JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Japanese Review of Cultural Anthropology) vol. 4, 2003

Empire and the Anthropologist: Torii Ryuze and Early Japanese Anthropology'

David AsKEw

Ritsumeikan Asia Paeific University and Monash University

Introduction

In 1908, the medical doctor and amateur archaeologist Neil Gordon MuNRo (1863-1942)

argued in his Prehistoric cJdpan that the Ainu were the indigenes of Japan, a people which had once populated the main islands of the archipelago but had been pushed northwards in the face "alien of the Ybmato" (MuNRo, 1908!1911: 661), In addition to the Ainu and Yamato, Munro /also, mentions a third people, the Koro-pok-guru (romanised by MuNRo as Koropok-guru), and payS due respect to their main champion, one of the founding fathers ofJapanese anthropology; '`Neither TsuBol Sh6gor6 (1863-1913).2 However, he is sceptical of their existence. in Honshu,

nor in any other part of Japan, have the bones of a [Neolithic] race distinctly alien to the Ainu been unearthed from the shell-mounds [of Japan]," he states, determining the Koro-pok-guru

"myth" to be the product of (MuNRo 1908!1911: 670, 85). MuNRo is far less sceptical about "a!ien "a other peoples. Indeed, the Yamato" should be viewed as a mixed nation, rnixture of "Negrito, several distinct stocks,': the product of a blend of Mongolian, Palasiatie and Caucasian features" (MuNRo 190811911: 676).

i This paper builds upon AsKEw (2002) and AsKEw (forthcoming). I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the support and eneeuragement oe together with comments from, Jerry EADEs, Anne GEDDEs, and

Peter KIRBZ 2 I have seen TsuBol's given name as Masagor6, but will use the more common Sh6gor6 here. FoT Masagor6 as a reading, see ToRII {192711975: 459), 3 i`racial" In diseussing the eemposition ef Great Britain, the leading British anthropologist John BEDDOE (1826- "the in 1905 that while natives of the east of Ireland, the descendants of the later 1911),forinstance,wrote "natives invaders, the upper elasses, the people with English or Scottish surnames, tend to fairness," those of the west, the indigenee, the labourers and peasants, the people with Keltic [sic] surnarnes, are darker, at least in "the hair eelour," and later stated that he regretted diminutien ef the old blond lympho-sariguine stock, which has hitherte served England well in many ways, but is apparently doomed to give way to a darker and more mobile type, largely the offspring of the proletariat" (BEDDoE, 1905: 236, 237).

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

134 David AsKEw

As was the case with many other contemporary Western anthropologists, MuNRo also

assumed that race determined class,S and therefore that the modern history of the Westem

conquest of the non-West could be viewed through the prism of race and projected back onto Japan's past. For instance, MuNRo wrote as fo11ows,

The leaders, if we may judge from the Caucasian and often Semitic physiognomy seen in the aristocratie type ofJapanese, were partly of Caucasic, perhaps Iranian, origin. Some support of this proposition is found in the Haniwa, which not seldom exhibit

features inclined to the Caucasian .,. type ... . These were the warriors, the conquerors

of Japan, and afterwards the aristocracM rnodified to some extent by mingling with a

Mongoloid rank and file and by a considerable addition of Ainu, that is to saM of

Palasiatic (proto-Caucasian?), blood (MuNRo 1908/1911: 679).

L`Caucasian In other words, the contemporary domination of the world by the ... type" was not merely a modern phenomenon, but universal in terms of both time and geography Indeed,

the notion of a Caucasian ruling class and a darker working class (as remarked on by BEDDoE)

is frequently seen in the Western discourse on the Japanese as well. Thus, fbr instance, at a

mueh earlier time, S. B, KEMIsH (1860: 138) wrote that the Japanese ruling class frequently

"complexions "vagabonds boasted as fair and cheeks as ruddy as those ofEuropeans," while on

the highways ... have a skin of a colour between copper and a brown earthy hue,"` Needless to

saM the Social Darwinist notion ofstrength and power being equivalent to virtue can be readily read from these texts. At almost the exact same time as MuNRo's heavy tome was launched onto an unsuspecting public, F}"om the Origins to the Arrival of the Portuguese in 1542 A.D., the first volume of A

Histor:y of eJdpan by James MuRDocH C1856-1921), another Scotsman, was published.5 Here, "that MuRDocH (191011996: 47) stated that the literature seemed to agree the earliest - inhabitants ofthese islands [ofJapan] were the Ainu or the Yemishi [Emishi],as they are

called in the oldest Japanese annals." The Ainu indigenes had been challenged fbr and

deprived of their land by (Chinese) migrants who arrived via the Korean peninsula and settled "Idzumo" in and around (MuRDocH 191011996: 48). MuRDocH also argues for a pre-historic melting pot. Just as England had its Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, ancient Japan too could boast

Qf a number of tribes: in addition to the migrants from the continent, ethers arrived from the

"known south, and were at first as Kumaso and later as Hayato" (MuR]ocH 191011996: 50)."

Again, as did MuNRo, MuRDocH elaims that the early Japanese nation was a product of

` Also see MAcEARLANE (1852: 141)

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropelogist: Torii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 135

"the miscegenation, and indeed that, according to legend, the mix of blood was seen in first earthly generation of the Imperial line." Moreover, this new, masculine and aggressive peop]e "The conquered Japan in MuRDocH's book as well. combination of this branch ofthe [southern] Kumaso and the [continental or northern] Idzumo men proved irresistible; they pushed their

conquests eastward along both shores of the Inland Sea, and ultirnately established a strong

central State in Yamato, at the expense of the aboriginal Ainu" (MuRDocH 1910f1996: 51).7

Thus the narratives of both MuNRo and MuRDocH are based on the assumption of an ancient melting pot that produeed the Japanese nation, and on a hypothetical (pre)history of displacement, where an earlier indigenous people was vanquished by later migrants,8 Both

authors published their works in the last years of the Melji period, immediately before the

death ofTsuBoi Sh6gor6 in 1913 which marked the end of an era in Japanese anthropology3 and

towards the end of the period of the professionalisation of anthropology as an academic discipline in the United States and Great Britain. Although the early Melji era discourse was

heavily influenced by amateur Western anthropologists active in Japan, MuNRo and MuRDocH

published at a time when the Japanese debate had moved far ahead of that in any other

language, In a very real sense, MuNRo's work in partieular marked not only the high-tide of Western works on the origins of the Japanese, but also the end of the domination of the

amateur Western anthropologist in Japan.

In a previous paper, I examined the debate on the Japanese race in Melji Japan that

produced some of the common assumptions seen in MuNRo and MuRDocH by the 1910s. Here, I will examine the writings of ToRII Rytiz6 (1870-1953), a leading anthropologist of pre-war

Japan, and argue that the views of Japanese anthropologists such as ToRII are echoed by both - MuNRo and MuRDocH or in other words that ToRII and others had suceeeded in establishing

a view of the ancient Japanese that became accepted as the prevailing orthodoxy by the late

Melji era.9 With ToRII, in other words, the era in which Japanese authers fo11owed in the

footsteps of earlier Western authors who had introduced the language and methodologies of

6 A number of tribes are mentiened in the Kbjiki (The Record of Ancient Matters, compiled in 712) and Nihon Sheki (The Chronicles of Japan, cQmplied in 720), including the Emishi, Hayato, Izumo, Kumase, and Tsuchigumo. The pre-war literature frequently assumed that these tribes should be differentiated in terms of - ''race" - ethnicity in the terminology of the times rather than culture, language or geographM but, with the exeeption ef the Emishi, a people (mistakenly) assumed to be the Ainu, often disagreed about what race(s) they represented. ' Here, MuRDocH recognises elearly the debate in Japan on natienal origins, in which some looked to the north

and others to the south in an attempt to determine where the eriginal Japanese came from. S Aitheugh fa11ing outside the beunds ofthis paper, it is usefu1 to note that these common assumptions remained imore or less unchanged throughout the pre-war era. Thus, for instance, Kalidas NAG's Prehistoric eJttpan "[t]he mentions the Ainu or prote-Ainu as indigenes, and states ethnic type which finally emerges as the Yamato or Japanese proper is ,,, a mixture of several distinct stocks" (NAG, 1941: 28). g This is not of course to deny that the prevailing orthedoxy continued to develop. For an introduction to the issues dealt with here, see especially AsKEw (2001; 2002; forthcorning), KIyoNO (1944), KUDd (1979), OGtwIA (2002), TERADA (1975), and finally YAMAsHITA (fbrthceming), For histories of anthropology in general, see DARNELL (1977), FAUBION (1993), and VERMEuLEN and ROLDAN eds, (1995), in addition to STOCKING's many works, including STocKING (1968f1982, 1987, 1992).

