뉴스레터

NAHF held an academic conference on December 10 for a comprehensive review of 『The Cambridge History of China』 series. This can be an important basis for understanding the difference in historical perception between the US and European academics and Chinese academics. 『The Cambridge History of China』 series is the most prestigious publication of the world's history series published in English in the United States and Europe, and has a great influence on Chinese academia. The series is a collection of studies on Chinese history in the United States and European academia. Since 「Volume 10, Late Ch'ing, 1800–1911, Part 1」 was published in 1978, 「Volume 2, The Six Dynasties, 220–589」 was published in November 2019. A total of 17 books were published, and finally left 「Volume 4, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906 AD, Part 2」.

The academic conference hosted by NAHF Institute on Pre-modern Korean History(Director Lee Sung-je) was attended by 17 writers and 10 panelists. This article summarizes and quotes the presentation and discussion, and details can be found on NAHF's website. 

『The Cambridge History of China』>

『The Cambridge History of China』 is the most extensive and comprehensive book on Chinese history, published in English. It was organized by two prominent Chinese scholars of American and European academia in the late 1960s, Professor John K. Fairbank of Harvard University and Professor Denis Twitchett of Cambridge University. The series covers Chinese history from Archaic Chinese to Mao Zedong's death after the establishment of the People's Republic of China to 1982.

The series, which has a total of 17 books, contains original research on topics and timing that have been neglected. The writers, who are experts in Chinese history, deal with the development of Chinese politics, society, economy and culture at each period and present major events in history. The series is designed to be read and used as reference by students, scholars, and ordinary readers.

The recently published 「Volume 2, The Six Dynasties, 220–589」 contains a number of contents related to Korean ancient history such as Buyeo, Goguryeo, Silla, Gaya and Baekje. It also describes quite a lot of contents related to East Asian diplomatic relations including Korea-China relations. In this regard, NAHF planned a joint study to analyze the description of the relationship between Korea and China and the perception of Chinese history in this series, with the completion of 『The Cambridge History of China』 which has been published for the past 40 years. This is because 『The Cambridge History of China』 is considered to reflect the perception of Western academia that describes East Asian history in a balanced perspective and recognizes the identity of ancient Korean history.

At the conference, presenters from various fields of Chinese history, Korean history, and oriental history, who have made great achievements in domestic and foreign academia, analyzed the basis, characteristics, main contents, and trends of descriptions of Korean history. The contents of the presentation and discussion of the academic conference can be summarized as follows.

A picture of the procession of the Georan people in 『The Cambridge History of China, Volume. 6』 and 『Sunhwa Yomyo Murals(宣化辽墓壁画)』 (2001)

『The Cambridge History of China』>

「The Special Book, History of Pre-Ch'in」 deals with the debates in the United States and European academia about the Pre-Ch'in period. This is based on the keywords 'Doubting in Antiquity' and 'Believing in Antiquity', which are divided into the use and attitude of traditional literature on Chinese history. The study analyzed ‘the Doubting in Antiquity’ of Western academics influenced by the ultranationalism due to the new archaeological excavations in China, and ‘the Believing in Antiquity’ which explicitly pointed out them. 「Volume 1, The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 BC–AD 220」 focused on the interpretation of 'Dìguó' and 'Tiānxià', which show differences in historical perspectives between American and European academics and Chinese academics. In Chinese academia, 'Dìguó' is an uncomfortable term. In the early 20th century, Chinese intellectuals who fell into anti-colonialism discussed their position connected to strong anti-imperialist consciousness.

Regarding 「Volume 2, The Six Dynasties, 220–589」 defines The 5Hu 16Guo Dynasties and The Wei, Jin, Northern and Southern Dynasties as 'The Six Dynasties' by Korean and Chinese academics. There was an opinion that this view reflected the perception of American and European academia. In the same context, there is a 「Volume 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368」 named the history of the Northern peoples who conquered Zhōngyuán(Georan, Tanggut, Yeojin, Mongolia) as 'the History of Conquest Dynasties'. This is to criticize the Han Chinese-centered view and emphasize the identity of the northern people.

The criticism of the historical consciousness of Marxist historians(A view that history develops through the struggle between classes) in 「Volume 7, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 1」 was highly persuasive. The Chinese academic debate and negative reaction to the new discussion of the history of the Qing Dynasty(The theory that emphasizes Manchu as the main agent of Qing Dynasty history, not the Han, and that it is understood by distinguishing Qing from modern China) are detailed in 「Volume 9, The Ching Empire to 1800, Part 1」. 「Volume 10, Late Ch'ing 1800–1911, Part 1」 also looks at Qing Dynasty in inland Asia. This is a big feature.

