flow out from Korea or China into the hand of wakō-pirates or Japanese.But during the following years, musket, the new weapon introduced to Japan in the midst of the disturbances of the Warring States period, underwent several technical improvements in the Japanese society that was characterized by continuous wars. Further, with the time Japanese soldiers became also perfectly trained in the use of musket in organized groups. Thus, musket soon became a fearful military menace to Ming China and Chosŏn Korea during the Imjin war. Both countries called musket "niaochong / choch'ong 鳥銃 (fowling piece)" and both of them eagerly tried to learn the military technique of muskets from captured Japanese soldiers and the confiscated "fowling pieces".