CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

79

A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan during theJapanese Occupation: Focusing on Inou Kanori, Utsurikawa
Nenozo, and Kanaseki Takeo
CHUN Kyung-soo

ASEAN Research Center, Guizhou University, Guiyang, China
E-mail: korancks@hotmail.com

Abstract
Let me quickly epitomize the content of this paper as a concluding remark. Inou Kanori is to berecorded as the first fieldworker in the East Asian anthropology and the first anthropologist seriously
concerning the field methodology ever since the world history of anthropology. Utsurikawa Nenozo was
the first Ph. D. in anthropology at Harvard University and established and managed the first department ofanthropology in Japan as well as in Taiwan. Kanaseki Takeo tried to keeping academism under the militaryrule during the wartime by means of popularization and the hidden transcript and demonstrated full strengthof professionalism to donate his family skeletons for the future research. We have enough evidences toreinvent the East Asian anthropology within the context of this area.
What we have more importantly learned one thing from our discussion of the legacy of colonialism
and militarism is for the contemporary situation as we live with. I believe that there does not exist a clear
cut demarcation between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ in science and academism. Obsessive attitude of being ‘pure’in academism which is unnecessary has widely been disseminated around the circle of academicians. It is
certainly not helpful to understand the facts which should be the final cause in doing science. It functions
sometimes a kind of obstacle to uncover the facts especially related with sensitive issues like war andworking for government.
Key words: Anthropology, Inou Kanori, Kanaseki Takeo, Taiwan, Utsurikawa Nenozo

Introduction
Modernization issue in Taiwan has almost been understood in terms of parallelingto the research of the modern history of Taiwan since 1895 and anthropologicalresearches can also be evaluated within the process of the Taiwanese modern history
which started with the Japanese colonial occupation after the war between China(Qing) and Japan. This paper aims at discussing and understanding the history ofReceived: 31 August, 2015
Accepted: 20 January, 2016

80

South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

anthropological research in Taiwan since the landing of the Japanese colonialism.
In other words, we can also learn about the very meaning of the perspective ofanthropology and colonialism through this case within the framework of the Japanesecolonialism for 50 years (May 10, 1895 - October 25, 1945).
When the WWII was over, Prof. Passin at Harvard University who worked
for GHQ in Tokyo for a couple of years mentioned selectively five Japanese
anthropologists and their contribution to anthropology at Taiwan (PASSIN 1947). Thoseare Utsurikawa Nenozo (1884-1947), Furuno Kiyoto (1899-1979), Miyamoto Nobuto(1901-1988), Okada Yuzuru (1906-1969), and Mabuchi Toichi (1909-1988). Hiscomments were not based on his own balanced academic research but the information
seemed to be personally provided by Okada Yuzuru with personal bias. It seems tobe negative for me to give any credit on Passin’s evaluation in terms of the historyof anthropology in Taiwan because Furuno did not stay in Taiwan for a relatively
long time as others did and Okada could not be recognized as an anthropologist incomparison with other persons listed.
There is an epoch making time recently for examining the history of anthropology
at Taiwan since Sung Wen-shun’s Japanese article on Torii Ryuzo was eventuallytranslated into Chinese language and published at Taiwan in 1994. Since that time theold aged series of the Reports of the Indigenous Customs in Taiwan published by theGovernment-General of Taiwan in the early colonial rule were consecutively translated
into Chinese language (HUANG 1999). This activity can be regarded as a timely eventto reconsider the history of anthropology in Taiwan.
Huang describes the package of the accumulated data and divided them into two
traditions during the Japanese colonial times. First of all, government anthropologists
like Inou Kanori and Torii Ryuzo took the initiatives to collect ethnographic andhistorical data and published articles in the Tokyo Journal of Anthropology before 20th
century. Secondly, the government side (especially police bureau) almost solely worked
more detailed arrangement based on the former stage of accomplishment. There werecertainly sometimes conflicts between scholars and government. Thirdly, the researchon the indigenous people continued by scholars at Taihoku Imperial University(TIU in the following) (HUANG 1999). Huang’s analysis of the division between thegovernment-initiated and the university-initiated seems to be necessary for the nextstep.
It must be interested in looking carefully into the relationship between both sides
in terms of scholarship as well as colonial management. Also another interesting point
to me covers the wartime situation of which a cleavage between the military as thedominator and the academician as the oppressed affects the scholarship as well as thepolicy. This step should be my own homework in the future. One diagram and two
indexes (HUANG 1999) by Huang are suitable for anyone to be discovering the best way
to study the history of anthropology in Taiwan during the colonial era.
The exactly half century of the Japanese colonial occupation can be divided into
briefly three stages in terms of doing anthropology: 1) Government-General of Taiwan

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

81

invited Inou Kanori as a government anthropologist so to speak and Torii Ryuzo
was dispatched by Tokyo Imperial University and Tokyo Anthropological Society
in order to conduct field research. Both did field research in Taiwan at first time in1896. 2) Institute of Ethnology was established at TIU in 1928 and Prof. Utsurikawa
Nenozo educated in anthropology department of Harvard University became the headof it and opened officially ‘ethnography and ethnology’ courses in the university. A
professional journal of Nanpo Dozoku ( 南方土俗 ) was published under the authorityof Prof. Utsurikawa beside the university context including different field specialists
around Taiwan. It is important to mention it not only because the journal provided
for an academic atmosphere for the intellectual communication among the colonialintelligentia including the colonized in a broad sense but because it expanded theirregional perspectives to the South East Asia and the Pacific connected obviously tothe imperial expansionism. More importantly, he initiated an intensive field research
to the indigenous peoples at Taiwan and published the result of it in 1935. At last,3) Dr. Kanaseki Takeo became professor of anatomy at the faculty of medicine in
TIU and worked as a physical anthropologist together with other archaeologists andethnographers in Taiwan and did the main role of publishing a journal named Minzoku
Taiwan ( 民俗台湾 ) to popularize ethnography and ethnology through Taiwan till theend of war.
The above mentioned three figures can be credited as representatives from eachstage. In other words, I would like to deal with those three scholars (Inou Kanori,
Utsurikawa Nenozo, and Kanaseki Takeo) and their contribution to the history ofanthropology in Taiwan in this paper.
Three consecutive stages can well be connected and somehow overlapped in termsof facilities, personnels, and research results. This situation seems to be very importantto review the history of anthropology in Taiwan because those personnels worked
for doing anthropology in Taiwan at that time realized seemingly a kind of academic
system to be developed in Taiwan. They knew what they were doing as well as what
they had to do in a sense of scholarly way.

