ESURRECTING THE R J HOMELANDS: COLONIAL A S K · PDF fileresurrecting the ruins of japan’s mythical homelands: colonial archaeological surveys in the korean peninsula and heritage

RESURRECTING THE RUINS OF JAPAN’S MYTHICALHOMELANDS: COLONIAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS INTHE KOREAN PENINSULA AND HERITAGE TOURISM

Hyung Il Pai

The development of Japanese archaeologyas a field discipline paralleled territorial ex-pansion and the establishment of moderncultural institutions, such as museums andcultural preservation committees, not onlyin Japan but also in its colonies. The firstmodern-era heritage legislation was intro-duced during the Meiji era (1868–1911)when Japan’s newly established EducationMinistry and Exposition Office importedclassifications systems, museum invento-ries, and exhibition formats from Europe.Following the Japanese occupation of theKorean Peninsula in 1910, the ColonialGovernment-General Office in Korea (CGK1910–1945) sponsored the first systematicarchaeological surveys to be carried out inthe empire (Table 7.1). The Korean Penin-sula was the only Japanese colony where thecolonial government and academics spentmore than four decades conducting annual

surveys and nationwide excavations, build-ing museums, and launching massive touristrestoration projects ranging from burialmounds to Buddhist temples and palaces(Pai 1994, 2000). Here, I have only spaceenough to introduce the major archaeolog-ical discoveries made by the first generationof professionally trained archaeologists,ethnologists, and art historians who weresent to conduct fieldwork in Korea at theturn of the century. Their archaeologicaldiscoveries between 1900 and 1915 werecritical in the creation of the CGK Com-mittee on Korean Antiquities and the pro-mulgation of the first comprehensive set ofarchaeological heritage management lawsin the peninsula. I then discuss the pivotalrole that print media, from picture post-cards to travel guidebooks, played in thedissemination of archaeological informa-tion targeted toward Japanese tourists as

93

PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:24 PM Page 93

Part I: The Archaeological Critique of Colonization: Global Trajectories 94

Table 7.1 Chronology of Heritage Management in Japan and Korea (Fieldwork, Disciplines, Institutions, and Tourist Industry)

1874 .5 Meiji government bans excavations of legendary “burial mounds” and sacred sites.1884 !e Tokyo Anthropological Society is established at Tokyo University (prehistoric

archaeology specimens deposited). 1887 Japan’s racial origins debate begins: Ainu vs. Prehistoric Koro-pok-guru (Pre-Ainu).1888 Imperial O"ce sets up o"ce in charge of preliminary survey of treasures. 1893 Tokyo Imperial University Anthropological Society establishes specimens labora-

tory under Torii Ryuzo.1895 Sino-Japanese War. Torii undertakes first survey of Taiwan and Manchuria. Preser-

vation Laws governing Temples and Shrines are promulgated. Government takes over the management and preservation of nationally registered art, artifacts, and documents belonging to temples and shrines (beginning of national treasures sys-tem).

1901 Yagi, Sozaburo sent to conduct first archaeological survey of the Korean Peninsula.1902 Sekino Tadashi is sent by Tokyo University to survey art and architecture in Korea.1904 Keifu-sen [Pusan-Seoul] Railways Line is completed.1906 Imanishi Ryu surveys Keishu (Ky#ngju) Silla capital in southwest Korea.1907 Excavations of Kimhae Shellmound in Korea are undertaken by Imanishi Ryu.1908 Yi Royal Museum, zoo, and botanical garden are built in Ch’anggy#ng-won, Keijo

[Seoul].1910 Annexation of Korea.1911 Colonial Governor-General commissions Torii Ryuzo to conduct first systematic

survey of prehistoric archaeological remains and ethnographic surveys. !e Shiseki Meisho Tennenkinnenbutsu Hozonkai [Historic Sites, Famous Places, and Natural Monuments Protection Committee] is established in Japan.

1911 Temples Protection Act is promulgated in the Korean Peninsula by the Colonial Governor-General.

1912. 3. 12 Japan Tourist Bureau (JTB) is established at Tokyo Railway Station and is the first bureau to issue a pamphlet printed in English (2,000 copies) and French (3,000 cop-ies)

1912. 11-12. JTB sets up branches in Dalian at South Manchuria Railroad o"ce (SMR), Keijo (Chosen Railways o"ce), and Taipei o"ce (Taiwan Railways)

1912 Reconstruction of S#kkuram funded by the Colonial Governor-General begins.1913. 6. 10 Tourist is published as a bimonthly magazine with bilingual (English/Japanese) arti-

cles. 1914.1 English maps of Keijo, Dalian, and Formosa (3,000 copies) are distributed.1914. 2 JTB agents/branches are set up in 30 locations around the world. 1914. 10 !e Keijo Chosen Hotel, managed by the Chosen Railways, is established.1915.2 JIR “through” pass is o$ered, linking ship and rail services to Manchuria/Chosen,

sold at Tokyo train station branch (up to 30% discounted tickets valid for six months).

PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:24 PM Page 94

well as foreigners. Colonial-era tourist pub-lications featuring Korea’s ancient remains(koseki) and customs (fuzoku) and advertis-ing the peninsula as the most “historicallyscenic” destination transformed the colonyinto the most popular Japanese tourist des-tination in the 1920s and 1930s. Since theend of the Pacific War in 1945, many SouthKorean archaeologists have continued tocondemn the prewar-era Japanese archae-ologists’ activities as “systematic plunder,”without understanding why and how ruinsand relics were reclaimed as part of “Japan-ese racial and imperial heritage” in the colo-nial era.1

Empire Building, Heritage Management,and Field Research in Northeast Asia

Cultural nationalism focusing on emperorworship (tennosei) and divine imperial sov-ereignty (kokutai) were the two main ideo-logical forces dictating the direction of theprewar Japanese government’s legislation ofmuseum antiquities, temples, shrines, andlegendary burial mounds (kofun). Kofunsites became the earliest targets of govern-ment regulations because the ImperialHousehold Agency (Kunaicho) appropriatedthem as sacred national symbols (seiseki)vouching for the unbroken succession of

7. Resurrecting the Ruins of Japan’s Mythical Homelands 95

1916 Colonial Governor-General Committee for the Investigations of Ancient Remains and Relics [Ch%sen Koseki Chosa ininkai] is established. Regulations on the Preser-vation of Ancient Sites and Relics are promulgated. !ese are the first comprehen-sive preservation laws governing art and archaeological remains, predating Japan by three years. Measurement are taken of Ky#ngju Hwangyongsa temple remains and Sach’#nwangsa temple, Ch#lla-namdo Songgwangsa temple. Kogury# tombs in Jian are investigated by Sekino Tadashi.