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

136 David AsKEw

modern Western science to Japan came to an end in the field of anthropology

Before I discuss ToRII himseE however, Japanese anthropology and the impact of empire will be briefly introduced in order to contextualise the major points made in this paper.iO

Colonialism and Orientalism, or Anthropologists in Japan and Japanese Anthropologists

Residents of the large metropolitan areas of the Great Japanese Empire consumed the products oC and basked in the increased prestige they had gained from, their empire. In addition to the economic, political, and military aspects of Japanese imperialism, a eultural

aspect existed whereby empire, colonialism, and interaction with the colonised internal Other

became a significant constitutive element in the construction of a modern Japanese national

identity Any examination of the works of the first professional Japanese anthropologists such

as ToRII will demonstrate that the racial selflidentity of the Japanese was constantly

negotiated and renegotiated through interaction with Japan's major Others, This took place on and through Japan's expanding frontier, a place that was more than a geographical border demarcating the boundaries of the Great Japanese Empire at any particular time. Rather, as

recent research in other areas and times has demonstrated, the frontier was a flexible and

ambiguous place of interaction between the peoples of the empire, and specifically a place

where Selfnegotiated identity through interaction with the alien and subordinate Other.ii

Anthropologists, among others, used this ambivalent space in which to forge a national

identity The Japanese defined themselves by and through a definition of the ancient

inhabitants of the archipelago, of the peoples oftheir present empire, and with an awareness of

"Westefner" the homogenised lurking in the baekground.i2

The major Others of the Japanese ernpire can be divided into two groups: the ancient

Others, the Stone Age inhabitants of the archipelago, and the contemporary Others, The

second group consisted of the hisabetsu burakumin (Japanese unteuchables), a political and

economic underclass frequently seen as an alien race, the Ainu, the peoples of Okinawa and Taiwan, and the Koreans in an expanding Japan, together with the various peoples of Japan's

io For the life and thought ofToRII, see the short bibliography in his Cemplete Works (ToRII Rytijir6 [1975]). Also see NAKAzONe (1995), SASAKI ed. (1993), SUENARI (1988; 1991), TAI3A]pA (1997), and T5ky6 Daigaku S6ga Kenkyil Shiry6kan Tbkubetsu [Ibaji Jikk6 Iinkai ed. (1991). Toml's own works are readily available in his Complete Works (see ToRII [1975-77]), In English, See ToRII (1937) and the bilingual Tbrii Ryuze Phetographic Record Society ed. (1990), ii See DAuNToN and HALpERN (1999] 3) and MORGAN (1999: 54). In writing the fo11owing section of this paper, I utilised CALLowAy (1987), CANNy (1973), DAUNTON and HALpERN eds. (1999), GILLINGHAM (1987), HALL (2002),

HEcHTER (1999), WHITE (1991) and WILLIAMsoN (1996). '2 The Others of the Japanese empire also teok part in this debate. Despite the inherent interest of what these - Others had to say ancl perhaps in particular those whe were subordinate in the metropolitan centers of the empire but dominant on the peripheries, such as the Taiwanese and Korean entrepreneurs and soldiers in - Japan's colonies and areas such as Manchukuo dominated by Japan space does not perrnit me te examine this theme here,

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Ernpire and the Anthropologist: Tbrii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology i37

colohies and the Japanese puppet-state of Manchukuo. Ancient and contemporary Others were

defined and classified, racialised and hierarchised, a process in which the identity of the

dominant Self was fbrged in relation to and in contrast with the subordinate Other. The

language and biases of the West were imported into Japan, intertwined with the modern

"race" Western sciences the Japanese endeavoured te master. Thus, fbr instance, the notion of

entered the Japanese vocabularM as did the idea of Social Darwinism,iA Moreoveg it could even - be argued that the Western and in particular the English bias against the nerth the nerth was viewed as the peripherM the end of the world, from whence came barbarians and - destruction was replicated and echoed in the Japanese views of their own north, Hokkaid6

and the Kurile Islands.

The imperial ideology of the Japanese race changed dramatically over the course of the

history of the empire. A history of anthropology and race in Japan which covered the Meijj,

Taish6, and early Sh6wa periods would plot a change whereby the Japanese, who had initially

seen themselves as an inferior race, and whose selfdefinition had been constructed vis-b-vis

the peoples of the West (who were seen as superior), became more and more willing, as their empire grew, to view themselves also as a superior people, not only in comparison with the

colonised Other, but even with Westerners, In the works of ToRII Ryiiz6, there was also a major

shift frorn an early emphasis on a proto-Caucasian Ainu as the major ancestral group of the Japanese to a growing emphasis on a Tungus people,'" The importance of the frontier to anthropology and in defining Selfis demonstrated in the life of the pre-war Japanese anthropologist, [I]oRm Indeed, the expanding firontiers of the

Japanese empire constituted the major site of his fieldwork (see below). ToRII's life and field

trips plot to a certain extent at least the fashion in which anthropology and empire were linked, and maps the process of negotiation and renegotiation with Japan's Others. Japanese imperialism was one between geographie neighbours, and mueh of his fieldwork can be interpreted as an attempt to unearth the racial origins of the Japanese. Given the geographical proximity and cultural aflinity between Japan and its colonised Others, it is hardly surprising that the politics ef diflerence were not mapped in terms of colour onto the body in imperial Japan, but in terms of culture, politics, and economy. Conceptualising difTbrence was a proeess

that difTered from the Western invention of the white-black dichotomM but whieh did borrow

fliom the Victorian enthusiasm fbr the concept of civilisation. Thus, one characteristie of

'S "race,'' For a recent paper on TsuBol and the eoncept of see YoNAHA {2003), Fer race in anthropology in general, see STOcKING (1994f2001). i` In one of his very early works on the Liaodong Peninsula, ToRII alsD diseovered an Assyrian influenee on the

ancient people of the area. See TORII (189611976: 594). '5 See STocKING (1982f2001: 287) and his discussien of how the nature of anthropology in imperial powers such "dark-skinned `others' as Great Britain, where the object of anthropological enquiry was the in the everseas

empire,"] differed from that of many parts of the European continent, where the object was the internal peasant Other. Altheugh it weuld be an exaggeration to define pre-war Japanese anthropology as fa11ing completely within the tradition ef lblfeskunde ratheT than VZilherleunde, it is important to note that Japan's external Others could be (and frequently were) redefined as internal Others as the empire expanded,

/

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

138 DavidAsKEw

h Japanese anthropology was that it was a lot closer to Vblksleunde the study of the internal - andlor close Others within the state than was anthropolog:y as generally understood in the West.is

A second major characteristic was that, as SmMIzu (1999: 160-61) notes, unlike

anthropology in the West, a eentral focus of pre-war Japanese anthropologic inquiry was the Japanese people and eulture. This interest in Self as opposed to Other was part of the search "Japanese" fbr identity selfidentitM together with the constitutive elements of that identitM

was a product ofmodernitM an ambiguous and evolving ideology ofpower, which replaced a pre-

"han" modern identity that was founded on local patriotism centered on the or feudal domain. - It emerged together with a modem, centralised Japanese nation-state one that defined itself - as an empire from its very birth and the various assimilationist po}icies that were devised (and imposed on the peripheries of Japan) by this new nation-state. One of the catalysts of this

modern selfidentity was the Western impact and the deeply feIt anxieties it triggered. There

was a growing realisation that the world's peoples and cultures were ranked in a hierarchM and that the West was interested in Japan's place in this hierarchyi6 Indeed, SHIMIzu (1998:

"anthropology 115) elaims in Japan began from the shocking realisation that the Japanese

were the objects ofWestern observation," The question ofJapan's place in the world was also a

question ofthe superiority (or otherwise) of the Japanese race. It was a question that could only

be addressed through a eomparison with other races: had nature endowed Japanese with a

superior (or inferior) physique and mental capacity? The search fbr a national identity within

the context of the Western impact had a crucial influence on the nature and character of

Japanese anthropology, At the same time, the peoples of the Great Japanese Empire served as

an important foil in the forging ofidentity

The imperialist period of modern Japanese history saw the birth and growth of modern

Japanese academie anthropology and (slightly later) ethnology and archaeology At the same

time, the period during which Japan was both subjected to the Orientalising gaze of the West and to cultural imperialism en an unprecedented scale also coincided with the genesis of

anthropology in Japan. While it would be an exaggeration to say that anthropology in Japan

was a product of colonialism andlor Orientalism, it certainly did develop within the centext of both.

As anthropology developed into a professional discipline in Japan, it roughly fbllowed the - three stages identified by STocKiNG (1989: 208-09) and subsequently criticised as the "mythistory - of anthropology" by wtN BREMEN and SHIMIzu (1999: 3) of the amateur

ethnographer fo11owed by the armchair anthropologist fo11owed by the academically trained

professional. In Meiji Japan, the first two groups consisted of a mixture of Westerners and Japanese, while the third consisted solely of Japanese. In other words, the anthropologists of - - Japan can be divided into twe groups Westerners and Japanese and into three ]evels of specialisation. In terms ofhistorM the stages through which Japanese anthropology progres$ed

i6 For hierarchies ofrace, see STocKING (1987) and PAGDEN (1995).