Meanwhile, 「Volume 11, Late Ch'ing 1800–1911」 reflects the shift of perceptions of Western academia surrounding research on China. The book noted the interpretation of China's rebuttal and adjustment to John K. Fairbank's the Impact-Response framework that stagnant Chinese culture has changed in contact with the West. 「Volume 13, Republican China, 1912–1949」 basically maintains the framework of 'external vs. interior' in the Impact-Response framework. And it tried to explain continuity of history, pluralism and Chinese identity by paying attention to 'marine China' as a sub-tradition that is opposed to 'continental China'. Finally, 「Volume 15, The People's Republic」 sought for a revisionist possibility and raised a meeting on socialism as a major topic.

Morokoshi meishō zue(唐土名勝図会) / An illustration of the cover of 『The Cambridge History of China』

ⓒWaseda University Library

『the Cambridge Chinese History』>

The description of Korean history in each volume of 『the Cambridge Chinese History』 is fragmentary and brief. This is because most of the writers who are responsible for writing about each period and those who majored in East Asian history in the West study Korean history only through the research results and perspectives of Chinese and Japanese academics due to language constraints. In other words, it can be seen as a result of the situation that the awareness and knowledge of Korean history are indirectly formed due to language.

With this problem in mind, we reviewed the implications of Korean history described in 『the Cambridge Chinese History』. 「Volume 1, The Ch'in and Han Empires, 221 BC–AD 220」 describes in detail the contents of the Korean peninsula in ancient times. Recently, 'History of Imperial China: Ch'in and Han Empires' published by Harvard University Press has little awareness of Korean history. Compared to this, it helps to understand the perception of Western academia about Korean history. 「Volume. 3, Sui and T'ang China, 589–906 AD」 clarified that Japan, Tuyuhun, Göktürks, Goguryeo, Huíhé, Georan, Balhae, Southern Dynasties, etc. of the Sui and T'ang period all belonged to international relations. It should be noted that the national character and status of Goguryeo are highly evaluated and that Balhae is treated differently from modern China.

「Volume 8, The Ming Dynasty, 1368–1644, Part 2」 evaluated the descriptions related to the tribute system of Ming and Joseon.: “It emphasized the ‘Chinese world order’. However, the description that ‘Joseon pursued independence.’ is a well-condensed explanation of the nature of the relationship between Korea and China during the Ming Dynasty.” The part of foreign relations was written by Korean scholars in 「Volume 9, The Ch'ing Dynasty to 1800, Part 2」. As the appearance of Joseon reflected in the Qing Dynasty is important, the appearance of Qing reflected in Joseon is also important, and the change of perception is stated. This book emphasized that the order between Joseon and Qing was a unique Manchurian order that was very different from the previous order between Joseon and Ming.

「Volume 11, Late Ch'ing, 1800–1911, Part 2」 pointed out that after the collapse of the Qing-oriented East Asian international order, it was described as a victim of unilateral imperial invasion. In the process of Qing and Japan's struggle over Joseon, it should not be ruled out that Qing had stationed troops in Joseon and followed imperialism.

The writers who participated in the commentary on 『the Cambridge Chinese History』 said, "Even after 40 years of publication, it is still academically valuable." Through the commentary on each volume, it was confirmed that the differences, conflicts, and problems of historical awareness between the US, European academia and Chinese academia were clearly revealed. Different opinions that clash within the US and European academia have also been introduced. This is also a cross section of the gap and conflict between Western academia and Chinese academia.

「Volume 9, The Ch'ing Empire to 1800, Part 1」 was published in 2002, and 「Volume 9, The Ch'ing Dynasty to 1800, Part 2」 was published in 2016. In this way, some writers(American scholars) agreed with the Chinese academic perspective, or responded to the theory that strongly refuted by Chinese academics. Chinese academia is quite conscious of Western academia. It is noteworthy that Chinese academics continue to publish criticisms of this. 『The Cambridge Chinese History』 is a guidebook that allows us to understand the United States and China in the conflict between the United States and China.

On the other hand, while reviewing the external relations of 『The Cambridge Chinese History』, it was suggested that what topics are connected to Chinese history affect the impression and identity of the country of 'East Asia'. In addition, the NAHF should cooperate closely with domestic academia and promote academic exchanges so that the US and European academia cite a lot of research results on Korean history. I think that the voice of reflection is gathered is also a big harvest of this conference.

The 'Sections by Age' Society of Korean academia continued the joint translation and research on 『The Cambridge Chinese History』 and presented concrete measures to find directions for "how to describe Korean history in Chinese history" and "how to describe Korean history in East Asian history". This is expected to serve as a catalyst for interdisciplinary cooperation and communication. I hope that many people will understand the perceptions of Chinese and Korean history in the US and European academia by organizing the opinions discussed at this conference and putting them in one book. And I hope that it will be a cornerstone for securing the position of Korean history in international academia by contributing to the publication of 『The Cambridge Korean History』.