Colonial Historiography in Taiwan and Korea under Japanese Rule (1890s–1940s) (Part I)
Directeur de recherche

(CNRS - Institut d'Asie Orientale – IAO – UMR 5062)

Between the mid-nineteenth and mid-twentieth centuries much research was conducted in the human and social sciences on the languages, cultures and history of contemporary colonial societies. The same was true in Japan’s colonial empire, established between 1895 and 1914, which consisted mainly of Taiwan and Korea but also included South Sakhalin (1905), Liaodong (1905) and Micronesia (1914). The colonisation of Taiwan in particular ushered in a wave of institutional surveys of “ancient customs”, conducted with the aim of establishing colonial law. This was in addition to anthropological studies and, as in Korea, historical research.

carte de l’Empire du Grand Japon en 1945, dressée par The National Geographic Magazine

Map of the Japanese Empire in 1945, National Geographic Magazine

Prior to its colonisation of Korea, Japan felt a desire to control the past, hence the importance of historical and archaeological research there. The situation was different in Taiwan, where historians had never been interested in Taiwanese society proper – considered “prehistoric” in terms of its indigenous Austronesian population and “transplanted” in terms of its Chinese dimension – and focused solely on the island’s colonisation by the Dutch (1624–1662) and Spanish (1626–1642), its subsequent conquest by Koxinga and its annexation by the Manchu-led Qing dynasty in the late seventeenth century.

It is these political uses of the past that form the focus of this paper, meaning the colonial historical scholarship and research institutions established in Taiwan and Korea between 1895 and 1945. Like other colonial powers (such as France in the Mediterranean and particularly in Indochina), it was the Japanese who defined which historical and cultural objects of study were important in Taiwan and Korea, and which were not. Prior to the arrival of the Japanese, each Korean dynasty wrote its own history which served to “bring to a close” the previous regime (examples include the compilation of the Samguk sagi by the Koryŏ Dynasty in the twelfth century and the Koryŏsa by the Chosŏn Dynasty in the fifteenth century). Each dynasty essentially considered its predecessor to have constituted a separate country and took pains to compile its own royal annals. The colonial historiography put an end to this segmented approach and laid the foundations of a national historical narrative, in other words a linear, unbroken history of an ethnically definable people.

The history of Japanese scholarship in the colonies in general (including the educational institutions created by Japan), and of human and social sciences research in particular, has been the subject of numerous studies in Japanese, Korean and Chinese (Taiwan), and to a lesser extent in English. Any study of the subject must necessarily include this entire body of historical literature in addition to primary sources. Yet the vast majority of studies on the colonial historiography focus on one specific institution within one particular colony, and not on how Japan sought to establish an empire-wide system of knowledge1. No researcher seems as yet to have examined the entire corpus of colonial historiography produced by the Japanese Empire2. The few comparative studies that do exist focus only on limited elements3. And yet, with Korea leading the charge, the 1910s and 1920s saw a series of institutions created in the hard sciences (notably Taiwan’s Central Research Institute, the Chūō kenkyūjo 中央研究所, in 1921) and the human sciences. Those engaged in historical research (and thus in utilising the past) in the latter field include the Government-General Museum [of history and archaeology] in Korea in 1915, the Committee for the Investigation of Korean Antiquities in 1916, the Committee for the Compilation of Korean History in 1922 (reorganised in 1925), the Taiwan Government-General Committee for the Compilation of Historical Materials in 1922 (reorganised in 1929), Keijō (Seoul) Imperial University in 1924, and finally Taihoku (Taipei) Imperial University in 1928. The imperial universities of Korea and Taiwan were both endowed with chairs in history and other disciplines focusing on the local society.

 

Musée de Taihoku (Taipei) durant la colonisation, carte postale, photographie non datée.

Taihoku Museum (Taipei) under colonial rule, postcard, undated photograph

These institutions have been studied in a segmented manner by historians. Some, for example, have attempted to appraise the entire body of historical research on colonial Korea while focusing solely on the Committee for the Compilation of Korean History. Some have adopted the view that the studies conducted in colonial Taiwan and focused specifically on the island can provide an understanding of Taiwanese colonial historiography. Others have failed to address the links between the various historical committees and the universities. While in this paper “colonial historiography” refers to the official research conducted on and within each colony, clearly one of the fundamental characteristics of the work carried out in Taiwan in particular is that it focused only to a small extent on the island itself. 

More importantly, what can be said of Japan’s colonial historiography if we adopt an empire-wide perspective? Scholars were not prisoners of the institutions that employed them; they were actively involved in various scholarly societies, each with their own publications, in addition to publishing books and articles themselves back in Japan. There is also the parallel issue of anti-colonial writings, which are also part of the colonial historiography, this time in a chronological and epistemological sense.

The aim of this paper is to consider Japan’s colonial historical scholarship collectively, as an imperial system. To do so, I have referred to both primary sources and a historiography comprised equally of research published in Japanese, Korean and Chinese. I hope to demonstrate that, contrary to the conclusions drawn by studies focusing only on Japan or only on the colonies, colonial Japan adopted a “systematised” approach to historical research in the sense that it was applied identically to each of the colonised societies. Although certain studies have underlined the way colonial historical research in Korea in particular employed the historiographical practices of modern Japan, the empire in its entirety has never been studied4. Given this, the entire colonial historiography – including in Taiwan – must be reexamined in order for it to be seen not merely as a peripheral practice, but as part of a system that incorporated metropolitan practices. Indeed, Japanese academics brought with them not only a historical discourse, but also historiographical methods in the form of techniques for analysing documents and highly specific archiving skills.  

Salle de lecture en 1903 du Shiryō hensanjo
La façade du Shiryō hensanjo aujourd'hui

Shiryō hensanjo: reading room in 1903 and the building’s facade today

One of the main focuses of this paper is the links between the construction of “the national history” (of the Japanese nation-state) on the one hand, with a particular focus on the Historiographical Institute (Shiryō hensanjo 史料編纂所) at Tōkyō Imperial University, and the colonial institutions on the other. A close examination of the researchers and methodologies involved on each side reveals the consistent influence of the Shiryō hensanjo in the colonies. The construction of the Japanese nation-state from 1868 brought in its wake a need to compile a national history in the sense of a grand linear narrative associating a people, a land and a state. An Office for the Revision of National History (Kokushi kōsei kyoku 國史校正局) was quickly set up for this purpose in 18695. In 1895, after the project to compile a national history of Japan had been abandoned, this structure became the Shiryō hensan-gakari 史料編纂掛 (Department for the Compilation of Historical Materials), renamed Shiryō hensanjo in 1929. Its foundation coincided with the creation of history chairs at the Imperial University, whose methodology followed in the tradition of Chinese evidential scholarship and German positivist historiography6. The Shiryō hensanjo was given the task of compiling comprehensive archives of historical materials, namely the Dai Nippon shiryō 大日本史料 (Historical Data of Great Japan) and Dai Nippon komonjo 大日本古文書 (Ancient Manuscripts of Great Japan), published since 1901. At the same time, the new government began to face criticism in the 1880s questioning the legitimacy of the 1868–1869 Restoration. It was this that motivated the creation in 1911 of a Committee for the Compilation of the History of the Meiji Restoration (Meiji ishin shi hensan iinkai 明治維新史編纂委員會) within the Ministry of Education, the aim being to establish an “accurate history” (seishi 正史) of the Restoration. Together with the work carried out by the Shiryō hensanjo and the Committee for the Compilation of the History of the Meiji Restoration, Japan’s compilation of Korean history constitutes one of the “three great historical compilation projects conducted by modern Japan”7.

The first part of this paper covers the pre-colonial, non-institutional studies conducted on Taiwan and Korea before describing how the two historical compilation committees in those colonies came to be set up. The final section focuses on the history chairs established at the imperial universities of Taiwan and Korea during the interwar period.

 1. The first studies in “colonial history” (1892–1912)

A history of colonisation in Taiwan versus Chinese philology in Korea

une bataille de la guerre sino-japonaise, estampe, Yōshū Chikanobu, 1894.

