Я стал получать ежедневно десятки писем (большей частью копий, подписных писем), касающихся, в конечном счете, интерпретации происхождения и истории Когурё, древнекорейского племенного образования (государства?), некогда существовавшего в северной части Корейского полуострова и прилегающей части Китая. Подумал, может, кому-нибудь из не-специалистов будет интересно почитать.
VANK stands for - ‘Voluntary Agency Network of Korea’, a civilian international exchange association in Korea. We work for the promotion of Korea's image all over the world by Internet. VANK was established in 1999 by volunteers, and now has over 12,000 members. Using email or internet we serve as cyber travel guides to overseas Koreans and foreigners so that they can understand Korean culture and language better, and at the same time we hope we build international friendships. VANK is a great chance for those who are interested in Korean language, arts, cultural education, history, geography, social studies, sciences to learn about our country, and we also welcome with open arms anyone just wanting to make Korean friends!
We Koreans are deeply concerned about China's bid to put Koguryo ruins including tomb murals in its territory on the World Heritage List since we have reasonable doubts on China's political intention for the bid. We do not oppose the historical value of the remains or the application itself. We were so disappointed when North Korea's bid for its Koguryo tomb murals in North Korea was put on hold in the 27th session of the World Heritage Committee by Chinese objection. Just a few years later, China is pushing its own bid on the similar Koguryo burial sites and murals in northeastern Chinese border cities. We can hardly believe that China has no other designs beyond the preservation and protection of the historic sites, which both North and South Koreans regard as their spiritual symbol as well as the origin of national identity.
Koguryo heritage in northeastern China has not been paid any attention or proper care and has completely been abandoned until January, 2003 when China registered the application for Koguryo ruins including tomb murals in cities in Northeast Asia. China has been severely neglected the Koguryo burial sites in its territory for a long time. Several murals have been stolen since 1966, and from 1997 to 2002 tomb murals of the Koguryo Kingdom in Jian, China, were reportedly stolen by grave robbers. We question at this point: Why has China changed its attitudes dramatically? We point out that between the period of this series of China's sudden attitude changes, there is the "Northeast Area Project," a five-year government research program launched in 2002 which includes a several suspicious lines of distorting historical facts.
The Chinese have been insisting since 1993 that the histories of all ethnic groups within their current border as part of their national history. In February 2002, the NAP officially started to create its own definition of national history. This China's self definition on national history has provided the ideological framework for China's policies of merging of ethnic minorities from its cold years to the recent. Now China, in the NAP, is trying to expand the same framework to histories of all ethnic groups including two countries, North and South Korea, in Northeast Asia in order to strengthen its political influence in the area. According to the five recent papers on the issue in question released by the NAP, China focuses on proving the lack of continuity between Koguryo and the current States of the Korean peninsula. The arguments are summarized into two points: Koguryo originated from China's tribe and current Koreans have no connection to the ancient kingdom.
What we concern is: first, there is a clear conspiracy in the project that China is trying to revise the history of Koguryo as its own, which is an obvious history distortion, based on not-proven its own theory. Secondly, all the events from China's interference with North Korea's bid to its own bid have deeply rooted in China's history revision plan. What China pursues in the win of the bid is "successful claiming Koguryo," not just for the preservation of the sites or reconstruction. We remind you that China's possible history distortion is not merely a matter of a scientific dispute in Northeast Asia. It will seriously affect boundary and territorial disputes following the possible collapse of the North Korea.
We agree that the purpose of the World Heritage List is to protect cultural heritage for mankind as a whole and we don't deny China's right to bid for designation because although Koguryo's remains have been the land of our ancestors, it is now in China's territory. However, it is also true that Koguryo is the old kingdom of both North and South Koreans. It is not just a theory, but an acknowledged fact for centuries by historians. That's why we also have a right to speak for the destiny of the ruins in China. Moreover, in this dispute between past and reality, we both may concur on one aspect: Koguryo's heritage must be preserved and protected.
