The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 4 | Issue 2 | Article ID 1837 | Feb 16, 2006

1

Competing Nationalisms: The mobilisation of history andarchaeology in the Korea-China wars over Koguryo/Gaogouli

Yonson Ahn

Competing Nationalisms: The mobilisationof history and archaeology in the Korea-China wars over Koguryo/Gaogouli

By Yonson Ahn

Abstract: This article explores how and whyhistory and archaeology have been mobilisedand utilised in nationalist projects in East Asia,especially in the case of the Koguryo disputebetween Korea and China . Koguryo(Korean)/Gaogouli (Chinese), an ancientkingdom in the period between 37 BC and AD668, encompassed a vast area from centralManchuria to south of Seoul. According to the“Northeast Project”, launched in China in 2002,Gaogouli was an ethnic regime in an ancientChinese province. In contrast, Koreanhistorians of nationalist persuasion viewKoguryo as an ancestral state of the Koreanhistorical tradition and a foundation of thenational identity. Unity, continuity andcoherence are claimed in both communitiesthrough invoking the history and culture ofKoguryo/Gaogouli. Koguryo/Gaogouli relicswhich were put on the UNESCO WorldHeritage List in 2004 are pivotal in thecontestation between China and Korea. In both,the ancient relics are held to show thedistinctiveness of a national past linked to thepresent. This article argues that the contestedhistory of Koguryo/Gaogouli should beexamined as a site of historical hybriditybetween China and Korea, rather than beingclaimed as a site of exclusive national history.

Among recent disputes over history textbookrevisions, territorial claims in East Asia, thereexists a very central conflict and ongoing

debate between China and Korea. It concernsthe history and heritage of Koguryo/Gaogouli(37BC-AD668) [1], which is often referred to asone of the ancient Three Kingdoms of Korea,a l o n g w i t h P a e k c h e a n d S i l l a .Koguryo/Gaogouli encompassed a vast areafrom central Manchuria to south of Seoul at theheight of its power, around the fifth century(Im Ki-hwan 2004: 98).

Figure 1 : Map of Koguryo/Gaogouli

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

2

(Source) Kim, Lena ed., Koguryo Tomb Murals,Seoul: ICOMOS-Korea, 2004: 4 (Courtesy ofICOMOS-Korea).

In so-called “history wars”, both China andKorea claim that Koguryo/Gaogouli ishistorically and exclusively theirs. Theymobilise ancient history and archaeology tosubstantiate their claims to sovereignty overthe contested past. Historiographical andarchaeological constructs of nationhood havebeen deployed in these disputes. The conflicthas important implications for the use andperception of history and archaeology.

1. Koguryo history and the “NortheastProject”

Since February 2002, the Centre for the Studyof Borderland History and Geography under theChinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS)has been working on a five-year state-fundedproject called the “Serial Research Project onthe History and Current Status of theNortheast Border Region,” otherwise referredto as the “Northeast Project”. This project dealswith various problems related to history,geography and ethnic issues in China’sNortheastern provinces. There are threeprovinces in this region: Heilongjiang, Jilin, andLiaoning. Under the project, research on theancient history of the region is focused on thekingdoms of Kojoson (BC 2333 - BC 108),Koguryo (BC 37 - AD 668), and Parhae (AD 698- AD 926). The kingdom that is receiving themost extensive attention in the NortheastProject is Koguryo, which is currently home tolarge ethnic Korean communities in theNortheastern Provinces as well as to Mongols,Hui, a few Manchus and large numbers of“Han” migrants from North China. The varioustribes that inhabited Koguryo are regarded bythe project’s historians as among the manyminorities that were eventually absorbed into“Greater China”. Since about two-thirds ofKoguryo territory lies within today's China, itshistory is considered a part of Chinese national

history.

As early as 1986, Chinese historian Sun Jinji(1986) suggested that Koguryo is separate fromthe history of the Three Kingdoms in theKorean Peninsular. He argued that “the peopleof Buyeo and Goguryeo had the same lineage asthe Chinese in the Northeast region, while theKorean people were a part of the Silla lineage.”(Sun 1989 cited in Lee 2005: 189) Thus,Koguryo is considered to be affiliated to Chinain his work. According to Mark Byington (2004-a), from 1993 there was a sharp increase in thenumber of articles that specify Koguryo as oneof the minority nationalities of ancient China,and an inseparable part of Chinese history. Thistrend appeared to peak in 1997, and graduallytapered off in 2000. At the 1993 academicconference in Ji’an the North Korean historianPak Sihyong directly challenged the Chineseview that the kingdom is an integral part ofChinese history. The Chinese historian Sun Jinjiissued a rebuttal and subsequently published anumber of papers to reinforce his position. [2]Aside from Sun Jinji, Ma Dazheng, Chi Tiehua,Zhang Bibo, and Zhang Boquan have beenincorporat ing Koguryo h is tory into“Chineseness”. But Chinese scholars are not ofone voice on this issue. There are Chinesehistorians who acknowledge Koguryo’s“Koreanness”, for example Jiang Feifei andW a n g X i a o f u , a s w e l l a s t h o s e w h oacknowledge Koguryo history as being sharedby both Korea and China within “a frameworkof the dual elements of a single history” (yishiliangyong lun), such as Jiang Mengshan, LiuZimin, and Xu Deyuan (Sun Jinji 2004-a).

The Chinese argument for Koguryo’s historicalheritage in the Northeast Project is based ontwo main points: the first is that the Koguryostate grew out of the Han Chinese commanderyof Xuantu. Not only Koguryo (37 BC – AD 668)but also Parhae (Korean)/Bohai (Chinese) (AD698 - AD 926) are considered to be founded byMohe (Chinese)/Malgal (Korean) and belongedto the Tang Dynasty according to a history

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

3

textbook in China. One of the Chinese historytextbooks says:

“During the Sui and Tang, the Mohe lived alongthe Songhua and Heilong Rivers. In the secondhalf of the seventh Century the Sumo-Mohetribe grew stronger. At the end of the seventhcentury Da Zuorong, the leader of the Sumo,united all tribes and formed a government.Later the Tang Emperor Xuanzong proclaimedDa Zuorong King of the Bohai Commandery.After this proclamation, the Sumo-Mohegovernment called itself Bohai.” [3]

