會址:104台北市南京東路三段215號10樓
電話:02-27122836 傳真:02-27174593

《回首頁》
《回台灣之窗》
《吳三連台灣史料基金會》
《Taiwan News》
 ●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●



從東亞國際情勢的觀點談「牡丹社事件」
The Mutan Village Incident:
It's significance for East Asian geopolitics


林呈蓉/Lin Cheng-jung
(淡江大學歷史系副教授)
(Associate Professor, Tamkang University Department of History)

2001-06-11


Photo portrait of Rev. Mackay.
May 22, 1874 - Japanese troops
engage in armed conflict with
Aborigines at Shihmen in the
Hengchun region.

1874年5月22日,日軍在恆春附近的
石門與原住民發生激戰。

清同治十年(1871年),66名琉球宮谷島人
因海難而漂流至台灣南端的八瑤灣,誤入牡
丹社,其中54名因而遭當地原住民殺害。對
台灣素有野心的日本及以保護琉球居民為藉
口於清同治十三年三月出兵台灣,此即牡丹
社事件。在此事件發生的過程中,清朝政府
扮演著什麼樣的角色?這場尚未交鋒即以賠
償金結束的戰役對日、清兩國在東亞國際情
勢裡又造成什麼樣的影響?本週「台灣歷史
之窗」特別邀請淡江大學歷史系教授林呈蓉
談「牡丹社事件」發生的歷史背景及其影響


In Year 10 of the Ch'ing Dynasty T'ung-Chih
Reign Period, or 1871, 66 seamen from Miyako
Island (宮谷島) in the Ryukyu Archipelago, or
Okinawa, were shipwrecked at Payao Bay
(八瑤灣) near the southern tip of Taiwan,
where 54 of them were subsequently killed by
local Aborigines upon stumbling into Mutan
Village (牡丹社). In the 3rd month of
T'ung-Chih Year 13, the Japanese, who
theretofore harbored designs on Taiwan,
deployed an expeditionary force to Taiwan on
the pretext of protecting Okinawans, setting
into motion the series of events which go by
the name "Mutan Village Incident." What role
did the Ch'ing government played in the course
of this incident? And what influence did this
military expedition, which ended with a
reparations payment before further
hostilities had a chance to erupt, have upon
the respective international statuses of
Ch'ing Dynasty China and Japan in East Asia.?
This week's Window on Taiwan invites Prof.
Lin Cheng-jung of the Tamkang University
History Department to discuss the historical
background and aftermath of the Mutan Village
Incident.

事件的發端

為了解決長久以來台灣海域上的外籍受難船
隻屢遭島上原住民侵犯的問題,1874年5 月
,日本派員三千六百人在陸軍中將西鄉從道
指揮下出兵台灣。在懲治島上原住民之後,
重新與之交睦,並賜予日章旗及印章,以為
日後交流之標記。

Roots of the incident

For the declared purpose of resolving the
long-standing problem of Taiwan Aborigine
attacks upon Japanese seamen stranded in Taiwan
territorial waters, in May of 1874, Japan sent
a contingent of 3600 soldiers to Taiwan under
the command of army Lt. Gen. Saigo
Tsugumichi(西鄉從道). Following the punitive
expedition against the Aborigines, the Japanese
established friendly relationships with them,
presenting them with Japanese ceremonial
banners and seals for use in subsequent
official communications.

日本軍出師的具體名義,先是以1871年12月
,一艘從那霸出發的宮古島船在歸返途中遭
逢暴風雨侵襲,漂流至台灣南部東岸八瑤灣
附近,倖存上岸台灣島的六十六名乘員中,
有五十四名竟被島上原住民高士佛社、牡丹
社人所殺害;

Japan's pretext for sending this Japanese
expeditionary force was as follows:

* First, in December of 1871, a Miyako
Island (宮古島) boat sailing from Naha
encountered a storm at sea on its return
voyage, as the result of which it was cast
onto the southeastern coast of Taiwan near
Payao Bay (八瑤灣). Of the 66 crewmen who
were so fortunate as to land there, 54 were
killed by Aborigines from Kaoshihfo (高士佛)
and Mutan (牡丹) Villages.

