The golden age of the exploration of the Silk Road during the early part of the twentieth century saw a series of foreign expeditions to Chinese Central Asia, many of which returned home with rich collections of manuscripts and antiquities. The best known of these were conducted by the Swedish explorer Sven Hedin (1865–1952), Hungarian-born British archaeologist Sir M. Aurel Stein (1862–1943), Germans Albert Grünwedel (1856–1935) and Albert von Le Coq (1860–1930), and Russian Sergei Oldenburg (1863–1934).Footnote ² Although Japanese exploration attracted less attention in the West, it nevertheless resulted in a substantial collection of medieval manuscripts and other artefacts. Between 1902 and 1914 Count Ōtani Kōzui 大谷光瑞 (1876–1948), the twenty-second Abbot of the Nishi Honganji 西本願寺 branch of the Jōdo Shinshū sect 浄土真宗, planned and financed three expeditions to western China, with the aim of carrying out excavations of Buddhist sites and collecting archaeological material. Ōtani also recognized the significance of promoting their results outside of Japan and integrating them into current geographical and archaeological knowledge in the West. He had been in contact with the Royal Geographical Society (RGS) and continued to send to the society maps, photographs and other information about his expeditions.

However, in 1914 Ōtani was forced to resign from his position because of a financial scandal within his sect; he left Japan for good and thus did not have the time, energy or motivation to organize and publicize the results of the expeditions. The collection gradually became dispersed, and the promised scientific reports of the trips were never written. As a result, in comparison with the abundant documentation of European explorers of Chinese Central Asia, the Japanese expeditions are far less well known and there are significant gaps in their history, including detailed routes and dates, or the provenance of particular artefacts.

The Royal Geographical Society (RGS) Archives in London contain a small lot of material related to the Ōtani expeditions which has thus far escaped the attention of those working on the history of the exploration of Central Asia. The material consists of a map, some photographs and a short typescript of a report of the expedition. Together, they can help us shed additional light on the details of the two trips led by Tachibana Zuichō 橘瑞超 (1890–1968) between 1908 and 1914. The material also reveals that there had been repeated efforts to communicate the results of the Japanese expeditions with the RGS in an attempt to publicize them in the West, even though much of this information never appeared in print. We also know from Stein's correspondence with John Keltie (1840–1927),Footnote ³ secretary of the RGS, that the Society was in fact contacted by Ōtani on other occasions with regard to submitting information about the Japanese expeditions to Central Asia; these letters, however, are now lost and cannot be accounted for. This is why the material at the RGS Archives is especially helpful for demonstrating the significance of the society from Ōtani's point of view.

1. The two expeditions led by Tachibana

The key figure behind the Japanese exploration of Central Asia was Count Ōtani Kōzui, who organized a series of expeditions to historical Buddhist sites in western China, Tibet and India.Footnote ⁴ As a close relative of the imperial familyFootnote ⁵ and heir to the abbotship of the Nishi Honganji sect, one of the largest Buddhist organizations in the country with over ten million followers, he was in a unique position to be able to envision, finance and execute this massive enterprise as a semi-private venture without government involvement or aid. During the abbacy of his father Ōtani Kōson 大谷光尊 (1850–1903), Japanese Buddhism was in a state of crisis as a result of imperial efforts to establish Shintō as a state religion. Buddhist organizations were faced with the need to adapt. The Honganji carried out a series of changes, including the introduction of an internal parliamentary system and complete educational reform. One of the important efforts in dealing with suppression was to dispatch clerics overseas to establish contacts with other Buddhist communities and to learn about their practices.Footnote ⁶

