This article examines the transformations that occurred during the reception of Western modern historiography outside of the West. Academic History dominated historiography in modern East Asia. The formation process of Academic History can be said to be a process in which modern Japanese historians fused National Learning(國學) and Ranke’s methodology. Suematsu Yasukazu(末松保和), one of Japan’s leading Academic Historians of the twentieth century, wrote Mimana History(任那興亡史). This work adhered to prewar Academic History and was rooted in Managing Korea theory(南鮮經營說) seen from the perspective of Japanese history in 1949. Suematsu’s basic idea manifested in Mimana History was not fundamentally different from that of Kuroita Katsumi(黑板勝美), showing how he was still under the spell of Kuroita and his colonialist historiography as “contemporary common idea.” In modern Japan, Academic History was a combination of colonialism-added academic methodology and transformed Western modern historiography.
Dongjun Jeong (Sun,) studied this question.