Battle scene from the First Sino-Japanese War, print, Yōshū Chikanobu, 1894

The birth of Korean Studies in Japan and historical research on Taiwan can be traced back to the First Sino-Japanese War (1894–1895), coinciding with the construction of “the national history” in the metropole in the 1880s and 1890s. The imperial universities of Tōkyō and Kyōto (founded respectively in 1877 and 1897) played a central role in the development of these fields, ahead of the colonisation8. These two fields are indissociable from the birth of the academic study of Oriental history, led by historians Shiratori Kurakichi 白鳥庫吉 (1865–1942) and Naitō Konan 内藤湖南 (1866–1934), and from a fascination with both the ancient history of Korea and Japan-Korea relations during that period. The latter followed the discovery in 1884 of a stele commemorating King Kwanggaet’o of Koguryŏ, the inscription on which was taken as evidence of Japan’s past domination of Korea9. It was at this time that Japanese academia took the founding step of separating “national history” and “Oriental history”, partly in order to establish “national history” as a discipline, but also to create a colonisable “Orient”10. Note in passing that while in the first half of the 1890s the Journal of Historical Science (Shigaku zasshi 史學雜誌) published several papers on ancient Korean history11, the sinologist Hayashi Taisuke 林泰輔 (1854–1922), a professor at Tōkyō Normal School, published the first linear history of Korea in 189212. His book The History of Korea (Chōsen shi 朝鮮史, the final version of which appeared in 1912 and was continually republished until 1944 as The Complete History of Korea [Chōsen tsūshi 朝鮮通史]) predated Japan’s colonial research and shaped its biases13. For the first time, the history of the Korean peninsula (known collectively as Chōsen) was presented chronologically and as continuously “Korean”, in other words, as being the history of a single country. Earlier texts, as we have seen, were either dynastic histories or were limited to compiling and bringing to a close the history of the preceding dynasty.

Gare ferroviaire de Taichū (Taizhong), bâtiment de 1917

Taichū railway station (Taichung), 1917

Historical research in Taiwan began immediately after the island’s colonisation – or “pacification” – in the autumn of 1895. The first observation to make is that history scholarship in Taiwan was notable for its contempt for the study of Han Taiwanese society. Research was invariably divided between anthropologists studying the aboriginal “ethnicities” (as the colonial authorities themselves referred to them) – the only authentic Taiwanese – seen as part of a continuum linking prehistoric past and archaic present, and historians examining the history of the island’s successive domination by various foreign powers, events that were seen as marking the “beginning of Taiwan’s history”. Only legal scholars studied the “Chinese” dimension of the island’s history in order to understand Qing modes of governance during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In this way, the historical research conducted on Taiwan during the colonial era did not focus on the history of the island itself, but rather on the colonial policies of the Dutch, Spanish and Japanese. This approach is by no means specific to the Japanese in Taiwan; it can be found widely among other colonial powers, as evidenced by the French studies of “African history” prior to 1962 or the work of Charles-André Julien (1891–1991) on what he called “the technicians of colonisation” and “the colonial adventure”14.

Japanese researchers sent to Taiwan in the wake of the anthropological surveys were the first to compile histories of the island. Their work drew on both disciplines and displayed recurrent biases. The first of these scholars was the historian and ethnographer Inō Kanori 伊能嘉矩 (1867–1925). Initially tasked with classifying aboriginal peoples alongside the anthropologist and archaeologist Torii Ryūzō 鳥居龍藏 (1870–1953)15, Inō took up a position with the Government-General of Taiwan in November 1895 and remained there until 190616. At around the same time, in 1896, Murakami Naojirō 村上直次郎 (1868–1966), a young history student from Tōkyō Imperial University, was sent to Taiwan for the first time by the Ministry of Colonial Affairs17 before joining the Shiryō hensanjo in 189818. He too blended anthropology and history by undertaking a study of the Sinckan Manuscripts (Xingang wenshu 新港文書) in order to examine Dutch policy towards Taiwan’s indigenous population in the seventeenth century19.

école pour les enfants aborigènes (circa 1930)

School for Taiwanese aboriginal children (circa 1930)

Aborigènes de Taiwan

Taiwanese aborigines

As well as putting forward his own system of racial classification, Inō published a series of historical works, starting with Chronicles of Taiwan (Taiwan shi 臺灣志) in 1902, followed by Records of Aboriginal Policy in Taiwan (Taiwan bansei shi 臺灣蕃政志) in 1904, then A 10-Year History of Our Possession of Taiwan (Ryōtai jūnen shi 領臺十年史) in 190520. Being able to read Chinese fluently, Inō drew on Qing administrative documents to propose an alternative history capable of competing with the pre-existing official Chinese history. In his eyes, the Chinese texts he studied were no more than edifying narratives founded on political prejudices, whereas colonial scholars had a duty to propose genuinely “scientific studies”. This rhetoric legitimising power through knowledge (and vice-versa) was also widespread in colonial Korea both prior to and in the early days of the colonisation; work of a more academic nature, yet with the same biases, followed later in Taiwan, during the interwar years, as it did in Korea.

In his introduction to Taiwan shi (Chronicles of Taiwan), Inō criticised the Manchu texts that preceded his work:

The contents of the geographical and historical documents available, which constitute a fairly sizeable corpus, are of little scientific value. The texts written by the Chinese [Shinajin 支那人] in particular essentially express their own views while playing with words and obliterating reality. At their worst, they are visions aimed solely at edifying future generations as to the country’s greatness. These texts did not hesitate to subjugate the pen, replacing truth with fiction21.

Despite such professions of faith, the Japanese colonial historiography never focused on Taiwan itself. What is more, these first publications from the early twentieth century introduced several concepts that would become recurrent in Japanese historiography in Taiwan. One was the idea of ethno-cultural transplantation (ishoku 移植) within the island; the other, the idea that colonial rule (European and then Sino-Japanese) represented the beginning of history. A similar idea was expressed in a book published in Japan in 1905 by the essayist Takekoshi Yosaburō 竹越與三郎 (1865–1950). Entitled Taiwan tōchi shi 臺灣統治志, translated into English in 1907 by George Braithwaite as Japanese Rule in Formosa, it explores the same terrain as Inō’s 1905 work A 10-Year History of Our Possession of Taiwan.

As for the Great Korean Empire, in around 1900 many “private” Japanese historians took up residence in the capital, Hansŏng (Seoul), to research the history of the peninsula via philological and archival studies of Chinese-language documents. Compilatory work followed later, during the colonial period. Such scholars included renowned specialist of Oriental history Shidehara Taira 幣原坦 (1870–1953) and historian Ayukai Fusanoshin 鮎貝房之進 (1864–1946), who together founded the Research Group on Korea (Kankoku kenkyūkai 韓國研究會) in 1902.

Shidehara Taira

SHIDEHARA Taira

During the colonial period, Shidehara, a professor at Tōkyō Normal School and holder of a PhD from Tōkyō  Imperial University, held high ranking positions, becoming the first president of Taihoku (Taipei) Imperial University in 1928. The Research Group on Korea compiled ancient sources and documents written in classical Chinese. The discourse espoused in their publication Kankoku kenkyūkai danwaroku 韓國研究會談話錄 (Record of Discussions by the Research Group on Korea) reflected ideas already expressed in Japan with regards the First Sino-Japanese War, namely that Korea lacked an independent identity and was entirely dependent on its neighbours. This theory was expressed by the word taritsu 他律 (the state of being altero-referential or heteronomous, that is, externally determined). Traditionally, the colonial historiography considered China’s colonisation of Korea during the Western Han Dynasty to mark the beginning of the peninsula’s history – a history that corresponded to a long period of stagnation, as expressed by the term teitai 停滯.

One need only open a map to understand the importance of international relations for Korea. The main events in Korean history [kanshi 韓史] consist entirely of its relations with foreign powers, which are a major focus of its historical texts and help unravel its history. If you take away these foreign relations, Korean history would be nothing but a long and boring tale of an unchanging country, a history not even worth reading, consisting of interminable commentaries on the benevolence of kings, stories of ministers or provincial officials stealing from the people, endless series of interchangeable comments about some Confucian or other, a “skilful” poet or a “masterful” writer, descriptions of enthronements and disappearances of kings, of celebrations, weddings and deaths22.

After the Japanese established a protectorate in Korea (1905–1910), Ayukai Fusanoshin, Oda Shōgo 小田省吾 (1871–1953) and Kawai Hirotami 河合弘民 (1874–1918)23 founded the private publishing entity Chōsen kosho kankō-kai 朝鮮古書刊行會 (Society for the Publication of Old Korean Books) in 1909, which re-published dozens of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Korean books as well as producing a printed version of the Samguk sagi 三國史記 (History of the Three Kingdoms, 12th century), following an edition produced in 1904 in Tōkyō24. The other key Korean historical work compiled during the Koryŏ period, the Samguk yusa 三國遺事 (Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms, 13th century), was re-published in Kyōto in 1921, then in Korea in 1928 under the supervision of historian Imanishi Ryū 今西龍. In 1911, one year after Korea’s annexation to Japan, the Society for the Publication of Old Korean Books published the 245-page thematic bibliography Chōsen kosho mokuroku 朝鮮古書目錄, meaning the Bibliography of Old Korean Books25. Presented as the first bibliography of Korean historical and social documents, it estimated the number of Korean books worthy of interest to be around 3,000, with some 2,500 still in existence. Just like the act of writing a history of Korea, this type of bibliography served a vital purpose for Japan: it allowed it to assert its academic superiority over a country deemed incapable of establishing its own record of the past. Japan had been quick to understand this risk with regards the West and now applied the same logic to Korea26.

