Balhae controversies

hideThis article has multiple issues. Please help or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article possibly contains original research. Please by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The Balhae controversies are disputes between the three main parties conducting the study of this state Korea, China and Russia whose position is fully supported by Japanese historians, over the history of the Balhae/Bohai kingdom. Due to its origins as the successor state of Goguryeo, Korean scholars consider Balhae as part of the North–South States Period of Korean history, while Chinese scholars argue Bohai is a part of Chinese history. (See Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)^[1] In traditional Russian historiography, this state is recognized as the first highly organized independent state formation of the Tungus-Manchurian peoples.^[2]

Korean position[]

Reinterpretation of Balhae as Korean[]

During the mid-Joseon dynasty, Park Ji-won denied the fact that the Han Dynasty's territories extended south of the Yalu, and criticized Kim Bu-sik for excluding Balhae (Bohai in Chinese) in Manchuria from the history of Korea, arguing that Balhae were "descendants" of Goguryeo.^[3] Yi Gyu-gyeong argued that the exclusion of Balhae from Korean history was "a grave error" since "it occupied a vast area".^[4] In the Joseon's later years, however, increasing numbers of Korean historians included Balhae into Korean history, despite acknowledging that the state's founders were the Mohe people, who could not be considered Korean.^[5] In the 18th century, the divide was such that the scholars Seongho Yi Ik and  [ko] adamantly refused to consider Balhae part of Korean history, while  [ko] and Yu Deuk-gong fully incorporated it. One century later,  [ko] and (한진서) would include Balhae as equal in Korean history to such uncontroversially Korean dynasties like Silla.^[6] Shin Chaeho criticized the Samguk Sagi for excluding Balhae and the Buyeo kingdom (Chinese: Fuyu, another Manchurian state) from Korean history.^[7] He interpreted Balhae's defeat by the Khitan-led Liao dynasty as having caused "half of our ancestor Dangun's ancient lands... loss for over nine hundred years".^[8] North Korean scholars—and more recently some in the South—have recently tried to incorporate Balhae history as an integral part of Korean history by challenging the view of Unified Silla as the unification of Korea. According to this narrative, Goryeo was the first unification of Korea, since Balhae still existed while occupying former Goguryeo territory north of the Korean peninsula.^[9][10]

Goguryeo kingdom[]

Korean scholars have generally regarded Balhae as an extension of or successor to the Goguryeo kingdom (37 B.C. - 668 A.D.) ever since the publication of Jewang ungi in the 1290s.^{[11][unreliable source?]} The 18th century, during the Joseon, was a period in which Korean scholars began a renewed interest in Balhae. The Qing dynasty and Joseon dynasty negotiated and demarcated the Sino-Korean border along the Yalu and Tumen rivers in 1712. (1762–1836), journalist, writer of nationalist tracts, and organizer of nationalist societies, published articles arguing that had Joseon officials considered Balhae as part of their historical territory, they would not have been as eager to "give up" lands north of the rivers.

Yu Deuk-gong in his 18th-century work Balhaego, an investigation of Balhae, argued that Balhae should be included as part of Korean history, and that doing so would justify territorial claims on Manchuria. Korean historian Shin Chae-ho, writing about Jiandao in the early 20th century, bemoaned that for centuries, Korean people in their "hearts and eyes considered only the land south of the Yalu River as their home" and that "half of our ancestor Dangun's ancient lands have been lost for over nine hundred years." Sin criticized Kim Busik, author of the Samguk Sagi, for excluding Balhae from his historical work and claiming that Silla had achieved unification of Korea.^[12] Inspired by ideas of Social Darwinism, Sin wrote:

How intimate is the connection between Korea and Manchuria? When the Korean race obtains Manchuria, the Korean race is strong and prosperous. When another race obtains Manchuria, the Korean race is inferior and recedes. Moreover, when in the possession of another race, if that race is the northern race, then Korea enters that northern race's sphere of power. If an eastern race obtains Manchuria, then Korea enters that race's sphere of power. Alas! This is an iron rule that has not changed for four thousand years.^[13]

Modern scholars[]

Neither Silla nor the later Goryeo wrote an official history for Balhae, and some modern scholars argue that had they done so, Koreans might have had a stronger claim to Balhae's history and territory.^[14]

The Old Book of Tang says that "Da Zuorong of the Bohai-Mohe, was originally from a division of Goguryeo" (渤海靺鞨大祚榮者，本高麗別種也.).^[15]

Chinese position[]

