@article{oai:doshisha.repo.nii.ac.jp:00027630,
 author = {Itagaki, Ryuta and 板垣, 竜太},
 issue = {134},
 journal = {評論・社会科学, Hyoron Shakaikagaku (Social Science Review)},
 month = {Sep},
 note = {本資料は，京都大学が保管する琉球民族遺骨の返還を求める集団訴訟で，京都地裁に提出した意見書である。本意見書は，まず人骨研究を中心とする近代人類学の系譜を整理したうえで，京都大国大学の人類学者が統計学的な手法を駆使しながら集団的に人骨研究を進めたことを明らかにした。そのうえで京都帝大の人類学者による琉球遺骨の収集には，解剖学教室の金関丈夫によるもの(1929年)と病理学教室(清野謙次人類学研究室)の三宅宗悦によるもの(1933年)の2系統があり，前者は台北帝国大学に移管され，後者が京都帝大に残されたことを論証した。最後に，人骨収集の態度において，本州・四国・九州における慎重さと，南島における手軽さが対照的であったことを示し，植民地状況においては「純粋」な科学的研究に対する法的・倫理的な歯止めが働かなくなったという意味で，それを「植民地主義的ダブルスタンダード」と呼んだ。, This is an opinion paper which I submitted to the Kyoto District Courts regarding a trial over a claim for the restitution of the Ryukyuan human remains held in Kyoto University. First, tracing a genealogy of modern anthropological studies of human bones, I argue that the anthropologists in Kyoto Imperial University were characterized by a strong concern for the extensive collection of human remains for advanced statistical analyses. Second, I demonstrate that the Ryukyuan human remains in Kyoto Imperial University were collected by two anthropologists, Kanaseki Takeo in the Anatomy Laboratory in 1929 and Miyake Soetsu in the Pathology Laboratory in 1933, and that only the bones collected by the latter have been kept in Kyoto University because the former ones were transferred to Taipei Imperial University before 1945. Lastly, contrasting the "ease" with which human remains were collected in the southern islands with the care taken in Honshu, Shikoku and Kyushu, I describe their approach as a "colonial double standard" in which laws and ethics were not observed in the pursuit of "pure" scientific activity., 資料(Material), application/pdf},
 pages = {141--177},
 title = {琉球民族遺骨返還訴訟への意見書},
 year = {2020},
 yomi = {イタガキ, リュウタ}
}