Destructionof cultural assets of minor ethnic groups in China.
China, Daeryeon county this place was a naval defense fortress of Goguryo, the world’s mightiest nation in the 4 and 5th centuries. Bisa fortress, one of the world’s best defended historical fortresses surrounded by cliffs on all four sides is being destroyed due to China’s failure to correctly conserve the historical site and its development of the site as a tourist hotspot.

This old castle is a counterfeit as seen from its gate. It is a fake fortress built without any historical identification three years ago by the chinese government with some unidentified remnants of castle wall and cement. On the stairway going up to the Jeomjangdae lie several dragon sculptures, which used to be popular in the ancient ming and qing dynasties, causing confusion and congestion for tourists. Chinese-style tower has been built on Jeomjangdae where goguryo colonels used to command the army. below Jeomjangdae, there is a tang-styled gate.

On the left and the right, there stand models resembling horses and colonels dug out from the king jin’s tomb. It is the best place for taking photo, but the worst for historical identification. Tons of graffiti6 remain. Almost no administration or special care is being carried out despite the continuing decay of the building. The valuable cultural asset handed down to the world is vanishing, and only imperfect revivals or fake models remain.

Great Wall of China, another “fake”
This is Hosan castle in Dandong County, China. China introduces Hosan castle as the starting point of the Great Wall of China. The wall resembles the one built in the Jin dynasty. However, it is a fake Great Wall of China. Originally, it is Goguryo’s Bakjak castle.

Most of the historical documents from China comment that the great wall of China begins from Sanhaegwan. After the discovery of Goguryo bakjak castle, China buried the entire historical remains, and built the fake great wall of China. China promotes the false history that it conquered the area, which is currently North Korea with this fabricated evidence. China eradicated the entire Korean history left in such regions as tibet and eastturkistan. China then moved on to introduce this fabricated history to the world.

Now, China sells Goguryo, not silk
While travelling, we could meet middle school students from Korea. They were with their school principal to preserve, discover, and revive the genuine Korean culture and history.
Interview:we came to China to have students see the distortion of Korean history committed by China because all Koreans should participate in preserving our own history. I thought it pitiful for the han ethnic group (han minjok) that form a minority in China and consequently living a hard life due to the distortion of Korean history and discrimination. Despite the young ages, we will have students actively participate in preserving Korean history.

The King Gwanggaeto’s Stele for the Han ethnic group (Han Minjok) was kept inside bullet-resistant glass under heavy guard. Internal temperature rose by degrees, making an unfavorable condition for the preservation. However, China claims that it is protecting the tombstone from Korea’s threat to bombard it. In real, isn’t China giving much more damage to it? Koreans were the only people who created kings’ tomb in a shape of pyramid. However, the pyramidal shaped tombs were no more than piles of rocks and stones.

Museums hold two rooms without anything but a rubbed copy and several photos. If they are genuinely part of the chinese history, how could China be careless to such a degree? China asserts that Goguryo used to be a minor ethnic force under chinese control. Also, it maintains that king gwaggaeto was Chinese. one of China’s seemingly plausible reasons is that most of the documents from Goguryo is written in Chinese. If so, are all the documents written in English from England?

An Asian pyramid, tomb of Goguryo King Jangsoo. This pyramid seems to be in a clean and undestroyed state from outside. However, the internal state is extremely critical. Nothing left in the palace. There only lies money from the tourists who prayed a wish. In the crack of rocks, coins were stuck stubbornly. It is a sad sight for Korean visitors. The walls were damp and water was dripping from the ceiling. This is a place that should have been conserved for the future generation, not a tourist attraction.

The fact that Asia’s most well conserved pyramid was being used solely for the purpose of collecting money showed the reality of how cultural properties were being disregarded in China. If the Chinese honestly believe that the history of Goguryeo is theirs, would they still have distorted and damaged it so severely? This fact proves that China does not consider Goguryeo’s history as theirs. The Chinese, who were selling off two pyramids and cultural assets that were built by Korean hands, were now selling Goguryeo instead of silk.

