Introduction
In the 7th century, significant changes occurred in East Asia. In the Korean Peninsula, a war intensified between the Three Kingdoms, Koguryŏ, Paekche, and Silla. Meanwhile, the Tang Dynasty in China, founded in 618, expanded its territory in the 630s, and Silla and Tang joined to attack Koguryŏ and Paekche. After several years of warfare, their combined forces destroyed Paekche in 660 and Koguryŏ in 668. Subsequently, the Koguryŏ rebellion led to a conflict between the Silla and the Tang Dynasty, resulting in a military clash, the Silla-Tang War (670–676). As a result, the Tang Dynasty lost its power over the Korean Peninsula, and Silla became Unified Silla, ruling over the peninsula.1
The Koguryŏ diaspora appeared during the Unification War by Silla. Generally, the people of a defeated country are called “遺民 Yumin/Yimin” in Korean and Chinese, and previous studies have referred to them as “Paekche and Koguryŏ Yumin.”2 “Paekche and Koguryŏ Yumin” are considered to be a type of “diaspora,” which is used in sociology and anthropology to refer to displaced people who have left their homelands, such as immigrants, refugees, and overseas communities.3 After the fall of their dynasties, the people of Paekche and Koguryŏ lost their homelands. Some were forced to migrate to the Tang, some escaped to Japan, some remained in the Korean Peninsula and belonged to Silla, and others left for Central Asia, 突厥 Göktürks. These people have been called the “Paekche and Koguryŏ diaspora” by some historians.4
On the other hand, there is a view that these Paekche and Koguryŏ people were regarded as migrants or refugees by Bai Genxing and Im Tongmin.5 However, we can understand the situation in East Asia in the 7th century more deeply if we consider them as diaspora rather than with terms such as migrant or refugee. The term migrant does not include those who remained in Korea, the term refugee has the same problem, and those who voluntarily belonged to the Tang Dynasty (e.g., Chŏn Namsaeng) are not included. By understanding the people of Koguryŏ as a diaspora, we can grasp the population movement phenomenon that occurred during Silla’s unification between 660 and 676.
When looking to research focused on the Paekche-Koguryŏ diaspora, studies have shown that it played an essential role in Silla-Tang relations between the latter half of the 7th century and the first half of the 8th century.6 This study focuses on the Koguryŏ diaspora within Tang dynasty and those who migrated to mainland China. According to Kim Hyōnsuk, research regarding the Koguryŏ diaspora can be categorized into five trends:7
Examination of the Tang Dynasty’s rule over the territories of Koguryŏ
Tracing the Koguryŏ diaspora and their movements
Research on the “So Koguryŏ 小高句麗” in the Liaodong Peninsula
Investigation into the activities of the Koguryŏ diaspora during the Silla-Tang War and Silla’s control over the Koguryŏ diaspora.
Personal Diaspora histories
The study of the Koguryŏ diaspora in the Tang Dynasty belongs to the second research field. The pioneering work of No T’aedon, published in the 1980s, was a remarkable addition to this body of research.8 Using historical materials, No comprehensively analyzed the Koguryŏ diaspora throughout East Asia, and this research was widely accepted in Korean academic circles. However, since then, there has been little progress in research due to the lack of historical materials.
However, the discovery of several Koguryŏ epitaphs in China since 2010 have attracted attention as new historical materials. These new materials have led to an increase in published research concerning Koguryŏ people under Tang rule.9
Arguments over genealogies
Using epitaphs, the genealogies of the Koguryŏ people have received the most research attention. Most epitaphs contain information on the deceased’s life, career, achievements, and genealogy. Generally, genealogies were written to praise the family origin and ancestors’ achievements. However, they attracted attention for a few different reasons. The first being that genealogy is a criterion for determining a person as Koguryŏ diaspora with some Koguryŏ epitaphs stating that the deceased were from Koguryŏ. In this case, there would be no objection to identifying the deceased as Koguryŏ diaspora. Contrarily, some epitaphs vaguely mention Koguryŏ origins, the Koguryŏ state, or if their father or grandfather were from Koguryŏ, but state that their ancestors were Han Chinese 漢人. It is arguable whether such epitaphs can be regarded as belonging to Koguryŏ people. For instance, the epitaph of Tu Sŏnbu 豆善富 (A) states the Tu clan’s family history:
A-1 其先扶風平陵人也 十八世祖統 漢雁門太守.
A-2 避族文武之難 亡于朔野 子孫世居焉 至後魏南遷 賜紇豆陵氏.
