History as a Focal Point of Conflict
Although the "Samguk Period" is very much a part of the history of the Korean peninsula and is a major chapter in the story of Korean civilization, various aspects of it are topics of major debate between the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese. In this tug-of-war of history, there exists a peculiar dysfunctional triangular relationship between the region's three major actors - Korea, China, and Japan.
In thinking about the history of the Samguk Period, one must ponder about what the concept of "Korean," "Chinese," and "Japanese" means and whether or not such labels are at all truly applicable to the actors involved in the story of this chapter of time. Did people in the past think of themselves in such a manner? What some seem to forget is that the notion of the nation-state is a construct formulated only in more recent times and that people in the distant past likely did not use terms of "nationality" to define themselves.
Sinocentrism and the "Northeast Project"
Nationalism has been a major modern driving force in the formation of the "Chinese" identity and its relationship to the immediate area and the world. Chinese scholars, particularly in light of the development of Chinese nationalism and the recent "Northeast Asia Project," which focuses on studies of the histories of ethnic minorities within "Chinese" territory in Northeastern China, have continued to claim that some of the "Korean" kingdoms, particularly Balhae and Goguryeo, were actually extensions of a greater "Chinese" nation although there was no substantial concept of "China" as we know it today.
The motivation behind China's "Northeast Asia Project" is suspect. The empires that ruled the vast territory that we now call "China" historically have been constantly shifting, changing, and evolving through history. "Chinese" civilization, that is the civilization that grew out of the Yellow River valley, has been through a long evolutionary process for thousands of years and remains today as "China" and the "Chinese," but the identity of the "Chinese" nation-state is more or less a very modern notion. The establishment of a "greater Chinese nation" is thus part of China's drive to create a sense of "Chinese-ness" and a Pan-Chinese identity in a country that consists of thousands of ethnic groups, some of which were forcefully subjugated by China's aggressive expansionistic policies in the mid-twentieth century. What is forgotten in China's attempt to claim that all the territories were always historically "Chinese" is that by using such justification, one can also contend that large parts of what we call "China" would actually then technically belong to the present states of Vietnam, Korea, and Mongolia, not to mention the historical fact that the ancient Tibetan Empire once had territorial control over the whole of the present-day Qinghai Province and the Manchus had complete control over China from 1644 to 1911 CE. Also, many of the dynasties that ruled China in periods of division were not descendants of the Yellow River civilization, but nomads from the northern steppes. The loopholes of such logic considered, one must again question the notion of what is "Chinese."
Goguryeo
Most non-Chinese historians regard Goguryeo as being a "Korean" kingdom and indeed the Koreans themselves are fiercely nationalistic when it comes to matters of the Goguryeo kingdom, especially as it was an extremely powerful and advanced state that went as far as challenging the Chinese dynasties on an equal level in its heyday. The Chinese, however, have attempted to claim Goguryeo as a vassal state and a part of the greater "Chinese" nation just as they have claimed the Mongols, Tibetans, and Manchus as being a part of this imaginary community. It is not disputed that the ties between the Chinese (who at the time of Goguryeo's rise were under the rule of various dynasties headed by Central Asian and proto-Mongolic steppe nomads) and Goguryeo were very close, but the claim that Goguryeo was a "Chinese" vassal state is quite questionable.
It is noted in Korean and Chinese histories that Goguryeo paid tribute to the Chinese dynasties, but this does not immediately make Goguryeo a "vassal." Because of the middle-kingdom mentality that the Chinese held in which Chinese civilization was the center of the world and the overall attitudes in East Asia that Chinese civilization was indeed an example of the pinnacle of civilization, it was customary for various kingdoms to pay tribute to whoever held the title of emperor. In order to develop diplomatic and trade relations with the Chinese dynasties, it was expected that other states pay "tribute" to the so-called Son of Heaven, the emperor of whatever dynasty that ruled the Chinese empire. Even competitor states who were more or less on equal level with the Chinese and the Europeans themselves were expected to follow this custom of kowtowing to the Chinese emperor. Until the 19th century when the Qing Empire was carved up among Western powers and the Japanese, foreign relations operated this way. Every state beyond the border of the Chinese empire, in the view of the Chinese imperial court, was regarded as a vassal or inferior.
