Newsletter

In a sense, both Korea and China have each understood Balhae's history as part of their own histories for long. A state of 'one history used for both countries' continued peacefully. Then, China pushed ahead with its 'Northeast Project', which sparked refutations and attacks from both sides on each other's views and interpretations of Balhae's history. Such attacks and defenses still continue.

This is different from the case of Koguryo's history. As for Koguryo's history, Chinese authorities suddenly claimed the history as its own, at which Korea was startled and started to counter-attack. In contrast, with regard to Balhae's history, Korean researchers expected China's position to some extent and began to present their opinions as much as they could that they had not said yet. At the same time, research topics are getting broader from the ownership of the history to basic facts.

Fanshu (tributary status) theory and studies on Balhae's history

This case is linked to the situation in which Chinese authorities claim their historical suzerainty not just to Koguryo but even to Baekje and Silla. Through their Northeast Project, China invented the 'Theory of Tributary Status' and presented a logic by which even Baekje and Silla belong to the Chinese history. While their claims are based on tribute presentation, throne endorsement, acknowledgment of a subject status, etc., the difference compared to the previous period is that they have systematized the world order to a greater degree centering around China and have emphasized the meaning to a greater extent. The proponents of this theory fully understand that their opinions will not be accepted easily, but the background of their claims could be that they wanted to strengthen their claims on the history of Koguryo.

The central feature of the Tributary Status Theory is that China's claim on their ownership of a country's history is based on the country's relationship to the Chinese dynasty at that time, not the present territory of China. This view has something in common with the general view of the Korean academic circles. If this is the case, we will be able to discuss freely on the history of Balhae without being restricted by the fact that a large part of Balhae's territory now belongs to the present territory of China. Because of the Tributary Status Theory, the academic circles of Korea may have to extend their arguments to the histories of Baekje and Silla. But, it is also clear that Balhae's history will become the blade of a spear to counter-attack the Chinese logic of history. If this is the case, Korean studies on the history of Balhae will relate not just to people studying Balhae, but to all who study the ancient history of Korea.

The importance of researches on the international relations history of Balhae

(Picture 1)An wooden tablet was found
at the residential site of King Nagaya who
was a senior government official during
the Nara Period. 'Balhae's Delegate'
and 'Trade' are written on the tablet.
The record, which was made in 727 when
Balhae's delegate staying in Heijo-kyo, is
an evidence of the trade between Balhae
and Japan.

The central part of discussions around the historical ownership of Balhae's history is its international relations history. Needless to say, the question of historical belonging of a country in essence depends on the country's relationships with other countries, i.e., how to define the nature of the country's foreign relationships. One can easily understand this position if they look at 《The History of Balhae》(China Social Science Publishing House, 2006) written by Wei Guo Zhong et al. This is a conclusive study of Balhae's history according to 'the Northeast Project'. While this book was prepared only for dealing with the ownership of Balhae's history, opinions on the ownership appear only in the Balhae's foreign relations history section. In other sections of the book on politics, economy, culture, etc. the same logic presented in the foreign relations history section is cited mechanically here and there. For this reason, the foreign relations history of Balhae will necessarily become the central part of the studies in Korean and China.

Balhae had diplomatic relations with a lot of neighboring countries individually, including the Tang dynasty of China, nomadic countries, Silla and Japan. This is mentioned in the preface for Balhae Dynasty in Volume 11 of 《The History of the (Balhae) Kingdom in the East》written by HAN Chi-Yoon in the Joseon Dynasty of Korea. The author points that "Balhae had exchanges with China on the west, associated with Silla on the south, defended the Khitans, sent delegations to Japan to the east and governed the remote areas in the Northeast." 《This History of Balhae》mentioned earlier also deals with Balhae's relations with these countries in sections discussing on the ownership of Balhae (International Relations History). These relationships were not working without being connected to one another, but working closely connected together.

In this respect, Balhae was different from Silla to some extent. If Silla depended a lot on the diplomatic relations with Tang, Balhae regarded Tang as important. It is very hard to say that Balhae's dependence on Tang was one-sided. It is only one of the many examples that King Mu of Balhae attacked Dengzhou.

Various aspects of Balhae's diplomacy

《Chinese Research on the International Relations History of Balhae》is a result of a joint research conducted by 6 people relating to this topic on the various aspects of Balhae's international relations history with these questions in mind. The primary purpose of this research was to criticize the Chinese logic proposed in materials like 《The History of Balhae》mentioned in the above. If only two of the main points are mentioned here, they are as follows.

(Picture 2) A map showing the move and
boundary of the Pinglu Army which was
in charge of Tang's diplomatic affairs
and liaison with Balhae.

The first to be criticized is that Balhae was a tributary nation under the Tang dynasty and also an indirectly governed regional state that was practically supervised by the Pinglu Army. Views of Chinese scholars on the ownership of countries like Koguryo and Balhae are largely divided into tributary country theory and regional state theory. The view of 《The History of Balhae》is a typical regional state theory. However, there was nothing in《The History of Balhae》that could indicate any real governing. The book even argues that the Pinglu Army's governing of Balhae was real from a historical record that Xue Ping, the governor of the Pinglu Army, gladly convoyed people from Balhae who entered into Tang.' But this was only one of the duties performed by the governor in a territory under his jurisdiction and governing of Balhae should be regarded as a totally different matter.

Its next claim to be criticized is that only those tributes presented to Tang were true and the Japanese record treating Balhae as its tributary country was not true. According to《The History of Balhae》, there was no reason for Balhae to surrender to Japan to become a tributary state and present tributes to Japan, and Balhae maintained diplomatic relations with Japan on equal terms. The basis of the claim includes the facts that Balhae did not receive a government title from Japan, did not have an audience with the Japanese king and Balhae's delegates to Japan were often refused or sent back because they tried to uphold their dignity. That is, while the Chinese history of Balhae recognizes the Balhae's tributary status in relation to Tang appearing in historical books of China, it says that the records in Japanese history books do not agree with historical facts. However, it should be borne in mind that Chinese records too have a lot of problems. Korea, China and Japan all have self-centered perspectives in their historical records even though there are differences in the degree.