China considers distorting history as a national project. They claim that all of Northeastern Asia’s history – starting from tibet, east turkistan and all nations that existed within China’s territory – is theirs. The first three advisors of China’s northeastern project were all members of the communist party. Li Taeing, minister of social science Shang whai cheung, minister of finance Wang woerin, vice-minister of social science.

There are 55 different kinds of minority races in China. They consist up to 8.4% of the total population in China. But the land they reside in is more than 60% of China, and they all have excellent resources. 55 minority races 8.4% of the total population of China resides in 60% of land in China countless resources. If China fails to unite these minority races, they will be in danger of losing more than half of their territory. Consequently, China is oppressing many minority races and refuses to acknowledge their right to independence in Tibet, East Turkistan, and inner Mongolia despite criticisms from the international media.

China was desperate to unite its minority races, and the method they choose was distortion of history. After forcefully entering Tibet’s and east Turkistan’s history into Chinese history through their ‘Southwestern project’ and ‘Northwestern project’, they turned their eyes to the Koreans, who resided in the Northeastern areas and started their ‘Northeastern project’

The Chinese Northeastern Project distorts all of Korea’s history into China’s, starting from Early Choseon, Goguryeo and Balhae. They also claim that all Korean cultural assets within their territory as theirs and registered them as Chinese with UNESCO, Thus degrading the Korean people’s roots to that of a minority race within China, and promoting this distortion to the world. This is a serious situation that will affect the Korean’s present and future.

Korea’s long history that dates back to more than five thousand years will be shortened to only two thousand years. In the case of territories, the vast manchurian plains and all of North Korea will be lost, and Korea’s history will be discredited into a small, powerless nation’s history that is limited to only the area south of the Hangang river.

China’s Northeastern project intercepts the Korean influence over the manjurian plain so that the Korean people’s preemptive rights will be terminated. China is currently proclaiming that north Korea is one of the four provinces northeast. If North Korea faces an unexpected collapse, China might use this fact to claim North Korea’s territory as their own. The Chinese BBC already indicates North Korea as part of China.

World-famous search engine Google as well as American and Canadian textbooks all indicate Korean history as that of China’s. 34 major corporations around the world have 53 maps which indicate all or some part of Korea as China’s. However, those areas are clearly the territory of Koreans who fought China for hundreds of years. The world has the responsibility to correct China’s distortion of its own minority race’s history.

First, Goguryeo and Balhae are all part of Chinese history because it was built on Chinese land. Deciding a country’s history based on its territory or regime is unaccepted in the field of historical science.

Second, Goguryeo and Balhae was a smaller government that was controlled by the chinese central power or rule. While Goguryeo enjoyed a peaceful regime of more than 705 years, China had 35 nations emerging and falling during that period of history. Only two nations, the han dynasty and Tang dynasty sustained over 200 years. The term ‘central power’ is fit for Goguryeo than China.

Third, Goguryeo and Balhae were given the investiture of China. Investiture and tributes were diplomatic customs during that time. Japan also paid tributes to China, but they are not considered to be a part of China.

Forth, Korean ancient history was recorded by the chinese. Is the history of uSA. Canada, and Australia, recorded by the English?

Many Koreans think that China has attempted to cut Korea? 5,000-year-history in half by denying that Korean national identity derives from the ancient civilization of Goguryeo (also spelled Koguryo). Goguryeo was a prosperous kingdom that occupied the northern part of the Korean peninsula and large parts of Manchuria. The name Korea itself is derived from the Goryeo Dynasty (A.D. 918-A.D. 1392), which proclaimed to succeed Goguryeo. Koreans take pride in their Goguryeo heritage. Thus, China? denial of Goguryeo as a part of Korean history troubles the minds of Koreans. 

This concern has been heightened as China has applied to UNESCO to register ?apital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom?after North Korea applied to register ?omplex of Koguryo Kingdom.?Both of these Goguryeo remains were inscribed at the same time into UNESCO? World Heritage List in 2007. In addition, China has attempted to deny that the mountain on the border between North Korea and China, which is called Mt. Baekdu by North Korea and Mt. Changbai by China, is a shared heritage of the two countries. Since Mt. Baekdu is considered the origin of the Korean nation, this attempt shocked Koreans. These attempts make some Koreans think that China is preparing to lay claim to the North Korean region in a future unified Korea, which is against Koreans’hope for unification. 

