Barhae, Bohai

Originally posted by Gubukjanggoon Russians claim that it was a Malgal nation Koreans claim that it was a Korean Nation and ect... What is your opinion who were the people of Barhae BTW Mengtzu I know you have strong feelings about these kind of threads but lets try not to let this one degenerate into a thread about the definition of "Country"

Chinese agree with russians at this point, Bohai was a state of Moho peoples.. and Moho peoples were direct ancestors of today's manchuians, which is a part of chinese people of today. Bohai once expanded its control to today' s from northeast china to DPRK's pyngyong.

Chinese never agree korean to claim Bohai, ever.

 

Originally posted by demon Barhe: High class: Koguri people Lower class: Malgal and other normad class During the 3 volcanic eruptions, most of high class moved into Kori. p.s.: Btw, who is that guy in red suit called?

Yao Ming, a Chinese bastketball player in NBA.

Originally posted by YanWang Originally posted by Gubukjanggoon Russians claim that it was a Malgal nation Koreans claim that it was a Korean Nation and ect... What is your opinion who were the people of Barhae BTW Mengtzu I know you have strong feelings about these kind of threads but lets try not to let this one degenerate into a thread about the definition of "Country" Chinese agree with russians at this point, Bohai was a state of Moho peoples.. and Moho peoples were direct ancestors of today's manchuians, which is a part of chinese people of today. Bohai once expanded its control to today' s from northeast china to DPRK's pyngyong. Chinese never agree korean to claim Bohai, ever.

BECAUSE you are a poor Chinese at that time who were under Siabei-Tang rule and then under Kitan rule.

So, tell me you are a Han or Moho? or descendant of ancient Korean?

So, lets assume that you are a Han, then you wannna claim that Bohai is Chinese because it's now part of china any way and want to keep it forever and you are also quite clear about it that this was not Han regime, so you wanna deny that it's neither Chinese nor Koreans, but truliy is Manchus or Moho because they al disappeared and then you can use the land forever under one china???? Read the history book from Wei (Sanguo)-Jin Shu-Weishu (Northern) and Sui-Tang, Liao, Jin Shi.......You need to study more very seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't behave yourself as some stupid politicians. 

 

Of course Bohai is an independent state apart from Tang China.  It is the same concept that in the 10th century, Siberia was never a part of Russia.  Ancient Siberians were not Russian, but their descendants, as a result of integration and Russian conquest, have become a part of Russia.  Similarily, Manchus today are Chinese because the definition of being Chinese extends beyond the Han ethnic group and encompasses a broader range of ethnicites.

Thus, Bohai was not a Chinese state in the strict sense, nor was it a Korean state.  It simply contained peoples that eventually, after centuries, identified themselves as either Chinese or Korean.

Originally posted by Chinghiz Originally posted by YanWang Originally posted by Gubukjanggoon Russians claim that it was a Malgal nation Koreans claim that it was a Korean Nation and ect... What is your opinion who were the people of Barhae BTW Mengtzu I know you have strong feelings about these kind of threads but lets try not to let this one degenerate into a thread about the definition of "Country" Chinese agree with russians at this point, Bohai was a state of Moho peoples.. and Moho peoples were direct ancestors of today's manchuians, which is a part of chinese people of today. Bohai once expanded its control to today' s from northeast china to DPRK's pyngyong. Chinese never agree korean to claim Bohai, ever. BECAUSE you are a poor Chinese at that time who were under Siabei-Tang rule and then under Kitan rule. So, tell me you are a Han or Moho? or descendant of ancient Korean? So, lets assume that you are a Han, then you wannna claim that Bohai is Chinese because it's now part of china any way and want to keep it forever and you are also quite clear about it that this was not Han regime, so you wanna deny that it's neither Chinese nor Koreans, but truliy is Manchus or Moho because they al disappeared and then you can use the land forever under one china???? Read the history book from Wei (Sanguo)-Jin Shu-Weishu (Northern) and Sui-Tang, Liao, Jin Shi.......You need to study more very seriously!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't behave yourself as some stupid politicians.

No, Chinghiz, as an avid reader of the Shi myself, I must say you really have no idea....  Your consistent trolling has forced me to again side with jiangwei, conan, Mengtzu, and Gubook.

I agree that Bohai is not a Chinese state, and that any contemporary attempts, by Korea or China or Russia or even Mongolia, to link Bohai with their respective countries are political manuevering.  I think a Korean forumer made a very interesting point on the thread about Kogruyo/Korean nationalism and the Korean/Chinese struggle to claim an ancient kingdom that is, essentially, an entity by itself.  The same thing applies, to an extent, here.