Figure 2: Map of Bohai/Parhae

( S o u r c e )http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/northeast.html

(Courtesy of Ulrich Theobald)

Chinese historians such as Sun Hong andZhong Fu claim that Han Chinese culture hadbeen absorbed and integrated into Koguryo,and eventually became mainstream culture inKoguryo. As a result, the commonalities inculture among the Three Kingdoms, Koguryo(37 BC – AD 668), Paekche (18 BC - AD 660),

and Silla (57 BC - AD 935) are viewed asstemming not from their membership in thesame ethnic group, but from their absorptioninto Han culture (Sun Hong 2004, cited in SunJinji 2004-a). Furthermore, Sun Jinji and SunHong claim that some remains of the tombsfrom the ancient period in Ji’an are notKoguryo’s but are those of the Han or Xianbei(Chinese)/Sonbi (Korean) ( Sun Jinji and SunHong 2004) . Korean h is tor ians andarchaeologists of the nationalist persuasionoffer a different story. For example Kim Won-yong (1983: 2-3, quoted in: Nelson 1995:2 1 9 - 2 2 0 ) , a l e a d i n g S o u t h K o r e a narchaeologist, assumes that the ThreeKingdoms, despite their differences, werefounded by Yemaek descendants who enteredKorea from Manchuria in about 1000BC. SomeKorean historians, such as Yeo Ho-kyu (2004)and Choe Beob-jong (2004), believe that boththe origins of the Korean people and theformation of Koguryo as a state are directlyrelated to the Yemaek tribe, which is clearlydistinguishable from the Tungus, Mongol andTurkic tribes. [4] Korean nationalist historiansand archaeologists consider the Yemaek torepresent the origins of Korean nationality.This formation of the Korean people and thecultural unity and continuity of Korea from asingle ancestral antecedent has been of greatconcern for nationalist historical narratives inKorea.

The second point emphasised by scholarsassociated with the Northeast Project is thatGaogouli/Koguryo constituted, in the words ofMa Dazheng, “an influential ethnic group inChina’s border area in northeastern Chinabetween the Western Han Dynasty (206 BC-AD24) and the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907)”. [5] Acontrasting representation of Koguryo can beseen in the “National History” textbook for highschool students in South Korea:

“Based on internal reforms by King Sosurim,Koguryo launched a large external conquest toManchuria during the reign Great King

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

4

Kwanggaet’o .... As a consequence of thecontinuing territorial expansion policy, Koguryoreigned supreme over Northeast Asia. Koguryooccupied huge territories of Manchuria and theKorean Peninsula and established a greatempire with a complete political system. Itcame to compete with China on an equalbasis.” [6]

This Korean history textbook stressesKoguryo’s conquest and territorial expansionagainst China. Koguryo is represented as thesupreme power of Northeast Asia, rivallingChina’s Sui and Tang dynasties, rather than atributary state under Chinese rule. Thus, thecontrasting views of Koguryo’s position inhistory between Korea and China are striking,while each presumes a clearly delineatedgeographical and national border between “Korea” and “ China” in ancient times, and alinear national history to the present.

The official Chinese position regarding theproper historical place of Koguryo is a readingback of contemporary Chinese views of theunifying multiethnic nation that is composed ofHan Chinese and fifty-five other ethnicminorities rooted in antiquity, as MarkByington (2004-b) maintains. In other words,the way minority nationalities are todayconceived as forming part of a “GreaterChinese nation” has been imposed on theremote past. However, historically, rulers andofficials viewed neighbouring peoples andstates on the northeastern and other borderareas of the Chinese empire as “barbarians”.Contemporary Chinese policymakers are keento raise awareness of the common traits as ameans to integrate diverse peoples and ethnicgroups into the Han Chinese historical legacyby associating the cultural and historicalattributes of border populations with national“core” areas. This is especially apparent inefforts to incorporate the history, memoriesand symbols of the Korean minority in theNortheast Provinces within China’s “nationalhistory”. The Northeast Project can thus be

understood as an attempt to construct a unitarynational history and identity. Assimilatingethnicity into nationality through positing acommon history is clearly evident. Here themultiethnic state can be understood as “anorganism” in which each ethnic communitybecomes an inseparable organ of the body. (Campbell 1992: 87-92) It is a historical readingthat also has implications for the state’sattempts to deal with demands for moreautonomy or independence of ethnic groups,notably the Korean minority in China.

The view of many Korean nationalist scholars isthat the Northeast Project is part of anaggressive Chinese move to claim territory andhistory whose implications loom particularlylarge in the event of a North Korean collapse.[7] They argue that the Project is clearlyconcerned with potential border issues andterritorial claims that could impact in the eventeither of the collapse of North Korea orreunification of the two Koreas. ( Choe Kwang-sik 2004-a) In fact, the Chinese are concernedabout potential political instability in theborder regions in the event of a North Koreancollapse, particularly a flood of refugees andterritorial boundary disputes. [8] Suchterritorial concern has been expressed byChinese historian Sun Jinji ( 2004-a ).Maintaining the integrity and stability of thenation constitutes another concern in thebackground of launching the Northeast Project.Scholars such as Quan Zhezhu (2003), SunJinji, Kim Hui-kyo (2004) and Mark Byington(2004-a) perceive the launching of the Projectas a defensive reaction to preserve China’s ownterritorial integrity and stability.

For their part, Chinese analysts perceive asthreatening the nationalistic sentiments ofsome Koreans in both the North and South. TheKorean attachment to, and historical pride in,the former lands of Koguryo and Parhae/Bohaisuggests to these Chinese a nationalistic oreven irredentist sentiment that demandsterritorial restoration of Manchuria (Byington

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

5

2004-c). In fact, some Korean ultra-nationalistsin both the liberal and conservative campsmake claims for the “restoration of the lostformer territories” (Kim Hui-kyo 2004: 16)meaning Manchuria, that is, the presentp r o v i n c e s o f L i a o n i n g(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liaoning), Jilin,and Heilongjiang, the interstitial regionbetween China, Russia, and Korea. [9] Theseterritories are regarded as “falsely separatedfrom the organic national community” (Mayall1994: 270), the counterpart to the Chinesevision of a multiethnic state.