Every country has right to construct its own history. To maintain peace in the region, however, neighboring countries’stances should be just as respected. China has the right to criticize Japan? denial of its war crimes during World War II, despite Japan? right to represent its history in its own way. Likewise, Korea has the right to ask China to respect Korean history for the sake of a peaceful relationship. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun mentioned his concern that this project might affect the relations between South Korea and China in a meeting with Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao in September 2006. The Chinese premier shared the concern, but unfortunately the result of the project still exerts a negative influence on the relations between the two countries. For co-prosperity and peace in Northeast Asia, China and Korea should reach a compromise about this history through engaging in dialogue.

By Hyunjin Kang-Graham

The tributary relationship that Sui and Tang dynasties demanded of Goguryeo, was of a different nature from previous practices. As unified dynasties in Middle China they tried to wield absolute power over the surrounding states. They formally demanded Goguryeo to become a tributary state in fact. When Goguryeo refused this demand, the two dynasties constantly attempted to subdue Goguryeo by use of force to realize a Sino-centric order in the Middle Kingdom. This is the background of the series of conflicts between Goguryeo and the Sui and Tang dynasties.

Chinese scholars argue that Goguryeo was a provincial regime of various dynasties in “Middle China,” and try to incorporate the history of Goguryeo into that of China.

Their rationale is based on the tributary relationship between the Chinese dynasties and Goguryeo at the time in which Goguryeo paid tributes and received investitures from the Chinese dynasties. Their argument derives from various historic materials and Chinese documents, which basically treat Goguryeo as a vassal state under the philosophy of “Middle-Kingdom,” and describe Goguryeo’s diplomatic relations with China in terms of a tribute-investiture system. A superficial reading of Chinese accounts of this system would make Goguryeo a clear case of suzerain-vassal relationship. Let’s examine the Chinese argument in more detail.

The Chinese argue that Goguryeo started out in the Chinese domain because it was founded in Xuantu Commandery, one of the Four Han Commanderies of China. Goguryeo, in other words, since the founding, always belonged to Han Dynasty China. Furthermore, the Chinese scholars dismiss the many conflicts that took place between Goguryeo and Chinese dynasties simply on account of their brief durations. They would either ignore or negatively interpret the documents about Goguryeo’s invasions of Xuantu and Liaodong Commanderies.

The tribute-investiture system became universal during China’s “Southern and Northern Dynasties” period. For this reason, the Chinese historians also treat this period as one in which the practice of investiture was strengthened. They maintain that Goguryeo was subject to Chinese investitures well beyond the fourth century, and that the kings of Goguryeo ruled their people in their capacity as officers of the dynasties in Middle China. The Chinese further insist that there had been no major conflicts between Goguryeo and the Chinese dynasties during this period, thanks to the enlightened policies of friendship and exchange pursued by the Chinese dynasties. With regard to the wars between Goguryeo and Sui (A.D. 581-618) and Tang (A.D. 618-907), the Chinese emphasize that the Chinese expeditions were justified because Goguryeo violated the suzerain-vassal relationship.

The Chinese argument that Goguryeo was a provincial regime of Chinese dynasties is based simply on the tributary relationship. In order to refute this argument, a clear explanation of the historical reality of this system should suffice. It is well known that the tributary system originally was a political order between the Chinese emperor and peripheral provinces. The system subsequently evolved into a diplomatic practice between China and other states.

First, the relationship between Goguryeo and Chinese Xuantu Commandery (during Eastern Han Dynasty A.D. 25-220) was not feudatory as the Chinese insist. On the contrary, Goguryeo was established and saw progress in the process of confrontation against Xuantu.

In short, Goguryeo’s relations with Chinese provinces were not peaceful but tension-ridden and confrontational, resulting in a series of conflicts. A clear example of this confrontational situation is the invasion of Goguryeo in AD 244-245 by Kuan-qiu Jian (?-AD 255), a Wei Dynasty (AD 220-266) general.

