Newsletter

Chungju Goguryeo Monument Makes its Appearance

On April 8, 1979, the stone that stood in the flower garden at the entrance of the present Ipseok Village in Yongjeon-ri, Jungangtap-myeon, Chungju-si, came to us as the Chungju Goguryeo Monument (hereafter abbreviated as, “Chungju Monument”). After more than 1,500 years of being forgotten, the monument was uncovered by Professor Chung Yeong-ho of Dankook University. The Chungju Monument was originally called the Jungwon Goguryeo Monument in 1981 when it was designated as a national treasure, but was renamed in 2012. In February of the same year, members of the Yesung Club, currently the Yesung Culture Research Society, looked into the standing stone of the Ipseok Village. At the time, the club failed to identify if there were letters inscribed on the stone, however one of the club members informed Mr. Chung about a possible inscription on the stone in late March. This is what sparked the change of the standing stone of the village to become the Chungju Monument, a national treasure. Mr. Chung visited the site on April 5 and was able to identify letters and words such as, “Daewang (大王),” “Gukto (國土),” “Dangju (幢主),” “Silla-tonae (新羅土內),” “Saja (使者),” and “Sangha (上下),” by touching the moss-covered stone or performing stone rubbing. Knowing intuitively that it was a memorial stone from the Three Kingdoms Period, Mr. Chung informed the faculty of Dankook University’s Department of History and the school’s administration authorities and decided to conduct further research on April 7-8.

Dankook University’s research team removed the moss from the stone in the afternoon of April 7 and into the morning of April 8. After identifying the inscriptions through stone rubbing, letters and words such as, “Jeonbudae-saja (前部大使者),” “Sipiwol-isipsam (十二月卄三),” “Silla-tonae-dangju (新羅土內幢主),” “Habu-barwi-saja (下部拔位使者),” “Daewang-gukto (大王國土),” “Silla-mae-geumto (新羅寐錦土),” and “Gomo-ruseong-susa (古牟婁城守使),” also came into view. The stone was presumed to be a Goguryeo monument, as the words “Gomo-ruseong,” and other official ranks used in Goguryeo kingdom were confirmed. Finally, with the identification of the characters “Owoljung-goryeo-daewang (五月中高麗大王),” Chungju Goguryeo Monument made its official appearance.

How Has the Chungju Goguryeo Monument Been Studied So Far?

A field survey of Chungju Monument was carried out nine times until August 1979 under the initiative of Dankook University. In addition to the university’s professors and researchers of cultural heritage and art history, renowned scholars who left behind remarkable achievements in the studies of ancient Korean history such as Lee Byeong-do, Lee Ki-baek, Byeon Tae-seop, Kim Cheol-jun, Im Chang-sun, Park Seong-bong, and Shin Hyeong-sik also participated in the surveys. In the third survey conducted on April 22, the Chungju Monument was temporarily concluded to be a stone from the reign of King Jangsu. There are various opinions on the issue of the Chungju Monument’s narrative contents and the date of its establishment, but generally it is presumed to have been built between years 449 and 450. In this process, Dankook University’s museum held a symposium on the Chungju Monument on June 9 of the same year. What had been discussed in the symposium was published in the 13th issue of the Journal of Historical Studies in November. Then, Chung Yeong-ho arranged the discovery and survey processes in order for Lee Byeong-do, Lee Ki-baek, Byeon Tae-seop, Im Chang-sun, Shin Hyeong-sik, Kim Jeong-bae, and Lee Ho-yeong to present their research papers. Their research results came after a short period of time and became the cornerstone of research on Chungju Monument. This is because the topics that were discussed at the time, such as the decoding of the inscription, the stone’s characteristics and formality, relations among the Three Kingdoms, and the stone’s construction date, still remain major discussion points in academia. Since then, researchers in China and Japan, as well as of South and North Korea, had no other choice but to pay attention to the Chungju Monument. The Chungju Monument has become the main subject of narration in almost all research papers about Korea’s ancient history that mention the relations among the Three Kingdoms. Nevertheless, direct and individual research results on the Chungju Monument have rarely existed. This is probably because of how difficult it is to secure conclusive evidence on the deciphering of the epitaph and on understanding the background of the description.

Despite the importance of the Chungju Monument and its usability as research material such as this, 20 years have passed without enough direct research. In February 2000, the Goguryeo Research Society (currently Association of Koguryeo Balhae) deployed 40 people to carry out joint research to decipher the epitaph over a five-day period. Based on the research, the society hosted a symposium in October of that year and published the 10th issue of “Goguryeo Studies” in December.

Although the Association suggested that a consensus had been formed by presenting a deciphered text holding a joint reading, researchers engaged in the study with their own views and opinions. Joint surveys and research work were conducted, but a consensus was not reached, just like in 1979. This may be a natural consequence of historical studies.

