高句麗史에 있어서의 이주(migration)와 디아스포라(diaspora)

Abstract

Since the Neolithic revolution, emphasizing the impacts of settler’s lifestyle in the history of humankind often blurred the fact that migration has been a significant element. Migration is not an exclusive product of the modern world, but migration had also played the counterpart of the sedentary lives. Migration and lives of the migrants in ancient societies, and its understanding reveals that it was the major lifeway. After moving to another place, the migrants must have faced many problems including discrimination against them, and they had to deal with adaptation and assimilation issues, social and cultural conflicts between the locals and the migrants, formation of migrants group, cultural transformation of the migrants, multiple identities of the migrant groups. New location where the migrants had settled came as a new living environment, and in the meanwhile, it became the cultural space which can be extended to the memorial space with a sense of nostalgia for their homeland. Throughout the history of Goguryeo, there were numerous migrations. Adding up such groups either undocumented or lacking preserved archeological remains is even led to higher migration rates. Either voluntarily or involuntarily migrated population from both directions might also have been large. Goguryeo had embraced not only Chinese people, but also people from surrounding states such as Kitan, Turks, Mohe, Silla, Baekje, and Buyeo. Due to complicated diplomatic relationship with adjacent countries, Goguryeo was prone to embrace refugees and utilize their diverse cultural abilities for establishing harmoniously co-existing communities. The types of Chinese migrants to Goguryeo and pushing factors of their migration are shown varied. Their lives appeared to have had more privileged than those of Goguryeo migrants to China. The difference is presumed to be derived from the fact that Chinese refugees had strongly held the mindset of the mainland Chinese and culturally far more advanced. Adding to this, Goguryeo’s migration policies allowed the autonomous and half-independently administration schemes for migration groups. These factors contributed to establish a positive diaspora. In particular, we can assume that their diaspora was formed well because documents and archaeological evidence clearly illustrates the context of forming a powerful and distinctive group with same political, economic, social and cultural aspects. On the other hand there is a wide range of lives who migrated from China. In particular, it is hard to generalize the identities of Goguryeo people which appear very diverse. Some had led Goguryeo independent campaign and others who went to Silla, founded the country called Shindeokguk. Amongst Goguryeo defectors who went to china, the upper class was assimilated into the Chinese society, while maintaining their identity as refugees from Goguryeo, They had resided in the capital, were appointed as bureaucrats, married to Chinese, and even were buried in Mangshan mountain with their names inscribed in gravestones. Their lives were similar with bureaucrats ofTang Dynasty Chinese. The identity of Goguryeo refugee has been faded and its assimilation into Chinese society had been accelerated over generations. In particular, the absence of homeland and subsequent loss of the network to the previous homeland had accelerated their integration into Chinese society. In addition, the identity of Goguryeo people was sometimes featured as the enemy or the forced migrant from a demolished nation. Their fierce drive to be assimilated into the natives can be imagined. Ascending the social ladder could be achieved by contributing to warfare, marrying to the noble Chinese families, accumulating wealth, and entering into government through the civil service examination. As their desire for higher social status was strong, Goguryeo lineage had been easily diluted and they rapidly turned into Chinese. This could be the main reason of the absence of recognizable community or network of Goguryeo refugees in Tang Dynasty, although there are some constraints including the scarcity of written sources. On the other hand involuntarily migrants transported to the margins of the empire must have had harsh lives as enforced workers and the status of their descendants could not be beyond the commoners. Because their lives were poorer and suffered from migration life, it is more likely that they formed their own communities for cooperation an being bound together. Thus, diaspora was refrained and had never grown stronger as a integrated group with same political, economic, social and cultural aspects. Throughout the history of Goguryeo, causes of enforced migration are varied. So were their lives in new lands. Migrants’ identities or their diaspora cannot be squeezed into a singular and generalized format, but they had culturally converged and transformed multiple layers in their identities. Over all migration played very positive roles in the history of Goguryeo. Migrated Chinese defectors had spread their advance culture to Goguryeo and Goguryeo actively embraced it and utilized them for successful integration. It all had contributed to the development of unique Guguryeo history. Embracing migrants, Goguryeo achieved to establish a powerful kingdom with dynamic exchange and assimilation of various ethnic groups and cultures. Open and tolerant minded Goguryeo’s attitude toward migrants and its successful integration case can provide implications to the present societies. On the other hand dataset regarding Goguryeo migrants to China is very scarce, and people who either became bureaucrats or fought the war were only documented in written records or gravestone inscriptions. However, they must have struggled to survive and be integrated into Chinese society and they might have lived with discrimination. The range of their life styles and social tiers is widely varied. Migration and diaspora in the history of Goguryeo indicates that their lives matter more than defining nationalities and identities. Migration was considered to be a norm for ancient people. Their lives were not constrained by either ethnic or national identities. The history of migration is more important for convergence of East Asian ethnic groups, and it reflects that ancient East Asian kingdoms were multi-ethnic states. Narrowly determining the origins of Goguryeo or attribution of Goguryeo identity only based on migration history is not the correct approach. Rather migration has been a constant feature of human history. In recent turmoil surrounding East Asian history, it calls us to extent the horizon of our perception on historical interpretation in the globalized world for greater good and peaceful co-existence rather than being bound to the current nationalities. This is why we have to study and research the history of migration.