Second, let’s review the Period of Southern and Northern Dynasties in Chinese history, which saw an expansion of the tribute system. The Chinese insist that the system was strengthened and expanded during this period. The reality, however, was that the Chinese power was experiencing break-ups during this period and its grip over the peripheral states was weakening. So, the tributary practice became more of a diplomatic formality between China and the neighboring states, not a prerequisite for dependency. The expansion of tribute-investiture arrangements during this period, in other words, was a phenomenon that appeared as a result of difficulties of the waning Chinese dynasties in maintaining control over the neighboring states.

For example, the number of contacts and frequency between Goguryeo and Northern Wei were so high that no other case could come even close. The contacts between Toyokhon in western China and Northern Wei were the second highest and showed a relatively higher density than other states. Superficially, these frequent contacts seem to represent a faithful practice of the tributary relationship. The reality, however, was exactly the opposite. Goguryeo and Toyokhon were among the strongest of the states surrounding Northern Wei, and so these two states were able to assert their political independence more strongly than any other state in Wei’s periphery.

The Northern Chinese dynasties used to recognize Goguryeo’s independence through the investiture of titles. But, there is factual evidence that show Northern Wei’s affirmation of Goguryeo’s independent sphere of power: In many cases the investitures Wei offered to Goguryeo were the highest ever in history; Among Wei’s investitures conferred on Goguryeo, many were the highest titles authorizing the exercise of exclusive responsibilities for external relations over the Eastern states; Furthermore, Wei did not offer any investiture to any other state or political entity in the Northeastern region.

Most importantly, the tributary relationship was simply a diplomatic formality that was practiced among all East Asian states at the time. It is, therefore, logically inconsistent to single out Goguryeo and treat it as China’s provincial regime simply on the basis of tributary relationship. The tributary relationship between the Chinese dynasties and Goguryeo was no different from those practiced between China and Baekje, Silla and old Japan. If Goguryeo were treated as one of Chinese provincial regimes on account of such a nominal formality, then, logically Baekje, Silla and old Japan should also be treated as such.

Another notable fact is that even though Goguryeo was a tributary state of China, it did embrace a number of states and political forces within its own sphere of influence and maintained a self-reliant world-view. In other words, Goguryeo had set up its own sphere of influence and instituted a tributary relationship of its own with Silla and Baekje.

Consequently, it is difficult to believe that Goguryeo voluntarily complied with China’s tributary system and behaved as a vassal state serving the various dynasties in Middle China.

Meanwhile, the tributary relationship that Sui and Tang dynasties demanded of Goguryeo, was of a different nature from previous practices. As unified dynasties in Middle China they tried to wield absolute power over the surrounding states. They formally demanded Goguryeo to become a tributary state in fact. When Goguryeo refused this demand, the two dynasties constantly attempted to subdue Goguryeo by use of force to realize a Sino-centric order in the Middle Kingdom. This is the background of the series of conflicts between Goguryeo and the Sui and Tang dynasties.

This analysis demonstrated that the logic behind Chinese argument to claim the history of Goguryeo as part of its own on account of tributary relationship is based on a highly vulnerable ground because it lacks the evidence-based analysis of historical materials, which should be the basic approach to interpretations of history. Indeed, the real historical facts concerning tributary relationship do provide a basis that will confirm the self-reliant world Goguryeo had built in East Asia.

Chinese views on the origins of Goguryeo

The Chinese have traditionally perceived history in terms of a dichotomy of “Middle Kingdom vs. Barbarians.” They insist that only the dynasties on the Chinese continent (or, Inner China) prospered and were civilized “Middle Kingdom(s)” and the nations on its periphery were uncivilized “Bowmen/Barbarians.” According to this line of outlook, the purview of Chinese history should be confined to the dynasties in “Middle China” and all the nations around its periphery should, by definition, be excluded.

