Newsletter

This research was designed as part of the Northeast Asian History Foundation (hereafter "Foundation")'s 2009 project of Research on Ancient History of Northeast Asia. This study started by making an issue of China's sinocentric interpretation of myths, which tries to include all myths of the minority ethnic groups and even its neighboring nations in China's myths.

As widely known, the Chinese academia has been conducting the Northeast Borderland History and the Chain of Events Research Project (Northeast Project) for the purpose of including the neighboring regions' histories in that of China. The country has also targeted myths for its Northeast Project. Myths can serve as an important basis for uniting the ethnic groups with different histories within the territory of the People's Republic of China and promoting solidarity among the groups. Taking one step farther, China has been trying to make its neighbor countries' myths part of its myth. This sinocentric interpretation of myths is highly dangerous given that China is unfairly including various myths created by diverse groups in its single myth. The sinocentric position suppresses identities of numerous minority ethnic groups in China and denies the originality of the myths in its neighboring nations.

Project for Ancient History in Northeast Asia Includes Myths

The Foundation came to realize how serious the situation was and launched the special research on myths as part of the project for ancient history of Northeast Asia, which led to a book, titled "The Bear Myth and Criticism on Sinocentric Interpretation of Myths" (Northeast Asian History Foundation, 2009). The turning point for the Foundation to expand its research to include myths was the publication of the book, "The Bear Totem: Origin of Chinese Ancestry Myth", written by Professor Ye Shuxian (葉舒憲) in 2007. Professor Ye announced a controversial hypothesis that the Yellow Emperors in the Chinese ancestry myth were the group of the bear totems, which affected the bear myths of the neighboring regions including Korea's Dangun foundation myth. Professor Ye held that in a broad context, the emperor and Dangun (founding father of old Joseon) were relatives, and that the Dangun descendents were actually Chinese ethics.

Aside from the issue of whether Ye's theory is justifiable or not, he has no choice but to face the criticism that the theory has been driven by the political cause, not the academic one. Worse yet, China has recently come up with theories in which a heroic archer Yi (羿) shown in several documents is described as the symbol of today's China or the myth of the Chinese people.

As a matter of fact, Yi is an archer, who fought against the Xia (夏) Dynasty, in the myth of Dongyi, an ancient Korean nation. However, according to the theory of the Unificative Multi-ethnic Country by some Chinese scholars, Dongyi is a mere Chinese ethnic group. The issue is that the theory is a fabricated concept by the Chinese government.

In this context, the Foundation found it necessary to set the geographical background for the Chinese myths at Northeast Asia as a whole, not just the People's Republic of China. The Foundation also determined that in order to understand China's political intentions behind the sinocentric interpretation of archery myths including the Yi story, it was essential to take a close look at the myths and the archer heroes.

Identification of Contradictions in China's Research on Ancient History

Zenghouyi (曾侯乙) in the Hubei Province,
a lacquered painting (漆畵) on the clothing box,
which was excavated from a tomb of the
Chinese Warring States Period.

The Foundation dealt with the archery myths in the Northeast Asian region including the Ye story to fulfill the above mentioned research objectives. The research focused on 1) the development process of China's myth theories and their non-academic purposes and 2) the critical review on the Korean academia's suggestion that the acts of controlling of the sun and the moon in the foundation myths of ancient Korean countries belong to the genre of the archery myths in Northeast Asia.

The researchers found that Ye continuously changed between a historical figure and a mythic one, depending on the needs of each era. China has recently described Ye of Dongyi as the hero of the Chinese myth, and even a central figure in the ancient Chinese history in the process of restoration of Ye by Chinese academic and literature scholars, despite the irrelevance of Dongyi with the nation.

This attempt demonstrates that China distorted the concept of Dongyi to limit the archery myths within its national for the non-academic purpose. Furthermore, the researchers expanded the academic horizon by suggesting that the figures in the archery myths of Northeast Asia should be seen as more than the founding gods. They should be regarded as cultural heroes who disseminated culture and enriched the humanity.

In conclusion, myth researchers should expand their research on ancient history to include myth to respond proactively to the attempt by Chinese scholars to involve the myths of the neighbors in those of China. The Chinese academic circle is asserting that Korea's Dangun myth originates in China's Yellow Emperor (有熊氏). Moreover, they are trying to make Ye of Dongyi part of the Chinese myth even though Ye has no relevance with China and its ethnic groups. If these assertions are accepted, the theory that the Korean people are one of the Chinese ethnic groups becomes justified. In order to respond effectively to the absurd position by the Chinese academia, it is necessary to take broad-range perspectives on the whole Northeast Asian region beyond national boundaries when comparing the myths within the region by theme. In doing so, it will be revealed that the theories by the Chinese scholars are severely contradicted since they interpret the thousands-long myths with the 21st century way of thinking.