|BOYLE EDWARD KIERAN（ぼいる えどわーど きーらん）||データ更新日：2019.11.08|
助教 ／ 法学研究院 政治学部門 法学研究院
|1.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Borders of memory
affirmation and contestation over Japan’s heritage, Japan Forum, 10.1080/09555803.2018.1544582, 31, 3, 293-312, 2019.01, [URL], This essay, introducing the special issue on ‘Borders of Memory’, aims to shed light on the links between memory and heritage in contemporary Japan. It does so by examining how heritage sites serve as spaces within which collective memory is both affirmed and contested. Heritage sites enable us to survey the contours of the borders of memory that exist between different memory collectives. An analysis of South Korean and Chinese objections to the Meiji Industrial Sites shows how these heritage sites work as borders of memory, spaces where the competing collective memories of neighbouring East Asian governments and societies clash and rub up against one another. This analysis is then extended to the four articles that make up this special issue. In each case, it is the competing meanings invested in the site, and the struggle over the narrative within which it is incorporated, that results in such sites coming to be demarcated as borders of memory. Understanding these heritage sites as bordered spaces allows us to see such them as being not only where antagonistic collective memories come into contact, but also spaces through which they connect. The existence of such spaces enables the political process of articulating the stories associated with different memory collectives..
|2.||Edward Boyle, Sketching Layers in Japan
Mineral Wealth, Geo-bodies and Imperial Territory, 7th International Symposium of the ICA Commission on the History of Cartography, 2018
Colonial Cartographies of Land and Sea - 7th International Symposium of the ICA Commission on the History of Cartography, 2018, 10.1007/978-3-030-23447-8_1, 3-22, 2020.01, [URL], In 1876, an American by the name of Benjamin Smith Lyman submitted to the Japanese government a geological map of ‘Yesso’, which had been compiled under his direction. This map displayed the assumed stratigraphy of Hokkaido, in northern Japan, and is considered the first modern geological map to be produced by an Asian state. This provided a new means of comprehending territory, at exactly the moment the land in question was being re-presented as Hokkaido. The strata exhumed in the course of mapping this land at depth were not limited to those under the Earth. The map was assembled atop a history of Japanese control over the region, one which accounted for the precocious presence of an earlier American survey, conducted under the previous Tokugawa government, which had sought to map mineral deposits in this land of Yesso. These in turn reflected a longer history of mineral extraction, present in the earliest accounts of Ezo, and the motivation for Japan to have long ‘held the reins’ over this amorphous region. The 1876 geological map is a striking example of colonial modernity, through which we are able to observe the institutional mimicry characteristic to, and increasingly emphasized in the study of, late-nineteenth century inter-imperial society. The presence of this map challenges us to recover the various strata atop of which this imperial sociability was able to flourish, and examine the role of the map in incorporating a modernizing Japan within a globally-comprehensible means of territorial authority and control..
|3.||Edward Kieran Boyle, The Tenpō-Era (1830–1844) Map of Matsumae-no-shima and the Institutionalization of Tokugawa Cartography, Imago Mundi, 10.1080/03085694.2018.1450542, 70, 2, 183, 2018.05, [URL], Japan’s early modern Tokugawa government (1603−1868) sponsored a series of projects of national mapping. The Matsumae family, ruling what is now Hokkaido, were loosely incorporated into these projects. It was only during the last of these, in the Tenpō era (1830−1848), that their lands were represented in the same manner as the rest of Japan because the central government made the final Matsumae-no-shima map. This article examines the production of this final official map of Japan’s north to argue that the Tokugawa’s institutional mapping made this region part of the nation through its own mapping framework, distinct from the cartographic forms with which national or imperial states are usually associated..|
|4.||Edward Kieran Boyle, El mapa de Matsumae-no-shima de la Era Tenpō (1830–1844) y la institucionalización de la cartografía Tokugawa, Imago Mundi, 10.1080/03085694.2018.1450542, 70, 2, 183-198, 2018.07, [URL], Japan’s early modern Tokugawa government (1603−1868) sponsored a series of projects of national mapping. The Matsumae family, ruling what is now Hokkaido, were loosely incorporated into these projects. It was only during the last of these, in the Tenpō era (1830−1848), that their lands were represented in the same manner as the rest of Japan because the central government made the final Matsumae-no-shima map. This article examines the production of this final official map of Japan’s north to argue that the Tokugawa’s institutional mapping made this region part of the nation through its own mapping framework, distinct from the cartographic forms with which national or imperial states are usually associated..|
|5.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Cartographic exchange and territorial creation
Rewriting Northern Japan in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, 10.1007/978-3-319-61515-8_6, 198039, 75-98, 2018.01, [URL], The Tokugawa era (1603–1868) witnessed a dramatic expansion in the creation and circulation of maps, which moved from being comparatively rare items at the beginning of the period to banal objects of mass-circulation at the end. Yet the shape of Japan being represented on these maps was greatly altered over the course of this period, particularly with regards to the amorphous area north of Japan, known as Ezo. This transformation in geographical representation similarly affected visions of Japan held beyond its shores, which were partially the product of an increasingly, if punctuated and inconsistent, global circulation of geographic materials in comprehensible forms. The geography of these northern areas of Japan was gradually clarified by the early nineteenth century, as European efforts at mapping the region were combined with the results of a succession of Tokugawa state-sponsored exhibitions that explicitly aimed to increase the state’s knowledge of its diffuse northern reaches. It will be argued here that the relational aspect of cartographic exchange is crucial to the demarcation of this territory as being Japanese and under the authority of the Tokugawa state. Greater appreciation for the exchange involved in cartographic territorial creation not only allows for the transnational process of state demarcation to be recovered, but also hints at the inherently relational nature of the imperial sovereignty that came to literally remap vast areas of the globe during the nineteenth century..
