Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 1 votes

Barhae/Bohai


  • Please log in to reply
332 replies to this topic

#16 Yun

Yun

    Sage-King

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 9,057 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore/USA
  • Interests:Ancient Chinese history, with a focus on the Age of Fragmentation. Chinese ethnicities, religion, philosophy, music, and art and material culture. Military history in general.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Three Kingdoms, Age of Fragmentation, Sui-Tang

Posted 22 April 2005 - 08:04 PM

Excellent posting Yun. Where did you get that? Did you get it from a Chinese source like the New History of Tang and translate it into English?


Thanks, Wangkon 936, and welcome to CHF. Yes, that was translated from the New History of the Tang (Xin Tangshu).
The dead have passed beyond our power to honour or dishonour them, but not beyond our ability to try and understand.

#17 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 03 May 2005 - 02:09 AM

Yeah....

Just a fellow Korean representing, but doing so in an educated, balanced and scholarly way. I'm actually in an email dialouge with Dr. Renkel. He's going to send me English versions of his Parhae work that will answer some very interesting questions about the kindom like which language did they speak and how well the Parhae nobles integrated into Koryo society when they fled the Khitan and asked for help from Koryo.

#18 Gubook Janggoon

Gubook Janggoon

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,250 posts
  • Interests:Korean history (Plus Asian history in general), European history, U.S. history, Pretending to speak Spanish, and Pirates
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 03 May 2005 - 07:29 PM

Yeah....

Just a fellow Korean representing, but doing so in an educated, balanced and scholarly way.  I'm actually in an email dialouge with Dr. Renkel.  He's going to send me English versions of his Parhae work that will answer some very interesting questions about the kindom like which language did they speak and how well the Parhae nobles integrated into Koryo society when they fled the Khitan and asked for help from Koryo.

View Post



:)

Be sure to share!
"Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today." -Malcolm X

#19 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:20 AM

Anyways, awhile ago I put together my own summary on what I've learned on Parhae/Bohai. Now I believe I’m somewhat qualified to talk about Korean history in South Manchuria because I've read alot and conversed with Daniel Kane and Mark Byington, probably the two best experts on early Korean History in North America.

Anyways, essentially Reckel says that Parhae did indeed a significant Mohoe element to their population, it had to as the Tang took most of Koguryo’s population and relocated them to the central plain as well as areas as remote as today’s Burma. Out of the 600,000 households of the original Koguryo Kingdom, there was probably only 100,000 households left in Southern Manchuria, not enough to defend against Tang, Silla and Kihtan tribesman. The Mohe changed sides during the Tang/Koguryo wars. Traditional allies to the of Koguryo, the Mohe sided with Tang, but once they figured out that the Tang didn’t really have any plans to develope or effectively rule the Northeast, they decided to revolt, using the distraction that the Kihtan provided to do so. Da Go Wang (or Tae Jo Young in Korean pronounciation) was a Mohe chieftan who was also a Koguryo general. He was ethnically Mohe, not Koguryo.

How do I know this? Well Dr. Reckel notices that early Parhae tombs contained more Mohe artifacts than Koguryo ones. However, as time went by, the Mohe element started to disappear as the Koguryo ruling class solidified their hold on the government. Mohe names disappeared from the diplomatic registers to Japan and Mohe artifacts disappeared from royal tombs. Mohe artifacts also began to be pushed outward to areas away from the cities and on to the northern fringes of the kingdom. Sure, Parhae was a heavily sinofied kingdom, but probably no more then say the Paekje kingdom was or the Unified Shilla Kingdom was becoming at the same time. Anyways, the remaining Koguryo population in the decades after the Tang/Koguryo wars was not enough to create a viable kingdom. The Mohe poplulation did not have the literacy and sophistication to create a kingdom and would not be able to do so until the 17th century when they evolved into the Manchus and defeated the Ming Dynasty.

