Goguryeo controversies

The Goguryeo controversies refers to the disputes between China and Korea on the history of Goguryeo, an ancient kingdom located mostly in the present day Northeast China and North Korea. In 2004 this dispute threatened to lead to diplomatic disputes between China and both Koreas when China formalized this view into the government project Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Contents 1 Background 2 Arguments for Goguryeo being a part of Chinese History 3 Arguments for Goguryeo as a Part of Korean History 4 Reactions to the Controversy 4.1 From Korea 4.2 From China 5 Validity of Claims on Ancient History 6 See also 7 Notes

Background

Goguryeo has been conventionally viewed as one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea. Chinese characterization of Goguryeo as a regional power of China in modern times has spawned heated disputes with both North Korea and South Korea who regard Goguryeo as a Korean state during the 3 kingdoms period. At heart of the Goguryeo controversy is whether Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history exclusively, Korean history exclusively, separate from both, or shared by all.

Starting from the 1980s when the PRC constitution was amended to redefine the People's Republic of China as a "unitary multinational state built up jointly by the people of all its nationalities", some Chinese historians began to re-identify Goguryeo, especially the first half of Goguryeo's history before it moved its capital to the Korean peninsula, as part of the regional history of China rather than of Korea.^[1] This assertion was disputed in the 1990s when a head historian of a North Korean delegation accused Chinese historians of conceiving of ancient China in terms of the territorial bounds of the modern Chinese state, which, he claimed, is a view unsupported by historical evidence. More recently in 2002, this effort has been taken up by the PRC government in the form of the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

Some Chinese scholars perceive the Korean nationalistic sentiments of some Koreans in both North and South Koreas as threatening to its territorial integrity. In fact, there are proponents in both the Korean liberal and conservative camps advocating for the “restoration of the lost former territories.”^[2] Chinese scholars are afraid of border changes when the North Korean government collapses. Because there are more than 2 million ethnic Koreans living in Manchuria, China fears that they might secede from China and join a newly unified Korea.^[3]

Meanwhile, North Korea has glorified Goguryeo's independent qualities as part of their Juche ("self-reliance") ideology, identifying itself with Goguryeo, while equating South Korea with Silla, and the United States with Tang. North Korea narrates their national history to conform it to Juche, by denying any indication of foreign occupation of the Korean peninsula, such as the existence of any Chinese commanderies there. Nevertheless, North Korea tries to be relatively silent, due to its political and economic dependence on China.^[4]

During the 19th and 20th Centuries, the Japanese Empire also differentiated Goguryeo from the other Three Kingdoms of Korea to claim Japanese (Wa) influence in the non-Goguryeo kingdoms of Baekje and Silla in order to justify its colonization of Korea. In order to demonstrate their theories, they moved a stone monument (棕蟬縣神祠碑), which was originally located at Liaodong, into Pyongyang.^[5]

Arguments for Goguryeo being a part of Chinese History

Before 21 century, Goguryeo was treated as part of the Korean History in China.^[6] However, Since 2004, Chinese PRC state supported scholars claim that Goguryeo as a part of the regional history of China rather than of being solely or uniquely Korean. Chinese historian Sun Jinji in 1986 suggested that Goguryeo is separate from the history of the Three Kingdoms in the Korean Peninsula. This is the origin of controversy. He argued that “the people of Buyeo and Goguryeo had the same lineage as the Chinese in the Northeast region, while the Korean people were a part of the Silla lineage.”^[7] This view has since been supported by some Chinese historians. However, Chinese scholars are not all of one voice on this issue. There are also many Chinese historians who acknowledge Goguryeo history as being shared by both Korea and China within “a framework of the dual elements of a single history”(一史两用论, yishi liangyong lun).^[8] More recently, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) generated new controversy through its Northeast Project study of China's three Northeast provinces.

Among the arguments that some Chinese scholars use for its claims on Goguryeo:

• Goguryeo was founded from Han Chinese commandaries such as Xuantu (in Chinese territory).^[9]
• Gogyryeo was a local administration of the imperial China throughout history.^[10]
• Goguryeo kings accepted a tributary relation with Chinese dynasties.^[9]
• Goguryeo was founded by the Mohe (Malgal) peoples, an ancestor of modern day Manchurians, who ruled China's last dynasty;^[11]
• Goguryeo was established in Northeast China, and that two-thirds of its territory was in present day China
• Goguryeo actively sought a tributary relationship with successive Chinese empires. This relationship is supported by international scholars;^[12]
• That after the end of Goguryeo, some of its people were assimilated into Han and other ethnicities of China;^[13]
• That some remains of the tombs purported to be of Goguryeo in Ji’an are not Goguryeo’s but are those of the Han or Xianbei (Sonbi) ethnicities of China.^[14]

Arguments for Goguryeo as a Part of Korean History

Goguryeo was treated as part of the Korean History in ancient Korea.[1] Korean historians dispute the legitimacy of the Northeast Project,^[15] generally making these arguments:^[16]

