Questions about Goguryeo

Feb 2011
1,018
Samhan more likely means Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla since late(not 後三國) Samguk period. Reason Goryeo claimed herself 'protector of Samhan', is to claim that Goryeo unified later three kingdoms.
But this argues against Goguryeo identity surviving, since it was merged into "Samhan" identity, which became an unified way of referring to the Korean peninsula and its inhabitants; in this case, then, Goryeo saw itself as the inheritor of all three kingdoms, not just Goguryeo, and that is precisely the view presented in Samguk Sagi. We cannot, as such, link Goryeo specifically with Goguryeo people or Goguryeo identity but, rather, a new Samhan identity that included all the people of the three kingdoms living in the Korean peninsula. You said earlier that Goguryeo people continued their identity in Goryeo. But this is not the case. They were absorbed into a new identity.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
However those local people called themselves 燕人, 齊人 etc, and every nations on those provinces named themselves as 燕 or 齊 etc. Liu yuan named his kingdom 漢 and Li cun xu named his 唐. Those were all political moves to earn supports from local.
It might be the case that the use of the region's name for the state/dynasty was to assert continuity with the historical heritage, but they were still not named after the people living there, because the people did not necessarily call themselves 燕人, 齊人, etc. We cannot assert that 燕人, 齊人, etc. were the self-identities of people living in Hebei and Shandong in the 10th century. The Song, for example, called all of its people 宋人 while the Liao called the Chinese living in its territory 漢人, even though the region of China it ruled was never called 漢. The tradition of using a region's old name for states/dynasties established in that region is thousands of years old. It was not simply a case of trying to appease the local people's names for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2011
1,018
There were about 20 tomb steeles found in China in Loyang and Changan of the Tang Dynasty for the fist 4 generations of Kokuryoans died in China including those of the last Koguryo King and his descendants with the surname Ko.

Tomb Steeles of the first generation Koguryo always marked their places of origin as people of Liaodong from Samhan, Chosun, Pyongyang . One case from Liaodong of Antung and one case from the Tang Dynasty capital.All steeles did not mention the name Koguryo.
Most of those are strictly geographic names, and this was also my problem in the other thread about Goguryeo - how do we know that when a memorial mentions Samhan, it is meant in the ethnic sense? Perhaps the criteria is too harsh. "Place of origin" was frequently enough in East Asian history to mark one's identity. But when Goguryeo descendants use different "place of origin" for themselves, it becomes hard to use this to prove that they shared the same identity. I am not against the idea that these people might have thought of themselves as Samhan, but I insist that this is not the best evidence for it because many of the memorials don't even mention Samhan.

Having said all that, I am generally speaking not an opponent of the current historical orthodoxy in which Goguryeo is written as "Korean heritage." Thus, I disagree with Chinese scholars who insist that Goguryeo is "Chinese heritage" or "Jurchen heritage" to the same degree as it is "Korean heritage." But I do not think you can go from this to stating that there was an unified "Korean" identity during the Three Kingdoms, and to subsequently paint wars between the Three Kingdoms and others as ethnic conflicts between Koreans and other peoples, which is what nationalist Korean historiography tries to do, starting from people such as Shin Chae-ho. This is a false reading of the historical record.
 
Last edited:
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
But this argues against Goguryeo identity surviving, since it was merged into "Samhan" identity, which became an unified way of referring to the Korean peninsula and its inhabitants; in this case, then, Goryeo saw itself as the inheritor of all three kingdoms, not just Goguryeo, and that is precisely the view presented in Samguk Sagi. We cannot, as such, link Goryeo specifically with Goguryeo people or Goguryeo identity but, rather, a new Samhan identity that included all the people of the three kingdoms living in the Korean peninsula. You said earlier that Goguryeo people continued their identity in Goryeo. But this is not the case. They were absorbed into a new identity.
It was more like conciliatory policy for Sillans and Baekje people. Still there were revivalism of Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla several times. 'Unified identity' seemed to be formed after Mongolian invasion.
 
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
Most of those are strictly geographic names, and this was also my problem in the other thread about Goguryeo - how do we know that when a memorial mentions Samhan, it is meant in the ethnic sense? Perhaps the criteria is too harsh. "Place of origin" was frequently enough in East Asian history to mark one's identity. But when Goguryeo descendants use different "place of origin" for themselves, it becomes hard to use this to prove that they shared the same identity. I am not against the idea that these people might have thought of themselves as Samhan, but I insist that this is not the best evidence for it because many of the memorials don't even mention Samhan.

