Introduction
The Lelang Commandery (樂浪郡), one of the four commanderies established on the Korean peninsula by the Han (漢) Empire in 108 BC, is among the most controversial topics in the study of ancient Korean history,1 with its location being especially contentious in South Korean academic circles because it is often linked to social disputes involving nationalistic and political viewpoints.2 While the majority of scholars believe that the commandery was located in present-day P’yŏngyang and its surrounding area since its foundation, most North Korean historians before 2000’s and some South Korean historians have argued that the commandery was first established in other places, such as the Liaoning Province of China.
Nevertheless, an overwhelming amount of archaeological evidence indicates the existence of a Chinese cultural group - or at least a group culturally influenced by the Chinese dynasties - in P’yŏngyang during the first century BC, which demands an explanation from those who argue that the commandery did not exist in this area.3 Consequently, some of these scholars have suggested a kingdom named “Lelang” or “Nangnang”4 referenced in Samguk Sagi (三國史記) as the potential owner of the cultural relics in P’yŏngyang. The Samguk Sagi provides a short account of Koguryŏ’s conquest of a kingdom named “Lelang” in 32 AD. According to Samguk Sagi, this kingdom was a polity that was coexisting with the Lelang Commandery by the first century AD, as its political characteristics are clearly different from the Chinese commanderies’ political system and considering the date for Koguryŏ’s subjugation of the Lelang Commandery.
Among these scholars, some have even suggested that this “Lelang Kingdom” was a state founded by indigenous people in P’yŏngyang, and that the commandery was never actually established on the Korean Peninsula. This perspective has a long historiography in Korea dating back to Sin Ch’aeho’s work in the early 20th century.5 However, the majority of scholars studying the Lelang Commandery has generally been skeptical of the possibility that an ethnic state actually existed in P’yŏngyang during this period. In fact, the credibility of the record about this kingdom is questionable, since there is no concrete evidence of the kingdom’s existence in the first century other than the mythical tale in Samguk Sagi.
Thus, while denying that the kingdom in the tale was the owner of the cultural relics and sites in P’yŏngyang, many historians in South Korea are inclined to explore the relationship between the commandery and the kingdom in this record, as the same name could imply a connection between the commandery and the kingdom. Many of these studies were based on the perspective that the kingdom was founded by local ethnic groups in opposition to the authority of the Chinese commandery. In fact, studies of the kingdom occasionally adopted the general perspective that the commandery was that of ‘Chinese’ suppressors, arguably a modern view of ethnicity formed after the 20th century. Also, diverse political and cultural groups were often divided and classified simply as ‘Chinese’ or ‘indigenous (Korean).’
After its establishment, however, the Lelang Commandery became a central point of political, economic, and cultural exchanges between the Chinese empires and neighboring indigenous groups. During this process, a certain ‘acculturation’ or ‘hybridization’ process may have occurred within the indigenous peoples, as some recent studies have suggested. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the possibility that many indigenous residents of the Lelang Commandery accepted Chinese culture and self-identified as residents of ‘Lelang’ or even as Chinese (Han) people as well.
Considering the controversial nature of this record of Lelang Kingdom, it may be regarded as non-relevant or insignificant to the broader discussion about the commandery. Nevertheless, the details of its historicity - or at least the origin - of this tale is worthy of discussion. Specifically, a kingdom referenced in this tale potentially existed while exhibiting the cultural elements or influence of the Chinese commandery, which may provide information to help us better understand the relationship between indigenous peoples and the Chinese commandery system after its establishment. In this respect, this paper aims to review the possibility that the tale was based on the historical events and situation surrounding the Lelang Commandery, Koguryŏ and their neighboring indigenous groups in the first century.
The Tale of the Lelang Kingdom in Samguk Sagi
Amongst the accounts from Samguk Sagi covering the period from the first century BC to the second century AD, there were several that describe the conflicts or interactions between the Three Kingdoms and a polity referred to as ‘Lelang’ or ‘Nangnang.’6 Of these, a particular passage from the “Koguryŏ Annals (高句麗本紀),” which details Koguryŏ’s invasion and occupation of a polity named Lelang (樂浪) in 32 AD, had attracted considerable attention from historians for around a century. The “Koguryŏ Annals” consistently describe how Koguryŏ actively expanded its territory to the central region of Manchuria and the Maritime Province of Siberia in the first century, and its invasion of ‘Lelang Kingdom’7 was also one such militaristic expansions narrated in the book.8 The passage describes the conquest as follows:
A) [Great King Musin (大武神王)] Year fifteen [32]……Summer, fourth month, The King’s son Hodong (好童) traveled to the Okchŏ, Ch’oe Ri (崔理), the king of Lelang, was just then setting forth and saw him. He inquired, “Looking at your face, [I can see that you are] no ordinary person; could it be that You are the son of the Divine King (神王) of the northern realm?” Then he took [Hodong] back with him and had him marry his daughter. Later, Hodong returned to his own country and secretly sent someone to inform Ch’oe daughter, “If you can get into arsenal and destroy the drum and horn [that are there], then I will receive you with due propriety, but not otherwise.”
