Research about qiaoxiang, the hometowns of overseas Chinese, from Chen Da at the beginning of the 20th Century, to the fairly recent Oxfeld, has been conducted from a consistent viewpoint. That is "rich overseas Chinese" and "poor their hometowns". The basis for this schema was probably the recognition of "overseas being wealthy" and "China being poor". However, it is obvious that this idea does not apply today. At the Pearl River delta from 2005 at the latest, if not signalling a complete turnaround, many examples indicate a need for the reconsideration of this schema.

For example, projects from maintenance of infrastructure to the reconstruction of lineage ancestral halls have been completed using regional government funds and donations from successful local people. Is it not reasonable to say that up until now those kinds of projects could not have been maintained without donations from overseas Chinese? Additionally, overseas Chinese who frequently returned home until the end of the 1990's stopped doing so because of a comparatively low standard of living with respect to commodity prices. Formerly, wasn't their ideal to work hard abroad in their young days and then live out their old age at hometown in comfort? On the other hand, most of them never miss returning home and worshipping their ancestors at the Qingmingjie.

I hope to reconsider such a stereotyping view about overseas Chinese and their hometowns and present a new perspective for its study, all the while being careful to avoid falling into the pit of postmodernism.

At the present, the Chinese who live in Papua New Guinea is consisted of several sub groups. In addition to those who had lived in Papua New Guinea since the colonial period, there is a new type of Chinese who have migrated to Papua New Guinea since the 1980s. The Chinese newcomers in contemporary Papua New Guinea are different from old comers in that they are from various areas, such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan and the People's Republic of China, and that they have little common background. The old comers who were born in Papua New Guinea do not consider newcomers as part of their same group, and vice versa. Those Chinese sub groups do not have close contact with relatives each other. Besides, those sub groups of the Chinese has transnational network between Papua New Guinea and other countries.

While the Chinese old comers have established transnational social space between Papua New Guinea and Australia, the new comers, such as Malaysian Chinese and Mainland Chinese, also construct transnational social spaces between Papua New Guinea and their own countries. Because those sub ethnic groups of the Chinese in contemporary Papua New Guinea have different cultural backgrounds, it seems to be difficult for them to establish common network each other. The structure of sub ethnicity of the Chinese in Papua New Guinea has inclusiveness and exclusiveness simultaneously.

Since the pre-war era, Chinese Overseas Studies in Japan have used a term, "Ka-kyo" (originally a Chinese term, "Hua-qiao," which means Chinese Overseas) for identifying the subject of the researchers. This terminology is quite unusual for anthropological usage since it differentiates migrants from residents in home country. Why had Chinese Overseas Studies required a specific term for migrants instead on "Han-Chinese?" This question will bring us to discover the Ethno-Anthropology in Japan, which had provided the East Asian version of modernity with a cognitive framework.

Anthropological researches had traditionally encompassed and identified the subjects of their researches as a sort of group such as a tribe, an ethnic group, villagers, etc. The criteria of the identification is based the membership acquisition, which can be a consanguineous, territorial or other ties.

This manner of the identification is, however, problematic not because a consanguineous tie or a shared territorial bond is always ambiguous, but because it invites an assumption deeply rooted in the Western Modernity, that one who shares blood or hometown is also sharing culture with a clear boundary.

Focusing on the position of "Ka-kyo both in each host country and the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere, this study will examine Chinese Overseas Studies and the concept of "Ka-kyo" in pre-war Japan and will discuss the unique view on "human society" and the "ethno-anthropological" nature. It will provide a clue for reconsidering a discourse space in East Asia.

Studies on overseas Chinese or Chinese overseas after-war Taiwan are investigated around the axis of national identity of Republic of China (ROC) or the Taiwan identity. Contrary to the previous studies in which I demonstrated the ways how overseas Chinese connect themselves to Taiwan, in this study I try to explore the ways the studies both of the academic field in Taiwan and of the Japan academy which focuses on Taiwan locate the issue of Overseas Chinese in their research. Overseas Chinese are always recognized as an ambivalent entity in terms of the nation building either of ROC or of Taiwan. They should be included as one of the population of ROC but will be excluded from the localized political entity of Taiwan.

Studies of Overseas Chinese early after-war Taiwan deal with them as one of the national population of ROC. Especially academies depict the Overseas Chinese from Myanmar or northern Thailand in the relationship with KMT. Even some of the ethnic minorities who moved to Taiwan are surveyed by anthropologist in this framework. After the Taiwanization of ROC, however, the studies on Overseas Chinese became more multifaceted. Creole and hybrid nature of Overseas Chinese, the transnational networks of re-migrants or the ambivalent identity of Overseas Chinese start to be discussed.

This paper traces the diachronic variation of the image of the Overseas Chinese both in Taiwan and in Japan. And it further tries to locate it in relation to the pursuit of identity construction of ROC or Taiwan.