Having said all that, I am generally speaking not an opponent of the current historical orthodoxy in which Goguryeo is written as "Korean heritage." Thus, I disagree with Chinese scholars who insist that Goguryeo is "Chinese heritage" or "Jurchen heritage" to the same degree as it is "Korean heritage." But I do not think you can go from this to stating that there was an unified "Korean" identity during the Three Kingdoms, and to subsequently paint wars between the Three Kingdoms and others as ethnic conflicts between Koreans and other peoples, which is what nationalist Korean historiography tries to do, starting from people such as Shin Chae-ho. This is a false reading of the historical record.
One of the Goguryeo descendants who connected himself with Samhan was grandson of King Bojang. I doubt that it was 'ethnic sense'. The other identities shown in memorial scripts like Joseon people or Balhae people is more like showing their native place/installation of King Bojang as King of Joseon(朝鮮郡王).
 
It was more like conciliatory policy for Sillans and Baekje people. Still there were revivalism of Goguryeo, Baekje and Silla several times. 'Unified identity' seemed to be formed after Mongolian invasion.
Having said all that, I am generally speaking not an opponent of the current historical orthodoxy in which Goguryeo is written as "Korean heritage." Thus, I disagree with Chinese scholars who insist that Goguryeo is "Chinese heritage" or "Jurchen heritage" to the same degree as it is "Korean heritage." But I do not think you can go from this to stating that there was an unified "Korean" identity during the Three Kingdoms, and to subsequently paint wars between the Three Kingdoms and others as ethnic conflicts between Koreans and other peoples, which is what nationalist Korean historiography tries to do, starting from people such as Shin Chae-ho. This is a false reading of the historical record.
I read somewhere in some academic books that stated Korea only started to homogenize until Koryo, and this really took off and intensified during the Joseon dynasty when the government made an effort to forcibly relocate and move the people around from different regions all over.

Similarly, I really don't understand how in Chinese history they could get away with calling all the earliest cultures, states and kingdoms in their history Chinese when in fact they could belong to an entirely distinct culture and have spoken entirely different languages from Chinese.
 
Jan 2016
316
United States
I read somewhere in some academic books that stated Korea only started to homogenize until Koryo, and this really took off and intensified during the Joseon dynasty when the government made an effort to forcibly relocate and move the people around from different regions all over.

Similarly, I really don't understand how in Chinese history they could get away with calling all the earliest cultures, states and kingdoms in their history Chinese when in fact they could belong to an entirely distinct culture and have spoken entirely different languages from Chinese.
From the Shang dynasty onwards, I think it is fair to call them Sinitic at least (after all, they did speak a Sinitic language).

Here is the He zun, a ritual bronze vessel cast during the Western Zhou period. The characters for "China" are inscribed on it.


The continuity of Chinese civilization is very remarkable.
 
Mar 2015
861
Europe
But this argues against Goguryeo identity surviving, since it was merged into "Samhan" identity, which became an unified way of referring to the Korean peninsula and its inhabitants; in this case, then, Goryeo saw itself as the inheritor of all three kingdoms, not just Goguryeo, and that is precisely the view presented in Samguk Sagi.
Yes - 200 years after Koryo had conquered Silla and Pekche.
Turns out there never was a Later Koguryo, though.
Gung Ye founded it in 901 as Koryo, then in 904 renamed it to Majin, then in 911 to Taebong. Wang Kon, soon after seizing power in 918, renamed it to Koryo again.
What was explained as the meaning of the renamings in 904, 911 and 918?
 
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
Yes - 200 years after Koryo had conquered Silla and Pekche.
Turns out there never was a Later Koguryo, though.
Gung Ye founded it in 901 as Koryo, then in 904 renamed it to Majin, then in 911 to Taebong. Wang Kon, soon after seizing power in 918, renamed it to Koryo again.
What was explained as the meaning of the renamings in 904, 911 and 918?
Gungye was basically Sillan which had nothing to do with old Goguryeo, while Wanggun was local noble in old Goguryeo territory.
 
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
Yes - 200 years after Koryo had conquered Silla and Pekche.
Turns out there never was a Later Koguryo, though.
Gung Ye founded it in 901 as Koryo, then in 904 renamed it to Majin, then in 911 to Taebong. Wang Kon, soon after seizing power in 918, renamed it to Koryo again.
What was explained as the meaning of the renamings in 904, 911 and 918?
by the way Choi gwang su tried to rebuild his own Goguryeo kingdom in 1217, called himself 高句麗興復兵馬使 金吾衛 攝上將軍 and instigated people around Pyeongyang. However it was failed.
 

Similar History Discussions