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Ernpire and the Anthropologist: Tbrii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology i39

ean be categorised as the Western gaze upon the Japanese, succeeded by the Japanese gaze /upon "Japanese,'] the narrowly and then broadly defined and finally the Japanese gaze upon the non-Japanese Other (these stages can also be mapped out in terms of geography). In other words, as Western amateurs were replaced by an institutionalised and increasingly

professional group of Japanese anthropologists (among whom ToRII was a leading figure), the

Western gaze to which Japan had been subjected was replaced by a Japanese gaze of Self and then of the peoples and cultures of neighbouring countries and beyond. In terms of

anthropologM as in much else, Japan was a colonised eoloniser; an observed object of the

Orientalist gaze that objectified its own Others. ' Another way of looking at the general history of anthropology is to focus on paradigms. In "Paradigmatic his [[Eraditions in the History of Anthropology)" STocKING summarises the

history of anthropology into a number of paradigms, including the biblical, developmental, and

polygenetic schools of thought. The biblical tradition embraced a number of key concepts, - including a three-branched genealogical tree in conceptualising human beings the three branches fbunded by the sons of Noah, with Japheth in Europe, Sem in Asia, and Ham in - Africa and the notion of the [[bwer of Babel, The evolutionist or developrnental tradition

emphasised not a degeneration ofknowledge as mankind moved further and further away from

dire'ct knowledge of God, but rather a progressive learning process. FinallM the polygenetie

tradition viewed not only culture and ethnos as distinct within the framework of a universal

"races" anthropos, but claimed that anthrqpos itself was not a universal concept: the were

truly diffbrent (STocKING 1990/1992: 347-49). IVI three paradigms were seen in Japanese

anthropologM although some substituted the Kiki myths that emerged from Kbjiki and Nihon

Sholei fbr the Bible.iT

The Debate in Japan

Yet another framework within which Japanese anthropology can be examined is provided

by the broad brushstrokes of KIyoNo Kenji (1885-1955), who summarises the pre-war Japanese anthropological 'Ainu discourse as fa11ing into a Melji period Koro-pok-guru theorM a Taish6 period theorM and a (pre-war) Sh6wa period Japanese (Japanese Proper) theory (see KIyoNo

1944), This rough generalisation provides a starting line firom which the early anthropological

debate in Japan can be analysed.

One constitutive element of the early debate was a strong and negative nationalistic

reaction to the Western impact. Indeed, the rivalry with and antagonism towards Western

predecessors is clear from even a cursory reading of the literature. Thus, fbr instance, SHIRAI

Mitsutar6 (1863-1932) welcomed the establishrnent of the [[5ky6 JinTuigakkai ([[bkyo Anthropological Society) in 1886 specifically because he believed it would provide a means to

reassert Japanese national control over the discourse on Japan; TsuBol in effect closed a

i' Toml based many ofhis assumptions of the ancient past ofthe arehipelago on his readings ef the Kiki texts.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

140 David ASKEw

chapter of the history of early Japanese anthropology when he removed from 1]bkyo Imperial

University MoRsE's collection of archaeological findings unearthed in Omori; and ToRII

reinforced this closure by downplaying the importance of MoRsE as the fbunder of Japanese

anthropology in favour of TsuBol (SHIRAI 1886: 4; OGuMA 2002: 13; ToRii 192711975: 460-61;

SHIMIZU 1999: 163 note 12).i"

The first major debate to take place in the context of this process of institutionalisation, professionalisation, and (on the part ofJapanese writers) antagonism to Western authors, was a debate on the pre-historical people(s) of Stone Age Japan. Among the Japanese authors, the two main initial positions were those of scholars such as TsuBol, on the one hand, who claimed that the true indigenes were a pre-Ainu people, the Koro-pok-guru, and those of others such as ' KoGANEI Ybshikiyo (1858-1944), a flriend of TsuBol and the father of Japanese physical anthropolog}l who thought that the Stone Age inhabitants of Japan were the Ainu,i9 These

positions were later supplemented by ToRII, who agreed with KoGANEI that the Ainu were the

indigenes ofthe aTchipelago, but also advocated the notion that a second Stone Age people also

"Japanese existed, the Proper," a hybrid nation that emerged from a melting pot of a plurality of peoples from northeast Asia, Indochina and Indonesia (ToRn 1918/1975). SHIMIzu (1999: "controversy 125) claims that the Koro-pok-guru continued for more than two decades

[eflectively ending when TsuBol died in 1913], involving leading anthropologists of the years,"

"no which is correct, but adds fbreign scholars participated in it," which is incorrect,20 In fact,

"foreign as I have argued elsewhere, not only did a similar debate take place among scholars" as well, but it not infrequently preceded the Japanese discussion (AsKEw 2002),

Anthropology is usually defined as the research of the Other and alien cultures by the Selg

and it thus assumes a relationship between the anthropologist as self and the objectified Other.

HistoricallM this was (or at least has been perceived as) a power relationship between the

"coloured" Western, colonising Self and the non-Western, colonised, Other in which the

"civilised,""enlightened,"'"rational'r "indigenous," Self defined, objectified and viewed the

"primitive," "emotional" Other, and in which the active, masculine Self understood and

analysed, while the passive, feminine Other was the object of analysis (SHIMIzu 1998: 111-12).

Heweveg this understanding of anthropology fails to capture the characteristics of (early)

Japanese anthropologM which consisted of an examination not of the Other but of Self and

Near-selg and whi]e imperialism and the colonial relationship were certainly not unimportant,

Japan remained a colonised coloniser. Moreover, the Other was often defined in terms of tirne - rather than place in other words, was discovered in Japan's ancient past rather than, or as

]S For Edward Sylvester MoRsE (1838-1925), see for instance MoRsE (1983) and YosHIoKA C1987). ieFor "MS" representative papers, see TsuBol (1887), a reply to an earlier paper by (SHIRAI Mitsutar6) which had rejected the notion that the Koro-pok-guru had ever existed, and KoGANEI (1904f1926). 'O In one representative paper, the list of references cites twenty-nine authors Cincluding the author ef the paper in question), of which 15 are Japanese and 14 are Western authors, See KoGANEI (1904/1926). Not only were Western authors writing extensively on the Ainu, the subject ef this particular paper by KoGANEI, but there was at least a degree ef interaction in that Japanese authors were citing the findings of their Wbstern competitors, Also see MuNRo (1908X1911: 69, 258, 648, 670) where he retums the compliment, citing KoGANEI.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropologist: Tbrii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 141

weli as, inside or outside Japan's borders.

Since Japan was a colonised coloniser, Japanese anthropology emerged in an environment

"Japanese," where the Japanese societM culture and history were subjected to the gaze of and

defined by the Western observer or modern scienee. Early Western anthropolegists in Japan

debated the identity of the pre-historic inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago, and the

"Japanese" "Japanese." relationship between these pre-historic and the modern In {Iapan,

"Japanese'i interest in the topic was stimulated by an awareness that the were being defined

in unfiattering terms by the West (MoRsE, fbr instance, argued that the pre-historic inhabitants had been cannibals).

Although it would be overly simplistic to claim that as the Great Japanese Empire expanded outwards, Japanese interest also began to move from the pre-historic past of the

archipelago to the colonies of the present (SHIMIzu 1998: 116), a shift did certainly occur in terms of both time and geography as the borders of Japan expanded, This shift, however, was

one in which the depiction of pre-historie Japan became much more complex, and in which the peoples of areas around Japan began to play a far more significant role, Here, I will argue that

as the Japan of the day colonised Asia, pre-historic Asians colonised Japan. A major figure

behind both the development in Japan of a professional anthropology and this discovery of a multi-ethnie Japan and a pre-historic melting pot was ToRII, He was active in a Japan which

was emerging as an imperial power, in a field (anthropology) which was rapidly moving away

from the amateurism of the early Western anthropologists in Japan towards specialisation and

prefessionalisation, and in an environment in which Japan observed rather than was observed. /ToRIi was typical of pre-war anthropologists in that he was almost exclusively active in areas

colonised (or at least targeted) by the empire. It is to this central figure ofpre-war anthropology

in Japan that we now turn.

ToRII Rytiz6

As noted above, the expanding frontiers of the Japanese empire constituted the major site

ofToRII's fieldwork. Born in [[bkushima in 1870, he joined the [[bkyo Anthropological Society in

1886, and began to correspond with TsuBol, From 1893, he worked in the anthropology

depFrtment (Jinruigafeu 1(y6shitsu) at [[bkyo Imperial UniversitM where he also studied. In Japan, the elassification of peoples, the way in which they were understoed, perceived and ranked, was a process that took place on two levels: the classification on a global scale of

Japanese vis-a-vis the peoples of the West, and the classification on a regional scale of the

2i Within the empire, perception helped to determine fate: a hierarchy was created, and those at the top were treated diffbrently than those at the bottom (so that, for instance, the pressures placed on Koreans to assimilate `Celoser" were far greater than those placed on the peoples ofthe South Seas because Koreans were seen as to the Japanese), 22 Thus ToRII published several papers in English and French. See in particular ToRII (1917; 1917/1976; 1937) and in general the various ather papers colleeted in ToRII C1976).