Thus, we call on you to defer your decision on China's application until China, North and South Korea agree on proper terms to prevent China's possible trial of history distortion or to give China a chance to clear the conspiracy. We again remind you that China's winning the bid without any strict terms will provide China the best condition to "claim Koguryo," which is just the beginning of further history distortion, and that may cause a great political chaos in Northeast Asia. The terms should include:
(1) China must clearly specify Koguryo is an old kingdom of present Koreans in North and South Korea. (2) China must allow Korean scholars' full access to the sites that is completely limited now. Until recently Korean scholars have kept being denied access to Koguryo ruins as well as a museum opened to the public. We have a right to pursue a research on the remains of our ancestors. (3) In the long term, it is worthwhile to pursue a joint research project among China, North and South Korea.
Secondly we call for the immediate adoption of strict and detailed plans to monitor China's any trial of history distortion in the area under the supervision of multinational personnel.
Finally, we call on you to adopt a letter including North and South Korea, which are the two countries concerned with this issue, into members of the ICOMOS.
We appreciate China for its current efforts and interests in the symbol of our national identity, the Koguryo heritage sites. However, we also urge that China must stop further cultural assault on Koreans by trying to distorting our history. We know that the ICOMOS has been working so hard to preserve and protect the world heritage sites, and you deserve admiration from the world. We sincerely ask you to remind one more thing: the preservation and protection of the ancient ruins are not merely for the disappearing objects. Dear members of the Committee. Please remember that the purpose of the World Heritage List is also for the preservation and protection of the spirit itself buried in the objects. Koguryo ruins don't speak, but we Koreans hear the voice from the past now.
А что советские учёные, согласны ли они были с тем, что корейская нация пошла от когурёссцев? Кто-то ж говорил, что их язык был больше похож на диалект японского, чем на древнекорейский?..
Эх, где же она - родина слонов? 😁)
Что об этом пишет японская Йомиури? (Перевод на кор.) Оригинал: 2004/1/1４ 読売新聞 「高句麗は中国の歴史の一部」に韓国が猛反発 【ソウル＝浅野好春】現在の北朝鮮と中国東北部、韓国の一部を支配した古代王朝「高句麗」（紀元前３７―６６８年）の位置づけを巡り、中国が「自国内の少数民族による地方政権で、高句麗史は中国史の一部」という認識の証明につながる国家プロジェクトを推進していることに、韓国が反発している。 韓国外交通商省は昨年末から今月初旬にかけ、在北京韓国大使館を通じて中国側に「韓中両国関係に否定的な影響を及ぼす」との憂慮を数回にわたり伝えた。中国側はこれに対し、「学術問題であり、政府が介入して政治問題化するのは望ましくない」との立場を示したというが、中韓間の歴史問題が今後さらに深刻化する可能性もある。 韓国が問題視しているのは、中国政府直属の研究機関である社会科学院が２００２年３月に始動させた「東北プロジェクト」。東北３省（遼寧、吉林、黒竜江）とともに遺跡の発掘、保存整備を推進、さらに中朝、中露関係史なども見直す。 プロジェクトに関連して、韓国マスコミなどは、中国紙、光明日報が昨年掲載した論文「試論・高句麗史研究の諸問題」に注目している。論文は、高句麗を中国内の少数民族政権とし、〈１〉隋、唐が高句麗と戦った目的は国家統一〈２〉高麗（９１８―１３９２年）王朝は高句麗の継承者ではなく、３世紀前後に朝鮮半島南部を支配した３韓（馬韓、弁韓、辰韓）の後継政権〈３〉朝鮮（１３９２―１９１０年）王朝は古代中国の一部をなした箕子朝鮮の国号を“盗用”した――などとしている。