In 1912, the exact same year that the definitive version of Hayashi Taisuke’s The Complete History of Korea (Chōsen tsūshi – zen) was published, Taiwan saw – in a perfect synchronicity of events – the publication of a comprehensive book on the colony entitled Colonial Policy in Taiwan (Taiwan shokumin seisaku 臺灣殖民政策). Its author, Mochiji Rokusaburō 持地六三郎 (1867–1923), was a high-ranking official in the colonial government. He had headed the Office of Education and Social Affairs since 1906 and was councillor (sanjikan 參事官) to the governor-general27. Although Mochiji’s work was broader in scope than Inō’s, his opus blending history, geography and policy review nonetheless showed the same emphasis on the Japanese colonial government and thus illustrated the narrow focus of historians of Taiwan compared to historians of Korea28.

Colonial history and national history

The pre-modern concept of seishi 正史 in Japanese (zhengshi in Chinese, chŏngsa in Korean), mentioned in the introduction to this paper, evokes the idea of an official or accurate history from the state’s point of view. It was once central in conventional East Asian thought and belonged to a conception of the past in which history was “brought to a close” by the following dynasty. Although the term itself was widely employed during the first half of the twentieth century – the period on which this paper focuses – its use differed in the now national modernity, where it was appropriated for other purposes entirely. In Taiwan and annexed Korea, now part of the Japanese Empire, the concept of seishi as applied to those territories referred to a “conquerors’ history”.

KUROITA Katsumi

KUROITA Katsumi (photo taken from the poster of a symposium organised by Lisa Yoshikawa)

In 1908, Kuroita Katsumi 黑板勝美 (1874–1946), a historian at the Shiryō hensanjo, published a book entitled Kokushi no kenkyū 國史の研究, or Studies in National History. This book on historical methodology set out the objectives and framework of “the national history”. Several revised editions were published before the definitive version was released in 193129. Kuroita believed that a national history was defined by its corresponding to the history of a “people” (minzoku 民族) characterised by internal continuity (i.e. long-standing ethnic continuity) and by being a part of world history. Peoples that ceased to exist, due to being subjugated and having lost their statehood, no longer existed in world history. The following excerpt is taken from the 1931 edition.

When we divide the history of a given region into segments, the first question that arises concerns the status of the national histories within world history. The history of a country organised as a distinct state with a distinct society and based on a distinct people must be studied above all using this delimitation. In the case of Our country, since the Meiji period we have fully incorporated the Ryūkyū Islands [Okinawa] into Japan; we then obtained Taiwan, the southern half of Karafuto [South Sakhalin ] and annexed Chosŏn Korea following the Sino-Japanese and Russo-Japanese wars: the histories of Taiwan and Korea have thus become part of Our National History. Nevertheless, the heart or core of the National History remains unchanged: it is a linear, unbroken history stretching back over several thousands of years within one single [Japanese] state. The Ryūkyū Islands, Taiwan and Korea are therefore individual histories, regional segments, within the National History30.

Historical science was not defined solely by a method (critical analysis of documents) or by a technique (compilation of archives by the Shiryō hensanjo), but also by a political vision. Only sovereign nations could be “subjects” or agents of history. National history as defined by Kuroita corresponds perfectly to the modern paradigm of history as a national narrative: the discipline’s objective was to create a national epic linking the ancient past to the present via a linear narrative incorporating all the individual narratives that had previously existed. In this way, “colonial history” (with all the ambiguity of that term) was destined to become part of the national narrative. This newly modernised concept of seishi did not so much reflect a desire to conclude the previous dynasty’s history after a change of leaders – as in earlier times – but rather a desire to bring to a close the history of Korea as an independent state – in other words, to legitimise the disappearance of a state – now that Korea and Taiwan (formerly the outermost limit of the Qing empire) were the colonies of a foreign power.

2. Colonial institutions

Korea: a history of the peninsula since its “origins”

One year after Korea was annexed in 1910, its first governor-general (sōtoku 總督), Terauchi Masatake 寺内正毅 (1851–1919, in office from 1910 to 1916), introduced a project to write the history of Korea entitled Chōsen hantō-shi 朝鮮半島史, or History of the Korean Peninsula. In 1915 the project was entrusted to the Central Council (Chūsūin 中樞院), an advisory body to the government-general.31 This same period also saw the creation of the Government-General Museum (1915), devoted to history and archaeology, and the Committee for the Investigation of Korean Antiquities (1916).

TERAUCHI Masatake

TERAUCHI Masatake, painting by Okada Saburosuke

The Hantō-shi project helped institutionalise the historical research being undertaken and set out both the contents and objectives of the “colonial history” envisaged by the authorites. The aim was no longer philological, as it was prior to 1910, but rather to promote Imperial Japan’s vision of Korea. The vision conveyed by his historical work and the composition of the research teams involved remained roughly identical from 1911 to 1938, when the compilation work was completed. The History of the Korean Peninsula reflected a tension between, on the one hand, an attempt to de-emphasise the various Korean political entities that spanned the peninsula’s 2000-year history in order to establish a neutral geographical area (much like the idea of an “Indochinese Peninsula”32), and on the other, an effort to incorporate these different kingdoms into a linear history of what was now considered a single country – thus mirroring the nationalist discourse – a vision that had not existed in Korea previously33.

Seoul colonial, scène de rue au début (1908-1912)

A street scene from early colonial Seoul (1908-1912)

But the Government-General of Korea had a more pragmatic objective, namely the production of a “scholarly” counter-discourse designed to silence the anti-colonial histories, in particular a 1915 book by the Korean journalist and historian Pak Ŭnsik 朴殷植 (1859–1925), entitled Hanguo tongshi 韓國痛史, or The Painful History of Korea34. Pak wrote his opus on modern Korea from his exile in Shanghai, from where he took part in the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea in 1919. He began his history with the reign of Kojong in 1863 and ended with the fall of the country and its annexation. In 1916, the government-general published a review of historical research in which it stressed that annexed Korea, with its geographical and ethnocultural proximity to Japan, was incomparable to the Western colonies founded on racially-based exploitation. It went on to assert that:

The texts written by Koreans overseas, such as The Painful History of Korea, give free rein to wild theories and completely evade the truth. Historical works like this are a poison designed to trouble the hearts of men. Yet they cannot be eradicated: to attempt to do so would be exhausting and fruitless and would merely serve to boost their circulation. Instead of banning or suppressing these old histories, we plan to propose an accurate and precise history, which will be much more effective. This is the main motivation for our efforts to compile a History of the Korean Peninsula35.

Ultimately, it was the need to establish a counter-discourse to resistance figures like Pak and Sin Ch’aeho 申采浩 (1880–1936), and to assert Japan’s academic superiority, that justified the project’s existence. At the same time, despite the differing motivations driving the colonial historiography and anti-colonial histories, mapping out “Korean” history “from its origins” helped create a shared body of knowledge common to both sides.

Objectifs et organisation du travail de compilation de l’Histoire de la péninsule coréenne (1916).

Objectives and organisation of the work to compile the History of the Korean Peninsula (1916)

Under the orders of Oda Mikijirō 小田幹治郎 (1875–1929), general secretary of the Chūsūin, the writing of the Hantō-shi was entrusted to a group comprised of Kuroita Katsumi, social history expert Miura Hiroyuki 三浦周行 (1871–1931) and ancient Korean history specialist Imanishi Ryū (1875–1932) from Kyōto, assisted by a team of researchers (including Koreans), all under the supervision of Oda Shōgo. Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 5 were completed by 192436. Imanishi was to write the first three chapters on ancient history; Ogiyama Hideo 荻山秀雄the fourth on the kingdom of  Koryŏ; Seno Umakuma 瀬野馬熊 the fifth on Chosŏn; and Sugimoto Shōsuke 杉本正介, the sixth on the contemporary period37. However, after the March First Movement broke out in 1919, a committee on a much grander scale than the Hantō-shi project was set up in 1922. The academic standard of the chapters produced was deemed unsatisfactory for a book by the government-general – Hantō-shi was intended as a general readership work designed to counter anti-colonialist histories – and the project was abandoned38.

The 1925 Institute and the dominance of the Shiryō hensanjo

The moment had come for Kuroita and the technical experts at Tōkyō Imperial University’s Shiryō hensanjo to take centre stage. The Committee for the Compilation of Korean History (Chōsen shi hensan iinkai朝鮮史編纂委員會) was established in 1922 as an official body under the joint authority of the governor-general and the civil governor (seimu sōkan 政務総監)39. It was upgraded in 1925 by imperial decree and renamed the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History (Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編修會; henceforth the Institute)40. Having initially been made independent from the Chūsūin, in 1925 the Institute was placed under the authority of the emperor in order to promote Japan’s efforts to produce an “unbiased and trustworthy history”41.

