すでに天文十二年（一五四三）八月の種子島の鉄炮伝来は歴史の常識になっている。しかし、この根拠は伝来から半世紀以上もたった慶長十一年（一六〇三）に南浦文之の書いた『鉄炮記』にある。こんにちの鉄炮の隆盛は、ひとえに時堯が鉄炮を入手した功績によるものと顕彰し、とても天文十二年ごろのできごとは思えない、津田監物や根来寺の杉坊、堺の商人橘屋又三郎、松下五郎三郎なる人物を登場させて、鉄炮が種子島から和泉の堺、紀州の根来、畿内近邦から関東まで広まったと書いている。それなのにいまも『鉄炮記』の語る種子島の鉄炮伝来と伝播を唯一とする見方は少なくない。そもそも種子島の鉄炮伝来は漂着という偶発的出来事であり、一大船は倭寇の巨魁王直の唐船であり、かれらは明の海禁政策に違犯して東アジアの海を舞台に密貿易に奔走し、九州や西国の大名や商人と深く結びついた存在であった。私はこの事実に着目して倭寇が東南アジアの鉄炮を種子島と九州および西国地方に分散波状的に伝えたと主張してきた。鉄炮伝来の研究は明治以来、こんにちまで百年以上の蓄積があるものの、最近、中世対外関係史の分野において議論が再燃し、なかでも村井章介氏の発言がきわだっている。同氏は私の倭寇鉄炮伝来説には、①「朝鮮・明史料の火炮の解釈」、②「日本に伝来した鉄炮の源流」、③「様々な鉄炮の仕様が分散波状的伝来を意味するのか」の三点の疑問があるにもかかわらず、宇田川は十分な反論もおこなわないまま、倭寇鉄炮伝来説を独走するとつよく批判した。そして村井氏は鉄炮の伝来は、あくまでヨーロッパ世界との直接の出会いとして理解すべきと力説する。まさにこれは見解の相違であるが、本稿の目的は銃砲史・砲術史の視点から村井氏の三点の批判に応えることにある。

There is an established theory that guns were first introduced to Japan through Tanegashima Island in August 1543 (Tenmon 12). This theory is based on Teppo Ki (Journal of Guns) written by Nampo Bunshi in 1603 (Keicho¯ 11), over half a century after the guns were introduced to the country. The journal manifests that the wide spread of guns at that time was solely attributed to Tokitaka, who had got guns from overseas. It also describes Tsuda Kenmotsu; Suginobo¯, a priest from Negoro-ji Temple; Tachibanaya Matasaburo¯, a merchant from Sakai; and Matsushita Goro¯saburo¯ as people who spread guns from Tanegashima Island to Sakai in Izumi Province and Negoro in Kishu¯ Province, and then from these provinces in Kinai region to Kanto region, though judged from historical evidence, the description is far-fetched. Nevertheless, not a small number of people believe that the description of Teppo Ki that guns were introduced to Japan through Tanegashima Island is the only one truth.The arrival of guns in Tanegashima Island was accidental at all. It was because a large ship was cast up on the island. The ship was the Chinese-style ship of Wang Zhi (O¯ choku), a famous leader of wako¯ (Japanese pirates) who were busily engaged in smuggling on the ocean in East Asia in violation of the restrictions on maritime trade by the Ming Dynasty and who established deep relationships with daimyo¯ and merchants in Kyushu and Saigoku regions. In recognition of this fact, the author has indicated that it was wako¯ who separately and gradually introduced guns from Southeast Asian countries to Tanegashima Island as well as Kyushu and Saigoku regions.Although the introduction of guns to Japan has been studied over a century since the Meiji era, the debate was recently rekindled among researchers in the history of foreign relations in medieval Japan. Particular attention has been drawn to the theory of Dr. Sho¯suke Murai, who severely criticizes the author for firmly insisting that guns were introduced by wako¯ and for not providing enough counterarguments to answer three major questions: (1) the interpretation of guns in the historical documents of Korea and Ming China; (2) the origins of the guns introduced to Japan; and (3) the question whether a wide variety of guns really means that they were separately and gradually introduced to Japan. Dr. Murai also emphasizes that the introduction of guns to Japan should be seen as a direct encounter of Japanese with Europeans. As there is a difference of view, this article aims to answer the three questions raised by him from the viewpoint of the history of guns and gunnery.

source:https://www.rekihaku.ac.jp/outline/publication/ronbun/ronbun8/index.html#no190