Balhae controversies
The Balhae controversies involve disputes between China, Korea, Japan, and Russia, countries that have conducted studies on the historical state of Balhae. The Korean perspective generally considers Balhae to be the successor state of Goguryeo and part of the Northern and Southern States period of Korean history, while Chinese scholars generally consider Balhae to be a state of the Mohe people, a Tungusic ethnic group, and subordinate to the Tang dynasty. In Russian historiography, Balhae is recognized as the first highly organized independent state formation of the Tungus-Manchurian peoples.
Background
Balhae is a kingdom that has been studied and debated in East Asia since the early 20th century. Central to the issue of scholarship since the 1960s is whether or not Balhae belongs to Korean or Chinese national history. Arguments based on the identity and essential features of Balhae have been made by contemporary states to confirm or question territorial claims by present governments. Academic disputes over the identity of Goguryeo and Balhae are commonly linked to claims in international relations discourse on the legitimacy of the present Sino-Korean border.The general positions of state actors involved in the Balhae dispute:
Koreas:
- Balhae was a "Korean" state founded by the descendants of Goguryeo and that Balhae and Unified Silla constituted the "Northern and Southern Dynasties".
- Balhae was a local polity founded by the "Mohe nationality", subordinate to the Tang dynasty.
- Balhae was created by a union of Mohe peoples who are the ancestors of tribal groups in Russian territory.
- Balhae was founded by a Sumo Mohe tribal leader with no connection to Goguryeo or Korea, and was independent from the Tang dynasty.
Balhae as Korean
Origin
did not write an official history for Balhae, and some modern scholars argue that had they done so, Koreans might have had a stronger claim to Balhae's history and territory. This was in part because the writer of Korea's first historical record, the Samguk sagi, was Kim Pusik, who was a direct descendent of the ruling Silla dynasty. Silla was known to have held a hostile attitude towards Balhae, which might explain the exclusion of Balhae from the first complete compilation of Korean History. Although Goryeo did not compile an official history for Balhae, a great portion of the royalty and aristocracy fled to Goryeo, including its Crown Prince Dae Gwang-hyeon. A text known as the Jodaegi allegedly written by a Balhae refugee contained records of Balhae's history but was lost during the literary purges of Sejo of Joseon in the 15th century and only fragments remain. Snippets of its contents are recorded in the Taebaek Ilsa, part of the Hwandan Gogi compiled by Gye Yeon-su in 1911. However, most scholars from South Korea, North Korea and Japan believe that the Hwandan Gogi is a forgery and that its content is unreliable.The first inclusion of Balhae in Korean history was in the Jewang ungi, a historical book written in the form of rhyming poetry by Goryeo scholar and court official Lee Seung-hyu in 1287, during the late Goryeo dynasty. According to Myungkyung University Professor Lee Sooyoung, Lee was motivated to write the Jewangungi due to both the internal political turmoil of the Goryeo court as well as the Yuan dynasty's interference in Goryeo politics during Goryeo under Mongol rule. The Jewangungi is considered important as it is the first history book to record the history of Balhae as Korean history, and has been cited by both North and South Korean scholars.
Some scholars, such as Pak Chiwŏn, denied the fact that the Han dynasty's territories extended south of the Yalu River, and criticized Kim Pusik, the author of the Samguk sagi, for excluding Balhae in Manchuria from the history of Korea, arguing that the people of Balhae were "descendants" of Goguryeo. Yi Gyu-gyeong argued that the exclusion of Balhae from Korean history was "a grave error" since "it occupied a vast area". In Joseon's later years, increasing numbers of Korean historians included Balhae in Korean history, despite acknowledging that the state's founders were the Mohe people and not considered to be "us." In the 18th century, there was a divide in opinions. Seongho Yi Ik and An Jeongbok refused to consider Balhae part of Korean history while Sin Gyeongjun and Yu Deuk-gong fully incorporated it. In Yu's Balhaego, an investigation of Balhae, he argued that Balhae should be included as part of Korean history and that doing so would justify territorial claims on Manchuria. A century later, Han Chiyun and Han Jinseo included Balhae as equal in Korean history to such uncontroversially Korean dynasties like Silla.