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

J42 DavidAsKEw

various peoples (ethnic and other minorities) of the Japanese empire vis-a-vis the Japanese.'i

"write In the West, Japanese anthropologists including ToRII managed to back," creatively

engaging in the Western conversation about Japanese culture and race.22 Of these two levels, this paper will concentrate on the minorities of the empire as depicted in ToRII's writings on

the Japanese Proper,

Despite the relatively small ditference in age with individuals such as KoGA)gEI (born in

1858) and especially [VsuBol (born in 1863), ToRII was one of the first of a new generation of

anthropologists in Japan to be nurtured (if not educated) within a functioning academic,

professional framework. ToRII was also blessed in terms ofthe timing ofhis birth: while in his

mid-twenties, in 1895, he embarked on his first field trip overseas, Surveying the Liaodong

Peninsula. This was the first of many overseas journeys he made to areas where he had been preceded by the Japanese military (the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95 had finished just months before). Since his life was to run parallel with the expansion of the Great Japanese Empire, and

in a very real sense much of his fieldwork was conducted at a time when, and in areas where,

"minorities"were new being created through imperial aggrression and expansion, ToRII

mapped the frontier in a way few others could. He was also frequently the first academic

anthropologist to visit many parts ofthe Asian continent. Thus, in 1896, 1897, and 1898 he travelled to [[biwan, ceded to Japan in 1895, stopping off in Okinawa in 1896. He visited Chishima (the Kurile Islands) in 1899,2" returning to Taiwan

the next year, in 1900. In 1902-03 he visited south-western China to study the Miao, and in

1904 returned to Okinawa. In the fo11owing year, 1905, Japan emerged vietorious in the Russo-

Japanese War of 1904-05, and ToRII made his second trip to Manchuria after his appointment

as Lecturer at Tbkyo Imperial University From 1906 to 1908 he concentrated on Mongolia, but

in 1909 returned to Manchuria. In 1910 and 1911, he travelled to Korea, annexed by Japan in

1910, and also visited Karafuto (Sakhalin) in 1911. In 1912, he went to Korea and Manchuria.

From 1913 to 1916, he travelled four times to Korea. Following the Russian Revolution, the

subsequent civil war, and the Japanese military intervention in Siberia, ToRII's interests

expanded northwards. He travelled to Siberia in 1919, and Sakhalin and Siberia in 1921. In

1922, he was promoted to Associate Professor at Tbkyo Imperial UniversitM and also began

teaching at Kokugakuin UniversitM where he was promoted to Professor in 1923, resigning

from [[bkyo Imperial in 1924. He returned to China in 1926, and Manchuria in 1927. In 1928 he

went to Siberia and Manehuria, then Mongolia again in 1930. In 1928 he was also invo!ved in

the fbunding of Sophia UniversitM taking up a position as Dean of the Faculty of Arts. He

travelled frequently to Manchuria between 1931 and 1935 in the immediate aftermath of the - 1931 Manchurian Incident. In 1937, he went to Seuth America the one and enly time he - moved beyond the bToadly defined frontier of the Great Japanese Empire but was baek in

China in 1938 fo11owing the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War of 1937-45, and Manchuria and

?n Within the Japanese-language anthropologieal discourse, ToRII's fieldwerk in Chishima led him te reject

TsuBol's Koro-pok-guru theory.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropologist] Tbrii Ry(iz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology i43

China in 1940. Having resigned from Kokugakuin University in 1933, he accepted a position at Yenching (Ylanjing) University (a predecessor of Beljing University) in 1939, where he remained (with a brief hiatus from 1941-45 during which the university was closed) until 1951, when he

returned to Japan. He died fifty years ago, in 1953, aged 82 years.2` These research trips not only fbllowed closely the foetsteps of imperial expansion (and were at times partly financed by organs of imperialism), but also produced work that justified Japanese imperialism by mapping out a relationship between, and thus connecting, coloniser and colonised in the aneient past.25 This brief outline of a fu11 and active life indicates, to a certain extent at least, the way in which anthropology alld empire were linked. ToRrfs travels and extensive fieldwork led him to

define Japanese racial origins in terms o £ in contrast to, or in comparison with many of Japan's Others, the colonised, subordinate geographical neighbours of his own time. IronicallM in ToRII's works these neighbours played a major role in fbrming the ancient Japanese people, The major fieldwork ToRII conducted within Japan Proper (naichi) took place between "Japanese" 1917 and 1926, and was oriented to discovering the origins of beth the and

"Japanese"had Japanese culture. His theory about the origins of the a number of

eharacteristics. The first was the emphasis en the Asian eontinent, In discussing the ancient

Japanese archipelago, ToRII wedded archipelago to continent, and at the same time past to present. In a very real sense, his field trips to the continent informed his understanding of

Japan's ancient past. Ipdeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that ToRII discovered Japan's pre-history oh the continent. The second major characteristic was that ToRii argued in favour of an ancient melting pot and a multi-ethnic Japan. His narrative thus was "mixed representative of the pre-war nation theory" (koug6 minzokuron) that focused on the

ideas of an ancient ethnic melting pot and heterogeneity In ToRII's works, the various ethnic cornponents and experience of the Great Japanese Empire of his own day were projected back onto the past. He also foreshadowed several theories of the Japanese nation, such as the

arg}iments that the Japanese and Koreans shared a common ancestor (Nissen D6soron) or that

a hprse-riding people (Kiba Minzoku) had conquered ancient Japan. Befbre examining ToRII's

ideas, hewever, the intellectual environment in whieh they were developed will be briefly

examined.

As noted above, the death of TsuBoi marked the collapse of the Koro-pok-guru theory and

the emerging dominanee of KoGANEI and ToRII's theory of the Ainu as indigenes. The

challenges this paradigm faced were first those from researchers such as HAsEBE Kotondo

2` For details ofToRII's life and fieldwerk, see the detailed ehronology centained in the separate volume (bekkan) of his Complete Werks (ToRu [1977: 180-222]), Also see SAsAKI ed. (1993: 16-17}, SuENARI (1988: 50), TERADA (1975: 68), and, for a detailed look at the connections between his fieldwork and the empire, SuENAm (1991). The

large number of detailed research reports ToRII wrote fo11owing his various field trips are available in his

Cemplete Works. See ToRII (1975-77), P5ToRII cannot, however, be simply dismissed as an imperialist: as noted above, not only was he allowed to remain in China after the war ended in 1945, but also to retain his position at Ybnehing University

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

J44 David AsKEw

(1882-1969), who viewed the Stone Age inhabitants of the archipelago as the direct ancestors of ' the modern Japanese, and HAMAI}A K6saku (1881-1938), who argued that there was no racial break between the J6mon and Yhyoi peoples (TERiv]A, 1975: 150-51). This debate can be

summarised as one in which the two opposing sides argued for and against the notion of ethnic

plurality in Japan's ancient past.26 This was a period which saw a sudden increase in the scale, sophistication, and precision

of archaeological work in Japan. ToRii's writings on the existence of three types of Jomon

pottery (USuele-type, Atsude-type, and Deou-type),27 and his argument that each type of pottery was the product not of different periods but rather of diflbrent clans, not only foreshadowed his ideas about a racial explanation for the differences between J6mon and Yayoi pottery, but was

also a reflection of the increasingly sophisticated archaeological research being conducted in

Japan. In terms of the arguments about race, archaeology was important because the growing awareness that Yhyoi pottery was distinct and clearly not a product of J6mon culture triggered

a debate about the origins of the eJtzpanese nation, and because it could be shown that Yl]yoi

culture had been a Stone Age one.

KiyoNo Kenji was also active at this time. He had eollected the bones of 559 Stone Age

individuals from various areas of Japan by 1925 when his IVilrpon Genjin no Klendya (Research

of Primitive Japanese Man) was published, and had 656 by 1928 for his AIippon Sehki Jidaijin Kbnh),a (Research of the Japanese Stone Age Man) (KIyoNo 1925, 1928). There were

indications of a shift in methodology and approach, as symbolised by the publication of

HAsEBE's jouimal Shizen cJinruigaku (Natural Anthropology) and the publication of FuRuHAzzA Tanemoto (1891-1975)'s research on hemetypology (blood types) (TERADA 1975: 152-54, 192).

Anthropology in Japan was thus already showing signs of being colonised by the natural

sciences, especially by KIyoNo's mathematical approach and by the anatomy of physical anthropology IronicallM perhaps, ToRII began as a natural scientist, but moved away towards a

cultural approach, his fieldwork in south-western China in 1902-03 proving a turning point

(ToRu 1913/1975: 482). Despite a heavy schedule of fieldwork overseas, ToRII did conduct research within Japan

Proper between 1916, when he retumed from Korea, and 1919, when he left for Siberia, and

again from 1920 te 1926. Well before this period, however, he had already begun to connect "ManshU various parts ofthe eontinent to Japan. Thus, for instance, in his no Sekki Jidai Iseki to Ch6sen no Sekki Jidai Iseki to no Kankei ni tsuite (On the Relationship between Stone Age

Remains in Manchuria and Stone Age Remains in Korea)," he not only noted the similarities

between stone tools in Manchuria and Korea, but also argued that Yayoi peried stone tools

2aAnother - challenge was the pesition which argued that regional variance existed in medern Japan or, in other werds, that traces of ancient ethnic plurality could be seen in the present. I hope to be able to discuss these various theories in a future paper. 2' Ubude-type pettery was thin, delicate and small, ToRII claimed, the produet of an effbminate eulture which existed close to the sea and was based on fishing, while Atsude-type pottery was large and rough, the product of an inland, masculine culture based on hunting. See ToRII (191811975: 232-34) and TERADA (1975: 173). Deou- type pottery was named after the area in nerthern Japan where it was discovered.

