토익 만점에 근접하시는 분들. 이것 난이도 좀...

[『빛』【어둠】]

Problems concerning China's research




The following is the second in a series of contributions by prominent Korean history scholars on the Goguryeo Kingdom. - Ed.

By Cho Beob-jong


In an attempt to "utilize past history for present purposes," the Chinese academic community is taking a new approach in its interpretation of history. Apparently, the new approach is aimed at achieving unity and stability of present-day Chinese society based on a theory of a unified multi-ethnic state. The centerpiece of the new approach is a project called "Studies of History and Geography of Northeast Borderland and a Series of Phenomena" launched in February 2002, which seeks to incorporate the history of Korea's Goguryeo Kingdom into Chinese history.


Painting of Dangun
The direction of research, however, indicates that the Chinese will extensively apply the above theory and interpretations not only on the history of Korea's Goguryeo Kingdom but also on the histories of its preceding kingdoms such as Gojoseon and ancient tribal nations like the Yemaek tribe, so that they can incorporate and claim this part of Korean history into China's own. Such a perspective is an attempt to revise the traditional and current Sino-centric perspectives of the Chinese academic community; namely, the dichotomy of "Middle Kingdom vs Eastern Bowmen." The upshot is to incorporate the histories of Gojoseon (pre-Goguryeo) and the Dongyi Tribe ("Eastern Bowmen") into the Chinese. Furthermore, the extent and contents of their history distortions are very serious, indeed.

The Chinese positions are clearly outlined in the following research objectives proposed by the Chinese academic community:


1) To provide development content concerning the history of the Chinese nation and to refute the arguments of foreign scholars.

2) To provide historical ground for the unity of ethnic groups in the Northeastern borderland region.

3) To promote sources of cohesion as Chinese and the awareness of Sino-centricism among ethnic groups in the Northeast borderland region.

4) To develop weapons of historical theories to fight against interference and infiltrations of various hostile forces and to achieve social stability in the Northeastern region.


As shown above, the project is not simple historical research. Its ultimate goal is to come up with weapons of historical theories for contemporary political needs. So, we should give our most serious attention to such political attitudes.

The following will summarize the arguments and the problem areas of the Chinese academic community on this issue:


First, the ancient tribal nations issue. Korean historians view that Korean history developed along the lines of Dangun Joseon-Gojoseon-Yemaek and Buyeo-Goguryeo-Balhae. But, the Chinese academic community criticizes it to be a result of unscientific and non-historiographical research. It contends that such a view "disrupted the order of development of old ethnic groups in its Northeastern region and disconnected blood ties of Chinese people." However, the Korean view of history has been maintained for more than 1,000 years and the Chinese and Japanese history documents also support this part of Korean history.


Second, Chinese scholars identify the four main ethnic tribes in the Northeastern region of old China to be the nations (tribes) of Han, Sukshin, Yemaek and Dongho. They approach the issues related with these tribes such as origins, growth, development and mergers from a "developmental" standpoint, and emphasize that "the developmental history of the ethnic tribes in the Northeastern region of old China falls within the purview of Chinese history."


The problem, however, is that it is impossible to define the concept of "ancient Northeastern ethnic tribes." The term "northeast" refers to the Three Northeastern Provinces in present-day China and therefore the name of today's Chinese administrative district. In this context, to bundle up the four old tribes whose origins and culture are different from the Chinese into the politically charged concept of "old ethnic groups" is a serious matter. In other words, the Chinese have already defined the concept in this manner, and try to embrace these old tribes under an umbrella concept of "people (or nation)" and naturally link them with the concept of a "unified multi-ethnic nation."

However, these tribes had definitively different languages and cultures, and their population distribution went far beyond the boundaries of the Three Northeastern Provinces of present-day China. Also included in this umbrella concept are a good number of tribes whose origins are not related with the region. Moreover, languages and culture form the most fundamental and essential prerequisites for the concept of a people. So, any discussion that lacks examination of such elements cannot be a valid concept even from today's standpoint.

With regard to issues concerning Gojoseon, the argument of the Chinese academic community is that both ancient Chinese mythologies and the Shang civilization made a sustained impact on Korean culture. It further argues that Joseon (as written in Chinese characters) was a Chinese name created during the Shang Dynasty (1766-1122 B.C.), and that the legendary figures of Jeonwook-Goyang and Goyi were the origins of what later became the culture of Goguryeo. The Chinese scholars also insist that the intrinsic folk-culture, custom, lifestyles and other features of the Goguryeo culture followed an entirely different lineage from the 'three Han States' (Confederated Kingdoms of Samhan), Silla (57 B.C.-A.D. 935) or Baekje (18 B.C.-A.D. 660) Kingdoms, concluding that Goguryeo, therefore, is neither part of the history of Korea's Three Kingdoms nor does it belong to Korean history itself.

