earticle

영어

The aim of this paper was to compare the understanding about ancient immigrants to Japan originating from the Korean peninsula that is held by Japanese archaeologists on the one hand and contemporary Japanese anthropologists on the other. The theory that the core race that composed the Japanese originally came from the Korean peninsula was a well established theory in the Japanese archaeology world until the 1910s, when Japanese archaeology and anthropology were not yet separate fields. But the theory of ancient immigrants to Japan from Korea had been denied by the powerful position of eugenics, which stood against a mix of different races and maintained a view of a “pure” Japanese race. As a result, the theory fell out of the mainstream. Then, after losing WWⅡ, the theory of anthropology kept to be contaminated by racism until the 1980s, taking advantage of the newly establishing paradigm of a homegenous nation in the Japanese academic world. However, the theory of large-scale immigration was announced during that time, holding a strong resemblance to theories dating from before the 1910s, which is why archaeologists showed mainly negative reactions. Generally, archaeologists grasped the scale of the immigration as an only small one. Also, they explain that immigrants had mixed with the Jomon people and increased the population in the northern Kyushu area before they had moved on to various parts of Japan. They emphasize that it was the Jomon people, not Korean immigrants, that were the main subject in the formation of Yayoi culture. Archaeologists did not consider opinions of largescale immigration in the tumulus period, whereas anthropologists insisted on it. Instead, archeologists restrict the range of the immigrants to the ruling class and the engineering class. Traceably, nationalism lies in the background of the understanding on ancient immigrants held by Japanese archaeologists, such as that “Japanese” have been formed by a native race assimilating outside races, or that “Japanese culture” has been made by a native race which was accepting outside cultures autonomously, or even that “Japan” was established by one native power alone.

한국어

이 논문은 일본 고고학자의 한반도 도래인(渡來人)에 대한 인식을 당대의 인류학설과의 대조를 통해서 고찰한 것이다. 일본 고고학은 1910년대까지만 해도 인류학과 미분화 상태였으며 거기에서는 일본인을 구성하는 핵심적 민족이 한반도에서 도래했다고 하는 견해가 정설이었다. 그러나 한반도 도래설은 곧 혼혈을 피해 순수 일본민족의 혈통을 지키려는 우생학 세력에 의해 부정되면서 비주류 학설로 전락하게 되었다. 인종주의에 젖은 인류학설은 패전 후 일본 학계에서 형성된 단일민족 패러다임의 부상에 편승하여 1980년대까지 연명되었다. 그 과정에서1910년대 이전의 학설을 방불케 하는 도래설이 여러 차례 발표되었는데 이번에는 고고학자들이 이에 대해 부정적인 반응을 보였다. 대체로 고고학자들은 도래 규모를 작게 잡고, 나아가 도래인이 북부 규슈에서 조몽인(縄文人)과 혼혈하고 인구를 늘린 후 일본 각지로 이동한 것으로 해석한다. 그리고 야요이 문화(弥生文化)의 형성에서 주체가 된 것은 도래인이 아니라 조몽인임을 강조한다. 또한 인류학자가 주장한 고훈 시대(古墳時代)의 대규모 도래설을 외면하여 도래인을 지배층이나 기술자에 제한한다. 일본 고고학자의 도래인 이해의 배경에는, ‘일본인’은 토착민이 외부민족을 동화하면서 형성되었고 ‘일본문화’는 토착민이 외부문화를 주체적으로 수용하면서 만들어졌으며 ‘일본국가’는 토착세력에 의해 수립되었다는 민족주의가 깔려 있는 듯하다.