식민지 체질인류학적 해부학 지식의 지적 계보 : ‘생체계측학’적 연구방법론을 중심으로
The Intellectual Genealogy of Physical Anthropological Anatomy Knowledge in Colonial Korea: Focusing on the Biometric Study in Statistical Method
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Kubo Takeshi (1879–1921) and subsequent scholars from the Keijo Medical College Department of Anatomy and the Keijo Imperial University Department of Anatomy all tried to prove the superiority of the Japanese by using statistical methods in biometric studies to prove Kubo’s hypothesis. However, these studies could not prove Kubo’s hypothesis that the Japanese were superior to the Korean people, and ultimately, proving Kubo’s hypothesis became impossible to prove. Rather, studies by the post-Kubo generation concluded that Japanese and Koreans were physically similar. This logic, which reinforces the similarities between Korean and Japanese biometrics, can be used as an important argument for organizing the theory on Japanese‑Korean common ancestry (Nissen dōsoron, 日鮮同祖論) and the assimilation of the Korean Peninsula into Japan (Naisen ittai, 内鮮一体) in the preparation of the Sino-Japanese and Great East Asia Wars in the 1930s and 1940s. While Kubo’s hypothesis failed to produce substantial results in subsequent physical anthropology studies, blood group anthropologists made a breakthrough in indeed proving the ethnic superiority of the Japanese. They figured out that the racial factors were stratified into Western, Middle, and Asian-African types, with the northern and central Korean Peninsula belonging to the Asian-African type and Japan and the southern Korean Peninsula belonging to the Middle type. In particular, Japan ranked higher than the southern Korean Peninsula, so the hierarchy was organized with Japan first, then the southern Korean Peninsula, the central part, the northern part, and Manchuria. However, racial factors also differed in Japan from region to region, with those living further north closer to the Asian-African type. In this case, it was difficult to determine the result of exchanges between Japan and Korea, as well as to clearly distinguish the gap between Japanese and Korean people. Since Kubo’s time, scholars have made various attempts to prove the ethnic superiority of the Japanese through empirical methodologies. However, the physical and blood group anthropology results have made the superiority of Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese archipelago completely contradictory. Researchers are also unable to defend all the hypotheses needed for colonial medicine and use their findings only for convenience.
Abstract
Kubo Takeshi (1879–1921) and subsequent scholars from the Keijo Medical College Department of Anatomy and the Keijo Imperial University Department of Anatomy all tried to prove the superiority of the Japanese by using statistical methods in biometric studies to prove Kubo’s hypothesis. However, these studies could not prove Kubo’s hypothesis that the Japanese were superior to the Korean people, and ultimately, proving Kubo’s hypothesis became impossible to prove. Rather, studies by the post-Kubo generation concluded that Japanese and Koreans were physically similar. This logic, which reinforces the similarities between Korean and Japanese biometrics, can be used as an important argument for organizing the theory on Japanese‑Korean common ancestry (Nissen dōsoron, 日鮮同祖論) and the assimilation of the Korean Peninsula into Japan (Naisen ittai, 内鮮一体) in the preparation of the Sino-Japanese and Great East Asia Wars in the 1930s and 1940s. While Kubo’s hypothesis failed to produce substantial results in subsequent physical anthropology studies, blood group anthropologists made a breakthrough in indeed proving the ethnic superiority of the Japanese. They figured out that the racial factors were stratified into Western, Middle, and Asian-African types, with the northern and central Korean Peninsula belonging to the Asian-African type and Japan and the southern Korean Peninsula belonging to the Middle type. In particular, Japan ranked higher than the southern Korean Peninsula, so the hierarchy was organized with Japan first, then the southern Korean Peninsula, the central part, the northern part, and Manchuria. However, racial factors also differed in Japan from region to region, with those living further north closer to the Asian-African type. In this case, it was difficult to determine the result of exchanges between Japan and Korea, as well as to clearly distinguish the gap between Japanese and Korean people. Since Kubo’s time, scholars have made various attempts to prove the ethnic superiority of the Japanese through empirical methodologies. However, the physical and blood group anthropology results have made the superiority of Manchuria, the Korean Peninsula, and the Japanese archipelago completely contradictory. Researchers are also unable to defend all the hypotheses needed for colonial medicine and use their findings only for convenience.
