"Crossing Two Salty Rivers": The Course of Migration to Karafuto1
Steven Ivings
1.1
Introduction
With victory in the Russo-Japanese War Japan acquired the southern half of Sakhalin
Island which became Japan’s second formal colony. Despite the many obstacles that were faced
in developing the colony, not to mention the budget constraints, Karafuto developed into an
important supplier of marine products, lumber, paper, pulp and by the 1930s coal, with its
economy thoroughly integrated with the mainland.2 The colony of Karafuto and its emptiness3
offered the prospect of large scale settlement and the population of the territory grew from a
mere 12,361 in 1906 to 406,557 on the eve of the Pacific War, making Karafuto the scene of the
second largest concentration of civilian Japanese outside of mainland Japan (following Korea).
Despite the remarkable numbers of Japanese who came to settle in the territory very little
academic research has been directed at the case of Karafuto, let alone to the settlement of the
territory. This paper seeks to help address this conspicuous absence with the modest aims of
outlining some of the problems involved in tracing this migration movement whilst offering
some evidence on the course of migration based on the profiles/migration background of a
number of individuals who settled in Karafuto between 1905 and the late 1920s.
The results of the analysis show that Karafuto was in many ways an “extension” of the
project to colonize/settle Hokkaidō which had taken off in the Meiji period (1868-1912),
building on the hastened, if rather haphazard efforts of Japan’s former domains in the
preceding decades. Overall the paper has two principal findings, the first of which is that the
vast majority of Karafuto’s settlers were seasoned former Hokkaidō settlers/migrants, and the
second is that northeast Japan (Tōhoku) was not an insignificant sender of overseas
settlers/migrants as has been suggested by other scholars.4 It is true that it was western Japan
(particularly Kyūshū and the Chūgoku region) which provided the principal source of
1
This paper is not for citation and is an edited version of a part of a much larger chapter examining migration
flows to Karafuto and the motivations of settlers. The “two salty rivers” mentioned in the title refers to ocean
straits. The first of these is the Tsugaru straits, which separate Japan’s main island, Honshū, and its
northernmost, Hokkaidō, whilst the second is the Sōya straits which separate Hokkaidō and Karafuto (present
day Sakhalin).
2 Integration was so advanced in fact that its administrative structure was always the closest to the mainland
amongst Japan’s colonies, and it became the only colony to be officially incorporated into Japan proper (in
1943). For further discussion see:
Myers, R. & Peattie, M. (1986) The Japanese Colonial Empire1895-1945, Princeton University Press
Yamamoto, Yūzō. (1993) Nihon shokuminchi keizaishi kenkyū (Research on the Economic History of Japan’s
Colonies), Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai
Zenkoku Karafuto Renmei (1978) Karafuto enkaku gyōseishi (A History of Karafuto and its Administartion),
Zenkoku Karafuto Renmei
3
Stephan, J. (1971) Sakhalin: A History, Oxford University Press
Save for 150 Eastern Europeans, largely Russians and Poles, the vast majority of the Russian population was
repatriated and only around 1,600 native semi-nomadic tribesmen, mostly Ainu, and perhaps as many as100
Chinese and Koreans who had worked under the Russians, resided in the territory.
4
Okabe, M. (1992) umi wo watatta nihonjin (The Japanese Who Crossed the Seas), Yamakawa. P 13-21
emigrants and colonial settlers heading for Taiwan and Korea, however, the northeast too had a
considerable population outflow, which instead focused on the northern frontier of Hokkaidō
and by extension from 1905 onwards, Karafuto. The next section outlines the particular
problems and prospects for tracing migration to Karafuto, and offers an explanation of the
approach taken in this paper as well as the rationale for doing so.