Edited by poirot

Originally posted by poirot Of course Bohai is an independent state apart from Tang China.  It is the same concept that in the 10th century, Siberia was never a part of Russia.  Ancient Siberians were not Russian, but their descendants, as a result of integration and Russian conquest, have become a part of Russia.  Similarily, Manchus today are Chinese because the definition of being Chinese extends beyond the Han ethnic group and encompasses a broader range of ethnicites. Thus, Bohai was not a Chinese state in the strict sense, nor was it a Korean state.  It simply contained peoples that eventually, after centuries, identified themselves as either Chinese or Korean.

  Japanese once occupied China and Korea, but they cannot say pre-colonial regime histories of China and Korea were Japanese history. Lets assume the occupation is continuing, then, can the Japanese say the history of Tang, Song etc. is Japanese?

Further, I hear that the Dae Jo Yong (Da Zu Rong)'s father's name, "Keul Keul Jungsang (Qi Qi Zhungxiang)" was in fact a Korean name, which is neither Chinese nor of any other ethnic (say, Manchu) person's in Barhae (Bohai) areas. "Keul-Keul" means "Great-Great" or "Big-Big" in pure Korean, which is the same meaning as "Dae or Da in Chinese".

Keul Sabiu (Qi Sibiyu), the allegedly Malkal person who fought against Tang troops also had the same Korean family name. Dae or Da is a mere Chinese-style translation of a pure Korean word Keul-Keul or Keul meaning "Great".

Thus, I would give credit of Barhae history to Koreans  in light of the additional facts that Barhae people claimed to be the "descendants of Koguryo" who used Korean language, though Malgal elements (subjects) of Koguryo and Barhae states used ancient Manchu-Tungus language.

Other aspects of Barhae culture, such as "ondol" system and highly developed literary tradition, also show that they were more Koreans than Malgal. Malgal people lived in a type of house made of dug-out pits until as late as the advent of Golden State (Jin). There were no other, so-called "Chinese minorities" living in that region at that time, not to mention Chinese. 

 

 

Originally posted by poirot Originally posted by Dayanhan Originally posted by poirot   Then again, we have a debate whether Koguryo is a Korean state, or simply an ancient state whose occupied area now includes Korea.  This is stilll an ongoing argument in some circles.  Some historians even claim that Koguryo was a Chinese state because many members of the aristocracy migrated from or to Liaodong, and had surnames that matched Chinese counterparts.  In my opinion, Koguryo was a Korean state and rightfully a part of Korean history, but I cannot say the same for Bohai.  The Bohai were influenced as much by Tang culture - see the layout of their capital city - as Koguryo culture, but it would be a stretch to say that Bohai was either a Chinese or Korean state.

The fact that many (which??) family names matched Chinese family name does not mean that Koguryo people were Chinese. In fact, many Chinese family names (Gao, Zhang, Dou, Liang, Liu) come from the names of the descendants of Koguryo people who were forcibly taken to Tang state (Say, Gao Xian Zhi, the great general who conquered even part of Pamir heights and Afghanistan).

Second, many, though not all, already adopted family names using Chinese characters, though they were ancient Koreans and though others did not. 

Third, a big mass (majority) of Koguryo people got united with or came to Silla and became Silla people, though many joined Dae Jo Yong (Da Zu Run) and Keul Sabiu (Qi Sibiyu), thereby creating Barhae.

Linguistic research of the names of people and places definitely show that Koguryo people used ancient Korean though a few samples of Tungus language (Malkal) elements were also found. This supports not only the findings on the composition of the population of Koguryo, but also of that of Barhae.

Archaeologcal and cultural evidence, including the structures of housing, also evidence theirs were identical wih those of Baekje and Silla, whereas they are totally different from those of the ancient Chinese.  

Next, the historical self-consciousness and self identity of the Chinese (Hua Xia Ren), as against Koguryo and Barhae people (Eastern Barbarians) clearly reflect that the latters are totally different from the Chinese.

Adoption of some Chinese culture does not mean a ethnicity is the same with another. Otherwise, the ancient Japanese of Taika Kaisin period should be considered Chinese, which is clearly untrue.    Further, Tang culture itself was in fact a mixture of alien cultures and some Chinese culture. Especially, the culture of Non-Chinese Sianbi (Xian Bei: Mongolic people) and those of Xi Yu (Western Region, part of Central Asia) composed a substancial or prevalent part of Tang culture.

Thus, based on these various elements (documentary evidence, self-identification or consciousness, language, archeological or physical evidence and cultural elements etc.) we can reasonably, but definitely conclude that these states were built by ancient Koreans and some Tungus elements. 