INOU Kanori (1867. 5. 9 - 1925. 9. 30): First StageIt seems to be important to acknowledge the situation of the academic field ofanthropology in Japan at that time of beginning. Tokyo Anthropological Society was
eventually established in 1884 and the main figure of the establishment was Tsuboi
Shogoro (1863-1913) who studied under Edward Tylor in London approximately
for three years. He got only interested in the term of race in the Japanese prehistory
before the oversea experience and started to learn a new concept of ethnography todeal with the living people at London. Since return to Japan he did hardly experiment
the concept of ethnography in practice. However, he taught about it as he realized themeaning and importance in doing anthropology for his students and lecturing to the82South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

public and writing articles in journals and obviously used the concept of ethnography
for archaeological settings to explain the Japanese prehistory including the question oforigin of Japanese people. As a matter of fact, anthropology as an academic discipline
was a kind of beginning stage at the end of 19th century even in Tokyo, Japan.
There were two figures under Tsuboi Shogoro. Torii Ryuzo (1870-1953) becamea student of Tsuboi’s laboratory before Tsuboi went to London and Inou Kanori (18671925) became Tsuboi’s student right after Tsuboi came back to Japan from London.
Both worked together for supporting their mentor and learning anthropology forthemselves. More importantly, both did practice ethnographical works at Taiwan at theend of 19th century which covers the beginning stage of the Japanese anthropology
by means of fieldwork. I would consider those fieldworks done by Inou Kanori(starts May, 1896) and Torii Ryuzo (starts August, 1896) even in expedition levels
as a monumental epoch in the history of anthropology in both Japan and Taiwan incomparison with the western hemisphere. Both could practice doing ethnography in1896 at Taiwan. However, there seems to be a big difference between them in terms ofacademic buildings. The former had heavily been influenced by Tsuboi’s archaeologicalresearch in the beginning and furthermore moved around East Asia in general beyond
Taiwan while the latter had rather solely Tsuboi’s ethnographical interest with only
focusing on Taiwan as a matter of fact.
The first ethnographer with the true meaning in Japan as well as in Taiwan waspromulgated in Taiwan at 1896. His name is Inou Kanori. He did deeply think of thenecessary method for doing ethnography.
Tashiro Yasusada (田代安定), a government officer and botanist trained in Russia
in 1884-1885, waited for Inou Kanori’s arrival to organize the Anthropological Societyof Taiwan in 1895. There was another organization (Society of Native Customs in
Taiwan) to concern the native peoples in Taiwan organized by the colonizers in 1898.
Inou actively involved into both organizations. Prof. Hu compares two organizationin terms of their purpose and research items and methods on the basis of an analytic
table. The latter did more focus on education, registration, legal issues and so forth (HU1998).
The voluminous Reports of the
Indigenous Customs in Taiwan (Fig. 1)
published by the Government-Generalof Taiwan “focused on anthropologicalresearch” and the preface of it stressedon the result as “anthropological”.
Society of Native Customs in Taiwan
was organized with seven membersof the publishing committee (Inou
was one of them) and the organization
pursued to conduct surveys and Fig. 1. Reports of the Indigenous Customs in
Taiwan.
researches on the native customs in

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

83

Taiwan in their regulatory charter under the law office of the Government-Generalof Taiwan. It was a kind of research group by means of managing the tribal groups
in the mountain areas. And furthermore the first volume of Records of the Taiwanese
Customs was printed on the 25th of January, 1901 (ANONYM 1901). I like to keep myeye on the “words of publication” employing words of “folk custom” (民俗慣習) as
well as “folklore” (民俗) including a phrase of “colonial policy was successful because
government asked a great scholar for conducting field research on the native customs”.
And in the next stage, the Police department under the colonial government took therole of conducting researches and publishing Documents on the Control of the Savages(理蕃誌稿) since 1911.
Three principles for the field work was clearly formulated by Inou Kanori in thisfield of doing anthropology, as a matter of fact, for the first time in the world to myknowledge. They are: 1) the fieldworker must without any condition write down what
he observed everyday, 2) the keen observation with sensitivity in order to accomplish
the research objectivity is necessary. If it is not sufficient, the fieldworker should beaccused of criminality for it. 3) the result of the keen observation should be transferredto the detailed description as a report (SAKAZAWA 1928, YE 1998, EDA 2001). Inou
Kanori did also propose the five precepts for the field researchers: 1) healthy condition
for the body, 2) strong patience in any condition, 3) decisive confirmation, 4)
competence of the skilled language with variety, and finally 5) fully equipped with thescientific knowledges beside the three principles. Based on the three principle and five
precepts, he developed a fieldwork method in terms of scientific way. They are: “1)particular objects or events in a certain situation should not be regarded as generalized
ones, 2) a custom uncovered at the same time in the different three villages can berecognized as the fact that three areas have been somehow related. 3) researchers
should not be easily absorbed into potential possibility for the way of thinking, 4)
curious customs are to be considered as the secondary ones in ethnographical research.
5) the research result should be described in the way of induction” (INOU 1894).
Inou seemed to read the 2nd edition of Notes and Queries on Anthropology:
For the use of travellers and residents in uncivilized lands (BRITISH ASSOCIATION FOR
THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE 1892). It’s role was highly evaluated for developing
the field methods in British Anthropology (URRY 1972). The first edition of it was
published in 1874 and Edward Tylor put a great deal of his effort to make the 2ndedition as we know and a copy of this 2nd edition is at present stored in an annex ofa library managed by the department of biology of Tokyo University. It was probably
brought by Tsuboi Shogoro when he came back home from London in 1892.
Inou here clearly clarifies the method of ethnography including basic contents andimportant items to be recorded based on those two steps of principle and precept andmethodology. First of all, he divided two main columns for the research direction: 1)
activities and mores related with the people and 2) activities and customs related withmaterials (INOU 1901). The first column includes various types of social organization,
human relations including ethics and law, and finally rituals and belief systems. The

84

South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016second one contains customs of clothing, food and housing as well as tools withdisease and language. If we examine the whole contents of which Inou suggests
to describe for ethnography, it seems to be very much similar to the contemporary
idea of culture in general. He was certainly very much interested in developing thescientific methodology for doing ethnography. Inou was seriously concerning about
the issue of ethnography based on his own field experiences in Japan and Taiwan
far before Malinowski working at Trobriand islands while no one thought about theethnographer’s code of conduct in the world at that time. This is the reason why wehave to recognize Inou Kanori’s contribution to anthropology.
Inou’s analysis of the indigenous knowledge on fire making explains ethnographic
details covering almost all over the Taiwan as well as people’s attitude against
acculturation. Inou’s eye could not fail to point out belief system and rituals ofancestral mythology related with the resistance against acculturation. For example, we
can learn the fact that the indigenous ritual has a tendency to keep a deep connection
with the indigenous method of fire making (INOU 1906).
“Inou did the role of double standards of anthropologist as well as colonial officer
for his 10 years stay in Taiwan” (HU 1998). I would partially agree with Hu’s commentand like to revise her comment as Inou was employed as a colonial officer because he
was well equipped with anthropological knowledges. If we remind of Evans-Pritchard’srole of the colonial officer at the Nuer, it seemed be almost natural for the colonial
government to hire an anthropologist for effectively governing the people at that time.
Dispatching the government anthropologists to the colonies could be an issue
to be concerned here. It is no doubt that USA started to hire several anthropologists
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the late 19th century. British government also sent
anthropologists to the Southern Nigeria in 1908 and Rattray was sent to Gold Coast
while Australian government sent anthropologists to Papua New Guinea in 1920
(KUPER 1983). In comparison with the above cases, Taiwan case of hiring Inou Kanori
as a government anthropologist was not so late. Expansion of the Imperial territories
required appropriate administration to govern and control the colonies. Anthropologists
were ready to be hired for this new situation of imperialism. This is a sort of big
stepping stone from the stage of Tsuboi Shogoro to that of Inou Kanori and Torii Ryuzo
in the history of the Japanese anthropology.
However the empire-wide institution in Japan could not follow as the British
imperialism founded International Institute of African Languages and Cultures in1926 to share opportunity of participating missionaries, anthropologists, linguists, andcolonial officers from the various countries in Europe (KUPER 1983). In Japan, thesimilar case was finally established in 1942 as the name of Institute of Ethnic Research(民族研究所) during the wartime. It is not difficult for us to realize the fact that it was
too late to function well for the Empire’s request in terms of war management.