Buddhism in Asia as a whole was in decline. Kōzui, who embarked on extensive travels while his father was still alive, witnessed this state of affairs in China, Sri Lanka and India. It was after these experiences that he sailed to Europe, ultimately arriving in London in March 1900, with the aim of studying theoretical and practical aspects of Western religions.Footnote ⁷ It is reasonable to assume that his purpose in staying overseas for this extended period was to study missionary activities and religious policies in Europe. In other words, he was trying to find alternative models for the survival of Buddhism, rather than being involved in its academic study.Footnote ⁸ At the same time, whenever he could, he visited leading Buddhist scholars and Orientalists, including such names as Édouard Chavannes in Paris or Arminius Vámbéry in Budapest.Footnote ⁹ In addition, he was deeply inspired by the Central Asian explorations of Sven Hedin and Aurel Stein, especially with regard to the ancient ruins in Chinese Turkestan, which he understood to have once served as a major route in the transmission of Buddhism to China. He also felt that, as a religious leader in Japan, it was his responsibility to investigate the ancient sites of Buddhism.Footnote ¹⁰ As a result, when the time came to return to Japan, he decided to travel with a handful of followers through Russia and Chinese Central Asia and do his share of exploration. The Nishi Honganji supported the enterprise and provided the financial means. The Japanese party left London in August 1902 and this trip became the first of a total of three expeditions to Xinjiang, known today as the Ōtani expeditions.

Although Ōtani led the first expedition (1902–04) in person, he had to cut short his participation and return to Kyōto when his father died in January 1903. His followers stayed behind for another year but eventually the project was suspended because Ōtani had his hands full with the task of taking over the leadership of Nishi Honganji from his late father.Footnote ¹¹

The second expedition took place in 1908–09, when two young men travelled through Mongolia to western China. Tachibana Zuichō, an eighteen-year-old priest of the Nishi Honganji sect, was appointed leader of the two; he also came to represent the expedition in the eyes of the world. Despite his young age and fragile physique, Tachibana proved to be an able explorer who over the next four years traversed thousands of miles in the most difficult conditions. As his experience and confidence grew, he also became involved in the study of old Uighur manuscripts that he discovered in China, publishing a number of academic papers on the subject. The other member of the team was Nomura Eizaburō 野村栄三郎 (1880–1936), one of the very few followers of Ōtani who were not Buddhist priests. His father had worked in his youth for the Nishi Honganji Temple and the young Nomura grew up partly within the confines of the Temple and in close connection with the abbot's family. Back in 1899, his brother had accompanied the young Ōtani on a trip to China, but died in Henan province from a sudden illness. At the start of the 1908 expedition, Nomura was already a veteran of the 1904–05 Russo-Japanese War, a fact that later became significant in the eyes of the Russian and British authorities in Kashgar.Footnote ¹²

On reaching Xinjiang, the two explorers separated and Tachibana travelled south through the Lop Desert where he found, among other things, a small group of early-fourth-century documents written by Li Bo 李柏, a historically attested figure who served as the chief administrator of the Western Dominions 西域長史. It was the discovery of these documents and several others that made Tachibana's name known in the West, in no small part due to the positive introduction by E. Denison Ross (1871–1940), the first scholar to see the manuscripts, in December 1909 straight after the end of the expedition. At the time, Ross was principal of the Calcutta Madrasah and an authority on Uighur and other Central Asian languages. He wrote an account of Tachibana's expedition for The Times and also publicized it in his private correspondence with European scholars such as Aurel Stein and Albert von Le Coq.Footnote ¹³ Although this article appeared anonymously, Ross acknowledges having been behind it in his private correspondence. Thus in a letter to Stein, he writes:

In the letter Ross remarks that Tachibana has been following Stein's tracks, as if sensing Stein's disapproval of the Japanese enterprise, and thus in a sense violating an unwritten gentlemanly code about respecting one another's territory. In another letter dispatched on the same day to Le Coq, Ross is much more sympathetic towards Tachibana, even if discontented that he is not allowed full access to the manuscripts:

These items of correspondence show the speed with which news about the results of Tachibana's expedition spread to Europe, and leading scholars working on manuscripts excavated in Chinese Central Asia knew about it shortly after his arrival in Calcutta. In this case, this was in large part due to Ross' excitement and eagerness to tell others about the new manuscripts he had been shown by Ōtani.