1.2
Tracing Migration to Karafuto: Problems and Prospects
Analyses of population flows within the prewar Japanese empire have tended to
utilize statistics generated from the system of family registration (koseki) which came into
effect in 1872. This system required families to maintain a register of family members in the
locality in which they were resident and was the system with which births, deaths, marriages
and adoptions were recorded. As part of the koseki system families were required to fill in
forms (kiryū todoke) to notify the authorities of movements of family members away from the
locality even on a “temporary” basis. The statistics generated from these forms were often
listed in national and prefectural yearbooks allowing historians to get some idea of population
flows within Japan and its empire before the first national census in 1920.5 However, these
kiryū statistics carry a number of inherent limitations which in sum render them totally
inadequate for the purpose of tracing migration from Japan to Karafuto.
First of all, the koseki-kiryū system was widely regarded as understating the extent of
migration, leaving the locality for less than 90 days required no notification and by
consequence much short-term seasonal labour migration went unrecorded.6 In addition to this,
many of the out-migrants failed to complete the necessary procedures and thus went
unrecorded. Nominally at least the failure to notify the local authorities could result in a fine,
however, in reality the difficulty and costs involved in chasing up offenders and then in
prosecuting them meant that enforcement was weak or non-existent. We cannot be sure what
percentage of actual migrants completed the necessary procedures but it has been suggested
that it was something in the region of 50-60%.7
To the underreporting problem we may also add the difficulty in capturing
re-migration which is troublesome in the case of kiryū statistics and indeed in most studies that
utilize information collected from the sending location itself. If we accept that almost half of the
total migrants (those departing for 90 days or more) were unrecorded as they had not filled in
the required paperwork, then we can assume that a much lower percentage was likely to
5
Unlike the case of emigration, passports were not necessary for migration within the empire and thus
historians have had to rely on kiryū data when examining internal and colonial migration whilst historians of
emigration are able to draw on passport issuance data.
6
Chūō Shokugyō Shōkai Jimukyoku (1927) Dekasegisha Chōsa Taishō 14nen (Survey of Labour Migrants in
the 14th year of Taishō), Chūō Shokugyō Shōkai Jimukyoku Tokyo
7
Tanimoto, M. (2010) ‘Trends and Patterns of Migration in Rural Japan: an Analysis of Movement
Notifications from an Agrarian Village’, P 4
For further discussion see: Saitō, O (1973) ‘Migration and the Labour Market in Japan 1872-1920’, Keio
Economic Studies 10/2
inform the authorities in their home locality if they re-migrated before returning home. As is
clear from many of the written testimonies and interviews conducted in this research project,
the flow of population, both migratory and of permanent settlers, to Karafuto was largely made
up of people who were re-migrating especially from Hokkaidō.8 In this sense an origin based
sample utilizing local kiryū statistics would likely miss many of the people who eventually went
on to Karafuto, most likely being recorded as having been destined for Hokkaidō if indeed
recorded at all.
This brings us onto the next problem in analyzing the northward bound migration,
namely that Hokkaidō and Karafuto were not incorporated into the family registration system
in the same way as other parts of Japan. In the early Meiji period Hokkaidō was a sparsely
populated frontier which was administered in a way which differed from the other prefectures
of Japan. Hokkaidō is often referred to in the historical literature as an “inner colony” 9 and
indeed in the contemporary literature simply as a colony (shokuminchi). Karafuto needless to
say was under Russian occupation until 1905 after which it became a colony of Japan and thus
warranted a colonial administration. Due to the differences in administration the kiryū system
was not applied to Hokkaidō until 1896 and Karafuto until as late as 1924. This means that it
was not essential to submit the kiryū forms if leaving for Hokkaidō or Karafuto until after these
dates, nor indeed was it possible to establish a Karafuto address as one’s permanent residence
(honseki) until then. In the case of Karafuto where it appears that many of the
in-migrants/settlers came after an extended period in Hokkaidō there is the danger of both
their migration to Hokkaidō and then Karafuto are not picked up in the kiryū data.10
In response to these problems this study examines information contained in a couple
of local guides/histories published in 1923 and 1930 respectively. These source materials are
utilized as they provide a section which introduces a large number of individual settlers,
discusses their migration backgrounds, current activities and in some cases includes their
motivations for coming to Karafuto. This allows us to some extent to hear the voices of settlers
themselves, which would be impossible if the study was based solely on kiryū and census data.