Prior to this time, Lelang had possessed a drum and a horn which sounded of their own accord whenever an enemy appeared; this is why [Hodong] instructed her to destroy them. In response to his message, Ch’oe daughter took a sharp knife and secretly made her way into the storehouse where she slashed the face of drum and scored the mouth of the horn. She informed her achievement to Hodong. Then, Hodong persuade our king to make a surprise attack upon Lelang. Since neither the drum nor the horn had sounded, Ch’oe Ri was unprepared. It was only when our tropps had stealthily made their way to the very foo of his citadel that he realized both the drum and horn were broken. Thereupon he slew his daughter and came out to surrender.
1) {Another [account] says that [our king] request the hand of the ruler of Lelang’s daughter for his son with the idea of destroying [that kingdom]. Subsequently, he sent the girl back to her own country to ruin their weapons and properties.} 9
As is well known, “Lelang” or “Nangnang (樂浪)” is the name of one of the Four Commanderies of Han (漢四郡) established by the Han Empire after their conquest of Old Chosŏn in 108 BC. Of these four commanderies, only the Lelang Commandery survived into the first century AD on the Korean Peninsula, serving as a trading point among neighboring countries such as the Three Hans (三韓) and Japan until Koguryŏ captured the area in 314.10
It is possible that the ‘Lelang’ in this record was the Lelang Commandery, even though the account never referred to it as ‘commandery (郡).’ While mythical elements such as a drum and horn “sounding of their own accord” cannot be taken as historical facts, this tale could be loosely based on a historical event in the first century where Koguryŏ invaded the commandery and occupied its territory. However, as many scholars have already pointed out, this suggestion contradicts general knowledge about the commandery in almost every respect. For example, the antagonist of this tale is addressed as a ‘king (王),’ which does not align with the characteristics of the Lelang Commandery. The Han Empire’s commanderies were administrative divisions under a governor directly appointed by the central government, whereas the ‘Lelang’ in this record is described as a polity under the authority of a king, referring to the polity as a ‘kuk (國: state).’11
Moreover, the date of the Lelang Commandery’s fall due to Koguryŏ’s invasion in this passage does not align with other known historical records. Many accounts indicate that Koguryŏ conquered the Lelang Commandery in the early fourth century, which is widely accepted as a historical fact by scholars in general.12 If Koguryŏ’s conquest of the ‘Lelang’ in this passage was based on an actual historical event, it would mean that the area of the commandery had fallen into Koguryŏ’s hands two centuries earlier - a supposition unsupported by any historical text or archaeological evidence. Although other passages in the “Koguryŏ Annals,” which will be discussed in a later chapter, suggest that Koguryŏ’s capture of this area was only momentary, skepticism remains regarding the possibility that Koguryŏ could overpower a Chinese commandery in the first century AD.
Thus, it seems logical that numerous studies have interpreted this tale as a later invention with little historical basis. Tsuda Sokichi’s study, likely the earliest modern historical research on this tale, argued that the passage originated from fabricated folklore created by the Koguryŏ people in later times.13 Following Tsuda’s work, the general consensus among subsequent studies has been that this tale is folklore created after the third century. For example, Hideo Inoue suggested that the tale was invented after Koguryŏ occupied the Lelang Commandery in the fourth century, modelling it after their conquest.14 Meanwhile, Mishina Shohei argued that the tale was based on the Koguryŏ people’s memory of their conflicts with the commandery during a certain period.15 Although Mishina acknowledged that the historical event underlying this tale could date back earlier than the third century, he remained skeptical of Koguryŏ’s occupation of the commandery before that time.
