The Study on China’s Northeast Project in relation to Go-Joseon and Hansa-gun

Abstract

China launched Northeast Borderland History and the Chain of Events Research Project (hereinafter, referred to as Northeast Project) in 2002, which can be interpreted as one of the serial attempts towards Neo Sinocentrism. Based on the concept of United Multiethnic Nation, China claims that Chinese history includes the history of every ethnic group who resides in China as Chinese nationals. Accordingly, the Northeast project reveals China’s intention to incorporate the history of its neighboring countries in the Northeast Asian region into Chinese history. This stirred Korean historian community and consequently resulted in proactive research on Korean ancient history such as Goguryeo dynasty. <BR> This paper studies on the Chinese publications on Go-Joseon and Hansa-gun and reached a finding that Chinese historians distorted Korean history in order to develop the Northeast Project. The publications distorted not only Goguryeo history but also the roots of Korean ethnicity and pre and post history of Go-Joseon, which is the first established dynasty in Korean history. Asserting Gija-Joseon and Wiman-Joseon, Chinese history academia does not recognize the existence of Dankun-joseon and Dankun mythology. In addition, Chinese historians claim Hansa-gun Pyongyang theory denying Korean historians’ Hansa-gun Yodong theory. <BR> The paradox from my finding is that they utilize the theories from Korean history academia as the base of their claims. It is unfortunately true that some of Korean historians also have doubtful views on the existence of Dangun, Dangun-Joseon, Gija-Joseon, Wiman-Josen, and Pyeongyang theory. However, if Korean historian community fails to the substantiation of Dangun, as the founder of Go-Joseon and Dangun-Joseon, the Korean ancient history will lose its identity as an independent nation and will be defined as a colony of China governed by the extreme influence of Chinese politics and <BR> culture as Chinese academia asserts. The Chinese historian community’s denial of existence of Dangun-Joseon paradoxically presents that we need to make the commitment to the elaborate research on the substantiation of Dangun-Joseon.<BR>