1918 Major reconstruction of Pulguksa begins; Colonial Governor-General Construction department takes eight years.

1918 Ky#ngju Silla tombs excavated (by Kuroita Katsumi and Harada Yoshito).1921 Ky#ngju Museum is established.1926 Ch%sen Manchuria O"ce sets up in Tokyo, Shimonoseki, and Shinjuku stations. 1926 Ky#ngju branch museum is established; Keij% tram service begins.1932 Ch%sen Hotel Company is formed to run former Chosen Railways hotels: Keij%

Ch%sen, Fusan Station, Shingishu Station, Kumgangsan Onj#ngni, Changanri, Keij% station restaurant, and train restaurants.

1943 JTB shuts down branches due to the expansion of the Pacific War.

Palace.

Table 7.1 (continued ) Chronology of Heritage Management in Japan and Korea(Fieldwork, Disciplines, Instituions, and Tourist Industry)

PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:24 PM Page 95

emperors since mythical times (kami jidai).Fabricated monuments and imperial tombsdedicated to successive mythical foundingemperors soon became the main politicalstage upon which the Meiji emperor, as a liv-ing deity, performed reenacted ancient rit-uals.2 The Meiji government banned unlaw-ful excavations of all “imperial mounds,” realor legendary, in 1874 so as to ward off anycontentious claims to state ownership of im-perial burials, which became indispensablein legitimizing the new imperial order forboth domestic consumption and the worldmedia (Fujitani 1996; Suzuki and Takagi2000; Takagi 1997). The Ministry of Edu-cation and the Interior Ministry begansponsoring nationwide art and architecturalsurveys in the 1880s in order to create a “na-tional” registry (taicho doroku) so they couldmonitor the circulation of the buried prop-erties, antiquities, documents, and buildingsto prevent looting and smuggling by antiq-uity dealers and collectors. University-trained specialists such as art historians, ar-chitects, and archaeologists were hired forthe first time to identify, authenticate, doc-ument, and collect antiquities to be dis-played at international expositions and im-perial museums as “national treasures” forall to see and learn about (Tokyo KokuritsuHakubutsukan 1976). By 1899, the Imper-ial Household Agency reigned over a trio ofstate institutions: the Education Ministry;the three imperial museums (teishitsu haku-butsukan) in Tokyo, Nara, and Kyoto; andthe Tokyo Imperial University–based An-thropological Society Laboratory (TokyoJinrui Gakkai 1884–present). They werecharged with micromanaging “national

properties,” from the issuing of excavationpermits to registering and monitoring thecirculation of antiquities and the preserva-tion of imperial palaces, temples, andshrines.The state monopoly over all aspectsof heritage administration and limited ac-cess to archaeological sites and research col-lections resulted in the dearth of strati-graphic excavations, severely impeding theprogress of scientific field archaeology inJapan (Teshigawara 1995).

Field opportunities first opened up inTaiwan, Korea, Northeast China, and theRussian Maritime Provinces following Jap-an’s military victories over Qing China andRussia in the Sino-Japanese (1894–1895)and Russo-Japanese Wars (1904–1905). In1895, the Tokyo University–based TokyoAnthropological Society (Tokyo JinruiGakkai) became the first learned societygiven permission by the Meiji governmentand colonial army officials to conduct art/archaeological surveys and ethnographicexpeditions outside their borders (Sakazume1997).3 Tsuboi Shogoro (1863–1913), whowas a world traveler, polymath, and charis-matic founder of the Anthropological So-ciety (1884–present), supervised the firstgraduates of the Anthropological Speci-mens Laboratory (Pai 2004). The young,ambitious students he sent to Korea, China,Taiwan, and inner Asia in the early 1900s,such as Yagi Sozaburo (1866–1942), Iman-ishi Ryu (1875–1932), and Torii Ryuzo(1870–1953), represented an entirely newbreed of field scholars, trained in the im-ported disciplines of prehistoric archaeol-ogy and biological and physical sciences(Matsumura 1934). Torii Ryuzo’s wide-


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:24 PM Page 96

ranging ethnographic surveys all over Asiaalso resulted in the accumulation of archae-ological and ethnographic collections ofsherds, stone tools, and weapons, whichwere required by Meiji buried properties lawsto be deposited at the Tokyo Universityanthropological laboratory, the predecessorto the current University Museum of Tokyo(Akazawa 1991; Akazawa et al. 1993).Torii’svast collection of ethnographic and prehis-toric materials, now housed at Tokyo Uni-versity and the National Museum of Eth-nology in Osaka, re!ects some 60 years ofcontinuous "eldwork inside and outside ofJapan. He was also the "rst Japanese an-thropologist to take a camera into the "eldin 1896. He recorded thousands of glassplate images of megalithic tombs, stone cistgraves, and racial portraits of Indigenouspeoples from Siberia, Mongolia, Taiwan,and South China (Pai 2009). By the 1910s,these "eld collections from the coloniesconstituted the primary “scienti"c” evi-dence for understanding the much debatedorigins of the Japanese race (Jinshuron) andcivilization (Hudson 1999; Kudo 1979).

Reclaiming “Imperial Ruins” in Colonial Korea (1900–1945)

In the search for archaeological evidencefor the origins of Japanese civilization, theKorean Peninsula became the "eld ofchoice even before the of"cial annexationof the Korean Peninsula in 1910 (MokuyoClub 2003). Sekino Tadashi (1867–1935), aTokyo Imperial University–trained archi-tect, was sent to Korea in 1902 by TokyoImperial University (Figure 7.1). He was at

the time the most well-trained and experi-enced "eld researcher, since in 1897 he hadalready conducted "eld surveys of templesand shrines in Nara (710–784), Japan’s old-est recorded imperial capital (Hirose 2003).Though on his "rst trip he spent only twosummer months in the "eld, he managed tovisit, sketch, and photograph all the knownruins located at the former dynastic capi-tals of Keishu (Ky!ngju), Kaijo (Kaes!ng),Heijo (P’y!ngyang), and Keijo (Seoul). Onhis return, his prodigious results were pub-lished by the Tokyo University Engineer-ing College Research Reports in 1904.Thisreport, entitled Kangoku Chosa Hokoku, con-sisted of 250 pages "lled with descriptions,sketches, and photographs of Korean artand architecture, including hundreds of tombs,sculpture, temples, gates, palace buildings,and royal burials (Sekino 1904). Impressedby Sekino’s spectacular results, the newlyappointed Colonial Resident-General ofKorea, Ito Hirobumi (1841–1909), com-missioned Sekino and his three assistants torank 569 heritage remains, sites or artifacts(Sekino 1919), following the same criteriadevised for the 1897 preservation laws forJapan’s National Treasures (Kokuho) worthyof preservation and protection: (1) ko: art-work designated as possessing “superiorworkmanship” (saisaku yushu); (2) otsu: ob-jects re!ecting historical origins and leg-endary accounts (yuisho); and (3) hei: re-mains that can serve as historical evidence(Bunkacho 1997: 197–215).

