Newsletter

"The one who rules the sea rules the world." These are the words of the Athenian politician and general Themistocles that bear significant implications for people living in the twenty-first century age of the sea, more so for Koreans since the Korean peninsula is surrounded by the sea on three sides. Hence, this month's interview features Kwon Deok-young, who has long studied maritime history as professor at the Busan University of Foreign Studies and author of "Yellow Sea: The Sea of Silla," to look at the historical significance of the Yellow Sea and grasp which direction Korean maritime historical research should head toward in the future.

Interviewee Woo Sung-min (Research fellow, NAHF Research Institute of Korea-China Relations)

Kwon Deok-young (Professor, Department of History and Tourism, Busan University of Foreign Studies)

Professor Kwon Deok-young studied history at the Kyungpook National University and received his doctoral degree from the Academy of Korean Studies. He worked as a researcher for the National Institute of Korean History, director and editor of the Historical Society of Korea, and an expert advisor for the National Research Foundation of Korea. He is currently professor at the Busan University of Foreign Studies' department of history and tourism. His major publications include "Making Korean History: Delusion and Reality," "Yellow Sea: The Sea of Silla," "Silla Migrants in Tang China," "Ancient Korea-China Diplomatic History: A Study on Japanese Missions to Tang China," "Comprehensive Index on Ancient Korean Epigraphs."

Q1. You have so far presented various arguments aimed at revealing the historicity the Yellow Sea bears for ancient Korea, which has contributed to opening prospects for new studies on international exchange in East Asia. What topics have you lately been researching?

Kwon Deok-young For the past few decades, I've been contemplating what the Yellow Sea means to the history of East Asia. After "Yellow Sea: The Sea of Silla" became published, I actually set aside my thoughts on the Yellow Sea and have instead been preoccupied with creating a comprehensive index on the epigraphs of Korean migrants in Tang China. I expected it to be a straightforward project, but once I got to work, the project has turned out to be a challenge. I'm not sure how many more years it will take to finish, but once I do, I will return to thinking about "the sea."

Q2. Maritime history has recently emerged as a fairly significant research topic for historical studies. Countries neighboring Korea have been taking the lead to secure their position in studying East Asian maritime history in the twenty-first century. What seems to be the trend in Korean academia compared to the West, China, or Japan?

Kwon Deok-young The West and Japan have a long history of studying maritime history. By the 1960s and 1970s, Japan already managed to compile premodern maritime activities in East Asian waters. And now Japan has moved on to researching the historical role and significance of East Asian waters within the vast history of Eurasia. As for China, it wasn't overly eager to study maritime history compared to its neighbors, but due to social changes such as reform, economic growth, and the Xi Jinping administration's "One Belt, One Road" initiative announced in 2013, maritime history, particularly that involving the maritime silk road, has actively been studied in China.

In Korea, historians like Choi Nam-seon and Dr. Kim Sang-gi took an interest in studying maritime history during the Japanese occupation, but their research efforts failed to be sustained after Korea's liberation. Then once a civilian administration came into power in the 1980s, maritime studies began to receive national interest and support, which initiated studies on various topics related to maritime history like the maritime activities of the Silla naval commander Jang Bogo. Yet, compared to several western countries as well as Japan and China where studies on maritime history are systematically led by academic societies and research institutes, there are no equivalent entities in Korea. Such circumstances make it difficult for research findings to be shared and for research itself to become systematized. This is why we too need maritime history related academic societies and research institutes here in Korea.

Q3. The documentary "Maritime Silk Road" the Chinese network CCTV recently aired describes the Maritime Silk Road as a channel for exchange with western regions. What sort of research are Korean scholars now conducting in terms of the Maritime Silk Road?

Kwon Deok-young The Maritime Silk Road is a term that sounds familiar to Koreans. So, people may assume that lots of research has been done on the topic in Korea, but that's actually not at all the case. China mostly defines the Maritime Silk Road's starting point as Guangzhou in China's Guangdong Province or Hangzhou in Zhejiang Province. However, Korea believes that the road used to extend further east across the Yellow Sea to reach the city of Gyeongju in Korea. Meanwhile, Japan argues that the road led to Nara and Kyoto as well. In any case, not enough research has been done in Korea to establish a basis for claiming that the Maritime Silk Road from China extended to Gyeongju. This is why it is necessary for Korea to more actively try to expand its boundaries of research on maritime history from Korea to East Asia, the Maritime Silk Road, or even the world.

Q4. While exploring the historicity of East Asian seas, especially the Yellow Sea, you once brought up the Mediterranean Sea in Europe as an example. How may we in Korea contribute to interpreting the international relations and dynamics in premodern East Asia? Do you think it will be possible to reconstruct a de-Sinicized East Asian history of international relations?

Kwon Deok-young While exploring the Yellow Sea, I particularly took an interest in its Mediterranean-like characteristics. Unique cultures emerged from different regions surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, which then experienced fusion and assimilation as the cultures engaged in exchange across the maritime space they share. This resulted in the creation of unique cultural zones around the Mediterranean Sea where certain areas have come to share common cultural components. Alike other midland seas, the European Mediterranean we're now familiar with has ended up creating a unique culture of its own. A "Mediterranean culture" that differs from Greek, Roman, Oriental, Christian, or Islamic cultures. Likewise, thousands of years of exchange across the Yellow Sea newly fused an East Asian culture that can only be defined as a "Yellow Sea culture or cultural zone" different from the cultures of China, Korea, or Japan. So, by viewing East Asian history as a history of maritime exchange, I think we may be able to escape the Sinocentric frame imposed on the history of East Asian international relations.