接著,1873年3 月又有日本小田縣(今岡山
縣)的船頭佐籐利八等四人,在出海貿易途
中,亦遭暴風雨侵襲而漂流至台灣東部馬武
窟附近,衣物遭台灣原住民所掠奪。

* Subsequently, in March of 1873, four seamen
including ship's captain Sato Hachi
(佐籐利八) from Oda Prefecture (小田縣,
present-day Okayama Prefecture - 岡山縣),
while on a trading voyage were also blown by
a storm to the vicinity of Mawuku (馬武窟)
in eastern Taiwan, where Aborigines made off
with their clothing.

雖然日本方面曾試圖訴諸外交途徑來謀求解
決之道,但是一如過去歐美遭難船之經驗,
清國方面總以「化外之地、化外之民」為由
來推諉責任。於是,日本乃在「清國無法處
理此等情事」的認知前提下,出兵台灣,懲
治島上的原住民。

Although the Japanese authorities at first
sought to resolve this problem through
diplomatic channels, nevertheless, as in
earlier instances of European and American
ships stranded in Taiwan, the Ch'ing
authorities continued to deny responsibility,
based on the principle that "those are
uncivilized people in outer fringes of
civilization" Consequently, under the premise
that "the Ch'ing Empire is unable to deal
with this sort of affair," Japan sent troops
to Taiwan for punitive action against the
island's Aborigines.

值得玩味的是:1871年12月牡丹社事件發
生當時,日本方面為何沒有馬上派兵懲治
原住民?而長久以來主張對台灣具有主權
的清帝國在此一事件中,到底扮演著如何
的角色?

Worth pondering are the questions, (a) why
didn't the Japanese immediately send a
punitive expedition against the Aborigines
after the December 1871 Mutan Village
incident, and (b) exactly what role was
played in this incident by the Ch'ing
government, which had long claimed
suzerainty over Taiwan?

台灣海域上的受難船漂流至島上而遭原住民
迫害,此次並非頭一遭。1867年3 月美籍受
難船所引發的羅發號(Rover )事件就是另
一個活生生的案例。歐美列強為了此類事件
,屢屢向清帝國政府尋求解決之道,然而一
直都不得要領。羅發號事件之後,美國駐廈
門領事李仙得(Charles W. Le Gendre)在
求助無門的情況下,乃毅然直抵台灣與原住
民酋長卓杞篤(Tauketok)見面,並相互達
成了船難救助協議。換言之,至少從這類情
事上,充分表現出島上二元政權的屬性。李
仙得也基於這樣的事態而提出其「蕃地無主
論」的看法,甚至寫了一本書《Is
Aboriginal Formosa a Part of the
Chinese Empire?》(台灣原住民地區是中
華帝國的一部份嗎?),成為日後日本的台
灣出兵行為之理論依據。

This 1871 incident was by no means the first
instance of seamen stranded in Taiwan being
attacked by Aborigines. The Rover Incident in
March of 1867, involving a shipwrecked
American-registration vessel, the Rover, is
a prominent case in point. The Euro-American
hegemons had repeatedly sought resolution of
the problem from the Ch'ing government without
their eliciting any substantive official action
on the part of the Ch'ing government. In the
aftermath of the Rover Incident, and in the
absence of any alternate avenue of redress,
the American Consul to Amoy, Charles W. Le
Gendre, boldly traveled directly to Taiwan and
met with Aborigine chief Tauketok, with whom he
negotiated a nautical disaster relief agreement.
In other words, judging at least from this sort
of event, the Rover Incident clearly revealed a
sort of dual-jurisdiction situation. Moreover,
based on this sort of circumstance, Le Gendre
enuciated his "barbarian-land anarchy" theory
蕃地無主論 , and even wrote a book entitled "Is
Aboriginal Formosa a Part of the Chinese Empire?"
which contributed to Japan's theoretical
justification for its later military action
in Taiwan.