After the Ulsa Treaty of 1905, which putKorea’s foreign affairs under Japaneseadministration, the Chinese reopened thequestion over Kando (Korean)/Jiandao(Chinese)/Kanto (Japanese) which is located onthe north bank of the Tumen river betweenPaekdusan and the Yukchin area, north of theChinese-North Korean border. Eventually ItoHirobumi, the first Resident General in Koreafrom 1906 to 1909, signed Kando over to Chinain 1909. [10] Korean nationalists regard this asan illegal transfer between Japan and China, inexchange for Japan’s exclusive rights to buildand control a railway in Manchuria. A group offifty-nine South Korean Members of Parliamentfrom both ruling and opposition partiessubmitted a resolution to nullify the KandoConvention to the National Assembly onSeptember 3, 2004. [11] Popular irredentistsentiment in Korea is reified in attempting torecover those parts of Manchuria that areconsidered to have been part of ancient Korea.In claiming the regions as an integral part ofthe nation, territoriality fuses with nationalsentiment.

Indeed, Chinese officials and some historiansare concerned by this move on the part of someSouth Korean legislators and civic groups tonullify the Kando agreement. For instance, SunJinji (2004-a) argues that an alteration of thepresent border cannot be based on claims ofownership a thousand years ago. Here Koguryo

history becomes a contested domain ofnationalist power. On the one hand, Sun Jinjiunderstands that both North and South Korea’sattempt to “protect” Koguryo history as Koreanhistory is a preparation for a territorial claimon Kando. On the other hand, Koreans areconcerned that the Chinese claim on Koguryowill be used to maintain or expand its territorialclaims to Kando when the two Koreas arereunified. [12]

In Korea, it is widely held that the Chinesegovernment and scholars are “conducting asystematic and comprehensive effort to distortthe ancient history of Northeast Asia”, seen as“a political assault disguised as an academicendeavour”. [13] Chinese writers havecriticised Korean politicising of history. MaDazheng emphasises “we do not accept anytendencies or practices in the research intoGaogouli history aimed at politicizing academicstudies.” [14] Even though both state that theKoguryo issue should be addressed within anacademic and scientific framework, and shouldnot develop into a political or diplomaticdispute between the two countries, this issuerecently emerged as the source of a diplomaticrow. In April 2004, when the Chinese ForeignMinistry removed references to Koguryo thatexplained Korea’s Three Kingdom Era from itswebsite, the South Korean Government lodgeda formal diplomatic protest with the Chineseauthorities. [15]

2. Historical values of Koguryo in Korea

For Koreans, the northern lands of Puyo(Korean)/Fuyu (Chinese), Koguryo and Parhaehave been thought of as a spiritual motherlandnourishing Korean culture (Byington 2004-c).Amongst the ancient kingdoms, Koguryo hasalways been treated as an ancestral statewithin the Korean historical tradition whichboth nurtures and unites people under onenational identity, a feeling that has beenparticularly strong in North Korea. Thus,across the political spectrum in academia and

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

6

NGOs, South Koreans have been unanimous incriticizing China’s claim to Koguryo’s historicalheritage. This has been true in North Korea, aswell. A shared Korean nationalism hasfacilitated North-South cooperation on theissue. Choe Kwang-sik (2004-b), a leadingSouth Korean historian and protester in theKoguryo affair, points out that the Chineseremapping of history could result in:

reducing the span of Korean history to1.less than 2,000 years, thereby losing 700years of a proud chapter of its history,[16]losing a historical pillar of Korean2.identity,delimiting the size of Korea's territory to3.an area south of the Han River.

A transhistorical “we” with timeless qualities isconstructed in nationalist narratives. Yoe Ho-kyu (2004), another South Korean historian,asserts that “it is absolutely clear that theGoguryeo people are ancestors of the Koreanpeople because Korea inherited Goguryeoculture in its entirety.” Koguryo history is thusmobilised to buttress the continuity of theKorean nation-state since the foundation of thenation by Tan’gun, roughly five millennia ago,through to the modern nation-state. [17] Thehistorically recovered ancient past has beenpowerful in defining contemporary Koreannational identity. Thus, the Koguryo issue hasled to an escalation in the debate over sites of“ethnic origins” and national continuity inKorea. The concerns over “damaging the originof the Korean nation fatally” so that Koreabecomes “a rootless nation” have beenexpressed in the media. [18] This maintains thetrope that “Our roots define us.”

Protests against claims to the Chineseness ofKoguryo have been intense. In December 2003,activist groups in South Korea and overseaslaunched a public awareness campaign. SouthKorean civic activists held a series of rallies inprotest against the Northeast Project and the

Chinese government. The issue has become afrequent topic on TV and radio. A group ofseventeen historical societies across SouthKorea took joint action against their Chinesecounterparts in December 2003. [19] TheSociety for Korean Ancient History issued astatement condemning China’s actions. Rallieshave been held outside the Chinese embassy inSeoul. Scores of websites dedicated to thestudy of Koguryo have sprung up. [20] Korean“netizens” protest and lay emphasis on “Koreanspirit” by posting, for example, statements suchas this: “as a small country, we have sufferedcountless hardships and humiliation at thehands of stronger nations, but the spirit ofKorea can never be extinguished.” [21] “TheSpirit of Koguryo is in the hearts of 80 millionKoreans,” reads a wide banner hung in Seoulduring a demonstration in January 2004. It wasreferring to the populations of both North andSouth, as well as to Koreans living abroad. [22]The Chinese claims to Koguryo have resulted inpromoting cooperation between North andSouth Koreans and the Korean diaspora. Thenation is inscribed as one surrounded by otherswho “steal” “our history and territory”.Collective needs to preserve the community’sirreplaceable historical values have beenstrongly addressed in the face of China’snationalist projects.