Although the new Institute employed the same figures as those who had worked on the Chūsūin-led Hantō-shi project, prominent historians from Tōkyō and Kyōto now assumed leading positions under Kuroita and China specialist Naitō Konan, a professor in Oriental history at Kyōto Imperial University. Another prominent member was Inaba Iwakichi 稲葉岩吉 (1876–1940), a historian close to Shiratori Kurakichi. Inaba also played a central role in establishing the idea of a shared “Korean-Manchurian” history. The Institute’s work was intended to lead not to a general readership book but to a comprehensive academic oeuvre. Two defining characteristics of Japan’s interwar colonial historiography, notably through the work of the Institute, were an increased number of Korea specialists and, most importantly, the fact that those heading the 1922 Committee and 1925 Institute were all “technicians” in the sense of being skilled archivists and specialists in historical compilation. Imanishi Ryū, Miura Hiroyuki and Kuroita Katsumi all belonged to the same generation and were all graduates of the History Department or National History Department (Kokushika 國史科) at Tōkyō Imperial University.

Musée du Gouvernement-général de Corée

View of the Government-General Museum from the Government-General Building, circa 1930

What is more, in addition to Kuroita and Miura, Fujita Ryōsaku 藤田亮策 (1892–1960), one of the leading archaeologists in Korea and head curator at the Government-General Museum, also hailed from the Shiryō hensanjo and the Committee for the Compilation of the History of the Meiji Restoration, thereby acting as a bridge between the three great historical compilation projects of modern Japan. Furthermore, it was thanks to pressure from Kuroita on the Shiryō hensanjo that Fujita was sent to Keijō from Tōkyō, illustrating the extent of Kuroita’s influence42. All of these academics – Kuroita, Miura, Imanishi, China specialist Naitō, Fujita, and Murakami Naojirō, who went on to lead the historical studies conducted in Taiwan (see below) – serve to underline the dominant role of the metropolitan imperial universities (in particular the History Department at Tōkyō Imperial University) within Korean and Taiwanese institutions, as well as the influence of archiving, compilation and palaeography specialists from the Shiryō hensanjo. In this way, Japan’s colonial research was headed by its leading experts in the building and compiling of historical corpora. Studying Japan’s colonial historiography thus means studying the leading historians of modern Japan. It also highlights the existence of an imperial network comprised of Tōkyō Imperial University, the Ministry of Education and the government-generals of Korea and Taiwan.

The central role of the Shiryō hensanjo is also apparent in the method and form adopted for historical research. As previously noted, the aim was not so much to write a history of Korea as it was to compile pre-existing documents based on a technical conception of historiography. This conception explains the composition and production process adopted for the book that was finally completed between 1932 and 1938 – a book produced not by Korea specialists, who would have focused on the content, but by a group of history technicians and sinologists who sought to master a format. The same was true in Taiwan, where historical research was driven by the same desire to build a corpus. Without detailing the composition of the Institute43, I should point out that more than half its members were Korean supporters of the Japanese like Yi Nŭnghwa 李能和 (1869–1943), Hong Hŭi 洪熹 (1884–1935) and Ch’oe Namson 崔南善 (1890–1957).

The Institute’s task was to “rationalise” the huge volume of pre-existing Korean data, which had quite simply never reached the stage of being a “scholarly history”. The aim, as we have seen, was not to write a history of Korea – which already existed in a scattered form that included the official dynastic history – but rather to arrange everything in a linear sequence, in other words, to compile the pre-existing histories and sources to produce an overview that the Koreans themselves had been “incapable” of producing. When the Institute’s work was completed in 1938, the civil governor, Ono Ryokuichirō 小野緑一郎, gave the following explanation, noting very precisely what Inō had said in Taiwan half a century earlier:

Yi Korea [= Chosŏn Korea], in particular during its final phase, saw its scholars influenced by the evidential scholarship of the Qing Dynasty, which was enthusiastically adopted by historians. Nevertheless, when considered in the light of the advances in modern academic research, these scholars were incapable of producing a wholly satisfactory historiography that could be passed on to later generations44.

The Institute’s “mission” was to consist of the following three productions45:

  1. Chōsen shi 朝鮮史 (The History of Korea), published between 1932 and 1938. This was not a written history but a methodical compilation of ancient documents (Chinese, Korean and Japanese), all translated into a voluntarily archaic Japanese. It comprised 35 volumes totalling around 24,000 pages and included an index of reigns (vol. 35) and an index of names (proper nouns, toponyms, etc.)46. The text was annalistic in form and focused on political and military history.
  2. The creation of a corpus of documents, consisting in 1938 of some 4,950 books, 4,510 photographs and 453 manuscripts in the form of scrolls and paintings47. This was in addition to the compiling of two series of re-publications: the Chōsen shiryō sōkan 朝鮮史料叢刊 series (in particular the documents on the invasions of Korea by Toyotomi Hideyoshi in the late sixteenth century) and the Chōsen shiryō shūshin 朝鮮史料集眞series48.
  3. The completion of the sillok 實錄, or royal annals, of the Yi Dynasty (1392–1910), the writing of which had been suspended by Emperor Kojong 高宗 (1852–1919) in 1897. These documents were written in Chinese, like the preceding volumes.

 

Finally, the Institute planned to promote its historical research via exhibitions held in Korea49.

Unfold notes and references
Retour vers la note de texte 8973

1

Although a comprehensive study of Japanese colonial anthropology exists (Sakano Tōru 坂野徹, Teikoku Nihon to jinruigakusha 帝国日本と人類学者 [Imperial Japan and the Anthropologists], Tōkyō, Keisō shobō 勁草書房, 2005), as well as an overview of the human sciences (excluding history) in colonial Korea (Ch’oe Sŏg’yŏng 崔錫榮, Il’che ŭi Chosŏn yŏngu wa singminji-jŏk chisik saengsan 일제의 조선연구와 식민지적 지식생산 [Imperial Japanese Research on Korea and the Construction of Colonialist Perceptions], Seoul, Minsok-wŏn 민속원, 2012), no study discusses historical and archaeological research from the perspective of the entire Japanese Empire.

Retour vers la note de texte 8974

2

Kim Sŏngmin 김성민, “Chosŏn-sa p’yŏnsuhoe ŭi sosik kwa unyong” 朝鮮史編修會의 組織과 運用 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History: Organisation and Practice), Hanguk minjok undongsa yŏngu 한국민족 운동사 연구, 1989, 3, p. 121–164; Japanese translation in Nihon shisō-shi 日本思想史 (2010, 76, p. 7–60); Wu Micha 吳密察, “Taiwan zongdufu xiushi shiye yu Taiwan fenguan guancang” 台灣總督府修史事業與台灣分館館藏 (Historical Works of the Taiwan Government-General and the Collection of the National Central Library’s Taiwan Branch), Taiwan fenguan guancang yu Taiwan shi yanjiu yantaohui 台灣分館館藏與台灣史研究研討會, Taipei, Guoli zhongyang tushuguan Taipei fenguan 國立中央圖書館台北分館, 1994a, 10, p. 39–72; Cho Donggŏl 趙東杰, Hyŏndae hanguk sahak-sa 現代韓國 史學史 (A History of Historical Studies in Contemporary Korea), Seoul, Na’nam ch’ulp’an 나남출판, 2002; Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大, “Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen shi hensan jigyō” 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History), in Satō Makoto 佐藤信 et al. (eds), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241–263; Yeh Piling 葉碧苓, “Cunshang Zhicilang de Taiwan shi yanjiu” 村上直次郎的臺灣史研究 (Murakami Naojirō’s Research on Taiwanese History), Guoshiguan xueshu jikan 國史館學術集刊, 2008, 17, p. 1–35.

Retour vers la note de texte 8975

3

Yeh Piling, “Taibei diguo daxue yu jingcheng diguo daxue shixueke zhi bijiao (1926–1945)” 臺北帝國大學與京城帝國大學史學科之比較 (1926–1945) (A Comparison of the History Departments at Taihoku and Keijō Imperial Universities, 1926–1945), Taiwan shi yanjiu 臺灣史研究, Academia Sinica, 2009, 16 (3), p. 87–132;

Chŏng Kŭnsik 정근식 et al., Singmin kwŏllyŏk kwa kŭndae chisik 식민권력과 근대지식 (Colonial Power and Modern Knowledge), Seoul, Seoul National University Press, 2011;

Ou Suying  歐素瑛, “Taihoku teikoku daigaku to Taiwan kenkyū” 台北帝国大学と台湾学研究 (Taihoku Imperial University and Research on Taiwan) in Kokusai kenkyū shūkai hōkokusho 国際研究集会報告書, 2012, 42, p. 19–37;

Nanta Arnaud, “The Japanese Colonial Historiography in Korea (1905–1945)”, in Caroli Rosa, Souyri Pierre-François (eds), History at Stake in East Asia, Venice, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, 2012, p. 83–105;

Nanta Arnaud, “L’organisation de l’archéologie antique en Corée coloniale (1902–1940)”, Ebisu, 2015, 52: [online] ; Nanta Arnaud, Mémoire inédit à propos de l’histoire des savoirs coloniaux japonais en Corée colonisée et de Sakhaline entre les empires, HDR dissertation, Paris-Diderot University, March 2017;

Matsuda Toshihiko 松田利彦, Sakai Tetsuya 酒井哲哉 (eds), Teikoku Nihon to shokuminchi daigaku 帝国日本と植民地大学 (The Colonial Universities of Imperial Japan), Tōkyō, Yumani shobō ゆまに書房, 2014;

Zhong Shumin 鍾淑敏, “Taiwan riri xinbao hanwenbu zhuren Weiqi Xiuzhen” 臺灣日日新報漢文部主任尾崎秀真 (Ozaki Hotsuma, Head of the Chinese Section of the Newspaper Taiwan Nichinichi Shinpō), Taiwanxue tongxun 臺灣學通訊, 2015, 85, p. 8–9.

