뉴스레터

As reported by the Chinese press this summer, the Chinese academia and NGOs began to demand the return of the 'Honglu Well Stele' that had been taken away by Japan during the Russo-Japanese War.

First of all, it is necessary to sort out the misunderstanding arising from the stele's name. Although known as the 'Balhae Stele,' this stele was not erected by Balhae, as it is mistakenly believed. The stele was left by Cui Xin, an envoy of the Tang Dynasty who had nothing to do with Balhae, in Lushun at the southern tip of the Liaodong Peninsula during his visit to the Balhae region. It had been called the 'Honglu Well Stele' or 'Tang Stele' when the stele and the pavilion around it were moved into the imperial palace of Japan. It became known as the Balhae Stele because of the twenty-nine Chinese characters inscribed on it, which are translated as follows:

"'Hongluqing (head of delegation) Cui Xin, entrusted with the mission to appease the Malgal, dug these two wells to forever leave proof to later generations: carved on May 18th, the 2nd year of Kaiyuan"

Reportedly, Cui Xin, the imperial envoy of Tang entrusted with the mission to appease the Malgal, left the carving on his way back to Tang in 714 A.D. (the second year of Kaiyuan).

The name of Balhae when the country was founded is 'Jin', not 'Malgal'

The Honglu Well Stele currently
located within the imperial palace
of Japan

The most controversial part of the inscriptions is the one (宣勞靺羯使) that includes the characters 'Malgal (靺羯).' Chinese scholars think that Malgal refers to the name of Balhae, the country found by the king Dae Jo-yeoung, and explain that after Cui Xin's dispatch in 713, Balhae abandoned its name Malgal and began to call itself by the name of Balhae only. In other words, they are using it as proof that the Tang Dynasty incorporated Balhae into its territory through investiture and subjugation. Furthermore, they linked it to another 'Malgal,' which appeared in the Tagajo Stele (多賀城碑) of Japan said to have been erected in 762 A.D., in a far-fetched argument that this Malgal referred to the early name of Balhae founded by the king Dae Jo-yeong.

However, the claim that the name of Balhae when the country was founded was 'Malgal' is not found anywhere in historical records. Furthermore, Malgal in Japan refers to Emish (蝦夷), i.e. Ainu, and there is a speculation that the Tagajo Stele itself was forged. Therefore, the Chinese scholars's interpretation simply shows their 'obsession to find circumstantial evidence.' To approach and verify the results of research on this topic. it will take more than the 'Honglu Well Stele.' Ironically, in the two representative official chronicles of Tang history, The Old Book of Tang (舊唐書) and The New Book of Tang (新唐書), it is specified that the name of Balhae when the country was founded was Jin (振 or 震). In other words, the Chinese records themselves prove that Balhae is the successor state of Koguryo founded primarily by the remaining people of Koguryo and together with the Malgal and other neighboring peoples. Moreover, The Old Book of Tang compiled during the Five Dynasties period and The New Book of Tang compiled during the Song Dynasty include "Accounts of Balhae-Malgal" and "Accounts of Balhae", respectively. They show the Balhae state on its way to completion as a Balhae-centered state while establishing its foundation. Cui Xin's title (勅持節宣勞靺鞨使) indicates a transition phase where Malgal was being incorporated into Balhae in the early years of Balhae, and Tang was also dispelling its fears about Malgal since Koguryo.

While the mediation between China and Japan over this stele as a cultural property is worth noting, it is equally important to note how China and Japan perceive Balhae-Malgal.. It is now the challenge of Korean scholars of Balhae history to provide positive proof that Balhae is the authentic independent successor state of Koguryo.