Following the expedition, Tachibana did not return to Japan but joined Ōtani in India so that they could travel together to Europe.Footnote ¹⁶ Ōtani himself came to London to take part in the Japan–British Exhibition at Shepherd's Bush, but his main goal was to organize the next trip. Besides purchasing the necessary equipment he was actively engaged in promoting the cause of his expeditions, publicizing them and securing recognition.Footnote ¹⁷ As a result of his efforts, shortly after their arrival in England Tachibana was elected a member of the RGSFootnote ¹⁸ and became recognized as an accomplished explorer. He was also able to meet Stein, Hedin and Le Coq before embarking on his next voyage, known today as the third Ōtani expedition.

On this trip Tachibana's companion was not Japanese but a young Englishman named A. O. Hobbs. They travelled via St Petersburg and approached Xinjiang from the Russian border. After digging together in Turfan they separated: Tachibana travelled once more through the Lop Desert, while Hobbs transported the bulk of their luggage to Kucha where the two of them had planned to reunite at a later date. However, while the Japanese team leader was exploring the desert, Hobbs contracted smallpox and died within a few weeks. By the time Tachibana arrived in Kucha, the Englishman's body had been transported to Kashgar under the directions of George Macartney, the British Consul General. Tachibana rushed to Kashgar and was able to attend the funeral at the British consular cemetery.Footnote ¹⁹ Following his companion's death, Tachibana continued his trip alone until Ōtani sent Yoshikawa Koichirō 吉川小一郎 (1885–1978) to relieve him. The two explorers met in Dunhuang and shortly after acquiring a large lot of manuscripts at the Thousand Buddha Caves, Tachibana returned to Japan with the most precious finds.Footnote ²⁰

2. Problems with documentation

The archaeological spoils of the three expeditions were first housed at Nirakusō 二楽荘, Ōtani's villa on Mount Rokkō 六甲 above the Bay of Kōbe 神戸. At certain times these items were on display to the general public. When, in 1914, Ōtani stepped down from the leadership of his sect, he moved his operational bases to Shanghai, Dairen (Dalian) and Port Arthur (Lüshun). At this time part of the collection from Villa Nirakusō was moved to Port Arthur, including the Dunhuang and Turfan manuscripts, numismatic items, the Gandharan sculptures and several mummies. Today these items are in the collection of the Lüshun Museum, with the exception of those Dunhuang manuscripts that had been lent to Beijing Library (today's National Library of China).Footnote ²¹ In addition, after the Second World War part of the material from Lüshun was moved back to Japan and deposited at the Nishi Honganji Temple in Kyōto where it lay forgotten for many years. After Ōtani's death, while organizing the personal belongings he had left behind at the Nishi Honganji, two large wooden boxes were found, which were transferred into the collection of Ryūkoku University 龍谷大学 in 1953.

Apart from the above material, part of the original collection was sold, together with Ōtani's villa, when he found himself in financial difficulty. These items were subsequently donated to the Government-General of Korea, and today form part of the collection of the National Museum of Korea. In addition, the National Museum at Kyōto and the National Museum at Tōkyō hold a small number of items from the original Ōtani collection. Finally, there are some items that found their way into private collections.Footnote ²² It is likely that in time more items will come to light.

The scattered nature of the collection unsurprisingly poses a serious hindrance to research. We are lucky to have the Saiiki kōko zufu 西域考古圖譜 (Illustrated Catalogue of the Archaeology of the Western Regions), the illustrated catalogue of selected items from the Ōtani expeditions, which was published before the dispersal of the collection.Footnote ²³ Unfortunately, the whereabouts of many of the items from this catalogue are currently unknown and are considered either lost or unrecognized in other collections.

In addition to the dispersal of the archaeological material, much of the documentation of the expeditions is also missing, which is a major drawback for studying the history of the collection, or reconstructing the itinerary and main events of the trips. The diaries and field records of the expedition members were published more than twenty years afterwards in 1937, in the two-volume Shin Saiiki ki 新西域記 (New Record of the Western Regions).Footnote ²⁴ Unfortunately, by this time Tachibana's records had perished when his home temple in Nagoya burned down in a fire. Although Tachibana published two accounts of his second trip, both were written with a popular audience in mind and thus only contain a general description of the expedition.Footnote ²⁵ In order to reconstruct a detailed chronology and sequence of events for this journey, it is necessary to gather bits of information from personal correspondence and contemporary newspaper reports. We are fortunate that the material in the RGS Archives has survived and it is surprising that it has not been noticed by researchers in the past. The archive contains an expedition report, a map and a number of photographs, which are all extremely valuable in supplementing our knowledge of the details of Tachibana's exploration in Xinjiang.