國際媒體的報導

當1871年船難問題再度發生時,西方媒體則
做了如下的報導。

International news media reports

When the 1871 shipwreck incident occurred,
Western media published the following
reports:

New York Times 1872年10月24日 來自舊金
山的消息說「數名的日本人船員在台灣遭遇
船難,並被原住民所吞食。琉球王派遣使節
前往江戶〔今東京〕,試圖在報復措施上求
取援助」;

* The October 24, 1872 issue of the New York
Times carried a report from a San Francisco
source stating, "A number of Japanese seamen
shipwrecked in Taiwan were cannibalized by
its aborigines. The King of Okinawa sent an
emissary to Edo [present-day Tokyo] in an
attempt to secure assistance regarding
measures for retaliation."

上海發行的North China Herald同日也轉載
了Japan Gazette的消息說「最近從薩摩縣
〔今鹿兒島縣〕送來了台灣食人事件的報告
,令日本的政府高官感到非常戰慄。被認為
是隸屬於薩摩侯所管的琉球諸島,有數艘戎
克船漂流至台灣的海岸邊。根據送到日本的
消息是,戎克船上的乘員被島人所吞食..
....。此外,日本方面則有所苦情,即
日本對琉球的領有權等相關疑問。然而,在
我們的印象中則以為,日本對琉球的領有權
應該是被國際所承認的」。

* On the same date, Shanghai's North China
Herald reprinted a Japan Gazette report stating,
"Recent reports from Satsuma [ 薩摩,
present-day Kagoshima - 鹿兒島] Prefecture
of a cannibalization incident in Taiwan has
made high-level Japanese authorities
extremely horrified. A number of junk boats
claimed to be under the jurisdiction of the
Ryukyu Islands ruled by the Duke of Satsuma
drifted onto the coast of Taiwan. According
to Japanese news sources, the seamen of these
junk boats were cannibalized by the island
inhabitants...... In this connection, the
Japanese authorities are additionally facing
problems with regard to their territorial
claims on the Ryukyu Archipelago and related
questions. It is our impression, however, that
Japan's claims to suzerainty over the
archipelago are internationally recognized."

從上述的兩則報導中可以確知歐美人士對於
台灣原住民存有許多畏怖與誤解;另一方面
,琉球船的台灣遭難事件,從肇事責任的歸
屬開始所牽引出的不只是台灣,還包括了琉
球的主權問題。

From the above-quoted two reports, we can
clearly see that (a) Europeans and Americans
had a number of fears and misunderstandings
about Taiwan's Aborigines and (b) the matter
of assigning responsibility for the harm done
to Okinawan seamen brought up the question of
sovereignty not only over Taiwan but over
Okinawa as well.

歐美強權的立場

但是出乎意料地,當出兵台灣的政策被確立
的同時,卻遭致以英、美為首等列強之干涉
。其主要的原因在於,位居十九世紀世界強
權的英國極度擔心,清、日之間的紛爭可能
會對英國資本在東亞地區的經濟活動有所影
響,進而傷害了英國商民在該地區的經濟利
益。在英國的威勢下,以美國為首的歐美國
家對日本的出兵行為,採取警戒態度,批評
這樣的行為是違反萬國公法,並強調以安全
保障為由所訴諸之武力干涉,將不會被國際
社會所承認。此時,美國的駐日公使一職已
改由 John A. Bingham擔任,新任公使對於
日本的台灣遠征行為改採強硬姿態,並追隨
英國的做法,禁止任何美國人與美籍船參與
此項出兵計畫。

Policy positions of European and American
powers

Unexpectedly, however, at the same time
the decision was made to send an
expeditionary force to Taiwan, it met with
the intervention of Western powers led by
England and the United States. It's main
reason was the concern of the 19th century
British hegemonic power regarding the
influence which the conflict between the
Ch'ing and Japanese governments might have
upon the British financial activity in
East Asia, and the possible damage to the
economic interests of British traders in
the region. Under the paramount influence
of British power, but primarily through
the immediate agency of the American
government, Western countries adopted an
attitude of grave concern with regard to
Japan's mobilization of military force,
criticizing such action as a violation of
international laws governing
intergovernmental relations, and
emphasizing that, an armed intervention
in the name of national security would
not be tolerated by the international
community. At the time, John A. Bingham,
who had just been newly appointed as
ambassador to Japan, took a rigid stance
in opposition to Japan's deployment of an
armed force to Taiwan and, following
Britain's lead, prohibited American
citizens or ships from taking part in
such activity.