Several Mohe tribes that Da Jo Young had influence over joined with these Koguryo remnants to create Jin-Guk, the state of Jin in 698 A.D. In 713 A.D., after beating several Tang attemps to eliminate him, Da Jo Young declared himself King of Koryo or Koguryo. The name Bohai or Parhae in Korean was given by Tang. Parhae sometimes addressed themself as Koryo-Guk (or Gaoliguo in Chinese) to Japan, probably because Japan was the only nation that would recognize them with that name as Tang certainly would not given that they had spent so much time and resources in eliminating Koguryo in the first place. The Parhae king went as far as to tell the Japanese Emperor, "We have restored the lost territory of Koguryo and have preserved the remaining customs of the Puyo." I can go on and on about Parhae, but I don’t have the time to. Maybe I’ll put up my own blog about it. =)

Edited by Yun, 04 May 2005 - 04:25 AM.


#20 tianzhuwoye

tianzhuwoye

    Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Heilongjiang University, Harbin
  • Interests:Northeastern history and historical linguistics, early Qing, Parhae, Koguryeo, Jin Empire, Tungusic languages, the Liao Empire, warring states, An Lushan, "ethnicity" and "race" as non-issues. Also beer, karaoke and fighting nationalism everywhere.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tungusic history, Northeastern history

Posted 04 May 2005 - 02:30 AM

Huge, huge ups to WangKon936 for his excellent contributions!

I have a big favor to ask though...

The name Bohai or Parhae in Korean was given by Tang. Parhae sometimes addressed themself as Koryo-Guk (or Gaoliguo in Chinese) to Japan... The Parhae king went as far as to tell the Japanese Emperor, "We have restored the lost territory of Koguryo and have preserved the remaining customs of the Puyo."

I've seen this quote all over the place but never in its entirety. Does anybody have the full section of the text in the original language? Secondary sources I have access to either give a modernized version or a line like in stupidumboy's post above where the 'we' has to be implied from something said earlier. Just wanted to see what this was supposed to look like. Thanks!
Posted Image

#21 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 04 May 2005 - 11:54 AM

I have a big favor to ask though...
I've seen this quote all over the place but never in its entirety. Does anybody have the full section of the text in the original language? Secondary sources I have access to either give a modernized version or a line like in stupidumboy's post above where the 'we' has to be implied from something said earlier. Just wanted to see what this was supposed to look like. Thanks!

View Post


Hey tianzhuwoye. You know what, I do not have a full section of that text. When you say original language, it's likely that all diplomatic correspondence at that time, even between mid-size powers, was in Classical Chinese. I could forward the request to two experts I know, Dr. Han at Kyungsung University and Dr. Reckel. According to Dr. Reckel, only one word from the Parhae language survives, which is the word for king. Dr. Reckel does try to "infer" what language Parhae spoke through Chinese written records and Korean sources on the Parhae refugees. He's sending me materials and yes Gubook, I will share. :)

#22 tianzhuwoye

tianzhuwoye

    Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Heilongjiang University, Harbin
  • Interests:Northeastern history and historical linguistics, early Qing, Parhae, Koguryeo, Jin Empire, Tungusic languages, the Liao Empire, warring states, An Lushan, "ethnicity" and "race" as non-issues. Also beer, karaoke and fighting nationalism everywhere.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tungusic history, Northeastern history

Posted 04 May 2005 - 12:46 PM

My bad on the word choice there. I was kinda being an idiot and trying to avoid saying one thing and on the other hand realizing all the other options were ridiculous and just settled on 'original language.' Obviously no amount of sympathy to a particular stance is going to change the fact that nobody was gonna be recording these things in anything else but Chinese at the time. Bad habit, and I'm working on it.

Stupidumboy's post above mentioned that he was getting the quote from the tenth volume of the 《续日本纪》which is something I'm just not familiar with. Anybody have a place to go for background? Would what's recorded here be a copy of the original letter or a summary of its contents? Anyway, thanks again!
Posted Image

#23 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 04 May 2005 - 01:11 PM

Obviously no amount of sympathy to a particular stance is going to change the fact that nobody was gonna be recording these things in anything else but Chinese at the time. Bad habit, and I'm working on it.