Although elsewhere in this research project interviews and written testimonies of former
settlers are incorporated into the analysis these rarely capture the era of pioneering settlers,
tending to be focused on migrants in the 1930s or the second generation (Karafuto born)
Miki, M. (2003) ‘nōgyō imin ni miru Karafuto to Hokkaidō’ (Karafuto and Hokkaido: Looking at
Agricultural Immigrants). Rekishi Chirigaku 45/1
9
See the chapter by Tamura in Ōe, S. et al. (eds.) (1992) Iwanami kōza kindai Nihon to shokuminchi 1–
shokuminchi teikoku Nihon (Iwanami series on Modern Japan and its Colonies Volume 1 – the Japanese
Colonial Empire), Iwanami Tokyo
10
Shimizu, Y. (1981) ‘Tōhoku suitō tansaku chitai ni okeru nōson rōdōryoku no ryūshutsu kōzō’ (Outflow of
Labour Force from the Rice Growing Tohoku District, 1887-1945), Shakai Kagaku Kenkyū 32/4 & 33/1. P
114-116 Shimizu warned us about the use of his study considering that Hokkaidō-Karafuto was a key
destination for the village in Akita prefecture he examined. This is not to say that Hokkaidō or Karafuto do not
turn up in kiryū data found in prefectural statistical yearbooks or village records before these dates, clearly
some people did fill in the forms even if they were heading for the northern frontier, however, the delayed
incorporation of these territories into the system is likely to have meant an even more pronounced gap between
the reported and actual numbers of migrants in the case of northward bound migrants.
8
settlers. Though we cannot say that the information in these guides represents the direct voices
of the settlers, it is probably the closest we can get to such evidence. The authors of both guides
clearly interviewed the settlers themselves, asking the same questions to each of them and then
writing about a page (sometimes two) on each settler they interviewed. Though these sources
may be unique in terms of the access they allow to the experiences of the early settlers, this is
not to say they do not contain biases. The following section briefly outlines these issues,
explains the context in which these sources were produced and introduces the two settlements
which were covered in these guides.
1.3
The Settlements of Rūtaka & Shinkai
Map 1.
Location of Rūtaka and Shinkai
The settlements which were the subject of these two guides were the fishing village,
Shinkai (深海), and the largely agricultural district, Rūtaka (留多加). These were two of the
older areas of settlement as both were located on the Aniwa bay in the southernmost part of
Karafuto (see map 1). The guides themselves were commissioned by the local authorities to
celebrate the establishment of new administrative divisions in Karafuto as the colony grew, and
this makes them somewhat self-congratulatory in nature, introducing the history and current
conditions of the settlements as well as the “local notables” and pioneers11 of each settlement.
This means that the guides fail to capture those unsuccessful settlers who returned home or
re-migrated, and the result is a focus on what was ultimately on the local elite rather than the
ordinary settler. Yet as these settlements were rather minor ones and the number of individuals
introduced in each guide rather large (129 and 83) the majority of “local notables” were not
Takada refers to local notables as risshi (立志) and Sakamoto as yūshi (有志). Sakamoto and Takada both
refer to the early settlers as senkusha (先駆者) and kusawake (草分), whilst Takada also borrows the English
word “pioneer” albeit in Japanese pronunciation (パイオニアース).
11
necessarily well known or influential outside of their own settlements, nor did they necessarily
have an elite background. Indeed, to qualify as a local notable in these particular publications
one need only run a small shop for example, or have served in the fire brigade volunteer force,
or as a pioneer simply have been present since the early days. The guides were relatively
inclusive in this sense including individuals such as fishermen and farmers, as well as the local
doctor and teacher.