Q5. You also focused on a government branch called "seonbu" (船府) in Silla that was in charge of maritime affairs at the time. What made you deem seonbu as significant? Was it also involved in maritime trade in addition to shipbuilding and sailing?

Kwon Deok-young Through "Yellow Sea: The Sea of Silla," I argued that all because Silla was able to effectively "manage" the Yellow Sea, it came to rule the Korean peninsula and develop into one of the most civilized countries in East Asia equipped with international insight. Seonbu was the office central to the planning and execution of Silla's management of the Yellow Sea. Silla became keenly aware of the sea's importance from going through a series of wars to establish a unified kingdom on the Korean peninsula. Under King Munmu's rule, Seonbu became an independent government office as its head became promoted to a minister-level position equal to that of Yebu in charge of ritual affairs and Byeongbu in charge of military affairs. Once Seonbu was charged with all affairs related to shipbuilding and marine transportation, Silla became more actively involved in maritime management. Unfortunately, that Silla tradition of maritime management waned with the collapse of Silla until it became restored in the late twentieth century when the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries was created after the civilian administration came into power in 1993.

Q6. "Yellow Sea: The Sea of Silla" offers a detailed explanation of the tribute-investiture system. How should we understand tribute-investiture relations not just in terms of an individual country's history, but the history of East Asia or the world?

Kwon Deok-young I believe there's no better concept than the tribute-investiture system that can be used in grasping the nature of East Asian international relations. Yet, it's difficult to suggest how the system should be viewed. If I had to describe it, I would say tribute and investiture in premodern East Asia were customs that formed an international order based on Confucian moral values. Although a hierarchy existed between suzerain and tributary states, it was notional since the relations between such states were basically rational in that the states actually acknowledged one another's individual identity. I fear that being too concise may breed misunderstandings, so it might be a good idea to refer to my book if you find it difficult to agree with my description. In any case, tribute and investiture in East Asia were far from subordinate relationships that are now generally understood to be based on political rule and submission.

Q7. Academic exchange in historical research between North and South Korea would be vital to expanding the boundaries of research on East Asian maritime history. Could you introduce areas where North and South Korean scholars might be able to cooperate with one another?

Kwon Deok-young There are limitations to determining how much progress North Korea has specifically made in historical research. Based on the information I've come across through a few channels, North Korean research on maritime history has been scant to the extent that no decent publications related to the field seem to be available. Academic exchange in historical research has intermittently occurred between North and South Korea come the twenty-first century, but none has taken place on maritime history. Since the 1980s, several ships from the ancient times of Silla and Goryeo that used to sail across the Yellow Sea have been excavated along the Korean peninsula's west coast adjoined to the South Korean provinces of Gyeonggi, Chungcheong, and Jeolla. It is therefore highly likely for Silla and Goryeo ships to have also been discovered from the coasts of North Korean provinces such as Hwanghae and Pyeongan located on sea routes running between Korea and China. Moreover, traces related to maritime exchange remaining in such areas may serve as invaluable sources for historical research. This is why it is necessary for the two Koreas to both recognize the importance of maritime history and jointly conduct research.

Q8. To peacefully pursue Northeast Asia's development through historical reconciliation, it seems important to perform balanced research into the history of East Asian maritime exchange. As a bridge between China and Japan, which areas in Korean maritime history could we focus on activating to prevent Korean historical research from becoming marginalized? We would also appreciate it if you could suggest what role the Northeast Asian History Foundation could play to prevent what some might call "Korean History Passing."

Kwon Deok-young The term "Korea Passing" has been circulating in the Korean media lately, but I haven't heard of the term "Korean History Passing" yet. The term does sound pretty new and seems to carry implications. There's no denying that premodern Chinese culture had been advanced. That's why countries nearby attempted to advance themselves by embracing China's civilization and culture, and Japan did so through the Korean peninsula. That much has been made clear in various records including the Nihon Shoki. However, at some point, Japan began to directly import Chinese cultures without going through the Korean peninsula, which then provided an excuse to exclude or ignore the intermediary role the Korean peninsula had been playing in East Asian cultural exchange. Perhaps such a tendency can be referred to as "passing" Korea in researching the history of East Asian cultural exchange. Japan thereby began to take notice of Kentoshi (遣唐使), or Japanese envoys to Tang China. Japan dispatched a total of 15 missions to Tang China, which helps demonstrate that Japan had directly engaged in cultural exchange with China. Shifting the focus like that appears to be an effort to discount the role ancient kingdoms on the Korean peninsula played in the formation and development of ancient Japanese cultures.

This sort of historical interpretation may seem plausible, but it actually isn't. As can be witnessed through Nitto guho junrei koki (入唐求法巡禮行), a travelogue written by the Japanese monk Ennin (圓仁), most Japanese envoys traveled back and forth to Tang China with the help of Koreans. Despite this, choosing to ignore Korean history seems to hint that Japan has a sense of inferiority in terms of its cultural history. In order to prevent Korean history from becoming marginalized, we need to conduct comprehensive research that includes, ships, sailing, maritime trade, cultural exchange, and religion, rather than focusing on a single topic. And I do hope the Northeast Asian History Foundation will be able to take the lead in such research. Studying premodern East Asian maritime history, in which Korea, China, and Japan all engaged in exchange with one another, should be helpful in discovering clues to resolve ongoing international historical disputes. I look forward to the Foundation being able to devote more interest in researching maritime history from now on.