Although Yeh Piling’s 2009 study compares the historical research of the two colonial universities, it overlooks the colonial historical committees, which I cover in this paper, and South Korean historiography.

Retour vers la note de texte 8976

4

Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大, “Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen shi hensan jigyō” 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History), in Satō Makoto 佐藤信 et al. (eds), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241–263.

Retour vers la note de texte 8977

5

See: Beasley William G. and Pulleyblank Edwin G. (eds), Historians of China and Japan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961;

Ozawa Eiichi 小沢栄一, Kindai Nihon shigakushi no kenkyū. Meiji-hen 近代日本史学史の研究 (明治編) (Study of the History of Modern Japanese Historiography: Meiji Period), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1968;

Souyri Pierre-François, “L’histoire à l’époque Meiji: enjeux de domination, contrôle du passé, résistances”, Ebisu, 2010, 44, p. 33–47.

Retour vers la note de texte 8978

6

After 1895 there were two history departements (ka 科) in the Faculty of Letters, one in History and one in National History. These were merged in 1904 to form one single History Department (shigaku-ka 史學科) with three courses: National History, Chinese History, and Historiography (i.e. Western history), renamed National History, Oriental History and Western History in 1910.

Retour vers la note de texte 8979

7

Yi Sŏngsi 李成市, “Koroniarizumu to kindai rekishigaku. Shokuminchi tōchika no Chōsen shi henshū to koseki chōsa o chūshin ni” コロニアリズムと近代歴史学 植民地統治下の朝鮮史編修と古蹟調査を中心に (Colonialism and Modern Historiography. The Compilation of Korean History and Surveys of Ancient Sites in Korea under Colonial Rule), in Terauchi Itarō 寺内威太郎 et al., Shokuminchi to rekishigaku 植民地と歴史学, Tōkyō, Tōsui shobō, 2004, p. 71–103;

Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大, “Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen shi hensan jigyō” 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History), in Satō Makoto 佐藤信 et al. (eds), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241–263.

Retour vers la note de texte 8980

8

For more information on the imperial universities, see: Nakayama Shigeru 中山茂, Teikoku daigaku no tanjō 帝国大学の誕生 (The Birth of the Imperial University), Tōkyō, Chūō kōron-sha, 1978.

On the subject of Orientalism in Japan, see: Tanaka Stefan, Japan’s Orient, Berkeley, California University Press, 1993.

Prior to the creation of Kyōto Imperial University in 1897, Tōkyō Imperial University was known simply as Imperial University.

Retour vers la note de texte 8981

9

See: Saeki Arikiyo 佐伯有清, Kōkaido-ō hi to sanbō honbu 広開土王碑と参謀本部 (General Staff Office and the Question of King Kwanggaet’o’s Stele), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1976;

Guex Samuel, Nouvelle histoire de la Corée des origines à nos jours, Paris, Flammarion, 2016.

Retour vers la note de texte 8982

10

Tanaka Stefan, Japan’s Orient, Berkeley, California University Press, 1993.

Retour vers la note de texte 8983

11

The Shigakukai 史學會, founded in 1889, is Japan’s oldest historical society.

Retour vers la note de texte 8984

12

Hayashi specialised in oracle bone inscriptions (also known as bone-and-shell script) in ancient China, one of the first Japanese researchers to do so. He studied these inscriptions at the archaeological site of Yin Xu 殷墟 (capital of the Yin Dynasty) in 1918. The site was systematically excavated after 1928, when Academia Sinica was founded.

Retour vers la note de texte 8985

13

Hayashi Taisuke 林泰輔, Chōsen tsūshi – zen 朝鮮通史 全 (The Complete History of Korea), Tōkyō, Toyama-bō 冨山房, 1912.

Retour vers la note de texte 8404

14

C.-A. Julien, a journalist and staunch anti-colonialist, was a specialist in the history of France’s conquest of North Africa, illustrating the popularity of this subject at that time.

Retour vers la note de texte 8411

15

Both men hailed from the Anthropology Section of Tōkyō Imperial University. Torii visited Taiwan four times between 1897 and 1900. See: Sakano Tōru 坂野徹, Teikoku Nihon to jinruigakusha 帝国日本と人類学者 (Imperial Japan and the Anthropologists), Tōkyō, Keisō shobō 勁草書房, 2005; Nanta Arnaud, “Torii Ryūzō: discours et terrains d’un anthropologue et archéologue japonais du début du XXe siècle”, Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 2010, 22, p. 24–37.

Retour vers la note de texte 8412

16

See: Miyamoto Nobuto宮本延人 1971, Inō Kanori shi to Taiwan kenkyū 伊能嘉矩氏と台湾研究 (Inō Kanori and his Research on Taiwan), Tōno-shi kyōiku iinkai 遠野市教育委員会, 1971, p. 14–16; Kasahara Masaharu 笠原政治, “Inō Kanori no jidai – Taiwan genjūmin shoki kenkyūshi e no sokuen” 伊能嘉矩の時代 台湾原住民初期研究史への測鉛 (The Inō Kanori Era – Gauging the History of Early Research on Taiwanese Aborigines), Taiwan genjūmin kenkyū 台湾原住民研究 (Journal of Research on Taiwanese Aborigines), 1998, 3, p. 54–78.

Retour vers la note de texte 8413

17

During the time of Japan’s colonial empire there was a permanent conflict between assimilation and separation, as evidenced by the existence of this ministry or at other times by the supervision of the Home Ministry; the governor-general was in any case accountable to the emperor. The Takushokumu-shō 拓殖務省 (Ministry of Colonial Administration) existed from 1896 to 1897; it was later reinstated as the Takumushō (Ministry of Colonial Affairs) from 1929 to 1942.

Retour vers la note de texte 8414

18

Tōhō gakkai 東方学会 (Institute of Eastern Culture) (ed.), Tōhōgaku kaisō 東方学回想 (Recollections of Eastern Studies), 9 vols., Tōkyō, Tōsui shobō 刀水書房, 2000, vol. 1, p. 157–159.

Retour vers la note de texte 8415

19

The Sinckan Manuscripts are a series of contracts signed in the seventeenth century by the Dutch East India Company and the Siraya, an aboriginal group from the Tainan area. They are notable for being written in both Dutch and Sinckan (Xingang in pinyin) and are vitally important historical documents. See: Ou Suying 歐素瑛, “Taihoku teikoku daigaku to Taiwangaku kenkyū” 台北帝国大学と台湾学研究 (Taihoku Imperial University and Taiwan Studies) in Kokusai kenkyū shūkai hōkokusho 国際研究集会報告書, 2012, 42, p. 19–37, in particular p. 24.

Retour vers la note de texte 8416

20

Inō Kanori 伊能嘉矩, Ryōtai jūnen shi 領臺十年史 (A 10-Year History of the Occupation of Taiwan), Taipei, Niitaka-dō 新高堂, 1905.

Retour vers la note de texte 8417

21

Inō, 1902, quoted in Matsuda Kyōko 松田京子, Teikoku no shikō. Nihon teikoku to Taiwan genjūmin 帝国の思考 日本「帝国」と台湾原住民 (The Logic of Empire. The Japanese Empire and Taiwanese Aborigines), Tōkyō, Yūshi-sha 有志舎, 2014, p. 76–77.

Retour vers la note de texte 8418

22

Shiokawa 鹽川, “Wagakuni to gaikoku to no kankei” 我國と外國との關係 (Relations Between our Country and its Neighbours), Kankoku kenkyūkai danwaroku 韓國研究會談話錄, 1902, 1, p. 1–8, in particular p. 1.