A-3 六世祖步蕃 西魏將鎭河曲 爲北齊神武所破 遂出奔遼海 後裔因家焉 爲豆氏.10
According to the epitaph, the ancestors of Tu Sŏnbu were originally Han Chinese (A-1). They later followed Northern Wei Dynasty 西魏, Xianbei Kingdom 鮮卑 (A-2), and then were exiled to Koguryŏ (A-3). Based on this historical record, Ch’oe Chinyŏl claims that Tu Sŏnbu’s family came from nomadic tribes in the Hexi 河西 region and not from Koguryŏ. He did not recognize Tu Sŏnbu as a member of the Koguryŏ diaspora based on his lineage.11 Contrarily, An Chŏngjun argues that the genealogy in Tu Sŏnbu’s epitaphs was a phenomenon where a family originally from Xianbei or Tuoba 拓跋 pretended to be Han Chinese. He also argued that a family that had served in Koguryŏ should be regarded as Koguryŏ diaspora; therefore, Tu Sŏnbu should be considered a member of the Koguryŏ diaspora for his service.12
Thus, the genealogies in the epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora served as the basis for determining whether a person is Koguryŏ diaspora or not. However, different scholars have used varied criteria, and the number of Koguryŏ diaspora epitaphs has been inconsistent. Currently, 28 items are considered possible epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora (Table 1). To calculate the correct number, the definition of Koguryŏ diaspora must be clear and the number of epitaphs must be confirmed.
The second reason such epitaphs received scholarly attention is because the epitaphs showed that Parhae had inherited Koguryŏ. Some of the epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora after the 8th century describe their origin as “Parhae.”
B-1 公諱震 字某 渤海人.
B-2 祖藏 開府儀同三司工部尚書朝鮮郡王柳城郡開國公.13
According to the epitaph of Ko Chin 高震 (B), his grandfather was Ko Chang 高藏 (B-2), the last king of Koguryŏ, King Pojang 宝藏王. The epitaph of Ko Chin, a descendant of a royal Koguryŏ family, states that his origin was from “Parhae/Bohai 渤海” (B-1).
Two controversial opinions have arisen over the description of “Parhae/Bohai” on the epitaph. One regards “Parhae” as the Parhae Dynasty, founded in 698.14 According to No T’aedon, the Parhae Dynasty claimed to have succeeded Koguryŏ. Therefore, it was understood that Ko Chin mentioned his origin as “Parhae” after Parhae was founded. This opinion is widely accepted in Korean academic circles.
The other opinion is that the “Parhae/Bohai” origin refers to the Bohai Commandery 渤海郡 in mainland China and not to the Parhae Dynasty.15 According to Ma Yihong, any ethnic group different from the Han Chinese, but belonging to the Chinese Dynasty, falsely claimed that their ancestors were Han Chinese. The Bohai Gao clan 渤海高氏, whose origin is “Bohai,” was a famous Han Chinese family. As was the custom, the “Bohai” in Ko Jang’s epitaph, could have belonged to the prestigious Bohai Gao clan and had no relation to the Parhae Dynasty. Chinese academic circles support this opinion.
Recently, based on new data, Kwŏn Ǔnju argued that the “Parhae” in Ko Chin’s epitaph refers to the Parhae Dynasty.16 Kwŏn Ǔnju analyzed the epitaphs of a father and son, Ko Hŭmdŏk and Ko Wŏnmang. The father, Ko Hŭmdŏk’s, in his epitaph states his origin as “Parhae,” while Ko Wŏnmang states his origin as “Yin 殷.” This disparity appears because in 733, Ko Hŭmdŏk’s year of death, relations between the Tang and Parhae Dynasty were good; however, by Ko Wŏnmang’s death in 740, relations between the two dynasties worsened and war broke out. Therefore, the family could not mention “Parhae,” a hostile country, as their origin. In other words, when considering the circumstances related to the origin change from “Parhae” to “Yin,” it can be said that “Parhae” should be recognized as referring to the Parhae Dynasty.
This argument between the recognition of the Bohai commandery and the Parhae Dynasty has not been settled because the epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora are limited and there are not enough case studies. In this study, a comprehensive comparative analysis of all the genealogies among discovered Koguryŏ diaspora epitaphs will help to bring this debate to a clear conclusion.
The third factor that draws attention to the epitaphs is the fact that assimilation of the Koguryŏ diaspora into the Tang Dynasty is indicated. The epitaphs of the first generation of Koguryŏ who migrated to the Tang Dynasty state that they were from Koguryŏ. In contrast, the epitaphs of the second and third generations of Koguryŏ diaspora, after the 8th century, indicate that they originated from mainland China. The epitaphs of the Chŏn clan 泉氏 serve as a typical example of this.
Chŏn Namsaeng (C) and Chŏn Namsan (E) were brothers. Chŏn Hŏnsŏng (D) was Chŏn Namsaeng’s son, and Chŏn Pi (F) was his great-grandson who was born in Tang territory. Chŏn Hŏnsŏng’s epitaph says his origin was from “Koguryŏ” (D). The epitaphs of Chŏn Namsaeng and Chŏn Namsan state their origin was “Liaodong 遼東” (C, E), which also indicates Koguryŏ.21 Thus, the first generation’s epitaphs clearly show that they were from Koguryŏ. However, the epitaph of Chŏn Pi, of the third generation, states that he was from Wannianprefecture in Chang’an 京兆萬年 of the Tang Dynasty (F). No text indicates Koguryŏ in his epitaph.