Korea’s archaeological "nds were of"-cially registered as Japan’s imperial posses-sions with the 1916 Regulations on thePreservation of Ancient Sites and Relics of


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:24 PM Page 97


Figure 7.1 Professor Sekino Tadashi of Tokyo Imperial University surveying pagodas in Korea (ca. 1932).

PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:38 PM Page 98

Chosen (Koseki oyobi ibutsu hozon kitei)(CGK 1924).As the !rst comprehensive ar-chaeological heritage management laws tobe promulgated in the empire, they wereapplied to Korea three years before theywere reenacted in Japan.4 This act was ac-companied by the formation of the Com-mittee on the Investigation of Korean An-tiquities (Chosen Koseki Chosa Ininkai), whichwas charged with overseeing the adminis-tration of the 1916 laws, ranging from theinvestigation of archaeological remains tothe planning of exhibitions, the preserva-tion and reconstruction of monuments, theregistration of national remains, and thepublications of their research activities (Pai2001).The Colonial Governor-General Mu-seum, the !rst !ne arts museum in Korea,also opened on December 1, 1915, in a newWestern-style building erected on thegrounds of the former Yi Dynasty’s (1392–1910) royal palace of Ky!ngboggung, situ-ated in the heart of Seoul (Ch!n 1999).

The 1916 laws were also instrumental inclassifying which Korean remains were tobe considered for registration, preserva-tion, and research. The !rst article de!ned“koseki” (ancient remains) as prehistoricsites containing shell mounds and imple-ments made of stone, bone, and horn; aswell as subterranean dwellings, ancienttombs, town fortresses, palaces, barricades,barrier gates, station posts, stages for set-ting signal !res (beacons), sites of govern-ment of!ces, sites of shrines, mausolea,temples, ruins of ceramic industry (kilns),old battle!elds, and other ruins; and alsosites associated with historical facts. Thecategory of “ibutsu” (relics) encompassed

old pagodas, stele, bells, stone and metalimages of Buddha, "agpole supporters,stone lanterns, and other artifacts that mayhave historical, artistic, and archaeologicalvalue (Sekino 1931: 7)

The CGK was also heavily involved inpublicizing their discoveries of “Korea’sthousand-year old ruins,” not only for schol-ars but also for the citizens of the empire atlarge (CGK 1915: 1). The CGK raisedmoney from a wide variety of public andprivate sources—including the ImperialHousehold Agency, CGK Museum, and theYi Royal Household Agency, to name themost prominent few—to fund excavationbudgets, purchase the latest photographicequipment, hire professional photogra-phers and sketch artists, and provide pub-lication subsidies.5 Consequently, even bytoday’s standards, these CGK-publishedannual excavations reports (CGK 1918–1937, 1919–1930), museum exhibition cat-alogs (CGK 1918–1941), and photo albumseries featuring monumental ruins (CGK1915–1935), are striking in the number aswell as technical quality of photographs,colored maps, and artifact drawings, sur-passing any other contemporary publica-tions available for Japan’s remains. TheCGK’s contributions to the !eld of archae-ology were eventually recognized, evenamong nonspecialists, as superior in meth-odology, excavation technique, and state-of-the-art equipment and achieved interna-tional acclaim (Reischauer 1939).6

The main political objective of the CGKin promoting architectural surveys andtouting Korea’s ancient discoveries to aworld audience was clearly articulated in


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 99

the preface to the !rst volume of the Albumof Korean Antiquities (Chosen Koseki Zufu)published in 1915 (CGK 1915–1935). Thepreface begins with a declaration of howthe 1910 annexation of Korea as part of theJapanese Empire became the catalyst forlaunching the !rst systematic surveys of thepeninsula. It also states that the CGK’s as-signed mission was the “recovery” of “his-torical proof” (rekishi chokyo) and “artisticmodels” (bijutsu no mohan) “hidden amongstthe mysteries of the past” (CGK 1915, Vol.1: 1). Though it is never mentioned explic-itly whose past the CGK editorial team isdescribing, it is implied that the remainsfrom Korea were reclaimed as empirical ev-idence for tracing the continental origins ofJapanese art and civilization (Pai 2006).This is because, unlike in Japan, where theImperial Household Agency had imposedcensorship by restricting access to pro-tected sites or research collections, the ar-chaeological materials from Korea were ex-cavated stratigraphically and preserved insitu (Yoshii 2006). The published works, bi-ographies, and autobiographies penned byprominent colonial-era archaeologists andart historians—such as Sekino Tadashi(1868–1942), Hamada Kosaku (1881– 1938),Umehara Sueji (1893–1983), Harada Yo-shito (1885–1974),and Fujita Ryosaku (1892–1960—as well as my interview session withthe last surviving CGK-employed archae-ologist, Arimitsu Kyoichi (1907–present),support the CGK’s of!cial stance that thepreservation and restoration of Korean re-mains represented the high point of Japan-ese cultural administration in Korea (Pai2000; Mokuyo Club 2003).7

Advertising Common Ancestral Terrains:Imperialists’ Nostalgia, ArchaeologicalPhotography, and Tourism in the Empire

Images of the monumental ruins of pyra-mids and temples of the ancient civiliza-tions of Egypt, Greece, and India have cap-tured the imagination of colonialists,commercial photographers, scholars, touroperators, and tourists for more than twocenturies (Lyons et al. 2005; MacCannell1976; Pelizarri 2003). Similarly, beginningat the turn of the century, Korea’s “pictur-esque” remains served as the favorite back-drop for commemorative group photos, in-cluding of!cial visits by foreign dignitaries,imperial family members, colonial admin-istrators, heads of multinational corpora-tions, missionaries, and organized tourgroups. Clearly, for both photographersand paying customers there was an “irre-sistible” pull of the romance of ruins (Roth1997). Commercial photographers, as busi-nessmen !rst and artists second, werekeenly aware that visually striking and at-tractive settings, whether natural or exoticlandscapes manufactured in the studio, soldprints and postcards (Ryan 1997). In thecase of Korea, the most widely manufac-tured, collected, and mailed tourist post-cards representing “local color” (fuzoku)were images of peasant women, cute chil-dren, and kisaeng (professional dancers/en-tertainers), who were arranged as “nativecultural markers” amid the scenic ruins ofpagodas, temples, palace gardens, andfortresses (Kw!n 2005). By the late 1910s,exotic photographs depicting the “quaint”customs and “backward” images of Koreans


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 100

were reprinted in business almanacs issuedby major colonial enterprises such as theBank of Chosen and the South ManchuriaRailroad Company (Bank of Chosen 1919);CGK published in-house newsletters, gazet-teers, and local daily newspapers and circu-lated them throughout the major colonialcities from Seoul to Taipei and Singapore.

