뉴스레터

Research on Balhae history has never been more active in Korea. It cannot be denied that there have been a growing number of researchers and research findings despite the difficult research environment. However, this phenomenon has not been the natural outcome of Korean academia's self-reflection on the dearth of research on Balhae history. Rather, it has been put in motion by external factors. That is to say, many studies on Balhae were undertaken in response to the Northeast Project and other instances of China's distortion of Balhae history. Comparative Study of the Key Issues of Balhae History in East Asia [hereafter, Comparative Study] was no exception and was carried out in order to establish a new research direction in the study of Balhae history as a means of countering the Northeast Project.

In regards to Balhae history, there is a sizeable body of studies on research trends organized by country or theme. The main goal of Comparative Study was to draw on the complex and diverse body of existing research and undertake a systematic and in-depth analysis of the key issues by country and theme in order to propose a framework for understanding China's Northeast Project and seek measures for resolving the key areas of disagreement between Korea, China, and Japan.

In its heyday, Balhae boasted an expansive territory that extended from today's Primorsky Krai in Russia and China's Three Northeast Provinces to Daedong River and the northern reaches of Wonsan Bay on the Korean peninsula. Not only the two Koreas but also China and Russia are carrying out studies on Balhae history, each from a different standpoint. Japan, which had maintained close diplomatic ties to Balhae, has also joined the fray. There is also budding interest from Mongolia, where some of Balhae migrants had settled.

Sensitivity toward the ownership of Balhae history

While there is a difference in each country's level of interest in a given research topic pertaining to Balhae history, the topics that exhibit the greatest divergence in understanding are Dae Jo-yeong's origin, Balhe's ethnic composition, and Balhae's cultural characteristics. The reason is that that these issues have a direct bearing on the ownership over Balhae history. There is a question concerning the successor state of Balhae because there are no historical texts written by the people of Balhae or by Balhae migrants immediately after Balhae's fall. However, a more important cause behind the dispute over the ownership of Balhae history is that Balhae's territory lies across three present-day countries of East Asia. In this regard, China is the most vociferous. China claims ownership to the histories of all historical states, including Gojoseon, Buyeo, Gorguyeo, and of course, Balhae, that existed within China's present-day territorial boundaries.

Aware of the need to set itself apart from existing research on Balhae history, Comparative Study sought to identify those issues that had been overlooked because research had been undertaken almost exclusively by specialists in Balhae history. Thus, the project focused on finding new Balhae history researchers and asking for contributions from scholars specializing in other periods of Korean history. As a result, a specialist in Silla history who had studied in Japan came to take part in the project. In the meantime, specialists in Silla history, Gaya history, Goguryeo history, history of thought, and East Asian history were invited to join the advisory committee so that they may provide new perspectives on the current research trends in Balhae history and make suggestions for improvement.

The task at hand is setting a research direction for coexistence

Roof tiles of Balhae

In "Current Status of Balhae Research in Korea and Seeking New Research Directions," Lee Hyo-hyeong (Korean Studies Institute, Pusan National University) emphasizes the need for actively adopting archeological research findings, expanding the spatial scope of research, fostering interdisciplinary research, and taking on an open attitude and stance in the study of Balhae history. Kim Dong-wu (National Museum of Korea) points out North Korea's excessive focus on Balhae as the successor state of Goguryeo in "North Korea's Research on Balhae History and Its Prospects." He argues that there is a need to exchange information on Balhae sites and artifacts in North Korea. Kim Jin-gwang(The Academy of Korean Studies)'s "Review of Research Trends in Balhae History in Chinese Academia" stands out for the extensive use of numerous tables and graphs organized by period and theme. He points out that the study of Balhae history in China is closely tied to China's conception of a unified multiethnic state.

In "Key Issues and Trends in the Study of Balhae History in Japan," Seon Seok-ryeol (Pusan National University) points out that research on Balhae history undertaken by Japanese scholars focuses mainly on exchanges and negotiations, founded either on East Asia's tributary relations or international factors and influences. He showed great interest in the identity of Mohe that can deduced from the Old Monument of Tagajo [多賀城碑]. In "Key Issues and Trends in the Study of Balhae History in Russia," Jeong Seok-bae (The Korean National University of Cultural Heritage)—who has been a part of many archaeological excavations of Balhae sites in Primorsky Krai, Russia—explains that Russian specialists of Balhae history considers Balhae to have been a multiethnic state founded by the Mohe. He states that Russian scholars understand Balhae as an independent, sovereign state of the Mohe people with a distinctive and pluralist culture.

Studies on the major issues in Balhae history are being carried by individual scholars and nations at this very moment. Nevertheless, it is not easy to find a point of consensus on each issue. The divergence is especially pronounced at the national level. And based on the assessment of the current situation in East Asia, it does not seem very likely that the points of disagreement will be resolved any time soon. Comparative Study set out to identify the current trends in Balhae research and seek new research directions. However, as with other similar projects, concrete answers were hard to come by. I believe that the gap in the understanding of Balhae history will gradually narrow with continued academic exchanges and the adoption of a perspective for peace and coexistence in East Asia. The task not just for Korea but also for East Asia at large is to determine the research direction for the study of Balhae history that fosters peaceful coexistence rather conflict and antagonism.