뉴스레터

Kim Ho-dong, Honorary Professor at Seoul National University·Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Korea

He graduated from Seoul National University with a degree in Asian History, and received his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Since then, he has been a professor of Asian History at Seoul National University and has served as President of The Korean Association for Central Asian Studies, President of The Society for Asian Historical Studies, and Director of The Institute of Historical Research at Seoul National University. Since 2017, he has been the head of the Korean National Committee within the International Committee of Historical Sciences.

Q. I think you have a lot of thoughts since you left Seoul National University in February this year. In the meantime, you have made many research achievements related to Central Asia and have settled the term 'History of Central Eurasia' in academia. I would like to ask you what kind of opportunity you have become interested in the field of Central Asian history and whether there is any regret in the past research.

A. I did not feel nervous or anxious about retirement. But I did not have to leave the place where I had been for nearly 35 years and do not have to go to work or lecture, so I thought, 'I really retired.' On the other hand, because of the nature of the job as a professor, I have not realized my retirement since I spent my research year. Moreover, it seems that COVID-19 makes me feel less disconnected.

And I used the term 'Central Eurasia', but I did not intend to settle it intentionally. But because I thought this was a term that historically and geographically accurately expresses the grasslands and deserts(oasis) located in the center of the Eurasian continent, I also titled "Atlas History of Central Eurasia" in my recently published book.

Q. So, is there any characteristic or cultural specificity of 'Central Eurasia' compared to other regions? If there is an important reason why this area should not be neglected when talking about the process of world history, please explain it.

A. Central Eurasia means all or some parts of countries such as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China and Mongolia. It is both geographical and historical and cultural. They have a uniqueness that is distinct from other cultures in the process of sharing historical experiences over the past thousands of years, and have similar cultural characteristics internally.

This is ‘nomadic-settlement’, ‘grassland-oasis’ cultural area. Grassland was home of a huge and powerful nomadic empire. On the other hand, oasis existed far from each other, with limited number of residents, and the countries they built were small and weak. So they were forced to be ruled by nomads, and they were often incorporated into the nomad empire

But because Silk Road passed the oasis, the residents here were active as merchants leading the long-distance trade. They helped build the nomadic empire, and they also conveyed the culture and technology of the settlement area to the nomadic people. In this regard, Central Eurasia is a place where nomadic and settlers who lived in different ecological environments such as grasslands and oasis have lived closely through political dominance and dependency, economic reciprocity and cultural exchange. This is the most central area of ​​Silk Road passing by, and the home of a huge nomadic empire, an important cultural area that has had a strong impact on the surrounding civilization.

Q. You have made the history of Central Asia a starting point, and you have studied the Mongolian Empire, which is part of it. Recently, many young scholars have been produced in the field of Mongolian Imperial History and related achievements have been accumulated in domestic and overseas history academia. Why do Korea, U.S. and Europe have interest in this topic?

A. There are many reasons, but I think it is because of the 'world historical meaning' of the Mongol Empire. Mongolia was the largest land-based country in history and the world empire that dominated all of Eurasia. The historical meaning of this country should never be taken lightly. Nevertheless, it is true that the research so far has stayed at a level of understanding in the historical context of China and West Asia, not just an empire.

It is natural that the movement to approach and study Mongolian Empire history from the 'a holistic perspective' reflects these processes. This new approach has been very powerful over the past 30 years and has been very successful. In this same context, a number of young scholars in Korea have studied Mongolian Empire history.

Q. This year marks the 30th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Korea and Mongolia. What should we look at the relationship between the Mongol Empire and Goryeo? The Mongol Empire is usually known as a nomadic country, a conquering country. What does the study of Mongolian Empire history mean in academia or general society?

A. Understanding the Mongol Empire is very important not only the history of foreign relations in the late Goryeo period, but also how its history developed internally. Over the past 20 years, Korean academic research on the relationship between the Mongol Empire and Goryeo has been very active and has changed greatly. It is very encouraging that many studies have been conducted to clarify how Mongolia has influenced the internal structure of Goryeo history and caused refraction based on a deep understanding of the Mongol Empire. The biggest factor that made this possible is the shock of new perspective and approach to Mongolian Empire history.