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

85

UTSURIKAWA Nenozo (1884 - 1947. 2. 9): Second StageIn Taiwan, Dr. Utsurikawa Nenozo ( 移川子之蔵) was asked for establishingan institute of ethnology in TIU since 1928 and he was also dispatched to Europe as
a visiting scholar for nearly 2 years before the institute started. He was previously
educated in University of Chicago and earned his doctorate as an area specialist inIndonesia and Southeast Asia from anthropology department of Harvard University in1918 and published an article related with his dissertation in American Anthropologist
in 1921. In Taiwan, he inaugurated an academic association and actively ran seminars
and published its journal called The Ethnographical Journal of the South-East Asia,
Ocenia and Taiwan (Nanpo Dozoku). Dr. Utsurikawa recruited Mr. Miyamoto Nobuto(宮本延人) as an assistant professor for the institute and received Mr. Mabuchi Toichi(馬淵東一) as the first student entering into the institute in 1928. The institute had
passionately conducted an intensive field research funded by a former GovernerGeneral on the native Formosan since 1931 and published one of the most promisingmonographs “The Formosan Native Tribes” (1935) ever since in Taiwan as well as inJapan.
Let me start with his doctoral dissertation to review his academic contribution.
The essence of it provides us the next chart to be (I made it from reading his
dissertation) (Utsurikawa 1918). He collected 865 artifacts of the decorative arts fromvarious regions in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Those artifacts were made of textiles,
embroideries, metal works, pottery, and bamboo tubes (Table 1, UTSURIKAWA 1918).
Utsurikawa seemed to like the word of "ethnography" as he used it in his doctoral
dissertation at 1918 covering 245 pages including 733 plates (UTSURIKAWA 1918) with
6 maps. His research covered areas from Formosa to the South Pacific even though thetitle of the dissertation designated “Indonesia”. He dealt with superposition of humanand animal forms in the decorative arts, mythological figure as Visnu riding on GarudaHindu, plastic representation of human figures as “magico-religious” (UTSURIKAWA
1918) meaning as well as “symbolic significance” of the animal figures (UTSURIKAWA
1918). Speaking for the representation and symbolism based on the decorative
arts, Utsurikawa can probably be credited as the pioneer in the field of aesthetic
anthropology, if you like, with symbolic approach in the whole history of world
Table 1. Analysis of the Decorative Arts*
Realistic

Conventional

Rectilinear

Curvilinear

Combination

Total

Philippines

45

62

145

40

12

304

Celebes

9

35

67

32

10

153

Borneo

19

150

34

34

22

259

Sumatra

27

63

28

7

24

149

Total

100

310

274

113

68

865

*modified from Utsurikawa 1918.

86

South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

anthropology as we have simply neglected as George Stocking does in his cumulative
serial works of the history of anthropology. It is also important to notify for us the factthat Utsurikawa quoted “Prof. S. Tsuboi” (UTSURIKAWA 1918) for acknowledging the
Paiwan effigy in Taiwan for his research. If Stocking did eventually read Utsurikawa’s
dissertation, his eye could not escape from the name of Tsuboi Shogoro and theanthropology in Japan as well as East Asia at least in the early 20th century.
Would it be possible for me to say that Utsurikawa thought about the abstract
account of time based on the ethnography of the Taiwanese indigenous people(UTSURIKAWA 1936) as Johannes Fabian has raised the same question in the periodof antipositivism in doing anthropology in a sense? If yes, Utsurikawa has to berecognized as a pioneer of this flow of antipositivism in anthropological circle. We
have been neglecting the fact that Utsurikawa raised the similar question based on the
Taiwanese ethnography almost 50 years before Fabian’s question (FABIAN 1983). We
have completely lost our super-star ancestor in anthropology in this area of East Asia
as George Stocking did completely and probably without intention it in his voluminous
serial works of the history of anthropology. He didn’t even mention a single word
like “Japanese anthropology” or “Taiwanese anthropology” in his seminal works.
This is the very crucial reason why we have systematically to review the Taiwanese
anthropology now and in the future.
He tried to disseminate the idea of ethnography and ethnology as one package forthe newly and at first time established academic discipline in the whole of the Imperial
Japan and he furthermore employed in the next time the exactly same word of the nameof the department in his article for the public (UTSURIKAWA 1930).
Let me quote four famous contemporary anthropologists in both Taiwan andJapan for making sure the fact that the Institute of Ethnology was the foundation ofanthropological research in Taiwan in terms of the contemporary university system.
“The course of the Institute of Ethnology must be claimed as the dawn of ethnology
class in Taiwan and its laboratory and library were the foundation of rebirth ofanthropology after the war” (RUEY 1972). Li Yi-yuan stressed in some degree the roleof the institute of ethnology in TIU for restoring and reorganizing the new departmentof archaeology and anthropology at National Taiwan University after the war (LI 1993).
“The former figure of the department of anthropology (NTU) was the institute of
ethnology (TIU) starting with one professor and one assistant professor and it must berecognized as the supreme status in the context of anthropological research in Taiwan
ever since” (SUNG 1998). “The Institute of Ethnology was founded as the first course ofcultural anthropology in Japan ever since” (SUENARI 2001). There must be no objection
about those four comments.
We know the fact that Utsurikawa paid a great deal of effort to conduct series offieldworks and ethnographic collections in the following recognition by his assistant,
Mr. Miyamoto. “My first mission after opening the institute was arrangement of thebooks and ethnographical collections by Inou Kanori. The first fieldwork with Prof.
Utsurikawa started at July 15 of 1928 and went to Hwaren port (花蓮港) by the ship

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

87

named ‘Beppu Maru’ by way of Taichung (臺中) and Sou (蘇澳) and next we went to
Tatsukiri (Taroko valley at present) by a car provided by the local government office. I
could at first time meet a native woman with tatoos around her mouth and she greeted
us with ‘good afternoon’ in Japanese” (MIYAMOTO 1983). If we remember the opening
time of the institute in May 1928, the first field trip of July 1928 was considered aseven too early. He was ready to go out for fieldwork as soon as he arrived at Taiwan.
“We went to Botel Tobago islands at April 1929 for a month in order to collectethnographical materials and rent rooms at the police station to stay there for a month
because of the liner’s schedule for dropping by the island once a month. Members
were Prof. Utsurikawa with me as ethnographers, Mr. Okonoki (小此木) as a botanist,
Mr. Kano Tadao (鹿野忠雄) as a zoologist to catch birds for producing blaffs. We
exchanged the native objects with the silver coins because the Yami were very muchfond of making various decorative materials with silver” (MIYAMOTO 1983). Botel
Tobago is surely located right up from the Philippine archipelagoes as he utilized
artifacts for his doctoral dissertation ten years before. He seemed to be well preparedfor his ethnographic fieldwork based on his previous academic research and designed
his theoretical framework for doing anthropology.
I am sure that the laboratory and library become the meaningful references forthe future scholars’ education in National Taiwan University (Fig. 2). In this sense,
Utsurikawa’s contribution to the development of anthropology in Taiwan must be
claimed as much as great. I would consider that the initial foundation from his writing
experience on decorative materials could be later extended to the museum stuffs ofwhich he visited Inou Kanori’s family and received his collections for his institute andits research in the future. I like to spot another aspect of his academic contribution interms of international cooperation as he acted as a board member of the International
Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences from July 30th to August 4th,
1934 at London.
Readership of anthropology,
for example, in London School of
Economics was established 1923 forspecially appointing at Malinowski
who started lectures 1921. And thechair for anthropology was made 1927
and Malinowski again became theprofessor of the position (S TOCKING
1991). In comparison with thissituation in British universities, theprofessorship in anthropology at
TIU set up in 1928 means something
Fig. 2. Prof. Ustsurikawa Nenozo with faculties
special because Imperial University
at TIU campus (2nd from the left at thesystem in Japan had the similar way
frontline. Courtesy by Prof. Nakao Katsumi).
of management as Europe did. The
Faculty member wore their uniforms.

