The history wars between Korea and China move on the Balhae Kingdom, which makes only perfect sense, because if you’re going to rip off Koguryo, you might as well rip off Balhae, too (truth be told, however, Balhae is the older if the two controversies). Anyway, from Ye Olde Chosun:
China’s attempts to incorporate into its own history the ancient kingdom of Balhae are gathering steam, with Beijing having recently restored a royal palace of the period in Heilongjiang Province in Chinese style that experts contend is not historically authentic. China is now moving to register the site with UNESCO.
The Chinese government has been confirmed as embarking on a project to sinicize Balhae relics in the country. Of five Balhae palaces that survive in a ruinous state in the old Balhae capital of Ningan, Heilongjiang Province, the foundations of two have already been rebuilt.
Now, I have no problem with China registering the site with UNSECO — it’s located in China, after all, and ultimately, Beijing is the one that will have to register it. However, it appears the authorities are restoring the palaces in the style of the Tang Dynasty, which ain’t cool at all:
“It is clear that the Chinese intend to restore the Balhae capital so that it resembles the Tang Dynasty capital of Changan (now Xi’an) … They are attacking Balhae history, a much weaker target than Koguryo history, and solidifying their Northeast Project,” said Yoon Jae-un, who leads the Balhae history research team under the Koguryo Research Foundation and has seen photographic evidence of the sites.
Well, take a look for yourself:
For a satellite view of the old Balhae capital, look here. Also worth noting is a post I made back in September 2003 on the Balhae controversy, which has some links you may wish to check out.
Sphere: Related Content
5 Comments
If my memory serves correct, the general history books I read about all of Korean history already noted there is some debate about the nature of the Parhae kingdom, but I don’t remember any of them saying the same about Koguryeo.
But, even further back, wasn’t it Wiman or something like it that has been a bone of contention for scholars —- that he set up a Chinese feudal domain in Pyongyang???
All this stuff between Korea and China is a perfect example of why I avoided any research into pre- or early history. I like reading about archeology, but I sure as hell don’t want to get involved in periods that don’t have a lot of documentation.
That is one reason I focused on the late Koryo and early Chosen dynasties.
Asia by Blog
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here. This edition contains China’s emerging blogosphere, the …
Dear Mr. Marmont,
How are you doing? First time poster but long time admirer. How can I not respect a white man who adopts our way and dress… =) Now I believe I’m somewhat qualified here to talk about Parhae as I’ve read alot and conversed with Daniel Kane and Mark Byington, probably the two best experts on early Korean History in North America. Anyways, I read this abstract of the most comprehensive archeological study on the Parhae Kingdom by Dr. Johannes Reckel (his Ph.D thesis actually), professor at the University of G?¶ttingen. A side note- you won’t see Korean archeological studies of Parhae because the Chinese won’t let Koreans dig. Anyways, essentially Reckel says that Parhae did indeed a significant Mohoe element to their population, it had to as the Tang took most of Koguryo’s population and relocated them to the central plain as well as areas as remote as today’s Burma. Out of the 600,000 households of the original Koguryo Kingdom, there was probably only 100,000 households left in Southern Manchuria, not enough to defend against Tang, Silla and Kihtan tribesman. The Mohe changed sides during the Tang/Koguryo wars. Traditional allies to the of Koguryo, the Mohe sided with Tang, but once they figured out that the Tang didn’t really have any plans to develope or effectively rule the Northeast, they decided to revolt, using the distraction that the Kihtan provided to do so. Da Go Wang (or Tae Jo Young in Korean pronounciation) was a Mohe chieftan who was also a Koguryo general. He was ethnically Mohe, not Koguryo. How do I know this? Well Dr. Reckel notices that early Parhae tombs contained more Mohe artifacts than Koguryo ones. However, as time went by, the Mohe element started to disappear as the Koguryo ruling class solidified their hold on the government. Mohe names disappeared from the diplomatic registers to Japan and Mohe artifacts disappeared from royal tombs. Mohe artifacts also began to be pushed outward to areas away from the cities and on to the northern fringes of the kingdom. Sure, Parhae was a heavily sinofied kingdom, but probably no more then say the Paekje kingdom was or the Unified Shilla Kingdom was becoming at the same time. Anyways, the remaining Koguryo population in the decades after the Tang/Koguryo wars was not enough to create a viable kingdom. The Mohe poplulation did not have the literacy and sophistication to create a kingdom and would not be able to do so until the 17th century when they evolved into the Manchus and defeated the Ming Dynasty. Several Mohe tribes that Da Jo Young had influence over joined with these Koguryo remnants to create Jin-Guk, the state of Jin in 698 A.D. In 713 A.D., after beating several Tang attemps to eliminate him, Da Jo Young declared himself King of Koryo or Koguryo. The name Bohai or Parhae in Korean was given by Tang. Parhae sometimes addressed themself as Koryo-Guk to Japan, probably because Japan was the only nation that would recognize them with that name as Tang certainly would not given that they had spent so much time and resources in eliminating Koguryo in the first place. I can go on and on about Parhae, but I don’t have the time to. Maybe I’ll put up my own blog about it. =) Talk to you guys later.
Awwww heck, here is an abstract on Dr. Reckel’s work for you guys to read directly. Enjoy!