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthrepelogist: Tbrii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 145

unearthed in Japan were continental in nature (ToRII 190811976). The similarities were .1 explained in terms of race: the same people had created the same taools in,all three areas, ToRII's conclusions were clear: the ancestors of the Japanese had oncel resid6d iniManchuria

and Korea, and had brought their culture with them to Japan from the continent.'8 These early

conclusions (also of course seen in the works by MuNRo and MuRDocH) were reinforced once he

started his active fieldwork in Japan, beginning with the work condueted in Nara, Osaka and

Wakayama in 1917. In the same year, 1917, he published an article in Revue AnthropolQgique

in which he criticised MuNRo's argument (published in the tJtzpan avnies) that both the Ainu

"Yhmato and the Yamato peoples were Caucasian. Accordipg to ToRII, the were a Mongolian people. The Ainu (Tsuchigumo) were the indigenous peop!e of the archipelago, and the [Vungus

Ylamato came to Kytisha from Manchuria and Korea, establishing a separate Stone Age culture

on the archipelago which co-exist･ed with that of the Ainu (in other words, two independent

Stone Age cultures existed in the ancient archipelago). A third wave of Indonesians entered

again from Kyashti, coming from the south with metal weapons (this third wave were the

Hayato). FinallM a fburth wave, related to the Tungus already in Japan, arrived in about 800

B.C., married a princess of the second wave, and created the Imperial Household (ToRII, "the 1917/1976; KuDO 1979: 208-22; TERADA 1975: 83-84). According to ToRII, Japanese of today

originated from these three nations [Ainu, Tungus, and Indonesians] ... . Just like the French [he was of course writing in French], the Japanese emerged from a mixture of the blood of a great number of nations" (ToRII 191711976: 642). At the time, his utilisation of the Kiki texts (from whence came the terms Tsuchigumo and Hayato) was not unusual: the Kiki mythology

together with notion of several distinct waves of migrants and a subsequent interrnarriage

remained the basic firamework of ToRII' s theory of the Japanese nation.2"

"Japanese /During the period roughly from 1916 to 1919, ToRII refined his theory of the Proper" (cJtzponais proprement dits, haya IVipponjin) as Stone Age inhabitants of the archipelago and as the creators of Ylayoi pottery The Japanese Proper had travelled along a route flrom Manchuria through Korea to Japan, a path that ToRII also covered (albeit in /reverse), "Kodai and were discussed in a series of papers, including no Nippon Minzoku lja Hatten no Keiro" (The Route taken by the Ancient Japanese Nation in Migration and

"Genshi Development) (1916), Jidai no Jinshu Mondai" (The Racial Question in Ancient "Senshi History) (1923), Jidai no Ainujin to Waga Sosen no Senkusha" (The Pre-historic Ainu /and Our Ancestors' Predecessors) (1925), and espeeially his monumental work, Yiishi leen no Mppon (Pre-historic Japan) (1918).:iO

28ToRII wrote a large number of papers that made the same type of argument. FDr example, see ToRJI (1907X1976) for a paper that uses linguisties to argue for links with Mongolia. 29 See ToRII (191711976} fbr a Japanese translation of the original paper, hlso see ToRll (1917) and the last section of a long report on the Kurile Ainu, which discusses the origins ofthe Japanese (ToRII [1919t1976: 508- 17]). 30 All the above are readily available in ToRII's Complete Wbrks. See ToRII (191611975; 191811975; 192311975; 192511975). Note that 17ishi leen no IVippon was reprinted several times: the version included in his Complete Works that has been used here is the thirteenth edition published in 1925,

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

146 DavidAsKEw

As noted above, ToRII argued that two Stone Age peoples inhabited the Japanese - archipelago the J6mon Ainu, the indigenes of the Japanese archipelago, and the Yiiyoi

Japanese Proper, a [Vungus people that eame through the Korean peninsula from Manchuria "Japanese." and were the ancestors of the modern According to ToRII, the Ainu were a

"mongrel race," the product of a mixture of an originally Caucasian people with Mongolian blood (ToRii, 191611975: 504). The Stone Age tools created by the Japanese Proper were similar to those unearthed in Korea and Manchuria, while the pottery showed similarities to pottery

discovered in Korea, Manchuria, and Eastern Mongolia. Anthropology and linguisties had

demonstrated a relationship between the Japanese, Koreans, Manchurians, [Vungus, and Mongolians: now3 ToRII claimed, archaeology also confirmed this. (Note that the difference between J6mon and Yayoi was not one of time or period but of ethnicity) The Japanese Proper

were followed by a third wave of Indonesians (a Malay race) from the south (the Hayato he

believed had similar customs to Indonesians). The curly hair of some Japanese could be

"Negrito explained by the blood" that this people brought from the south. In other words, this "mongrel "Negritos" Malay people was also a race," having intermingled with (among others) befbre coming to Japan, FinallM focusing on bronze bells (dOtaleu), ToRII argued that a people related to the Indo-Chinese Miao from south-western China came too, bringing the secrets of metal-working with them (this group was given greater prominence here than in his r917 papers in French); and were fo11owed by another wave of [fungus who also brought metal tools

to the archipelago.

Thus, according to ToRII, in terms of race, the ancient archipelago looked very much like the Great Japanese Empire of his own daM with a large number of different ethnic groups residing within the same geographical area. The major difference was one of direction: the

ancient continent had in efflect conquered the archipelago, while the contemporary eontinent

`'mongrel was being conquered. As we have seen, some of the ancient peoples were already "mongrel races," and all intermingled, producing a people" Czasshu minzoha) that continued to "mongrels "In intermarry with others. Thus became even more complicated mongrels." short, the Japanese nation is not a simple one; rathe4 a complicated number of peoples ... have gathered in the island empire [Japan]." Miscegenation turned this multi-ethnic group into the modern Japanese nation, with the glue joining the various groups together provided by the Imperial Household (ToRII 1918/1975: 390). The implications in terms of the policies of ToRII's own time are clear. First, he provided a version of ancient history that traeed the links between Japan and Korea back to the Stone

Age. It is therefore not surprising that he wrote elsewhere in favour of the annexation of Korea, "Nisseajin" arguing that the (Japareans) were originally the same race and therefore Korean

"national independence could not be justified in terms of selfdetermination"(ToRII 192011977). This model was then used fbr other areas of the empire. When, fbr instance, ToRII

made the happy discovery in 1918, the very year Japanese troops were sent to Siberia, that "the races which inhabit Siberia are all the same lineage as the Japanese," he could not have been unaware of the political irnplications ofhis findings in terms of legitimising any Japanese

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropologist: Tbrii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropelogy l47

claims to the lands and resources of the area (ToRII 191811975: 394). Second, since he had arguLed that ethnic assimilation based on intermaniage had succeeded in the past, it appeared that the same model could be used for the current empire. ToRII's ancient melting pot was one in which the Japanese Proper assimilated minority peoples, and in which minorities discarded their own cultures in favour of those of the ruling majority In other words, while assimilation

"fusion could be depicted in benign terms as and unification," it also privileged the Japanese Proper. FinallM ToRII's understanding of the distant past suggested that contemporary

assimilation could be based on a shared culture that centered around worship of the Ernperor. - - In ToRI['s ancient Japan, peoples from the south from Indonesia and south-western China - - together with peoples from the north from Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, and Siberia had

all travelled to, and been assimilated within, the island empire. ClearlM empire, colonialism

and interaction with the colonised Other was a significant constitutive element in his

construction of the Japanese national identity

As seen in the introduction, the narratives of Westem authors such as MuNRo and

MuRDocH also came to be based on the assumptions of an ancient melting pot that produced the Japanese nation, and of a hypothetical (pre)history of displacement, where the indigenous

Ainu were vanquished by later migrants. These ideas together with the ethnic constitutive

elements, of the ancient melting pot were a product of the flexible and ambiguous frontier ofthe empire. As can be seen from ToRII's own life, his interaction with the peoples of the empire

enabled him to negotiate a new Japanese identity Whatever his own intentions may have

been, moreover, his theory of aneient Japan and the origin of the Japanese nation matehed the

needs of empire.

