Goguryeo controversies

In 2002, the Northeast Project conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), claimed Goguryeo as a Tungusic ethnic state since it was founded by the Tungusic Yemaek and populated by Tungusic Mohe people. Further, the Chinese scholars claimed Goguryeo was part of Chinese regional history since Tungusic ethinicites like Manchus, Xibe, Oroqen, and Nanai are citizens of China. This sparked a major academic and diplomatic controversy, as Korean experts on Goguryeo history accused the Chinese government of using history for political purposes. In response, in 2004 South Korea established the Goguryeo Research Foundation (renamed the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2006), and summoned its Chinese ambassador. In 2007, the Northeast Project ended, and the study of Goguryeo history in China has dramatically declined. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences continues to hold its historical perspective on its homepage.

Various analyses of the controversy have focused on external motivations for the reevaluation of history, including Korean irredentism towards adjacent Chinese territory, the possibility of North Korean collapse, and the challenge to China from transnational separatism. Nationalist historiography has inflamed both sides of the debate, as Korean nationalism treats the themes of a powerful Korean Goguryeo and independence from China as central (see: Korean nationalist historiography), while Chinese nationalism stresses the inviolability of its territory and the unity of its ethnic groups. Some scholars have also criticized the projection of modern-day national identities onto ancient peoples.

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the Japanese Empire 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.[13]

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 the Tang dynasty. North Korea narrates their national history to conform to Juche, by denying any indication of foreign occupation of the Korean peninsula, such as the existence of any Chinese commanderies there.[14] 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.[15]

Much of the scholarship on the Goguryeo controversy has focused on China's strategic intentions towards the Koreas, and presumptively overlooked the validity of Chinese scholars' historical claims.[3]

Yonson Ahn, a Korean scholar who has studied Korean comfort women and historical debates in Korea and Japan,[16] 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."[16]

Various explanations advanced for China's interest in northeastern history include: South Korean irredentism over Jiandao (Gando in Korean),[2] privileges granted by South Korea to Koreans in China,[2] and the possible collapse of North Korea.[17][18][19]

Modern Chinese nationalism, which in contrast to Korean nationalism, is not based on a "pure blood line" and instead stresses unity in diversity and a supraethnic "Chinese people" or Zhonghua minzu. China also has an interest in promoting stability and the territorial status quo in its border territories, in order to tackle the advanced cross-border problems of drug trafficking, fundamentalist religious proselytism, ethnic separatism, and illegal immigration.[3] An interpretation which suspects aggressive Chinese motivations is inconsistent with China's own "peaceful rise" rhetoric and with its record of peacefully settling 17 of 23 of its territorial disputes with substantial compromises.[3]

On the other hand, some Chinese scholars perceive the Korean nationalistic sentiments of some Koreans (both North and South) 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.”[20] Chinese scholars are afraid of border changes when the North Korean government collapses. Because there are more than 2 million ethnic Koreans living in China's Jilin province, China fears that they might secede from China and join a newly unified Korea.[21]

On the whole, the Goguryeo controversy is more significant to Koreans than Chinese. Reasons for this imbalance include the fact that in modern Korean nationalism, Goguryeo's history is presented as a contrast to Korean history in the 19th and 20th century, where it was a "feminine and helpless victim of imperialism". Another founding tenet of Korean nationalism is to establish cultural independence from China. For example, in the 20th century, Koreans switched the central figure in their founding myth from Jizi, a Chinese human sage, to Tangun, a god.[3]

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).[22]
• Goguryeo kings actively sought and accepted a tributary relation with Chinese dynasties.[23]
• Goguryeo was founded by the Tungusic Yemaek peoples and was also populated by the Tungusic Mohe (Malgal) peoples, an ancestor of modern-day Tungusic Manchus, who are citizens of China, and ruled China's latest dynasty, the Qing dynasty;[24]
• Goguryeo was established in Northeast China, the homeland of Tungusic ethnicities. Two-thirds of its territory was in present-day China, and Tungusic people like Manchus, Evenks, and Oroqen are Chinese citizens.
• After the end of Goguryeo, some of its people were assimilated into Han and other ethnicities of China;[25]
• 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.[26]

Korean historians generally make these arguments:[1]

