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

[Edward Kim]

I don't think there are any, unless the Chinese translate their arguments into English themselves.
Most Western historians who are familiar with Parhae do not support the Korean viewpoint that it was a Korean ethnic state that ruled Parhae.  Professor Andrew Miller has studied language fragments and believes the Parhae language to be Mohe based.  Professor Johannes Reckel over at the University of Goettingen, in his article "The Yain on the Koryo Border" does state his opinion that Parhae was probably more of a Mohe state, although it's done quite indirectly.
However, neither of these scholars would fully prescribe to the Chinese viewpoint.
--- On Thu, 1/10/13, Andrew <zatouichi at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Andrew <zatouichi at gmail.com>
Subject: [KS] Chinese side sources on China's Northeast Project
To: "Korean Studies Discussion List" <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013, 3:05 PM

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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://koreanstudies.com/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreanstudies.com/attachments/20130110/026f94f5/attachment.html>