뉴스레터

The AKSE (Association for Korean Studies in Europe) Conference in Moscow from June 17 to 20 was an important occasion to learn the present state of Korean studies in Europe. The Conference, held at Moscow University's Asian Studies building that oversees Kremlin Palace, was attended by 168 scholars from 25 countries, and 40 panel meetings continued for 4 days. It was the biggest conference ever held by the AKSE, and yet the fact that more people wished to attend the conference but could not due to lack of capacity shows the great interest and expectation this conference has drawn.

With the aim of globalizing Korean studies, the AKSE was inaugurated in Nantes, France in1976. In the following year, the first AKSE conference was held in London, and it was held every year till 1991 and biannually since then up to the 25^th one this year. The AKSE conference offers a place of information and personnel exchange for Korean studies in Europe, and is having a new phase of progress through the Korean government's active support and academic exchanges with Korean universities and academic institutes.

Korean Studies in Russia and the Theme of the Conference

Korean studies in Russia started with the publication of Russian-Korean Dictionary in 1874 and in the following year, Jean Pushkin published the first Russian book about Joseon, Joseon. With the Korea-Russia Treaty of Defense, Commerce and Amity in 1884, Korean studies first set off in Russia. In 1899 when the Institute of Oriental Studies was founded in Vladivostok, Korean studies began to take its root, and in 1930, the department of Japanese and Korean studies was established at Leningrad Institute of Oriental Studies, furthering the development of Korean studies in Russia. In particular, with tenacity, Professor Mikhail Park, a Korean-Russian and the godfather of Korean studies at Moscow University, made the university establish the institute of Korean studies and opened a new horizon of research of ancient Korean history by translating the Korean history classics, Samguk Saki and Samguk Yusa. His granddaughter, Victoria Park, has been one of the presenters in our panel unit.

Before the conference started, we had a meeting with Dr. Leshakov, Director of the Institute of Korean Studies at Moscow University and discussed future academic exchange and cooperation including personnel and publication exchanges between the institute and the foundation. We also visited the Korean Gallery at the Oriental Culture Center of Leningrad Library to look into its collections and research state. At the meeting with Dr. Kurbanov, Director of Korean Studies at St. Petersburg University, we agreed to collaborate in researching material about Korea at the university.

This year's conference covered a broad range of topics about Korean studies including language and literature, politics and economics, and society and culture. Participation from researchers of Korean descents from countries separated from the old Soviet Union was particularly noticeable at this year's conference. Most of them spoke fluent Korean and were passionate about Korean studies, and their focus was mostly on the history related to their heritage such as migrations of Koreans in the old Soviet Union and independence movement. Regarding history, our main research interest, most topics were about the late Joseon era and modern era, and there was only one panel about ancient Korean history, which was organized by the NAHF. We chose our panel topic to be "Interactions and Mutual Understanding in Ancient East Asia" because ancient Korean history is a relatively weak part in European Korean studies and we would like to introduce correct interpretation and understanding on ancient Korean history and international relations history of East Asia. The conference hall was buzzed with excitement and anticipation of scholars from the start, and many also showed interest in current historical conflicts among East Asian nations.

Differences in Historical Understanding between Europe and East Asia

We have tried to introduce correct historical understanding by the panel discussion of 'Facts and Interpretations on Interactions between Ancient East Asian States Described in Historical Records and Textbooks of Korea, China and Japan." This choice of topic is based on our realization that current historical conflicts in fact originate from various sources such as the ideological problems of historical records themselves, different understandings of the records, and changed interpretations, prejudices and misunderstandings and distortions about the records. If no fair and objective criteria are established, nationalistic interpretations and criticisms against interpretations of the others will be abound. With this perception in mind, we have chosen our presentation topic, and received positive responses from European and American scholars for providing new information and an opportunity to broaden their understanding of East Asian history, but some also pointed out nationalism in East Asia. A sharp observation was also voiced about the problem of China's interpretation of ancient history, Japan's revisionist history, and overreactions made by Koreans in the name of recovery of historical sovereignty, which could make the resolution of historical conflicts more difficult. From the European perspective, East Asian historical conflicts have their root in historical consciousness formed after the establishment of modern nation states, and without breaking away from this nationalistic consciousness, it is difficult to end historical conflicts in East Asia.

This is not the first time we have encountered this kind of advice from the Western academic circle. However, this observation partially comes from Europeans not acknowledging differences between East Asia and Europe. Until the 19^th century when modern nation states entered into history, Europe was dominated by regional powers under certain dynasties, and the concepts of nation and nation state and historical consciousness based on those concepts were introduced after the domination of such regional powers. But in East Asia, China had already formed a gigantic empire even before the Common Era, and the Korean peninsula and the Japanese archipelago generally have been under one kingdom, each, with their people using the same language and sharing the same culture more or less within the same territory since the late 7^th century. Therefore, their nationalism has begun far before the Europeans, which fact is often neglected by European scholars. When it was pointed out that understanding the formation of East Asian nations and states is the key to understanding the present history problems, it was generally accepted. However, their suggestion that we look beyond nationalistic perspectives and find more refined responses to historical conflicts made us alert.

Our ultimate goal is overcoming nationalism, but a certain amount of nationalism should be allowed in the case of Korean historiography when its people and country have endured the history of long-standing ordeals of defense from foreign aggressions. The key measure we need to take in order to solve historical problems is history research equipped with universal values and logic that can persuade peoples of the world. It is necessary to formulate the framework where empirical research can be guaranteed and regional characteristics and specifics of East Asian history can be explained in the context of the world history. To achieve this, we need more than literature-based research. It should be approached interdisciplinarily, taking into consideration research findings of a wide range of academic fields including archaeology, ethnology, linguistics and natural sciences. Through the interdisciplinary approach, we will come to accept differences and discuss common grounds, and then we can create a shared bond that can breach the gap between Eastern and Western perspectives and between different perspectives of East Asian nations.