However, there is no such thing as "Chinese minority" except for in hindview (in light of current Manchus).   

 

Originally posted by flyingzone I think the question of whether Koguryo or Bohai is Korean or Chinese not is, in my opinion, a totally misguided one. It has been pointed out many time here at AE that nations are actually IMAGINED COMMUNITIES and nation-states as political units are very modern concepts. Cultural symbols, rituals, customs, myths and even languages are all evoked by subsequent politicians and even historians as "proofs" for the existence of a "real" ethnic group with distinct identities. Of course, I am not saying that nation-states, in their modern forms, are meaningless. They are not because we are now existing in a world where those concepts are considered to be objectively "real" and are firmly engrained in the psyche of everyone. But accepting the "status quo" of modern nationhood does not mean one should turn a blind eye to the fact the "constructed" part of that so-called "reality".

I also partly agree with you about the application of the concept of nation state to ancient historical context because nation states did not exist at that time. But, I disagree with you regarding the application of other concept or factors, such as ethic community, culture, self-dentification etc. Rather, because the concept of nation state is inapplicable, I suggest the concept of the political frame of ethnic communities. For example, though Barhae is not a Korean state in terms of nation state, but it is a Korean-based political frame (regime) with other Korean-based political regimes in other parts of modern Korea or China (Silla, Baekje, Koguryo). If the regime included other ethnic groups, that is also part of the history of that etnic group who legitimately succeeded the same lineage.   

Originally posted by flyingzone I personally see all those so-called evidence and counter-evidence provided by both sides of those claims extremely bogus. Essentially, one, including those so-called scholars and experts in their area, picks and chooses "facts" that fit into one's schema of thoughts. But the thing is, since an objective reality never exists, no one is ever right or wrong.

  I think there exists what you call an objective reality in case of Koguryo or Barhae history in the sense that there were distinctive ethnic people who constructed these political regime. Whether the "facts" are "bogus" or not depends on whether the true and proper facts are invoked to prove the true, historical " objective reality" (of the historical people(s)). The mission of scholars is o identify the true "facts" and not "bogus". 

Originally posted by flyingzone The problem of the "identity" of an ancient people like those of Koguryo or Bohai who inhabited lands that extend beyond the modern national border of more than one country serves to highlight the problem that I mentioned above. Remember, people back then did not draw maps the way we do now!!!! To argue whether Koguryo or Bohai was essentially a Korean or Chinese culture to me is an utterly futile exercise.

  The issue is not whether they draw the maps according to the modern concept of "Korea" or "China". The true issue is whether they were ethnically Koreans or Chinese or other separate distinctive ethny.

One ethny can form several political communities and several different ethnies can also form one and only one political community as well. The geographic maps of a certain state or ethnic groups vary depending on their political power and current territorial frame cannot contribute to the identification of historical facts.

Originally posted by poirot I agree, it is futile to argue that Bohai was Korean or Chinese. In response to Dayanhan's comment: While I respect your good historical and cultural analysis, I would not go as far to say that Bohai was "Korean."

The nice thing about these forums is that we can always agree to disagree.

I maintain that Barhae was politically Korean through its affiliation with Goguryeo and Goryeo.

Originally posted by Dayanhan Further, applying the same logic of the Chinese scholars, assuming that they are correct, then the histories of many, so-called "Chinese" dynasties cannot be Chinese because they were constructed by ethnicities totally unrelated to Chinese. For example, all the 16 states (of 5 Barbarians and 16 States) were Non-Chinese and North Wei, Qi, Zhou, Sui, Tang, three Dynsties of 5 Dynsty period, Jin, Liao, Yuan were all Non-Chinese including many others. Laterday partial assimilation of these peoples cannot be the justification either because their legitimate successors are still existing outside of China.

Absolutely. So all these examples that you give actually further validate my point about "constructed history" and highlight how antiquated the idea of "these people are Korean" or "these people are Chinese" is. When it comes to the study of ANCIENT people and cultures, there shouldn't be any debate on their PRESENT nationality. It is totally irrelevant. In trying to "prove" that an ancient people is "Korean" or "Chinese," one is actually playing into the hands of politicians and nationalists who care less about the pursuit of knowledge than pushing for their selfish agenda. I think good and responsible historians can do so much better than becoming a pawn of those people.

So my point is, if one wants to learn about Kogruyo or Bohai or any other ancient culture or political entity, try to get rid of one's ethnocentric spectacles and try to do so without adhering to any nationalist (Korean or Chinese) agenda. The world is so much bigger than the one mapped by modern cartograhers ...