中国では従来、４２７年の中国東北部の国内城（現・集安）から平壌への遷都までを中国史としていた。論文には遷都以後の半島北部の歴史も中国史に取り込む意図があると見られている。 韓国の歴史学会は、「論文の主張通りなら、韓国史は新羅、百済の領地だった（ソウルなどを流れる）漢江以南の地域に限定され、期間も約２０００年に過ぎなくなる」とし、「高句麗史を一方的に中国史に帰属させる覇権主義の歴史観だ」と危機感を強めている。 先月、韓国古代史学会など１７の関連団体が「高句麗史歪曲（わいきょく）対策委員会」を発足させたほか、市民団体では抗議の１００万人署名運動を開始した。政府も、官民合同による高句麗史研究センターの設立を決めたり、高建首相が次の南北閣僚級会談で北朝鮮に対して、北朝鮮内にある高句麗遺跡の世界遺産登録に向けた協力を提案する方針を示すなどしている。 韓国では、中国は将来的な北朝鮮の体制崩壊と南北統一を見据え、東北部の朝鮮族の動揺を防ぎ、戦略的に北朝鮮地域まで介入できる根拠を探っていると見る向きが多い。 北朝鮮は表立った反応は見せていないが、中国の動きには反発していると見られる。しかし、南北の歴史観の違いから、韓国との共同研究などが実現しても難航は必至だ。 崔柄憲・ソウル大国史学科教授の話「中国の歴史歪曲は近代以前までの我が国の全歴史にかかわるため、近代に限定された日本の歪曲より深刻な問題だ。北朝鮮でも７０年代から歴史学へのイデオロギーの影響が強まって歪曲が目立つが、南北協力は進めるべきだ。中国との学術交流も進め、史料に基づき粘り強く説得していく作業も必要だ」 (2004/1/13/23:59 読売新聞 無断転載禁止)
"Руки прочь от Когурё!!!" - Сотня южнокорейских писателей выражает свой протест против фальшификации истории Когурё со стороны Китая перед зданием бывшего посольства КНР в Мёндонг, Сеул 14 января 2004 г.
В этой ранее открытой теме, почти одноименной с другой (Korea vs. China 🙂 ), есть материалы, которые могут оказаться полезными для обсуждения (здесь или там).
Хорошо бы слить эти темы воедино.
я просто не видел вашей темы, поэтому открыл свою. а так бы продолжил.
Но этот инциндент имеет не только плохие стороны. Извращение Китаем истории Когурё дало ещо дин повод поднят вопрос обьединения Корей (точнее дало ещо один повод сделать вид что Корея стрeмится к скорейшему обьединению)
중국이 고구려의 역사를 자기네 역사로 편입시킬려고 하는 의도를 서서히 들어내고 있다. 우리남북한이 통일되고 나면 중국과 국경을 마주해야 되는데 그때가면 옛날 고구려땅이 우리것이라는 우리 한국측의 주장을 사전에 봉쇄하려는 저의가 깔려있단다.
The Japan Times Online поместила редакторскую заметку на тему (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?ed20040829a1.htm).
The ancient kingdom of Koguryo, traditionally believed to have been founded in 37 B.C., ruled a vast region extending from Manchuria (northern provinces of China) to the Korean Peninsula until 668. Tumulus wall paintings in Nara, which was the capital of Japan in the 8th century, are said to reflect Koguryo's influence. Now, more than 13 centuries after its fall, China and South Korea are fighting a diplomatic battle over the kingdom's history.
The general theory is that Koguryo was one of the three kingdoms of ancient Korea. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, however, claims that Koguryo was a regional government of China. Chinese media referred to Koguryo as a part of China when its archaeological sites in the country, as well as in North Korea, were registered on this year's world heritage list. The Chinese Foreign Ministry has deleted a description of Koguryo from its Web site on the history of South Korea.
The South Korean government, meanwhile, has accused Beijing of "distorting history." In a report commissioned by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources, the South Korean Society of Ancient History says China's claim to Koguryo is more flagrant than Japan's whitewashing of its militaristic past in its history textbooks. Angry South Koreans have demanded that Seoul withdraw its ambassador from Beijing.