The marketing of Korea’s ancient sitesas tourist attractions began in earnest in1912, with the founding of the Keijo (Seoul)branch of the Japan Tourist Bureau (JTB).Japan’s oldest travel agency, the JTB(founded in 1912 and still operating today)began working together with ColonialGovernment Railways of Chosen (CGR),Taiwan Railways, and South ManchuriaRailroad (SMR) to build transportationnetworks (railways and trams) and accom-modations (hotels, spas, and mountain re-sorts). The main business goal of the JTB,then as now, was to bring in foreign revenueby enticing visitors to travel to remote ar-chaeological sites, famous places, naturalmonuments, summer resorts, and hotsprings (JTB 1982). In order to advertiseKorea’s archaeological sites to a world au-dience, local newspapers, the JTB, andtravel magazines hired leading specialists,journalists, writers, professional travelers,tour group operators, and educators towrite travelogues and guidebooks.8 Theirarticles and photos were widely dissemi-nated in CGK monthly newsletters, dailynewspapers, guidebooks printed in thecolonies, Japan Imperial Railway maps (JIR1925), and JTB publications such as Tabi(Travel) (JTB 1924–present) and The Tour-ist (JTB 1913–1942).

All travelers, be they Japanese, Euro-peans, or Koreans, raved that the most au-thentic “Korean” experience could be hadby taking a few extra days to visit the old-est historical capitals discovered by archae-ologists at Keishu (Ky!ngju), Fuyu (Puyo),and Heijo (P’y!ngyang) (Keishu KosekiHozonkai 1922, 1936). The Tomb of theGold Crown in the Old Silla Kingdom cap-ital of Keishu (ca. 5th century A.D.) was ex-cavated in 1921. The event was widely pro-moted in travel magazines, newspapers, andguidebooks as the greatest archaeologicaldiscovery of the century. The site was exca-vated by Professor Hamada Kosaku (1881–1938) and his student Umehara Sueji(1893–1983), the two most in!uential Ky-oto Imperial University–trained archaeol-ogists working for the CGK Committee onKorean Antiquities. The preservation ofS!kkuram and Pulguksa temples (ca. 8thcentury A.D.) took the CGK constructionengineers more than a decade to complete.Furthermore, the entire temple groundswere designated as famous scenic places(meisho) and promoted in many tourist bro-chures and travel magazines as equal toJapan’s oldest capital of Nara in beauty andhistoricity (JTB 1934: “Tabi”). By the1930s, the restored ruins of Keishu and theKeishu Museum (1926–present), built inthe center of the concentration of Sillaroyal burial mounds (ca. 3rd–9th centuriesA.D.), became the favorite setting for photo-ops by visiting imperial family members(Figure 7.2) and foreign royalty, includingCrown Prince Adolf Gustaf VI of Sweden,an amateur archaeologist and collector(Figure 7.3) who founded the Museum of


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 101


Figure 7.2 Imperial family relatives taking official tourist commemoration portrait in front of Sokkuram afterreconstruction, October 1935.

Figure 7.3 Japanese archaeologists assisting Prince Gustaf of Sweden at Sobongch'ong.

PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 102

Far Eastern Antiquities in Stockholm (Ha-mada and Andersson 1932). Cities alongthe northeast railway lines such as P’y!ng-yang and Kaes!ng also became populartourist destinations because of the abun-dance of ancient tombs. The restoredtombs of the Han Dynasty commandery ofRakuro (ca. 2nd century B.C.–2nd centuryA.D.), situated south of the Taedong Riverand Kogury! painted tombs (ca. 5th–6thcenturies A.D.) outside of P’y!ngyang city,were also featured in many guidebooks andtourist maps for their historical importanceas the most “scienti!cally” excavated tombsin Asia (Pai 2000: 127–236). The ancientPaekche (Kudara) capitals of Puy! andKongju (ca. 4th–7th centuries A.D.) werealso promoted in tourist brochures as theholiest of Japanese heritage sites because ofthe kingdom’s close diplomatic and culturalrelations with emperors in ancient times.

In conclusion, Japanese !eld researchersspent more than four decades in the KoreanPeninsula searching for “imperial treasuresand remains,” which they were not allowedto excavate in their own country. The “eth-nocentric” and aesthetic biases practiced byTokyo University–based architects and ar-chaeologists have therefore resulted in thepreservation and promotion of a selectnumber of royal burial sites, artifacts, andBuddhist architectural monuments mostresembling those of Japan. The locations ofKorea’s archaeological remains, which in-cluded shell mounds, bronze mirrors, andburial sites as “key ethnic markers,” wereplotted and mapped as the conquest routeof Japan’s mythical emperors whose impe-rial authority had extended to the southern

half of the Korean Peninsula in the proto-historic period (Kuno 1967; Pai 1999a; Ume-hara 1923).9 The photographic images andthe meanings of Korea’s archaeological dis-coveries were also manipulated by power-ful colonial policy makers (Yamamichi1910) to justify the annexation of Korea asa predestined “return” and reunion be-tween the two races of Japanese and Kore-ans, who had once shared common ances-tors (Nissen Dosoron) (Kita 1921) and thus,a shared cultural patrimony since time im-memorial (Pai 2006). The JTB and CGKalso propagated a nostalgic image throughthe “rustic” appeal of Korea’s decaying sitesand “beautiful” customs in printed post-cards and tourist brochures to market theirimagined mythical “imperial terrains,” lur-ing rich businessmen, as well as foreign anddomestic visitors, to invest and settle in thecolonies. From the perspective of ordinaryJapanese leisure tourists,10 the consciousact of visiting, absorbing, and experiencing!rsthand Korea’s customs, peoples, and an-cient sites also became part of their searchfor their own national identity, pride, andbelonging as citizens of the growing multi-ethnic and multicultural Japanese Empireduring the 1930s (Weisenfeld 2000).

Epilogue

This recurring theme of imagined “impe-rialist nostalgia” that romanticized the con-quered “other” in time and space, thoughnot unique to the Japanese Empire (AbuEl-Haj 2001; Trigger 1984), left a lastinglegacy on archaeological heritage manage-ment practices not only in Meiji Japan, but


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 103

a century later in South Korea today (Pai2001). In the postcolonial era, the con-tentious topic of “who is to blame for theplunder of Korean remains?” continues tobe one of the most controversial debateshindering bilateral diplomatic relationssince the end of the Paci!c War in 1945 (O1996).11 Many prominent archaeologists,historians, and art historians (Kim 1966)over the past !ve decades have denouncedcolonial-era archaeologists’ activities, andtheir reports are the “smoking gun” that re-veal how systematically the occupationgovernment had utilized knowledgeablescholars’ research for the political objectiveof assimilating Koreans (Nishikawa 1970;H. J. Yi 1964; K.Y. Yi 1996). Thus, Japan-ese archaeologists as a professional groupbecame the main scapegoats and have beendemonized in the press and media for theiractive role in depriving Koreans of theircultural patrimony and, thus, racial identity(Ch’oe 1997).