3. Material in the RGS Archives

Chronologically, the first group of material on the Japanese expeditions in the RGS Archives consists of a nine-page typescript detailing Tachibana's discoveries during his 1908–09 trip, accompanied by a letter written by Aurel Stein to John Keltie, secretary of the RGS.Footnote ²⁶ The typescript is a short and rudimentary description of the archaeological results of the expedition, referred to in the catalogue as “Brief notes on a Japanese archaeological expedition to Sinkiang”.Footnote ²⁷ It is divided into five sections: 1) Manuscripts; 2) Sculpture; 3) Fresco paintings; 4) Old coins; and 5) Miscellaneous. To this list a separate text was added with the title “History of Lop-nor”. Stein's letter to Keltie of 31 July 1910, to which these nine pages were attached, describes how he had tried to make the text suitable for publication in the Geographical Journal. The letter reads as follows:

As can be seen, Stein wrote this in response to Keltie's request to evaluate and revise Tachibana's expedition report. Fortunately, the letter with Keltie's request has also survived and is now held at the Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. It was written over two months earlier, on May 11, and reads as follows:

The margins and the back of Keltie's letter are covered in Stein's notes in pencil, detailing Tachibana's route through Turkestan in 1908–09, most likely extracted from the material that came together with the letter.Footnote ²⁸ These notes, however, do not fully match the information in Tachibana's report at the RGS Archives. Some information (e.g. “Silk weaving different at different periods”) can be found in both places, but there are many details in the notes that cannot be found in the typed report. For example, the information about leaving China and meeting Ōtani in Sonamarg must definitely come from some other source. Consequently we must assume that there was yet another document, the whereabouts of which is still unclear. Another possibility is that Stein recorded this information during his personal meeting with Tachibana in London in August 1910, although the notes include phrases such as “Extract from Annals”, and “Medley of European information”, which suggests that it was probably extracted from a written source. Also, in several instances Stein uses quotation marks to cite an original text, including the particular spelling of “Lulan”.

As for Tachibana's typescript, it never appeared in The Geographical Journal or, for that matter, anywhere else. In view of the above items of correspondence we can see today that it was principally due to Stein's unenthusiastic response to Keltie regarding its value. Indeed, two years later in a letter to Stein, Keltie makes the following remarks about Tachibana's expedition:

These comments obviously refer to the problems with the account of the previous expedition which was rejected after its negative assessment by Stein. It also confirms that the problem was ostensibly with written presentation, rather than with the scientific value of the results of the trip.

Under the same pressmark in the RGS Archives (JMS/7/129) as Tachibana's report and Stein's letter to Keltie is a five-page handwritten proposal with the title “New exploration in Chinese Turkestan and Mongolia”.Footnote ³⁰ The single pressmark indicates that these documents must have arrived at the RGS at the same time. However, unlike the rest of the material, this manuscript does not relate to the 1908–09 expedition but is rather a brief plan for a new one. According to this plan, Tachibana intended to return to Chinese Turkestan via Russia, meeting up there with Hashiramoto Zuishun 柱本瑞俊 and Aoki Bunkyō 青木文教.Footnote ³¹ The manuscript was written in the first person and signed by Tachibana Zuichō. Unlike the typescript report examined by Stein, this writing was accepted by The Geographical Journal for publication and, in a somewhat rephrased form, came out in its April 1910 issue.Footnote ³²

Ōtani probably submitted all of the above material to the RGS in April or May 1910, while he and his followers were in London. The archives, however, also hold some later material: of particular interest is a large square map, held in the Map Room, showing the routes of Tachibana's first (1908–09) and second (1910–12) trips to Xinjiang.Footnote ³³ The map, together with a set of photographs, must have been sent to the RGS sometime after 1912, most likely at the end of 1913: we know this because the January 1914 issue of the Geographical Journal published a notice entitled “Mr. Tachibana's Second Expedition to Central Asia”, which begins: “This traveller, whose plans before starting on his second expedition for archaeological research in Central Asia were outlined in the Journal, vol. 35, p. 448, sends us a brief narrative of the completed expedition, accompanied by a map, on which the route is clearly shown”.Footnote ³⁴ This must be the same “detailed account” which, Keltie wrote to Stein (see letter of 11 September 1912 above), he was expecting from Ōtani. As for the map mentioned here, it is undoubtedly the one currently held in the RGS Archives, which must have been received shortly before the above notice appeared in print.Footnote ³⁵