Contrary to these Chinese arguments, however, the name of Joseon was already explained by the Chinese scholar, Jiang An, in the "Sa-Gi Jip-Hae," an annotated version of "Shiji" written by Ssuma Chien (135-186 B.C.). He mentions the term primarily as a geographic name related to three rivers ("Seob Su" "Yeol Su" and "Seon Su"). The argument concerning Jeonwook-Goyang and Goyi is also problematic and without credibility. The Chinese academic community is attempting to establish some links between these two legendary figures and Goguryeo, making use of sources whose credibility is not solid. Chinese scholars, in other words, are trying to explain history on account of similarities between the Chinese characters (Go) used in these names. But this attempt to justify ethnic connections purely on the basis of chance uses of the Chinese character "Go" is simply unacceptable, linguistically or otherwise. Besides, in light of the fact that Goguryeo and Buyeo believed they had same roots and ancestry and the three kingdoms of Korea used the same language, it follows that the Chinese argument to treat Goguryeo as a separate tribe unrelated to the rest of the Korean kingdoms cannot be corroborated.

The Chinese academic community further argues that the Dan-gun (the founding father of Korea) mythology was shaped by influences of China's Han culture, and that it was a reflection of Chinese culture. That argument is also without legitimate basis because it overlooks the fact that the most important feature in the Dan-gun mythology is bear-totem worshipping. This is part of a culture of ancient Asian tribes that is completely independent of Chinese mythologies, having no correlations with each other.

Fully aware of Korean and Japanese academic circles that dismiss the existence of Gija, Chinese scholars continue to emphasize the historic significance of this legendary figure. On this point, Korean experts and scholars, through their dedicated research, have already proved the falsity of the legend, which said he had come to the east (to establish (Gija) Joseon). Chinese scholars also emphasize that Wiman Joseon was a foreign subject of China's Han Dynasty and therefore its history should form a part of Chinese history. Again, their logic is unsustainable because the concept of a foreign subject at the time did not fall within the purview of China's domestic control or jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, we must note the fact that Chinese scholars have largely been silent about the unique cultural characteristics found all across the Korean and Liaodong Peninsulas (such as dolmens, bronze short swords and earthenware), which are quite distinct from those of the Chinese bronze-period. This tells us that Chinese arguments are often based on sources that seem to fit into their points of argument, however false or exaggerated. The archeological artifacts that continue to be found in the region (of Goguryeo) clearly support the fact that the region does not fall within the boundary of Chinese history. The Yemaek-Han tribes (of the Manchurian area) form part of Korean people's ancestry. They fostered their own distinctive bronze culture, history and language, which were different from those of China. Their subsequent process of development has led to the formation of Old Joseon, Buyeo, Goguryeo, Baekje, Silla, Balhae, Unified Silla, Goryeo, and Joseon, laying the basic structure of Korean history.



The writer is a professor of history at Woosuk University. - Ed.




2004.02.04

[오드리Young]

저는 만점가까이는 아니고 구백대 초반인데요 매일보는 코리아헤럴드와 어느정도 난이도가 비슷한것 같습니다. 워낙 요새 화제가되고있는 그런내용이라 일일이 세세하게는 해석할 수 없더라도 대충대충 해석은 가능합니다. 중국놈들이 단군(고조선)까지 자기네꺼라는줄은 몰랐네요.+_+

[묵묵히 하자]

저는 1월에 첨 토익치고 점수 나오기만을 기다리는 토익 초보이지만 수준은 대체로 part4정도보다 낮은 것 같네여..부분적으로 모르는 단어 빼고는...대충은 무슨 말인지 알겠네여..오드리님 말씀처럼 코리아헤럴드가 저정도 수준이면 저도 신문 좀 봐야겠네여..^^수거여~

[난 나 야]

이거 2월4일자 코리아헤럴드에 나온기사입니다... 매일 코리아헤럴드 보다보니 기억이 남는군요... 코리아헤럴드는 국내에서 발행하는 영자신문이기에 우리에게 친숙한 기사가 많습니다...그러다 보니 이해하기도 쉽고...단지 토익이 아닌 영어를 위한 공부하기엔 적절한 것 같네요...