Conclusion

Although Japanese anthropology as practiced by Japanese anthropologists developed ltwithin the contgxt and framework of imperialism, it differed from the Western anthropology

"a which, in Talal AsAD's (197311998: 103) words, was holistic discip}ine nurtured within

bourgeois societM having as its object of study a varieey of nen-European societies which [had] come under its economic, pe]itical and intellectual domain," and which emerged from a L relationship of dichotomies or opposites black versus white, civilised versus non-civilised,

superior versus inferior. Japanese anthropology to a much larger extent emerged from a

hierarchM but not (always) of opposites. Instead of opposites, the distance between Japanese

and almost-Japanese was stressed. Moreover, in the nineteenth century especiallM Western

anthropology to a much greater extent than Japanese anthropology tended to link the concepts of progress and development to racial preoccupatiens and skin colour. Savages were black, barbarians red or brown, the semi-civilised were yellow) and the civilised were white (STocKING

199412001). For obvious reasons, this fbrm of racialised discourse was one that nationalistic

Japanese could only engage in if the Japanese were first defined as white (er if the relative

superiority of the various colours was changed). In ToRu's works on the origins of the

: :

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

148 DavidAsKEw

"Japanese," the various ethnic components and the experience of the Great Japanese Empire

of his own day were projected back onto the past, but (unlike authors such as MuNRo) the

ideology of Caucasian rule of the non-Caucasian was not.3i ToRII's ancient Japan was a multi-

national forum in which the Japanese Proper assimilated a great variety of peoples and over

which the Imperial Household ruled without racial frictions. Here, Caucasians were not on}y not destined to rule, but a Caucasian people, the Ainu, had been overwhelmed by the (superior)

Japanese Proper,

Colonial anthropology in pre-war Japan was thus not the study (invention) ofthe Other in

terms of a blaek-and-white dichotomy Rather, it was the study of the closely related Other.

Anthropelogy is sometimes viewed as a body of knowledge constructed around the descriptions

of various Others encountered by the Etiropean Self in the course of European overseas

expansion (STocKING 199011992: 347). However, Japanese imperialism differed from Western

imperialisms; and it is perhaps only natural that its anthropology did too.32 It hardly needs to be said that once the assumption was established that various races - existed, and that these races could be classified and ranked along a hierarchy or ladder - savage, barbarian, and civilised man, as the classic (and sexist) categorisation went it became possibl'e to rewrite national histories, which were reconstructed around the theme of a

racial struggle fbr survival and domination: MuNRo and MuRDocH encapsulate this

reconstruction. In the case ofJapan, as elsewhere, (pre)history was interpreted to demonstrate

that a superior people or peoples had vanquished inferior foes. AsIhave attempted to show "mixed here, however, a non-Caucasian, hybrid, nation," the Japanese Proper, emerged

victorious from the struggle for existence in the Japanese-language discourse.

The pre-1945 Japanese discourse on national identity that produced the Japanese Proper

was an irnperial construct. The anthropologieal diseourse on the (origins of the) Japanese race

and nation in the Great Japanese Empire can be divided intQ three different narratives. The

first claimed that one nation had replaced or displaced another, the second that two (er more)

nations had co-existed and mixed their blood, while the third focused on the role of evolution.

ToRII in effbct combined the first and second narratives, arguing both that the Stone Age

Japanese Proper had displaced the Ainu and at the same time that the Japanese Proper were

the product of an ancient melting pot. As demonstrated here, these ideas were influenced by

the Japanese empire. With ToRII, Japanese imperial rule overseas impacted on the

construction of a modern Japanese selfidentity,

References

AsAD, [[blal

"TWo 1973!1998 European Images of Non-Eurepean Rule." In Talal AsAD ed. Anthrqpolqgbl and the

3i The Ainu had played a larger role in forming the modern Japanese nation in TORu:s earliest works, but came to be viewed as a relatively unimpertant component, S2 The Japanese anthropology that consists of the body ofwork written by Westerm amateurs in pre-war Japan,

however, does fit the European model ef anthrepology

NII-Electronic Library Service JapaneseJapaneseSociety Society ofCulturalof Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropologist: Tbrii Ryilz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 149

Colonial Eneounte4 pp, 103-18. New Ybrk: Humanities Press,

AsKEw) David

"Oguma 2001 Elji and the Construction of the Modern Japanese National Identity." Social Science

tJburnal of cJtxpan 4 (1) [April] : 111-16.

"The "Japanese' 2002 Debate on the Race in Imperial Japan: Disp]acement or Coexistenee?"

tJdpanese Review of CuZtural Anthropology 3: 79-96.

``Debating `Japanese' Ferthcoming, the Race in Meiji Japan: [[bwards a History of Early Japanese

Anthropology" In Shiaji YAMAsHiTA, Joseph Bosco and J. S. EADEs eds. 71he Mdhing ofAnthro-

poZqgy in East and Southeast Asia. Oxford and New Ybrk: Berghahn.

BEDDoE, John

"Colour 19e5 and Race," The tlburnal ofthe Anthropolqgical lnstitute of Great Britain and ireland 35

(July-December)] 219-50.

CALLOwAy; Colin G,

1987 Crown and Calurnet: British-Indian Relations, 1783-1815. Norman: University of Oklahoma ' Press.

CANNg Nicholas R

'[The 1973 Ideology of English Colonization: From Ireland to America." Willianz and MttT), Quarterly

30 (4): 575-98.

DARr"ELL, Regna

"History 1977 ofAnthropology in Historical Perspective," Annual Review ofAnthropolqgy 6: 399-417.

DAuNToN, Manin and Rick HALpERN

"Introduction: 1999 British Identities, Indigenous Peoples, and the Empire." In DAuNToN and

HALpERN eds, Empire and Others: British Eneounters with lndigenous Peoples, 1600-1850, pp. 1- l8. London: UCL Press. DAuNToN, Martin and Rick HALpERN (eds.)

1999 Empire and Others:British Encounters Lvith Indigenous Peoples, 1600-1850, London: UCL Press.

FAuBIoN, James D.

`'History 1993 in Anthropologyi" AnnuaZ Revietv ofAnthropolag), 22: 35-54,

GILLINGHAM, John

tilmages 1987 of Ireland 1170-1600: The Origins of English Imperialism,"History it)day 37

(February): 16-22.

HALL, Catherine

2002 Civilising Subjects: Colonor and Mbtropote in the English Imagination, 1830-1867, Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

HEcHTER, Michael

1999 Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British IVdtional Development, with a new

introduction and appendix by the author, New Brunswick, N,J.: [itansaction Publishers.

KEMIsH, S. B.

1860 The eJdpanese Enzpire: Its Phystcal, PoliticaZ, and Social Condition and Histor:y. London:

Partridge and Co.

KiyoNo Keaji I'EYstlft

1925 rH]RE]kOfi"ZI (Research ofPrimitiveJapanese Man). ntJ3( : pmgza ([[bkyo: Oka Shoin),

NII-Electronic Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

150 David ASKEW

1928 『日本 石 器 時代人 研 究』（Research of Japanese Stone Age Man ）．東京 ：岡書院 （Tokyo ：Oka Shoin）．

1944 『日本人種論變遷史』（AHistory of the Evolution in Theories of the Japanese Race）．東京 ：小 山 書：

店 （Tokyo ：Koyama Shoten ）．

KoGA ）gEi Yoshikiyo小金井 良精

〆 「日 石 の of 七〇 ne 1904 1926 本 器時代 住 民」（The Residents S Age Japan ＞， 「東洋學藝 雜誌 』（Tqy6Galeugei

Zα sshi ［Journalof OrientalI．iberalArtsD，nos ．259，260，reprinted in 小金 井 良精 『人類學研 究』

Anthropologic Research ，289−362 ， ： Tbkyo ； （ ）， pp 東 京 大岡 山書店 （ Ookayama Shoten）， KJD6 Masaki 工 藤雅樹 一 1979 「研究史 日本 人種論』（The Debate on the Japanese Race），東 京 ：吉 川弘文 館 （［［bkyo ：Yoshikawa K6bunkan ）．

MACFARLANE Charles ，

1852Jap α n ： An Account，（leogrαphicα 1 and Historicα t． New York ： George P． Putnam ＆ Co，

MoRGAN ， Philip D ． “ ‘ ’ − ” 1999 Encounters between British and Indigenous Peoples， c ．1500 c ．1800 ． In DAuNToN and

eds ・ and ’ with − ． − HALPERN Empire Others BritishEncounters IndigenousPeoρZes， 1600 1850，PP 42

78．London ： UCL Press．

MoRsE Edward S， ， 一 1983 「大森貝塚 付 閧連 史料』 （The Shell Mounds of Omori ： With Relative His七〇rical Materials ）， 近 藤

義郎，佐原 真 （編 訳）（translated by KoND6 Yoshiro and SAHARA Makoto ， translation of Edward S ．

MoRsE Shell Mo μ nds of Omori ［sic ］ Memoirs of of ， ， the ScienceDepartment ， University Tbkio，

Japan ， vo1 ．1，2539 ［1879D ．東京 ：岩波文庫 （Tokyo ： Iwanami Bunko ）．

MuNRo ， Neil Gordon

1908 ／1911Prehistoric Jap α n ． Yokohama ：Published by the au 七hor．

MURDOCH James ，

1903 ／1996 AHistor of Jap α n vol ．2 During the Centur ， of E α rlpt Foreign ∬ntercourse ・ γ ， ， ） （1542 1651丿，

London and New York： Routledge

1910 ／1996 AHistbrpt of Japan vol ．1 From the Origins to the Arriv α l of the Portuguese ， ， in 1542 A ．D ．

London and New Y ｛）rk ：Routledge．

NAG， Kalidas

1941Prehistoric Japα n ． Tokyo ：Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai．

NAKAzoNo Eisuke 中薗英 助 一 1995 「鳥居 龍 蔵 伝 ア ジ ア を 走 破 し た 人類 学 者』 （A Biography of ［【brii Ry σz6 ：An Anthropologist Who

