Gaya and Koguryo (goguri)

TRAVEL
Hot Spot
Investigating Ji'an's Koguryo tombs 
BY DANIEL KANE

< name="print_email_subscribe">opMailWin()" alt="send">

	Traveler: Where Civilizations Once Clashed
	Short Cut: Stairway to heaven
	Detour: A monumental controversy
	Web Crawling: Know before you go

The Ji'an region is host to the largest collection of Koguryo tombs outside of Pyongyang, including pyramidal, stepped tombs�like that of Changsu's�and more common mound tombs covered in earth and renowned for their painted murals. As some of the most impressive examples of ancient Asian art, these murals are also the latest fetish in the stolen antiquities trade. Even after 1,500 years, their colorful depictions of Koguryo life and myth still prove seductive, and there have been several reported tomb lootings. Chinese authorities assert that wealthy South Koreans are behind the thefts, an allegation backed by the sighting of stolen Koguryo murals in Seoul last year.

But unlike the region's more famous crypts, Changsu's boasts no colorful murals of meditating Buddhas. Instead, it inspires by its sheer size: a 20-meter-high stack of megaliths that far out-scales any other in the area.

I ascend the tomb's stepped granite blocks to the mouth of the crypt. A bored-looking Chinese guide watches me curiously as I examine the dank and empty hulk of the pyramid's interior. In a sign of deference, Chinese and South Korean banknotes and coins are strewn across the stone slabs of what are ostensibly the sarcophagi of Changsu and his consort. It's a telling display of the two national claims on the site. Hearing of my interest in Koguryo, the guide challenges me, eager to gauge my opinion on a controversial subject. "Was Koguryo a Chinese or Korean kingdom?" she asks. Not wanting to offend, I say I do not know. "Zhongguo de (it was Chinese)," she gushes. If he's still there, King Changsu must be turning in his tomb.

From the Jul. 22, 2002 issue of TIME Asia Magazine

I don't think Huang Di was a Chinese. He was an Eastern Barbarian from Shan Dong area and governed both Eastern Barabarians and some Chinese (Han) as well.

However, some 2000 years later when Si Ma Qian described the history of Huang Di, he included the Huang Di history into the History of Central Kingdom.

Central Kingdom is not the equivalent of "China" as we understand now or in the sense of the country of Han (Chinese) people, 

because whoever (Hun-Turkics, Tungus, Hun-Mongol, Korean, Tibetans, Irano-Toharian peoples) ruled the modern territory of China claimed to be the King of Central Kingdom. 

The adoption of "Central Kingdom" by modern, predominantly Han governments (PRC and RC) is only one of the example of these numerous cases. 

It's like Nu Wa's story that was included as Chinese (Han) history. As is well known, Nu Wa was the legendary god of Miao (Hmong, Mong, Tibeto-Burmese-Qiang-mi-meo) people. These people are still living in China, Myanmar, Thailand and Laos.

"I wonder how Xian Bei State and Qian Qin could be part of chinese history. "

Because they were the emperors of china they are part of chinese history, quite simple nothing worth wondering.

"Xian Bei (Sianbi) were the ancient Mongols and Qin people were Tibeto-Qiang (Burmese-related) people who invaded the Central Kingdom.  "

No, they nevered invaded, they were settled there by peaceful means, they were long sinicised before controlling the central Kingdom. Its irrelevant what ethnic origin they are from, one ought to be careful about defining nationality before the rise of the nation-state. For to suppose that hyphenated identities were necessarily self-contradictory rather than complementary is to misread the ancient mind. Just like how Richard the Lion hard could be both a English and Nornam, yet rules England as their king and thus would be considered English history. And discontent is possible whether the rule be formal or informal and the controlling power native or foreign.

As for Qin, the evidence of their ethnicity is shallow at best, and there are no evidence whatsoever that they are tibetan in origin.

Its the different places, those places that are sinizied obviously don't, those that are at the borders do or just don't care.

My friend went with his dad to Xing Jiang once on a village that don't even have local water. At first he went into the store, the Uighur took out a rifle and said get out you Han bastard. He was pissed, but later his father found the water source and he went to the same store, the owner said nothing, then when he bought meet, the same owner said its free, "say thank you to your dad for me."

"The British occupied Hong Kong for 155 years. They ran all the schools, and they only taught their version of history at school. Yet, they didn't get that many people (if there were any at all) who bought into it. "

They never taught the Hong Kong people that they were British which is the major difference. The British form of occupation was imperialistic, China's was nationalistic, and obvious when people are treated equal they are going to buy it. And thats not a bad thing since its the sum that matter, afterall, nationalism is quite irrelevant to one's life, its cultural, and whatever you're brought up you like that country. The sum is the same, but if their life quality improves, then its positive.

"1400-1500 years the chinese have not gotten over the fact that Koguryo kicked their butts as Sui and Tang"

Considering Tang conquered Koguryo, there is nmothing to get over with, add to the fact that modern China is almost completely different from ancient ones, this hypothesis is not even feasibly plausible.

There's gotta be some form of 3rd party behind this. Chinese and Koreans are like neighbors and brothers. Dude, we covered each other's rear when situations become desperate, though sometimes we spent time and blood trying to kill each other. But hey, it is not within the Korean or Chinese interest to be hostile against each other.

I can only think of Japan or the US trying to blow this matter up. They're the only ones that can benefit from antagonisms between Koreans and Chinese. I hope both sides can see more clearly about this matter and instead of monopolizing history, acknowledge that it is as mutually shared experience and work on it together.

Hey Seph,

    That's right.  It's blown out of proportion.  And the party that is probably the most instrumental in blowing this out of proportion is the Chinese government.  I'm disappointed with how they are handling this.  If it's just a squabbling between some nationalist nuts from either side, let them squabble.  But when the Chinese government does it, it's certainly not due to nationalistic pride.  There's an agenda, and this agenda, I believe, isn't necessarily antagonistic to the Koreans: China is facing the reality of a multi-ethnic nationality.  Similar to how the US has to recognize the contribution of various ethnic groups, China is going in that direction.  But it seems China is either making the wrong moves or it wants more than that: if China merely wants to give credit to the small Korean-Chinese population, they could simply trace their contribution as Korean-Chinese.  Koguryo, however, lies outside of the Korean-Chinese experience.  It's like claiming that the ancient Cherokee nation was actually a part of US history -- just ain't making sense.  I know a lot of people here have an axe to grind against China (which is among a few oft critiqued entity on these boards,) but in this particular case, I believe the Koreans have a good case -- or at least the Chinese have a bad one.

Peace,

Michael

12-3-2004