Indeed, the two Koreas have competed toestablish hegemony and legitimacy as heirs ofthe Korean nation since the partition in thepostwar era. Koguryo antiquities and historyembody special political significance in thiscompetition. They denote the legitimacy ofpolitical authority and rule in North Korea.Koguryo is eulogised as an embodiment of thetrue national spirit and depicted as a championof Koreanness against treacherous pro-foreignSilla in the North Korean official version ofhistory ( Petrov 2004). Some North Koreanarchaeologists deny that “the Han Chinese everconquered any part of the Korean peninsula.”(Pearson 1978, in Nelson 1995: 229) NorthKorean historians underline the “self-reliance,

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

7

uniqueness and superiority of Goguryeoculture”. (Chin Ho-t’ae 1990) Accordingly,Chinese claims on Koguryo have been stronglydenounced as “a pathet ic attempt tomanipulate history for its own interests” or“intentionally distorting historical facts throughbiased perspectives” in North Korean media.[23]

Unlike North Korea, Koguryo history as aresearch topic had not been very popularamong historians in South Korea. Studies ofancient history in South Korea have beenfocused on Silla instead, due mainly to the factthat Silla was located in the South. It was noteasy to get access to Koguryo archaeologicalsites, which are mainly located in formerManchuria and in North Korea, particularlybefore South Korea and China agreed todiplomatic relationships in 1992. However, theNortheast Project in China resulted in aKoguryo “boom” in South Korea. Since the mid1990s there has been a proliferation ofresearch and exhibitions on Koguryo history,art or cultural heritage. The South Koreangovernment, countering the China’s NortheastProject, launched the Koguryo ResearchFoundation (Goguryeo yonku chaedan) on the 1st of March, 2004. [24] This Foundation is to bemerged into the Northeast Asian HistoryFoundation (Tongbuga yoksa chaedan) underthe Foreign Ministry in 2006. [25] In addition,ancient history and archaeological remainshave become commodities to be consumed.Various commercial products with Koguryomotifs (for example, T-shirts, ties, scarves andPC games) have come on the market in SouthKorea. TV dramas, musicals, martial arts andcommercials all draw upon the glory ofKoguryo. [26]

Most of the research on Koguryo in SouthKorea is similar in approach to that in NorthKorea, stressing the history and relics asKorea’s and emphasising Koguryo’s “distinctlydifferent historical consciousness fromChina’s”. (Lee 2005: 172, 183) Only a few

Korean historians see Koguryo as a separatesite from both Korea and China. They includeKim Han-kyu (2004) and Lim Jie-hyun (2004) inSouth Korea and Yi Songsi (2001) in Japan. KimHan-kyu’s Yodongsa (History of Liaodong),published in 2004 in South Korea, generatedintense criticism in both South Korea andChina. He points out that Liaodong, whereKoguryo was located, has its own history whichneeds to be distinguished from both Korea’sand China’s, and that Liaodong had ties withneighbouring states. In China his work isconsidered dangerous because it could triggerindependence sentiment in Liaodong. In Korea,his work has not been at all welcome since itcontradicts the notion that Koguryo is thehistorical root of Korea.

3. Mobilising archaeology

Figure 3: King Tongmyong’s Mausoleum, NorthKorea

Not only Koguryo history but also its relicsconstitute a source of tension between Chinaand Korea. The conflict already surfaced indifferences in interpreting the ancient historyamongst North Koreans and Chinese in thejoint archaeological excavation of the early1960s . The po l i t ica l impl icat ion o farchaeologists’ work was demonstrated whenthe joint archaeological project was halted.Koguryo tomb murals are found on both sidesof the Chinese-North Korean border as well asin South Korea (Yeo 2005). So far, in total over

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

8

10,000 tombs belonging to the Koguryokingdom have been identified in China andKorea. Among those, 90 discovered near Ji’an(the former capital of Koguryo), Jilin provinceof northeast China, and in the vicinity ofPyongyang and Nampo in South HwanghaeProvince in North Korea have wall paintings (Petrov 2004). [27] Both North Korea and Chinaassert ownership of the heritage sites on anethnic basis. Both applied to UNESCO to havethe disputed remains registered as WorldHeritage sites. South Korea supported theNorth’s bid. Both countries’ requests werepassed at the World Heritage Committeemeeting held in China on the first of July in2004. [28] Named “The Complex of theKoguryo Tombs,” 63 tombs from five areasincluding the Kangso Three Tombs and RoyalTomb of King Tongmyong, along with 16 tombscontaining mural paintings in North Korea,became a World Heritage site. Under the title“Capital Cities and Tombs of the AncientKoguryo Kingdom”, the archaeological remainsof three cities (Wunu Mountain City, GuoneiCity and Wandu Mountain City) and 40 tombs(26 noble tombs, 14 royal tombs), along withthe Stone Monument of King Kwanggaet’o inChina, have been put on the UNESCO WorldHeritage List. [29] The Koguryo relics havebeen co-registered as those of China and NorthKorea, thus fuelling the debate regarding the“rightful” ownership of the relics. The very nextday, a South Korean NGO, Coalition for Peaceand Historical Education in Asia (Ashiap’yonghwawa yoksagyoyuk yondae), expressedconcern that this decision for co-registrationmade the question of who owns the legacy ofKoguryo only fuels the controversy. [30] Thesyncretistic nature of culture has not beenconsidered in this protest; only the competitivedesire to monopolise the “national sites”.

Figure 4 : A hunting scene in the TombMuyongchong , i n J i ’ an , l o ca ted i ncontemporary Ji l in Province, China.

Figure 5: Jars excavated on Mount Mandal,Pyongyang, North Korea.

Koguryo’s relics are highly regarded in therivalry between China and Korea. Thisindicates that heritage constitutes aninfluential part of cultural hegemony in EastAsia and also, a powerful part of the culturaland historical patrimony of the people, both inKorea and especially in the NortheastProvinces in China. Kang Hyun-sook (2004),professor of Ancient Art in South Korea,maintains the distinctiveness and influence ofKoguryo culture in East Asia in underlining thatthe Koguryo tombs with murals were not mereimitation of their Chinese counterparts and that

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

9

they were influenced by Japan’s funeraryculture. As examples of Koguryo’s influence onJapan’s funerary culture, the Takamatsu Tomband the Kitora Tomb in Japan have been cited.[31] She concludes that the influence ofKoguryo seen in Japan and the Koreanpeninsula demonstrates its prominent positionas a culturally powerful regional state (Kang2004: 106-107). As such, the Koguryoarchaeological remains represent the legacyand hegemony of regional culture.

Figure 6: A snake crossed with a tortoise.Kanso Middle-sized Mound, 7th Century in theKitora Tomb in Asukamura, Nara prefecture,Japan.