88South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

professorship in anthropology was the first one in the whole of the Imperial Japan atthat time. Utsurikawa became the second professor of anthropology in the history ofanthropology in Japan since Tsuboi Shogoro, the first anthropology professor at Tokyo
Imperial University, died in 1913 at St. Petersburg, Russia. The difference between bothis this: Tsuboi was a professor for an anthropology course while Utsurikawa held theprofessorship based on the department of anthropology. As a matter of fact, the Faculty
meeting of the Faculty of Science decided to establish Department of Anthropology
at Tokyo Imperial University at April 1927 and asked for it to the government without
success for the financial shortage (IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER 1928). At thesame time and roughly speaking, there was one more professor of anthropology inAsia. Dr. Sergei Mihailovich Shirokogoroff, a Russian anthropologist, became the one
at Sun Yat-sen University in China in 1927.
Prof. Kokubu Naoichi (國分直一) epitomized the essence of The Formosan
Native Tribes as “the genealogy 1) is able to explain the ancestral lines as well as
kinship networks, 2) proves relations between kinship and land ownership, 3) finds
the chief’s decent line and his status with social system, 4) speaks about the effective
meaning of the religions like ancestor worship and shamanism, and finally 5)
represents the generation to designate the oral tradition for the tribal assets intermingled
history, literary, philosophy, science and religion in the nonliterate society” (KOKUBU
1988a). It is surely the paramount contribution to develop the anthropology as wellas its methodology not only in Taiwan but in the world even though we comparewith other works done in Europe and USA at the same time. There is recently aninteresting comment on it too. “The Formosan Native Tribes done by the Institute of
Ethnology, TIU is the top level of the academic contribution in the framework of thehistorical ethnology in Japan” (Fig. 3, OBAYASHI AND YAMADA 1966). I would agreewith the evaluation in terms of “the top level”. However, I am not sure the work can
be included “in the framework of the historical ethnology” which refers historically to
the Kulturkreis Schule based at Vienna but it is certainly a product of the flow of theculture history school in USA at that time.
The research was successfully done because the Kamiyama Foundation supported
for fund and therefore Mabuchi could spend for 425 days, Miyamoto for 129 days,
and Utsurikawa for 88 days in the field (Utsurikawa 1935). There was an excellent
atmosphere to study the native people in Taiwan because TIU was equipped withvarious scholars very much closely related to those anthropologists like Ogawa
Naoyoshi ( 小川尚義, 1869-1947) and Asai Erin ( 浅井恵倫, 1895-1969) in thedepartment of linguistics and Masuda Fukutaro ( 増田福太郞, 1903-1982) in thecustomary law. The linguistics department also produced a seminal work of the native
languages in Taiwan as shown in the above photo.
It seems to be very natural for the contemporary anthropologist in the present
Taiwan to acknowledge Utsurikawa’s academic contribution like the following
commentaries. “Prof. Utsurikawa Nenozo’s unforgettable accomplishment arerecorded as 1) his effort to give the best education for Mabuchi Toichi as an excellent

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

89Fig. 3. The Formosan Native Tribes (two volumes) created by Utsurikawa with his associates and
The Myths and Traditions of the Formosan Native Tribes by Ogawa and Asai (the far rightside volume of the right photo). Both works were funded by the Kamiyama Foundation.

social anthropologist, 2) the publication of The Formosan Native Tribes (1935) under
the auspiece of Kamiyama Foundation, 3) his leadership to organize an academic circle
around the university as well as the intellectuals and to publish The Ethnographical
Journal of the South-East Asia, Ocenia and Taiwan (Nanpo Dozoku)” (SUNG 1998).
Let me quickly sketch the museum side in Taiwan during the early colonial era.
The oldest museum in Taiwan can be recorded as Tainan Education Museum founded
in 1902. The Government-General’s museum was established May 24, 1908 fundedby the former two Generals and organized six departments (history, ethnography,
zoology, botany, geology, and mines). Ethnography department had 3 sections (Chinese,
Native, and Southern) in its administrative structure. Native section included several
tribal groups like Tayal, Saisiat, Bunun, Tsuo, Paiwan, Ami, Yami, and Mountain tribe(MUSEUM SOCIETY OF THE GOVERNMENT-GENERAL OF TAIWAN 1934). Utsurikawa had
a part-time position for the managing committee of the museum and Miyamoto, hisformer student, worked also for the museum as an assistant for a longer time.
KANASEKI Takeo (1897-1983): Third StageI like to ask you to remind of the time when Kanaseki Takeo entered into Taiwan
in order to catch the general atmosphere in Taiwan in terms of political situation.
He returned from his 2 years stay in Europe and arrived at Taiwan in 1936 which
was just before the war between China and Japan. However, the Japanese army had
already moved down to southward from Manchuria and put a lot of pressure against

90South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

Kuomintang government led by Chiang Kai-shek. Both colonial governments in
Korea and Taiwan were ready to support the coming war mobilized by the Japanese
Kwantung army in Manchuria against both of the Nationalist and Communist China.
Taihoku Imperial University started to open the faculty of medicine in 1936 andKanaseki was asked to be there for taking in charge of the professorship of anatomy
laboratory. He himself identified as “an ethnologist” (KANASEKI 1942a) without doubt
and would clearly proclaim that “ethnology is a scientific research of a local group of
the peoples in terms of the natural science and biology concerned. The clear biologicalcharacters are the basis of classifying the local group with the human being. In short,the race is a biological group. ... Kominka (皇民化) (I use this word even though I am
not fond of it) policy of the indigenous people in Taiwan might take the best way ofthe mixed blood between the native Taiwanese and Japanese and its research at present
seems to be vague by means of principle and furthermore the conclusion is certainly far
beyond” (KANASEKI 1941). Kanaseki had a deep agony and unpleasant attitude about
the Kominka policy equivalent to assimilating the indigenous people into the Japanese
as a matter of fact. However he seems to “be favorable of the mixed blood policy
as well as eugenics” (KANASEKI 1941) which was somehow influenced by the Nazi
administration in Germany at that time.
It is difficult for us to trace the evidence of one’s resisting behavior and attitude
against the colonial government policy especially under the wartime in Imperial Japan.
There were so many different instruments working on in order to inspect the suspicious
publications and journals for censorship. If one would show his contention against
the governmental policy, he had to use very special way to escape from the sensitive
networks of intelligence and secret police. Kanaseki dared to practice several different
tactics to handle surveillance policy and seemed to be somehow successful to havecunningly done it. Otherwise, he could have been arrested by the police and the journal
should have been shut down earlier. He used several different tactics to employ to show
his resistance as ’weapons of the weak’. The evident cases that I could designate are
not many.
He mobilized the column of the editorial note at the last page of each journal inorder to try and elucidate his own opinion about the governmental policy. Kanaseki
used the initial of his name as “T.K”, “T.K.I”, “?”, and “editor” for the author of thecolumn. One should remind of his critical comment on the word of Kominka as heopened publically he did not like it. What could you as a thoughtful and even criticalintellectual do under the suppressive political situation? On the one hand, you are notsupposed to break through the liminal stage indirectly by demonstrating subversive
action of writing something. On the other hand, you are trying to indulge into thecritical opposition against the political pressure. I would think this is contextuallyanother way of showing the hidden transcript against the government authority. This is
a way of indirect demonstration of “I am doing something against you”.
First of all, he used a tactic to quote the former high officials’ (the governmentgeneral) outdated address to become as a shield to protect the indigenous Taiwanese