But, China today is a multi-ethnic nation composed of Han Chinese and 55 other ethnic minorities. For this reason, since the inception of its present government in 1949 China embraced a theory that maintained the idea, “Since the beginning of history, China has been a unified multi-ethnic nation.” The Chinese then assumed that histories of all ethnic nations in China as well as all history that unfolded within the Chinese domain were properly part of Chinese history.

As a result, the histories of numerous ethnic minorities that should have been excluded from Chinese history under the traditional discipline of history came to don the cloak of Chinese history simply because they took place within the Chinese sphere. The theory of a unified multi-ethnic nation is nothing more than a “territory-first historical outlook” that attempts to determine the nature and course of history solely on the basis of contemporary domain, ignoring the legitimate movers and flows of history.

Until the 1980s, the Chinese, too, had regarded Goguryeo history as part of Korean history. Evidently, they could not exercise arbitrary judgment on history on the basis of “current territory.” Then, there were genuine ethnic links between the Goguryeo nation and contemporary Koreans and unshakable facts proving that Korea was the sole and legitimate successor to the Kingdom of Goguryeo.

Nonsense of Chinese

Since the 1990s, the Chinese have attempted to incorporate Goguryeo history into Chinese history. As part of this effort, Chinese researchers conducted a variety of studies aimed at separating the tribal origins of Goguryeo, or the starting point of Goguryeo history, from Korean history.

In the early 1990s, Chinese scholars emphasized the fact that Goguryeo was one of the minorities in China’s northeastern region, treating the Goguryeo tribe as a Yemaek or Buyeo tribe. This has always been the traditional consensus among historians. This being the case, however, the Chinese came to realize that they would not be able to completely disconnect Goguryeo’s relationship from Korean history.

Thus a novel hypothesis appeared presuming that ancestors of Goguryeo had come from China’s Eun dynasty. This theory arbitrarily installed Goi appearing in the Wanghoe Chapter of ‘Iljuseo,’ a history book of the Zhou Dynasty, as the progenitor of the Goguryeo tribe, and argued that Goguryeo became a vassal state of China since the Western Zhou era.

Furthermore, a Chinese argument gaining currency in recent years holds that Goi was a descendant of China’s legendary figure Zeonwook, who also goes by the name of Go Yang, and that the Goguryeo royal family were the descendants of Go Yang, hence their family name Go.

The Hongsan Culture once prospered in China’s Liaosi region in the late Neolithic Age.

The Chinese assume this region to have been home to the Zeonwook Go Yang’s tribe. At about the time when the tribe moved to “Middle China” or central China, they argue, part of the Go family migrated east, eventually settling in as progenitors of Goguryeo.

Forefathers of Goguryeo

As mentioned above, since the 1990s the Chinese academic community began distortions of history, defining the Goguryeo tribe as the descendants of Hwaha tribe (or, ancient Han Chinese). This argument is based on the Wanghoe chapter of Iljuseo, which is widely known as a fictitious fabrication written during China’s Warring States period, hence a crucial flaw in its credibility.

Chinese scholars also highlight the point that ‘Go’ (in Chinese character) is also the first syllable of Goguryeo, the name of the Korean kingdom. But, during its early days the dynasty called itself ‘Guryeo’ and the ‘Go’ was added much later.

Clearly, then, there is absolutely no genuine link between the last name Goi and the state title Goguryeo. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that Zeonwook Go Yang is the progenitor of Goi, because he is a legendary figure, whose existence in history remains unknown.

Saying that the Hongsan Culture in Liaosi was a product of the Zeonwook Go Yang tribe, Chinese scholars contend that Goguryeo ancestors had branched out from the tribe. But, the cairns of the Hongsan Culture were built around 3000 B.C., while those of Goguryeo were built in the third and second century B.C. A gap of almost 3,000 years makes it difficult to establish connection between the two sets of relics, unless there was evidence that linked them.

The argument of Chinese academic circles that Goguryeo ancestors were descendants of China’s Hwaha tribe has absolutely no basis. It is only wishful thinking on the part of Chinese scholars in their attempt to detach Goguryeo history from Korea’s and incorporate it into Chinese.

