메인메뉴 바로가기본문으로 바로가기
네이버 공유 카카오 공유 트위터 공유 페이스북 공유

Starting Point for Internationalization of Research on Goguryeo History

An international conference, “Koguryo (Goguryeo) History and Archaeology,” was held at Harvard University, on April 5-7, 2005. This conference, organized by Harvard University’s Korea Institute and sponsored by the Korea Foundation and several related organizations, represented the first international forum to discuss the history of Goguryeo held at a venue in the West. Although the largest number of scholars came from the three East Asian countries - South Korea (6), China (3), and Japan (3) - scholars from Western countries participated in the conference as well: the United States (2), France (2) and Australia (1).
In addition, numerous Korean Studies scholars, not only from Harvard but also from various universities in the U.S., filled up the conference room throughout the three days, along with adding to the lively discussion. In this sense, it can be said that the conference marked a historic occasion for the internationalization of research on the history of Goguryeo. Moreover, Dr. Mark Byington and Professor Carter Eckert of the Korea Institute, the organizer of the conference, appropriately pointed out the significance of this endeavor when they suggested that this conference could serve as an opportunity to build a foundation for active English-language research on Goguryeo history (ancient Korean history).

Above all, I would like to point out that the conference addressed almost all the significant topics of Goguryeo studies. As for the history of Goguryeo, the topics discussed included Guguryeo state formation (Mark Byington, Korea Institute, Harvard University), the early history of Goguryeo (Kenneth Gardiner, Australia National University), international order in East Asia and Goguryeo’s foreign policy (Yeo Ho Kyu, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies), Goguryeo’s political and cultural influence on East Asia (Lee Sungsi, Waseda University), Balhae as a successor to Goguryeo (Song Kiho, Seoul National University), Goguryeo in Silla and Goryeo historiography (Noh Taedon, Seoul National University), and the status of Goguryeo studies (Choe Kwangsik, Korea University).
As for the archaeology of Goguryeo, there were presentations on recent archaeological work in China’s Jilin Province (Jin Xudong, Jilin Archaeology Institute) and Liaoning Province (Li Xinquan, Liaoning Archaeology Institute), as well as related efforts in South Korea (Choi Jongtaik, Korea University). Other topics included the relationship between history and archaeological artifacts (Wei Chuncheng, Jilin University), Goguryeo tombs and the reign of influential kings (Azuma Ushio, University of Tokushima), and Goguryeo fortresses (So Gilsu, Seokyeong University). Subjects related to tomb murals, included the Twin Pillars Tomb (Nancy Steinhardt, University of Pennsylvania), assessment of the four deities (Arianne Perrin, Institute of Korean Studies, University of Paris VII), early Japanese archaeological work of Goguryeo (Saotome Masahiro, University of Tokyo), and preservation of Goguryeo tomb murals in North Korea (Han Junhi, Division of Cultural Heritage, UNESCO).
By addressing a majority of the most relevant topics, the conference was able to cast considerable light on Goguryeo history and archaeology, and the key points at issue in Goguryeo studies among the academic circles of the West. A huge step forward was realized for the internationalization of research on the history of Goguryeo based on recent research trends and the basic research achievements accumulated over the past 100 or so years. In this regard, the conference can be said to have served as a valuable venue for academic discussion and for laying a firm foundation for further Goguryeo studies by the Western scholarly community.

I also would like to point out that the introduction of an abundance of findings from recent archaeological work conducted by the Chinese and Korean academic circles enabled the scholars from other countries to gain access to this valuable information.
The Chinese scholars revealed their studies of a tomb mural in Fushun and a stone-pile tomb in Huwanren, about which excavation reports have not yet been published. The tomb mural in Fushun is expected to contribute much to research on tomb murals and provincial systems because of the fact that this tomb is situated in a local area away from the capital area. The stone-pile tomb in Huwanren, which is estimated to date from the 1st century B.C., is also evaluated as an important finding with clues about formation of the Goguryeo state because of the number of Buyeo-style relics excavated there.
The South Korean scholars also introduced a wide variety of recent archaeological studies of Goguryeo remains recovered in South Korea, which attracted special attention for their new interpretation of archaeological studies in relation to ed materials by utilizing various audio-visual content. The Chinese scholars seemed to be quite surprised that such a wealth of Goguryeo remains has been found in South Korea, and made known their curiosity by asking a number of questions. In this sense, the conference served as an ideal forum for the exchange and sharing of information on recent studies and archaeological findings.
It should also be noted that the scholars from the West were often unaware of basic information about the source or holder of relevant materials, which means that information about research on Goguryeo or Korean history is not being properly made available to Western academia. I felt the urgent need to develop such a system, above all, to assure that Western scholars have broad access to relevant information in order to better internationalize studies on Goguryeo and Korean history.