No T’aedon, Kim Hyŏnsuk, and Yi Mungi have suggested that this indicates the third-generation assimilation of Chŏn clans into the Tang Dynasty.22 Recently, however, Yi Sŏngje argued against this conclusio n.23 According to Yi Sŏngje, the genealogies in epitaphs are sometimes subject to arbitrary changes unrelated to actual assimilation progress.
Chinese history scholars have remarked on the arbitrary nature of the genealogy in the Koguryŏ epitaphs.24 Examinations of the Paekche diaspora epitaphs indicate that some epitaphs were written with consideration of the political situation within the Tang Dynasty.25 Therefore, it is necessary to be cautious about using an origin change in these epitaphs as evidence of assimilation without scrutinizing these materials.
To solve this problem, this study conducts two investigations. The first is to examine epitaphs of the Koguryŏ diaspora besides those of the Chŏn clan and giving special focus to the epitaphs having the family name Ko. The second is to find concrete evidence of assimilation outside of genealogies.26
Definitions of the Koguryŏ Diaspora and the number of their epitaphs
The Koguryŏ diaspora is considered to have occurred during the Silla unification process. If the Koguryŏ people belonging to the Tang Dynasty during Koguryŏ’s collapse from the 640s to 668 match one of the following three criteria, they are considered Koguryŏ diaspora under the Tang Dynasty.
The description of the deceased or its family origin in an epitaph is written “Koguryŏ” or words symbolizing it.
The deceased or his/her ancestors were born in Koguryŏ or received a position of authority in Koguryŏ.
Descendants of those who match the criteria of 1 or 2.
Based on these three criteria, epitaphs 1 to 26 can be considered as belonging to the Koguryŏ diaspora. Epitaphs 15, 17, 18, 20, and 22, which require particular explanation, are discussed in detail below.
The following two epitaphs, Ko Yŏngsuk 高英淑 (G) and Sasŏn Ŭiil 似先義逸 (H), are excluded from the Koguryŏ diaspora.
Ko Yŏngsuk’s epitaph lists her origin as “Changli Guzhu 昌黎孤竹” (G-1), a place in Liaoxi 遼西, not in Koguryŏ. Furthermore, her father, Ko Ro 高路, was a “military officer of Shizhou Province 行師州刺史諸軍事,” a province where Qidan 契丹 people lived, suggesting that her origin was from Qidan.29 However, since her family name was Ko, her family could be from Koguryŏ.30 Regardless, since her great-grandfather served in the Northern Wei Dynasty (G-2), her family should have belonged to the Chinese Dynasty before the 7th century. Therefore, she does not match the criteria of Koguryŏ diaspora.
The word “Liaodong” can be found in the epitaph of Sasŏn Ŭiil. In addition, another record states that the family name “Sasŏn” came from Koguryŏ.31 Therefore, his family may be of Koguryŏ origins.32 However, it is unclear when his family moved to the Tang Dynasty.33 Furthermore, his epitaph was made in 850, much later than other epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora. For these reasons, although his roots could have been in Koguryŏ, it is difficult to determine whether he was a member of the Koguryŏ diaspora.
The controversy concerning epitaphs 18 Tu Sŏnbu and 20 Yu Wŏnjŏng can be explained through the definition of Koguryŏ diaspora indicated above. First, Tu Sŏnbu should be regarded as a Koguryŏ diaspora. His epitaph mentions that his father, Tu Pujol 豆夫卒, immigrated to the Tang Dynasty after its expedition to Koguryŏ,34 which indicates that Tu Sŏnbu’s family almost certainly served in Koguryŏ. Even if the family was from Xianbei, they must have been of the Xianbei-Koguryŏ people.35 In addition, Yu Wŏnjŏng, whose ancestor may have been Liu Cang 劉蒼, the king of Dongpingxian 東平憲王, a son of Emperor Guangwu 光武帝 of the Later Han Dynasty, should also be regarded as a member of Koguryŏ diaspora.36 According to his epitaph, the eighth ancestor, Yu Hŏn 劉軒, immigrated to Koguryŏ, and his grandfather, Yu Ru 劉婁, served in Koguryŏ as a Yoksal 褥薩.37 The fact that Koguryŏ was an ethnically diverse society suggests that people of Han and Xianbei should also be considered as Koguryŏ diaspora. 38
I-1 公曰仁德 族李氏 其先蓋樂浪望族也.
I-2 自堯臣類馬 周史猶龍 眞裔散於殊方 保姓傳於弈代.