At the top of the map sheet is a smaller (1:7,500,000) map of Central Asia occupying about one quarter of the entire space. It bears the title “Map of Central Asia, showing the routes of Mr. Tachibana's Journey, 1908–1912”. The route of the first trip is marked with a dotted line, the second with a continuous one. The larger part of the sheet shows an enlarged section (1:1,500,000) of the desert route from Turfan to Kucha, proceeding in a V-shape via Loulan, Abdal, Miran, Charkalik, Cherchen and Bugur. The title for this larger part is “Sketch map illustrating a portion of the Takla-Makan and the Lob Desert, by Mr. Zuicho Tachibana, 1911–1912”. The routes for both trips are executed in a highly professional manner, with keen attention to detail. Different topographic features are marked in different colours. The captions and titles are written with a very careful hand, showing that the map was prepared by a person trained in cartography. An apparent feature of the map is that for identification purposes it uses toponyms and descriptions from Stein's maps as the basic description of the area, while also inserting a number of new details. It is obvious that Tachibana tried to penetrate places where neither Stein nor Hedin had been, and populate the white spaces of earlier maps with data. This is particularly true for his second trip, and we can see that between the two expeditions Tachibana's focus changed from archaeological to geographical. This must have been partly because he had been elected a member of the RGS in the spring of 1910 while he was in London and saw that these kinds of results yielded the highest acclaim and recognition. Since Japan had only recently risen to the rank of advanced nation and had not been part of colonial exploration, it must have been a tremendous honour for a Japanese man to gain membership of the Society.Footnote ³⁶ As a result of this recognition, instead of collecting archaeological material, Tachibana seemed eager to explore new territories and survey areas unexplored by those before him. His routes were mostly new, and he went to places where others had not yet ventured.Footnote ³⁷

What makes the map in the RGS Archives especially valuable is that it details the dates and places for segments of the expedition for which all other documentation has been lost. It also includes short descriptions of some of the artefacts discovered at particular sites. Therefore this map is a valuable witness to what happened during the last Ōtani expedition and provides important details that were hitherto unknown.

The RGS Archives also hold nineteen photographs from the Ōtani expeditions. All are inscribed with the same date, 1913, although some are marked as having been taken by Ōtani Kozui, and some by Tachibana Zuichō. Knowing the background of the expeditions, we know for sure that they were all shot by Tachibana, although some must have been sent to the RGS by Ōtani, and this must be why the RGS archivist denoted him as the photographer. Based on their pressmarks, we can divide the nineteen prints into three groups: (i) 076701–076711; (ii) 076176; (iii) PR/0902017–PR/0902019. With eleven photographs, group (i) is the largest – all photographs are marked as having been taken in Xinjiang by Tachibana.Footnote ³⁸ They represent the images from Tachibana's expedition, and the date 1913 is most likely the year in which they were sent to the RGS. Group (ii) comprises five prints, all marked as having been taken by Ōtani but with no indication of the general geographical area. And finally, the three prints in group (iii) are all marked as having been shot by Ōtani in Mongolia. Among them is a photograph (PR/090219) of five men in front of a Chinese-style building. The caption for this image reads: “Group at Ulliasutai. Military governor of Mongolia (right), Prince of Mongolia (left)”. This same image has been published recently when part of Tachibana's lost diary of his 1908–09 trip was discovered, only the caption says that these are “Officials in Kulun” (i.e. Urga).Footnote ³⁹

4. The significance of the material in the RGS Archives

Although Ōtani was well aware of the importance of publishing details of his expeditions in The Geographical Journal, Tachibana's report was withheld from publication, primarily because of Stein's unfavourable assessment. In later years, however, Tachibana's original expedition notes were lost in a fire and thus today this report is a valuable source which sheds light on some little-known details of Tachibana's trips. The description of the finds and the photographs are especially promising, as these may modify current knowledge of the expeditions.

