[KS] Koguryo part of China?
Mark Byington
byington at fas.harvard.edu
Thu Jan 1 02:12:51 EST 2004
Dear List,
The official Chinese position regarding the proper historical place of
Koguryo is a natural outcome of current Chinese views of how an early
"Chinese nation" might have existed in antiquity. This view is a direct
projection of the current conception of the multiethnic PRC state backward
in time. In other words, the way minority nationalities are conceived of
as forming part of a greater Chinese nation today has been imposed on the
China of the remote past, to make "tributaries" and client states appear
as though they formed part of a greater Chinese nation and were, by the
way, quite conscious of their role as such. This view of the past has
been prominent most especially since the 1980s. The 1982 PRC constitution
and the Minority Region Autonomy Law of 1984 codified the place of ethnic
minorities within the greater China, and many Chinese historians of
premodern periods have even invoked the exact phrases used in these very
modern documents to describe the early and premodern state. Since the
northern part of Koguryo territories are now within PRC borders, Koguryo
was therefore a minority nationality of ancient China. So are all the
other peoples who once lived in what is now the PRC, and for the most part
nobody today cares to expend much time and energy arguing against this
view. But since Koguryo territories spanned both sides of the Yalu, and
since Koguryo has long been embedded in what we see as Korean
historiography, it presents a problem. And the historians in China know
this.
I would disagree with the article Sem cited when it speaks of the relative
quiescence of historians in the Koreas regarding the Chinese position.
North Korean archaeologists butted heads with Chinese counterparts in the
1960s over interpretations of Parhae's place in history, and a North
Korean complaint (more of an accusation, really) at an academic conference
in China in 1993 prompted a very defensive reaction on the part of Chinese
historians, who had previously not been so insistent (or at least vocal)
on Koguryo's having been a "Chinese" state. South Koreans have not been
silent either, though I suspect that tourists (including academics)
visiting Koguryo archaeological sites in China have caused more general
aggravation to museum officials than have any academic exchanges. I
suspect that most South Korean scholars who try to get work done in China
are sensitive enough to know not to complain too loudly, lest the doors of
access to sites and data in China be closed for good (a real possibility,
some restrictive measures having been in place for almost a decade now,
a direct result of a perceived South Korean encroachment on China's
proprietary rights to Koguryo's material remains in China).
The Chinese argument for Koguryo's Chinese-ness is a pretty flimsy one.
The two main arguments are, 1) that the Koguryo state grew out of the Han
Chinese commandery of Xuantu (i.e., out of Chinese territory), and 2) that
Koguryo kings acknowledged their places as "minority nationalities" of
China by accepting investiture from Chinese emperors. The problems with
this are obvious. There are even weaker arguments than this: for example,
more Koguryo refugees wound up in Tang China than in Silla after 668,
therefore Koguryo was more Chinese than Korean - this argument comes from
a prominent historian in Shenyang. The weaknesses of the arguments are
well known to the Chinese historians who promote them (and not all
historians in China support the "official" position, by the way, but there
are two or three very vocal ones who do). The fact that the two core
arguments listed above could also be made to apply to Paekche (and even
to Silla, with a little extra twisting of the source materials) is also a
troubling matter to the Chinese historians I described above, who want to
make clear that Paekche was NOT a Chinese state.
The gist of my long-winded statement above is that the Chinese argument
regarding Koguryo is weak and defensive, but it accords with current
practice in the PRC in making ancient "tributaries" out to be "minority
nationalities" of a very vaguely defined greater Chinese nation of the
remote past. I do not believe the Chinese position toward Koguryo is an
especially sinister one, but is rather one that must exist in order to
fall into line with current Chinese views of the Chinese past, which can
be traced ultimately, I think, to concerns about territorial security of
the present. I would certainly hope that the UNESCO treatment will avoid
the pitfall that exists here. But my understanding (which could be
mistaken) is that UNESCO did not exactly have an easy time getting the
Chinese to accept the registration of the Koguryo murals. And I am quite
certain that any hesitation on the Chinese side would have been due to the
uncomfortable matter of Koreans' views toward Koguryo and to potential
(and already voiced) challenges to the Chinese position. Any UNESCO
dealings with China would have had to take these sensitivities into
account, and I suspect that some "glossing over" of the "who owns Koguryo"
question would have been necessary. I would certainly like to hear more on
this from anyone who was involved.
Personally, I think the registration of the murals in China is likely to
be a good thing, especially if it affords some measure of protection to
the tombs and assists in their preservation. I know of at least three
successful mural robberies in Ji'an in the past decade (the last one
followed by some thirty convictions, I'm told), and some of the loudest
complaints I have heard in South Korea regarding the Chinese treatment of
Koguryo is the apparent Chinese inability (or unwillingness) to provide
adequate protection for the murals. Although the mural tombs in Ji'an
(with one exception) are officially sealed to offset deterioration of the
murals, tourist groups to Ji'an, most usually from South Korea, regularly
gain access to the tombs by making "donations" to the appropriate persons,
which further damages the murals. Hopefully, the UNESCO World Heritage
registration of the mural tombs will do some good in this regard?
Best wishes to all for the New Year,
Mark Byington
More information about the Koreanstudies
mailing list