I-3 考甲子 皇贈定州別駕. 天上降成綸之恩 地下光題輿之寵 公卽別駕 府君之元子也.39
The ancestry of Yi Indŏk’s 李仁德epitaph (I) is unclear. His father, Yi Kapja, received the position of Jeongzhou Biejia 定州別駕 from the Tang Dynasty, but the word “gift 贈” before the title means he received it after his death (I-3). It is uncertain whether Yi Kapja served the Tang Dynasty or Koguryŏ during his lifetime. Yi Indŏk was born in 673, after the collapse of Koguryŏ, and it is generally accepted that he did not serve under Koguryŏ. His epitaph says, “his ancestor was a famous, powerful family in Nangnang 其先蓋樂浪望族” (I-1). The word “Nangnang” was an expression that originated from Nangnanggun 樂浪郡, a Commandery once established in the northwestern part of the Korean Peninsula and referred to as the Korean Peninsula within the Tang documents. Therefore, Bai Geunxing and Yi Tonghun suggested that Yi In-dŏk was a member of the Koguryŏ diaspora.40
In contrast, Kim Sujin argues that these opinions do not hold weight as evidence that Yi Indŏk was a product of the Koguryŏ diaspora.41 According to Kim Sujin, his title “Jincheng xian/jun 金城縣/郡” and his residence at “Liquan-li 醴泉里” imply that Yi Indŏk was from the western region of China. Jincheng is currently known as Lanzhou 蘭州, in the western region of mainland China. Generally, a place’s name given as a title is the family’s home or origin. Moreover, many people from the western region, such as those from the Bashihu Temple 波斯胡寺 and the Sogdian An Jinzang 安金藏 residents, lived in Liquan-li.
Kim Sujin makes a valid rebuttal; however, a detailed examination of Yi Indŏk’s epitaph reveals a different conclusion. First, the mention of a person as having lived in Liquan-li does not guarantee that they were from the western region. There were indeed many Sogdian settlements in Liquan-li, among other settlements. For example, there was the Taipinggonzhu 太平公主 residence of Empress Wu’s daughter, and the Zong Chuke 宗楚客 residence of a minister between the end of the 7th century and the beginning of the 8th century.42
Second, having the Jincheng title did not mean that one was from Lanzhou. As mentioned above, a title as a place’s name was generally related to the hometown or the origin of one’s family. However, this is not absolute proof. For example, Li Xin李信’s home town is “Longxi Chengji 隴西成紀,” but his title was “Qingshan-xian Kaiguonan 青山縣開國男”;43 Li Wulyu李無慮’s home town is “Longxi,” but his title was “Pingji-xian Kaiguonan 平棘縣開國男;”44 and Li Liang 李良 moved his family home from “Longxi” to “汝 Ru,” but his title was “the king of Xunzheng-jun 順正郡王.”45 The titles of these three people were not related to where the family originated. Therefore, “金城郡開國男” in Yi Indŏk’s epitaph does not mean that he was from Lanzhou or that his family’s hometown was there.
Third, the interpretation that “the descendants were spread out in far places and passed down the family name from generation to generation 眞裔散於殊方 保姓傳於弈代” (I-2) proves Yi Indŏk was a person of the Koguryŏ diaspora. The word “shufang 殊方” can be interpreted as a foreign place or outside Zhonghua 中華. As Kim Sujin pointed out, “shufang” is indeed used to describe a region far from Zhonghua, such as Lanzhou.46 However, it is also commonly used to refer to a foreign country.47 Examining the meaning of “Nangnang” shows it is more natural to interpret “shufang” as a foreign country.
Fourth, the interpretation of “Nangnang” will be examined. Kim Sujin argues that no other Koguryŏ-related place names except for “Nangnang” raised suspicion as to whether he was a person of the Koguryŏ diaspora.48 Nevertheless, the word “Nangnang” stands as evidence that there is no question he was. In the Sui 隋 and Tang 唐 dynasties, the word “Nangnang” was often used to refer to Koguryŏ. The emperor of China’s southern dynasty gave the Koguryŏ king the title of “ Nangnang-gong 樂浪公.”49 When Emperor Yang 煬帝 organized an expeditionary force to Koguryŏ, one of its routes was called “Nangnang-do 樂浪道.”50 In addition, the word “Nangnang” also referred to the Korean Peninsula, including Silla and Paekche. The title of the King of Silla was “Nangnanggun-gong 樂浪郡公” or “King of Nangnang-gun, 樂浪郡王;”51 the title of “Nangnanggun-gong” was held by Puyŏ Munsŏn 扶餘文宣 of the Paekche diaspora;52 and the title of “Mrs. Nangnang-gun 樂浪郡公夫人” was held by lady Hŭkchi, the wife of Mulbu Sun.53 Both husband and wife were part of the Paekche diaspora. Therefore, the term “Nangnang mangjok 樂浪望族” should indicate that Yi Indŏk’s ancestors were from Koguryŏ or the Korean Peninsula.
The epitaph of Yi Ŭnji 李隱之 (K) serves as proof for interpreting the word “Nangnang” as Koguryŏ. The epitaph of Yi Ŭnji’s son, Yi Hoe 李懷 (J), was discovered before the epitaph of Yi Ŭnji was found, and there was a difference in opinion as to whether Yi Hoe was of the Koguryŏ diaspora.