First, we should draw attention to information concerning the so-called Li Bo manuscript discovered by Tachibana in the region of Loulan in 1909. This document comprises a group of fragments of draft letters written by the Chief Administrator of the Western Dominions during the Former Liang period (320–376). The manuscript consists of an almost complete sheet of paper with two letters (538A, 538B) and thirty-nine related fragments (8001–8039). Today the manuscript is kept at Ryūkoku University, and it is no doubt the best known item in the Ōtani collection.

Because one of the fragments (Ot.Ry. 8035) contains the words “Your servant Bo speaks to the King of Karashahr” 臣柏言焉耆王, researchers assume that the two main letters (A, B) are also addressed to the King of Karashahr. However, the surviving Chinese words could also be translated as “Your servant Bo speaks, the King of Karashahr…”, in which case there would be no evidence of the letter being addressed to the King. Indeed, there is no reason to limit the addressee of the letters to the King of Karashahr, the manuscript could contain drafts of letters written to several kings in Central Asia. Should this be the case, the date of Li Bo manuscript (538A, 538B) is of utmost significance. Currently there is no agreement regarding its exact date, different scholars date it to ad 325, ad 328, or ad 346.Footnote ⁴⁰

One of the main questions concerning the Li Bo manuscript is the exact location of its discovery. As mentioned above, there is scant available documentation regarding the routes and specific sites the Ōtani expedition visited. Initially, it was believed that Tachibana found the manuscript somewhere at the lower reaches of the Konche Darya. Stein, based on his personal meeting with Tachibana in London in August 1910, wrote in Serindia that the manuscript came from the site called, in Stein's own nomenclature, LA.Footnote ⁴¹ This is the site which Hedin had conjectured to be the ruins of Loulan. In 1959, however, when the historian Mori Shikazō 森鹿三 met Tachibana and enquired about the location, Tachibana specified a photograph of the LK site, not LA.Footnote ⁴² This led to an academic controversy first in Japan, then also in China.Footnote ⁴³ There had been many attempts to resolve the problem, until Katayama Akio 片山章雄 introduced conclusive evidence that seems to have settled the debate.Footnote ⁴⁴ Using contemporary records relating to the expeditions, including old newspaper reports, he was able to show more or less conclusively that the Li Bo manuscript had been found at the LA site.Footnote ⁴⁵ Chinese historians Meng Fanren 孟凡人 and Yu Taishan 余太山 also approved Katayama's theory.Footnote ⁴⁶

The material from the RGS Archives provides additional support for this theory, corroborating the fact that the manuscript was found at the LA site. In the typescript sent to Keltie, Tachibana describes the discovery of the manuscript, under the subheading “Sven Hedin's Lulan”, as follows:

In this description and its heading Tachibana himself unmistakeably identifies the site where he found the Li Bo manuscript as LA. That “Sven Hedin's Lulan” is in fact Stein's LA is also corroborated by one of the photographs from the RGS Archives (076177) which has the caption “Dr. Sven Hedin's Lulan”. The same site is referred to by Stein as the “Ya-mên”, and its identity with “Hedin's Lulan” in Tachibana's report is obvious if we compare the photographs taken by the two explorers where the same structure with three small rooms is clearly discernible (see Figure 1).Footnote ⁴⁷ Therefore, the material from the RGS Archives is unique in that it is the only source where the location of the discovery of the Li Bo manuscript is confirmed both by a textual record and a photograph.

Figure 1.

Stein's photograph of the structure in Serindia (Vol. 1, 376). The original caption reads: “South-west wing of ruin L.A. II, seen from the South-east” (Courtesy of The British Library)

In addition, the Saiiki kōko zufu catalogue contains images of four wood slips with Chinese characters, ostensibly excavated at Altmish-bulak.Footnote ⁴⁸ With regard to these slips, Katayama Akio has raised the possibility that in reality they too came from Loulan.Footnote ⁴⁹ The “writing on pieces of wood” which Tachibana mentions in the above excerpt could potentially refer to the slips published in the Saiiki kōko zufu, and the report in the RGS Archives offers supporting evidence for this.

