뉴스레터

The Association for Asian Studies (AAS) held its four-day annual conference, which consisted of 282 sessions. Indicative of the U.S. academia's growing interest in China as well as the growing influence of China itself, 87 sessions were devoted to China-related issues. There were some 20 sessions on Korea-related topics, and many of them had been organized by Korean scholars.

What was noteworthy was that there were many sessions dedicated to seeking new research directions that can transcend modern national identity and national borders. The Goguryeo session that I attended was classified under the theme of "border-crossing." As the rather striking title "Who Owns the Past? Views on the Koguryo History Dispute in East Asia" demonstrates, the session was presented diverse viewpoints on the theme.

The above session was held on the third day of the session (Saturday). The attendees stayed throughout the session and listened intently. Given the relatively low interest in ancient history—whether it is Chinese or Korean—at AAS meetings, the response was quite overwhelming.

Seeking new research directions that transcend national identity and borders

I was the first presenter. I discussed China's pursuit of the Northeast Project and its understanding of Goguryeo history. I focused on how China had not applied the unified multiethnic state discourse, established immediately after the founding of the PRC government in 1949, to the history of Goguryeo. I also examined the background that led to the Northeast Project, which began in the mid 1990s. I highlighted how China, upon the realization that the territory-based unified multiethnic state discourse is insufficient in subsuming the history of Goguryeo in its entirety under Chinese history, has been working to incorporate the history of Gorguyeo as well as the history of Gojoseon into Chinese history and is strengthening China's preemptive rights to North Korea.

Next, Dr. Kim Jeong-hyun presented on the changes in the historiography of ancient Korea in Chinese history textbooks. She pointed out that almost all Chinese textbooks had presented Goguryeo history as Korean history until 2000. Starting in the mid 1990s, some college textbooks began depicting Goguryeo as a Chinese local government. After the establishment of the "History Curriculum Standards"[歷史課程標準] in 2001, most middle school history textbooks dramatically decreased the coverage of ancient Korean history or stated that Chinese territory had extended to the northern regions of the Korean peninsula. That is, Dr. Kim points out that there is a close relationship between ancient Korean historiography in Chinese history textbooks and the Northeast Project.

Professor Wang Minke [王明珂] of Taiwan's Academia Sinica analyzed the founding myths and legends of ancient Korea. Professor Wang argues that the legend of Gija's migration to the east [箕子東來說] and the tale of a hero's migration to the borderland [英雄邊境移住說] of the early Han period reflect the Han people's elitist outlook, regarding Gojoseon to be beneath China. The Jumong legend, according to Professor Wang, is reflective of Goguryeo's elitist viewpoint that attempts to highlight Goguryeo's distinct identity. Similarly, the Dangun myth is nothing but the projection of Goguryeo's ruling class, which had reunified the Three Kingdoms. Professor Wang concluded that the Goguryeo of historical myths and legends cannot be indentified with either present-day Korea or China.

Lastly, Professor Inoue Naoki of Kyoto Prefectural University presented on the research trends in the study of Goguryeo history in Japan. He noted that Japanese scholars used to consider Goguryeo history to be a part of ancient Korean history. However, when Japan's encroachment on Manchuria gained momentum, Japan began researching Goguryeo history as a part of Manchurian history. After World War II, Japan once again treated the history of Goguryeo as a part of Korean history. However, it was studied in connection with Japan's ancient history—i.e., Japanese national history. Professor Inoue stressed that from the perspective of "national history," it is impossible to properly examine the complexities of Goguryeo, a multiethnic state.

Ancient Korean history, an uncharted domain, must be introduced through specific topics

Dr. Kim Jeong-hyun and I focused on Chinese academia's perception of Goguryeo. In the meantime, Professor Inoue Naoki examined the research trends in Japanese academia while Professor Wang Mingke carried out a critical analysis of various founding myths and legends of ancient Korea. The Korean scholars were generally critical of the Chinese perspective. Meanwhile, the Japanese scholar critically analyzed Japan's historical understanding and the Taiwanese scholar critically reviewed the historical myths and legends themselves. From a third-party standpoint, the sessions could have given the impression that Korean scholars were approaching the subject matter from a biased perspective. It did not help that there were no Chinese scholars present; Chinese academia is obviously an integral part of the debate surrounding the history of Goguryeo.

The discussant, Professor Kim Byung-jun of Hallym University, also pointed out that the biggest drawback of the session was that it was one-sided as there were no Chinese scholars participating. Nonetheless, Professor Kim assessed that the session, which addressed the issue of historical identity, should make significant contributions to tackling the question of what history is and shedding light on the relationship between history and realpolitik.

Presenters from Korea, Japan, and Taiwan covered different subject matters from different angles. However, in the course of the discussion, they all expressed the need for a more macroscopic perspective that transcends the limitations of the modern nation-state framework. In this sense, the session was an opportunity for diverse viewpoints to meet and for a new perspective to be sought. During the Q&A session, the audience asked very basic questions. This was indicative of the fact that Goguryeo history and ancient Korean history are uncharted territories for Western scholars. Therefore, it is my opinion that future sessions should be organized around more specific topics.