Bohai-Geschichte und Kultur eines mandschurisch-koreanischen K?¶nigreiches der Tang-Zeit, dargestellt nach den Schriftzeugnissen und dem arch?¤ologischen Fundmaterial [in German]. To be published as Aetas Manjurica 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1995)
Reckel, Johannes, Ph.D. Thesis, University of G?¶ttingen, 1993
Bohai flourished between 698 and 926, when it was overrun by the Mongolian Kitan. It occupied the area of Manchuria, northern Korea and the Russian territories east of the Ussuri and along the Amur. The importance of Bohai lies in the fact that it stands on a major turning point in the history of Northeast Asia and more specifically, Manchuria. Until the middle of the 1st m. AD, Manchuria was dominated by Korean kingdoms like Koguryo and Puyo, and the Sushen, whom the old Chinese historians believed to be the ancestors of the modern Manchu. Around 500 AD, the Wuji, who soon afterwards are called Mohe, poured into the whole of Manchuria, destrouying Puyo and eventually making up a considerable percentage of the population of Korugyo. In 668, Silla destroyed her two rivals, Paekche and Koguryo, with the help of the Chinese army. But neither China nor Silla managed to bring the northern parts of Koguryo under their own rule, and in 698 a new kingdom, soon afterwards called Bohai, emerged from the former Koguryo upper class and the Mohe. Bohai’s third king, Da Qinmao (r. 737-93), built five large capitals ( a tradition later carried on by the Kitan and Jurchen) ca. 3400×4600m, after the model of the Chinese capital Chang’an. The ruins of three of these five capitals have been found and (partly) excavated; they belong to the largest cities in Asia of those days.
Unfortunately, all written historical records of Bohai herself have been destroyed. Thus we have to rely on the rather biased Chinese sources and on records the Japanese kept concerning Bohai missions arriving in Japan. Korean sources pass over this unpleasant rival in the north, which claimed to be the rightful heir of Koguryo, altogether in silence. Today it is still a matter of discussion amongst historians if Bohai is a Korean kingdom, a Manchurian-Tungus state or just a Chinese vassal. Bohai definitely had a mixed population. The Koguryo upper class represents the old “Korean” Manchuria, whereas the majority of the rural population-probably even the royal family-was of Tungus-Mohe stock, pointing towards the future Manchuria.
This thesis is not a specialized study on certain aspects of Bohai but tries to establish a basis upon which more detailed research could be carried out in future. Part one (ca. 200 pp.) offers a complete translation [into German] of all Chinese and Korean written sources on the Mohe (from ca. 500 AD onwards) and on Bohai, and it summarises in translation the Japanese Six National Histories (rikkokushi), etc. Part two lists all known archaeological sites of Mohe/Bohai culture in China, Korea and Russia, with longer or shorter descriptions for each site arranged according to areas centred around one of the ancient capitals or major provincial towns. Where possible, certain archaeological sites have been linked to places mentioned in the written sources. 150 pages of figures show the objects found on the archaeological sites in B&W drawings. Part three tries to give a description and analysis of Bohai history and culture on the basis of the material previously presented.
Through the archaeological materials, the picture drawn by the scanty written sources becomes much clearer: three different materials cultures are found in Bohai territory. Firstly, the old Koguryo culture is mainly confined to old Koguryo territory along the Tumen river and its tributaries and the royal burial ground of the first two or three generations near modern Dunhua: represented by tiles with ornamented surfaces, small stepped-pyramid forming underground stone tombs, certain types of Buddhist stone images, and stone-faced town walls, etc. The Chinese Tang culture flourished mainly in and around the Supreme and Central capitals (Shangjing, Zhongjing). It is represented by brick pagodas, brick tombs with murals depicting Tang-style courtiers, the structure of the capitals, and three-coloured glazed ceramics, etc. The picture of the third culture, of the Mohe, is slightly more complicated. The “Leitfossil” of this culture is a small urn-shaped pot with a double rim near its mouth. Together with certain highly ornamented belt-plaques, it is found in nearly all Wuji/Mohe tombs or house ruins from the 5th-10th c. AD. Interestingly enough, we also find it in the burial ground of the first generations of the royal family of Bohai. But thereafter it is absent from the rather sophisticated culture of the new capitals developing since the second half of the 8th c. and is pushed towards the northern fringes of the empire.
This archaeological evidence is confirmed by an analysis of the personal names of Bohai. (Of course, the sources would not record the names of the common people but rather of officials and representatives of the ruling class.) Typical Mohe-names disappear completely after the first two generations, whereas members of the old Koguryo upper class-represented by those bearing the family name Gao (Kor. Ko as short for Koguryo)-continue to play a leading role, especially in the frequent missions to Japan. The Mohe in the southern and central parts of Bohai had become completely sinicised by the time of the downfall of Bohai, whereas the Mohe culture along the lower Sungari and Amur in the 10th c. develops into the Jurchen culture, represented by typical pottery with pumpkin-shaped bellies and high necks. Towards the end of the 11th c. the Jurchen reconquer lost ground and again occupy nearly the whole of Manchuria.
The limits of this thesis do not allow a detailed study of the Mohe culture; however, a comprehensive bibliography on the Mohe and Bohai of nearly a thousand titles invites the reader to further studies.
Dear Mr. Wang Kon 936,
thank you for summing up in English my findings from my Ph.D. thesis. I am quite impressed by the fact that my German thesis is apparently even read in Korea. May I offer you my e-mail adress for future contacts: reckel@sub.uni-goettingen.de
I am currently working on the Yojin (Ya’in, Jurchen) on Koreas northern border after the downfall of Parhae, collecting all the Jurchen names as recorded in the Korean sources, i.e. the Koryo-sa and the Choson Wangju Sillok, to compare the different systems, by which Koreans and Chinese tackled the problem of transcribing foreign, in this case Jurchen, names. Here the Korean Idu comes into play.
My next books on the “Korean” Jurchen of the Koryo period is just about to be published.
Yours sincelely Johannes Reckel