[KS] Chinese side sources on China's Northeast Project

[Frank Joseph Shulman]

Dear Andrew,

May I please ask whether you have considered checking the nearly 825,000-entry online "Bibliography of Asian Studies" (BAS) of the Association for Asian Studies ( http://www.asian-studies.org/bassub.htm)?  At the moment, I regret to say, there are no institutional subscribers in Finland; but there are many such subscribers elsewhere in Europe, as you can see from the list at http://www.asian-studies.org/basorg.htm.  While the BAS limits its coverage to Western-language publications and thus its coverage of relevant Chinese-language sources would be found only in translation, my recollection is that the BAS overall does include English-language bibliographical citations that may well be helpful to you.

Best wishes for the new year,

Frank

January 10, 2013

P.S. I might add that the  Northeast Asian History Foundation in South Korea is also one of the institutional subscribers.

Frank Joseph Shulman
Associate Editor, Bibliography of Asian Studies
Bibliographer, Editor and Consultant for Reference Publications in Asian Studies
9225 Limestone Place
College Park, Maryland 20740-3943 (U.S.A.)
E-mail: fshulman at umd.edu
________________________________________

From: Koreanstudies [koreanstudies-bounces at koreaweb.ws] on behalf of Andrew [zatouichi at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:05 PM
To: Korean Studies Discussion List
Subject: [KS] Chinese side sources on China's Northeast Project

Dear all,

Happy New Year!

Anyone who's looked in the history section of a Korean bookshop knows that there have been a lot of publications (ranging in quality) on Old Joseon, Goguryeo, Balhae etc explicitly arguing against assertions made through China's Northeast Project.

But, I want to ask, does anyone know of any English (or Chinese) language research supporting the Chinese argument?  Not necessarily supporting the politics but ideally presenting the strongest objective arguments for treating non-Han ethnic groups within Chinese historiography.

Whilst it is pretty clear that the various 'Eastern Barbarian' ethnic groups (Xianbei, Goguryeo, Khitan, Jurchen etc) were rarely subservient to Han Chinese (and oftentimes ruling over them!) that is not a reason to reject their inclusion from modern Chinese historiography, even if they were excluded from orthodox Chinese historiography, just as they were from orthodox Korean historiography.  That is, just as Korea has been doing a lot of "rediscovering" of its pseudo pan-Altaic continental heritage, why shouldn't China do the same (given they administer much of the historical territory in question)?  And is there any literature supporting this argument?

Andrew Logie
(Helsinki)