Source : http://www.ikjournal.com
	Jan-Feb 2008 > Society > Koreana
	Once upon a time, there was a kingdom. Set in what is today North Korea and Manchuria, it was called Goguryeo. It rose from a tribe in 37 BC, conquered vast tracts of land, and then collapsed in 668 AD. End of story? Not quite. Fifteen centuries later, it is stirring passions across the region. Here in Korea, one　 might legitimately call Goguryeo "the hottest ancient dynasty of the day." This explosion of interest is new and unusual; South Koreans have tended to focus their historical lens most closely on the dynasties of Shilla and Chosun. There are good reasons for this. Shilla -- the kingdom which defeated Goguryeo and Baekjae, thus unifying the peninsula -- is widely seen as the real ancestor of today's Korea as a single, geopolitical entity. Moreover, given that Shilla originated in the southwest of the peninsula, there are still many artifacts extant within the borders of what is now South Korea. Joseon (also known as the Yi Dynasty) tends to dominate historiography and related popular culture, for reason of its longevity -- it lasted from 1392 to 1910, making it one　 of the world's longest ruling houses -- and also the fact that it is the closest to our own time. Early 21st century Koreans can look back at late Joseon era people and say -- in terms of the language they spoke, the food they ate, the alphabet they used, and many other aspects of social culture -- "They were like us." So why the sudden interest in a long lost kingdom? Firstly, the above paragraph notwithstanding, Koreans have always considered Goguryeo, as one　 of the "Three Kingdoms" of the peninsula, an ancestral state. Secondly, someone else is trying to claim it as its own. But before we get to that -- what do we actually know of Goguryeo? Of course, history this ancient is unclear on many issues; much of early Goguryeo "history" is lost in myth. A 4th century stele states that the founder of Goguryeo was a certain Jumong -- the son of a king of Buyeo (another ancient kingdom) and a river deity. Later sources have his father as a heavenly prince. More concretely, the kingdom is thought to have been founded in 37 BC (though some argue it may have been earlier, around the 2nd century BC). What is more certain is that the dynasty started in the Yalu river basin on the current Sino-Korean border. (For the reader's convenience, the modern names China, Korean and Manchuria will be used for geographical reference, but in the context of history, all are anachronisms.) The early Goguryeoans were fighters and raiders. By 53 AD, under King Taejo, they had five tribes under control; other tribes paid tribute. Laws later absorbed tribute tribes into the aristocracy, sealing them to the evolving state. Royal succession became patrilineal. THE TIME OF THE 'LAND EATER' By the first century AD, Goguryeo was already a powerful state. Baekjae and Shilla developed soon after; Baekjae in the southwest, Shilla in the southeast. Due to geographic circumstances, they were shielded by predation from the north by Goguryeo -- though Goguryeo, at various times, also warred with its two southern neighbors. Fighting continued with the various warlords, tribes and states in the 3rd century. Goguryeo's greatest king, Gwanggaeto the Great, ruled from 391 to 412 AD. His exploits are recorded on a stele near present-day Jilin, in Manchuria. This warrior king led his cavalry armies far and wide. The stele records that the king took 1,400 villages and 46 walled cities, and dominated Shilla and Baekjae, essentially unifying the peninsula (albeit, onl　y for around half a century). Known semi-humorously today as "Dang Dang Meokki" ("the land eater") the warrior king controlled much of Manchuria and part of today's Russian Far East -- in fact the portion of Goguryeo that covered what is now "non-Korean" soil was, in fact, larger than the entire peninsula -- and elevated himself to a position equivalent to the major Chinese dynasties. Goguryeo was the first of the three kingdoms to adapt Buddhism, which it introduced to the peninsula in 372 AD. (With some 11 million followers in South Korea, it is still going strong today). In the 6th century, it set its capital in today's Pyeongyang. The kingdom also established a Confucian academy, and institutions to educate its nobility and to write its history. One　 of the most famous pieces of Goguryeo art is a sixth-century tomb mural, depicting mounted archers turning in the saddles of galloping ponies to pick off deer. In 598, war broke out between the