View Post


No prob tianzhuwoye. Honest mistake, right? Not to add insult to injury, but you should also make the distinction between modern Chinese and Classical Chinese as must regular Chinese today can't read Classical Chinese.

#24 tianzhuwoye

tianzhuwoye

    Grand Tutor (Taifu 太傅)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 334 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Heilongjiang University, Harbin
  • Interests:Northeastern history and historical linguistics, early Qing, Parhae, Koguryeo, Jin Empire, Tungusic languages, the Liao Empire, warring states, An Lushan, "ethnicity" and "race" as non-issues. Also beer, karaoke and fighting nationalism everywhere.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Tungusic history, Northeastern history

Posted 04 May 2005 - 01:31 PM

Just to clarify, where this is coming from is a reaction to a few glances at secondary sources and a recent lecture which all made a big deal out of the fact that Parhae adopted the use of written Chinese. Still, the evidence available today consists of a handful (725 in all) of characters inscribed on the tombs of two princesses, the majority of which were repeated (like everything but their names, number of children, etc), and some 400 characters with 150 repeats carved into tiles which were apparently pretty indecipherable- the result of the research done by Jin Yufu 金毓黻 (a standard reference for official northeastern history) was that "most likely 80-90% are Chinese characters."

I wonder what the standards would have been. There was obviously interaction between Parhae and the Tang Empire, and the《续日本纪》apparently records correspondence with Japan. Got a theory about the significance of writing at the time but won't get into it here. Fact is I found the appearance of this letter odd. Also there's a line from the official Tang Histories saying that Parhae "颇有文字及书记" so I wonder what happened?

Dr. Reckel does try to "infer" what language Parhae spoke through Chinese written records and Korean sources on the Parhae refugees.

Parhae wasn't writing much of anything, huh?
Posted Image

#25 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:35 PM

Thought I'd throw another cut & paste on here, this time from a Korean professor. All in all it's got some interesting points such as the fact that Parhae tomb construction was very similar to Koguryo's, the use of "ondol" heating system (only Koreans today use this heating system extensively), similar fortress construction, palace design and that the Taes in Korea are the only ones in the world who can trace their ancestry back to the Da of Parhae. However, what I disagree with is Dr. Han's believe that Parhae's population was still mostly Koguryo type and his interpretation of "Magal" (Mohe in Chinese).

Read for yourself fellas:

"Korea Herald " 3-10-2004

History of the Balhae Kingdom

By Han Giu-cheol

Korea, China, Russia and Japan have been keenly interested in the history of Balhae (Po-hai), a kingdom that prospered for 229 years from 698 to 926 in the Manchurian region of East Asia. Korea, China and Russia are naturally interested in the history of Balhae because contemporary history continues to unfold across the old territory of Balhae. Japan also continues to maintain its interest in the area as part of studies on the historical records of exchange between ancient Japan and Balhae as well as on the basis of archeological research it has accumulated in the process of installing the so-called "Manchukuo" (in the early 1930s).

This mural painting depicts warriors on horseback from Muyong-chong, or the tomb of the dancers, located in Jian, northern China.

However, in the absence of formal and authoritative historical records about Balhae Kingdom, many historians have advanced diverse views in connection with Balhae's political standing in interstate relations and the nature of its population. The most contentious issues concern the degree of its independence and the composition of its population. South and North Korea, Russia and Japan assert that Balhae was independent in its relations with the Tang Dynasty. On the other hand, China denies this relationship and argues that Balhae was one of the provincial regimes of Tang Dynasty. With regard to the population composition, Korea maintains that it was a kingdom of the displaced Goguryeo people, while some Korean and Japanese scholars argue that the ruling class consisted of Goguryeo people, and the ruled were the Malgal (Mo-ho) tribes. Chinese, Russian and a few Japanese scholars are say that regardless of their social status, Balhae was a dynasty of the Malgal people.