• The places that the Four Commanderies of Han occupied were originally places of native Korean people. The Chinese commanderies were later driven out by Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.
• A state established in what is now China does not necessarily mean it is Chinese. For example, during Yuan Dynasty, the whole China became part of the Mongol Empire. With no doubt, this is part of History of Mongolia. Besides, Goguryeo's territories included land in both Manchuria and the Korean peninsula. Goguryeo's second capital was located at Pyongyang, North Korea. Before the capital city was moved, Goguryeo territory comprised what is today North Korea and parts of Manchuria.
• Goguryeo is a country founded by Buyeo people, one of the major ancestors of Korean people. Both Goguryeo and Baekje are successor nations of Buyeo. The fact that large numbers of Goguryeo people were assimilated into China does not necessarily make it Chinese as many were also assimilated into other dynasties at the time.^[17]
• Approximately 30,000 Goguryeo households were assimilated to China. This is insignificant when looking at the fact that Goguryeo listed more than 700,000 households.China had not absorbed a significant amount of Goguryeo's total population. Balhae received the most Goguryeo immigrants. Its founder was a Goguryeo noble. When the Khitans invaded Balhae, the majority population fled to Goryeo.
• Goguryeo lasted about 700 years while no Chinese dynasty concurrent with Goguryeo's rule lasted for more than 500 years. It was Imperial China's tributary only during some of its existence. More important, being a tributary of Imperial China doesn't make it Chinese. Many East Asia dynasties and kingdoms, like Silla, Goryeo, Japan, Ryukyu etc., had tributary relationships with Chinese Dynasties during some time of their existence.
• Many of the customs (Ssireum, Taekwondo, ondol, dancing etc.) depicted in the murals are present in some form in Korean culture today.
• The name "Korea" has its roots from the name "Goryeo", which in turn took its name from "Goguryeo". Goryeo is the more correct term for the Goguryeo dynasty as Goguryeo is mainly referred to Goryeo in most Chinese and Japanese historic texts after the reign of King Jangsu of Goguryeo. Goguryeo is also stated as Goryeo on the Gwanggaeto Stele The dynasty Goryeo was founded on the basis that it was the descendant dynasty of Goguryeo, therefore adopting the name of Goguryeo.
• Only Southern Koreans from the Jeolla and Gyeongsang regions were descendants of Samhan, which is south of the Geum River. There are more Koreans descended from inhabitants outside Samhan and Silla, i.e., north of Geum River. Many Koreans are descendants of people outside Samhan (especially people that have families originated from Norther Korea), ie Goguryeo , but we cannot state that the North Koreans are Chinese while they share the same language and culture with South Korea.
• Nationalistic Korean scholars believe that the people of the 3 kingdoms of Korea shared a common ancestor; the Yamaek tribe, distinct from the Tungus, Mongol and Turkic tribes. Because of this common ancestry, Goguryeo is distinctly Korean.^[18]
• The view that Goguryeo is Chinese contradicts with Chinese history records of the past Chinese dynasties and the world academia of history.
• Northeast China Project is politics under the cover of academics, fearing that the possible unification of North and South Korea may cause border disputes between Korea and China.

Reactions to the Controversy

From Korea

Peter Gries noted that after UNESCO granted both China and North Korea's applications for world heritage status, Chinese websites subsequently consistently referred to it as "China's Koguryo", which became a popular issue in South Korea, exhibited in editorials and op-eds.^[19] Furthermore, Gries quoted Kim Woo Jun, a history professor, as suggesting that the events might shift South Korea's strategy from being anti-U.S., pro-China to anti-China, pro-U.S.^[19]

Yonson Ahn, a Korean researcher noted for her work on Korean women's issues,^[18] writes that historians such as Quan Zhezhu, Sun Jinji, Kim Hui-kyo, and Mark Byington "perceive the launching of the Project as a defensive reaction to preserve China’s own territorial integrity and stability."^[18]

North Korea's state run media has denounced Chinese claims as “a pathetic attempt to manipulate history for its own interests” or “intentionally distorting historical facts through biased perspectives” in North Korean media.^[20]

In 2004, in an effort to prevent the issue from weakening bilateral ties with South Korea, China promised to not assert claims over Goguryeo.^[21]

Jo Beop-jong, a professor at Woosuk University in South Korea, said China may not revise its stance on Goguryeo because if Beijing concedes Goguryeo as Korean history, China must give up its Northeast Asia project.^[21]

From China

Before the 21st century, Goguryeo was treated as part of the Korean History in China.^[22] The Northeast Project is not universally accepted in the PRC. In 2006, in an interview with the Chosun Ilbo, a senior scholar from Peking University affirmed Goguryeo as a part of Korean history.^[23] He has expressed disagreement with the CASS institute, the PRC government institution running the Northeast Project, and indirectly criticized the project on behalf of the Peking University Department of History.

Validity of Claims on Ancient History

Nationalistic scholars in China and Korea analyze empiric evidence through the lense of nationalism and ethnocentrism. Yonson Ahn and Lim Jie-Hyun believe that projecting modern concepts of national territory and identity onto ancient nation states is self serving.^[18]

Chinese claims on Goguryeo history tend to be centered on territory: because Goguryeo and Parhae shared territories with modern day China, it is therefore Chinese. Korean arguments tend to stem from ancestry, a common bloodline.^[18] Both philosophies contradict the exclusivity claim that many scholars try to make for either Korea or China because Goguryeo possessed territories that now are within the borders of North Korea as well as China, and descendents of Goguryeo people live in both Korea and China.

Controversy over Goguryeo history illustrates the rigidity of national history in East Asia. The strong distinction between "self" and "other" drives many scholars to accept only exclusive possession of history and its artifacts. Disputes over such claims are often ladened with terms like "stealing." ^[18] Many scholars focus on pure Chineseness or Koreaness, a persepctive that ignores the permeability of ancient borders and the abundant cultural exchange that occurred.

See also

• People's Republic of China – South Korea relations
• Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Notes