The joint studies on the Chungju Monument performed in 1979 and 2000 have been summarized in 20 theses. Even after that, research results were intermittently introduced in academia, but only 40 papers have studied the Chungju Monument directly thus far, 40 years later. Compared to the research manpower and the results of research on Korea’s ancient history in 1979, our present research standards have made great strides, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Even so, it appears necessary for scholars to reflect on their failures in order to continuously study the Chungju Monument and produce noteworthy results.

What Does the Chungju Monument Mean to Studies on Goguryeo?

Since the appearance of the Chungju Monument in our world, academic circles have referenced its meaning in several different ways. First, the Chungju Monument carries a groundbreaking significance as the only Goguryeo monument ever discovered on the Korean Peninsula. Second, the monument tells us that Goguryeo was a suzerain state, calling Silla “Dongi,” and that Goguryeo’s Dangju was stationed in Silla territory. Third, Goguryeo’s naming notation was conducted in the order of job title, department title, official rank, and name. Fourth, the monument offers new materials about how to figure out division and alignment of Goguryeo’s ranks, such as “barwi-saja” seen on the epitaph. Fifth, the used date of “Idu” in Goguryeo could have been retroactive, starting before the fifth century.

These are contents one can decipher without difficulty by identifying what is contained in the epitaph of the Chungju Monument. In other words, it is limited to the significance as the data that makes it possible to understand Korea’s ancient history, and the significance of the Chungju Monument in the research on Goguryeo history, is somewhat lacking. In order to understand what the Chungju Monument meant in Goguryeo’s history, it is necessary to accurately determine Goguryeo’s political and military circumstances at the time.

Goguryeo experienced a drastic change when moving from Gungnae Fortress to Pyongyang during the period between the Gwanggaeto Stele and the Chungju Monument. King Gwanggaeto’s transfer of capital appears to have been aimed towards the political purging of aristocrats and towards the military’s advancement into the region west of Liao River. The Chungju Monument demonstrates the fact that, at this time, Goguryeo kept Chungju as its military base which symbolically shows that Goguryeo made a great portion of Chungju to keep Silla and Baekjae in check. Researchers have diverse opinions about what the Chungju Monument means to the history of Goguryeo. I have summarized the historical significance of the Chungju Monument in Goguryeo as follows.

First, Chungju Monument shows that Goguryeo’s views of the world and ethnocentric consciousness that was established during the reign of King Gwanggaeto was firmly established around 449, in the middle of King Jangsu’s reign. This is because the Chungju Monument informs us that the concept of a supreme king was established in Goguryeo, as well as other information such as how the crown prince was inaugurated and the real concept of “sucheon (守天).” An heir to the throne, which was referred to as, “Seja,” on the Gwanggaeto Stele, was written as, “Taeja,” on Goguryeo Monument. In particular, the word, “Sucheon,” shows that the heaven used to be set as a specific object of recognition to be carried out by observing the promises between nations. This information leads us to confirm that Goguryeo had its own views of the world.

Second, the Chungju Monument shows that the era names of Goguryeo, which had been used at least since the period of King Gwanggaeto, were traditionally and continuously used since 450. King Gwanggaeto’s era name, “Yeongrak (永樂),” was used during his entire reign and he was called, “Yeongrak the Great,” even during his lifetime. According to data passed down from generation to generation until now, no other era name was confirmed in Goguryeo after Yeongrak until the identification of the 451 “Yeonsu (延壽)” era name on the Eunhapu of Seobongchong Tomb. There is no era name on the Chungju Monument but some researchers claim that such era names as, “Yeonga (延嘉, 473),” and, “Yeonggang (永康, 483),” were used during the reign of King Jangsu. Given this information, we can understand that era names were used continuously since the middle of King Jangsu’s reign in Goguryeo if the use of era names was unspecified from King Gwanggaeto until the middle of King Jangsu’s reign. This tells us that Goguryeo’s views of the world and ethnocentric consciousness were even further reinforced. Third, unlike Goguryeo’s self-awareness based on such ethnocentric views of the world, the Chungju Monument realistically shows that Goguryeo’s influence on Silla and Baekje was waning more strongly than before. The Gwanggaeto Stele records that Goguryeo defined Silla as its “colony” and that Silla’s king even paid taxes to Goguryeo. However, the Chungju Monument documents that Goguryeo and Silla were “brothers” and that Silla’s king came to Chungju, not Goguryeo’s capital, to receive clothes bestowed unto him by Goguryeo’s king. Simultaneously, Silla was headed for an alliance with Baekje in order to get out from the grips of Goguryeo’s excessive pressure. Therefore, that was also about the time in which Goguryeo was trying to maintain its friendly relationship with Silla through perseverance and hard work.