Reportedly South Korea intends to take strong action, "no matter what the sacrifices," if Beijing twists the kingdom's history in its new history textbooks next year. The Society of Ancient History says China may be bracing for a border problem that might arise in the event of Korean reunification.
According to historians, the Sui dynasty in China collapsed as a result of its failed invasion of Koguryo. After that, Silla, one of the three kingdoms, united Korea under the unified Silla dynasty (668-935). One wonders how today's China looks at that episode in ancient history.
The Japan Times: Aug. 29, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
The Korea Times поместила следующую статью (7-ю по счету из серии статей по обсуждаемой проблеме). Оригинал и остальные ссылки на http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200408/kt2004083119391311950.htm.
Chinese Argument Has Too Many Flaws
The following is the seventh in a series of articles on China's misrepresentations of the history of the ancient kingdom of Koguryo (37 B.C.-A.D. 668 ). - ED.
By Ah-rim Park (жен., 女 - atk9)
Research fellow of Koguryo Research Foundation
The recent dispute on the sovereignty of the ancient Korean kingdom, Koguryo, boiled over right after the Koguryo relics in North Korea and China were added to the UNESCO World Heritage List on July 1 at the 28th meeting of the World Heritage Committee in Suzhou, China. Some Korean historians who have been carrying out research on Koguryo and have been carefully paying attention to the recent scholarship of the Chinese on Northeast China said that the recent row between Korea and China on the heritage of Koguryo was bound to happen sooner or later.
In 1983, the Chinese Academy of Social Science launched the Center for the Study of History and Geography of Borderland Regions, whose research focuses on the history, ethnicity, geography and culture of the border regions. It is known that before the Center moved its research interests to Northeast China in 2002 to establish the Northeast Asia Project, it had finished several long-term research projects on Northwest China. The Northeast Asian project, the five-year project funded by the Chinese government from 2002 to 2006, accomplished 27 research projects in 2002, 15 in 2003 and 15 in 2004. In the following year, the Center is going to move its research area from Koguryo to the next period, Palhae.
It is, on one hand, positive that the Chinese show such great interest in Koguryo’s heritage, as evidenced by their efforts to add Koguryo’s capitals and tombs to the World Heritage List and by the sheer number of research accomplishments on Koguryo history. However, on the other hand, a serious concern over the Northeast Asian project is that the project seems to have ulterior political motivations, rather than purely academic aims, and seems to be making an effort to distort the history of Korea including Koguryo. Some scholars said that the ``united multi-ethnic state’’ theory adopted in China since the 1980s is what’s behind the distortion of Koguryo history. According to the theory, all ethnic groups living within the current Chinese territory have been a part of China since antiquity. If this theory is applied to Koguryo, whose first and second capitals are currently located in Jilin province, China, Koguryo must be incorporated into Chinese History, and should be described as a local regime of China.
To justify the assertion that Koguryo history is a part of China, Chinese scholars have provided several arguments concerning the origin of Koguryo people, the territory of Koguryo, a tribute-investiture system, the characteristics of the warfare between Koguryo and the Sui-T’ang dynasty as well as the refugees of Koguryo after the collapse.
First, with regard to the ethnic origin of Koguryo people, Chinese recently began to claim that Koguryo people descended from the legendary Zhuan Xi, Gao Yang Shi clan, or Yan Di tribe, as proof that Koguryo people originated from Han Chinese. It is however the Yemaek tribe that established Koguryo and makes up much of today’s Korea, as it is evident even in the historiography of China.