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

91

customs (T.K 1942). Using the strength of the colonial government to protect himself
and the journal should be recognized as his tactic to mobilize the hidden transcript.
Secondly, he did overtly stress that his journal would do their best to keep thelegal code of the ’Newspaper Regulation’ (? 1942). This tactic might be a sort ofexaggeration of showing pro-governmental attitude in terms of propaganda to coverup his original attitude against the governmental policy. It helped extend the life of thejournal’s publication. Thirdly, he tried to employ a method of persuasion. For example,
because the idea of political domination could be accomplished from learning thenative customs by way of folklore research (T.K.I 1942b), publication of <Folklore
Taiwan> can be necessary even during the wartime. Furthermore, understanding
Taiwanese culture must provide knowledge to rule over the oversea Chinese livingin the Southeast Asia in terms of extension of Taiwan Chinese. This perspective tolook more into the indigenous Taiwanese culture as well as those of Chinese people
in Southeast Asia should cooperate with the Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia
(T.K.I 1942a). Taiwan as a part of the Imperial Japan should not be ignored by meansof understanding peoples under the occupied areas by the Japanese military (EDITOR
1943).
At least, three different tactics of the hidden transcripts can be recognized from
Kanaseki’s written documents in the journal. These tactics should be obviously
inherited from his open critics against the word of Kominka which was the very mostimportant colonial policy. A colonial intellectual with the critical viewpoint against
the colonial government had to face with the domination policy and fought against
the suppressive surveillance. The discourse to show the demonstrating words should
not be overtly even though the colonial authority could smell the resisting movement
because there was heavily functioning censorship against publications. The covert wayof the hidden transcripts could even function as a role of saving face for the hegemonic
power. A kind of the betwixt communication was going to be thrilled on the surface
between the upperdog and the underdog in terms of political power game.
I like to compare two folklore-related journals between Taiwan and Korea
within the same colonial context under the Imperial Japan. Korean Folklore (朝鮮民俗) initiated by Song Suk-ha (宋錫夏, a Korean) was started in 1933 and the second
volume in 1934 and the third one led by Prof. Akiba Takashi (秋葉 隆, a Japanese
professor at Keijo Imperial University) was published in 1940 finally with termination
mainly because of the shortage of materials for publication as well as politicalpressures under the wartime atmosphere (CHUN 1999). As we look at the wartime
situation, the journal publication in the colony was neither easy nor comfortable for theleaders of the journal because both government and military had so much regulations
as well as censorship against publication to control political ideology and hegemony
even in the mainland Japan. One may pay attention to the fact that Folklore Taiwan (民俗臺灣) started July 1941 and end up with January 1945 while Korean Folklore closed
eventually 1940 before the former even started. I like to point out Kanaseki’s effort topublish Folklore Taiwan even under the harshest time of war and military mobilization

92

South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016of the whole society.
He was asked for collecting the Ryukyuan skeletons by Prof. Adachi Buntaro (足立文太郞) to study the physical anthropology on the Ryukyu islands when he wasworking for his doctoral course at Kyoto Imperial University and this works became
finally his doctoral dissertation published in 1930 (Fig. 4). There is an interesting
comment on Kanaseki’s career in the following. One student at Kyoto Imperial
University wanted to take a seat in Kanaseki’s class of the introduction to anthropology
provided for the faculty of literature at the university without success because
Kanaseki had already moved to TIU at 1936. One can notice the fact that Kanaseki wasinterested in the general anthropology beyond solely the physical anthropology and thistrend can obviously be related with his attempt to take a leadership of organizing the
Anthropological Society of Taiwan and of publishing the journal of Folklore Taiwan
since 1941 with the Taiwanese intellectuals including the Han Chinese in various
directions (KOKUBU 1988b) while another comment explains a little bit different way
like this. “The journal publication of Folklore Taiwan starting July 1941 was initiatedby Ikeda Toshio (池田敏雄) and rather focused on the Han Chinese in terms of its
contents” (MIYAMOTO 1983).
It seems to be easier for us to designate the fact that Kanaseki has moved fromosteology through anatomy to archaeology and finally anthropology in generalincluding folklore as we look carefully over Kanaseki’s academic careers with his
publication lists. As I have suggested before, the time when Kanaseki worked for theuniversity was not so easy because of the war. He took a leadership for publishing ajournal under the troublesome atmosphere by means of material as well as politicalunrest and was also asked for cooperation with the military government after the

Fig. 4. Kanasekiʼs doctoral dissertation of physical anthropological research on the Ryukyu people(published in 1930, left) and Kanaseki Takeo.

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

93

occupation in Hainan island (海南島). One should recognize his full devotion to theacademic accomplishment through publishing another journal named Kairan Zasshi (回覧雑誌, Circulating Journal) among colleagues in Taipei even under the collapse andchaos of the Japanese defeat of the war.
I would here like to introduce the metric and non-metric data of those skeleton
samples examined by Dr. Doi Naomi at the University of the Ryukyu (Doi 1991). The
reason why I quote Dr. Doi’s article and repeat the story related with the Kanasekis’skeletons is to understand Kanaseki family’s professionalism of devotion to academism
as so far (Fig. 5).
Kanaseki Takeo’s father was a technician for a construction company and his
father followed Takeo to Taiwan when Takeo moved to teach at TIU in 1936. When
his father was to be dead at the age of 80, he asked for his son to make himself as a
research sample for son’s collection. And, then, Takeo prepared for it as a researchsample and finally Takeo himself did it again for the genetic study in the future when
he died. And finally he wrote a short announcement in the Journal of Anatomy in Japan
calling for cooperation to let his son, a physician and anatomist, to be the third researchsample within the same family line in the future (KOKUBU 2006). I had luckily enougha chance to take a look into and to greet to those two sets of skeletons of the Kanasekis
in the spring of 2011 at Kyushu University (Fukuoka, Japan) guided by Prof. Suenaga
Seijo in the university museum.

Fig. 5. (A) Kanaseki familyʼs skeleton samples: a is fatherʼs and b is sonʼs X. Dr. (B) Tsai Hsi-kue(Laboratory of Physical Anthropology, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University)
standing between two skeletons (right: a, left: b) of the Kanasekis (photo taken at 2007 at
Kyushu University Museum, Fukuoka, Japan).

94South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

Fig. 6. A Case of the So-called Brick-type Newspaper for Censorship: Taiwan Peopleʼs Paper no.237(Dec. 2, 1928).