Fourth, the Chungju Monument was the product of efforts made by Goguryeo that strived to keep equilibrium in Goguryeo’s southern frontier, namely Silla and Baekje, with Chungju as a base. These efforts were made in time for Goguryeo’s military to advance into the region west of Liao River after relocating its capital to Pyongyang. The expression,” Silla-tonae-dangju (新羅土內幢主),” on the monument, symbolically demonstrates that Goguryeo’s Dangju was stationed in Silla’s territory. This is probably why the “History of the Three Kingdoms” and “Geography” recorded some parts of the present Gyeongsangbuk-do Province, south of the Sobaek Mountains, as Goguryeo’s land. However, unlike Goguryeo’s pride, the Chungju Monument was built during a transition period between the two kingdoms because of Silla’s determination to be liberated from Goguryeo’s excessive pressure. Goguryeo may have hoped for stability in the rear area through Dangju stationed south of the Sobaek Mountains, and for that matter, Goguryeo may have tried to rebuild its existing links with Silla. The Chungju Monument was the very product of such times and circumstances.

Fifth, the Chungju Monument speaks volumes about the importance of the Chungju region in terms of Goguryeo’s military tactics and inland traffic. Since King Gwanggaeto’s southern conquest in 400, Goguryeo’s military appears to have climbed over Pyeonggang, passing through Chuncheon, Hongcheon, Hoengseong, and Wonju, before advancing to Jecheon and Yeongwol, Yeongchun, Danyang and Chungju. However, Goguryeo’s invasion of Silla and Baekje is understood as an alternate attack, rather than a simultaneous attack on the two kingdoms. In this case, Chungju was simultaneously an important region to keep Silla and Baekje in check. In fact, Goguryeo was able to easily attack Pohang and its nearby areas in 481 because of Dangju, south of the Sobaek Mountains. On the other hand, Goguryeo’s loss of Chungju in the mid-sixth century caused Goguryeo to be unable to control Silla’s military strength and advances. In this respect, we can understand why the Chungju Monument was located in Chungju, a place that was extremely important for transportation and military operations.

Direction of Research on the Chungju Goguryeo Monument

I returned to university in the fall of 1981 and came to know about the Chungju Monument and the Jeokseong Monument while attending courses on Korean ancient history. The two monuments, which symbolically demonstrated Goguryeo’s southward advances in the mid-fifth century and Silla’s northward attack in the mid-sixth century – two separate advances that occurred within nearly a 100-year time difference – vividly remained in my memory. Studying the “History of the Three Kingdoms” and “Geography” after entering graduate school, I came to be academically associated with the Chungju Monument after considering both the names of places recorded as Goguryeo’s old land in the present Gyeongsangbuk-do region and the “Silla-tonae-dangju” base on the Chungju Monument.

Of course, what is most important while performing research on the Chungju Monument is deciphering the words and phrases recorded on the epitaph. Dankook University conducted a joint survey soon after the discovery of the Chungju Monument and 20 years later, the Goguryeo Research Society also carried out joint research. However, there has not yet been a deciphered text that is agreed upon by all researchers, and it is quite likely that this lack of consensus will remain. After joining the Goguryeo Research Society’s deciphering project, I remember admiring some people’s ability to read the utterly unreadable and undecipherable letters.

In the late 1980s, a Silla Monument in Bongpyeong-ri, Uljin, and another Silla Monument in Naengsu-ri, Pohang, were discovered successively. At the time, there were joint studies on the relevant monuments under the supervision of the Society for Korean Ancient History. Many researchers expressed their frustration over the unreadable letters and words on the epitaph during their presentations. At this time, Professor Im Se-kwon of Andong National University stated that it would be better to develop logics by focusing more on the readable and visible letters, rather than making inferences on the invisible parts. It was a clear argument that is unforgettable, even to this day.

In the present day, marking 40 years from the discovery of the Chungju Monument, many scholars believe that the monument recorded facts from the reign of King Jangsu. Additionally, the monument is believed to have been built in the mid-fifth century. Nonetheless, the Cultural Heritage Administration’s commentary on the Chungju Monument fails to escape the original viewpoint from the initial stage of research and explains that the monument was built at the time of King Munmu. It seems that this claim from a public institution with strong credibility is far from the research trend in academia.

What is most fundamental when performing research on an epigraph, including the Chungju Monument, is figuring out words and phrases, or in other words, deciphering the letters. It is essential to decipher letters with all means available, including the naked eye, stone rubbing, special photography tactics, or other scientific methods. However, if it is impossible to make new conclusions or discoveries through such means, it will be necessary to paint possible images of that era using one’s utmost effort and the readable letters. These are my feelings and impressions while I close this writing on April 8, 2019, 40 years after Chungju Monument was discovered.