Nevertheless, many historians in Korea have traditionally interpreted this tale as reflecting certain historical events in the first century, considering that the kingdom mentioned in this tale to be distinct from the Lelang Commandery. For example, Sin Ch’aeho argued the kingdom was located in present-day P’yŏngyang, rather than the commandery. According to his theory, the Four Han Commanderies were not established on the Korean Peninsula, but instead they were merely small commanderies on the Liaodong Peninsula. He further asserted that the Lelang Kingdom was an independent state located at P’yŏngyang, which controlled 25 small states around the area.16
Contrary to Sin Ch’aeho’s argument, the majority of historians since the 20th century have accepted that the commandery was established in present-day P’yŏngyang. Some archaeological relics, including those with written inscriptions, indirectly attest to the existence of the Chinese commandery in this area, though many remain open to debate. For example, the “Household Register of the Lelang Commandery,” reported in the early 2000s,17 is one of the strongest, if not determinative, pieces of evidence that the commandery was established around present-day P’yŏngyang. These three wooden tablets were produced to record the number of households and residents in every county of the commandery, revealing the existence of an administrative system to monitor the population of the commandery with the Pyŏngyang area as its nucleus.
Nevertheless, some studies have argued that the commandery was not initially established in this area, despite the majority of archaeological and historical studies. Subsequently, the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ in Samguk Sagi has been proposed as an ‘alternative’ faction existing in this area, a perspective similar to Sin’s idea about the kingdom. One example of these studies was conducted by North Korean historian Yi Chirin, who insisted that the Lelang Kingdom was a polity established by indigenous people in present-day P’yŏngyang, and that the archaeological relics and sites in P’yŏngyang during the first century belonged to a polity founded by these people.18 Following Yi Chirin’s work, most scholars in North Korea have generally insisted that the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ was a polity in Pyŏngyang at least until the first century AD, while a commandery with the same name was located on the Liaodong Peninsula.19
Some scholars in South Korea also share a similar viewpoint to that of Sin Ch’aeho or Yi Chirin, assuming that the Lelang Commandery was established elsewhere, while the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ was a polity in present-day P’yŏngyang.20 However, the majority of scholars in South Korea argue that the kingdom was merely a small polity within the administrative boundaries of the Lelang Commandery, which, they assert, was located in P’yŏngyang. Although they have suggested various locations for this polity,21 all of these studies consistently argue that the kingdom was a small polity in the northwestern part of the Korean Peninsula.
Apart from their various proposals about the kingdom’s location, it is noteworthy that these studies are generally based on the theory that local ethnic groups within the commandery were allowed to maintain their social customs and practices as a dependent or subject state to the Han Empire. In such a state, the local administration was left to the ethnic tribal leaders, while the residents were still subject to the commandery’s taxes and corvée labor.22 In 1914, a Japanese archaeological research team excavated a stele produced in Nianchan County (秥蟬縣) of the Lelang Commandery, present-day Yonggang-gun, Pyŏngannam-do, during the first century AD. Although the full content is not completely clear due to missing characters, the stele primarily records a ritual performance for mountain spirits by the chief of the county.23 In the inscriptions on the stele, there is a phrase written as “subject state (屬國)” of the commandery, which implies that the Lelang Commandery had indigenous states under its governance as subject states.
Kwŏn Ojung suggested that the Lelang Commandery had a political structure in which small ethnic states functioned as its subcomponents, and that the kingdom mentioned in this tale was one of these subject states within the commandery. According to him, the kingdom was a kind of subordinate state under the governance of the Lelang Commandery, which is why the “Koguryŏ Annals” describe it as a polity named ‘Lelang.’24