Yi Hoe’s epitaph indicates that the 12th generation ancestors migrated to Liaodong (J-2), and Yi Hoe’s father or grandfather immigrated to the Tang Dynasty during the Tang Taizong唐太宗’s expedition to Koguryŏ (J-4). On the basis of these two records, Bai Gunxing suggested that Yi Hoe may have been of the Koguryŏ diaspora.56 Contrarily, Lee Donghun questioned his Koguryŏ origins because the description on his epitaph was “Zhaojun Zanhuang 趙郡賛皇” (J-1), which had no relation to Koguryŏ. Moreover, there were no specific achievements that took place in Koguryŏ.57 The reason for this doubt is similar to that of Yi Indŏk. However, when the epitaph of his father, Yi Ŭnji, was discovered, it became clear that the family of Yi Ŭnji and Yi Hoe was part of Koguryŏ diaspora. The epitaph of Yi Ŭnji states that his ancestors were from Liaodong (K-1), his grandfather and father were active in “Nangnang” and “Puyŏ 夫餘” (K-2), and he came to the Tang Dynasty from outer China (K-3). In other words, the “Liaodong” in Yi Hoe’s epigraph means Koguryŏ.
In this case, it is better to regard “Nangnang” as referring to Koguryŏ. Even if there are no specific achievements in Koguryŏ in an epitaph, the deceased may be of the Koguryŏ diaspora. Therefore, Yi Indŏk, whose epitaph says his origin was “Nangnang,” is also a person of Koguryŏ diaspora.
Typology of genealogie
As mentioned in section 2, Chŏn Pi’s epitaph (of the third generation) does not use Koguryŏ-related words but says that their hometown was Chang’an. Does the change in genealogy signify the assimilation of Koguryŏ people into the Tang Dynasty?
As mentioned in section 3, there are 26 epitaphs of the Koguryŏ diaspora. Said epitaphs were made over a period of one hundred years, making the range too wide to analyze them all at once. This paper divides them into four periods based on the compilation time, about 30 years apart (Table 2). Based on this classification, Chŏn Namsaeng’s epitaph belongs to the first period, Chŏn Namsan and Chŏn Hŏnsŏng belong to the second period, and the epitaph of Chŏn Pi to the third period. In other words, changes in the genealogy of the Chŏn clan occurred between the second and third periods.
To consider the meaning of the changes from the second to the third period, it is necessary to analyze the genealogies of 14 epitaphs with the family name Ko by period. Through this examination, it will be possible to categorize their genealogies and identify changes and trends.
There are two epitaphs in the first period: Ko Yomyo高鐃苗’s epitaph (L) and Ko Chesŏk高提昔’s epitaph (M).
Ko Yomyo’s epitaph says his origin was “Liaodong,” indicating him to be from Koguryŏ (L-1). As for the achievements of his ancestors, it only abstractly mentions them as a famous family in “Chinhan 辰韓” and “Pyonhan 弁韓,” meaning the Korean Peninsula (L-2). Ko Chesŏk’s epitaph says her origin was from “Kungnaesŏng 國內城” (M-1), the former capital of Koguryŏ. Furthermore, it refers to her great-grandfather’s official position in Koguryŏ (M-2), indicating that he was of the Koguryŏ diaspora. In these two examples, the deceased’s origin from Koguryŏ is expressed directly and with little rhetoric. These early patterns of genealogies are called “prototypes.”
The following section examines six epitaphs from the second period.
N-1 君諱玄 字貴王 遼東三韓人也. 昔唐家馭曆 幷呑天下 四方合應 啓 顙來降 而東夷不賓據靑海而成國.
N-2 公志懷雅略 有先見之明. 棄彼遺甿 從男生而仰化 慕斯聖敎 自東徙 而來王. 因而家貫西京 編名赤縣.
N-3 曾祖寶 任本州都督. 祖方 任平壤城刺史. 父廉 唐朝贈泉州司馬.60
O-1 君諱牟 字仇 安東人也.
O-2 族茂辰韓 雄門譽偃. 傳芳穢陌 聲高馬邑.61
P-1 □諱德 卞圀東部人也.
P-2 昔火政龍興 炎靈虜據. 三韓競霸 四海騰波. 白日降精 朱蒙誕孽. 大 治燕土 正統遼陽. 自天而下 因命爲姓. 公家氏族 卽其後也. …
P-3 祖岑東部受建武太王中裏小兄 執垧事. … 遷受遼府都督. 卽奉敎 追受 對盧官 依舊執垧事 任評臺之軄. 父孚受寶蔵王中裏小兄 任南蘇道史 遷陟大兄 任海谷府都督 又遷受太相 任司府大夫 承襲執垧事.62
Ko Hyŏn 高玄’s epitaph (N) says his origin was from “Liaodong Sanhan”, which also refers to Koguryŏ. When the Tang Dynasty was founded, Koguryŏ became hostile toward the Tang dynasty (N-1). However, the deceased had the foresight to join the Tang Dynasty with Chŏn Namsaeng (N-2), and the official positions of his great-grandfather and father were thus recorded (N-3).