In any case, the preservation of nationalheritage and historic relics is consideredimperative in establishing hegemony orlegitimacy, and in asserting sovereignty overcontested territories in both countries. ArianePerrin (2004), a member of an ICOMOS surveyteam to North Korean Heritage sites, hasexpressed concern over North Korea’s heavyreconstruction at some of the sites, especiallyKing Tongmyong’s Tomb, which did not meetWorld Heritage Convention criteria for theauthenticity and integrity of a cultural site. Thisis the case in China as well, with the relics inZhuanghe in Liaoning. [32] The political valueof archaeology in the present can be seen inrushed excavation and reconstruction projectsthat lack adequate research foundations. Here,

archaeology has played a critical role in thebattle over the “cultural capital” of the past.

Archaeology is often associated with patriotismin both the “periphery” as well as from the“core”. (Hobsbawm 1990) Mass support forcultural patriotism can be seen in response toefforts to preserve national heritage in China.“Relics protection prizes” were offered by thecentral government in Beijing in December2003. The prizes were awarded to a total of 31national level cultural relics authorities fortheir efforts to protect historical treasures.Ji’an Province where Koguryo archaeologicalremains are located was one of the awardwinners, boasting numerous cultural relicsfrom the ancient Gaogouli ruins. [40] This masssupport is probably related to recent“regionalism” in Chinese archaeology. VonFalkenhausen (1995: 200) notes the recent“paradigm shi f t to regional ism fromcentralism” in Chinese archaeology. This hasnot, however, undercut cultural nationalism. Ashe stresses, this regionalism encouragesvoluntary integration, instead of coercing unityfrom the centre. (von Falkenhausen 1995: 200,215) The result is to assist the centralgovernment in gaining mass support in culturalpatriotism, and to help the local populationgain official support and legitimation.Koguryo’s archaeological findings from theborder regions are correlated with the masternarratives of national history, showing thehistorical and cultural integrity of theborderlands, thereby reinforcing nationalmyths of unity.

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

10

Figure 7: The King Kwanggaet’o stele in Ji’an,China

Figure 8: A legend of the founding of Koguryoinscribed on the King Kwanggaet’o stele inJi’an, China

The monuments and sacred sites which embodyancestral title-deeds and memories are crucialfor engendering a common national identity, asAnthony D. Smith (1986: 213) underscores.Among Koguryo relics, especially the KingKwanggaet’o stele in Ji’an, a monumentinscribed with Chinese characters extolling theexploits of a king of Koguryo in AD 414,

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

11

reinforces national pride in Korea. The stele isinterpreted as evidence of a capacity forconquest. It is asserted that “the Koguryopeople regarded their kingdom as the centre ofthe world and took great pride in its position”(Im Ki-hwan 2004: 100). Korean nationalistarchaeology pursues evidence of theuniqueness and homogeneity of Koreanidentity. Sarah Nelson (1995) argues thatKorean archaeology has been detrimentallyaffected by the contemporary political desire tosee Korean culture past and the present asdistinctive and homogeneous. The “historywars” glorify the heritage of Koguryo andbolster feelings of fraternity. The significanceof archaeology, history and territoriality informing or reinforcing ethnic or nationalidentity is at the centre of this conflict.

4. Problems in the “history wars”

Several problems can be found in the conflictsover Koguryo. One is the rigidity of empiricism.The whole debate is heavily based on theempiricist paradigm, employing archaeologicaland empirical evidence. The ancient past ofKoguryo /Gaogou l i i s c l a imed to bereconstructed through forensic research intofragmentary and part ia l evidence ofarchaeology and history. This attempt seeks toderive legitimacy from empirical evidence. Wehave noted, however, that scholars in bothChina and Korea produce ideologically-ladeninterpretations of the past that eschew value-neutral scientific or “academic” methods. Theirinterpretations are not only contradictory, butalso equally reinforce nationalist claims.Clearly, the debate has deep roots in thepolitical agendas to maintain hegemony andlegitimacy over history and the territory ofKoguryo with its important contemporaryterritorial and political implications. While eachcriticises the other for abusing history forpolitical purposes, Koguryo is symbolicallyimportant for the unity and antiquity of bothnation-states. The ancient history of Koguryohas been used as an ideological prop for both,

in order to claim authority and authenticity.

A second problem in the dispute is that itprojects the modern nation-state onto ancienttimes, reconstructing ancient history within theframework of national history. The modernconcepts of national territory and nation-stateare applied retroactively to the ancient period.Lim Jie-hyun (2004) finds such projectionsanachronistic. Contemporary views of theancient past shaped by present needs are oftenself-serving.

Third, at the centre of the dispute over Koguryohistory and relics is the issue of boundaries ofnational history and heritage that are drawndifferently in China and in Korea. Chinesehistory, heritage and culture are defined fromthe perspective of its present-day territoriesand borders over which the state claimssovereignty. Thus, the history and heritage ofKoguryo and Parhae are claimed as part ofChinese history. This can be viewed asterritorialisation of history. On the other hand,Korean national history is defined by the areawhere Koreans settled, differentiating Self andOther by “bloodline”. Debates on Koguryo andParhae history stem from this difference incriteria by which the boundary of nationalhistory is determined. For Koreans, Koguryoand Parhae are exclusively their own.Nationalist Korean scholars argue thatquestions of the historical identity of theancient kingdom are far more important thancontemporary territorial rights. [34] TheChinese Northeast Project is denounced as “aproduct of a historical perception based on aterritory-centred view” (Yoon 2005: 166).

In these “history wars,” national history servesas a clear-cut dividing line between “ourhistory” and “theirs”. The rigidity of nationalhistory reproduces the image of the monolithicnational “self” and “other”, ignoring themultiplicity of heterogeneous “selves”.Nationalists’ concern for cultural homogeneityleads to an exclusive social closure against the

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

12

other. The other’s claim on “our” history isbranded as stealing, manipulating, or distortinghistory, so that “we” need to correct andprotect or rescue “our” history. “If we forgetour history, we are forgetting our roots.” [35]In this contextualisation of history, history isread as a moral dichotomy; either correct, i.egood history, or distorted, i.e bad history.However, the interpretation of history needs tobe considered as a process rather than as astatic entity in a moral judgment.