From a similar viewpoint, some studies further argue that the tale reflects Koguryŏ’s struggle against local ethnic groups in the coastal region of the East Sea. These studies point out that “Okchŏ,” the place where Prince Hodong met the king of the Lelang Kingdom in this tale, implies the location of the kingdom. The term Okchŏ usually referred to the area in the northeastern part of the Korean peninsula or the ethnic groups living in this area. Chinese records, such as Sanguozhi (三國志), state that Koguryŏ subjugated Okchŏ before the third century. Like many others, these studies also consider the possibility that the kingdom was modeled after a small indigenous state under the governance or influence of the Lelang Commandery, and they argue that the Okchŏ region is the most appropriate place for such a kingdom to exist. According to Sanguozhi, compiled in the third century, Okchŏ became part of the Lelang Commandery in the first century BC but was later subjugated by Koguryŏ. This process is described as follows:
B) In the early period of Han dynasty, when Wiman (衛滿), an exile from Yuan (燕) Dynasty, became a king of Choson (朝鮮), [the villages in] Okchŏ became subjects to [Choson]. In the second year of Yuanfeng (元封; 109 B.C.) of Emperor Wu (武帝), [ the emperor] invaded and killed Wiman’s grandson, Ukŏ (右渠). Han dynasty divided the region [of Chosŏn] and installed four commanderies. Okchŏ castle was [included] in Xuantu commandery (玄菟郡). Later, [the capital of Xuantu commnadery] moved to the northwest of [Ko]guryŏ because of an invasion from Maek barbarians (夷貊). The so-called Xuantu’s old government (故府) in nowadays is the place [where the capital moved to]. Okchŏ was then included in the Lelang’s [administrative boundary].25
This passage from Sanguozhi indicates that Okchŏ was originally a region occupied by the Old Chosŏn before the Han Empire’s invasion. After the invasion, the area became part of Xuantu Commandery when the Han Empire established the ‘Four Han Commanderies.’ However, Xuantu Commandery later relocated its center to the “northwest of Koguryŏ,” and Okchŏ became part of the Lelang Commandery. The Lelang Commandery governed this region for over a century until the Han Empire eventually abolished the counties and relinquished direct control over Okchŏ thereafter. If the kingdom in the tale was modeled after an actual polity from the first century, it is possible that the name ‘Lelang’ came from this connection, as the residents in this region had been dominated by a Chinese commandery for a century. Accordingly, many studies suggest that a ‘kingdom’ could emerge after the commandery withdrew from Okchŏ, formed by the local ethnic groups.26
On the other hands, some studies argue that a group of indigenous people called ‘Nangnang (Lelang)’ existed in the area surrounding Pyŏngyang before the establishment of the Han Commanderies, while the central area of the Old Chosŏn was located in Liaodong Peninsula or elsewhere. For example, Pŏpchong Cho suggested that the central area of the Old Chosŏn was near the middle of the Amnok (Yalu) River Basin, and that the Lelang Kingdom was the faction located at Pyŏngyang area before the commandery was established.27 Furthermore, Namjung Kim argued that there were multiple ‘Nangnang (Lelang)’ entities that coexisted with the Lelang Commandery. According to him, the Lelang Kingdom mentioned in the passage was an indigenous polity located in present-day P’yŏngannam Province, while the indigenous groups within the commandery were referred to as ‘Nangnang Chosŏn (樂浪朝鮮),’ comprising the majority of the commandery’s population.28 Nevertheless, these studies still acknowledge that the Lelang Commandery was established in the Pyŏngyang area, regardless of their different perspectives on the passage about the Lelang Kingdom.
Overall, researchers who perceived that the record reflects traces of historical events from the first century have focused on explaining how a polity named ‘Lelang’ could have existed during this period. It is seemingly logical to assume that this polity was an independent and indigenous entity, though under the influence of the Lelang Commandery. However, by emphasizing its ‘indigenousness’ as distinct from the Chinese culture or political institution, previous studies arguably neglected a crucial question: why was this polity referred to as ‘Lelang’ in the “Annals of Koguryŏ?”
If this kingdom was modeled after an indigenous polity, it is difficult to imagine that the people of this polity identified themselves as ‘Lelang,’ or that the people of Koguryŏ equated it with the Lelang Commandery. While it may be impossible to determine the self-identity of its people, we can at least affirm that the people in Koguryŏ recognized them as ‘Nangnang’ or ‘Lelang,’ implying that Koguryŏ did not completely differentiate this polity from the Lelang Commandery. In fact, as will be discussed in a later chapter, many other accounts in the “Annals of Koguryŏ” indicate that the tale was included in the book with the perspective or context that the kingdom was the Lelang Commandery, or at least part of it.
In this context, it is necessary to address whether the tale originated from the accounts written by the Koguryŏ, as it relates to the perspective of the record and the context of the tale. Understanding this will help to explain why it was referred to as ‘Lelang’ and described as the commandery in the Annals, hopefully shedding light on the historical situation that forms the basis of this tale.