Ko Mo 高牟’s epitaph (O) lists his origin as being from “Andong” (O-1). After Andong Tohobu 安東都護府 was established in the former territory of Koguryŏ, this term also referred to Koguryŏ. Although no specific achievements of his ancestors were mentioned, there are expressions that his ancestors were active in the lands of “Chinhan” and “Yemaek 穢陌,” which are terms related to Koguryŏ (O-2).
Ko Ŭldŏk 高乙德’s epitaph (P) says his origin is from “Pyŏnguk Tongbu 卞圀東部” (P-1), which likely refers to “Pyŏnhan.”63 This word refers definitively to Koguryŏ because the following sentence describes the ancestors’ achievements by stating, “The sun’s rays came down, and Chumong 朱蒙 was born,” thus refering to the myth of Koguryŏ’s founder (P-2). It also mentions his grandfather and father’s service to King Konmu 建武王 and King Pojang, respectively (P-3).
In all three cases above, the deceased or their ancestors are indicated to be from Koguryŏ. These can be the “prototypes” seen in the first period. Three cases in the second period can be classified as “prototypes.”
Q-1 公諱足酉 字足酉 遼東平壌人也.
Q-2 乃効款而住 遂家於洛州永昌縣焉.
Q-3 族本殷家 因生代承 □居玄菟. 獨擅雄蕃 今罄大誠 特隆殊寵.
R-1 公諱質 字性文 遼東朝鮮人也.
R-2 靑丘日域 聳曾構而凌霄 滄海谷王 廓長源而繞地. 白狼餘祉 箕子 之苗裔寔繁 玄鱉殊祥河孫之派流彌遠.
R-3 十九代祖密 後漢末以破燕軍存本國有功 封爲王 三讓不受 因賜姓 高氏 食邑三千戶. …
R-4 曾祖前 本蕃三品位頭大兄. 祖式 二品莫離支 獨知國政及兵馬事. 父量 三品栅城都督位頭大兄兼大相. 竝材望雄傑 匡翊本藩 聲芬 暢遠 播聞中國.64
S-1 公諱慈 字智捷 朝鮮人也.
S-2 先祖隨朱蒙王平海東諸夷 建高麗國 已後代爲公侯宰相. 至後漢末 高 麗與燕墓容戰大敗國幾將滅. 廿代祖密當提戈獨入 斬首尤多 因破燕 軍 重存本國. 賜封爲王 三讓不受 因賜姓高 食邑三千戶. …
S-3 曾祖式 本蕃任二品莫離支 … 祖量 本蕃任三品栅城都督位頭大兄兼 大相 … 父文 本蕃任三品位頭大兄兼將軍.65
Ko Chogyu 高足酉’s epitaph (Q) says that he originated from “Liaodong Pingyang” (Q-1), and he migrated to the Tang Dynasty (Q-2), indicating he is of the Koguryŏ diaspora. Interestingly, this epitaph says that his ancestors were Yin people, and their descendants migrated to Hyŏndo, which denotes Koguryŏ (Q-3). Based on this epitaph narrative, the deceased is a descendant of the Yin dynasty who migrated to the Korean Peninsula.66
Ko Chil 高質 (R) was a person who served in Koguryŏ and later in the Tang Dynasty, which meant he was a part of the Koguryŏ diaspora. His origin was “Liaodong Chosŏn” (R-1), and his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father all held official positions in Koguryŏ (R-4), further indicating that he was of the Koguryŏ diaspora. What is important here is the narrative about the Koguryŏ founder. The descendants of Qizi have been growing, and the lineage of Hason, Chumong, the Koguryŏ’s founder, has been continued (R-2). It should be noted that the Qizi legend is cited here. Qizi is a sage who existed at the end of the Yin Dynasty in ancient China. According to the Qizi legend, he left China for Korea after the collapse of the Yin Dynasty.67 The R-2 article is presumed to be based on the Qizi legend. “Yin” seen in Q-3 can be regarded as one of the types of the Qizi legend. Such Koguryŏ people refer to their ancestors as descendants of the Yin Dynasty or Qizi. This article calls them the “Yin and Qizi-type.”
The epitaphs of Ko Cha 高慈 (S), the son of Ko Chil, state his origin as “Chosŏn” like his father (S-1). The official positions of his father and his great-grandfather were the same as in his father’s epitaph (S-3). However, unlike his father, there is no mention of “Qizi” in his ancestry, only that his ancestor was a retainer who followed Chumong and became a noble in Koguryŏ (S-2). For this reason, it can be regarded as another of the “prototypes.”
The following section examines four epitaphs in the third period.
T-1 諱木盧 渤海蓚人也.
T-2 昔太公輔周 肇開王業 天眷錫命 受封東齊 鍾鼎玉食 七百餘載. 後遇 田和纂奪 分居荒裔 君之遠祖 避難海隅.68
U-1 府君諱德 字元光 其先渤海人也.
U-2 漸離之後 自五馬浮江 雙鵝出地 府君先代 避難遼陽 因爲遼陽□族.