Retour vers la note de texte 8419

23

Here we can see the links between national historiography and colonial historiography: Kawai Hirotami is considered – after Hara Katsurō 原勝郎 (1871–1924) and Fukuda Tokuzō 福田德三 (1874–1930) – to be one of the historians who drew parallels between Western Europe and Japan in the late nineteenth century, all the while distinguishing Japan from “Asia” and the “stagnation” that characterised it. See: Beasley William G., Pulleyblank Edwin G. (eds), Historians of China and Japan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961; Souyri Pierre-François, Histoire du Japon médiéval, Paris, Perrin, 2013, p. 23–26 including notes, p. 74–75.

Retour vers la note de texte 8420

24

Choi Kyongrak, “Compilation and Publication of Korean Historical Materials under Japanese Rule (1910–1945)”, The Developing Economies, 1969, 7–3, p. 380–391.

Retour vers la note de texte 8421

25

Chōsen kosho kankō-kai 朝鮮古書刊行會, Chōsen kosho mokuroku 朝鮮古書目錄, Keijō, Chōsen zasshi-sha 朝鮮雜誌社, 1911.

Retour vers la note de texte 8422

26

Lozerand Emmanuel, Littérature et génie national, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2005.

Retour vers la note de texte 8423

27

See: Kaneko Fumio 金子文夫, “Mochiji Rokusaburō no shōgai to chosaku” 持地六三郎の生涯と著作 (The Life and Work of Mochiji Rokusaburō), Taiwan kingendai shi kenkyū 台湾近現代史研究 (Journal of Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese History), 1979, 2, p. 119–128.

Retour vers la note de texte 8424

28

Mochiji Rokusaburō 持地六三郎, Taiwan shokumin seisaku 臺灣殖民政策 (Colonial Policy in Taiwan), Tōkyō, Toyama-bō 冨山房, 1912.

Retour vers la note de texte 8425

29

Kuroita Katsumi 黒板勝美, Kokushi no kenkyū sōsetsu 國史の研究 總說 (General Remarks on Studies in National History), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1931; Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大 “Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen shi hensan jigyō” 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History) in Satō Makoto 佐藤信 et al. (eds), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241–263, in particular p. 250).

Retour vers la note de texte 8426

30

Kuroita Katsumi 黒板勝美, Kokushi no kenkyū sōsetsu 國史の研究 總說 (General Remarks on Studies in National History), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1931, p. 363; Hakoishi Hiroshi 箱石大 “Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen shi hensan jigyō” 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History) in Satō Makoto 佐藤信 et al. (eds), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241–263, in particular p. 250).

Retour vers la note de texte 8427

31

The Chūsūin was created on 1 October 1910 and oversaw various studies until 1937.

Retour vers la note de texte 8428

32

For further information on colonial geography and the birth of the Indochinese “peninsula”, see: Hémery Daniel, Brocheux Pierre, Indochina. An Ambiguous Colonization 1858–1954, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2011, chapter 1.

The Committee for the Investigation of Korean Antiquities can be considered the Korean equivalent of the EFEO (École française d'Extrême-Orient, or French School of Asian Studies), established in Indochina in 1900.

Retour vers la note de texte 8429

33

See: Schmid Andre, Korea Between Empires, 1895–1919, New York, Columbia University Press, 2002.

Retour vers la note de texte 8430

34

The word t’ongsa (tongshi in Chinese) is usually written 通史, meaning “general history” or “complete history”. The homophone 痛史, meaning “painful history”, makes a powerful impact. The book’s title is no doubt a response to Hayashi Taisuke’s 1912 book Chōsen tsūshi 朝鮮通史 (The Complete History of Korea).

Retour vers la note de texte 8431

35

Chōsen Sōtoku-fu 朝鮮総督府 (ed.) (Government-General of Korea), Chōsen hantō shi hensei no yōshi oyobi junjo 朝鮮半島史編成ノ要旨及順序 (Compiling the History of the Korean Peninsula: Objectives and Procedures), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1916, p. 1–4.

Retour vers la note de texte 8432

36

Ikeuchi Hiroshi 池内宏 (1878–1952), Shiratori Kurakichi’s right-hand man, believed that the Hantō-shi project was halted by bad luck: Ogiyama was named director of the Government-General Library and Sugimoto died. See: Seno Umakuma 瀨野馬熊 (edited by Nakamura Hidetaka 中村榮孝), Seno Umakuma ikō 瀨野馬熊遺稿 (Posthumous Manuscripts of Seno Umakuma), Keijō, Chōsen insatsu-sha, 1936, p. 3.

Retour vers la note de texte 8433

37

Seno Umakuma 瀨野馬熊 (edited by Nakamura Hidetaka 中村榮孝), Seno Umakuma ikō 瀨野馬熊遺稿 (Posthumous Manuscripts of Seno Umakuma), Keijō, Chōsen insatsu-sha, 1936, p. 3.

Retour vers la note de texte 8434

38

Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi henshū-kai jigyō gaiyō 朝鮮史編修會事業概要 (Overview of the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1938, p. 7.

Retour vers la note de texte 8435

39

Government-General Decree no 64 (Sōtoku-fu kunrei dai 64 gō 總督府訓令第六十四號). See: Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi henshū-kai jigyō gaiyō 朝鮮史編修會事業概要 (Overview of the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1938, p. 7

Retour vers la note de texte 8436

40

Imperial Decree no 218 (Chokurei dai 218 gō 勅令二百十八號). See: Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編修會 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History) (ed.), Chōsen shi henshū-kai yōran 朝鮮史編修會要覽 (General Information on the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1930, p. 2.

Retour vers la note de texte 8437

41

Nakamura Hidetaka 中村榮孝 “Chōsen shi no henshū to Chōsen shiryō no shūshū” 朝鮮史の編集と朝鮮史料の蒐集 (The Collection and Compilation of Archives on the History of Korea), [1964], in Nissen kankei shi no kenkyū 日鮮関係史の研究 (Research on the History of Japan-Korea Relations), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1969, vol. 3, p. 653–694, in particular p. 661.

Retour vers la note de texte 8438

42

Tōhō gakkai 東方学会 (Institute of Eastern Culture) (ed.), Tōhōgaku kaisō 東方学回想 (Recollections of Eastern Studies), 9 vols., Tōkyō, Tōsui shobō 刀水書房, 2000, vol. 5, p. 36.

Retour vers la note de texte 8439

43

Kim Sŏngmin 김성민, “Chosŏn-sa p’yŏnsuhoe ŭi sosik kwa unyong” 朝鮮史編修會의 組織과 運用 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History: Organisation and Practice), Hanguk minjok undongsa yŏngu 한국민족 운동사 연구, 1989, 3, p. 121–164; Japanese translation available in Nihon shisō-shi 日本思想史 (2010, 76, p. 7–60).

Retour vers la note de texte 8440

44

Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi 朝鮮史 (The History of Korea), 36 volumes, Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1932–1940, 1938 Index, p. 1–2.

Retour vers la note de texte 8441

45

In July 1928, the civil governor, Ikegami Shirō 池上四郎, spoke during a meeting at the Institute of “our mission to compile the history of Korea” (Chōsen shi hensan no shimei 朝鮮史編纂の使命). Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi 朝鮮史 (The History of Korea), 36 volumes, Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1932–1940, 1938 Index, p. 37.

Retour vers la note de texte 8444

46

This work is split into six parts. 1. The time before unification by Silla (676): three volumes comprising Chinese, Korean and Japanese documents on the Three Kingdoms period. 2. The Unified Silla period (676 to 935). 3. The time of the Koryŏ kingdom (935 to 1392). 4. Beginning of the Chosŏn period, from T’aejo 太祖 (Yi Sŏnggye 李成桂, founder of the dynasty in 1392) to Sŏnjo 宣祖 (who reigned from 1567 to 1608). 5. Middle of the Chosŏn period, from Kwanghaegun 光海君 (enthroned in 1608) to Chŏngjo 正祖 (who reigned from 1776 to 1800). 6. The end of the Chosŏn period, from Sunjo 純祖 (who reigned from 1800 to 1834) until the Kabo Reform (1894).

Retour vers la note de texte 8443

47

Kim Sŏngmin 김성민, “Chosŏn-sa p’yŏnsuhoe ŭi sosik kwa unyong” 朝鮮史編修會의 組織과 運用 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History: Organisation and Practice), Hanguk minjok undongsa yŏngu 한국민족 운동사 연구, 1989, 3, p. 121–164; Japanese translation available in Nihon shisō-shi 日本思想史, 2010, 76, p. 7–60, in particular p. 28.

Retour vers la note de texte 8442

48

Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi henshū-kai jigyō gaiyō 朝鮮史編修會事業概要 (Overview of the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1938, p. 140–142; Chōsen shi henshū-kai 朝鮮史編集會 (ed.), Chōsen shi 朝鮮史 (History of Korea), 36 volumes, Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1932–1940, 1938 Index: 187–191.

Retour vers la note de texte 8445

49

See: Minutes, first meeting, second day, 9 October 1925.