The Origin of the Tale and the Lelang Commandery in Okchŏ
As briefly mentioned in the previous chapter, some studies, primarily those from Japanese academia before the 1990’s, have assumed that the tale was created after Koguryŏ’s conquest of the Lelang Commandery. Their argument remains valid, as there is no evidence that this tale emerged even before the 12th century. As is well known, Samguk Sagi was compiled by Kim Pusik and officials of Koryŏ in 1145 during the Koryŏ dynasty. Although Kim Pusik, as a Confucian scholar, claimed to adhere to the principle of “transmit, but not fabricate (述而不作)” when documenting historical events,29 it is impossible to determine the exact date of the tale’s emergence, since he did not indicate the source material in detail.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the tale emerged before the fall of Koguryŏ, likely existing as a folklore tale based on the Koguryŏ people’s memory before the fourth century. This suggestion would be supported by the existence of an alternative version of the story that depicts the same event. As seen in Record A, there is an additional passage about the conquest of the kingdom at the end (A-1). Yet, this passage states that Ch’oe Ri’s daughter simply destroyed ‘weapons and properties’ without any reference to a “horn and drum sounding of their own accord.” Furthermore, it illustrates Koguryŏ’s invasion of the Lelang Kingdom with similar elements, such as a political marriage between members of the ruling class, but it is more ‘realistic’ than the original tale.
Where did this passage come from, and why did Kim Pusik and Koryŏ’s historians annotate it? Considering its narrative style, it is likely part of the chronological history whereby the original tale of the Lelang Kingdom was revised and rewritten into a historical account.30 If this is true, it increases the possibility that the tale emerged during the era of Koguryŏ, as it is unlikely that succeeding dynasties would require a secondary and realistic version of the tale.
One could argue that the officials in Koryŏ rewrote the annotation during the compilation of Samguk Sagi. However, the book presents the mythical story as the main text and includes A-1 as an annotation. If this annotation had been created by the Koryŏ people, it would likely have been presented in the main text of the record. Thus, it would be more accurate to say that the mythical story was revised and rewritten into a historical account by the people of Koguryŏ when they wrote their own Chinese-style official histories.
It is said that Koguryŏ compiled its own official history books multiple times throughout its history. According to the “Annals of Koguryŏ” in Samguk Sagi, King Yŏngyang of Koguryŏ ordered Yi Munjin (李文眞) to compile a history book called Sinjip (新集) by revising and summarizing the old historical records in 600 AD.31 In this record, the ‘old historical records’ Yi Munjin used as a source material were addressed as ‘Yugi (留記),’ a history book that allegedly consisted of 100 volumes compiled in the early stage of their history. While none of these books remain, it is believed that Sinjip was a chronological history book similar to Shiji (史記), and that it was later used as one of the source materials for the “Annals of Koguryŏ.”32
It is impossible to determine whether the tale of the Lelang Kingdom in Record A was actually from these books, but the idea that the tale was rewritten as a realistic story and included as an official historical record in Sinjip would not be too implausible. Later, when Kim Pusik and others were compiling various accounts from Koguryŏ and other remaining sources into the official history book Samguk Sagi, they chose the longer and more detailed version of the story as the main text. Then, they included the shorter and more realistic version of the record, which was a revised version of the tale, as an annotation, adhering to the principle of “transmit, but not fabricate.”
Another factor supporting the idea that this tale emerged before the fourth century is that the “Annals of Koguryŏ” clearly distinguish this event from Koguryŏ’s conquest of the commandery, which occurred in the early fourth century.
C) [Great King Musin (大武神王)] Year twenty-seven [44], autumn, ninth month. Emperor Guangwu (光武帝) of Han (漢) sent troops across the sea, and conquered Lelang, which was occupied and made it as their commandery and county. All the region south of the Sal River (薩水) became the Han Empire’s territory.33
The above record states that ‘Lelang’ was occupied by the Han dynasty in 44 AD. Considering the date in this record, this statement is apparently related to the tale about the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ in Record A. If this statement is taken as a historical fact, it could be argued that Koguryŏ momentarily occupied the Lelang Commandery in 32 AD and then lost it to the Han Empire in 44 AD.
However, there is no historical record to suggest that the Han dynasty clashed with Koguryŏ during the conquest of the Lelang Commandery in 44 AD. According to Hou Han Shu (後漢書; Book of the Later Han), Emperor Guangwu of the Later Han sent his army to suppress a revolt in the Lelang Commandery in 25 AD and successfully reinstated the commandery in 30 AD.34 No written record of Koguryŏ’s involvement in the Later Han’s reconstruction of the commandery exists, with records referring only to the indigenous people’s revolts and their suppression by the Later Han. Apart from the question of whether Record C was based on historical fact, it is clear that Record A was not a stand-alone story in Samguk Sagi.
Like Record C, there were a number of other records in Samguk Sagi that are directly linked to Record A.
