뉴스레터

The papers in this book are the findings of a research project undertaken on the perception of northern (northern regions of ancient Korean kingdoms) history during the Japanese colonial period. The overarching theme was the "Manseon view of history," a historical outlook that regards Manchuria and Joseon as a single historical entity. More specifically, the project's aim was to examine the Japanese and Korean scholars' perceptions of Goguryeo history and organize the survey and research findings on the historical sites and artifacts of Goguryeo and Balhae.

However, as the joint research project progressed, the researchers involved came to the consensus that the above topics lacked depth. We determined that the distinguishing traits of the view of northern history during the Japanese colonial period in regards to Korean history could be found in the Manseon view of history, and in regards to Chinese history, in Manchurian history or Manchuria/Mongolian history. We, therefore, decided to change the direction of our study. What we did keep, however, was the work that had been done of organizing and reviewing the survey and research findings on the historical sites and artifacts of Goguryeo and Balhae.

As is well known, Japanese scholars of East Asian history began full-fledged research into Joseon and Manchuria around the turn of the 20th century, which of course, coincided with Japan's imperialist aggression against Joseon and Manchuria. Accordingly, there was a strong tendency toward denying the autonomy of Joseon history by emphasizing continental or Japanese influence on Joseon. Japanese scholars also treated Manchuria and Mongolia as regions separate from China and created a separate category of Manchurian history or Manchurian/Mongolian history. In so doing, Japanese researchers aimed to separate the history of these regions from that of China. To counter this, China claimed that the history of these regions had been a part of Chinese history since prehistoric times, leading to the concept of "northeastern history." And there followed Japanese imperialist refutations to "northeastern history."

The above is outlines the coverage of Perception of Manchurian History & Joseon History during the Japanese Colonial Period. Let us now look at the specific topics treated in the title.

From Inaba Iwakichi to Choi Nam-seon

Sakurazawa Ai (櫻澤亞伊, Ph.D. candidate, Niigata University) examines Inaba Iwakichi [稻葉岩吉]'s view of Manchuria-Joseon history. Inaba is considered Japan's leading champion of the Manseon view of history. Sakurazawa contends that although Inaba's arguments are founded on the close historical linkages between Manchuria and Joseon, the argument actually do not seem grounded in a systemized framework that convincingly groups Manchuria and Joseon into a single historical entity. The ultimate aim of Inaba's arguments was to provide historical justification for Japan's imperial aggression against Manchuria. Thus, Inaba did nothing more than "blindly adhere to and accommodate a wrongful political motive to create a stopgap history of Korea (Hatada Takashi)."

Lee Jeong-bin (instructor, Korea Military Academy) highlights the peninsular characteristic of Joseon history and looks at Mishina Shoei's perception of Joseon history (Mishina was famous for his focus on the external dependence of peninsular Joseon). Unlike Inaba Iwakichi, Mishina distinguishes between Manchurian history and Joseon history. He refuted Manseon history, contending that the northern regions of the Joseon peninsula fell under Manchurian history and the southern regions, under Joseon history. The claim is based on his study of the cultural spheres of East Asian history, which takes into consideration Japan's claim of the existence of so-called Mimana Nihonfu and places Japan at the center and Joseon in the periphery of East Asia's cultural spheres. Later, however, Mishina accepted Japan's rule over Manchuria and used the term "Manseon history" and hinted at the possibility of Manseon history. Lee concludes that this is indicative that Manseon history was concocted as a part of Japanese imperial history.

In his paper "Perception of the regional history of Northeast China among Chinese intellectuals of the 1930s and 1940s: Fu Sinsian [傅斯年] and Jin Yufu [金毓黻]" Kang Seong-bong (instructor, Sungkyunkwan University) looks at how China came to regard Manchuria not as the "territory of the Manchu"—the traditional outlook—but as borderland [邊疆], positing Manchuria under the jurisdiction of China's territorial sovereignty. This change in outlook came about when Japan's continental aggression became full-fledged and China was confronted with the threat of colonization following the Manchurian Incident of 1931 and the establishment of Manchukuo. Chinese historians and archaeologists criticized the research on Manchurian or Manchurian/Mongolian history, stressing that northeastern China had always and completely been a part of Chinese territory since the beginning of history. Kang points out that the outlook of Chinese scholars of this time period exhibits similarities with the view of Korean history taken by the Northeast Project, which seeks to subsume parts of ancient Korean history under Chinese history.

Contemplating the adverse legacies of the colonial perception of history

Yano Jinichi [矢野仁一] and other Japanese scholars refuted the research on the history of Northeast China by the aforementioned Chinese scholars, and Choi Nam-seon from colonial Joseon, agreed with this Japanese standpoint. Cho In-seong (professor, Kyung Hee University) examines Choi Nam-seon's perception of Manchurian/Mongolian history, focusing on Manchurian/Mongolian Culture, a collection of lectures Choi had given at Chienkuo University in Manchuria. Unlike Fu Sinsian, Choi emphasized the geological and ethnic distinction of the Manchurian/Mongolian region vis-à-vis China since the Neolithic Period. By delineating a distinct Manchurian/Mongolian cultural identity, Choi attempted to justify the founding of Manchukuo. He also stressed the influence of the northern peoples and their cultures on the Chinese. In so doing, he downplayed the uniqueness of Chinese culture while highlighting the ties between China and the northern peoples. Cho points out that these claims can serve as historical evidence to justify Japanese aggression against China.

Choi Nam-seon

Yang Si-eun (curator, Seoul National University Museum) organizes and reviews surveys of Goguryeo and Balhae relics undertaken by Japanese scholars from the late 19th century to 1945. Japan's surveys of historical relics in Joseon and Manchuria served as the basis of the so-called "colonial view of history." Nevertheless, no comprehensive research had been undertaken on the subject. Yang's study sets out to fill this glaring gap. This study concludes that Japan's surveys of historical relics were conducted in accordance with Japanese government policies aimed at realizing specific political goals. Preliminary research had been carried out very early on, and in short, Japan had laid down thorough groundwork for colonization in a systematic manner.

For me, this joint research project was an opportunity to rethink the problems of imperialist or colonial view of history as well as its adverse legacies. For instance, the notion of the "northeastern history," which emerged in the 1930s, gave rise to the view that the peoples and histories of today's northeastern China had always been a part of Chinese history. In effect, this was the source of a perception of ancient Korean history in line with that of the Northeast Project. While the original motivation was national self-defense for China, the concept of "Northeast China" and other ideas and perceptions it engendered have now taken on an imperialist appearance. This is of significance to Korean academia and society.