China-based Sui Dynasty and Goguryeo. In 612, Sui Emperor Wen-ti launched a massive attack with an army said to be a million strong. While this is almost certainly a significant exaggeration, it was undoubtedly a huge force. Goguryeo held out at Liolung fortress; when the Sui troops bypassed it and struck deeper into the kingdom, they were lured further south by feigned defeats. At the Salsu River, Goguryeo General Eulji Mundok turned, stood and struck. In a massive ambush that included the release of water from a dam, almost 300,000 Sui troops were annihilated. The Tang Dynasty, which succeeded the Sui, also attacked Goguryeo in 645. It also failed. In 661, a Tang invasion fleet was defeated below the walls of Pyeongyang. Here we see one　 of the reasons today's Koreans are so passionate about Goguryeo. Had it not held Sui and Tang, those proto-Chinese dynasties might have overrun Shilla and Baekjae. That calamity could have precluded the creation of Korea as nation and culture. HISTORY UP FOR GRABS But Goguryeo had been weakened by war, famine and internal dissension. Meanwhile, Tang had forged an alliance with Shilla, which had taken Baekjae in 660. In 668, it was Goguryeo's turn. The last king and 200,000 citizens were taken to Tang. Shilla unified the peninsula, but was unable to claim the lands that had been Goguryeo's in the north: Tang took most of Manchuria. The most significant echo of Goguryeo down the ages may be its first syllable. The Go- of the later Goryeo Dynasty (918 to 1392) originates in Goguryeo. "Goryeo" is also spelled "Koryo." Still with me? Yes: it is from Koryo that the (non-Korean speaking) world takes the name "Korea." All very interesting. So what does it have to do with modern Northeast Asia? As the International Crisis Group noted in a 2006 report, nationalism is stirring across China, Japan and Korea. But while current South Korean interest in Goguryeo is new and unusual, a neighboring nation has taken an interest in it that is even newer and more unusual. With the launch of the "Northeast Asia Project" in 2002, Beijing historians affiliated with the Institute of Social Sciences have recently begun calling Goguryeo -- Gaogouli in Chinese -- (the spoken language of Goguryeo, incidentally, bore little resemblance to either Chinese or Korean) a client state of ancient China, paving the way for it to claim the artistic legacy -- such as the many tombs and tomb murals that dot the Manchurian landscape -- and history as its own. Some South Koreans believe that through this method, Beijing aims to co-opt the many ethnic Koreans who live in modern Manchuria and China, thus halting the spread of potential pan-ethnic/cross-border Korean nationalism, and possibly laying grounds to prevent any future border disputes with a unified Korea. Big issues. Seoul, not wishing to spark a diplomatic incident, has maintained a creditably low-key approach. Pyeongyang, apparently unwilling to anger its closest ally, has kept similarly mum. But ordinary South Koreans have responded with energy. While no South Koreans are suggesting an invasion of the ancient Goguryeo territories, there is a strong sense that China is stealing something Korean -- even something as intangible as "ownership" of an ancient kingdom. Indignant columnists accuse China of attempting to resume its regional "Big Brother" role. Web sites festooned with Korean flags, such as "Goguryeo, Proud History of Korea" (www.mygoguryeo.net) have sprung up to press the local case. A group known as VANK (Voluntary Agency Network for Korea; Web site www.prkorea.com),which aims to inform the wider world of (ahem) the "correct history" of Korea, has taken up the baton. CULTURAL WARRIORS VANK activists routinely write Web sites, newspapers and textbook editors around the world, promoting their views. There have even been good natured demonstrations outside the Chinese embassy by youths attired as Goguryeo warriors. (If their costumes are accurate, Goguryeo's fearsome warriors looked like a cross between a Hollywood Viking and a San Francisco leather merchant). Is this a case of Asians battling over something that can never be resolved? Could there be any echoes of this situation in, say, modern Europe? Hmmm... Let us imagine, say, modern Italy, Sweden, Germany and the United Kingdom quarrelling over whose "history" the Britain of the Dark Ages "belonged to." Was it the Romanized Celtic tribes in the East (the hypothetical "Italian" case)? Or the invading/colonizing Angles, Saxons and Jutes in the West (that would be the "German" and "Swedish" cases)? Or