참고문헌 (49)
- "동아일보", ~
- "조선일보", ~
- "愛知縣⽴醫學專門學校及愛知病院一覧" (1912), 名古屋
- "朝鮮総督府京城医学専門学校教授久保武叙勲ノ件", 日本國⽴公⽂書館 所藏, 勲00597100, ~ (1922)
- 久保武, "⼈種解剖學より⾒たる朝鮮⼈(⼆)", 朝鮮及滿洲, 117 (1917)
- 久保武, "朝鮮と滿洲の⽐較硏究: 體格上より觀た朝鮮⼈と⽀那⼈", 朝鮮及滿洲, 24 (1917)
- 久保武, "解剖學的に⾒たる日鮮⼈の⽐較硏究", 朝鮮及滿洲, 136 (1918)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑴", 朝鮮及滿洲, 103 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑵", 朝鮮及滿洲, 104 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑶", 朝鮮及滿洲, 105 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑷", 朝鮮及滿洲, 106 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑸", 朝鮮及滿洲, 107 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑹", 朝鮮及滿洲, 108 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑺", 朝鮮及滿洲, 114 (1916)
- 久保武, "毛髮の⼈類學⑻", 朝鮮及滿洲, 116 (1917)
- 久保武, "朝鮮⼈の⼈種的特徵", 京城日報 35, ~ (1916)
- 久保武, "解剖上より⾒たる⼥の體質的特徵", 朝鮮及滿洲, 109 (1916)
- 久保武, "⼈種解剖學より⾒たる朝鮮⼈", 朝鮮及滿洲, 115 (1917)
- 久保武, "⼈種解剖學より⾒たる朝鮮⼈(⼆)", 朝鮮及滿洲, 117 (1917)
- 荒瀨 進, "朝鮮⼈の體質⼈類學的硏究(第一回報告, 北鮮の部)", 朝鮮醫學會雜誌, 24 (1934)
- 荒瀨 進, "朝鮮⼈の體質⼈類學的硏究(第⼆報告)", 朝鮮醫學會雜誌, 24 (1934)
- 今村豊, "京城帝國大學大陸⽂化硏究會パムフレツト 3冊" (1939)
- 蒙古族及び通古斯族の體質, "今村豊", ~, pp.大陸⽂化硏究會報告 4卷 (1938)
- 上⽥常吉, "生物統計學" (1935), 岩波書店
- 上⽥常吉, "日本⺠族" (1935), 岩波書店
- 上⽥常吉, "京畿道 朝鮮⼈의 생물통계학으로 본 유전적 관계에 대하여", 朝鮮醫學會雜誌, 26(11) (1936)
- 上⽥常吉, "體質より⾒たる內鮮⺠族", 朝鮮, 260 (1937)
- 上⽥常吉, "⼈類學先史學講座 第4卷" (1938), 雄⼭閣
- 上⽥常吉, "アジア問題講座 8" (1939)
- 上⽥常吉, "京畿道朝鮮⼈の體質⼈類學的硏究", ⼈類學雜誌, 57(10) (1942)
- 小林ちよ, "日本に於けるABO式血液型分布の統計的觀察", 犯罪學雜誌, 14 (1940)
- 김옥주, "경성제대 의학부의 체질인류학 연구", 의사학, 17(2), pp.191~203 (2008), 대한의사학회
- 김성수, "몸으로 세계를 보다: 동아시아 해부학의 성립과 발전" (2017), 서울대학교출판문화원
- 박순영, "일제 식민통치하의 조선 체질인류학이 남긴 학문적 유산과 과제", 비교문화연구, 10(1), pp.191~220 (2004), 비교문화연구소
- 박순영, "일제 식민주의와 조선인의 몸에 대한 ＂인류학적＂ 시선: 조선인 신체에 대한 일제 체질인류학자들의 작업을 중심으로", 비교문화연구, 12(2), pp.57~92 (2006), 비교문화연구소
- 서홍관, "일본인종론과 조선인", 의사학, 8(1) (1999)
- 여인석, "한국의학사" (2018), 역사공간
- 장신요, "한국의 체질인류학에 대한 회고", 대한체질인류학회지, 1(1) (1988)
- 전경수, "식민과 전쟁의 일제인류학: 대북제대와 경성제대의 인맥과 활동을 중심으로", 비교문화연구, 8(1) (2002)
- 전경수, "식민과 전쟁의 일제인류학: 대북제대와 경성제대의 인맥과 활동을 중심으로2", 비교문화연구, 8(2) (2002)
- 정준영, "피의 인종주의와 식민지의학: 경성제대 법의학교실의 혈액형인류학", 의사학, 21(3), pp.513~550 (2012), 대한의사학회
- 日本解剖學會, "故津崎孝道教授を悼みて", 解剖學雜誌, 51(2) (1976)
- 全京秀, "帝国と⾼等教育: 東アジアの⽂脈から" (2013), 国際日本⽂化研究センター
- 全京秀, "京城帝國大學の學術調査と‘京城學派’の誕生: ⼈類學分野にフオ-カスを合わせて", 朝鮮學報, 214 (2010)
- 安井廣, "ベルツの生涯: 近代醫學導⼊の⽗" (1995), 思⽂閣出版
- 周蜜, "日本⼈的起源與形成: 體質⼈類學的新視⾓" (2013), 上海古籍出版社
- Hoi-eun Kim, "Doctors of Empire: Medical and Cultural Encounters betweenImperial Germany and Meiji Japan" (2014), University Toronto Press
- Rotem Kowner, "Lighter Than Yellow, But Not Enough’: Western Discourse on the Japanese Race, 1864-1904", The Historical Journal, 43(1) (2000)
- Rotem Kowner, "Science, Technology, and Medicine in the Modern Japanese Empire" (2017), Routledge