Last but not least, questions of gender areignored in mainstream national historiographyon Koguryo. National heroes are constructed asmasculine: for example, the ancient historicalfigures like King Kwanggaet’o the Great andhis son King Changsu are presented as a sourceof Korean national pride. Their conquests in theNortheast provinces are attributed to thevictory of Korea’s virile “national masculinity”.Accordingly, in praising masculine achievementin history, women become invisible and imagesof male domination are reinforced.

Figure 9: King Kwanggaet’o the Great

Figure 10: Tomb of King Changsu

5. “History in between”

Borders can be understood as something whichseparates and excludes or which binds andincludes the communities that share it. Thisinterstitial position of borderlands serves toconstitute the intertwined nature of diversenational, political and cultural identities.However, the rigidity of national history cannotpermit an understanding of borders whichemphasises the variety and permeability ofpolitical and cultural boundaries. Self-conceptsof pure difference between Chineseness andKoreanness at the present time appear toexclude creolised and multiple narratives ofhistory within the border regions. This is anattempt to “nationalise” frontiers. In the timesof the Koguryo kingdom, no clear bordersdivided the multiple states and people. Bordersbetween Koguryo and Tang or Silla, forexample, were fluid and permeable. Culturaland historical hybridity between Koguryo andthe Han, Wei and Jin dynasties, whichcontrolled the neighbouring regions of Liaoningand Shandong provinces, as well as betweenKoguryo and Silla, needs to be mapped onto thecartography of Koguryo. In fact, in his work onManchuria (1644-1912), which overlapsKoguryo’s territory, Elliot underscores that

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

13

Manchuria was incorporated once and for allinto the larger Chinese geo-body with theJapanese defeat of 1945. Yet he argues that thedistinctive identity of both people and regionfrom the Chinese “core”, particularly since theseventeenth century, remains part of thecontemporary scene. (Elliot 2000: 635-640)Accordingly, China’s recent refocused attentionon the Northeast border regions and efforts tointegrate the regions with the rest of thenational territory are not irrelevant tounderstanding the distinctive and complexidentity of the Manchu homeland as aninterstitial community from the “core”, a regionwhose history shaped in complex ways theoutcomes of multiple peoples includingKoreans, Chinese, Mongols, and Muslims.

The history of a borderland is invariably one inwhich identities converge, coexist, andsometimes conflict. Such identities, which areinvariably in flux, cannot be appropriated by asingle nation-state. In this sense, the questionof who owns the historical legacy of Koguryo isbeside the point. It is instead worth trying tounderstand how Korean nationals and Chinesenationals today make sense of the people andcultures that blended to shape Koguryo inancient times. The history of the border regionbetween North Korea and China needs to beexamined as that of an intercultural site ofhybridity, both within and beyond theboundaries of the modern nation-state, ratherthan as the exclusive national history of onenation.

In prioritising differences as opposed tointeraction and creolisation is hardly unique toChina and the two Koreas. Each nation in EastAsia has armed itself with a narrative stressingthe uniqueness and achievements of itsnational history. However, unilateral claimslead to confrontation instead of co-operation,and a negation of “history in between”. Ratherthan pursuing one-nation centred nationalistapproaches to history, highlighting theinteractive nature of history in East Asia could

contribute to a dialogue in history andarchaeology that would overcome inter-nationalantagonisms and pave the way toward a moreharmonious and interactive East Asia.

Yonson AHN is a research fellow at the EastAsian Institute, the University of Leipzig,Germany. She has been conducting research onKorean “comfort women” and Japanese soldiersduring the Asia-Pacific War. Her currentresearch centres on historical debates in Koreaand Japan since the 1980s. She can bec o n t a c t e d a t a h n @ u n i - l e i p z i g . d e(https://apjjf.org/mailto:yiu45535@nifty.com).

This article is based on research supported bythe VW (Volkswagen) Foundation. This is arevised and expanded version of an article thata p p e a r e d i n t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l eSchulbuchforschung (International TextbookResearch) 27 (2005), Georg-Eckert-Institute forInternational Textbook Research ed.,Hannover: Verlag Hahnsche Buchhandlung.Many thanks to Mark Selden and Michael Shinfor comments on earlier drafts of this article.Posted at Japan Focus on February 9, 2006.

References

Byington, Mark 2004-a, “A Matter of TerritorialSecurity: Chinese Historiographical Treatmentof Kogury o in the Twentieth Century”, paperpresented at the International Conference onNationalism and Textbooks in Asia and Europe,October 7 - 8, 2004, Seoul, The Academy ofKorean Studies.

Byington, Mark 2004-b, “Koguryo part ofC h i n a ? ” ; i s a v a i l a b l e(http://secure.server3.com/pipermail/koreanstud i e s _ k o r e a w e b . w s / 2 0 0 4 -January/004054.html)(accessed February 3,2004).

Byington, Mark 2004-c, “Korean History inM a n c h u r i a(http://hcs.harvard.edu/~yisei/backissues/fall_98/mark_byington.html) (accessed April 29,

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

14

2004)

Campbell, David 1992, Writing Security,Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Choe, Beob-jong 2004, “Problem in China’sH i s t o r y R e s e a r c h(http://www.kois.go.kr/kwnews/content/print.asp?Number=20040203019)�, (accessed July 5,2004).

Choe, Kwang-sik 2004-a, “Koguryo’s HistoricalIdentity”, paper presented in CKS (Committeefor Korea Studies) 2004 Koguryo Symposium,“China’s Northeast Asia Project and its Claimof an Ancient Korean Kingdom”, April 28, 2004at University of California, Berkeley.

Choe, Kwang-sik 2004-b, “What Lies Behind theN o r t h e a s t A s i a P r o j e c t ?(http://www.kois.go.kr/kwnews/content/xnews.asp?co lor=GG&Number=20040128005)(accessed May 19, 2004).

Elliot, Mark C. 2000, “The Limits of Tartary:Manchuria in Imperia l and Nat ionalGeographies”, The Journal of Asian Studies,Vol.59, No.3, (August 2000), 603-646.

Hobsbawm, E . J . 1990 , Nat ions andNationalismSince 1780: Programme, Myth,Reality, Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Hosoya, Yoshio 1990, “Manju Gurun to‘Manshukoku’” (The Manchu Gurun andManchukuo), in Rekishi no naka no chiiki (ARegion in History), Hamashita Takeshi ed.,Tokyo: Iwanami shoten.

Im, Ki-hwan 2004, “Koguryo, An East AsianHegemon”, Kim Lena ed. Koguryo TombMurals, Seoul: ICOMOS-Korea & CulturalProperties Administration.

Kang, Hyun-sook 2004, “Koguryo Tombs: Pastand Present”, Kim Lena ed. Koguryo TombMurals, Seoul: ICOMOS-Korea & Cultural

Properties Administration.

Kim, Han-kyu 2004, Yodongsa (History ofLiaodong), Seoul: Munhakkwa chisongsa.

Kim, Hui-kyo 2004, “Chunggukuitongbukkongjonkwa hanguk minjokjuuiui chilro (China’s Northeast Project and the Course ofKorean Nationalism)”, Yoksa pip’yong (HistoryCritics) 2004, Spring, Seoul:Yoksa bip’yongsa.

Kuksa p’yonch’an wiwonhoe ( National Instituteof Korean History) 2002, Kodung hakgyo kuksa(National History for High School), Seoul:Kyoyuk injok chawonbu (Ministry of Educationand Human Resources Development).

Lee, Soon Keun 2005 “On the HistoricalSuccession of Goguryeo in Northeast Asia”,Korea Journal, Vol. 45, No.2, Spring 2005,172-201.

Lim, Jie-hyun 2004, “Rescuing Koguryo Fromthe Nation”, paper presented at the Frontiersor Borders Conference, 23-24 April, 2004,Seoul.

Mayall , James 1994, “Irredentist andSecessionist Challenges”, in John Hutchinsonand Anthony D. Smith eds., Nationalism,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nelson, Sarah M. 1995, “The politics ofethnicity in prehistoric Korea”, Philip L. Kohland Clare Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, politics,and the practice of archaeology, CambridgeUniversity Press.

Perrin, Ariane 2004, “The Nomination Processfor The Complex of the Koguryo tombs locatedin the Democratic People’s of Korea as a WorldHeritage Site”, paper presented at theconference titled Koguryo yoksawa munhwayusan (History and Cultural Heritage ofKoguryo), March 26-27, 2004, Seoul HistoryM u s e u m(http://classnet.hongik.ac.kr/~home/hbbs/content.php?table_id=135&msg_id=149); (accessed

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

15

June 11, 2004).

Petrov, Leonid 2004, “Restoring the GloriousPast: North Korean Juche’s Historiography andKoguryo”, The Review of Korean Studies, Vol.7,No.3, September 2004, The Academy of KoreanStudies, pp.231-252; http://review.aks.ac.kr(accessed October 15, 2004).

Quan, Zhezhu 2003, Kaizhan Dongbei bianjiangwenti yanjiu de jige wenti (Several Problems inthe Study of the Northeast Borderlands), in MaDazheng ed., ZhongguoDongbei bianjiangyanjiu (Studies of the Northeast Borderlands inChina), Beijing: Zhongguo Shehui KexueChubanshe.

Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe lishishi (HistoryDepartment of People’s Education Press) 2004,Zhongguo lishi (Chinese History) II, Beijing:Remin jiaoyu chubanshe (People’s EducationPress).

Smith, Anthony D. 1986, The Ethnic Origins ofNations, Oxford: Blackwell.

Sun, Hong 2004, “Gaogouli wenhua de zhuti shiHanwenhua (The Cultural Nucleus of Koguryois Han Culture)”, paper presented at Ji’anGaogouli de xueshuhui (Ji’an GaogouliConference), Cited in Sun Jinji 2004 ,“Zhongguogaogoulishi yanjiu de kaifang hefanrong de liunian (Six Years of Opening andProsperity of Koguryo History Research)”,paper presented at the conference titledKoguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (History andCultural Heritage of Koguryo), March 26-27,2 0 0 4 , S e o u l H i s t o r y M u s e u m(http://classnet.hongik.ac.kr/~home/hbbs/content.php?table_id=135&msg_id=149) (accessedJune 11, 2004).

Sun, Jinji 1986, Dongbei minzu yuanliu (TheEthnic Origin of the Northeast), Harbin:Heilongjiang Renmin Chubanshe.

Sun, Jinji 2004-a, “Zhongguo Gaogoulishi yanjiukaifang fanrong de liunian (Six Years of

Opening and Prosperity of Koguryo HistoryResearch)”, paper presented at the conferencetitled Koguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (Historyand Cultural Heritage of Koguryo), March26-27, 2004, Seoul History Museum(http://classnet.hongik.ac.kr/hbbs/content.php?table_id=135&msg_id=152&order=&cur_page=3&keyword=&search_option=) (accessedJune 11, 2004).

Sun, Jinji and Sun Hong 2004, “Gongyuan 3-7shiji Ji’an yu Pingrang diqu bihua mu de zushuyu fenqi, mingming (The Racial Affiliation andPeriodisation of Graves With Murals in the Ji’anand Pingrang Area From 3-7 Century A.D.)”,paper presented at the conference titledKoguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (History andCultural Heritage of Koguryo), March 26-27,2 0 0 4 , S e o u l H i s t o r y M u s e u m(http://classnet.hongik.ac.kr/hbbs/content.php?table_id=135&msg_id=152&order=&cur_page=3&keyword=&search_option=) (accessedJune 11, 2004).

von Falkenhausen, Lothar 1995, “Theregionalist paradigm in Chinese archaeology”,Philip L. Kohl and Clare Fawcett (eds.),Nationalism, politics, and the practice ofarchaeology, Cambridge University Press.

Yeo, Ho-kyu 2004, “”Chinese Views on theO r i g i n s o f G o g u r y e o(http://www.kois.go.kr/kwnews/content/print.asp?Number=20040211019), (accessed July 5,2004).

Yi, Songsi 2001, Mandul ojin Kodae (TheConstructed Ancient), Seoul: Samin.

Yoon, Hwy-Tak 2005, “ China’s NortheastProject and Korean History”, Korea Journal,Vol. 45, No.2, Spring 2005, 142-171.

Notes

[1] It can also be written “Goguryeo” in Korean.

[2] For example Sun Jinji, “Guanyu gaogouli

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

16

guishu wenti de jige zhengyi jiaodian” (OnSome Contested Issues Concerning theProblem of Gaogouli’s Affiliation ), Dongbeiminzushi yanjiu (Study on the History ofNortheast Nationalities), Vol.1, Zhengzhou:Zhengzhou guji chubanshe ( Zhengzhouclassics publishing house).