ABE Hiroshi 阿部洋, “Nihon tōchi-ka Chōsen no kōtō kyōiku” 日本統治下朝鮮の高等教育 (Higher Education in Korea under Japanese Rule), Shisō 思想, 565, 1971, p. 920–941.

AKISASA Masanosuke 秋笹正之輔, Shokumin seisaku shi 殖民政策史 (History of [Japanese] Colonial Policy), in HIRANO Yoshitarō 平野義太郎 et al. (eds), Nihon shihon shugi hattatsu shi kōza 日本資本主義發達史講座 (Lectures on the History of the Development of Japanese Capitalism), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1933.

BEASLEY William G., PULLEYBLANK Edwin G. (eds), Historians of China and Japan, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961.

BERTRAND Romain, L’histoire à parts égales, Paris, Le Seuil, 2011.

CHEN Xiaochong 陈小冲, Riben zhimin tongzhi Taiwan wushi nian shi 日本殖民统治五十年史 (The 50-Year History of Japanese Colonial Rule in Taiwan), Beijing, Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe 社会科学文献出版社, 2005.

CHO Donggŏl 趙東杰, Hyŏndae hanguk sahak-sa 現代韓國 史學史 (A History of Historical Studies in Contemporary Korea), Seoul, Na’nam ch’ulp’an 나남출판, 2002.

CHO Kwanja 趙寛子, Shokuminchi Chōsen / Teikoku Nihon no bunka renkan 植民地朝鮮 / 帝国日本の文化連環 (The Cultural Links Between Colonial Korea and Imperial Japan), Tōkyō, Yūshi-sha 有志舎, 2007.

CH’OE Sŏg’yŏng 崔錫榮, Il’che ŭi Chosŏn yŏngu wa singminji-jŏk chisik saengsan 일제의 조선연구와 식민지적 지식생산 (Imperial Japanese Research on Korea and the Construction of Colonialist Perceptions), Séoul, Minsok-wŏn 민속원, 2012.

CHOI Kyongrak, « Compilation and publication of Korean historical materials under Japanese rule (1910-1945) », The developing economies, 7-3, 1969, p. 380-391.

CHŎNG Kŭnsik 정근식 et alii (dir.), Singmin kwŏllyŏk kwa kŭndae chisik 식민권력과 근대지식 (Colonial Power and Modern Knowledge), Seoul, Seoul national University press, 2011.

CHŌSEN KOSHO KANKŌ-KAI 朝鮮古書刊行會 Chōsen kosho mokuroku 朝鮮古書目錄 (Bibliography of Old Korean Books), Keijō, Chōsen zasshi-sha 朝鮮雜誌社, 1911.

CHŌSEN SHI GAKKAI 朝鮮史學會 (dir.), Chōsen shi kōza 朝鮮史講座 (Korean History Lessons), Keijō, Chōsen shi gakkai (Korean History Society), 1924.

CHŌSEN-SHI HENSHŪ-KAI 朝鮮史編修會 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History) (dir.), Chōsen-shi henshū-kai yōran 朝鮮史編修會要覽 (General Information on the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1930.

CHŌSEN SHI HENSHŪ-KAI (dir.), Chōsen shi 朝鮮史 (The History of Korea), 36 volumes, Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1932-1940.

CHŌSEN SHI HENSHŪ-KAI (dir.), Chōsen shi henshū-kai jigyō gaiyō 朝鮮史編修會事業概要 (Overview of the Institute for the Compilation of Korean History), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1938.

CHŌSEN SŌTOKU-FU 朝鮮総督府 (dir.), (Government-General of Korea) Chōsen hantō shi hensei no yōshi oyobi junjo 朝鮮半島史編成ノ要旨及順序 (Compiling the History of the Korean Peninsula: Objectives and Procedures), Keijō, Government-General of Korea, 1916.

DULUCQ Sophie, Écrire l’histoire de l’Afrique à l’époque coloniale (XIXe-XXe siècles), Paris, Karthala, 2009.

GUEX Samuel, Nouvelle histoire de la Corée des origines à nos jours, Paris, Flammarion, 2016.

HAKOISHI Hiroshi 箱石大, « Kindai Nihon shiryōgaku to Chōsen sōtoku-fu no Chōsen-shi hensan jigyō » 近代日本史料学と朝鮮総督府の朝鮮史編纂事業 (Archiving in Modern Japan and the Colonial Compilation of Korean History), in SATŌ Makoto 佐藤信 et alii (dir.), Zen-kindai Nihon rettō to Chōsen hantō 前近代日本列島と朝鮮半島 (The Japanese Archipelago and the Korean Peninsula in the Pre-modern Period), Tōkyō, Yamakawa shuppan-sha 山川出版社, 2007, p. 241-263.

HAN Yongjin 韓龍震, « Il’che singmin t’ongch’i-ha ŭi taehak kyoyuk » 日帝 植民統治下의 大學教育 (University Education under Japanese Colonial Rule), Hanguk sa simin kangjwa 한국사 시민강좌, 18, 1996, p. 94-112.

HAYASHI Taisuke 林泰輔, Chōsen tsūshi (Zen) 朝鮮通史(全)(The Complete History of Korea), Tōkyō, Toyama-bō 冨山房, 1912.

HÉMERY Daniel, BROCHEUX Pierre, Indochina. An Ambiguous Colonization 1858–1954, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2011.

HIYAMA Yukio 檜山幸夫 et alii. (eds), Taiwan shiryō kōbun臺灣史料綱文, Seibundō 成文堂, Nagoya, vol. 3, « Kaisetsu » 解説 (Exegesis), 1989, p. 325-477.

INŌ Kanori 伊能嘉矩, Ryō Tai jūnen shi 領臺十年史 (A 10-Year History of Our Possession of Taiwan), Taipei, Niitaka-dō 新高堂, 1905.

JANG Shin 張信, « Kyŏngsŏng cheguk taehak sahakkwa ŭi chijang » 경성제국대학 사학과의 지장 (The Domain of the History Department at Keijō Imperial University), Yŏksa munjae yŏngu 역사문재 연구, 26, 2011, p. 45-83.

KANEKO Fumio 金子文夫, « Mochiji Rokusaburō no shōgai to chosaku » 持地六三郎の生涯と著作 (The Life and Work of Mochiji Rokusaburō), Taiwan kingendai shi kenkyū 台湾近現代史研究 (Journal of Modern and Contemporary Taiwanese History), 2, 1979, p. 119-128.

KASAHARA Masaharu 笠原政治, « Inō Kanori no jidai – Taiwan genjūmin shoki kenkyūshi e no sokuen » 伊能嘉矩の時代 台湾原住民初期研究への測鉛 (The Inō Kanori Era – Gauging the History of Early Research on Taiwanese Aborigines), Taiwan genjūmin kenkyū 台湾原住民研究 (Journal of Research on Taiwanese Aborigines), 3, 1998, p. 54-78.

KEIJŌ TEIKOKU DAIGAKU 京城帝國大學 (Keijō Imperial University) (ed.), Keijō teikoku daigaku ichiran 京城帝國大學一覽 (Keijō Imperial University Annual Reports), microfiches, National library of Korea, 1924-1942.

KEIJŌ TEIKOKU DAIGAKU DŌSŌKAI 京城帝国大学同窓会 (KTDD) (ed.), Konpeki, haruka ni 紺碧遙かに (Far Away, Deep Blue), Tōkyō, Keijō teikoku daigaku dōsōkai éd., 1974.

KIM Sŏngmin 김성민, « Chosŏn-sa p’yŏnsuhoe ŭi sosik kwa unyong » 朝鮮史編修會의 組織과 運用 (The Institute for the Compilation of Korean History: Organisation and Practice), Hanguk minjok undongsa yŏngu 한국민족 운동사 연구, 3, 1989, p. 121-164 ; Japanese translation in Nihon shisō-shi 日本思想史, 2010, 76, p. 7-60.

KUROITA Katsumi 黒板勝美, Kokushi no kenkyū sōsetsu 國史の研究 總說 (General Remarks on Studies in National History), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1931.

LOZERAND Emmanuel, Littérature et génie national, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2005.

MATSUDA Kyōko 松田京子, Teikoku no shikō. Nihon teikoku to Taiwan genjūmin 帝国の思考 日本「帝国」と台湾原住民 (The Logic of Empire. The Japanese Empire and Taiwanese Aborigines), Tōkyō, Yūshisha 有志舎, 2014.

MATSUDA Toshihiko 松田利彦, SAKAI Tetsuya 酒井哲哉 (eds), Teikoku Nihon to shokuminchi daigaku 帝国日本と植民地大学 (The Colonial Universities of Imperial Japan), Tōkyō, Yumani shobō ゆまに書房, 2014.

MIYAMOTO Nobuto 宮本延人, Inō Kanori shi to Taiwan kenkyū 伊能嘉矩氏と台湾研究 (Inō Kanori and his Research on Taiwan), Tōno shi kyōiku iinkai 遠野市教育委員会, 1971.