Legacy of Colonialism and Militarism: “Hidden Transcript”
In this chapter, I like to focus on the academician’s position in the middle of thetotal war mobilization by the Imperial Japan. They had to live among the extreme
military pressure along with shortage of materials for publication and the full-swing ofcensorship. It seems to be not so unreasonable for us to believe that “Utsurikawa has
nothing to do with the idea of nationalism at all” (KOKUBU 1988b). However it doesn’tlook like that because of the political arena of the time but of the person himself. I
would believe that a scholar can be independent from the political atmosphere. The
total war mobilized by the Japanese military would not permit the individual freedom
at all. “Utsurikawa held an office at advisory position for the intelligence committee of
the Government-General of Taiwan in January 1942” (KONAN NEWSPAPER COMPANY1943). This was one aspect of the real situation at that time. Anyone under the total
war situation could not escape from the sensitive and suppressive request by thegovernment whether he behaved at his own will or not.
There was an interesting rebuttal by Prof. Kokubu Naoichi to Kawamura
Minato’s negative comments on Kanaseki Takeo’s potentially related with the Japaneseimperialism represented as the Great East Asian Folklore (GEAF in the following)apparently initiated by Yanagita Kunio during the wartime (KAWAMURA 1996). Kokubu

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

95

defended for Kanaseki’s attitude during the wartime not for the military but for theacademism (KOKUBU 1997) as I have earlier in this paper expressed the fact that
Kanaseki did not even like the word of “Kominka”. There seems to be two different
dimensions to see Kawamura’s comments with Kokubu’s rebuttal. One is the etic-emic
issue and the other is a kind of thick description of the deeper ethnographic account ofbeing academicians as underdogs against the military during the wartime.
Kawamura pointed at three scholars in the realm of the GEAF following Yanagita
Kunio: Akiba Takashi at Keijo Imperial University (Korea), Kanaseki Takeo at
Taihoku Imperial Univeristy (Taiwan), and Omachi Tokuzo (大間知篤三) at Kenkoku
University (Manchuria). Kawamura put them in one bucket of imperialism for thesame token and had a very schematic format of GEAF to review them in terms of theimperial university system (Kenkoku University seemed to be more serious in termsof academic freedom) controlled by the colonial government as well as the military. I
put Kawamura’s position as etic one against Kokubu’s emic one. Kokubu shared thesame experience with harsh lives during the wartime with Kanaseki. Kokubu knew
the difference between Kanaseki and the other two (Akiba and Omachi) in terms of
relationship with the dominator. There is certainly a big difference between both sides
to my knowledge. Kokubu could defend Kanaseki with his own experience while noone could do it for the other two. Kawamura did simply set up a framework of “GREAF”
and selected each one of representatives for three different colonial areas (Manchuria,
Korea, and Taiwan) under the Imperial Japan. He did not pay attention to look into
those sensitive atmosphere around the wartime politics.
I like to start with James C. Scott’s idea of the hidden transcript for discussing
the second issue of which Kawamura seemed to be completely neglecting on his
comments on the three scholars supposedly involved with the Japanese imperialism(SCOTT 1990). At this point, I pay more attention to Kanaseki and his works during
the wartime. Kanaseki entered into Taiwan 1936 and at the exactly same time theGovernment-General of Taiwan proclaimed to support the ’Moving Southward’ (南進)polity of the Imperial Japan which means the time to start another war. In other words,
Kanaseki’s life in Taiwan started with the war of invasion to China and Southeast Asia.
The very nature of the imperial universities in the colonies of Korea and Taiwan should
be understood for managing and controlling those colonies. TIU officially announced
on July 3, 1936 their cooperation with the new policy of the Government-General of
Taiwan as “Moving Southward” without surprise rhetorically meaning of invasion of
the South China and the Southeast Asia. General atmosphere related with the total war
in Japan started with the National Mobilization Law promulgated in 1938 and at thesame time Patto Tripartito (Dreimachtepakt) among Germany, Italy, and Japan was
initiated September 27, 1940. In short, the military becomes the dominator while therest of them including academician be the oppressed.
It seems to be possible for us to use the above framework into Scott’s public
transcript versus hidden transcript for our further discussion. The term public transcript
describes the open, public interactions between dominators and oppressed and the term

96South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

hidden transcript for the critique of power that goes on offstage, which power holders
do not see or hear. Different systems of domination, including political, economic,
cultural, or religious, have aspects that are not heard that go along with their publicdimensions. In order to study the systems of domination, careful attention is paid towhat lies beneath the surface of evident, public behavior. In public, those that are
oppressed accept their domination, but they always question their domination offstage.
On the event of a publication of this “hidden transcript”, oppressed classes openly
assume their speech, and become conscious of its common status.
“Institute of the Southern Humanities (Utsurikawa was the director) published anencyclopedic report titled Food and Food Behaviors of the Peoples in the Southwestern
Pacific (1944. 11) compiling the cooperative research results among the members
from faculty of literature and politics with the faculty of natural science and agriculture
under the severe situation of wartime almost to the end” (KOKUBU 1988). Since theGreat East Asian War (Pacific War) broke out, the Japanese military fighting against
the US soldiers in the Pacific islands ordered every combat groups to keep selfsupport system in terms of mobilizing rations with paramilitary personnels within thebattle areas. Utsurikawa’s research on compiling food resources in the Pacific wasundoubtedly for a part of the military strategies for the effective combat in the battle
field. Military groups had to find out appropriate food resources and food preparation
method utilizing the native behavior in the concerned areas. Utsurikawa could not
escape from the framework of the total mobilization by the military and his action for
the research should be as a matter of fact counted as the war-related cooperation. I
have, frankly speaking, no answer for this with his intention or not.
There is clearly an ambivalent evaluation to Kanaseki Takeo and his activities
during the wartime. Kawamura Minato accused of his behavior as a kind of cooperation
for the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Circle (KAWAMURA 1996) while Lin Changsheng views his action for publishing Folklore Taiwan to be non-cooperative for the
Kominka policy (LIN 1995). This seems to be very provocative not only because of thehistorical facts but because of ideological perspectives to review the historical facts. I
would like to consider the issue involved here in conjunction with war cooperation.
Why do we deal with this problem of wartime and anthropology? We are
not judges or prosecutors but anthropologists concerning people even in the very
exceptional times like war. There is responsibility of this discipline to the people who
suffered directly and/or indirectly by the military during the wartime. “Directly” means
sufferings related with the victims at the front line and “indirectly” does with the homefront. Scholars like Utsurikawa and Kanaseki were certainly the home front victims
suffered not only for the material side of hard life but for the spiritual side. Wartime
led and dictated by the military group sacrificed everyday life including academism.
Acdemecians could not even express what they thought and had in their mind. Lateron, misunderstanding based on misleading ideas has happened to the case of Kanaseki
continues by the following generation like Kawamura.
At this point, cases of the active cooperations are beyond our discussion here