While various opinions and theories emerged from these neighboring countries, only the Chinese will maintain a uniform position that Balhae was not an independent kingdom, but one of the provincial regimes of the Tang Dynasty and that both the founding leadership groups and the inhabitants were all Malgal people.

The Independent Balhae

The Chinese argument that Balhae was not independent is based on the fact that a tribute-investiture relationship existed between Balhae and Tang Dynasty. Under this system, they argue, a king of Balhae was invested in with the title of "governor-general of Holhan Province" of the Tang Dynasty. But, even if we acknowledge the influence of the Tang Dynasty over East Asia, the investiture relationship at the time should be understood as a diplomatic formality in connection with the approval of royal successions, not as an act of governing provincial regimes of the Tang Dynasty.

Also, a tributary relationship is widely regarded as a type of official trade between the dynasties. According to the New History of the Tang Dynasty, Balhae always used its "own era names" and "freely offered" posthumous titles to deceased kings without Tang's approval. Furthermore, the epitaph uncovered from the tomb of Princess Jeonghyo, the fourth daughter of third king Mun revealed that Balhae called itself an empire like China and its king was addressed as the "emperor." In fact, Balhae was so independent as to launch an attack on Tang in A.D. 732 to prevent contacts between Tang and the "Heuksu Malgal" tribe under its control.

It should be acknowledged that Balhae succeeded Goguryeo, because the state of Balhae was founded in the former territory of Goguryeo and its population mostly consisted of Goguryeo people, even though a number of Goguryeo people had been forcibly relocated to other areas following the downfall of Goguryeo in 668. In other words, the argument that the Malgals suddenly filled the old Goguryeo territory lacks credibility.

Successor of Goguryeo

The argument that Balhae was composed of the Malgals is based on the New History of the Tang Dynasty, which describes Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae, as a Malgal tribesman. Another reason with which the Chinese deny the relationship between Goguryeo and Balhae is that both Old History and New History of the Tang Dynasty put Goguryeo in the section of "Eastern Barbarian Dynasties," while Balhae was included in the section of "Northern Barbarian Dynasties." However, the History of Sui Dynasty put Goguryeo and Balhae together in the Eastern Barbarian section.

In this context, we can detect the fact that the history writers since the Old History of the Tang Dynasty maintained a dynasty-centered historical perspective. Under this approach, they could not acknowledge Balhae, which was created 30 years after the fall of Goguryeo, as a country that inherited Goguryeo. In any case, it is an unmistakable fact that Balhae was a kingdom established in succession of Goguryeo in terms of territory as well as the inhabitants. It is utterly unreasonable to argue that the Malgals suddenly replaced all Goguryeo people in the old Goguryeo territory or their population suddenly increased to outnumber the indigenous Goguryeo people.

In addition, the key to understanding the composition of Balhae inhabitants is the fact that the tribal name "Malgal (Mo-ho)" was given by outsiders, not by the Malgals themselves. It is widely known that the forbearers of Malgal were Suksin before the Qin Dynasty and Eup-ru during the Han Dynasty.

These names were not used by the tribes themselves but were coined by different Chinese dynasties to refer to various "uncivilized" barbarian tribes around the periphery. It is unlikely that the Malgal people would change their own tribal name, or would they be willing to use such derogatory word as "Malgal." The term "Malgal" was coined based on the old Sino-centric and dynasty-centered historical perspective as a general term referring to ethnic minorities in the Northeastern borderland of the Tang Dynasty.

It was also a derogatory name for the inhabitants living in the periphery of Goguryeo. In other words, the term "Goguryeo people" were used to refer to the residents in and around the capital Pyongyang and the people residing in outlying areas were called the uncivilized "Malgals."