Despite such anti-Japanese rhetoric, wehave to acknowledge that there are manyindelible intellectual, aesthetic, and disci-plinary legacies of this “shared” history ofcolonial-era discoveries. First, we have toacknowledge that the concepts of prehis-tory, social evolution, unique “indigenous”culture, and periodization schemes basedon material culture and artifact typologywere all introduced to Japanese archaeolo-gists in the early colonial era. Before the ar-rival of Japanese collectors and archaeolo-gists in the early 20th century, there was alively antiquarian tradition practiced by thelanded aristocracy, rich merchant classes,and civil of!cials of high status (Yangban).

Objects such as strange-looking stones(kiseki), jade, and bronze vessels were dugup and collected mainly for their ritual andsymbolic value and/or aesthetic appeal. Rub-bings of inscriptions on stone and bronzewere made in order to decipher records thatwould link them to heroes or kings, and notfor their “archaeological” value in the mod-ern sense of the word. Furthermore, theYangban scholars believed that stone and jadeobjects were made by natural forces and/orsupernatural elements (e.g., lightning, earth-quakes, or the gods), but were de!nitely notman-made, much like the beliefs of antiquar-ians in 18th-century England and France.Therefore, it is my opinion that “Koreanswere not cheated out of their archaeologi-cal heritage by the Japanese looting schol-ars” as most postcolonial-era nationalisticscholars have asserted (Kim 1966, 1973; Yi1964); rather, they simply had no knowl-edge or appreciation of prehistoric objectsor ancient sites to be excavated, preserved,and promoted as a body of national heri-tage.The emergence of a “Korean conscious-ness” of their own traditions and cultureonly occurred in the late 1920s and 1930s,when a new generation of Korean-born butJapanese-educated colonial elite started ac-quiring their own collections. For example,Song S!k-ha, now regarded as the “fatherof Korean ethnology,” accumulated his ownKorean ceramics collection by emulatingthe tastes and preferences of sophisticatedand urbane Japanese collectors and con-noisseurs such as the Asakawa brothers andYanagi Soetsu (Brandt 2007; Han 1997).

In August 1945, with Japan’s surrender,the U.S. Army Military Government in


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 104

Korea (USAMGIK) oversaw the peacefulhandover of the CGK Museum collectionsfrom the last director, Arimitsu Kyoichi, tothe new Korean director of the NationalMuseum of Korea, Kim Chae-w!n (1909–1992). Arimitsu was asked to stay behind totrain the new generation of young Koreangraduates of Seoul National University(formerly Keijo Imperial University) sothey could return to their excavation sitesin Keishu in 1946 (Mokuyo Club 2003).Consequently, my research of colonial-eraarchives indicates that the most celebrated,reported, documented, and excavated arti-facts were inherited mostly intact by theNational Museum of Korea leading up tothe outbreak of the Korean War (1950–1953), when the museum was evacuated toPusan in 1951 (Pai 2000: 237–243). How-ever, we still do not have any accurate esti-mates of the status of the other colonialmuseum branches located in North Korea(P’y!ngyang, Kaes!ng) or the southerncities of Puy!, Kongju, and Ky!ngju duringthe chaotic period of violence and plunderfollowing the division of the peninsula in1945. We will probably never know howmany artifacts, documents, displays, storagebuildings, and sites were destroyed, burned,and/or looted during the chaos of the Ko-rean War years, when the whole peninsulawas bombed. Finally, since the 1960s, espe-cially in South Korea, there has been evenlarger-scale destruction of the landscape inthe name of economic and industrial devel-opment, with massive infrastructure con-structions such as dams, railroads, freeways,factories, airports, and apartment buildings(Pai 1999b). As a result, these early 20th-

century-documented photographs, maps,and drawings of archaeological remainspreserved in colonial reports, museum cat-alogs, tourist brochures, and postcards arenow consulted as invaluable research andpreservation tools as portraits of Koreanmonuments frozen in time (Pai 2006).

Conventions

The names cited in this work follow theJapanese convention of placing the familynames !rst. Most place-names adhere totheir original colonial-era sources, such asFormosa for Taiwan; Japanese pronuncia-tions for colonial cities and addresses suchas Keijo, the former name for Seoul, thecapital of the Republic of Korea, etc. Theircurrent names are added in parentheseswhen !rst appearing in the text. The lesser-known proper nouns, as well as names ofarchaeological sites, palaces, temples, insti-tutions, customs, etc., are transcribed inKorean. The Korean romanization systemhere follows the McCune-Reischauer sys-tem adopted by scholars in the West, notthe current system used by the Republic ofKorea. All translations in this paper are theauthor’s own.

Acknowledgments

The research for this article has been madepossible by two fellowships: a Japan Foun-dation Fellowship (2004–2005) and a visit-ing research professorship at the Interna-tional Research Center for JapaneseStudies (2007– 2008). I would like to thankthe following professors and staff for their


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 105

friendship and support during my researchtrips to archives in Japan: Yoshii Hideo(Kyoto University), Hirase Takao (TokyoUniversity), Yamada Shoji (InternationalResearch Center for Japanese Studies), Ya-manashi Emiko (Tokyo National ResearchInstitute of Cultural Properties, Ueno), andXu Su-bin (Tianjin University GraduateSchool of Architecture).

Notes

1. The Japanese archaeologists mentionedhere also conducted field surveys in north-ern China, Mongolia, and Taiwan duringthe 1900s–1930s. However, their archae-ological activities were not as systemati-cally organized or sustained over 40 years,as was the case with the Korean Penin-sula.

2. The Imperial Household Agency launchedthe construction of large-scale nationalmausolea dedicated to mythical foundingemperors beginning in the late 1870s.The first to be built was the Tomb ofJimmu (ca. 2,660 B.C.), known as the fifthdescendent of the sun goddess, Ama-terasu, the legendary founder of Japan(Suzuki and Takagi 2000). However,today there are “nearly 900 locations inJapan that are currently treated as impe-rial tombs, that is, as mausolea containingthe remains of an imperial family mem-ber, with 250 being listed as predating thestart of written history, in fact their actualconnection with the imperial line is stilllargely open to question” (Edwards 2003:11). Please consult the Imperial House-

hold Agency website for a complete reg-istry of imperial tombs through the ages(tenno rekidai ichiran) and a map of theirlocations: http://www.kunaicho.go.jp/ryobo/index.html (last accessed September 16,2008).

3. The Meiji government had embarked onforeign military expeditions extendingtheir frontiers into the northern islandsbordering on Russia, south to the islandsof Taiwan, and into the hinterlands of theKorean Peninsula and northeast Chinabeginning in the late 1870s. The initialgoal, as it was with European imperialpowers, was to obtain concession rights tonatural resources—fisheries, timber, andtropical agricultural products such as teaand camphor. Newly appointed colonialadministrators, army officials, and localpolice, faced with ruling sometimes hos-tile populations from Siberia to Taiwan,took an active part in supporting anthro-pologists’ surveys. They supported thescholars financially and logistically by pro-viding transportation, equipment, guides,interpreters, and bodyguards.They under-stood that ethnographic knowledge gath-ered by experts on local languages andcustoms (kinship system, class structure,land tenure, religious practices, etc.) hadpractical applications for controlling, ex-ploiting, and eventually assimilating thenatives (Barclay 2001; Ch’oe 1997; Es-kildsen 2002; Howell 2004).

