A Recent Chinese Academic Research on the War History of Goguryo

Abstract

This article tries to identify trend of research of Chinese academics related to the war history of Goguryo by introducing achievements of Chinese academics in the war history of Goguryo after 2007 when Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was completed, reviewing its perception on Goguryo, and reviewing and analyzing new or noticeable opinions in Chinese academics. The perception of Chinese academics on Goguryo, which is was a local government of China, that an ethnic minority established was shown intact in Goguryo war history related researches after 2007 when the project of Dongbuk-Gongjung was finished. Chinese academics addressed that Goguryo was controlled by Hyundo-gun because of military inferiority since it was first founded and thus relation of ‘Shinsok (臣屬)’ was maintained. While explaining Goguryo’s occupation of Liaodong area in the early 5century as replacement of local government officials from Chinese dynasty by Goguryo as a local government administrator who rendered liege service and homage to Bei-Wei and received an appointment title, it addresses that Goguryo was a local government of China from Han to the Period of North and South Dynasties according to 臣屬體制論 and 朝貢冊封論. Such perception continues in researches on war history between Goguryo and Sui and Tang Dynasties. They tried to find the cause of war from implementation of the Chinese world order such as Fan-shu(蕃屬) system theory and installation system theory and strongly addressed that Goguryo was a local government of central Chinese Dynasty. The same trend is shown in military related researches. They did not show military competencies of Goguryo but highlighted its military inferiority to Chinese Dynasty. Through this, they emphasized that Goguryo was a local government controlled by Central Chinese Dynasty. When reviewing military related researches in Goguryo war history, it is found that they tried to expand research directions with various themes. However, they could not escape from flat summary simply enumerating historical facts when they explained war performance process. To break this, it is needed to actively use archaeological excavation achievements in addition to new historical records. If we can combine existing literal records and archaeological materials organically, it will help us to understand unit organization, weapon system and defense system as well as battle performance processes more concretely. On the other hand there are some perception difference between Korean academics and Chinese academics such as Imnailbonbu theory. To overcome such perception gap, active academic exchanges between Korean academics and Chinese academics are required.