殖民地臺灣的文化再編：從史蹟保存到歷史建構（1924─1941）

Abstract

史蹟保存是戰前日本以國家之力，對代表國家的歷史紀念物予以定義和保護的文化制度，日本全國性的史蹟保存制度開始於1919年制定的史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法，其後該法也延長實施到殖民地臺灣。本文試圖從日本帝國整體連動的脈絡，以史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存制度之中的史蹟保存為主題討論以下問題：臺灣總督府為何在統治趨於穩固的1920年代中期，開始推行史蹟保存的相關施政，並在1930年將史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法延長實施到臺灣？在此法律制度下，曾進行過什麼樣的史蹟調查與指定？其在臺灣造成的政策意圖之中與之外的影響為何？1930年代開始，臺灣各地出現的御遺跡紀念活動、鄉土展示以及鄉土史書寫等歷史文化活動，又與臺灣總督府的文化施政有何關聯？ 本文首先說明史蹟保存制度在日本與臺灣發展的過程及其性質。日本的史蹟保存在內務省設立後，是其地理行政的一環。1910年代，黑板勝美等學者引入德國的鄉土保護觀念，提倡史蹟名勝天然紀念物的保存，促成1919年史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法的制定。在殖民地臺灣，臺灣總督府從1920年代逐漸開始重視文化施政，1924年由內務局發出最早的關於史蹟保存的命令，總督府並於1930年將該保存法延長實施到臺灣，企圖透過紀念物的調查與指定，將臺灣整合進日本歷史文化的框架之中。 本文透過分析學者宮原敦、移川子之藏、村上直次郎，以及民間文化人尾崎秀真四位史蹟名勝天然紀念物調查會委員的調查報告，發現其史蹟調查多為自身之研究與興趣的延伸。他們的調查成果包括：史前遺跡、原住民史蹟、荷蘭與西班牙時期史蹟、清代史蹟等。不過，總督府委託尾崎秀真進行的御遺跡調查，則明顯帶有在殖民地強化天皇史觀的政策意圖。 臺灣總督府於1933年、1935年與1941年共進行過三次史蹟指定。本研究將總督府指定的史蹟依其性質、政治意圖與效果，分為「御遺跡」、「臺灣史蹟」、「領有史蹟」三個類別。本研究發現，在數量上御遺跡為最大宗，臺灣史蹟居次，領有史蹟最少。就意涵而言，御遺跡與領有史蹟具有正當化殖民統治，以及將殖民地臺灣整合進日本歷史文化框架之中的意圖。臺灣史蹟主要來自調查委員的學術研究成果，顯示出學術與政府行政互動的面相，不過其所乘載的歷史學與考古學知識也得以透過史蹟的指定與宣傳而傳遞到社會上。以分析的觀點來看，史蹟的調查與指定，讓臺灣成為歷史論述的一個單元，建立出史前、荷蘭與西班牙時期、清代、到當下日本統治的線性臺灣歷史的發展與時代分期。 1930年代開始，臺灣社會上出現多樣的歷史文化活動。本文分析御遺跡紀念活動、鄉土展示以及鄉土史書寫的內涵，發現這些活動雖然在政策上與史蹟保存沒有直接的關聯，不過在以臺灣或臺灣各地區為歷史敘述單位、線性歷史時代分期等方面，與史蹟保存可以相互對照，且史蹟調查委員在這些活動中具有一定程度的影響力。因此，這些活動可視為是史蹟保存之發展的複製與擴延。 史蹟保存與社會上的歷史文化活動，整體來說，在臺灣帶來以臺灣為地理範圍的歷史建構現象。