4. Kuroita Katsumi (1874–1946), the fatherof modern Japanese historiography andhead of the Meiji Education Ministry his-torical textbooks compilation committee,was instrumental in drawing up the first


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 106

recommendations in 1912 and later adapt-ing them for Korea in 1916. According tothe 1912 draft paper he sent to the min-istry, his proposed classification and in-ventory system had been inspired bystudying the antiquities laws and nationalpreservation efforts he witnessed duringhis “fact-finding” trips to France, Ger-many, and England between 1909 and1911 (Kuroita 1912).

5. It is important to note here that CGK-sponsored publications, from archaeolog-ical reports to magazines and touristguidebooks, were published only in theJapanese language and sometimes in Eng-lish, French, or German.There are no Ko-rean-language sources, since the use ofwritten or spoken Korean was not permit-ted at Japanese schools, officials events, orCGK offices during the colonial period.

6. In 1917, Sekino Tadashi was awarded theprestigious Le Prix Stanislas Julien prizeby the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Institut de France, for his edito-rial work on the architectural photo al-bums of Korea. The original drawings,maps, and photographs are now housed athis alma mater, Tokyo University Archi-tecture Department and Museum Ar-chives.

7. The CGK-employed archaeologists didnot train Koreans in field excavations.However, my readings of the many mem-oirs of archaeologists and the hundreds oforiginal archaeological reports and re-corded excavation photographs demon-strate that the local population, includingpeasants, laborers, museum staff, anduniversity students, played an active role

as day laborers, museum security guards,and laboratory assistants. However, onlyCKKK Japanese staff members were per-mitted by 1916 laws to conduct surveysand excavations of sites (Pai 2001). Suchracially discriminatory hiring practiceswere, in fact, a widespread institutional-ized phenomenon practiced among theupper echelons of CGK administrationand Japanese-owned companies through-out the colonies.

8. Empire guidebooks, postcards, maps, andtrain and shipping timetables were dis-tributed worldwide by the Japan TouristBureau and Japan Imperial Railways Of-fices at their outlets at ports, train sta-tions, hotels, department stores, and travelagencies (e.g., Thomas Cook and Sons,American Express Co.) from Japan toNew York and Paris (see Table 7.1) (Paiforthcoming).

9. Prewar Japanese historians calculated thedates of the conquest genealogy of Japan’simperial lineage based on the legendaryrecords of the 8th-century text of theNihon Shoki (Chronicles of Japan), andinferred that an empress named Jingu es-tablished the colony of Mimana in thesouthern part of Korea around 201 A.D.After more than a century of controversy,it has still not been resolved as to whetherthe empress and her expedition to Koreaare fact or fiction (Kuno 1967: 1–13).Thefact remains that the calculations of sucha mytho-historical divine lineage was in-dispensable to the rewriting of the dynas-tic record, which had to be chronologi-cally brought up in time and spatiallyplotted so as to overlap with their newly


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 107

occupied territories in Manchuria andKorea (Pai 1999a).

10.I have not been able to track down reli-able statistics for the number of Japanesetourists who traveled to Korea in the1920s and 1930s. I suspect this is becauseby the late colonial period, all citizens whowere part of the of!cial empire (Naichi-jin), including Japan, Korea, Taiwan, andManchuria, could travel throughout theempire without passports and visas.Thereis one published source by the JTB of!cein Manchuria that I have located, whichgives the following numbers for the year1940: (1) the total number of organizedJTB-led tour groups to Manchuria andKorea: 9,109; (2) total number of groupmembers, including Manchurians, Japan-ese, and foreigners: 398,299; (3) totalnumber of train schedules distributed:320,000; and (4) total number of touristpamphlets distributed: 548,905. A glanceat these statistics gives us a sense of the vi-brant tourist industry in the late 1930s andearly 1940s, before its sudden collapse fol-lowing the outbreak of the Paci!c War in1943 (Namigata et al. 2004).

11. The-CGK assigned archaeologists weresent to sites that were reported to beunder immediate threat of destructionbecause of infrastructure developmentduring the Taisho period (1915–1925).These archaeologists reported witnessingmany tombs belonging to the Three King-doms era (ca. 3rd–7th centuries A.D.), in-cluding Kogury!, Rakuro, and Sillatombs, which showed telltale signs ofbeing raided by looters prior to their arri-val. By the 1910s, antiquities from bronze

vessels, Kory!-era celadon ware (ca.13th–14th centuries), and Yi Dynasty por-celain (ca. 18th–19th centuries) weremuch sought-after souvenirs collected byrich Japanese entrepreneurs, colonial ad-ministrators, and tourists. To meet thedemand, a new occupational class of pro-fessional gravediggers started workingfor antiquities dealers who were engagedin the black market trading at the newlyopened ports of W!nsan, Pusan, Shin!iji,and Seoul (Han 1997).

References

Abu El-Haj, N. 2001. Facts on the Ground:Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.

Akazawa, T. 1991. Kanbanni KizamarettaSekai: Torii Ryuzo no mita Ajia (Lostworlds on a dry plate: Torii Ryuzo’s Asia).Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.

Akazawa, Takeru, Ochiai, K., and Seki, Y.(eds.). 1993. The “Other” Visualized: De-pictions of Mongoloid Peoples. Tokyo: Uni-versity of Tokyo Press.

Bank of Chosen. 1919. Pictorial Chosen andManchuria, compiled in Commemoration ofthe Decennial of the Bank of Chosen. Seoul:Bank of Chosen.

Barclay, P. D. 2001. An historian among theanthropologist: The Ino Kanori revivaland the legacy of Japanese colonialethnography in Taiwan. Japanese Studies21: 117–136.

Brandt, K. 2007. Kingdom of Beauty: Mingeiand the Politics of Beauty in Imperial Japan.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 108

Bunkacho Bunkazai Hogobu. 1997. Bun-kazai hogo kankei horyo shu Sanko (Ref-erence section of the anthology of preser-vation laws of cultural properties), inBunkacho Bunkazai Hogobu (CulturalProperties Division of Japan’s Ministry ofCulture), Bunkazai Hogo Kankei Horei Shu(Anthology of cultural properties preser-vations laws), pp. 195–215.Tokyo: Gyosei.

Chikazawa Insatsu. 1924. Koseki OyobiIbutsu Toroku Taicho Shoroku (Prelimi-nary records of registration documents ofancient sites and relics). Keijo (Seoul):Chikazawa Insatsu.