Shinkai was a village that came into being as a number of fishing hamlets along the
coast west of Ōdomari amalgamated. The largest among these hamlets was a settlement called
Merei which was well known in Karafuto, as the location of the initial landing of Japanese
forces in the closing days of the Russo-Japanese war. Despite the fame and its favorable location
close to “Karafuto’s front door” (Karafuto no genkan), the bustling port of Ōdomari, the area did
not become a major scene of settlement. The area did not benefit from particularly fertile land
or much in terms of local resources other than those found in the sea. The railway built by the
Army which linked Ōdomari and Toyohara, terminated in Ōdomari and was not extended
westwards meaning that Shinkai retained a sense of remoteness despite the nearby
commercial centre. The population of the hamlets which made up Shinkai totaled 881 in 1920
growing to 2,570 by 1930 and as can be seen in table 1 the economy was overwhelmingly
based on the fishing industry with over half the employed reporting their principal occupation
as fishing, whilst it is clear from the 1930 guide that many engaged in fishing as a side
occupation or found seasonal employment aboard local fishing boats.12
Table 1. Employment Structure of Karafuto and the Settlements of Rūtaka and Shinkai in 1930
Karafuto
Rūtaka
Shinkai
Agriculture & Forestry
26.4%
45.9%
13.8%
Fishing & Marine Products
10.4%
16.8%
53.2%
1.2%
0%
3.0%
Manufacturing & Construction
16.7%
6.9%
11.1%
Commerce
17.6%
9.4%
8.4%
Transport
11.6%
11.4%
2.6%
Professional
6.8%
4.5%
2.8%
Other
9.3%
5.0%
4.9%
Mining
Source: Karafuto-chō (1934) Kokusei chōsa kekkahyō Shōwa 5nen
Rūtaka on the other hand was a district that contained a number of remote hamlets
that spread across the western part of the Aniwa bay with its largest settlement being Rūtaka
town which had started as a Russian village. The hinterland of Rūtaka town extended onto a
relatively fertile plain which became one of the principal areas of agricultural production in
12
Takada, K. (1930) Shinkaimurashi (Shinkai Village History), Shinkaimura hensankai Ōdomari
Karafuto. The population of the district numbered 5,990 in 1920 growing to 18,431 by 1930
and some 45.9% of the population reported they were principally engaged in agriculture and
forestry. Even though the Rūtaka district may appear at first to have been a large settlement in
reality it contained a number of small and remote hamlets quite far spread out, and much like
Shinkai at the time of the publication of the local guide (1923) the district was not yet served
by rail. As can be seen in table 1, neither of the two settlements could not be described as an
average settlement in terms of economic structure, however it would be difficult to find a
settlement in Karafuto that could be as the vast majority of settlements were based on a
specific industry with many settlers pursuing activities on the side. What the guides offer us is
information on a large number of settlers from two different types of settlement, unremarkable
if not entirely average.
1.4
The Prefectural Origins of Settlers
Fig 1. The Registered Place of Permanent Residence (Honseki) of Karafuto Settlers 1930
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
Hokkaido
89,360
Karafuto
65,316
Tohoku
74,326
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
Hokuriku
18,546
Kanto
9,791
Chubu
Shikoku ChugokuKyushu
9,317 Kansai
4,581
4,058 4,653
4,250
0
Source: Karafuto-chō (1934) Kokusei chōsa kekkahyō Shōwa 5nen
Census data produced on Karafuto and presented in figure 1, is based on the Japanese
family register system (koseki) which lists the settlers home prefecture by the place in which
they are registered (honseki) and can prove somewhat misleading.13 There was no legal
requirement for a family to transfer the family honseki to the current or even long term address
and indeed it was only possible from 1924 onwards to register one’s honseki in Karafuto. This
13
For example, one of the former settlers I interviewed noted that his family honseki was registered as being
in Shizuoka prefecture, even though his father had been born in Nagano prefecture, his mother in Tochigi and
after their marriage they had resided in Tokyo and Sapporo before coming to Karafuto, where my interviewee
was born. The reason it was registered in Shizuoka is because that is where his father had spent some of his
youth living with his grandmother and later gained his first teaching job. Whether or not my interviewee’s
father kept the family honseki there because it was his intention to go back to Shizuoka we will never know,
but what is clear is that honseki data does not necessarily tell us accurately where a population is from, or
where it has been, it only states where it is registered. Interview with K-san February 2012
meant that although nominally many settlers had been separated from their ancestral homes
for many years, or even generations, it was possible and indeed quite common for settlers to
maintain their honseki in their “native” district. In figure 3 it is clear enough that the vast
majority of Karafuto’s population came from, or at least held their honseki in Hokkaidō and
Tōhoku (the northeast) followed by the Hokuriku region (the central Sea of Japan coast). If we
exclude the 65,316 settlers who had by 1930 registered their honseki in Karafuto then these
three regions (making up 11 of Japan’s 47 prefectures) accounted for the locations of 83% of
Karafuto settler’s honseki. This does not however, tell the full story as it says nothing of
remigration, and downplays the role of Hokkaidō as an intermediate location point in the
course of settler’s migration. Hokkaidō, though by far the largest sending region of settlers to
Karafuto, accounted for a great deal more than the 41% that census data shown in figure 3
suggests.