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

97

because it is so obvious in terms of war cooperation. For example, as Miyamoto
Nobuto in Taipei at that time stressed on “the Japanese cultural traits to take aleadership in East Asia and furthermore believed in the Japanese spiritual powers
to overcome the foreign stresses” (M IYAMOTO 1941). Mr. Miyamoto became an
intelligence officer for Government-General (1941) and later involved into the Army
Intelligence & Administration High Officer (1943. 11. 陸軍司政官) in Java. I likeat this moment to analyze the general historical situation under the wartime before
finalizing his activities cooperating with the military. Miyamoto could in a sense be a
victim of the epoch too.
There should be three serial conditions including wartime to examine the resultsof the academic and academially related works done by anthropologists during thewartime. First of all, the first step looks back to the political condition behind thediscipline and scholars. Otherwise, we are probably going to victimize the victims
who were victimized by the military and politicians at those times. Then we can beequipped appropriate base to analyze those academic works on the basis of academic
perspective. At this point, another danger could be not the standard of those days but
one of present viewpoint. Then we can view their works done in those days by adapting
today’s analytical perspective.
It is important to notify the fact that Folklore Taiwan started under the pressure of
Kominka policy since 1939 in Taiwan. Within this context it seems to be very sensitive
even to raise the question of culture and tradition speaking for Taiwan potentiallyrealized as against Kominka. Government would not give permission to publish thejournal in trial. Therefore the leaders including Kanaseki tried to persuade to let
government accept the publication plan paralleling to the governmental policy of the’Moving Southward’ by using the specific phrase of “Research and Guidance of theSouthern Customs” beside the title of the journal, Folklore Taiwan.
Utsurikawa was dispatched to Amoi University (厦門大学) located at an island
named Koulang ( 鼓浪嶼, at present 鷺島) in the South China with Prof. Kanda
Kiichiro and Mr. Miyamoto Nobuto for inspecting old books between July 24 andAugust 4 (OSAKA ASAHI NEWSPAPER-TAIWAN EDITION 1938, ADMINISTRATION OFFICE
OF A MOI U NIVERSITY 2000) after invasion of the island by Japanese military andintentionally brought important books to the Taihoku Imperial University and thosebooks are still kept in National Taiwan University so far.
“Anthropological study of the finger prints can be applied to figure out different
races and it was done between December 1940 and January 1941 and finally four
different groups of Yi ( 黎族), Han Chinese ( 漢族), Tan peoples ( 蜑民) and theMuslims ( 三亞街回敎徒) are differentiated” (K ANASEKI 1942c). In this report,
Kanaseki used the very old concept of the scientific racism which was employed in theearly stage of the Japanese anthropology. Classification as a method used to be applied
to manage and govern the people at the first stage in the colony. As a matter of fact, he
could do it without applying the finger prints. Why did he use such an old concept forclassification? He was recruited for the field research as a package from the university

98South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

by the Navy and he had to do something with it. There are not many choices for him
to conduct field research within such a short time provided by the Navy intelligencegroup. The complicated situation in the area for field research did almost offer the only
choice of finger print survey.
Kanaseki’s another report on Hainan Islands can be reviewed for a moment.
Because he was recruited by the Navy, he could not help utilizing the navy’s namingof the area without consideration of the indigenous one (KANASEKI 1942b). In his
another report at May 1942, he made the third report titled as ‘A research report of the
Han Chinese and Yi people on the basis of the physical power’. What does it mean bythe ‘physical power’ of the people? Exactly same thing was planned to conduct a fieldresearch in comparison with the Koreans and the Manchurians as the context of ‘humanresources (人的資源)’ and ‘wartime science (戦時科学)’ by Prof. Imamura Yutaka(Kanaseki’s friend) at Keijo Imperial University at the last moment of the wartime.
Human resources were ready to be used for war involvement as a matter of fact if welook at the general atmosphere at that time.
It can be possible to set two poles against each other in the opposite directionin order to figure out the general picture of the relation between academism and war
cooperation. One is the person-initiated attitude and behavior and the other is thesystem-initiated ones. System here means government and the military. There is asetting of continuum between two to think of the issue involved in the war cooperationby academicians including anthropologists. Oka Masao (岡 正雄) who actively worked
as a leading figure at the Institute of Ethnic Relations for the military can be classified
to the end of the person-initiated case and Miyamoto Nobuto praised for the militaryinvasion within the context of the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Circle be locatedclosely to the end of it (OKA 1943). In comparison with the above two, Kanaseki’s
behavior can be situated to the side of the system-initiated one because his attitude wasvery much reluctant to act for the Kominka policy run by the Government-General andImperial Japan. By the way, I would have some reservation to determine his position
because of his work on the physical power test in Hainan Islands probably related withpotentiality for the military mobilization against the people. Kanaseki as an individual
kept the position of the weak in front of the political power and his attitude could not
be overtly as a strategy of the hidden transcript.
Can we then accuse Kanaseki of war cooperation as Kawamura Minato hasaggresively done? I doubt it and, furthermore, it isn’t that simple. It must be very
sensitive and careful one because so much things have never been realized in detailto search for evidence related with the war and war cooperation. I like to know thosedetailed facts to the end. That is the final that we can do in terms of doing ethnography.
Let facts speak for themselves.

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

99

Concluding Remarks: Reinventing East Asian Anthropology
It is obvious for us to say that anthropology of Taiwan was resided at the very
beginning of the Japanese anthropology under the framework of colonial expansion
and furthermore to recognize the fact that anthropology of Taiwan should also be
considered as a beginning part of the Japanese anthropology.
Let me quickly epitomize the content of this paper as a concluding remark. Inou
Kanori is to be recorded as the first fieldworker in the East Asian anthropology and thefirst anthropologist seriously concerning the field methodology ever since the world
history of anthropology. Utsurikawa Nenozo was the first Ph.D. in anthropology eversince in East Asia and established and managed the first department of anthropology
in Japan as well as in Taiwan. Kanaseki Takeo tried to keep academism even under the
military rule during the wartime by means of popularization of the Taiwanese customs
and the hidden transcript against censorship of the intelligence and demonstrated fullstrength of professionalism to donate his family skeletons for the future research. We
have enough evidences to reinvent the East Asian anthropology within the context of
this area.
Of course, there is a critical comment against those ethnographies under
the colonial era. A descendant of the indigenous people with memories from thefamily line criticized Torii Ryuzo’s description as a simple level of classification(S UN 1994). Fieldwork involves engagement between ethnographer and subject.
This critical comment of reflexivity issue should deep-heartedly be received andrepeatedly considered even in the contemporary situation in writing cultures and doing
ethnography at present. How could those former ethnographies be read and accepted tothe indigenous people whom ethnographers studied and wrote down before? Reflexivity
by the people themselves! This step can be a key issue for promoting anthropology interms of future development in this discipline.
What we have more importantly learned one thing from our discussion of thelegacy of colonialism and militarism is for the contemporary situation as we live with.
I believe that there does not exist a clear cut demarcation between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’in science and academism. Obsessive attitude of being ‘pure’ in academism whichis unnecessary has widely been disseminated around the circle of academicians. It is
certainly not helpful to understand the facts which should be the final cause in doing
science. It functions sometimes a kind of obstacle to uncover the facts especiallyrelated with sensitive issues like war and working for government as Miyamoto Nobuto
did. We need government anthropologists as well as military anthropologists because
we need to know those social phenomena as well. Someone has actively to work for
and with government as well as military which have important roles of our society.
Ethical issues related with those are different stories beyond this paper.
Researchers who are interested in the history of anthropology and especially in theframework of wartime controlled by the military should be carefully paying attention to100South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

the different systems of the domination. How the oppressed used the public transcript
in order to keep and manage their hidden transcript under political pressure withcensorship? Otherwise, it could possibly victimize the victims who were the oppressed.