Ch’oe, S.Y. 1997. Ilche !i Tonghwa Ideologi !iCh’angch’ul (The invention of the Japan-ese imperial ideology of assimilation).Seoul: S!gy!ng Munhwa Press.

Ch!n, K. S. 1999. Kankoku hakubutsukan-shi ni okeru hyosho no seiji jinruigakushokuminchishugi toshide no gurobal-izumu (The politics of colonialist anthro-pology represented in the Korean Mu-seum). Bulletin of the National Museum ofEthnology 24 (2): 247–290.

Colonial Governor-General of Korea(Chosen Sotokufu) (CGK). 1915–1935.Chosen Koseki Zufu (Album of ancient Ko-rean sites and monuments). 15 vols. Keijo(Seoul): CGK.

——. 1918–1941. Hakubutsukan Shinret-suhin Zukan (Museum exhibition cata-logs). 17 vols. Keijo (Seoul): CGK.

——. 1918–1937. Koseki Chosa Hokoku (An-cient sites investigation reports). 16 vols.Keijo (Seoul): CGK.

——. 1919–1930. Koseki Chosa TokubetsuHokoku (Ancient sites investigation spe-cial reports). 6 vols. Tokyo: CGK.

Edwards,W. 2003. Monuments to an unbro-ken line: The imperial tombs and theemergence of modern Japanese national-ism, in S. Kane (ed.), The Politics of Archae-ology and Identity in a Global Context, pp.11–30. Boston: Archaeological Instituteof America.

Eskildsen, R. 2002. Of civilization and sav-ages: The mimetic imperialism of Japan’s1874 expedition to Taiwan. The AmericanHistorical Review 107 (2): 388–418.

Fujitani, T. 1996. Splendid Monarchy: Powerand Pageantry in Modern Japan. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Hamada, K., and Andersson, J. G. 1932. TheFar East. Museum of Far Eastern Antiqui-ties 4: 9–14.

Han,Y. D. 1997. Chosen mi !i T’amgujad!l(Investigators of Korean beauty). PakKy!ng-h!i (trans.). Seoul: Hakkoje.

Hirose, S. 2003. Chosen no kenchiku, kosekito sono atono “bunkazai” hogo (Japaneseinvestigations into archaeological and ar-chitectural sites in the Korean Peninsulaand cultural properties managementsince the 1910s). Nihon Kokogashi Kenkyu10: 57–106.

Howell, D. 2004. Making “useful citizens”of the Ainu subjects in early twentieth-century Japan. Journal of Asian Studies 63(1): 5–30.

Hudson, M. 1999. The Ruins of JapaneseIdentity: Ethnogenesis in the Japanese Is-lands. Honolulu: University of HawaiiPress.

Hwang, S.Y. 1973. Ilchegi munhwajae p’ihaecharyo (The destruction of cultural relicsunder Japanese rule). Special issue, KogoMisul (Journal of Archaeology and Art) 22.


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 109

Japan Imperial Railways (JIR). 1925. Travel-ers’ Map of Japan, Chosen (Korea), Taiwan(Formosa). Tokyo: JIR.

Japan Tourist Bureau (JTB). 1913–1942. TheTourist (Tsu-risto). Tokyo: JTB.

——.1924–present.Tabi (Travel).Tokyo: JTB.——. 1982. Nihon Kotsu Kosha Nanajunenshi

(Seventy years of the Japan Tourist Bu-reau). Tokyo: JTB.

Keishu Koseki Hozonkai (Ky!ngju Preser-vation Society). 1922. Keishu Koseki Annai(A guide to ancient remains in Ky!ngju).Keishu (Ky!ngju): Ky!ngju PreservationSociety.

——. 1936. Keishu Koseki Annai (A guide toancient remains in Ky!ngju). Keishu(Ky!ngju): Ky!ngju Preservation Society.

Kim, Y. S. 1966. Ilbon Han’guk e iss!s!uiHan’guksa s!sul (Historical writingsabout Korea in Korea and Japan). Y!ksaHakbo 31: 128–147.

——. 1973. Ilche kwanhakjad"r"i Han’guk-sagwan (Japanese government-scholars’view of Korean history), in Y!ksa Hakhoe,Historical Society of Korea (ed.),Han’guksa"i Pans!ng (Re!ections on Ko-rean history), pp. 29–39. Seoul: Sin’guMunhwasa.

Kita, S. 1921. Nissen ryominzoku togenron(The common origins of the two races:Japanese and Koreans). Chosen 6: 3–69.

Kudo, M. 1979. Nihon Jinshuron (A study onthe racial theories of the Japanese).Tokyo: Kichikawa Kobunkan.

Kuno, Y. 1912. Kuroita katsumi shisekiho-zonni kansuru ikensho (An opinion paperon the preservations of historical re-mains). Shigaku Zasshi (Journal of His-tory) 23 (5): 568–611.

——. 1967. Japanese Expansion on the AsiaticContinent. 2 vols. Port Washington, NY:Kennikat Press.

Kuroita, K. 1912. Shisekihozonni kansuruikensho (An opinion paper on the preser-vations of historical remains). Shigakuzasshi 23 (5): 568–611.

Kw!n, H. H. 2005. Chos!nes! on Sajin Y!ps!(Postcards from Korea). Seoul: Min"msa.

Lutz, C. A., and Collins, J. L. 1993. ReadingNational Geographic. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.

Lyons, C., Papadopoulos, J. K., and Stewart,L. S. 2005. Antiquity and Photography:Early Views of Ancient Mediterranean Sites.Los Angeles: Getty Publications.

Matsumura, R. 1934. Tokyo jinrui gakkaigojunenshi (The "fty-year history of theTokyo Anthropological Society). TokyoJinrui Gakkai Zasshi 49 (11): 419–470.

MacCannell, D. 1999 [1976] . The Tourist: ANew Theory of the Leisure Class. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Mokuyo Club. 2001. Chosen kankei bunkenmokuroku (Kokogaku, Jinruigaku, Ken-chikushi Mokuroku) (A catalog of Korea-related articles on archaeology, anthro-pology and architectural history). NihonKokogakushi Kenkyu 9: 4–20.

——. 2003. Arimitsu-shi inta-byu (An inter-view with Professor Arimitsu). NihonKokogakushi Kenkyu 10: 3–30.

Namigata,S.,Kimura,K., and Sunaga,T.2004.Toaryokosha Manshu chibu junenshi (Tenyears of the Manchuria Branch of the ToaTravel Agency). Shashide Miru Nihon Kei-zaishi Shokuminchi hen Dai 31 hen (Vol. 31of The Economic History of Japan Series:Colonial Era). Tokyo: Yumani Shobo.


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 110

Nishikawa, H. 1970. Nihon teikoku shugikani okeru Chosen kokogaku no keisei (Theestablishment of Korean archaeologyduring the era of Japanese imperialism).Chosen Gakuho 7 (6): 94–114.