Founders of Goguryeo

The forefathers of Goguryeo were the Yemaek tribe, an agricultural people based in Manchuria and northern part of the Korean Peninsula since the Neolithic Age. Among the Yemaek tribe, those inhabiting the Liaodung and northwestern part of present-day North Korea saw a rapid progress and founded the first Korean state called Gojoseon.

Subsequently, a group of inhabitants residing in the Songhua River basin created a state called Buyeo.

A group of the Yemaek tribe, who later became Goguryeo ancestors, thrived along the mid-section of the Amnok River (the Yalu). They then developed agriculture based on ironware culture in the third and second century B.C., and formed their unique culture as shown in the cairns. Subsequently, their unique culture prompted them to separate from other Yemaek groups.

Goguryeo was called ‘Guryeo’ until the latter part of the second century B.C. Subsequently, when this Guryeo was changed into Goguryeo as state name, these people called themselves the Maek tribe.

So, Goguryeo ancestors branched out from the Yemaek tribe, as did the ancestors of Gojoseon and Buyeo. Not only did they differ from China’s Hwaha tribe, but they also were distinct from the hunting tribe of Eopru (the ancestors of Manchurian tribe) based in eastern Manchuria and the nomadic tribe of Dongho (the ancestors of Seonbi and Georan) in western Manchuria.

Goguryeo absorbed the Yemaek

Furthermore, Goguryeo grew up into a great empire commanding Manchuria and the Korean Peninsula. In the process, it absorbed and consolidated numerous pockets of the Yemaek tribe in its domain. In addition, groups of Han Chinese also joined from the south.

Goguryeo also put Malgal (descendants of Eopru) and Georan (a branch of Seonbi) tribes under its control, but the Yemaek tribe always retained the mainstream of ethnic Goguryeo people.

The unification of three kingdoms (Baekje and Goguryeo) by Silla in 668 A.D. served as a historic occasion to consolidate Koreans into one nation. The formation of the Korean people was roughly completed when masses of Goguryeo descendants upon the downfall of Balhae fled south to join the new kingdom of Goryeo, the successor to Unified Silla. In short, Goguryeo is an indispensable element of Korean history and played an essential role in the process of forming the Korean nation by consolidating the otherwise scattered Yemaek tribe.

No other nation, neither China, Japan nor Manchuria inherited Goguryeo culture in its entirety but Korea, and we continue to preserve its legacy. For these reasons, it is absolutely clear that the Goguryeo people are ancestors of Korean people. The history of Goguryeo is in the mainstream of Korean history, and in no other.

Goguryeo’s relationship with China : Written by Im Ki-hwan
who is a professor of history at Hanshin University.

Chinese views on the origins of Goguryeo : Written by Yeo Ho-kyu
who is a professor of history at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies.

By the Korea Herald : http://www.koreaherald.co.kr

China’s history distortions that claim Goguryeo as part of Chinese history, are far more serious than the issue of Japanese distortion of history textbooks. The Japanese history textbook case concerns a “new edition” of state-approved school history textbooks. The Chinese history issue is truly serious because the project is sponsored and led by the Chinese government itself. Moreover, it attempts to distort the histories of such old Korean kingdoms as Balhae (AD 698-926) and Gojoseon (2333-108 BC), not to mention Goguryeo (37 BC-AD 668). If these distortions are left uncorrected, they could result in undercutting the span of Korean history to less than 2,000 years and delimiting the size of Korea’s territory to an area south of the Han River.
Since February 2002, the Center for the Study of Borderland History and Geography under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has been working on a five-year national project called “Studies of History and Geography of Northeast Borderland and a Series of Phenomena” (hereinafter “Northeast Asia Project”). This project appears to be one of China’s national priority projects dealing with various problems related to history, geography and ethnic issues in Northeast China (Manchuria) in an interdisciplinary manner. In dealing with various issues, however, the Northeast Asia Project is distorting Korea’s ancient history concerning the kingdoms of Goguryeo, Balhae and Gojoseon.

