<論説>「嘘」からみた地図史 (特集 : 嘘)

Abstract

「嘘」とは、単なる不正確なものではなく、「意図的にだます」内容を含むものである。そのため、史料に「嘘」を見出す場合、だます側とだまされる側の両者を意識することが不可欠となる。こうした特性を敷衍すると、これまでの地図史研究の多くは地図と作者の関係のみをとらえがちであったという課題を指摘することができる。そこで、作者と読者という関係性に着目した地図史の可能性を論じることを本稿の目的に設定する。まず、地図における作者と読者の関係は、大きく三つのパターンないし場面に分けることができることを確認し、その後、それぞれのパターンないし場面に関わる事例を提示しながらその特徴を確認し、さらにそこに「嘘」の入り込む余地を検討した。各章では、可能な限り多様なスケール・時期から事例を選択するよう努め、作者と読者、そして地図との関係を焦点化する分析視角が地図史全体に適用可能であることを確認した。

The claim that “maps are liars” falls into the category of common sense in the history of cartography. However, even now, when the depiction of the history of cartography is seen as having the goal of overcoming the developmental historical perspective and aiming for “correctness, ” there still has been no attempt to discuss “lies” found in maps. Therefore, in order to try to grasp the history of maps from the perspective of “lies, ” it is first necessary to think about what we mean by “lies.” A “lie” is not just an inaccuracy, but something that contains content that is “intentionally deceiving.” It is essential to be conscious of the existence of both the deceived and the deceiver when one finds “lies” in historical sources. Drawing on these characteristics, it can be pointed out that most of the research on the history of maps to date has tended to focus only on the relationship between the map and its creator, and has not considered maps in terms of the relationship between the creator and the map reader. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to discuss the possibility of map history focusing on the relationship between the creator and the reader. The relationship between the creator and the reader of a map can be roughly divided into three categories: category A can be visualized as a pattern or schema in which the author creates a map for himself (and therefore a link between the author and the reader cannot be established); category B can be visualized as a pattern or schema in which the relationship established between the creator and the reader is that which the creator had intended; and category C can be visualized as a pattern or schema in which the creator produces a map for an “unspecified number of readers.” In this paper, I have determined the characteristics of each pattern by presenting examples, and examined the space for “lies” in each of them. I have tried to select examples on a wide variety of scales and from as diverse time periods as possible, and I have confirmed that an analytical perspective that focuses on the relationship between creators, readers, and maps is applicable to the entire history of cartography. Since in category A the creator and the map reader are one and the same, it is impossible to create a map whose “lies” deceive the reader. Among the maps created and used in the category B relationship, some maps depict the content that the creator wanted to assert to a specific reader. They may use emphasis, exaggerations, and sometimes intentional distortion of the content. On the other hand, there are cases where the creator makes a map according to a reader's request, and it is necessary to be aware that such a map does not unilaterally reflect the author's intention alone. In some cases, such as maps of ancient estates in Japan, the reader signed the created map to indicate acceptance and approval. In this case, it can be said that the creator and the reader produced the map in collaboration. As a matter of fact, when the contents of such a map are compared with the local terrain, the map is inaccurate in some cases. However, the field of mutual recognition between the two sides resides in the map, not on the actual ground. The “old maps” from Category C that were made around the 18th century were deliberately crafted to make them appear to have been made in earlier times, and in claiming that they were not contemporary works, they were clothed in historical “correctness.” In light of the definition of a “lie, ” the “lies” found in “old maps” are not just found in the historical and geographical content expressed on the map, but rather in the fact that the creator and the map reader deliberately worked to create gaps in time and space that were intentionally deceptive. However, since there is an unspecified number of map readers, one can be certain that some readers believed the contents of such “old maps” and others denounced them as “lies.” The sense of distance between the creator and the reader that is built on “lies” is not constant in all cases.