This is an unusual report regarding Germany, Egypt and Queen Nefertit but does remind me much of the arguments surrounding Gogureyo and exactly whose culture is it. The Germans have in their possession a bust of Queen Nefertit that they obtained in 1912 and have displayed since 1923. The Egyptians would like it returned, if not lent to Egypt for display, citing the obvious cultural connections that Egyptians have for an ancient queen. As per Lena Blosat of CulturCooperation:
“The Germans claim that Nefertiti has become an integral part of our cultural identity here in Germany, which we are not prepared to part with and the Egyptians say she is our Egyptian Queen and thus part of our culture . . . Today, even allowing the bust to be exhibited in Egypt for three months is an issue which museum directors are obviously not willing to discuss,” . . .
It is interesting to note how parts of Egyptian history have seemingly been co-opted by the Germans. I wonder how this sort of situation might work out in relation to ancient Gogureyo cities that have been refurbished in a Chinese style, so as to buttress Chinese interpretations of their history and deliberately flooded Gogureyo tombs and things that have always been Korean.
Here is another link regarding the uncovered city and tombs in China and an interesting link regarding the Chinese/Korean “textbook war” or how one may become Chinese, one day, in the distant future.
Sphere: Related Content
20 Comments
One distinction is that the Nefertiti bust in Germany maybe represents some kind of “cultural imperialism” to some people (I’m not one of them) while China’s misrepresentation/revision of Korea’s history is a move by its government to reinforce its dubious territorial claims to the area that was Goguryeo. The latter is “real” imperialism.
Yeah, what is cultural “identify”?
Somehow, I doubt that the Germans are “identifying” with the ancient Egyptians, Trojans or Babylonians (the gates and walls of whose city are in a museum in East Berlin. But what about the Greeks, astonishingly large pieces - the entire altar, a not insignificantly-sized building really - from whose city of Pergamon also is in the eponymous museum.
And while China surely is misrepresenting history via-a-vis Goguryeo, let’s face it it ain’t “Korean” history that’s being manipulated; it’s Goguryeo history, which is at as much risk of misappropriation by Korea (although Korea is likely to be more preservation-minded, physically-speaking.
Queen Nefertit?
LOL
Identify?
True, Goguryeo isn’t “Korea” per se but it sure ain’t China either, and China is the agressor here with its revisionist “Northeast Asian Project.”
dogbertt, that’s Queen Nefertit’s bust which has been on display all those years. What a gal!
I don’t get it, where are the tits?
Did the Italians take the lower part?
If Goguryo is Korean history, is the entire peninsula Japanese history from 1910-1945? (only rhetorical)
I love Michael’s twisted Korean logic.
100 million citizens living there and recognition by every other sovereign state is a “dubious” territorial claim.
Crackpot Korean Don Quixotes demanding territory based on historical appropriation of a Kingdom that hasn’t existed for 1400 years. Now THATS a legitimate claim.
To be fair to Korea. They have as much right to claim Goguryo as Jules Ferry did approving French history textbooks that started with the words: “Our ancestors, the Gauls…” Or, if some sources are the be believed, as much as modern Greeks in claiming a direct link to ancient Greeks. As for Chinees territorial claims, the modern Chinese state certainly has a valid claim to those parts of Manchuria governed by the Manchus before these latter became the “Qing”. Perhaps this should be termed the “conquest by absorption” principle. You conquer us, we absorb you, what was originally yours is now ours. (Of course, we could recognize Manchukuo as a break in China’s claim, but that would require re-writing all our historical references to the “Japanese puppet state”).
Richardson: a prescient rhetorical question. Especially in light of the fact that Korean archeology owes its origins to Japanese digs carried out in the hopes of establishing firm links between the two peoples that would justify including Koreans in the Empire.
Jing, let me put it in very simple terms that maybe even you can comprehend. South Korea is not “demanding territory” by pointing out that Goguryeo is a precursor to modern-day Korea, it’s just pointing to its own heritage. Whereas China with its “Northeast Asian Project” is trying to incorporate Goguryeo to deny there was ever a such a presence and that everyone is one big happy Chinese family.
By your “twisted [insert racial jab here] logic” Mongolians can’t say that huge swathes of what is now China was ruled by Mongol Genghis?
When China revises history its neighbors have good reason to react.
Also, I’m not Korean.
Obviously you are grossly ignorant of the depth of delusion exhibited by Korean irridentists.