值此之際,列強對於問題思考的邏輯則在於
,日本的台灣出兵行為就好比「他國突然派
遣三千名軍隊上陸北海道」的道理一樣缺乏
說服力。縱然李仙得所抱持的「蕃地無主論
」在地理根據上有其正當性,而清國也的確
無法明確主張自己的「領有權」;但是也沒
有任何證據顯示清國已經放棄了其對東部台
灣的權益關係,倘若有他國企圖要征服「蕃
地」,則清國自可在安全保障的理由下訴諸
武力,而這種行為將會被國際社會所接受。
當時的國際輿論,基本上仍在「台灣乃屬中
國版圖」的認知下做評論,這樣的結果著實
令日本外交界感到意外與震驚。

The governing logic underlying Western powers'
consideration of the circumstances of that
moment was that Japan's rationale for sending
an expeditionary force to Taiwan was no more
convincing that any rationale for "another
country suddenly sending 3000 troops to
Hokaido." Even assuming that there was some
validity to Le Gendre's "barbarian-land
anarchy" theory 蕃地無主論 , and that the
Ch'ing government had no grounds for asserting
its sovereignty, it was nevertheless likewise
true that there was no evidence to show that
the Ch'ing government had renounced its claim
to sovereignty over eastern Taiwan. If
another country [in this case Japan] had
designs to conquer this so-called "Barbarian
Land," then the Ch'ing government could
similarly cite its national security as a
pretext for mounting a military response,
which would be deemed acceptable in the eyes
of the international community. Regardless,
the international consensus of the time was
critical of Japan, based on its identification
of Taiwan as a territory of China. This
outcome indeed bewildered and stunned the
Japanese diplomatic community.

In the aftermath of the Mutan
Village Incident 沈葆楨 Chen
Pao-chen petitions the Ch'ing
Court to strengthen Taiwan
defenses and institute a policy
of "opening mountain regions
and assisting the savages."

牡丹社事件後,沈葆楨奏請清廷加
強台灣防務,並實施「開山撫蕃」
政策

事件的終結

在英、美等強權壓力下,日本雖然仍出兵台
灣,並懲治了肇事的原住民,而且清國也派
遣萬人大軍抵台與之對峙,但是清、日之間
雙方並沒有直接發生衝突。在英國駐清公使
威妥瑪(Thomas, Wade)的斡旋下,1874年
10月31日雙方簽下了一份北京專約,以由清
國提出補償金來交換日本的撤兵,避免了戰
爭情事的發生。其條約內容重點如下:
1.清國政府必須承認日本的出兵台灣是「保
民義舉」。
2.清國政府提出五十萬兩為賠償金,其中十
萬兩是受難家屬的撫卹金,另四十萬兩則是
買回日本在蕃地所建設之道路與建物的所有
權。

Resolution of the incident

Although, in defiance of British and
American pressure, Japan deployed troops
to Taiwan and took punitive action against
the Aborigines involved in the Mutan
Village Incident, and although the Ch'ing
government deployed 10,000 troops to
Taiwan to counter them, there occurred no
direct conflict between Ch'ing and
Japanese troops. Through the arbitration of
British ambassador to the Ch'ing court,
Thomas Wade, a treaty was signed by the
two sides on October 31, 1874, whereby the
Ch'ing government paid reparations in
return for the withdrawal of Japanese
troops, thereby averting war. The treaty's
main stipulations included:
* Ch'ing government acknowledgement that
the Japanese deployment of troops had been
for the purpose of protecting of its
nationals.
* Ch'ing government compensation in the
amount of 500,000 taels of gold, including
100,000 taels as consolation payments to
families of the deceased, and 400,000
taels for the purchase of ownership rights
to roads and buildings constructed by the
Japanese in the "barbarian land."