are all these persons, in fact, recognizably modern Britons (that would be Union Jack-waver's case)? It's a non-issue. British historians agree that the various tribes, peoples and influences in early Britain were not "British" in the modern sense of the word, and there is (at least, to the best of my knowledge) no nationalistic assertions by the other nations mentioned above to somehow co-opt early British history to their own ends. However, the most iconic figure of Britain's Dark Ages -- King Arthur -- is claimed both by English and Welsh nationalists. Now, in the modern world, Arthur has become a mythic figure, far removed from his historical origins. My comparison falls down a bit here, I concede, as we have much stronger historical evidence of some of the Goguryeo figures than we do of Arthur. But bear with me. Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur, arguably the most influential account of Arthur's alleged life and deeds, was written centuries after his death. Nineteenth and 20th century treatments, such as Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee at the Court of King Arthur, T.H. White's The Onc　e and Future Kingand John Boorman's motion picture Excaliburbear little resemblance to history. But they are not meant to: they are entertainment. And that brings us to the latest developments. Whatever evidence the academics -- historians, archeologists, archivists, geographers -- dig up on Goguryeo, the struggle has moved to anther level, a level -- one　 that Twain, White and Boorman might approve of. The country has recruited its most formidable cultural warriors to join the struggle. GOGURYEO GETS A MAKEOVER This fall, Koreans were glued to their TV sets on Wednesday and Thursday nights, watching the sprawling MBC historical soap opera, The Great King and His Four Guardians. It is based (very, very loosely) on the story of Gwanggaeto. The makers have invested big. "They made a huge investment -- US$1.7 million per episode -- so it has very wide angles, and the computer graphics are quite experimental; these effects are usually used in movies, not TV dramas," said Gina Park, a PR executive who is a fan of the show. "Each episode is bursting with spectacle -- battles, sieges, and the like. What people like, though, is the king's attitude; he respected humanity." The heroes are played by some of Korea's hottest thespians: Bae Yong-Joon (known in Japan, where he is phenomenally popular, as "Yonsama") and Philip Lee. Were the hard men of Goguryeo pretty lads with silky flowing locks, moisturized facial features and kinky black armor? Almost certainly not, but let us remember, we are not talking history here. This is a historical-fantasy on the grand scale. "Pop culture is very important," said Lim Jie-Hyun, a history professor at Hanyang University. "I think TV producers educate people, not historians!" So is Goguryeo Korean or Chinese? The simple answer, of course, is "neither." As any serious historian will tell you, you cannot look back into the past and judge the actions and ethics of then by the standards of now. As Lim notes, neither Korea nor China as we know them today existed at the time. Goguryeo was Goguryeo -- and that is that. But in the modern debate, who will win? Academic forces are being marshaled, and pens sharpened, on both sides of the Yellow Sea. This could get diplomatically nasty. Let us not forget the simmering ethnic tensions of the Balkans -- tensions closely bound up with the differently represented histories of the various communities. Even in the late 20th century, in the heart of Europe, historical and nationalistic passions have led to bloodshed and atrocity. Nobody is claiming that the TV series is historically accurate. But for the average Kim, Park or Lee -- or, for that matter, the average Wang, Chen or Kwan -- this interpretation is likely to be much more attractive than anything written in a textbook. Of course, there is a danger that the movement of the issue from the historical to the entertainment arena could further ignite passion, but at present, it seems to have provided a kind of catharsis: the controversy in Korea is currently ebbing. Either way, Korea seems to have the upper hand at present. Historians may gnash their teeth -- "I think these dramas are terrible!" laments Dr. Lim -- but what academic can compete with the draw of the mighty Yonsama? Given that, I think that as regards the status of the Goguryeo/Gaogouli debate, it's game, set and match to Kore-, er, I mean, Goguryeo. By Michael McKnight mmcknight@gmail.com