［［lravelled Across All of Asia）．東京 ：岩波書店 （Tbkyo： Iwanami Shoten）． ’ OGUMA Eiji “ ” − 2002AGene α logy of Jap α nese Selfima8es．［［lranslated by David AsKEw ． Melbourne ： Trans Pacific

Press ．

PAGDEN Anthony ，

1995Lor （is of All the Wl）rld ：」ldeologies of Empire in Sp α in Britα in α nd Frα nce c ．1500 − ．1800 ， c ，New

： Haven ， Conn ．Yale UniversityPress，

SASAKI K6mei （ed ．）佐 々 木高 明 （編 ） 一 1993 『民族学 の 先覚者 鳥居 龍蔵 の 見 た ア ジ ア 』 （APioneer of Ethnology：Torii RyiiZ6 in Asia）．吹 田 ：国

立 民 族学博物館 （Suita： National Museum of Ethnology）．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropolegist： V〕rii Ry 巨z6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 151

SHIMIzu Akitoshi iE水 昭俊

1998 日 の Anthropology in の め 「 本 人類学」（ Japan ）， 船曳建夫 （編 ）『文化人 類学 すす InFuNABIKITakeo 』（ ， − ed ． An Invitation to Cultural Anthropology）， pp ．111 33，東京 ：筑摩書房 （［fbkyo： Chikuma Shobo）， “ 1999 Colonialism ” and the Development of Modern Anthropology in Japan ．In Jan VAN BREMEN a 皿 d

Akitoshi SHIMIzu eds ・Anthropol〔） and α α and α ni α ． − ， gy Coloni lism in Asi Oce ， PP 115 71．Surrey： Curzon ．

SHIRAI Mitsutar6

「祝 詞 Jinruigakh 1886 」（CelebratoryRemarks ）， 『人類學會報告」（ α iHOkoku ［The Bul］etin of the T5ky6 − An 七hropological SocietyD 1 （February）； 3 4，

STEINMETz Andrew ，

〕 1860 Jap α n α nd Her 1 eople ． London ： Routledge， Warne， and Routledge．

STocKING， George W ．，Jr，

1968／1982 R α ce Culture α n （i Evolution’ ology with a new ， ． Essaptsin the Histo欧y ofAnthro ρ ， preface ． Chicago and London ：University of Chicago Press． ‘ ” 1982／2001 The Shaping of National Anthropologies ：A View from theCenter．In George W ．STocKING，

Jr．， Delimiting Anthro elogy ： Occα sion α 1 Essqys and ． − ． 且 sin ρ Reflections，pp 281 302 Madison ，Wisco ，

and London ： Universi 七 of Wisconsin ， y Press， 2001

1987Vtetorian Anth ro ρology ． New York： Free Press and London ：Collier Macmillan ． “ ” 1989 The Ethnographic Sensibility of the 1920s and the Dualism of the Anthropological T士adition ．

In George W STocKING， Jr．， ed ． Rom αntie Motives： EssaOrs on Anth ropologic α l Sensibility， PP ．208 −

76．Madison Wisconsin： University ofWisconsin Press ， ， ， 1989 “ ’ 1990／1992 Paradigmatic of ， ． ． Tleaditionsin the History Anthropology ln George W STocKING ， Jr ，The

’ Ethnographer s Magic α nd Other Essaげ s in the History of Anthropology， pp ．342 −61． Madison ，

Wisconsin：University of Wisconsin Press，1992．

’ ． 1992The Ethnographer s Magic α nd Other Essays in the Histor 1 ofAnthropology ． Madison ： ） ， Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin Press ． “ − − ” 1994／2001 The TUrn ofLthe Century Concept of Race．In George W STocKING， Jr．， Detinziting

Anthropolegy： αsion α α α nd ． − ． and ： Occ l E8s ys Reflections，pp 3 23 Madison ， Wisconsin London University of Wisconsin Press，2001． “ 1995 ／2001 Delimiting Anthropology： Historical Reflec七ions on the Boundaries of a Boundless ” Discipline．In George W STocKING， Jr．， Delimiting Anthropology’ Occα sionaZ Essays and

． − ． and ： of 2001 ． Reflections， pp 303 29 Madison ， Wisconsin London University Wisconsin Press， suENARI Michio 末成道男 一 一 1988 「鳥居 龍 蔵 束 ア ジ ア 人類 学 の 先駆 者」（Torii RyiiZ6： A Pioneer of East Asian Anthropology） 綾部恒 ． ， 雄 （編）『文化人 類学群像』第 三 巻 『日本 編 』 （ln AyABE Tsuneo ed ， Major Figures in Cultural − Anthropology， vol ．3， Cultural Anthropologists in Japan ）， pp ．47 64．京都 ：ア カ デ ミ ア 出版会 （Kyoto ： Academia Shuppan 〕．

1991 「鳥 居 龍 蔵 の 足 跡 The Footsteps of ［［brii RytZ6 」〔 ）， 東京大学総合研 究資料館特別 展示実行委 員会 （編 ） 一 『乾板 に 刻 ま れ た 世界 鳥居 龍蔵 の 見 た ア ジ ア 』 （In T6ky6 Daigaku S6gσ KenkyU Shiry6kan

［ ）etsu the rbkul TenjiJikk6 linkai［SpecialExhibitionsCommittee ， UniversityMuseum ，University ’ − of Tokyo］ed ． Lost Worlds on a Dry Plate ：［［brii RyiizOs Asia）， pp ．6 20，東京 ：東京大 学 総合 研究 資料 1 館 （T ・ky ・・T・ky6・D ・ig・k ・ S696・K ・nky ・i・Shi・ 。k 。 n Th 。 U 。 iver，ity M 。 、e 。 m U 。 iver、ity。f Tbky y ［ ， 。］），

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

152 David ASKEW

TABATA Hisao田畑久夫

一 1997 『民族学者鳥居竜蔵 ア ジ ア 調査 の 軌 跡 』 （The Ethnographer ［［brii RyUza ：His Fieldwork inAsia）．

東京 ：古今 書 院 （Tbkyo ： Kokon Shoin）．

TERADA Kazuo 寺 田 和夫

1975 『日 本 の 人類学』 （The Anthropology ofJapan ）．東京 ：思 索社 CTekyo： Shisakusha）． Tbky δDaigaku S696 Kenk 頭 ShiW6kan Tbkubetsu 艶 煽i Jikk61inkai（ed ．）東京大学総合研究資料館特別

Museum University of Tokyo 展 示実行委 員会 （SpecialEXhibitionsCommittee ，the University ， ）編 一 ’ 1991 『乾 板 に 刻 まれ た 世界 鳥居龍蔵 の 見 た ア ジ ア 』（Lost Worlds on a Dry Plate；Tbrii R 頭 z6 s Asia）．東

京 ：東京大学総合研 究資料館 （Tbkyo ： Tbky6 Daigaku S6gO KenkyU Shiry6kan［The University

of Tokyo ］ ）． Museum ， University

TORII Riuzo “ ’ 1917 R6flexions a propos dune ℃ onf 勧 ence du Doctoeur Gordon MuNRo ∵ 『人類 學雜 誌 』

（Jinruigα hu Zasshi［Journal ef the Anthropological Society of TOky6］）32 （5）．

TORII Ryujir6鳥居龍次郎 一 AShort Biography of ToRII R z6 In 「 全 The 1975 「鳥 居龍 蔵 小伝」 （ 頭 ）， 鳥 居 龍 蔵 鳥居 龍蔵 集」 第 巻 （

vol ． ． − ， ： 日 ： ． CompleteWorks of ToriiRyUz6 ， 1）， pp 1 12 東京 朝 新 聞社 （Tokyo Asahi Shimbunsha ） TORII Rytz6 鳥居龍蔵

・ 1896／1976 「遼東半島」 （The Liaodong Peninsula），『太 陽』（Taiyδ ［The Sun ］）， vo1 ．2，n 。s ．6，7 ， 9 ， 11， 12，

In The Complete Works of σ voL ． − ． 14，15， 鳥居 龍 蔵 「鳥 居龍 蔵 全 集』 第八 巻 （ ToRIIRyUz ， 8）， pp 573 97

東 京 ：朝 日新 聞社 （皿）kyo ：Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1907／1976 「日本 語 と 蒙古 語 の 親族 的 関関係 」 （On the Family Relationship between the Japanese

and 『 δ vol ．13 no ．5 In 鳥 Language the Mongolian Language ＞， 太陽』（Taiy ［The Sun ］， ， ）， 居龍蔵

of vol ， ， − ． ： 『鳥居 龍 蔵全 集 』第 八巻 （The Complete Works ToRIIRytiz6， 18）， pp 398 405 東 京 朝 口新 聞

社 （Tokyo ：Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1908／1976 「満 州 の 石 器 時 代 遣蹟 と 朝鮮 の 石 器 時代 遺蹟 と の 関 係 に 就 て ．」 （On the Relationship between

Stone Age Sites in Manchuria and Stone Age Sites in Korea 「 人 類 T5kyδ 9inrui−． ）， 東 京 學會 雜誌』（

gakh α i Z αsshi ［The Journal of the Anthropological Society of T6ky61 ）， vol ．23， no ，262 ， In 鳥 居 龍 蔵 全 八 The Complete Works of ToRII 亘z6 vol ，8 ．546−52 ． ： 日 社 『鳥居 龍蔵 集』第 巻 （ Ry ， ）， pp 東京 朝 新 聞