Second, the Chinese argue that Koguryo was a local regime of China because it was founded within the Chinese territory, in Xuantu Commandery, one of the Four Han Commanderies of China, and continued to develop within the territory of Han Commanderies. Korea scholars, however, pointed out that not only did Han Commanderies not last long in their territories, but also, as soon as Koguryo gained power in the region, the Han Commanderies were forced to move westward. The development of Koguryo, therefore, can be described as the process of driving out Han Commanderies from its domain.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese assertion that Pyongyang, where one of the Han Commanderies was located, was historically the territory of ancient China, contradicts the ``united multi-ethnic state’’ theory in that Pyongyang is currently not in China but in North Korea. In addition, before Han Commanderies were put in place, the area around Pyongyang was the major base of Old-Chosun, thus having the historical significance as a former dynasty of Koguryo.
Thirdly, a tribute-investiture system, a diplomatic formality in ancient East Asia, provides another argument on the sovereignty of Koguryo. If we understand the nature of the tributary system practiced in East Asia, the Chinese argument that Koguryo was not an independent kingdom, but a local regime of China as it paid a tribute to Chinese dynasties, can easily lose credibility. The biggest flaw in this argument is inconsistency. They never apply the same assertion to Paekje, Silla, and ancient Japan, all of which had a tributary relationship like Koguryo.
Concerning the characteristics of the warfare between Koguryo and Sui-T’ang, which resulted in the collapse of Koguryo, the Chinese began to define it as civil warfare. They describe it as a unification war, with Sui and T’ang China trying to unify China, in order to suggest that Koguryo was not an independent kingdom, but a local state of China. However, before the rise of the Sui and T’ang in the 6th - 7th centuries, Koguryo was the major power in East Asia while China was divided into many kingdoms ruled by non-Chinese and Chinese people such as Xianbei. By the 7th century, as Koguryo weakened, T’ang China tried to gain power in East Asia and attacked Koguryo in order to establish Chinese centered international order. Thus, the nature of the warfare between Koguryo and T’ang cannot be called a domestic conflict. It was clearly international warfare.
The fifth argument made by the Chinese concerns the remaining people of Koguryo after the kingdom collapsed. The Chinese assumed that the majority of the Koguryo population after A.D. 668 was absorbed into China, existing today as part of today’s Han Chinese. In an effort to sever the relation between Koguryo and Koryo that inherited Koguryo, they add another statement: one should not confuse Wang Gun’s Koryo with Koguryo founded by Ko Chumong. However, many Koguryo people who moved to China after the fall of the kingdom were forced to do so against their will. Also, unfortunately, contrary to the Chinese assumption, Chinese historiography as well as Samguk sagi and Samguk yusa evidently show that it was the United Silla, Koryo, and Palhae who inherited the Koguryo people, not Han Chinese.
As discussed above, the Chinese arguments have several contradictions and are vulnerable because they are simply not based on historical facts. To deal with the Chinese assertion on Koguryo’s history, the Koguryo Research Foundation is developing counterarguments along with the analysis on the Northeast Asia project, and carrying out the research on Northeast Asia including Koguryo and Palhae. The Foundation is also collecting research materials, providing research funds for scholars related to the field, publishing information books and journals on Koguryo both in Korean and English and organizing domestic and international conferences.
Concerning networking with foreign scholars abroad for international support to deal with the Chinese assertion on Koguryo, it is necessary to make a long-term plan in order to encourage Korean Studies abroad. Despite the fact that the demand for Korean studies in Western countries is rising, following Chinese and Japanese studies, it is hard to find English research material on the ancient history and culture of Korea.
It is recommended that in future, translated works on the research accomplishments of Korea should focus on the needs of foreign readers and scholars, rather than just asking them to understand our stance. We should be able to explain to them why it is necessary to learn Korean history and culture, how Korea is different from China and Japan, as well as what the significance of Koguryo history and culture is to World History.
Otherwise, it is unlikely they would be interested in knowing Korean history. Now that the Koguryo relics have been added to the World Heritage List, it means that the unique and extraordinary characteristics of ancient Korean history and culture are gaining international recognition. The recent dispute on Koguryo might provide us with just the right opportunity to globalize Korean studies, and help us to look at our history and culture objectively.