Records describe Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae, as "a Goguryeo eccentric" or "a Sokmal Malgal." But, these descriptions of him do not mean that he could be either a Goguryeo person or a Malgal person. It simply means that he was a "villager from the Songwha River in Goguryeo." By the same token, it is also clear that the ethnicity of the ruling class and the ruled could not have been different.

We learn from the Old History of the Tang Dynasty the fact that Balhae succeeded Goguryeo. The book says that the "customs of the two dynasties were the same." Customs generally include established practices related with the ceremonies of coming-of-age, marriage, funeral and ancestor memorial, as well as the language. So, the Chinese records themselves testify to the successive relationship between the two Korean dynasties. This relationship can also be confirmed through their shared cultural heritage. There are certain lasting traditions in human societies that do not change even with the passage of time. Among them are the burial style and the heating system.

For the tombs of Goguryeo aristocrats, they relied mainly on masonry, such as stone chambers, stonewall and stone coffins. Balhae inherited this tomb style; a group of royal tombs in Yongcheonbu, the capital of Balhae, including the Tomb of Three Spirits (Samryeong Bun), were built in this manner. In the past, the earthen tombs in Balhae were thought to be the Malgal's typical grave pattern. Today, however, this type of tomb is known as a burial style for the commoners of Balhae, not a burial pattern of Malgal, which is a different tribe. All the commoners of Goguryeo and Balhae were buried in earthen mounds and this type of burial was universal at the time.

Korea is the only country in the world where people with the last name "Tae" exist, and they claim they are the descendants of Dae Jo-young, the founder of Balhae. Korea is also the only country in the world where apartment houses are equipped with "Ondol," the traditional "hot-floor" heating system. The Ondol (warm rocks) system originated from Goguryeo and the Balhae people also used the system. In the Old History of the Tang Dynasty, there is a description of Ondol: "In Goguryeo, lives of ordinary people are mostly poor. In winter, a long hole is dug under the floor of a room and people keep charcoal fire there to keep the room warm." The Ondol structures are found in the Goguryeo relics in Pyongyang and Jiban (presently Jian, Jilin Province, China). They are also discovered in the royal palace site in the capital of Balhae and the kingdom's surrounding areas such as the Littoral Province. All these findings are evidence that testifies to the successive relationship between the two Korean dynasties.

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

All in all, Dr. Han is a good guy and well meaning, but I disagree completely with his theories on Parhae's population makeup.

#26 Gubook Janggoon

Gubook Janggoon

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,250 posts
  • Interests:Korean history (Plus Asian history in general), European history, U.S. history, Pretending to speak Spanish, and Pirates
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese History

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:41 PM

What's your view then?
"Don't be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn't do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn't know what you know today." -Malcolm X

#27 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 05 May 2005 - 07:56 PM

What's your view then?

View Post


Uh..... I've got a lot of knowledge in my head right now that I need to organize before I come to a final conclusion. Dr. Renkel was kind enough to send me his article (which is coming from Germany and I should be getting by the end of this week) on the history of Jurchens in Korea's borders and he's told me that the article will answer a lot of my questions.

For me what's going to decided it will be what language did the Parhae royalty and aristicrats speak? Was it more related to Jurchen or Koguryo? Also, how well did the Parhae refugees integrate into Koryo society? Did they pick-up the language fairly quickly? Were they treated as foreigners or long lost brothers by the Koryo aristicrats?

More to come once the holes in my understanding are filled! :lol:

#28 MengTzu

MengTzu

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,105 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Philosophy
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism

Posted 06 May 2005 - 05:04 PM

Anyways, essentially Reckel says that Parhae did indeed a significant Mohoe element to their population, it had to as the Tang took most of Koguryo’s population and relocated them to the central plain as well as areas as remote as today’s Burma. Out of the 600,000 households of the original Koguryo Kingdom, there was probably only 100,000 households left in Southern Manchuria, not enough to defend against Tang, Silla and Kihtan tribesman.