• The places that the Four Commanderies of Han occupied were originally places of native Korean people. The Chinese commanderies were later taken over by Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.
• 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.[27]
• 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), traditional dance, musical instruments (e.g. Janggu),[28] clothing (e.g. traditional Korean hat),[29] etc. depicted in Goguryeo murals are present in some form in Korean culture today.
• Goguryeo traditions such as ondol,[30] Korean fortress,[31] fermented foods (e.g. doenjang, jeotgal, etc., as mentioned in Records of the Three Kingdoms),[32] onggi,[33] etc. are central mainstays of Korean culture.
• Goguryeo has fought many wars with Chinese dynasties such as the Goguryeo–Sui War and the Gorugyeo-Tang War, making the argument that Gorugyeo is part of Chinese history invalid.
• 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 Northern Korea), i.e. Goguryeo , but we cannot state that the North Koreans are Chinese while they share the same language and culture with South Korea.
• Korean scholars believe that the people of the three kingdoms of Korea shared a common ancestor; the Yemaek tribe, distinct from the Tungus, Mongol and Turkic tribes. Because of this common ancestry, Goguryeo is distinctly Korean.[16]
• The view that Goguryeo is Chinese contradicts with Chinese history records of the past Chinese dynasties, which considered it a part of the cultural Sinosphere, but was a separate and foreign political entity.
• Goryeowas founded by Wang Geon, who descended from a noble Goguryeo family. Goryeo considered itself to be the continuation (successor state) of Goguryeo, and had ambitions to reclaim former Goguryeo territory as evidenced by Seo Hui who told the Liao dynasty: "Our country is in fact former Goguryeo, and that is why it is named Goryeo and has a capital at Pyongyang. If you want to discuss territorial boundaries, the Eastern Capital of your country is within our borders."[34]
• The word "Korea" comes from the word Goryeo, one of Goguryeo successor states and the shortened form of the word Goguryeo by King Jangsu of Goguryeo in the 5th century AD.
• Legacy of names. Joseon ("Gojoseon") is considered the first Korean kingdom. After the collapse of Goguryeo, the Tang emperor gave to the last ruler of Goguryeo Bojang of Goguryeo the title "King of Joseon" named after the original Joseon kingdom showing that the Chinese themselves considered Goguryeo and Joseon the same lineage. Goguryeo was succeeded by Goryeo ("Later Goguryeo") which was succeeded again by "Joseon".
• Goguryeo was also succeeded by Balhae. Balhae was destroyed by the Liao dynasty, but the last crown prince of Balhae and most of the nobility merged with the Goryeo royal family thus uniting the two successor dynasties of Goguryeo.[35]
• Legacy of royal tradition. The title Daewang (Taewang) or "Great(est) King" is a Korean title that originated in Goguryeo and continued to be used in Goryeo and Joseon as a posthumous title until the end of Joseon dynasty.[36] However the word Daewang 대왕 is cognate with the Sino-Korean word 大王 (this also corresponds to the Hanja).
• Chinese and Japanese states acknowledged that the heritage of Goguryeo belonged to Goryeo and Joseon.[37][38]
  • Kublai Khan regarded Goryeo as the same country as Goguryeo. At the end of the Mongol invasions of Korea after seeing the Goryeo crown prince come to concede after decades of fighting, Kublai Khan was jubilant and said "Goryeo is a country that long ago even Tang Taizong personally campaigned against but was unable to defeat, but now the crown prince comes to me, it is the will of heaven!"[39][40][41]
  • During the Mongol invasions of Japan there was a Japanese saying "The Mongol ("Mukuri") and Goguryeo ("Kokuri") ghosts are coming!" treating Goryeo as the same country as Goguryeo.[42]
  • Choe Bu of Joseon in 1488 who was stranded in Ming China was asked by a Ming government official "What special skills does your country have that it was able to defeat the Sui and Tang dynasties armies?" Choe Bu replied "Goguryeo had strategic experts and powerful generals who were skilled in military and had soldiers who served their superiors to the death. Therefore, Goguryeo is a small country but defeated the Tianxia's one million soldiers two times. Now, Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo have become one country, we have abundant products and large land, riches and powerful military, and immeasurable numbers of loyal and wise scholars."[43][44]

One Finnish linguist Juha Janhunen believes that it was likely that a "Tungusic-speaking elite" ruled Goguryeo and Balhae, describing them as "protohistorical Manchurian states" and that part of their population was Tungusic, and that the area of southern Manchuria was the origin of Tungusic peoples and inhabited continuously by them since ancient times, and Janhunen rejected opposing theories of Goguryeo and Balhae's ethnic composition.[45]

However Alexander Vovin believes the Gorguyeo was Koreanic in origin. He pointed to Koreanic loanwords in Jurchen and Manchu, and argued that the Goguryeo language was the ancestor of Koreanic people (not just Koreans), and spread southwards to replace the Japonic languages of the Samhan.[46] James Unger has proposed a similar model on historical grounds.[47]

According to Korea scholar Andrei Lankov: "There is no doubt that the present-day dispute represents a case of retro-projection of modern identities. The real-life Koguryoans would have been surprised or even offended to learn that, in the future, they would be perceived by Koreans as members of the same community as their bitter enemies from Silla. Describing Koguryo as Chinese or Korean is as misleading as, say, describing medieval Brittany as French or English or Irish."[48]

According to John B. Duncan of UCLA: "For the last 1,000 years, Goguryeo was an important factor in helping modern Korea find its identity. Goguryeo is part of Korean history."[49]

According to Mark Byington of Harvard University, who has followed the debate since 1993, Goguryeo "was clearly not a Chinese state in any sense, as demonstrated abundantly by China’s own dynastic histories". Byington says that the Chinese position is "historically indefensible" and "historically flawed", but at the same time has valid reasons, politically (e.g. territorial concerns), and is not as "sinister" as many Koreans believe (i.e., "a prelude to an active aggression against Korea").[37]

Some scholars analyze empirical evidence through the lens of nationalism and ethnocentrism. However Yonson Ahn and Lim Jie-Hyun believe that projecting modern concepts of national territory and identity onto ancient nation states is self-serving.[16]

Yonson says that the 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.[16] Yonson argues 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 descendants of Goguryeo people live in both Korea and China.

She also argues that 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 laden with terms like "stealing."[16]

The Chinese city of Ji'an has built a Goguryeo museum within walking distance of the Yalu River. One of the major Goguryeo steles is displayed there.[50]

• China–North Korea relations
• China–South Korea relations
• History of Sino-Korean relations
• Nationalism and historiography
• Nanyue controversies