In other words, based on the traditional position of Korea-China relations, the study on the relationship between Mongolian Empire and Goryeo was conducted. I think this change started with a reflection on the way of understanding that distorted much of the reality of structural change in the Mongolian Empire, and an attempt to explore its historical meaning correctly. The attempt to reevaluate the history of the Goryeo-Mongolian relationship, starting with the recognition of the specificity of the Mongolian Empire built by nomads and the specificity of their Chinese domination, has made a major academic change. This new approach should be extended not only in Goryeo-Mongolian but also throughout Korean-China relations. In other words, we think that it is necessary to reconsider the whole relationship between the Khitan/Liao Empire, Jurchen/Jin Empire, Manchu/Qing Empire and the Korean Peninsula regime in the future.

Q. I heard recently that you are working hard on Senior Editor of 『The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire』. And you are continuing to cooperate very closely with overseas academia. What about the future plan?

A. The Cambridge History of the Mongol Empire is a book that was approved for publication in 2004 by submitting a plan I wrote with Professor Michel Biran of Hebrew University of Jerusalem to the University of Cambridge. It's been 16 years. We planned this book because we thought that we needed to look at the entire history of the empire, covering new research results on the history of the Mongol Empire over the past 30 years.

The first volume of this book, which consists of two books, is about the history of the empire by age or theme, and has 27 chapters. And the second volume consists mainly of 18 chapters of introduction and explanation of historical materials by language. More than 40 people from around the world, including the United States, Europe, Korea, China and Japan, participate. Currently, all of the manuscripts reflecting the editor's comments and correction requests are inclusive, and the index and keywords are almost completed. We will be able to send the entire manuscript to the publisher at the latest in July. However, since I have to go through new correction work there, the publication of the book seems to be as early as the end of 2021.

Q. In 『The Birth of the Mongol Empire and World History』, you said, 'The connection between the Mongol Empire and the world history is a topic that I will continue to study and reveal one by one.' What is the key to these relationships you think?

A. It will be accessible in many ways, but if summarizes, I think the most important thing is the impact and legacy left by the world domination of the Mongol Empire. It encompasses both the negative aspects of 'Yoke of Tatar' and the positive aspects of 'Pax Mongolica'. Then, how can we explore and identify the impact and legacy? In this regard, I think it is important to examine how the Mongolian Empire has applied and implemented various systems derived from the nomadic tradition of the grasslands while dominating all parts of Eurasia. I call the Mongol Empire's military, civil administration, transportation, and communication systems "imperial institutions," and I hope that future research will continue to produce more comprehensive results.

Q. You've been working on Islamic civilization with great interest. What is the contact between the Eurasian nomadic empires and Islamic civilization? And what if there's something you consider important?

A. There are not many Muslim researchers in Korea, and interest in the public level is also a rudimentary state. Those who teach in the field of Islam in college are generally more inclined to language than history. But surely, in the future, there will be a lot of interest in Islamic civilization research.

To understand the history of the nomadic empire in the Eurasian region, we must look at the link to the Islamic world. In the past, Korea called the history of nomadic empire 'Northern History' and regarded it as 'the history of foreign peoples located in Korea or the north of China'. But now, it is necessary to clearly recognize and study how closely the nomadic empires and numerous oasis countries, which occupy a huge geographic space called Central Eurasia, were in close contact with Western Asian cultures.

So is the Silk Road study. It is not simply to see this as a traffic route connecting China's Chang'an and Western Baghdad or Rome, or to understand it from a historical point of view centered on settlement civilization. It should be based on an understanding of how the 'side', a historical space called Europe-Western Asia-Central Eurasia-East Asia, was organically linked and influenced. In that sense, understanding of West Asia, especially Islamic civilization, is essential.

Q. NAHF is establishing the Institute on Eurasian History in 2018 and is conducting research on the Northern people. Tell me what you think academics, including NAHF, should pay attention to in future studies of Central Asian history, especially in Mongolian Empire history.

A. I think that the geographical limit of East Asia, that is, Korea and China, should be liberated from the northern history and approached more broadly from the viewpoint of 'Central Eurasia'. To do this, first of all, we must recognize "northern region=Central Eurasia" as a unique historical space. And furthermore, it should reveal the historical organicity that it has achieved in mutual relations with East Asia, West Asia and Europe. If that happens, I think that the study of history and culture of Northeast Asia as well as Korea will be further developed in both width and depth.