Rather than from a common viewpoint, the scholars at the conference approached the history of Goguryeo from a variety of perspectives, with the Korean and Chinese participants especially showing an acute difference in their outlooks. The Korean scholars emphasized the independent nature of Goguryeo from a context of past tendencies of East Asian history, while the Chinese scholars emphasized the relations between Goguryeo and the Yellow River(Middle Plain) region of China. For instance, while the Korean scholars stated that Goguryeo actively influenced political changes in East Asia in the 4th and 5th centuries based on its own worldview, the Chinese participants emphasized that Goguryeo kings received investiture from Chinese dynasties and frequently dispatched envoys to China, as tacit evidence of their claim that Goguryeo is part of Chinese history.
In addition, as the Korean scholars explained the various unique characteristics of the fortresses of Goguryeo, the Chinese scholars, although acknowledging that Goguryeo mainly built stone fortresses, unlike those in the Yellow River region, generally chose to ignore the distinctive features, while stating that the fortresses built during late Goguryeo were similar to those of the Liao or Jin dynasties. When the Korean scholars discussed the aspects of Balhae as a successor to Goguryo, and moreover Goguryeo in the historiography of Unified Silla and Goryeo, the Chinese scholars sought to emphasize the differences of the three states and retorted that such a view on the part of Korean scholars reflected their political ideology.
As compared to the Chinese scholars, the Japanese scholars focused on the exchange among neighboring countries with Goguryeo or Balhae, along with emphasizing the complexity of the history of Goguryeo or Balhae. The Western scholars noted to the Korean scholars that the royal family of Goguryeo did visit the Chinese rulers and raised a question about Korea’s theory of Goguryeo succession. They also asked the Chinese scholars to more specifically clarify the differences between the culture of Goguryeo and that of the Yellow River region. The discussion at the conference vividly demonstrated the clear differences of opinion about Goguryeo history among the countries, and the areas in which Korea must concentrate in order for the Goguryeo history to be properly understood.
The scholars from the West shared a belief that Goguryeo is part of Korean history, but also sought to approach the status of Goguryeo history and culture from a broader perspective. For example, they referred to and analyzed materials of not only China but also Central Asia and the Middle East to clarify the origin and nature of Goguryeo tomb murals.

Therefore, too narrow an emphasis on the fact that Goguryeo history is part of Korean history, when introducing Goguryeo history to the Western academic community, might actually a reverse effect. From a modern nation-state perspective, it is clear that Goguryeo is part of Korean history. However, we should not confine Goguryeo history to the boundaries of Korean history, either. If we seek to confine it within the bounds of Korean history, there are various aspects of Goguryeo history that will not be understood fully, and we will hardly be free from criticism of a self-centered interpretation.
In this regard, it should to be noted that the Korean scholars set the tone of the conference without having to directly state that: “Goguryeo history is part of Korean history.” Of the 17 participants from six countries, the number of scholars of South Korean nationality amounted to eight. The South Korean scholars played a leading role at the conference, presenting papers on a variety of important topics related to Goguryeo studies, from history and archaeology to UNESCO’s efforts to preserve tomb murals in North Korea.
The conference participants thus came to acknowledge that Goguryeo history is part of Korean history based on the evidence presented by the South Korean academics. As such, it can be said that the internationalization of Goguryeo studies has been launched under the leadership of Korea. I think this could be attributed to the fact that the conference was organized by the Korea Institute of Harvard University under the sponsorship of the Korea Foundation. This conference showed the significance of providing support to Korean Studies institutions so that they can continue to hold international conferences on historical issues, which are currently causing conflict between neighboring countries.

For enhancement of these efforts, Korean scholars need to be more actively involved in the organizational efforts, such as selecting panel participants and paper presenters. It is also important to have international publishing concerns publish conference proceedings so that relevant papers can gain recognition as scholarly research from the global academic community.
It must be highly regarded that the conference established a precedent for Korea-led academic discussion on Goguryeo history at an international academic forum. This could even serve as a case study for the efforts to resolve other controversial issues, including the Dokdo and Japanese textbooks disputes between Korea and Japan. Korea needs to persuade the international community to rationally understand and acknowledge the Korean viewpoint by taking the initiative in organizing these kinds of international conferences. It is time for the academic circles and relevant organizations to join hands in more actively putting forth efforts to gain recognition of Korea’s stance by the world academia.

SEARCH

통합검색

통합검색버튼
통합검색닫기

전체메뉴

전체메뉴 닫기