MOCHIJI Rokusaburō 持地六三郎, Taiwan shokumin seisaku 臺灣殖民政策 (Colonial Policy in Taiwan), Tōkyō, Toyama-bō 冨山房, 1912.

MOCHIJI Rokusaburō, « Shiryō hensan ni kan suru Mochiji hensan buchō no enjutsu » 史料編纂に關する持地編纂部長の演述 (Lecture on the Compiling of Historical Sources by Director Mochiji from the Office of Compilation), Taiwan jihō 臺灣時報, 37 (août 1922), p. 23-26.

NAKAMURA Hidetaka中村榮孝, Bunroku, bunchō no eki 文祿・文長の役 (The Bunroku and Bunchō Era Invasions [by Toyotomi Hideyoshi]), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1935.

NAKAMURA Hidetaka,  « Chōsen shi no henshū to Chōsen shiryō no shūshū » 朝鮮史の編集と朝鮮史料の蒐集 (The Collection and Compilation of Archives on the History of Korea), in Nissen kankei shi no kenkyū 日鮮関係史の研究 (Research on the History of Japan-Korea Relations), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa Kōbunkan, vol. 3, 1969 [1964], p. 653-694.

NAKAYAMA Shigeru 中山茂, Teikoku daigaku no tanjō 帝国大学の誕生 (The Birth of the Imperial University), Tōkyō, Chūō kōron sha, 1978.

NANTA Arnaud, « Torii Ryūzō: discours et terrains d’un anthropologue et archéologue japonais du début du XXe siècle », Bulletins et Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 22, 2010, p. 24-37.

NANTA Arnaud, « The Japanese Colonial Historiography in Korea (1905-1945) », in CAROLI Rosa, SOUYRI Pierre François (eds), History at Stake in East Asia, Venezia, Libreria Editrice Cafoscarina, 2012, p. 83-105.

NANTA Arnaud,  Mémoire inédit à propos de l’histoire des savoirs coloniaux japonais en Corée colonisée et de Sakhaline entre les empires, HDR dissertation, Paris-Diderot, March 2017.

OU Suying  歐素瑛, « Taihoku teikoku daigaku to Taiwan kenkyū » 台北帝国大学と台湾学研究 (Taihoku Imperial University and Research on Taiwan) in Kokusai kenkyū shūkai hōkokusho 国際研究集会報告書, 42, 2012, p. 19-37.

OZAWA Eiichi 小沢栄一, Kindai Nihon shigakushi no kenkyū. Meiji-hen 近代日本史学史の研究 (Study of the History of Modern Japanese Historiography: Meiji Period), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1968.

SAEKI Arikiyo 佐伯有清, Kōkaido-ō hi to sanbō honbu 広開土王碑と参謀本部 (Imperial General Headquarters and the Question of King Kwanggaet’o’s Stele), Tōkyō, Yoshikawa kōbunkan, 1976.

SAKANO Tōru 坂野徹, Teikoku Nihon to jinruigakusha 帝国日本と人類学者 (Imperial Japan and the Anthropologists), Tōkyō, Keisō shobō 勁草書房, 2005.

SCHMID Andre, Korea Between Empires 1895-1919, New York, Columbia University Press, 2002.

SENO Umakuma 瀨野馬熊 (edited by NAKAMURA Hidetaka 中村榮孝) Seno Umakuma ikō 瀨野馬熊遺稿 (Posthumous Manuscripts of Seno Umakuma), Keijō, Chōsen insatsu-sha, 1936.

« SHIOKAWA » 鹽川, « Wagakuni to gaikoku to no kankei » 我國と外國との關係 (Relations Between our Country and its Neighbours), Kankoku kenkyūkai danwaroku 韓國研究會談話錄, 1, 1902, p. 1-8.

SINGARAVÉLOU Pierre, « L’enseignement supérieur colonial. Un état des lieux », Histoire de l’éducation, 122, 2009, p. 71-92.

SOUYRI Pierre-François, « L’histoire à l’époque Meiji: enjeux de domination, contrôle du passé, résistances », Ebisu, 44, 2010, p. 33-47.

SOUYRI Pierre-François, Histoire du Japon médiéval, Paris, Perrin, 2013.

SOUYRI Pierre-François (dir.), Japon colonial, 1880-1930. Les voix de la dissension, Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 2014.

SUEMATSU Yasukazu 末松保和, Nikkan kankei 日韓關係 (Les relations nippo-coréennes), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 1933.

SUEMATSU Yasukazu, Chōsen kenkyū bunken mokuroku 1868-1945 朝鮮研究文献目録1968-1945 (Bibliography of Materials in Korean Studies, 1868–1945), Tōkyō, Kumiko sho.in 汲古書院, 2 vols, 1980.

TAIHOKU TEIKOKU DAIGAKU BUNSEI GAKUBU 台北帝國大學文政學部 (Taihoku Imperial University, Faculty of Literature and Politics), Shigakuka kenkyū nenpō 史學科研究年報 (History Department Annual Report), Taipei, 1934-1942.

TANAKA Stefan, Japan’s Orient, Berkeley, California University Press, 1993.

TŌHŌ GAKKAI 東方学会 (Société des études orientales) (ed.), Tōhōgaku kaisō 東方学回想 (Recollections of Eastern Studies), 9 vols., Tōkyō, Tōsui shobō 刀水書房, 2000.

WAKABAYASHI Masahiro 若林正丈, Teikokushugi ka no Taiwan seidoku 帝国主義下の台湾 精読 (Taiwan under Imperialism: Exegesis), Tōkyō, Iwanami, 2001.

WU Micha 吳密察, «Taiwan zongdufu xiushi shiye yu Taiwan fenguan guancang » 台灣總督府修史事業與台灣分館館藏 (Historical Works of the Taiwan Government-General and the Collection of the National Central Library’s Taiwan Branch), Taiwan fenguan guancang yu Taiwan shi yanjiu yantaohui 台灣分館館藏與台灣史研究研討會, Taipei, Guoli zhongyang tushuguan Taipei fenguan 國立中央圖書館台北分館, 10, 1994a, p. 39-72.

WU Micha吳密察,  « Taiwan shi no seiritsu to sono kadai » 台灣史の成立とその課題 (The Constitution and Themes of Taiwanese History), in MIZOGUCHI Yūzō 溝口雄三 et alii. (dir.), Shūen kara no rekishi 周縁からの歴史 (History from the Fringes), Tōkyō, Tōkyō daigaku shuppankai, 1994b, p. 219-242.

WU Micha, « Shokuminchi ni daigaku ga dekita !? » 植民地に大学ができた !? (A University in the Colony!?), in MATSUDA Tetsuya, SAKAI Toshikiko, Teikoku Nihon to Shokuminchi daigaku, Tōkyō, Yumani shobō, 2014, p. 75-105.

YEH Piling 葉碧苓, « Cunshang Zhicilang de Taiwan shi yanjiu » 村上直次郎的臺灣史研究 (La recherche en histoire taiwanaise réalisée par Murakami Naojirō), Guoshiguan xueshu jikan 國史館學術集刊, 17, 2008, p. 1-35.

YEH Piling, « Taibei diguo daxue yu jingcheng diguo daxue shixueke zhi bijiao (1926-1945) » 臺北帝國大學與京城帝國大學史學科之比較 (1926-1945) (A Comparison of the History Departments at Taihoku and Keijō Imperial Universities, 1926–1945), Taiwan shi yanjiu 臺灣史研究, Academia Sinica, 16 (3), 2009, p. 87-132.

YI Hyojin 李暁辰, Keijō teikoku daigaku no Kankoku jukyō kenkyū 京城帝国大学の韓国儒教研究 (Research on Korean Confucianism at Keijō Imperial University), Tōkyō, Bensei shuppan 勉誠出版, 2016.

YI Sŏngsi 李成市, « Koroniarizumu to kindai rekishigaku. Shokuminchi tōchika no Chōsen shi henshū to koseki chōsa o chūshin ni » コロニアリズムと近代歴史学 植民地統治下の朝鮮史編修と古蹟調査を中心に (Colonialism and Modern Historiography. The Compilation of Korean History and Surveys of Ancient Sites in Korea under Colonial Rule), in TERAUCHI Itarō 寺内威太郎 et alii, Shokuminchi to rekishigaku 植民地と歴史学, Tōkyō, Tōsui shobō, 2004, p. 71-103.

ZHONG Shumin 鍾淑敏, « Taiwan riri xinbao hanwenbu zhuren Weiqi Xiuzhen » 臺灣日日新報漢文部主任尾崎秀真 (Ozaki Hotsuma, Head of the Chinese Section of Taiwan Nichinichi shinpō), Taiwanxue tongxun 臺灣學通訊 85, 2015, p. 8-9.