Chinese historians have considered Bohai as its own distinct Bohai ethnic group, which consisted mostly of Mohe people. The New Book of Tang states that the Bohai "was originally the Sumo Mohe, began to ally themselves with Goguryeo, and took the surname Da." (大 in Chinese, Wade Giles: Ta; Pinyin: Da) (渤海，本粟末靺鞨附高丽者，姓大氏.),^[16] The Samguk Sagi and the Tang dynasty Tongdian stated that Bohai was originally Sumo Mohe.^[17] The Ruijū Kokushi says that Mohe tribes founded Bohai and made up the majority of Bohai .^[18] Historically, the Jurchens (later renamed the Manchus), considered themselves as sharing ancestry with the Mohe. According to the History of Jin (金史), the history of the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty of China (1115–1234), the Jin founder Emperor Taizu of Jin once sent an edict to Bohai claiming that "the Jurchens and Bohai were originally of the same family" (女直渤海本同一家).^[19][20] In 1778, the Qing empire regime in Qianlong reviewed Various history books and found that Bohai was an ancestor of the Manchurian, and published Researches on Manchu Origins(Manchu: ᠮᠠᠨᠵᡠᠰᠠᡳ
ᡩᠠ
ᠰᡝᡴᡳᠶᡝᠨ ‍‍ᡳ
ᡴᡳᠮᠴᡳᠨ
ᠪᡳᡨᡥᡝ; Möllendorff: Manjusai da sekiyen-i kimcin bithe; Abkai: Manjusai da sekiyen-i kimqin bithe; Chinese: 滿洲源流考; pinyin: Mǎnzhōu Yuánliú Kǎo) to provide the Bohai as a history of Manchurian. An earlier, opposing view comes from Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, who said in 1963 that Korean people have lived in the northeastern region of China since ancient times and excavated relics prove that Bohai is a branch of ancient Korea. The former Chinese premier's remarks have been made public through a document entitled “Premier Zhou Enlai's Dialogue on Sino-Korean Relations.“^[21] Finnish linguist Juha Janhunen argues that it is possible Goguryeo language could have been an Amuric language related to today's Nivkh language isolate.^[22][23]

A dragon head artifact from Bohai at the National Museum of Korea.

News articles[]

According to news articles citing a recent US report, China considers Bohai to be a province of the Tang Dynasty.^[24][25] This view is linked to the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Science. Bohai often paid tribute to China, and an heir who lacks this sanction was called by China 知國務 ("State Affairs Leader"), not king; also, China considered every king simultaneously the Prefect of Holhan/Huhan Prefecture (忽汗州都督府都督).^[26]

Classical Chinese

建州毛怜则渤海大氏遗孽，乐住种，善缉纺，饮食服用，皆如华人，自长白山迤南，可拊而治也。

English

The (people of) Chien-chou and Mao-lin [YLSL always reads Mao-lien] are the descendants of the family Ta of Po-hai. They love to be sedentary and sow, and they are skilled in spinning and weaving. As for food, clothing and utensils, they are the same as (those used by) the Chinese. (Those living) south of the Ch'ang-pai mountain are apt to be soothed and governed.

— 据魏焕《皇明九边考》卷二《辽东镇边夷考》^[27] Translation from Sino-J̌ürčed relations during the Yung-Lo period, 1403-1424 by Henry Serruys^[28]

Historical sites[]

The People's Republic of China is accused of limiting Korean archaeologists access to historical sites located within Liaoning and Jilin. Starting from 1994, increasing numbers of South Korean tourists began to visit archaeological sites in China and often engaged in nationalistic displays. This was aggravated by a series of tomb robberies and vandalism at several of these archaeological sites between 1995 and 2000.^[29] South Korean archeologist Song Ki-ho, a noted professor at Seoul National University who has published several papers criticizing the Chinese government's interpretation of Bohai 's history, made several visits to China in the 1990s, 2000, 2003, and 2004, examining several historical sites and museums. However, he found himself restricted by limitations on note-taking and photography and was even ejected from several sites by museum employees.^[30][31] North Korea has restricted independent archaeologists from its historical sites, many of which may be Bohai -related, since at least the early 1960s.

Russian position[]

Bohai at the time of maximum expansion in the 9th century (according to Russian archaeological research).

In traditional Russian historiography, this state is recognized as the first highly organized independent state formation of the Tungus-Manchurian peoples.^[2] On the territory of Russia, over 80 years, 18 small objects, 19 villages and 7 cities of this state have been studied.^[32] Based on what these conclusions were made. The official Japanese science support this position.^[33]

Also in Russian academic science there is other data on the borders of this state than in Korea and China.^[34]

In the English-speaking world[]

In the West, Balhae is generally characterized as a successor of Goguryeo that traded with China and Japan, and its name is thus romanized from Korean.^[35][36][37] Alternate romanizations such as "Parhae", from Korean, or "Bohai", in the pinyin format, are also common in English.^{[38][39][40][41]} While it is seen as a conglomeration of peoples from Manchuria and Korea, there has been much debate on the ethnicity of Balhae's elite class. Koreans generally believe Balhae founder Dae Jo-yeong was of Goguryeo ethnicity while others sometimes characterize him as an ethnic Mohe from Goguryeo.^{[42][43][44][45]} China also considers Balhae as part of the history of its ethnic Manchus.^[46]

Australian scientist Leonid A. Petrov has criticized political bias in North Korean historiography, and have accused North Korean scholars of reconstructing or even fabricating historical sites.^[47] He asserts that Balhae was independent in its relations with the Tang Dynasty, and describes Balhae as a kingdom of displaced Goguryeo people.^[47] He does admit that Balhae had a strong Chinese and Central Asian influence.^[48] In relations with Japan, Balhae referred to itself as Goguryeo, and Japan welcomed this as a kind of restoration of its former friendly relationship with Goguryeo.^{[49][unreliable source?][50][unreliable source?]}

References[]