:icon15:

Do you know what happened to the descendants of the ~500000 households that were moved to China?

#29 WangKon936

WangKon936

    Executive State Secretary (Shangshu Puye 尚书仆射)

  • CHF Han Lin Scholar
  • 747 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:OC, Southern California
  • Interests:Early Korean history, early Japanese history, Korean influence on early Japanese history, Korean Three Kingdoms period, Korean proto-three kingdoms period, Koguryo histography controversy, Parhae histography, Chinese Tang & Sui, Chinese Three Kingdoms period, Imjin War, Japanese Sengoku period, Altaic languages.
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Korean History
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    Korean History and Culture

Posted 06 May 2005 - 06:51 PM

:icon15:

Do you know what happened to the descendants of the ~500000 households that were moved to China?

View Post


Yeah,

First of all I was wrong about Koguryo's total population at the end of the Tang/Koguryo wars at being about 600,000 households. It was actually 690,000. 100,000 households went to Silla (by virtue of the fact that Silla took about 1/4 of Koguryo's land and also because many Koguryo people decided to defect to Silla after the demise of their kingdom). You have to remember, a bulk of Koguryo's population was in northern Korea. 100,000 went to Parhae (or Bohai) kingdom. 10-30,000 probably went to Japan. Anyone with the surnames of Koma in Japan are descended from Koguryo. Interestingly enough some of them know this and are proud of their heritage. Put Koma + Koguryo in Google and you'll see some personal web pages of Japanese people who pay tribute to their Koguryo roots. People in Korea with the surnames of Ko, Wang, Yon and others can trace their lineage to Koguryo. The first king of the Koryo Kingdom was a Wang from Songak, former Koguryo territory. Some others jointed the Eastern Turks and some stayed in Liaodong when a Koguryo prince was give that area to rule as the King of Chaoxan (Choson) Commandery. Eventuall, 300,000 Koguryo households were settled in the central plains (i.e. China proper) and another 50-100,000 were exiled into the remote borderlands of the Tang Empire. The Tang had depopulated Koguryo because the inhabitants kept trying to revolt and reestablish the kingdom. Silla harbored these rebels and often these Koguryo elements attacked Tang from Silla bases. When Koguryo restoration movements failed, Silla gave the last prince of Koguryo Chin'gol status, the rank just below "Holy Bone" in their social order. Silla royalty themselves were Chin'gol and Holy bone.

The largest contingent of Koguryo people that didn't get exiled into China were in Bohai and Silla. For the most part, those that got moved into the Tang Empire just became Tang subjects. Ko is just Gao in Chinese and means High. Gao is a fairly common last name so I'd imagine that Koguryo people, over time, completely assimilated into the overall Han population of Tang. Please bear in mind that Gaos in Tang and Ko in Koguryo were not genetically related, just like Jins and Gums in China are not genetically related to Kims in Korea. Anyways, there are no vestiges of Koguryo culture anywere in China anymore. The only place you'll see any shread of Koguryo culture is in Korea and "maybe" Japan. The most well known Koguryo subject of Tang was some general who introducted papermaking into the middle east. He was some big general for Tang and lost some battle in Afganistan or something like that. I foget.

#30 MengTzu

MengTzu

    Emperor (Huangdi 皇帝)

  • Entry Scholar (Xiucai)
  • 2,105 posts
  • Main Interest in CHF:
    Chinese Philosophy
  • Specialisation / Expertise:
    General Chinese Philosophy and Religion, Confucianism

Posted 06 May 2005 - 07:54 PM

Disclaimer: I'm in no way trying to prove that Chinese have claims to Koguryo because 300000 Koguryo households settled in Tang China. I"m just interested in the history.

So the 300000 Koguryo households who settled in China never returned to Koguryo? Does it mean that some of the Gaos in China are probably descendants of these 300000 Koguryo households that settled in China?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users