Newsletter

Question:

Some Chinese scholars maintain that kings of Koguryeo and Balhae were appointed by China and rendered tribute to it, so Koguryeo was a regional government of the ancient Chinese dynasty. Is this argument well-grounded?

Answer:

Was it a way for the Chinese dynasty to govern foreign tribes?

The appointment and tributary system defined the relations between the Zhou Dynasty of China and its peripheral small countries. Originally, it was the way to govern the dynasty itself. Then, the appointment and tributary system began to be used to define the relations between the Chinese dynasty and a neighboring country. In other words, the system became an institution for defining inter-state relations of the East Asian world in the ancient times.

The appointment system stipulated that the Chinese emperor should approve the appointed head of a neighboring state by granting him a special office and corresponding goods. On the other hand, under the tributary system, the head of a neighboring country should visit the Chinese emperor and rendered goods produced in his country as a tribute to the ruler.

The Chinese scholars regard Koguryeo as a regional government of the Chinese dynasty on the ground that Koguryeo and Balhae received appointment by the successive Chinese dynasties and paid tribute to them. It is certain that the ruler-subject relation existed in the old times given that a neighboring country paid a tribute to the Chinese dynasty on a regular basis and confirmed the ruler-subject relation. And if the leader of a neighboring country couldn't get his controlling power approved by the Chinese emperor, his office was subject to change at the emperor's wish, so the controlling power was a merely temporary mandate. For this reason, the Chinese scholars regard the appointment and tributary system as a way for the Chinese dynasty to govern other tribes. The system was different from the measure to govern annexed provinces in that it was the practice of indirect rule through the appointed native king.

A self-centered interpretation ignoring the bilateral relationship

What shouldn't be overlooked here is that the appointment by the Chinese dynasty didn't affect the status of the Koguryeo king. The Koguryeo king's control over Koguryeo people and territory didn't depend on the Chinese dynasty's approval for his office. Under a unique order of control, the Koguryeo king came to the throne and his controlling power was recognized. Koguryeo and Balhae sent an emissary to pay a tribute to the Chinese dynasty, but the mission was conducted voluntarily without any coercion.

The nations wanted a good relation or economical and cultural benefits through paying tribute to the Chinese dynasty. Therefore, the tributary system doesn't prove that Koguryeo was a subject state to the Chinese dynasty. Instead, it demonstrates that there existed no ruler-subject relation between the two states. Such analysis indicates that the Chinese scholars interpret the Koguryeo-China relation by assuming the appointment system as a mandate system and the tributary system as a ruler-subject relation.

Consequently, in those relations, they only confirm an argument that Koguryeo was always a subject to China even though times changed. Koguryeo forged the appointment and tributary relation with many Chinese dynasties during its long history. And during the Period of North and South Dynasties, it sent emissaries to both the North and South Dynasties and got appointment from them. Therefore, what's important in understanding the relation between Koguryeo and China is not the appointment and tributary system in itself, but how their bilateral relation was shaped. It's hard to see a perception that neglects this point as a study based on facts.