（］［bkyo ：Asahi Shimbunsha ）． 1913 ／1975 「人 類学 と人 種学 （或 い は民族学） を分 離 す べ し」（Anthropology and Ethnology ［or Ethno −

T6 α Hik α ri Light of East Asia vol ．8 no ．11 In graphyユought to be Separated）， 『東 亜 之 光 』 （ no ［ ］）， ， ， ．．一 − 鳥居龍蔵 『鳥居龍蔵全 集』第 巻 〔The Complete Works of ToRII Rytz6， vol ．1）， pp ．480 83．東 京 ：朝

日新 聞社 〔Tokyo ； Asahi Shimbunsha ）． 1916／1975 「古代 の 日 本 民 族 移 住 発 展 の 経 路 」（The Rollte Taken by the Ancient Japanese Nation in

Rekishi Chiri Geographia Historica vol 。28 no ．5 ln Migrationand Development ），「歴 史 地 理 』（ 【 ］）， ， ， 一 − 鳥居 龍蔵 『鳥居龍蔵全集』第 巻 〔The Complete Works ofToRII Rytiz6， vol ，1）， pp ，504 06．東京 ：朝

日 新 聞社 （Tokyo ： Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1917 See ToRII Riuzo 1917 ． “ ” Revue Anthropologique 27 6 reprinted in translation 1917／1976 Les Originesdu Peuple Japonais． （ ）， − in 鳥居 龍蔵 『鳥居龍蔵全 集』第 五 巻 （The C 。 mplete Works of ToRII RyiizO， vol 。5）， pp ，639 45 ，東京 ：

朝 日新聞社 （Tokyo ： Asahi Shimbunsha ）． 一 1918／1975 『有史以 前 の 日 本』 （Pre−historic Japan ）， In 鳥居 龍蔵 「鳥居 龍 蔵全 集 』第 巻 （The CDmplete

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

Empire and the Anthropologist：Torii Ryiiz6 and Early Japanese Anthropology 153

− Wdrks of ToRII Ryoz6， vol ．1）， pp ．167 453．東京 ：朝 日新 聞社 （Tokyo：Asahi Shilnbunsha）， “ ’ ” 1919 ／1976 Etudes Archeologiques et Ethnologiques． Les Alnou des lles Kouriles． 「東京帝國 大學理

δ α α α δ of the of 科大學紀 要』（7bky TeikokuD ig feuRik Daigaku Kiy ［Journal College Science， Imperial

University of Tokyo book 42 no ．1 reprinted in translation in 鳥 居 龍 蔵 『鳥 居 龍 蔵 全 集 五 巻 ］）， ， ， 」第 − − （The Complete Works ofToRII Ryaz6， voL 5）， pp．311 553，東 京 ：朝 日新聞社 （Tokyo ； Asahi Shimbun sha ）． “ ” D6gen 1920／1977 「日 鮮 人 は 『同源 』な り」（The Nisse【ljin ［Japareansl Share the Same Roots ）， 『同 源』（ ． RootsD no ．1 In 『 全 十 二 of （lz6 ［Same ， ， 鳥居 龍 蔵 鳥 居 龍蔵 集』第 巻 （The Complete Works ToRIIRy ， − vol ．12）， pp ．538 39．東京 ：朝 日新 聞社 （Toky 。：Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1923 1975 の The Racial in Ancient History Chmb ・Shidan ／ 「原 始時代 人種問題」（ Question ）， 『中央史壇』（ 一 vol ． no ． 『 全 ［The Central HistoryReview ］）， 6 ， 6 ， in 鳥居龍蔵 鳥居龍蔵 集』第 巻 （The Complete − Works of ToRII Ryilz6， vol ．1）， pp．554 60 ，東京 ：朝 日新 聞社 （Tokyo ；Asahi Shimbunsha）． ’ − 1925／1975 「先 史 時 代 の ア イ ヌ 人 と 我 が 祖 先 の 先 1駆 者 」 （The Pre historicNnu and Our Ancestors

「 α sshi of 七〇rical ） voL no ． Predecessors）， 史學 雜誌』 （Shigahu Z ［The Journa1 His Studies］， 36， 1，In 一 The Complete Works of ToRII Rytlz6 vol ，1 ．561 −67 ． ： 鳥 居龍蔵 『鳥居龍蔵全 集』第 巻 （ ， ）， pp 東京 朝

日新聞社 （Tokyo ： Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1927 1975 の The Developnient of Japane5e Anthropology 『 畫 Kagahu ／ 「日 本人 類学 発 達 」 （ ）， 科 學 報』 （ 一．一 α vol ． no ．・ 『 全 G hb ［La SciencaGrafikajo］）， 9 ， 6 ， in 鳥居龍蔵 鳥居龍蔵 集』第 巻 （The Complete Works

of z6 vol ． ． − ．東京 ：朝 日 新 聞社 （ ：Asahi ）． ToRIIR 頭 ， 1）， pp 459 70 Tokyo Shimbunsha

1937Ancient Jap αn in the Light （）fAnthroρology ， Tbkyo ： Kokusai Bunka Shinkokai． 一 1975 全 of z6 vol ：朝 日 新 聞 社 ： 『鳥居 龍蔵 集』第 巻 （The Complete Works ToRIIR画 ， ．1）．東 京 （Tokyo

Asahi Shimbunsha）． − ・ − 1975 77 『鳥居龍蔵全 集』全 卜≡ 巻 （The Complete Works of ToRII Ryriz6， vols ．1 13）．東 京 ：朝 日新 聞社

（T ｛〕kyo：Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1976 「鳥 居 龍 蔵 全 集』 第 五 巻 （The Complete Wdrks of ToRII Ry 匸zO ， vol ．5）．東 京 ：朝 日新 聞 社 （Tokyo ：

Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

1977 『鳥居 龍蔵全 集』別巻 （The Complete Works of ToRII Rytiz6， Bekkan ，［Separate VblumeD．東京 ：朝

日 新聞社 （［［bkyo ：Asahi Shimbunsha ）．

Torii Ryuzo Photographic Record Society（ed ．） − 1990The Torii ROruzo Photographic Record of East Asiα n Ethnogr αphy ． volumes 1 4． Tokyo ： The

of UniversityMuseum ， The University Tokyo．

TsuBol Sh6gor6 坪井 正 五 郎

コ ロ ッ ル べ 。 ro − − Hokkaid6 1887 「 ボ ク 北 海 道 に 住 み し な る し」（The K pok guru Resided in ）， 『東京 人類 學

會報告』 （75kyδ Jinruigαkkai H6hoku ［The Bulletin of the Tbky6 Anthrepological Society］）2 （12） − ［January 】：93 97．

vAN BREMEN ， Jan and Akitoshi SHIMIzu “ 1999 Anthropology in Colonial Context： ATale of Two Countries and Some ∴ ln Jan vAN BREMEN and

α α lism in Asia and Oceα ni α ．1−10． Richmond AkitoshiSHIMIzu，eds ．Anthropology nd Coloni ， pp ，

Surrey； Curzon ．

VERMEULEN ， Hans E and Arturo Nvarez RoLDAN （eds ．）

1995 Fieldwork an （i Footnotes ： Studies in the Histoay of Europeα n Anthropology． London and New

Ybrk： Routledge．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service Japanese SooietySociety of Cultural Anthropology

154 David ASKEW

WHITE， Richard

（ ’ α ns α nd the α − 1991 The MidelleGroun i Indi ， Empires ， Repubtics in Great L hes Region， 1650 1815．

Cambrtdge and New York：Cambridge University Press．

WILLIAMSON Arthur H ． ， ‘‘ ” and ： of − α nd 1996 Scotts，Indians Empire The ScottishPolitics Civilization1519 1609 ， Past Present − 150 （February）； 46 83 ．

YAMASHITA Shinj．i “ Forthcoming ．Constructing Selves and Others in Japanese Anthropology： The Case of Microロesia and ” ． ． ． and ． ． SoutheastAsian Studies In ShinjiYAMAsHITA J S EADEs ， Josepsh BosCo J S EADEs ，eds ，

The Mahing （）fAnthropology in East and Southeαst Asiα． Oxfbrd and New York ：Bergha ． YONAHA Jun 與那 覇 潤 一 2003 「近代 日本 に お け る 「人種』概念 の 変容 坪井正 五 郎 の 「人類学』との 関わ りを 中心 に 」（The Raciali− ’ sation of Jinshu： TsuBoエ Sh6gor6s Anthropology and the Concept of Race）， 「民族學研 究』（The − Japanese Journal of Ethnology）1（1）； 85 97． YOSHIOKA lkuo 吉 岡郁 夫 一 ー 1987 「日本人種論争 の 幕 あけ モ ス と大森員塚 』（The Beginning of the Debate on the Japanese Race ： − Morse and the Omori She11mound ）．東京 ：共立 出版 （［lbkyo：Ky6htsu Shuppan）．

一 NII-ElectronicN 工 工 Eleotronio Library Service