The relationship between Goguryeo and the Chinese dynasties was highly complicated. On one level, they were crucial trade partners. Goguryeo heavily imported administrative practices and philosophies from the Chinese. However, on the other hand, Goguryeo and the Chinese were extremely fierce competitors as the two empires constantly sent vicious military campaigns against each other. The Goguryeo kingdom throughout its history was intent on expanding its borders into the Chinese territories while the Chinese sent invasion after invasion. At one point, the Chinese under the Sui Dynasty were beaten so badly that the Sui emperor told his court to "Never attack Goguryeo again." Were Goguryeo a "vassal" of a China which did not even exist as a unified entity for a large portion of the time of Goguryeo's existence, then it would have been one extremely defiant one.
But was Goguryeo a "Korean" kingdom? In the Korean Samguk period, while the three powers of Goguryeo, Baekje, and Shilla were constantly in conflict with one another, their relationship was close and they played major roles in shaping each other's identity as a society and a state. Goguryeo peoples were descended from various Altaic tribes and the kingdom itself was a successor of the precursors to "Korean civilization" and was very much a factor in shaping it from its beginnings to its eventual fall to Shilla and the Chinese Tang empire. It has its own history and tradition outside of the "Chinese" and "China." In terms of civilization and historical relationships, Goguryeo is much more a part of "Korean" civilization. However, this does not mean that Goguryeo is necessarily a part of either the "Chinese" or "Korean" nation-state or assumed racial identity. Quite simply, Goguryeo is Goguryeo. It is neither the modern notions of "China" nor "Korea."
Japan and the Korean Peninsula
Ultra-nationalistic Koreans and Japanese complicate the matter greatly and unnecessarily. Presently some Korean scholars claim that Japan (which was then known as "Wa") was an extension of the Baekje kingdom, which has been a major controversy among scholars of Japanese history. Because of the scarce amount of records we have of the time period, there really isn't much that can be confirmed about Baekje's actual relationship with the Japanese mainland. It is true that the two had very close ties, but the extent of those ties still is quite cloudy. While the relationship between the two lands were likely very close, Japanese history and the general history of northeast Asia indicate that the emerging Yamato state was fairly independent.
Another ambiguity is the status of the Gaya states; some Japanese suggest that the Gaya civilization may have been an extension of Japanese civilization due to a claim recorded in the classical Japanese Nihonshoki history. Records from the period indicate that the relationships between Gaya and Japan were fairly close and that they likely exchanged cultural items and aspects with one another. Various histories from China as well as the inscriptions of the Gwanggaeto Stele also indicate that the military ties between the emerging Yamato state and the Baekje and Shila were close as well, as both kingdoms sought to counteract Goguryeo's expansionism. This remains a matter of controversy among Koreans in regard to the role of the Japanese in relation to the main actors of Samguk Period. Identity, however, was a fluid thing in these times as the various cultures freely exported and imported cultures; contact between the Japanese archipelago and the Korean peninsula undeniably shaped the cultures of both lands.
When considering the "national" character of ancient states, it should also be noted that contemporary constructions of national identity are more or less the result of 19th to present-day developments of nationalist ideologies and that indentity was a very fluid thing in the distant past due to frequent migrations and shifts in power in response to social, economic, and political upheavals of those times.
Conclusion
In his book Armies of the Night, Norman Mailer compared the historian to a person high up in a tower looking at everything below through a warped telescope. That history can be objective is purely an unachievable ideal simply because any observer is bound to look at things through his or her own perspectives. The moment that someone looks upon an event, however far removed he or she may be from it, individual judgment and baggage always plays a role in how thigns are viewed. Modern scholars, even with all sorts of "enlightened" notions are bound to have a very slanted perspective of things simply by virtue of living in a different time. Just as we can never truly "know" the past, we cannot "understand" it either, as we carry with us our own cultural baggage and our own worldviews.
Rather than letting oneself be inflamed by petty nationalistic passions and embroiled by regional squabbling, what nationalist scholars of history should remember is that everything, like history, is passing and that the labels we give hold meanings that may last for no more than a blip in the great span of time. As the great Daoist philosopher Zhuang Zhou once wrote, "You can't discuss the sea with a well frog; you can't discuss ice with a summer insect; you can't discuss the Way with a cramped scholar."
Bookmark/Search this post with:
