Goguryeo controversies

The Goguryeo controversies are disputes between China and Korea (North and South) on the history of Goguryeo, an ancient kingdom (37 BC – 668 AD) 1/3 located in present-day Northeast China and 2/3 in the Korean Peninsula. At the heart of the Goguryeo controversy is which part of history the kingdom belongs to. Korean scholars have the viewpoint that Goguryeo is part of Korean history alone.[1]

Overview

In 2002, the Northeast Project conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), claimed Goguryeo as a Tungusic ethnic state since it was founded by the Tungusic Yemaek and populated by Tungusic Mohe people. Further, the Chinese scholars claimed Goguryeo was part of Chinese regional history since Tungusic ethinicites like Manchus, Xibe, Oroqen, and Nanai are citizens of China. This sparked a major academic and diplomatic controversy, as Korean experts on Goguryeo history accused the Chinese government of using history for political purposes. In response, in 2004 South Korea established the Goguryeo Research Foundation (renamed the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2006), and summoned its Chinese ambassador. In 2007, the Northeast Project ended, and the study of Goguryeo history in China has dramatically declined. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences continues to hold its historical perspective on its homepage.

Various analyses of the controversy have focused on external motivations for the reevaluation of history, including Korean irredentism towards adjacent Chinese territory, the possibility of North Korean collapse, and the challenge to China from transnational separatism. Nationalist historiography has inflamed both sides of the debate, as Korean nationalism treats the themes of a powerful Korean Goguryeo and independence from China as central (see: Korean nationalist historiography), while Chinese nationalism stresses the inviolability of its territory and the unity of its ethnic groups. Some scholars have also criticized the projection of modern-day national identities onto ancient peoples.

History of the dispute

Background

As neighboring areas, northeast China and North Korea have both laid claim to the history of ancient kingdoms that occupied the region. The interpretation of history in this region has implications for contemporary territorial sovereignty.[2] During the heyday of Maoism, the Chinese government line was that the history of Goguryeo (Gaogouli in Chinese) was Korean history.[2] However, there was almost no research published in Goguryeo from China at the time, and China had a motivation to say so, because of its good relations with North Korea.[3] Since the 1980s, government control over scholarship liberalized, and more than 500 books about Goguryeo-related topics were published since then, comprising 90% of China's research since 1949.[2][3] During this time, some scholars such as Tan Qixiang questioned the state's old interpretation of history, arguing for the study of all polities within China's territory as part of Chinese history. Jiang Mengshan proposed a "one history, dual use" (一史两用, yīshǐ liǎngyòng) system whereby Goguryeo would also be considered part of China's history,[4] arguing that the kingdom's capital, for 460 out of 706 years, lay in modern northeast China, and that three-quarters of its population were not ethnic Korean.[2][3][5] He related ancient identities to modern-day peoples by suggesting that "the people of Buyeo and Goguryeo had the same lineage as the Chinese in the Northeast region, while the Korean people were a part of the Silla lineage."[6]

2002–03

Another faction of historians, led by Sun Jinji (孙进己, Sūn Jìnjǐ) and Zhang Bibo (张碧波, Zhāng Bìbō), of the Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, criticized Tan and put forth the thesis that Goguryeo should be regarded as a regional subset of Chinese history ("local Chinese history") rather than purely Korean history. They cited the traditional view in Chinese historiography that Korea was founded by the Chinese prince Jizi, as well as Goguryeo's status as a tributary to ancient China. In 2002 these scholars, mostly from northeast China themselves, established the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to investigate this view.[2]

The establishment of the Northeast Project marks the beginning of the modern Goguryeo controversy. However, the Northeast Project cannot be equated with the study of Goguryeo, because it studied more topics than Goguryeo, including the history of the Russian Far East, the Bohai Kingdom, economic history, and local histories in ancient China and Korea.[3]

China states that Goguryeo was an ethnic Tungusic state and in modern-day China, Tungusic ethnicities like Manchus, Xibe, Oroqen, and Nanai are citizens of China and viewed as part of China's multi-ethnic historical civilization. The Tungusic Yemaek founded Goguryeo and it was also populated by Tungusic Mohe people.

In 2003, China applied with UNESCO to register the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom within its territory as a World Heritage Site. In December, the South Korean government published a report denying that Goguryeo could be considered part of Chinese history, and giving directions to Korean civil society groups on how to counter Chinese claims.[3] Korean nationalists groups and the South Korean popular press in South Korea expressed outrage over the Northeast Project,[3][7] and some commentators suspected, that because the CASS receives government funding, the Chinese government might support the Northeast Project.[2]

However, the CASS's Center for Borderland History and Geography Research is underfunded, understaffed (containing only 21 researchers), and not self-sufficient; government subsidies came in response to the extremely low salaries in CASS's history and philosophy departments, in contrast to the more lucrative fields of economics and law, and the money given does not match the high strategic value of borderland research.[3] Historically, the CASS has produced research that disagreed with or is critical of government policies.[3]

Other, still more moderate voices in Korea pointed out that several official publications in China refer to Goguryeo simply as Korea's history.[2] Chinese scholars who disagreed with Sun and Zhang's "Chinese local history" view were interviewed by South Korean newspapers.[8] The negative press coverage over the Goguryeo issues increased the incidence of Sinophobia in South Korea,[3][9] and has possibly influenced South Korea's security strategy to become more pro-American and anti-China.[10]

2004–2007

In March 2004, the South Korean government established the Goguryeo Research Foundation to publish research conducive to its view of Goguryeo as part of Korean history.[11] In April, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs deleted references to Korea's premodern history on its website, prompting South Korea to summon its Chinese ambassador.[3] In August 2004, China sent its Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Dawei to Seoul to defuse tensions.[3] China recognized Korea's concerns and pledged not to place the Northeast Project's conclusions in its history textbooks, and both South Korea and China expressed the desire not to see the issue damage relations.[12]

However, China's expressed concerns that Korean irredentism towards northeast China were not addressed by the South Korean side.[3] In September, the South Korean government declared that the 1909 Jiandao Convention, which ceded Korean claims to northeast Chinese territory, was invalid. In 2005, South Korea conducted joint research projects with North Korea on Goguryeo relics near Pyongyang. Meanwhile, Chinese social scientists continued to publish research articles on the ancient Northeast Asian polities, including Guchaoxian (Gija Chosun), Fuyu (Puyo), Goguryeo, and Bohai, which Koreans exclusively considered their own.[3]

In 2006, South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun protested this research at the 2006 Asia–Europe Meeting. That year, his government renamed the Goguryeo Research Foundation to the Northeast Asian History Foundation, expanding its mandate. In 2007, the Northeast Project concluded, but neither China nor South Korea has changed their view of Goguryeo history after the dispute. In China, the diplomatic imbroglio meant that research on Goguryeo has become taboo, and former Chinese Goguryeo researchers have diverted their time and resources to other areas.[3]

Japanese and North Korean views

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the Japanese Empire differentiated Goguryeo from the other Three Kingdoms of Korea to claim Japanese (Wa) influence in the non-Goguryeo kingdoms of Baekje and Silla in order to justify its colonization of Korea. In order to demonstrate their theories, they moved a stone monument (棕蟬縣神祠碑), which was originally located at Liaodong, into Pyongyang.[13]

Meanwhile, North Korea has glorified Goguryeo's independent qualities as part of their Juche ("self-reliance") ideology, identifying itself with Goguryeo, while equating South Korea with Silla, and the United States with the Tang dynasty. North Korea narrates their national history to conform to Juche, by denying any indication of foreign occupation of the Korean peninsula, such as the existence of any Chinese commanderies there.[14] North Korea's state run media has denounced Chinese claims as “a pathetic attempt to manipulate history for its own interests” or “intentionally distorting historical facts through biased perspectives” in North Korean media.[15]

Speculative motives

Much of the scholarship on the Goguryeo controversy has focused on China's strategic intentions towards the Koreas, and presumptively overlooked the validity of Chinese scholars' historical claims.[3]

Yonson Ahn, a Korean scholar who has studied Korean comfort women and historical debates in Korea and Japan,[16] writes that historians such as Quan Zhezhu, Sun Jinji, Kim Hui-kyo, and Mark Byington "perceive the launching of the Project as a defensive reaction to preserve China’s own territorial integrity and stability."[16]

Various explanations advanced for China's interest in northeastern history include: South Korean irredentism over Jiandao (Gando in Korean),[2] privileges granted by South Korea to Koreans in China,[2] and the possible collapse of North Korea.[17][18][19]

Modern Chinese nationalism, which in contrast to Korean nationalism, is not based on a "pure blood line" and instead stresses unity in diversity and a supraethnic "Chinese people" or Zhonghua minzu. China also has an interest in promoting stability and the territorial status quo in its border territories, in order to tackle the advanced cross-border problems of drug trafficking, fundamentalist religious proselytism, ethnic separatism, and illegal immigration.[3] An interpretation which suspects aggressive Chinese motivations is inconsistent with China's own "peaceful rise" rhetoric and with its record of peacefully settling 17 of 23 of its territorial disputes with substantial compromises.[3]

On the other hand, some Chinese scholars perceive the Korean nationalistic sentiments of some Koreans (both North and South) as threatening to its territorial integrity. In fact, there are proponents in both the Korean liberal and conservative camps advocating for the “restoration of the lost former territories.”[20] Chinese scholars are afraid of border changes when the North Korean government collapses. Because there are more than 2 million ethnic Koreans living in China's Jilin province, China fears that they might secede from China and join a newly unified Korea.[21]

On the whole, the Goguryeo controversy is more significant to Koreans than Chinese. Reasons for this imbalance include the fact that in modern Korean nationalism, Goguryeo's history is presented as a contrast to Korean history in the 19th and 20th century, where it was a "feminine and helpless victim of imperialism". Another founding tenet of Korean nationalism is to establish cultural independence from China. For example, in the 20th century, Koreans switched the central figure in their founding myth from Jizi, a Chinese human sage, to Tangun, a god.[3]

Arguments for Goguryeo as a part of Chinese history

Among the arguments that some Chinese scholars use for its claims on Goguryeo:

  • Goguryeo was founded from Han Chinese commandaries such as Xuantu (in Chinese territory).[22]
  • Goguryeo kings actively sought and accepted a tributary relation with Chinese dynasties.[23]
  • Goguryeo was founded by the Tungusic Yemaek peoples and was also populated by the Tungusic Mohe (Malgal) peoples, an ancestor of modern-day Tungusic Manchus, who are citizens of China, and ruled China's latest dynasty, the Qing dynasty;[24]
  • Goguryeo was established in Northeast China, the homeland of Tungusic ethnicities. Two-thirds of its territory was in present-day China, and Tungusic people like Manchus, Evenks, and Oroqen are Chinese citizens.
  • After the end of Goguryeo, some of its people were assimilated into Han and other ethnicities of China;[25]
  • Some remains of the tombs purported to be of Goguryeo in Ji’an are not Goguryeo’s but are those of the Han or Xianbei (Sonbi) ethnicities of China.[26]

Arguments for Goguryeo as a part of Korean history

Korean historians generally make these arguments:[1]

  • The places that the Four Commanderies of Han occupied were originally places of native Korean people. The Chinese commanderies were later taken over by Goguryeo, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.
  • Goguryeo is a country founded by Buyeo people, one of the major ancestors of Korean people. Both Goguryeo and Baekje are successor nations of Buyeo. The fact that large numbers of Goguryeo people were assimilated into China does not necessarily make it Chinese as many were also assimilated into other dynasties at the time.[27]
  • Goguryeo lasted about 700 years while no Chinese dynasty concurrent with Goguryeo's rule lasted for more than 500 years. It was Imperial China's tributary only during some of its existence. More important, being a tributary of Imperial China doesn't make it Chinese. Many East Asia dynasties and kingdoms, like Silla, Goryeo, Japan, Ryukyu etc., had tributary relationships with Chinese Dynasties during some time of their existence.
  • Many of the customs (Ssireum), traditional dance, musical instruments (e.g. Janggu),[28] clothing (e.g. traditional Korean hat),[29] etc. depicted in Goguryeo murals are present in some form in Korean culture today.
  • Goguryeo traditions such as ondol,[30] Korean fortress,[31] fermented foods (e.g. doenjang, jeotgal, etc., as mentioned in Records of the Three Kingdoms),[32] onggi,[33] etc. are central mainstays of Korean culture.
  • Goguryeo has fought many wars with Chinese dynasties such as the Goguryeo–Sui War and the Gorugyeo-Tang War, making the argument that Gorugyeo is part of Chinese history invalid.
  • Only Southern Koreans from the Jeolla and Gyeongsang regions were descendants of Samhan, which is south of the Geum River. There are more Koreans descended from inhabitants outside Samhan and Silla, i.e., north of Geum River. Many Koreans are descendants of people outside Samhan (especially people that have families originated from Northern Korea), i.e. Goguryeo , but we cannot state that the North Koreans are Chinese while they share the same language and culture with South Korea.
  • Korean scholars believe that the people of the three kingdoms of Korea shared a common ancestor; the Yemaek tribe, distinct from the Tungus, Mongol and Turkic tribes. Because of this common ancestry, Goguryeo is distinctly Korean.[16]
  • The view that Goguryeo is Chinese contradicts with Chinese history records of the past Chinese dynasties, which considered it a part of the cultural Sinosphere, but was a separate and foreign political entity.
  • Goryeowas founded by Wang Geon, who descended from a noble Goguryeo family. Goryeo considered itself to be the continuation (successor state) of Goguryeo, and had ambitions to reclaim former Goguryeo territory as evidenced by Seo Hui who told the Liao dynasty: "Our country is in fact former Goguryeo, and that is why it is named Goryeo and has a capital at Pyongyang. If you want to discuss territorial boundaries, the Eastern Capital of your country is within our borders."[34]
  • The word "Korea" comes from the word Goryeo, one of Goguryeo successor states and the shortened form of the word Goguryeo by King Jangsu of Goguryeo in the 5th century AD.
  • Legacy of names. Joseon ("Gojoseon") is considered the first Korean kingdom. After the collapse of Goguryeo, the Tang emperor gave to the last ruler of Goguryeo Bojang of Goguryeo the title "King of Joseon" named after the original Joseon kingdom showing that the Chinese themselves considered Goguryeo and Joseon the same lineage. Goguryeo was succeeded by Goryeo ("Later Goguryeo") which was succeeded again by "Joseon".
  • Goguryeo was also succeeded by Balhae. Balhae was destroyed by the Liao dynasty, but the last crown prince of Balhae and most of the nobility merged with the Goryeo royal family thus uniting the two successor dynasties of Goguryeo.[35]
  • Legacy of royal tradition. The title Daewang (Taewang) or "Great(est) King" is a Korean title that originated in Goguryeo and continued to be used in Goryeo and Joseon as a posthumous title until the end of Joseon dynasty.[36] However the word Daewang 대왕 is cognate with the Sino-Korean word 大王 (this also corresponds to the Hanja).
  • Chinese and Japanese states acknowledged that the heritage of Goguryeo belonged to Goryeo and Joseon.[37]
    • Kublai Khan regarded Goryeo as the same country as Goguryeo. At the end of the Mongol invasions of Korea after seeing the Goryeo crown prince come to concede after decades of fighting, Kublai Khan was jubilant and said "Goryeo is a country that long ago even Tang Taizong personally campaigned against but was unable to defeat, but now the crown prince comes to me, it is the will of heaven!"[38][39][40]
    • During the Mongol invasions of Japan there was a Japanese saying "The Mongol ("Mukuri") and Goguryeo ("Kokuri") ghosts are coming!" treating Goryeo as the same country as Goguryeo.[41]
    • Choe Bu of Joseon in 1488 who was stranded in Ming China was asked by a Ming government official "What special skills does your country have that it was able to defeat the Sui and Tang dynasties armies?" Choe Bu replied "Goguryeo had strategic experts and powerful generals who were skilled in military and had soldiers who served their superiors to the death. Therefore, Goguryeo is a small country but defeated the Tianxia's one million soldiers two times. Now, Silla, Baekje, and Goguryeo have become one country, we have abundant products and large land, riches and powerful military, and immeasurable numbers of loyal and wise scholars."[42][43]

Perspectives by outsiders

Finnish linguist Juha Janhunen believes that it was likely that a "Tungusic-speaking elite" ruled Goguryeo and Balhae, describing them as "protohistorical Manchurian states" and that part of their population was Tungusic, and that the area of southern Manchuria was the origin of Tungusic peoples and inhabited continuously by them since ancient times, and Janhunen rejected opposing theories of Goguryeo and Balhae's ethnic composition.[44]

According to Korea scholar Andrei Lankov:[45]

There is no doubt that the present-day dispute represents a case of retro-projection of modern identities. The real-life Koguryoans would have been surprised or even offended to learn that, in the future, they would be perceived by Koreans as members of the same community as their bitter enemies from Silla. Describing Koguryo as Chinese or Korean is as misleading as, say, describing medieval Brittany as French or English or Irish.

According to Mark Byington of Harvard University, who has followed the debate since 1993, Goguryeo "was clearly not a Chinese state in any sense, as demonstrated abundantly by China’s own dynastic histories". Byington says that the Chinese position is "historically indefensible" and "historically flawed", but at the same time has valid reasons, politically (e.g. territorial concerns), and is not as "sinister" as many Koreans believe (i.e., "a prelude to an active aggression against Korea").[37]

Validity of claims on ancient history

Some scholars analyze empirical evidence through the lens of nationalism and ethnocentrism. However Yonson Ahn and Lim Jie-Hyun believe that projecting modern concepts of national territory and identity onto ancient nation states is self-serving.[16]

Yonson says that the Chinese claims on Goguryeo history tend to be centered on territory: because Goguryeo and Parhae shared territories with modern-day China, it is therefore Chinese. Korean arguments tend to stem from ancestry, a common bloodline.[16] Yonson argues both philosophies contradict the exclusivity claim that many scholars try to make for either Korea or China because Goguryeo possessed territories that now are within the borders of North Korea as well as China, and descendants of Goguryeo people live in both Korea and China.

She also argues that the strong distinction between "self" and "other" drives many scholars to accept only exclusive possession of history and its artifacts. Disputes over such claims are often laden with terms like "stealing."[16]

Recent developments

The Chinese city of Ji'an has built a Goguryeo museum within walking distance of the Yalu River. One of the major Goguryeo steles is displayed there.[46]

gollark: What would this do?
gollark: According to the normative Macron specs, all inputs on osmarks.net are compliant Macron interpreters.
gollark: Yes, I know.
gollark: Technically, all the inputs are implicitly Macron interpreters.
gollark: I already support Macron.

See also

References

Citations
  1. 동북공정과 고대사 왜곡의 대응방안. 서울: 백암 [The Society of Korean History]. 2006. ISBN 89-7625-119-9.
  2. Chung, Jae Ho (May–June 2009). "China's "Soft" Clash with South Korea: The History War and Beyond". Asian Survey. 49 (3): 468–483. doi:10.1525/as.2009.49.3.468.
  3. Chen, Dingding (February 2012). "Domestic Politics, National Identity, and International Conflict: the case of the Koguryo controversy". Journal of Contemporary China. 21 (74): 227–241. doi:10.1080/10670564.2012.635928.
  4. Sun, Jinji 2004-a, “Zhongguo Gaogoulishi yanjiu kaifang fanrong de liunian (Six Years of Opening and Prosperity of Koguryo History Research)”, paper presented at the conference titled Koguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (History and Cultural Heritage of Koguryo), March 26–27, 2004
  5. Byington, Mark. “The Creation of an Ancient Minority Nationality: Koguryo in Chinese Historiography.” In Embracing the Other: The Interaction of Korean and Foreign Cultures: Proceedings of the 1st World Congress of Korean Studies, III. Songnam, Republic of Korea: The Academy of Korean Studies, 2002.
  6. Sun, Jinji 1986, Dongbei minzu yuanliu (The Ethnic Origin of the Northeast), Harbin: Heilongjiang Renmin Chubanshe.
  7. "Korean-Russian academia jointly respond to Northeast Project" (in Korean). Naver. 2006-10-31. Archived from the original on 2004-10-15. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
  8. "Chinese Scholar Slams Co-opting Korean History". Chosun Ilbo. 2006-09-13. Archived from the original on 2006-10-19. Retrieved 2007-03-06.
  9. "South Koreans believe China likely to be biggest security threat in 10 years". Associated Press. 2006-03-20. Archived from the original on 2007-11-28. Retrieved 2007-03-31.
  10. Gries, Peter Hays. "The Koguryo Controversy, National Identity, and Sino-Korean relations Today". Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  11. Yee, Hebert (2011). China's Rise: Threat Or Opportunity?. Taylor & Francis US. p. 162.
  12. Seo, Hyun-jin (2004-08-24). "Skepticism Lingers over History Issue" (Reprint). The Korea Herald. Retrieved 2012-01-08.
  13. 리, 순진 (2001). 평양일대 락랑무덤에 대한 연구(A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang). 서울: 중심. ISBN 89-89524-05-9.
  14. Petrov, Leonid A. (2004). "Restoring the Glorious Past: North Korean Juche Historiography and Goguryeo" (PDF). The Review of Korean Studies. The Academy of Korean Studies. 7 (3): 231–252. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-06-05.
  15. north korea teaching english in at freenorthkorea.net Archived September 1, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
  16. "The Korea-China Textbook War--What's It All About? - History News Network". hnn.us.
  17. "Asia Times - News and analysis from Korea; North and South". www.atimes.com.
  18. Lankov, Andrei (2006-09-16). "China and Korea can't escape their pasts". History News Network. Retrieved 2007-03-08.
  19. Lilley, James (2007-01-18). "Briefing: North Korea". American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Archived from the original on 2013-02-24. Retrieved 2011-01-08.
  20. Kim, Hui-kyo 2004,“Chunggukuitongbuk kongjonkwa hanguk minjokjuuiui chilro ( China’s Northeast Project and the Course of Korean Nationalism)”, Yoksa pip’yong (History Critics) 2004, Spring, Seoul:Yoksa bip’yongsa.
  21. "The War of Words Between South Korea and China Over An Ancient Kingdom: Why Both Sides Are Misguided - History News Network". hnn.us.
  22. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2007-09-28. Retrieved 2007-07-06.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  23. See Byeon Tae-seop (변태섭) (1999). 韓國史通論 (Hanguksa tongnon) (Outline of Korean history), 4th ed.. ISBN 89-445-9101-6, p. 40. See TANAKA Toshiaki:"The Rise of Goguryeo and Xuan-Tu Shire" 田中俊明:《高句丽的兴起和玄菟郡》, from 32 BC to 666 AD Goguryeo paid 205 tributes to the Chinese Central Plains dynasties. From 32 BC to 391 AD, Goguryeo paid only 17 tributes, but between 423 AD and 666 AD, 188 tributes were paid.
  24. Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe lishixi (History Department of People’s Education Press), Zhongguo lishi (Chinese History) II, Beijing: Renmin jiaoyu chubanshe (People’s Education Press), 2004, p.16.
  25. Alexandre Y. Mansourov. "Will Flowers Bloom without Fragrance? Korean-Chinese Relations". Harvard Asia Quarterly. Archived from the original on 2008-01-08. Retrieved 2014-10-24.
  26. Sun, Jinji and Sun Hong 2004, “Gongyuan 3-7 shiji Ji’an yu Pingrang diqu bihua mu de zushu yu fenqi, mingming (The Racial Affiliation and Periodisation of Graves With Murals in the Ji’an and Pingrang Area From 3-7 Century A.D.)”, paper presented at the conference titled Koguryo yoksawa munhwa yusan (History and Cultural Heritage of Koguryo), March 26–27, 2004
  27. Discovered of Goguryeo (고구려의 발견), Written on South Korea historian Kim Yong-man.
  28. "장구". 문화콘텐츠닷컴 (in Korean). Korea Creative Content Agency. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  29. "갓". Encyclopedia of Korean Culture (in Korean). Academy of Korean Studies. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  30. "［문화재산책］고구려 온돌문화". 경향신문 (in Korean). Kyunghyang Shinmun. 1 January 1970. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  31. 이명우 (25 October 2015). "[역사기획] 난공불락의 고구려 산성과 치(雉)". 성광일보 (in Korean). Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  32. "'썩음'과 '삭음'의 절묘한 경계의 맛을 감각으로 가려내다". 조선닷컴 - 라이프. Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  33. "옹기의 역사성과 옹기장의 미래가치". 월간문화재사랑 상세 (in Korean). Cultural Heritage Administration. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  34. 생방송 한국사 04. 고려: 수능 한국사 강의 1인자 고종훈의 동영상 강의 수록 (in Korean). Owlbook. 2017. p. 68. ISBN 9788950963705.
  35. 이기환 (31 May 2012). "[이기환의 흔적의 역사]발해 멸망과 백두산 대폭발". 경향신문 (in Korean). Kyunghyang Shinmun. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  36. "황제 칭제 안한 고구려, 자주의식 반영 '태왕' 때문". 매경프리미엄 (in Korean). 매경미디어그룹. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  37. Byington, Mark. "The War of Words Between South Korea and China Over An Ancient Kingdom: Why Both Sides Are Misguided". History News Network. Columbian College of Arts & Sciences. Retrieved 29 May 2019.
  38. 이기환 (2014-03-17). "최강의 몽골제국군도 무서워했던…". 이기환 기자의 흔적의 역사. Kyunghyang Shinmun. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  39. 김운회. "<기황후>가 왜곡한 고려와 원나라의 결혼동맹". Pressian (in Korean). Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  40. "중국 남방 행재소에서 몽고 황제가 왕을 후대하다". 한국사데이터베이스. National Institute of Korean History. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  41. "일본에서 무서운 귀신을 나타내는 '무쿠리 코쿠리'는 몽골과 고려". 유용원의 군사세계 (in Korean). Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  42. "［한국사속의 만주］9. 조선, 華夷觀을 넘어". 경향신문 (in Korean). Kyunghyang Shinmun. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  43. 송정규 (2016). 해외문견록: 제주목사 송정규, 바다 건너 경이로운 이야기를 기록하다 (in Korean). 휴머니스트. ISBN 9791160800050. Retrieved 22 March 2018.
  44. Pozzi & Janhunen & Weiers 2006, p. 109
  45. Lankov, Andrei (September 16, 2006). "The legacy of long-gone states". Asia Times. Retrieved October 20, 2012.
  46. "FEATURE: China, Koreas in modern conflict over old kingdom - Taipei Times". www.taipeitimes.com.

Sources
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.