In the preceding half a century Hokkaidō had served as a major destination for out
migrants all over Japan but especially the neighboring Tōhoku and Hokuriku regions. Indeed
even as late as 1920 only 53% of Hokkaidō’s population was Hokkaidō born reflecting its role
as an internal settlement frontier in the early years of Japan’s industrialization.14 Hokkaidō’s
history has many themes which would be familiar to historians of the American frontier
although space issues do not allow further discussion of this theme here. The implication of
Hokkaidō’s role as a settlement frontier for our analysis is that it meant settlers in Karafuto
with Hokkaidō honseki were just as likely to be natives of a prefecture other than Hokkaidō, as
they were to be Hokkaidō born. This plays down the role of other sending regions whose
migrants travelled first from mainland Japan, crossing the Tsugaru straights to Hokkaidō and
then at a later date crossing the Sōya straights to settle in Karafuto. This effect is somewhat
offset by the existence of migrants who came via Hokkaidō but maintained their honseki in
their native prefecture or some other intermediate location.
Figure 2 compares the reported honseki of settlers in Rūtaka and Shinkai (excluding
those registered in Karafuto) in the 1930 census, with data that was compiled from the guides
to these settlements. The comparison seems to confirm the inadequacy of honseki data as well
as the likelihood that many settlers were re-migrants. In Rūtaka, 47% of settlers had a
Hokkaidō honseki but perhaps as little as 11% were actually born there, with corresponding
figures of 47% and 28% for Shinkai. The imbalance is of course not restricted to Hokkaidō,
with only 8% of Rūtaka settlers registered in the Hokuriku region and as much as 30% of the
sample in Sakamoto’s guide claiming to be Hokuriku natives by birth. In Shinkai an imbalance
was also visible with Tohoku natives accounting for almost half of the settlers but only 35%
maintained their family registers there. In order to gain a clearer picture as to where settlers
were from and where they had been, the next section examines the migration background of
Office of Population Research (1946) ‘Hokkaido and Karafuto: Japan's Internal Frontier’
Population Index 12/1. P 7
For an extended discussion see: Taueber, I. (1958) The Population of Japan, Princeton University Press
14
settlers in Shinkai and Rūtaka.
Fig 2. Comparison of the Honseki of Shinkai & Rūtaka Settlers and the Place of
Birth of Local Notables in Each Settlement
Sources: Compiled from Sakamoto (1923) Karafuto no Rūtaka, Takada, K. (1930)
Shinkaimurashi & Karafuto-chō (1934) Kokusei chōsa kekkahyō Shōwa 5nen
1.5
The Course of Migration and Settler Migration Background
As should be clear by now tracing the flow of population to Karafuto is a challenging
task. The differences in the administrative structure of Karafuto meant that it was for a long
time not properly incorporated into the system of family registration from which studies of
migration in prewar Japan usually draw their evidence. In addition migration to Karafuto
appears connected to Hokkaidō, as Hokkaidō natives were present in large numbers in
Karafuto, whilst natives of other prefectures came to Karafuto after an extended period in
Hokkaidō. Comprehending the extent to which the settlement of Karafuto was an “extension” of
that of Hokkaidō is complicated even if the basic connection is clear. Yet in this section utilizing
the relatively detailed information given on settlers in the aforementioned local guides, it is
possible to trace the migration background of a relatively large sample of actual migrants
extending back to the early days of settlement. The great benefit of this approach is that it
allows us to track the course each settler took, taking us from their native place until the time
the guides were compiled and thus offers us a chance to gauge the extent to which Hokkaidō
served as a feeder for migration to Karafuto. However, before we proceed a note of caution is
due, as this study is limited by the contents of the guides which it utilizes. Whilst in the main
the guides provide remarkably full accounts of the settler’s migration background, it is likely
that in a few cases at least settlers may have forgotten to mention a certain place they had
spent a few months, even years, or deliberately chose to withhold such information. This means
that the data compiled from the guides is likely to slightly understate the total levels of
intermediate migration.