O, S. T. 1996. Ilche !i munhwajae ch"ng-ch’aek (Japanese policies on culturalproperties), in Munhwajae Kwalliguk,Of!ce of Cultural Properties, Republic ofKorea (ed.), Ilche !i Munhwajae Ch"ng-ch’aek P’y"ngga Semina (A seminar reporton the re-evaluation of Japanese colonialcultural policies), pp. 15–44. Seoul:Munhwajae Kwalliguk.

Pai, H. I. 1994. The politics of Korea’s past:The legacy of Japanese colonial archae-ology in the Korean Peninsula. Shih (EastAsian History) 7: 25–48.

——. 1999a. Japanese anthropology and thediscovery of “prehistoric Korea.” Journalof East Asian Archaeology 1: 353–382.

——. 1999b. Nationalism and preservingKorea’s buried past: The Of!ce of Cul-tural Properties and archaeological her-itage management in South Korea. Antiq-uity 73 (281): 619–625.

——. 2000. Constructing “Korean” Origins:Archaeology, Historiography, and RacialMyth. Harvard-Hallym Series on KoreanStudies. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityAsia Center.

——. 2001.The creation of national treasuresand monuments: The 1916 Japanese lawson the preservation of Korean remainsand relics and their colonial legacies.Journal of Korean Studies 25 (1): 72– 95.

——. 2004. Collecting Japan’s antiquity incolonial Korea: The Tokyo Anthropolog-ical Society and the cultural comparative

perspective, in Moving Objects: Time,Space, and Context, pp. 87–107. 26th In-ternational Symposium on the Preserva-tion of Cultural Property Series. Tokyo:National Research Institute of CulturalProperties.

——. 2006. Shinhwasok koto pokwn" !lwihan yuj"k t’amsaek (Reclaiming theruins of imagined imperial terrains: Meijiarchaeology and art historical surveys inthe Korean peninsula [1900–1916]), inSang-in Yoon and Kyu-tae Park (eds.),Ilbon !i Pallmy"ng kwa K!ndae

"

(The dis-covery of Japan and modernity), pp.247–284. Seoul: Yeesan Publishing Co.

——. 2009. Capturing visions of Japan’s pre-historic past: Torii Ryuzo’s !eld photo-graphs of “primitive” races and lost civi-lizations (1896–1915), in J. Purtle and H.Bjarne Thomsen (eds.), Looking Modern:East Asian Visual Culture from Treaty Portsto World War II. Chicago: Art Media Re-sources.

——. Forthcoming. Guides to the Empire:Travel brochures and the colonial originsof leisure tourism to Korea, in L. Kendall(ed.), Consuming Korean Tradition in Earlyand Late Modernity. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press.

Pelizarri, M. A. (ed.). 2003. Traces of India:Photography, Architecture and the Politics ofRepresentation (1850–1900). New Haven:Yale University Press.

Reischauer, E. O. 1939. Japanese archaeo-logical work on the Asiatic continent.Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 4 (1):87–98.

Roth, M. S., with Lyons, C. and Mere-wether, C. 1997. Irresistible Decay: Ruins


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 111

Reclaimed. Los Angeles: Getty ResearchInstitute for the History of Art and theHumanities.

Ryan, J. 1997. Picturing Empire: Photographyand the Visualization of the British Empire.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sakazume, H. 1997. Taiheiyo Senso to Koko-gaku (The Paci!c War and archaeology).Tokyo: Kichikawa Kobunkan.

Sato, T. 1999. Meiji Kindai Kokka to Bijutsu(Art and the Meiji modern state). Tokyo:Kichikawa Kobunkan.

Sekino, T. 1904. Kangoku Kenchiku ChosaHokoku (Investigations’ reports of Koreanarchitecture). Vol. 6 of Tokyo TeikokuDaigaku Koka Daigaku GakkujutsuHokoku.Tokyo: Tokyo Teikoku Daigaku.

——. 1919. Chosen Keijutsu no Kenkyu (Astudy of Japanese art). Keijo: ChosenSotokufu.

——. 1931. Ancient remains and relics inKorea: Efforts toward research and pres-ervation. Paper presented at the fourthbiannual conference of the Institute ofPaci!c Relations, Oct. 21–Nov. 4, 1931,in Hangzhou and Shanghai.

Suzuki, R., and Takagi, H. (eds.). 2000. Bun-kazai to Kindai Nihon (Cultural propertiesand modern Japan). Tokyo: YamagawaShuppan.

Takagi, H. 1997. Kindai Tennosei no Bunka-shideki Kenkyu (A study of modern Japan-ese imperial cultural policies). Tokyo:Koko Shuppan.

Teshigawara, A. 1995. Nihon Kokogaku noAyumi (A historical development of Japa-nese archaeology). Tokyo: Meisho Shup-pan.

Tokyo K. H. 1976. Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubut-sukan Hyakunenshi (A hundred year his-

tory of the Tokyo National Museum). 2vols. Tokyo: Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubut-sukan.

Trigger, B. 1984. Alternative archaeologists:Nationalist, colonialist, imperialist. Man19 (3): 355–370.

Umehara, S. 1923. Kokogakujo yori mitarujodai Nissen no kankei (The relationshipbetween ancient Korea and Japan froman archaeological perspective). Chosen 8:138–170.

Weisenfeld, G. 2000. Touring Japan as mu-seums: Nippon and other Japanese impe-rialist travelogues. Positions 8 (3): 747–793.

Yamamichi, J. 1910. Chosen Hanto (The Ko-rean Peninsula). Keijo: Nikkan Shobo-zohan.

Yi, H. J. 1964. Chaeil han’guk munhwajaepimangnok (A memo on the tragedy ofKorean cultural relics in Japan). SahakYon’gu 8: 791–808.

Yi, K. Y. 1996. Han’guk Munhwajae Sunansa(The tortuous history of Korea’s culturalrelics). Seoul: Tolbege.

Yi, M. Y. 1976. Ilche kwanhakcha duruisingminji sakwan (The colonial histori-ography of Japanese government schol-ars), in Yi U-s!ng and Kang Man-gil(eds.), Han’guk ui Y!ksa Insik (The histor-ical consciousness of Korea), Part 2, pp.500–521. Seoul: Ch’angjak Kwa Pip’y!ng.

Yoshii, H. 2006. Shokuminchu ni okeru koko-gaku chosa no zaikento (A re-analysis of ar-chaeological surveys in colonial Korea).Department of Archaeology research re-ports. Kyoto: Kyoto University GraduateSchool.


PC-07-rev.qxp 7/24/2010 7:39 PM Page 112

ESURRECTING THE R J HOMELANDS: COLONIAL A S K · PDF fileresurrecting the ruins of japan’s mythical homelands: colonial archaeological surveys in the korean peninsula and heritage

Documents