See here
http://www.rjkoehler.com/?p=1065
Korean territorial revanchism is essentially the result of a twisted web of issues that have been conflated by national chauvinists to the point of incomprehensibility. Gando, Dokdo, Koguryo, Baekdu, et al. are all connected to the core of a deep rooted insecurity of the South Korean nation-state of it’s role in the world (whose ideological underpinnings stem from the dysfunctional nationalism of Taisho and early Show Japan). The more perilous the situation, the more outrageous the claims. Which was why in the late 19th century, prominent Koreans were claiming practically all of North China. It is a very Ah-Q type of thinking and is reminiscent of of the seemingly queer responses to Western encroachment of Qing China.
Expecting some sort of logical consistency from you was evidently too much to hope for. One minute you are admitting that Koguryeo isn’t not necessarily what we would today call Korean and the next you are claiming that it is and mis-characterizing the entirety of the Northeast Asian History Project to boot.
The Mongols can claim what they want, and this case it would be true. On the other hand, the Mongols are not presently claiming any present Chinese territories based on that, which the Koreans are. (Well technically there was a movement in the early 90’s following the Soviet collapse to claim ethnic autonomous zones in Northeastern Xinjiang as part of Mongolia but that I believe has pretty much died)
p.s. I know you are not Korean
Which Koreans are presently claiming what Chinese territory? The S.K. gov’t? That’s news to me.
I’m saying quite consistently that Goguryeo was a precursor to modern Korea in that its people are the ancestors of Koreans, just as Romans are the ancestors of Italians. If you have evidence otherwise the world is waiting to hear from you.
China on the other hand is arguing that Goguryeo was a provincial regime of Han Dynasty China rather than an autonomous entity.
We’re obviously never going to agree on this, and I’m not the one with a vested interest in it, so have a nice day, I’m outta here.
I’d put Koguryo firmly in Korea’s historiography for the following reasons:
1) In King Gwanggaeto’s stele, the ONLY existing piece of Koguryo history that’s from the pen of Koguryo people, China and Japan are clearly described as foreign powers and Baekje and Silla are described as wayward tributaries that should be ruled and/or administered by Koguryo.
2) There is evidence that the original Koguryo language was different then what people in Silla spoke. However, the main proponent of this theory, Dr. Christopher Beckwith (Eastern Linguistics, Indiana University), admits that later on, the original Koguryo language began to die off and most Koguryo people spoke the same language of Silla (the “Han” language). This is likely as Koguryo spent more time in northern and central Korea.
3) Even the traditional Chinese method of historiography would say that the official court histories would include a conquered state in their canonal documents. However, China never wrote a court history devoted to Koguryo, but Koryo did through the Samguk Sagi.
4) A majority Koguryo’s population was probably located in the Korean peninsula. Manchuria is less arable then northern and central Korea. Colder too. Northern Koguryo (southern Manchuria) is broad, but it’s land is less productive.
Lastly, claiming historical heritage and claiming land are two very different things. It’s okay for Koreans to say that Koguryo is an important (even integral) part of their historical heritage and identity. It is not okay for them to claim southern Manchuria’s territory.
Putting Goguryeo in Korea’s “historiography” is clever, but doesn’t really get you where you want to go. It’s also legitimately part of China’s historiography, and Manchuria’s and the various tribal groups that dominated Manchuria before the ones that became the Qing took the reins. Why not just let Goguryeo be Goguryeo?
“Why not just let Goguryeo be Goguryeo?”
I suppose we could, but it takes money to maintain and restore all those Koguryo sites. It also takes a sort of cultural will to not develop over important Koguryo artifacts.
You have to think something is yours before you spend resources to try and preserve / understand it.
There are tons of important Indian burial grounds that have just been built over once the Indians were relocated to reservations…
Picking between China and Korea as to whom will be more preservation minded is a choice between Tweedledee and tweedledum.
True, both China and North Korea have not done what should be done to protect Koguryo artifacts. North Korea can cite budgetary considerations, whereas China is just apathetic, or worse.
http://www.chosun.com/w21data/.....30281.html
“Putting Goguryeo in Korea’s “historiography” is clever, but doesn’t really get you where you want to go.”
Hummm… so where is it that I want to go?
2 Trackbacks
[...] could do if they really dedicated more resources to doing the same with the history of Gogureyo (per another thread on “Cultural Identity”)? Considering such, the punch line for the article leaves one with some thoughts about such: Mr. [...]
[...] could do if they really dedicated more resources to doing the same with the history of Gogureyo (per another thread on “Cultural Identity”)? Considering such, the punch line for the article leaves one with some thoughts about such: Mr. [...]