References
A DMINISTRATION O FFICE OF A MOI U NIVERSITY 2000. Amoi University, Zejiang
University Press, Hangzou, China.
ANONYM 1901. Words of Publication. Records of the Taiwanese Customs, 1: 1-3.
B RITISH A SSOCIATION FOR THE A DVANCEMENT OF S CIENCE 1874 (2nd ed. 1892).
Notes and Queries on Anthropology: For the Use of Travellers and Residents in
Uncivilized Lands.
CHUN, K. 1999. One Hundred Years of Korean Anthropology. Ilchisa, Seoul, Korea.
DOI, N. 1991. Morphological Data on the Skeletons of the Kanaseki-family. Journal of
Anthropological Society in Nippon, 99: 483-496.
EDA, A. 2001. A Study on Inou Kanori. In: Introductory View of Research for the
Taiwanese Indigenous Peoples: Japanese Perspectives (Ed. Japanese Society for
the Research of the Taiwanese Indigenous Peoples), 19-21, Fukyosha, Tokyo,
Japan.
EDITOR 1943. Editor’s Note. Folklore Taiwan, 3: 48.
FABIAN, J. 1983. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object. Columbia
University Press, New York, USA.
HU, J. Y. 1998. Inou Kanori’s Research on the Indigenous People in Taiwan andCollections of Material Cultures. In: A Study on Inou Kanori’s Collections of
Taiwanese Anthropology (Eds. HU, J. Y. and QUI, I. R.), 37-72, National Taiwan
University Press, Taipei, Taiwan.
H UANG, C. H. 1999. Trends of the Japanese Research on Taiwanese Indigenous
Religions: Formation and Conflict between Government and University during theColonial Era. In: Development of Anthropological Research in Taiwan: Retrospect
and Prospect (Eds. SHU, C. K. and HUANG, U. K.), 143-195, Academia Sinica,
Taipei, Taiwan.
IMPERIAL UNIVERSITY NEWSPAPER 1928. 1. 3. no. 237.
INOU, K. 1894. Necessity of the Scientific Ethnography and its Relation with the Public
Education. Journal of Anthropology, 102: 498-503.
INOU, K. 1901. Application of the Ethnographical Study to Custom Research. Recordsof the Taiwanese Customs, 7: 26-38.
INOU, K. 1906. Knowledge of Fire in the Indigenous People in Taiwan. Records of the
Taiwanese Customs, 6: 17-24.
KANASEKI, T. 1941. Kominka Policy and Race Issues. Taiwan Times, 23: 24-29.
KANASEKI, T. 1942a. Non-Literature. Taiwan Times, 24: 42-50.
KANASEKI, T. 1942b. Yi People in the Chung Hap Valley of Hainan Islands. In: Hainan

CHUN: A Trial of the History of Anthropology in Taiwan

101

Islands (Ed. THE 1ST INTELLIGENCE OFFICE OF THE NAVY IN HAINAN ISLANDS), 1433.
KANASEKI, T. 1942c. Anthropological Report of the People in Hainan Islands: Focusing
on Finger Prints. In: The 1st Report on Hainan Islands by Taihoku Imperial
University, 477-534.
KAWAMURA, M. 1996. Fakes and Facts of the Great East Asian Folklore. Kodansha,
Tokyo, Japan.
KOKUBU, N. 1997. Why did the Movement of Folklore Taiwan Happen?: Reconsidering
Kawamura Minato’s Comments. Sinica, 8: 122-127.
KOKUBU, N. 1988a. Utsurikawa: Pioneer of the Research in the South. In: Collectionsof Cultural Anthropology (3, Japan Edition) (Ed. AYABE. T.), 167-190, Academia
Press, Tokyo, Japan.
K OKUBU, N. 1988b. Kanaseki: A Systematic Academism of Natural Science andHumanities. In: Collections of Cultural Anthropology (3, Japan edition) (Ed.
AYABE, T.), 243-272, Academia Press, Tokyo, Japan.
KOKUBU, N. (Eds. ANKEI, Y. and HIRAKAWA, K.) 2006. Kokubu Naoichi: Man and his
Works. Kaichosha, Fukuoka, Japan.
KONAN NEWSPAPER COMPANY 1943. The 10th Anniverial Publication of the Konan
Newspaper. Taihoku.
KUPER, A. 1983. Anthropology and Anthropologists. Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.,
London, UK.
LI, Y. Y. 1993. Ethnography and Social Anthropology: Anthropology in Taiwan and it
Development. Ching Hwa Journal, 23: 341-360.
LIN. C. S. 1995. Folklore Taiwan and Kanaseki Takeo. Taiwan Customs, 45: 33-61.
MIYAMOTO, N. 1941. East Asia Co-Prosperity Circle and Nations. International Culture
14: 10-12.
MIYAMOTO, N. 1983. Memories during the era of the Taihoku Imperial University.
Shell Mound, 32: 3-26.
MUSEUM Society of the Government-General of Taiwan 1934. Museum Guide Book.
OBAYASHI, T. and YAMADA, R. 1966. Historical Ethnology. In: Retrospect and Prospectof the Japanese Ethnology (Ed. J APANESE ETHNOLOGICAL SOCIETY). Japanese
Ethnological, Tokyo, Japan.
OKA, M. 1943. Essentials of Ethnology (printed paper).
OSAKA ASAHI NEWSPAPER-TAIWAN EDITION 1938. 8. 7.
PASSIN, H. 1947. A note on Japanese Research in Formosa. American Anthropologist,
49: 514-518.
RUEY, Y. F. 1972. A Short History of the Ethnographic Collections in the Departmentof Archaeology and Anthropology at National Taiwan University. In: Chinese
Peoples and their Cultures (vol. 2), 1463-1472, Yewoninsugwan, Taipei, Taiwan.
SAKAZAWA, T. 1928. A Biography of Inou Kanori. In: Cultural Repository of Taiwan (Ed.
INOU, K.), 1-18, KanaeShoin, Tokyo, Japan.
SCOTT, J. C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance: The Hidden Transcript of

102South Pacific Studies Vol.36, No.2, 2016

Subordinate Groups. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
STOCKING, G. 1991. Maclay, Kubary, Malinowski: Archetypes from the Dreamtimeof Anthropology. In: Colonial Situations: Essays on the Contextualizationof Ethnographic Knowledge, 9-74, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
S UENARI, M. 2001. Research Trends. In: Introductory View of Research for the
Taiwanese Indigenous Peoples: Japanese Perspectives (Ed. JAPANESE SOCIETY FOR
THE RESEARCH OF THE TAIWANESE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES), 13-14, Fukyosha, Tokyo,
Japan.
SUN, D, S. 1994. My Feeling to meet an Anthropologist: Comments on the Special
Exhibition of Torii Ryuzo. Bimonthly Cultural Journal of Mountain and Sea, 6:
63-66.
SUNG, W. S. 1998. Utsurikawa Nenozo and the Institute of Ethnology. In: Collectionsof the Glass-Plated Photos in Anthropology (Ed. 連照美), viii-x, National Taiwan
University Press, Taipei, Taiwan.
T.K 1942. Editor’s Note. Folklore Taiwan 2(4): 56.
T.K.I 1942a. Editor’s Note. Folklore Taiwan 2(1): 56.
T.K.I 1942b. Editor’s Note. Folklore Taiwan 2(3): 56.
U RRY, J. 1972. “Notes and Queries on Anthropology” and the Development ofField Methods in British Anthropology, 1870-1920. Proceedings of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 45-57.
UTSURIKAWA, N. 1918. Some Aspects of the Decorative Art of Indonesia: A Study in
Ethnographic Relations. Ph. D. dissertation in Harvard University.
U TSURIKAWA, N. 1930. Ethnography and Ethnology in Taiwan. In: GeographicalEncyclopedia of Japan (Taiwan volume), 1-16, Kaijosha, Tokyo, Japan.
Utsurikawa, N. 1935. Forward. The Formosan Native Tribes, 1-2.
UTSURIKAWA, N. 1936. Concept of Time in the Primitive Society. Journal of Ethnology,
2: 1-29.
YE, C. Y. 1998. Inou Kanori’s Research on the Lowland Indigenous People. In: A Studyon Inou Kanori’s Collections of Taiwanese Anthropology (Eds. HU, J. Y. and QUI, I,
R.), 25-35, National Taiwan University Press, Taipei, Taiwan.
? 1942. Editor’s Note. Folklore Taiwan, 2(4): 56.