In spite of this potential underreporting from figure 3 it is clear that the vast majority
of Rūtaka and Shinaki settlers were either Hokkaidō born or had at least spent some time in
Hokkaidō either as a resident or during a period of seasonal labour before coming to Karafuto.
Of the Rūtaka sample only 11% were Hokkaidō natives but we can add to this 51% who had a
Hokkaidō migration background, making for a combined total of 62% experienced Hokkaidō
hands. In the Shinkai sample 32% were Hokkaidō natives and a further 43% had resided or
worked there at some point, meaning that in sum exactly three quarters of the sample had a
Hokkaidō background. These numbers may indeed understate the numbers with a Hokkaidō
migration background due to the possibility that some migrants failed to mention this when
interviewed or the editor forgot to include the information in the final draft of the settler’s
profile. Also of note is that re-migrants were in the overwhelming majority as the number of
settlers migrating directly from their native prefecture in mainland Japan was rather small
(19% in both samples). In both Shinkai and Rūtaka 81% of settlers had migrated to Karafuto
after an extended period in Hokkaidō or some other intermediate location.
In figure 4 we can see the regional shares of all the intermediate locations mentioned
in the settler’s profiles found in the guides for Shinkai and Rūtaka. The sample size of
re-migrants totaled 152 (including 9 born in Hokkaidō) involving 232 migratory movements
before coming to Karafuto, 1.52 per settler indicating that most migrants made only one or two
pre-Karafuto migrations. It is clear from figure 4 that Hokkaidō was overwhelmingly the most
important intermediate location for future Karafuto settlers, providing 73% of the total. Figure
5 shows the principal intermediate locations in Hokkaidō and the number of settlers that had
previously resided/worked in each location. The most frequented intermediate locations were
the northern islands of Rishiri and Rebun, followed by Hokkaidō’s largest commercial ports,
Otaru and Hakodate, the capital Sapporo, and Asahikawa, where an imperial army division was
based. Yet comprehensive concentrations of future Karafuto settlers in these locations is not
apparent as in the settler profiles 62 different locations were mentioned in the 170 migrations
to, or, within Hokkaidō before heading further north. The future settlers of Rūtaka and Shinkai
were considerably spread out across Hokkaidō, suggesting that knowledge of the prospects and
opportunities, and general information regarding the conditions in the new colony to the
immediate north were well diffused. Indeed, a large number of the settlers said that it was
knowledge of prospects across the Sōya straits which drew them to the territory in the first
place.