U-3 洎隋原鹿走 唐祚龍興 廓四海而爲家 奄八紘而取俊 府君祖宗 戀 恩歸本 屬乎仗内 侍衞紫宸.69
V-1 公諱欽德 字應休 渤海人也.
V-2 曾祖瑗 建安州都督. 祖懷 襲爵建安州都督. 父千 唐左玉鈴衞中郞. 公卽先君仲子也.70
W-1 君諱遠望 字幼敏 先殷人也. …
W-2 比干以忠諫而死 故其子去國 因家于遼東焉.
W-3 貞耿冠乎曩時 遺烈光乎史籍 卽君始祖也. 其地這烏丸 鮮卑 接夫餘 肅慎. 東征西討 其邑里或遷于河北勃海高氏 則其宗盟 或留於漠南.
W-4 曾祖懷 唐雲麾將軍 建安州都督. 祖千 唐左玉鈐衞中郎 襲爵建安州 都督. 父欽德 襲建州都督 皇右武衞將軍 幽州副節度知平盧軍事.71
Ko Mokro 高木盧’s epitaph (T) traces his origin to “Bohai” (T-1), the hometown of the famous Han Chinese Bohai Gao clan.72 At first glance, he does not look like a person of the Koguryŏ diaspora. However, a closer look at the distant ancestor’s records shows that he moved to “Haiyu 海隅,” Koguryŏ, during a turbulent period in Chinese history (T-2).
Ko Tŏk 高德’s epitaph (U) says that he originated from “Bohai” (U-1) during the Yongjia Rebellion in the period of the Sixteen Kingdoms. His ancestors then moved to Liaoyang, Koguryŏ (U-2). Later, when the Tang Dynasty was founded, the family relocated to Tang territory (U-3).73
Ko Hŭmdŏk 高欽德’s (V) originated from “Bohai” (V-1), and his ancestors served as the governors of Jian’an and other provinces in Koguryŏ; however, it is not clearly indicated that he was of the Koguryŏ diaspora (V-2). Yet, the narrative in his son Ko Wŏngmang 高遠望’s epitaph (W) indicated that his family was of Koguryŏ diaspora. Thus, the epitaphs in the third period referred to the same hometown as that of the famous Han Chinese clan, the Bohai Gao clan, making it unclear whether they were a part of the Koguryŏ diaspora. This article calls this ancestor narrative the “Bohai-type.”
Ko Wŏngmang was the son of the Ko Hŭmdŏk. His ancestors were said to be “Yin people” (W-1), and his early ancestor Qizi lived in Liaodong, Koguryŏ (W-2). Although there are some discrepancies in the records of Ko Wŏngman’s ancestors and those of Ko Hŭmdŏk, they are quite similar (W-4). The fact that his ancestors were Yin makes it possible to classify Ko Wŏngmang’s epitaph under the “Yin and Qizi-type.” More noteworthy is the unique genealogy of his epitaph. The ancestors that moved to Hebei 河北 were of the Bohai Gao clan, while others, his own clan, remained in Monan 漠南 (W-3). Therefore, Ko Wŏngmang’s epitaph can be said to be of the “Yin and Qizi-type” with elements of the “Bohai-type.”
As introduced in section 2, Kwen EunJu interpreted “Bohai” in the epitaph of Ko Hŭmdŏk as referring to the Parhae Dynasty.74 This interpretation presupposes that the epitaphs of the father Ko Hŭmdŏk were made earlier than the epitaph of son Ko Wŏngmang. However, Ko Wŏngmang’s epitaph was made at least a year earlier than that of his father. Therefore, Kwen EunJu’s interpretation may not be valid. “Bohai” in the epitaphs does not mean the Parhae Dynasty becomes clearer by examining the third-period epitaphs.
In the third period, the “prototype” of Korguryŏ diaspora disappeared. In addition to the Yin and Qizi-type the Bohai type appeared. As can be seen from T-1 and T-2, this epitaph refers to the Bohai Commandery, not the Parhae Dynasty. The “Bohai-type” epitaphs, like the “Yin and Qizi-type,” also describe an ancestor who migrated to Koguryŏ from China. The epitaphs of the Koguryŏ diaspora claimed that their origins were in China. Therefore, as in Ko Wŏngmang’s epitaph, the genealogy of the “Yin and Qizi-type” appears with elements of the Bohai Gao clan.
Finally, two epitaphs in the fourth period will be examined.
Ko Chin 高震’s epitaph (X) says that he originated from “Bohai” (X-1). Moreover, his grandfather was King Pojang, and he was a member of the former royal family of Koguryŏ (X-2). The question is whether this “Bohai” refers to the Parhae Dynasty. With the discovery of Mrs. Ko’s epitaph, it is apparent that “Bohai” does not mean the Parhae Dynasty.