But Tachibana's report holds additional points of interest. For example, items such as a bronze sculpture of the Buddha, and fragments of “fresco paintings” with Chinese and Uighur inscriptions are introduced as having been found in the Turfan region. It is unclear where the sculpture is at the moment, but the frescos could be tentatively identified as the mural fragments from the Bezeklik caves, currently held at the National Museum of Korea. Moreover, photograph 076701 bears the caption “Uigur characters on a brick – unused today. Sinkiang; Phot. Z. Tachibana [1913]”. Since the inscription appears to be part of a Buddhist text,Footnote ⁵⁰ this is a fascinating example of such work being written in Uighur on a mural.

Photograph 076702 from the RGS Archives bears the following caption: “Part of the middle of the certificate of merit (dated Tang Dynasty 28^th Feb 716 A.D.) which is rewarded for distinguished service in war. Discovered in Turfan, Sinkiang”. This is in fact a fragment of the “Li Ciyi appointment decree” 李慈藝告身, the whereabouts of which are currently unknown. This document has been known from photographs only partially, until in 1999 photographs of the complete manuscript were discovered at the Memorial Hall of Tokutomi Sohō 德富蘇峰 (1863–1957), a close acquaintance of Ōtani Kōzui.Footnote ⁵¹ As a Tang-dynasty notice of appointment, this is a highly valuable material.

In addition, some of the photographs from the RGS Archives are unknown from other sources, among them: the photographs of cutting across the Taklamakan when Tachibana travelled from Cherchen to Bugur;Footnote ⁵² the picture of the stūpa Tachibana and Nomura explored at Sirkip (076179);Footnote ⁵³ or the picture of gold diggers (090218), most likely taken in Cherchen. The lower right corner of this last picture has the caption “Mongolia” (written in a different hand, most likely that of an RGS archivist) but elsewhere Tachibana has a detailed description of gold digging in the Altyn Tagh near Cherchen, which is consistent with this photograph: “The way of getting gold dust is extremely primitive. First they dig a deep shaft into the ground, and then they use a bucket to pull up earth and sand from the hole. If they do not find gold among the earth and sand, they dig sideways”.Footnote ⁵⁴ The photograph fits perfectly with this description of a primitive goldmine, it is likely that the place name “Mongolia” in the caption is a mistake and the picture was actually taken at Cherchen. In one of his talks, Tachibana also claimed that he had made a ring for himself at this place.Footnote ⁵⁵

5. Closing remarks

In this paper we have tried to demonstrate the significance of the material from the RGS Archives, showing that it is not only valuable for tracing the provenance of archaeological objects from the Ōtani expeditions but also extremely useful for studying the history of the expeditions. Because of Ōtani's resignation and voluntary exile, this material did not survive in Japan and we are fortunate that it has been preserved in the RGS Archives. At the same time, the fact that such diverse material (reports, photographs, a map) has been submitted to the RGS on more than one occasion demonstrates Ōtani's efforts to integrate the results of the expeditions into the international academic and geographical community. Previous researchers have studied the history of Ōtani expeditions mostly in the context of Japan and its religious-cultural trends at the end of the Meiji era. The material from the RGS Archives, on the other hand, helps to place them in the larger perspective of global world exploration and colonial expansion. They show that the Japanese endeavours were not only heavily influenced by international academic trends but were also consciously trying to become part of this community and have their scientific results acknowledged. Communicating with, and submitting information to, the RGS was a major part of this effort. The material thus clarifies the context of some of the findings of Japanese exploration of Central Asia and exposes traces of the little-studied relationship between Japanese and British scholarly circles in the early twentieth century. Figure 2 presents a map of Tachibana's routes.

Figure 2.

Routes of Tachibana's exploration in Xinjiang

The dotted lines show the expedition of 1908–09; the continuous lines that of 1910–12. (Based on the map in Tachibana Reference Tachibana Zuichō 橘瑞超1989)