對於這樣的結果,英國駐日公使巴夏禮(
Harry S. Parkes)評論說「被侵略者卻必
須交付償金的道理,令人感到費解。日本實
無收受償金的資格」。根據申報1874年11月
9 、10兩日之社論所述,清政府方面倒是很
釋懷地認為「使日本先行派兵征伐生蕃,的
確是一大失策。但是做一點讓步,以五十萬
兩的金額迴避戰事,免除了數年份的損失,
而得以大事化小,小事化無,亦不失為上策
。相對地,我國對於台灣所具有之統治責任
則得以彰顯,進而禁止外國之妄舉。日本為
此也花費了三、四百萬兩,今後勢必會堅戒
類此之愚行」。

source stating, "A number of Japanese seamen
Remarking critically on this outcome, British
ambassador to Japan Harry S. Parkes stated,
"The proposition that a victim of invasion
should have to pay reparations is
incomprehensible! Japan certainly has no
right to receive any compensation."
According to Shen Pao (申報) newspaper
editorials published on October 9-10, 1874,
the Ch'ing government nevertheless very
reassuringly opined that, "Allowing Japan
to send troops to attack the barbarians was
indeed a major mistake. However, the
negligible concession of using the sum of
500,000 gold taels to avert war and
multi-year losses, rendering major problems
small and small ones nonexistent, cannot be
denied as a superior strategy. At the same
time, our country's sovereign responsibility
for Taiwan has become manifest, serving to
forestall further foreign aggression. For
this [invasion of Taiwan], Japan spent 3-4
million taels of gold, for which reason it
will certainly refrain from such unwise
action in the future."

承如申報社論所述,為了懲治台灣原住民而
實際花費了近約七百七十萬兩的公帑,對當
時已瀕臨破產邊緣的日本新政府財政而言,
整個事件幕後的黑手巖倉具視‧大久保利通
通陣營,幾乎可以「罪萬萬」而被申請處分


True to what the Shen Pao editorials said,
given the fact that the actual expenditure
for the punitive expedition against the
Taiwan Aborigines amounted to 7,700,000
taels of state treasury , from the point of
view of the nearly bankrupt Finance Ministry
of the new Japanese government of the time,
the instigators behind the whole incident,
Ewakula tomomi (巖倉具視)and Okubo
toshimichi(大久保利通) and their cliques
might well have been indicted for a long list
of charges.

但是「鹿死誰手」仍未知曉。北京會談的結
果,根據條約內容,出現了「台灣生蕃」加
害「日本國屬民等」、日本出兵的目的是「
保民義舉」等用語;此外清國政府所支給的
「撫卹金」是由日本政府轉交受難者遺族,
此等行逕自然表示清國已同意「遭難的琉球
人可以被解釋為是日本國民」。於是,日本
對琉球的統治權逐漸受到國際社會所認同,
而清國對琉球宗主權之主張的理論根據相對
地變得薄弱起來。日本藉由如此之情勢,自
然了斷了琉球與清國之間的從屬關係,日本
的「琉球併合」政策乃得以逐步推動。

There nonetheless remained some ambiguity
as to who was the final beneficiary in this
incident. As the result of the Beijing
conference which resolved the incident,
there appeared in the final treaty such
language as, "Taiwan savages did harm to
Japanese nationals" and acknowledgement
that the aim of Japan's expeditionary force
was "to protect and obtain justice for its
people." This, together with the fact that
the consolation money paid by the Ch'ing
government was disbursed to the families of
the deceased through the auspices of the
Japanese government, was tantamount to the
Ch'ing government's admission that the
Ryukyu Islander castaways could be
considered as Japanese citizens. Hence,
Japan's sovereignty over the Ryukyus
gradually came to be recognized by the
International community, while, conversely,
the theoretical basis for Ch'ing Dynasty
China's claim of traditional sovereignty
over the Ryukyus became weakened. Given
these circumstances, Japan had of course
broken the dominion relationship between
the Ryukyus and Ch'ing Dynasty China,
giving a major impetus to Japan's policy
of merger with the Ryukyus.

牡丹社事件的發生,帶給清國政府的暗示是
「清帝國已經失去其扮演東亞國際社會中心
的角色地位」,以及從此埋下了日‧清對立
的宿怨關係。

The Mutan Village Incident brought with it
a hint to the Ch'ing government that the
Ch'ing Empire had already lost its stature
as the lead character on the East Asian
international stage, while at the same time
planting the seeds for a longer-term
grudge-bearing enmity between Japan and
China.

Compiled and edited by Tina Lee/Translated by James Decker
籌備編輯李美儀/英文翻譯曹篤明

TOP