Mrs. Ko 高氏夫人 (Y) is the daughter of Ko Chin. Her epitaph says that she originated from “Bohai” like her father (Y-1). However, the clan is said to be “descended from Qi 齊之諸裔” during the Chunqiu period (Y-2), which indicates that the Bohai Gao clan descended from Qi. Therefore, the word “Bohai” in the epitaph of Mrs. Ko, without doubt, refers to the Bohai Commandery, not to the Parhae Dynasty.77 Therefore, it is difficult to regard “Bohai” in X-1 as the Parhae Dynasty, and it should be categorized as the Bohai Commandery.
The two epitaphs in the fourth period mentioned above are all of the “Bohai-type.” As only limited items can be examined, it is impossible to make a definite determination. However, it is remarkable that both their epitaphs fall under “Bohai-type.” It seems that at that time, the custom of Koguryŏ diaspora with the name Ko and claiming to be of the Bohai Gao clan had already become custom.
The genealogies in the epitaphs with the family name Ko changed from “prototypes” to the “Yin and Qizi-type” or the “Bohai-type”. This phenomenon indicates that their families considered their origin to be from mainland China. In other words, the assimilation of genealogies into Tang progressed through the four periods.
The genealogies of the Ko and Chŏn clans are summarized in Table 3. It can be seen that the genealogy of the Chŏn clan, like the Ko families’ epitaphs, selected a more Chinese ancestry in the later generations. The change in the genealogy is not limited to the Chŏn clan, but also other people of the Koguryŏ diaspora.
As seen above, the genealogies in the epitaphs of the Koguryŏ diaspora were increasingly assimilated into Tang. Does this mean that they assimilated into Tang society? If so, the date of marriage becomes a key indicator.78
There are ten records of marriages among the Koguryŏ diaspora, as shown in Table 4. These dates indicate that the first or second generation of Koguryŏ diaspora married people who shared their family name and were found among fellow Koguryŏ diaspora. The two cases of Ko Chesŏk and Mr. Chŏn, and Chŏn Hyŏnŭn 泉玄隠 and Mrs. Ko, definitely were marriages among members of the Koguryŏ diaspora. The other four, Yi Ŭnji, Ko Hŭmdŏk, Yi Hoe, and Wang Kyŏngyo, were all married to women whose family names were Yu, Wang, Ko, Yi, also confirmed as Koguryŏ diaspora, except for Henan Cheng, who was Ko Hŭmdŏk’s later wife. Furthermore, in the above cases, all Koguryŏ diaspora reached adulthood approximately by the 700s.
Further, marriages of the generation born during the 700s show subtle changes in their spouses. There was only one case where Chŏn Pi was married to a person possibly of the Koguryŏ diaspora. It was much later in the 700s when seven cases of marriages were possible within Koguryŏ diaspora. It is difficult to think that these differences are coincidental.
This phenomenon suggests that by the 700s, there was solidarity among the Koguryŏ diaspora and they formed a marriage circle. However, around 720, it is presumed that solidarity among the Koguryŏ diaspora disintegrated and they began to marry Han Chinese. In short, it is assumed that there was a significant change from the 700s to 720s. Moreover, these changes indicate further assimilation into Tang society.
What changes took place at that time? The genealogical typology of each period, the period of activity of each generation, and the changes in marriage cases are summarized in Table 5. As shown in this table, Koguryŏ diaspora had a period of change of around 700. This period was the turning point in the history of the Koguryŏ diaspora when they shifted from the first generation to the second generation. In reality, it is assumed that by the latter half of the 8th century, their epitaphs were not different from those of other Tang people.
Conclusions
Previous studies have been uncertain about the number of epitaphs of the Koguryŏ diaspora. Consequently, these studies did not identify some of the epitaphs as those of Koguryŏ diaspora. By summarizing past discussions and definitions of Koguryŏ diaspora within the Tang Dynasty, this article has determined that, at present, 26 of the discovered epitaphs are those of the Koguryo diaspora.
By typifying the genealogies in the Ko family epitaphs, it has been shown that the “Bohai-type” was the final stage of genealogies that referred to Koguryŏ diaspora within the Tang Dynasty. Therefore, the “Bohai” seen in epitaphs of Koguryŏ diaspora did not mean the Parhae Dynasty, but rather indicated the Commandery, which was the hometown of the Bohai Gao clan.
Through the analysis of the Ko family’s epitaphs, it has become clear that their origins changed from the “prototypes” to the “Yin and Qizi-type” and then to the “Bohai-type.” The changes in the Ko family and those in the Chŏn family epitaphs were almost the same. Furthermore, the changes in the marriage cases and the generational interruption around year 700 show a turning point for Koguryŏ diaspora. The changes in the genealogies in the epitaphs indicate a phenomenon of assimilation to the Tang Dynasty.
The examination in this article clarified that there was a turning point in the 700s for Koguryŏ diaspora. Previous studies have been unable to determine when and how the Koguryŏ diaspora changed because of a lack of historical records. The key discovery of this article is that it indicates a specific turning point of the change from Koguryo to Tang society by examining 26 epitaphs. In the future, it will be necessary to investigate not only the upper-class of those who left epitaphs, but also the cases of peasants, lower-class soldiers, and musicians.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
Print 