Fig. 3 Migration Background of Rūtaka and Shinkai Settlers
Source: Compiled from Sakamoto (1923) Karafuto no Rūtaka. Takada, K. (1930) Shinkaimurashi
Fig. 4 Regional Shares of (Pre-Karafuto) Intermediate Migrations of Rūtaka and Shinkai Settlers
Kansai
3%
Chubu
Kanto
2%
7%
Hokuriku
2%
Abroad
5%
Tohoku
7%
Other
1%
Hokkaidō
73%
Source: As in Fig. 3
Fig. 5 Locations of Intermediate Migrations to/within Hokkaidō of Shinkai & Rūtaka Settlers
70
64
60
50
40
30
20
12 12
Source: As in Fig. 3
Other
Nemuro
Wakkanai
Uryu
Kutchan
Shintotsukawa
Haboro
Iwanai
Bakkai
Kitami
Muroran
Hakodate
Asahikawa
Sapporo
Rebun
Rishiri
0
Otrau
10
1.6
Implications and Concluding Remarks
This paper has examined the migration backgrounds of over 200 settlers of two
separate Karafuto settlements, finding that the settlement of Karafuto was very much an
extension of the project to settle Hokkaidō. Upwards of 80% of those who made the decision to
settle in Karafuto, had done so after having spent an extended time on the island directly to
Karafuto’s south. These settlers included experienced frontier hands, many of whom were from
the Tōhoku and Hokuriku regions and had crossed the first salty river, the Tsugaru Strait,
spending much of their youth settling and developing Japan’s far north. It also included the
sons and daughters of this first generation of Meiji period Hokkaidō settlers, who may have felt
more at home in the new northern frontier, Karafuto, than they would have if they had moved
on to Tokyo or Osaka. It also included seasonal migrants, again mostly from Tōhoku and
Hokuriku who, having familiarized themselves working the fisheries, coal mines and
lumberyards of Hokkaidō, felt comfortable enough to try their luck further north, crossing the
second salty river, the Sōya Strait.
This paper has hinted that the people of the Tōhoku and Hokuriku regions were
extremely mobile, first settling Hokkaidō and then playing an active role in the settlement of
Karafuto. This is quite contrary to the common image of these regions. The 10 prefectures that
made up Tōhoku and Hokuriku15 have been noted to have provided few emigrants and colonial
settlers, contributing a mere 11.1% of overseas emigrants,16 12.1% of Japanese settlers in
Taiwan,17 and 10.1% of Japanese settlers in Korea,18 making them appear to have been remote,
poorly connected regions, characterized by a risk-averse people, resolute in their traditional
values, and bound to their native place.19 Whilst space does not allow us to challenge this
rendering of Japan’s northeast, here it is sufficient to question the stereotype by suggesting that
part of the problem is that scholars have tended to treat migration to Hokkaidō separately, from
emigration and colonial migration, and usually overlook the case of Karafuto entirely.
Data on migrants to Hokkaidō between 1892 and 1921 suggests that 1,887,706
individuals crossed over the Tsugaru straight to settle in Hokkaidō (some of whom no doubt
ended up in Karafuto later on). Of this number 1,321,835, or 70% of the total, were natives of
the 10 prefectures of Tōhoku and Hokuriku. In other words the number of Tōhoku and
Hokuriku natives who had settled in Hokkaidō in 1921 more than doubled the combined
Japanese settler populations in Korea and Taiwan. Clearly many of the people of Japan’s
northeast were resourceful, dynamic and mobile even if their activities were focused
15
Aomori, Akita, Iwate, Yamagata, Fukushima, Miyagi, Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa and Fukui.
Calculated from passport issuance data1899-1937, Okabe, M. (1992) ‘umi wo watatta nihonjin’ (The
Japanese Who Crossed the Seas), Yamakawa. P13-21
17
Based on 1929 data
18
Based on 1935 data
19
Okabe, M. (1992) umi
Lewis, M. (1992) Rioters and Citizens: Mass Protest in Imperial Japan, University of California Press
Lewis, M. (2000) Becoming Apart: National Power and Local Politics in Toyama 1868-1954, Harvard
University Press
16
northwards. There remains however, much work to be done to examine what factors lay behind
this sizeable northward bound migration and it is the author’s intention to continue in this vein.
For now it is hoped that if this brief paper has made one thing clear it is that the settlement of
Karafuto was very much intertwined with that of Hokkaidō, it involved crossing two “salty
rivers.”