|6.||Edward Kieran Boyle, A "Little Berlin Wall" for all: discursive contruction across scales, Europa Regional, 24, 1/2, 80-92, 2017.10, Since 2013, Russian Border Security Forces have been constructing
border fences at various points along the Administrative
Boundary Line that separates the de facto state of South
Ossetia from the remainder of Georgian territory. This process
of ‘borderization’ materializes what was formerly an administrative
fiction on the ground, seeking to territorially demarcate
the divide between the two communities. The fence in question
has come to be referred to as the “Little Berlin Wall” inherently
comparing some comparatively insubstantial stretches of fencing
and barbed wire with the imposing concrete fortifications
that served to divide East and West Berlin at the height of the
This article argues for the utility of the notion of a discursive
construction in analysing this border. The notion will be used to
clarify how this superficially unjustifiable comparison indicates
that the Administrative Boundary Line is both shaped by and
restructuring the regional geography of Europe. The invocation
of the Berlin Wall emphasizes that this material fencing
divides Georgia. The effects of its deployment are felt at various
scales, from how this boundary is seen as an illegitimate division
of sovereign Georgian territory, to its role in constructing
Europe’s outer edge. The geographical and temporal division
of Tbilisi-controlled Georgia from what lies on the other side
of the “illegal” boundary works to incorporate Georgia firmly
This discursive construction at Europe’s outer edge also indicates
both the importance of border processes occurring at
the margins of a regional geographic entity and how the local,
national and wider regional scales are able to be tied together
within Europe’s post-Cold War borders..
|7.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Borderization in Georgia
Sovereignty Materialized, Eurasia Border Review, 10.14943/ebr.7.1.1, 7, 1, 1-18, 2016, [URL], This paper shall examine the process of borderization that has been proclaimed as occurring along theGeorgian-South Ossetian boundary. This boundary is one that remains largely unrecognized, as the claims of theGeorgian state to sovereignty over South Ossetia are accepted by the majority of the international community.The crucial exception to this is Russia, under whose aegis this process of borderization is occurring. The result isthe creation of a physical barrier around the territory of South Ossetia, one that seeks to materialize what waspreviously an administrative fiction on the ground, halting the movement of people and goods across this borderand dividing people from their livelihoods. The paper shall consider what meaning this fencing has within thecontext of Georgia's borders, and reflect upon the larger lessons that can be drawn for the concept of sovereigntyand the status of borders in the contemporary world..
|8.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Book Review: India–China Borderlands: Conversations beyond the Centre by Nimmi Kurian, China Report, 10.1177/0009445515597802, 51, 4, 347-350, 2015, [URL].|
|9.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Imperial Practice and the making of modern Japan’s territory: Towards a reconsideration of Empire’s boundaries, Geographical Review of Japan, Series B, 10.4157/geogrevjapanb.88.66, 88, 2, 66-79, 2015, [URL], A renewed focus on the notion of empire has prompted an interest in questions of modern Japanese imperialism after the Meiji Restoration, both in Japan and abroad. It has also focused attention on the issue of comparing empires across Eurasia during the early modern period, under the rubric of ‘global history’. Japan has not really been incorporated into this latter discussion. This article begins by examining the reasons for this lack of incorporation, before moving on to discuss the value of considering early modern Japan as an imperial formation. The lens it adopts is one of cartography, that quintessentially imperial practice that has featured heavily in discussions of a Eurasian early modernity. The article examines the cartographic incorporation of Japan’s northern region of the Yezo into Japan itself, culminating in the area being newly designated as Hokkaido in the early Meiji period, the newest circuit within Imperial Japan’s administrative map. This political outcome was the result of varied practices that found reflection across the Tokugawa–Meiji divide. Yet this intense variety of practices, constantly shifting in response to contingency, served to form the state-effect, through which the land of Yezo was granted its unity and represented on the map. The territory on the map provided the visual, graphic representation of the demarcation of authority of the state that authorized the practice of its own mapping. In this manner, the state mapped itself into Hokkaido and from this perspective, the division between the early modern and modern eras is far less significant than is frequently assumed..|
|10.||Edward Kieran Boyle, New Civic Neighborhood
Cross-border Cooperation and Civil Society Engagement at the Finnish-Russian Border, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift, 10.1080/00291951.2014.904403, 68, 3, 196-197, 2014, [URL].
|11.||Edward Kieran Boyle, BOOK REVIEWS Japan's National Identity and Foreign Policy: Russia as Japan's Other, Journal of Borderlands Studies, 10.1080/08865655.2013.796219, 28, 1, 149-150, 2013, [URL].|
|12.||Edward Kieran Boyle, Stuart Elden, Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty, University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN: 2009, 257p., ISBN: 978-0-816-65484-0, Eurasia Border Review, 3, 2, 2012.|
|13.||Edward Kieran Boyle, 徳川幕府による蝦夷地の創造 : 国家、領域及び地図, 北大法学論集, 63, 2, 179-218, 2012.|