The preservation of historic sites was a cultural policy enacted by Japan during the prewar era which defined and protected national monuments. A nationwide system of the preservation of historic sites began formally in 1919 when the Law for the Preservation of Historic Sites, Famous Places, and Natural Monuments (史蹟名勝天然紀念物保存法) was promulgated, and the Law was implemented in colonial Taiwan afterwards. This thesis focuses specifically on the historic sites under the above system and, from the context of the Japanese Empire on the whole rather than from merely the perspective of Taiwan, examines the following questions: why did the Government-General of Taiwan (the Taiwan Sōtokufu) from the mid-1920s, a period when its rule over Taiwan was stabilizing, begin to promote administration related to the preservation of historic sites, and why did the colonial government in 1930 extend the Law to Taiwan? Under the Law, what kinds of investigations and designations of historic sites took place? How much influence did these investigations and designations assert, be it with or without intent, upon Taiwan? Finally, beginning in the 1930s, how did activities surrounding the commemoration of historic sites of the imperial family, exhibitions pertaining to the homeland, and the writing of the history of the homeland undertaken by Taiwanese society relate to the cultural administration of the Sōtokufu? This thesis first explains the processes and the nature of the development of the system of the preservation of historic sites in Japan and in Taiwan. After the Home Ministry of Japan was established, the preservation of historic sites became a part of its administration pertaining to geography. In the 1910s, scholars such as Kuroita Katsumi (黑板勝美) introduced the German concept of Heimatschutz (homeland protection) to Japan and advocated for the preservation of historic sites, famous places, and natural monuments. Due to their efforts, the Law for the Preservation of Historic Sites, Famous Places, and Natural Monuments was promulgated in 1919. In colonial Taiwan in the 1920s, the Sōtokufu gradually attached importance to the administration of cultural affairs, and in 1924, it issued the first order relating to the preservation of historic sites. In 1930, the colonial government extended the Law to Taiwan and attempted to, through the investigations into and the designations of monuments, integrate Taiwan into the cultural and historical framework of the Japanese Empire. By analyzing the reports of the investigations by four members of the Committee on the Preservation of Historic Sites, Famous Places, and Natural Monuments, Miyahara (宮原敦), Utsushikawa Nenozo (移川子之藏), Murakami Naojirō (村上直次郎), and Ozaki Hotsuma (尾崎秀真), I have discovered that the investigations were extensions of their own research and interests. The results and topics of their surveys include: prehistoric remains as well as historic sites of aboriginals, of Taiwan under the Dutch and the Spain, and of Taiwan under the Qing. However, the investigation that was commissioned to Ozaki Hotsuma by the Sōtokufu into historic sites of the imperial family shows an obvious political intention to promote the historical view of imperial house (Kōkokushikan) in colonial Taiwan. The Sōtokufu conducted three designations in 1933, 1935, and 1941. I classify these designated historic sites into three categories according to their quality, political intention, and effect: “historic sites of the imperial family,” “historic sites of Taiwan,” and “historic sites of subjugation.” I have discovered that in regards to quantity, the number of historic sites of the imperial family are the greatest, and the amount of historic sites of Taiwan are second, whereas the number of historic sites of subjugation are the fewest. Both historic sites of the imperial family and historic sites of subjugation show intent to justify Japanese colonial governance and to integrate colonial Taiwan into a cultural and historical framework of the Japanese Empire. In contrast, historic sites of Taiwan came mainly from the results and academic achievements of research conducted by the committee members, which demonstrates a level of interaction between the colonial government and scholars. Meanwhile, the historical and anthropological knowledge that was contained within the historic sites of Taiwan was also distributed throughout society via the pipeline of designating historic sites and its related propaganda. From an analytical perspective, the investigations into and the designations of historic sites shaped Taiwan into a unit of historical discourse and established a periodization of the history of Taiwan: prehistory, period of Dutch and Spanish rules, period of the Qing, and the then current period of Japanese rule. Beginning in the 1930s, numerous historical and cultural activities, such as the commemorations of historic sites of the imperial family, exhibitions pertaining to the homeland, and the writing of the history of the homeland, also emerged in Taiwan society. I analyze the contents of these activities and have discovered that despite not being directly related to the policy of the preservation of historic sites, they share several similarities, including viewing Taiwan or districts of Taiwan as units of historical discourse and establishing a linear periodization of history. Furthermore, the members of the committee maintained a certain degree of influence over these activities. Therefore, these activities can be regarded as a reproduction of the preservation of historic sites. The preservation of historic sites and historical activities within society, on the whole, brought about a phenomenon which constructed history according to a geographical framework of Taiwan.