Bibliography
Chūō Shokugyō Shōkai Jimukyoku (1927) Dekasegisha Chōsa Taishō 14nen (Survey of Labour
Migrants in the 14th year of Taishō), Chūō Shokugyō Shōkai Jimukyoku Tokyo
Howell, D. (1995) ‘A Right to be Rational: Karafuto 1905-35’, in Capitalism from Within:
Economy, Society, and the State in a Japanese Fishery, University of California Press
Hunter, J. (2003) Women and the Labour Market in Japan's Industrialising Economy: The Textile
Industry before the Pacific War, Routledge
Karafuto-chō (1934) Kokusei chōsa kekkahyō Shōwa 5nen (The National Census Report for the
5th year of Shōwa), Karafuto-chō Toyohara
Lewis, M. (1992) Rioters and Citizens: Mass Protest in Imperial Japan, University of California
Press
Lewis, M. (2000) Becoming Apart: National Power and Local Politics in Toyama 1868-1954,
Harvard University Press
Miki, M. (1999) ‘ijūkei shokuminchi Karafuto to Toyohara no shigaichi keisei’ (The Settler Colony
of Karafuto and the Formation of Toyohara’s Urban Area). Jinbun Chiri 51/3
Miki, M. (2003) ‘nōgyō imin ni miru Karafuto to Hokkaidō’ (Karafuto and Hokkaido: Looking at
Agricultural Immigrants). Rekishi Chirigaku 45/1
Morris-Suzuki, T. (2001) ‘Northern Lights: The Making and Unmaking of Karafuto Identity’,
Journal of Asian Studies 60/3
Myers, R. & Peattie, M. (1986) The Japanese Colonial Empire1895-1945, Princeton University
Press
Ōe, S. et al. (eds.) (1992) Iwanami kōza kindai Nihon to shokuminchi 1– shokuminchi teikoku
Nihon (Iwanami series on Modern Japan and its Colonies Volume 1 – the Japanese Colonial
Empire), Iwanami Tokyo
Office of Population Research (1946) ‘Hokkaido and Karafuto: Japan's Internal Frontier’
Population Index 12/1
Okabe, M. (1992) ‘umi wo watatta nihonjin’ (The Japanese Who Crossed the Seas), Yamakawa
Saitō, O (1973) ‘Migration and the Labour Market in Japan 1872-1920’, Keio Economic Studies
10/2
Sakamoto, S. (1923) Karafuto no Rūtaka (Rūtaka of Karafuto), Karafuto Chōson-shi Kankōkai
Ōdomari
Shimizu, Y. (1981) ‘Tōhoku suitō tansaku chitai ni okeru nōson rōdōryoku no ryūshutsu kōzō’
(Outflow of Labour Force from the Rice Growing Tohoku District, 1887-1945), Shakai
Kagaku Kenkyū 32/4 & 33/1
Shiode, H. (2009) ‘Nation or Colony? The Political Belonging of the Japanese in Karafuto?’. Social
Science Japan Journal 12/1
Stephan, J. (1971) Sakhalin: A History, Oxford University Press
Takada, K. (1930) Shinkaimurashi (Shinkai Village History), Shinkaimura hensankai Ōdomari
Takeno, M. (2000) ‘jinkō mondai to shokuminchi 1920∙1930dai no Karafuto wo chūshin ni’ (The
Population Problem and the Colonies with a focus on Karafuto in the 1920s and 1930s).
Keizaigaku kenkyū 50/3
Takeno, M. (2001) ‘shokuminchi Karafuto nōgyō no jittai: 1928-40 no shūdan iminnki wo chūshin
toshite’ (The essentials of colonial Karafuto agriculture: the period of collective
immigration, 1928〜1940) Shakai keizai shigaku 66/5
Tanimoto, M. (2010) ‘Trends and Patterns of Migration in Rural Japan: an Analysis of Movement
Notifications from an Agrarian Village’, Paper Presented at Rural History Conference 2010
at Sussex University
Taueber, I. (1958) The Population of Japan, Princeton University Press
Yamamoto, Yūzō. (1993) Nihon shokuminchi keizaishi kenkyū (Research on the Economic
History of Japan’s Colonies), Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai
Zenkoku Karafuto Renmei (1978) Karafuto enkaku gyōseishi (A History of Karafuto and its
Administartion), Zenkoku Karafuto Renmei