Korean historian Sin Chaeho criticized the Samguk sagi for excluding Balhae and Buyeo from Korean history. Writing about Jiandao in the early 20th century, he bemoaned that for centuries, Korean people in their "hearts and eyes considered only the land south of the Yalu River as their home." He interpreted Balhae's defeat by the Khitan-led Liao dynasty as having caused "half of our ancestor Dangun's ancient lands... loss for over nine hundred years". Sin also criticized Kim Pusik for excluding Balhae from his historical work and claiming that Silla had achieved the unification of Korea. Inspired by ideas of Social Darwinism, Sin wrote:
Modern scholars
North Korean scholars—and more recently, some in the South—have recently tried to incorporate Balhae history as an integral part of Korean history by challenging the view of Unified Silla as the unification of Korea. According to this narrative, Goryeo was the first unification of Korea, since Balhae still existed while occupying former Goguryeo territory north of the Korean peninsula. In the 1960s, the North Korean scholar Pak Se-yong advanced arguments that claimed Balhae as "a part of Korean history." Central to the argument was Balhae's place as "a state founded by people of Koguryŏ" and its territory as composed of most of the "former territory of Koguryŏ and an expansive, newly-acquired portion." Pak made broader claims on the continuity of Balhae with modern Korea, contending that "bloodline and culture are an important component of the bloodlines and cultural traditions of the Korean race."In South Korea, Chu Yŏnghŏn advocated a Korean identity for Balhae based on findings of joint Chinese-North Korean archaeological excavations in the 1960s. These efforts led to the incorporation of Balhae into Korean history as part of the "Northern and Southern Dynasties" based on instances in which the Silla court referred to Balhae as the "northern court." Acceptance of this new narrative was not immediate. In 1981, a South Korean scholar called the Northern-Southern Dynasties an "interesting new interpretation" and as late as 1990, there was still no consensus. However, by now the Northern-Southern Dynasties paradigm is widely accepted in South Korean academia. According to Kim Eun Gug, the adoption of this position was necessary to counter Chinese claims on Goguryeo and Balhae as part of Chinese history as well as to provide a model for North and South Korea's unification. Kim openly declared that, "We have a national responsibility to develop a response to China's Northeast Project and its claims that Koguryŏ and Parhae belong to Chinese history."
Some Japanese scholarship from the mid-1930s to the early postwar period also supported placing Balhae within Korean history. This position was advanced mostly prominently by Mikami Tsugio and became very popular after Japan severed diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China in 1949. In the 1980s, Japanese scholars scrutinized new archaeological evidence from China in the hopes of clarifying Balhae's ethnic identity. However, since then, the majority of Japanese scholars have moved away from seeking a singular ethnic paradigm for Balhae and instead focus on local government mechanisms and their relationship with central authority. According to Park Jin Suk, Japan no longer has any territorial interests in Balhae and its scholars offer a more objective position.
According to Dartmouth historian Pamela Kyle Crossley, "Balhae as a language, people and state with diverse origins was without doubt part of a spectrum that included Goguryeo, Buyeo and Baekje and was closely connected with the development of medieval Korea."
Balhae as Chinese
Jurchens and Manchus
Historically, the Jurchens, believed they shared ancestry with the Mohe. According to the History of Jin, the history of the Jurchen-led Jin dynasty, the Jin founder Emperor Taizu of Jin once sent ambassadors to Bohai people living in the Liao dynasty to convince them to rebel against the Liao. He claimed that "the Jurchens and Bohai were originally of the same family" and that they were "actually one family, because in origin they were consisted of seven Wuji tribes."File:National Museum 3.jpg|right|240px|thumb|A dragon head artifact from Bohai at the National Museum of Korea.
Archaeological materials from the Anan'evskoe site show material evidence of ancestral relations between the Jurchens and Bohai people. Several South Korean scholars believe that after Bohai's destruction in 926, Bohai's population was divided into two groups. Influential Bohai families were sent to the inner part of the Liao dynasty and were referred to as Bohai people, while those who remained under indirect management were called Jurchen. Han Ciu-cheol argues that Jurchens could be considered part of Korean history. Soviet and Russian scholars agree there were hereditary relationships between Mohe and Jurchen and that the Bohai population certainly contributed culturally to the ethnogenesis of the Jurchen. However, some differences remain. The Balhae refugee population was received well in Goryeo while they had a combative relationship with the Jurchens. Goryeo once massacred the ambassador and leaders of a Jurchen delegation during peace talks. They sent an official complaint about the Jurchens to the Song dynasty, calling them greedy liars and other insulting names. The Jurchens described Goryeo people as enemies and often came into military conflict with them. The Jurchen and Bohai people also differed in their level of technological and societal sophistication. Chinese sources describe the Jurchens as lacking law, governors, kings, or dignitaries. Prior to the reign of Wanyan Wugunai, in the early 11th century, the Jurchens could not produce iron armor and had to trade for it from other tribes.
In 1778, the Qianlong Emperor of the Qing dynasty reviewed various history books and commissioned a new comprehensive history of the Manchus, the Researches on Manchu Origins. Part of this endeavor was to create a new imperial history of Manchus that was glorious in its own right and not a frontier imitation of Chinese civilization. This new history placed their Jin ancestors, the Jin imperial clan, among the population of the Mohe, who lived in the Changbai Mountains and along the Amur. Qianlong repeatedly made references to the Bohai as the origin of various organizational features such as the use of "the five-capitals, a writing system, and a leadership hierarchy that he believed was evident in early Qing history and still in use among Northeastern peoples."
Finnish linguist Juha Janhunen argues that it is possible that the Goguryeo language could have been an Amuric language related to today's Nivkh language isolate.