China’s “Northeast Asia Project”

In 2001, a special bill concerning the legal status of Korean compatriots living in China was submitted to the Korean National Assembly. In the same year, North Korea also applied to register a group of Goguryeo tumuli on the UNESCO’s World Cultural Heritage List. It appears that these independent events promted the Chinese to plan and move forward with the “Northeast Asia Project.”

And, the Chinese authorities began at the national level to develop various measures concerning such issues as the ethnic Koreans as well as the unification of the Korean Peninsula.

The Chinese reasoning appears to be that if the Goguryeo tumuli were to make the World Cultural Heritage List as submitted by North Korea, China’s justifications for making the history of Goguryeo part of its own might lose ground. For this reason, not only has China been obstructing North Korea’s application for registration with the World Cultural Heritage List, but it has also taken its own initiatives in the spring of 2003 by applying for registration a group of Goguryeo tumuli near Jian with the World Cultural Heritage List. Taking a long view, these Chinese moves can be construed as preliminary steps to solidifying its positions involving territorial as well as border issues upon Korea’s unification.

Outline of the “Northeast Asia Project”

Under the project, the research on Korea’s ancient history are focused on Gojoseon, Goguryeo and Balhae, but the kingdom that is receiving the most extensive attention is Goguryeo. Goguryeo is the main theme in its preface, which argues that Goguryeo was an ethnic regime in an ancient Chinese province. There have been a lot of discussions about the history of Goguryeo. But, through this state-sponsored project China has definitively stated that in its official view that Goguryeo was one of China’s provincial regimes.

To back up its argument, China has come up with various reasons, but they are poorly grounded and hardly convincing in light of historical facts. Some of them argue that Goguryeo was a provincial state founded by an ethnic group based in the territory of China; that despite several moves of the capital, Goguryeo was unable to move out of the boundary of the Four Han Provinces; that Goguryeo maintained a suzerain-vassal relationship with China’s central dynasties at all times, having never attempted to sever the relationship on its own; and that after the downfall of Goguryeo, its ruling class was merged into the ethnic Han nation. The Chinese insist that these are historically accurate facts, and that Goguryeo should not be confused with Goryeo or Joseon. It argues that the Go clan of Goguryeo and the Wang clan of Goryeo are not related by blood ties, and that one did not succeed the other in light of the fact that 250 years of history separate the two kingdoms.

China’s history distortions that claim Goguryeo as part of Chinese history, are far more serious than the issue of Japanese distortion of history textbooks. The Japanese history textbook case concerns a “new edition” of state-approved school history textbooks. The Chinese history issue is truly serious because the project is sponsored and led by the Chinese government itself. Moreover, it attempts to distort the histories of such old Korean kingdoms as Balhae (AD 698-926) and Gojoseon (2333-108 BC), not to mention Goguryeo (37 BC-AD 668). If these distortions are left uncorrected, they could result in undercutting the span of Korean history to less than 2,000 years and delimiting the size of Korea’s territory to an area south of the Han River.

Under the circumstances, we should first of all clearly grasp the basis of and logic behind Chinese arguments in distorting the fact of history about Goguryeo Kingdom. We then have to develop systematic counterarguments, precisely pointing out the distorted parts. And, to brace ourselves for an extended debate over these history distortions, we should redouble the efforts to collect relevant materials concerning Korean history in China’s northeastern region (Manchuria) in terms of history, geography, ethnic origins, etc. So far, the level of our interest in the Manchurian region has been relatively low, and we must admit that our research on the region has been at a fledgling stage.

The most urgent task at this point is to help North Korea to successfully register the Goguryeo tumuli with the UNESCO World Heritage List, because it was this application that prompted the Chinese to launch the Northeast Asia Project.

If China were to succeed in placing the Goguryeo tumuli located in Manchuria on the Heritage List as Chinese, it could lead to a serious misunderstanding of the Korean kingdom as indeed a part of Chinese history. The history of Goguryeo is not a history belonging to either South or North Korea exclusively. It is the history of the entire Korean people. Consequently, a successful defense of the history of Goguryeo will also serve as an excellent case of inter-Korean teamwork.

Written by Choe Kwang-sik who is a professor of history at Korea University.