[3] Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe lishixi (HistoryDepartment of People’s Education Press),Zhongguo lishi (Chinese History) II, Beijing:Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe (People’s EducationPress), 2004, p.16. The most important tribes ofMohe were the Sumo, Boduo, Anchegu, Funie,Haoshi, Heishui, and Baishan.

[4] Chugan Chosun (Weekly Chosun) No. 1722,September 26, 2003.

[5] “Gaogouli role in Chinese history traced”,C h i n a D a i l y(http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-06/24/content_240567.htm ( accessed July 13,2004) .), June 24, 2003;

[6] Kuksa p’yonch’an wiwonhoe ( NationalInstitute of Korean History), Kodung hakgyokuksa (National History for High School),Seoul: Kyoyuk injok chawonbu (Ministry ofE d u c a t i o n a n d H u m a n R e s o u r c e sDevelopment), 2002, pp. 53 – 54.

[7] Quoted in “ China, Korea Dispute AncientKingdom”China, Korea Dispute AncientK i n g d o m(http://forum.japantoday.com/m_94313/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm)�; (accessed 12 December,2005).

[8] Approximately 200,000-300,000 NorthKorean refugees currently reside illegally innortheastern China. “ China shock for SouthK o r e a , A s i a T i m e s O n l i n e(http://www.atimes.com/atimes/korea/FI11Dg03.html), September 11 , 2004; (accessedDecember 12, 2005).

[9] The toponym Manchuria is associated with

Russian and especially Japanese designs on theAsian mainland, represented most notoriouslyby the 1932 establishment of the Japanesepuppet state of “ Manchukuo”. “ NortheastChina or simply “the Northeast” are thereforethe preferred terms, and among Chinesescholars are the only acceptable references(Hosoya 1990: 105, cited in Elliot 2000: 607).

[ 1 0 ] P o s t e d(http://koreaweb.ws/pipermail/koreanstudies_koreaweb.ws/2004-January.txt.gz ) by MarkByington, January 1, 2004; (accessed February3, 2004).

[ 1 1 ] D o n g a I l b o(http://www.kinds.or.kr/genl_html/search.jsp)(Donga Daily), September 4, 2004; (accessedOctober 18, 2004).

[12] Chosun ilbo (Chosun Daily), January 9,2004.

[13] Joongang Daily, January 12, 2004; KoreaHerald, January 7, 2004.

[14] “Gaogouli role in Chinese history traced”,C h i n a D a i l y(http://www2.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-06/24/content_240567.htm), June 24, 2003; (accessed July 13, 2004) .

[15] “Seoul Protests Beijing's Distortion ofK o g u r y o , K o r e a T i m e s(http://search.hankooki.com/times/times_view.php?terms=%22unesco%22+code%3A+kt&path=hankooki3%2Ftimes%2Flpage%2F200407%2Fkt2004071417122510160.htm), July 14, 2004;( accessed August 16, 2004).

[16] Korea Herald, January 7, 2004.

[17] Tan’gun is the mythical progenitor of theKorean people.

[18] Korea Herald, January 7, 2004; Chosunilbo, January 9, 2004.

[19] Korea Herald, January 8, 2004.

APJ | JF 4 | 2 | 0

17

[20] Joongang Daily, January 12, 2004.

[ 2 1 ] P o s t e d(http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/00818.html) by E. Kim January 23,2004; (accessed April 15, 2004).

[22] “Kicking Up the Dust of History”,W a s h i n g t o n P o s t(http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A3 6 7 3 3 - 2 0 0 4 J a n 2 1 ? ) , J a n u a r y 2 2 ,2004;(accessed May 7, 2004).

[23] Rodong Shinmun (Labour Newspaper),November 27, 2003 cited in Kim Tong-hyung, “North Korea denounces China's claim onG o g u r y e o(http://www.freenorthkorea.net/archives/freenorthkorea/00818.html )�(accessed April 15,2004).

[24] Hanguk ilbo (Hanguk Daily) April 27,2004.

[25] “Koguryo chaedan, Tongbuga yoksachaedane t’onghap (Koguryo Researchfoundation, merged into East Asian HistoryFoundation” Yonhap News Yonhap News(http://www.ikorea.ac.kr/center_news_show_2.asp?mode=update&gotopage=1&block=&idx=1106&search_field=&keyword=), October 20,2005; (accessed January 4, 2006).

[26] “The forgotten glory of Koguryo�, KoreaW e b W e e k l y(http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/1613.html), September 14, 2003; . (accessed December21, 2005).

[27] “Koguryo Tombs�, No. 1091, ICOMOS(http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_e

valuation/1091.pdf), mars 2004, p.60; (accessedDecember 29, 2005).

[28] Digital Chosun, April 18, 2004.

[29]“ Capital Cities and Tombs of the AncientKoguryo Kingdom, China” , UNESCO(http://whc.unesco.org/pg.cfm?cid=31&id_site=1135 ) 2004; (accessed January 5, 2006).

[30] Asia p’yonghwawa yoksa kyoyuk yondae(Coalition for Peace and History Education inAsia), Press Release, “ Koguryosa chik’igi,ijebut’o shijagida (Protecting Koguryo History,It Starts From Now)”, July 2, 2004.

[31] “Koguryo Tombs”, No. 1091, ICOMOS(http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1091.pdf ), Mars 2004, p.61;(accessed December 29, 2005).

[32] “Chunguknae Koguryo yujok hwesonsimgak” (Serious Problems with DamagedK o g u r y o H e r i t a g e , Y o n h a p N e w s(http://www.ikorea.ac.kr/center_news_show_2.asp?mode=update&gotopage=1&block=&idx=1127&search_field=&keyword=), December 12,2005; (accessed December 22, 2005).

[ 3 3 ] P e o p l e ' s D a i l y O n l i n e(https://apjjf.org/http//english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200312/27/print20031227_131336.html.) December 27, 2003; (accessed June 11,2004).

[34] Joongang Daily, January 12, 2004.

[35] “ Lost Kingdom, Modern Spat�, JoongangD a i l y(http://joongangdaily.joins.com/200401/12/200401120135065409900090409041.html), January12, 2004; (accessed May 7, 2004).