D) [Great King Musin (大武神王)] Year twenty [37]. The King attacked Lelang and destroyed it.35
E) [Yuri Yisagŭm (儒理尼師今)] Year 14 [37]. Muhyul, the King of Koguryŏ, attacked and destroyed Nangnang (Lelang). 5,000 people of that state [of the Lelang] came to surrender us. [The King] allowed them to live in Six Bu (六部).36
Record D, which is also from the “Annals of Koguryŏ,” is an account of Koguryŏ’s conquest of ‘Lelang’ five years after the tale of Record A. This statement is likely a reciting of Record E, which is from the “Annals of Silla” in the same book. According to this, Silla accepted thousands of refugees from ‘Lelang,’ which Koguryŏ destroyed, clearly referring to the war accounted in Record A.
As such, these records were all written under the context that Koguryŏ attacked a certain polity with the name ‘Lelang’ in the middle of the first century. Regardless of their historical accuracy, multiple records of the aftermath of the conquest with different origins were written, a phenomenon which is hard to explain if they were created during the later periods after the fall of Koguryŏ without any basis on the people of Koguryŏ or Silla’s memory. Therefore, the best explanation is that the story of the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ emerged and was shared by its people before the fourth century, and some of these records such as A-1 or C were produced in the process of Koguryŏ people’s revision of the story for their official Chinese-style history book.
If this hypothesis is valid, it would be the best explanation to suggest that the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ was modeled after a polity in Okchŏ, as some studies have suggested. The “Koguryŏ Annals” state that Koguryŏ actively invaded small neighboring polities during the first century, many of which were located in the northern part of the Korean peninsula and Manchuria, like Okchŏ. According to Sanguozhi, Koguryŏ’s subjugation of Okchŏ is described as follows:
F) … Because (Okchŏ) was a small country, its people had suffered persecution from big countries. In the end, (Okchŏ) became a subject state to Koguryŏ.37
G) Autumn, September, in the 4th year of Great King T’aejo (56 AD). [The King] conquered East Okchŏ and made its land into [Koguryŏ’s] castle and village (城邑). We expanded our territory to Ch’ang Sea (滄海) to east, and Sal River to south.38
The exact date when Koguryŏ made the people in Okchŏ its subject state, as described in Record G, is unknown. However, most scholars in South Korea assert that it was not as late as the middle of the first century in consideration of Record H.39 While the credibility of the records in Samguk Sagi from this period is still in question, we can at least say that the records in the “Koguryŏ Annals” were written in the context of Koguryŏ’s territorial expansion to the East Sea region in the first century. In fact, the “Koguryŏ Annals” state that, in the first century, Koguryŏ eagerly launched militaristic campaigns against the polities in the coastal region of the East Sea.
H) [Great King Musin] Year Nine [26], winter, tenth month. The King personally led a punitive expedition against the kingdom of Kaema (蓋馬國) and killed their king. But King consoled the people there by forbidding looting and simply bringing [Kaema] under the system of the kingdom as a commandery and county.40
I) [Great King Musin] Year Nine [26], twelfth month. The King of Kuda, hearing who Kaema had perished, was afraid that he himself would suffer likewise and came to surrender his kingdom. From then on, our territory expanded even further.41
G) [Great King Musin] Year Thirteen [30], autumn, seventh month. Sangsu, a man of Maegu Valley (買溝谷), surrendered to our country along with his younger brother Wisu, his younger cousin Wudo, and others.42
In these records, ‘Kaema’ is understood to refer to the area in the northern part of the Korean peninsula,43 while ‘Maegu’ in Record K is generally understood to be the area in North Okchŏ, near the present-day Tomun River basin.44 The Annals recount that Koguryŏ’s territory expanded to the East Sea coastal region within only a few decades. In other words, these records indicate that the “Koguryŏ Annals” illustrate Koguryŏ’s active expansion into the East Sea coastal region in the middle of the first century AD, with the conquest of the Lelang Kingdom occurring during this period of expansion. Of course, the credibility of these records cannot be confirmed at this stage, much like many other records in Samguk Sagi. Nevertheless, we can assume that these records were written with the understanding that Koguryŏ occupied these lands during this period, and that this perspective formed the basis of the Lelang Kingdom’s myth.
To summarize, the tale, which emerged before the fourth century in Koguryŏ, was based on the Koguryŏ people’s memory of their conflicts with the people in the East Sea coastal region, such as Okchŏ. As briefly noted previously, this region had been under the governance of the Lelang Commandery for a century, which could be the reason for the kingdom being called ‘Lelang.’ In this respect, it is necessary to review the relationship between the people of this region and the Lelang Commandery.
After its establishment in 108 BC, the Lelang Commandery governed the northern part of the Korean Peninsula with P’yŏngyang as its capital. However, Okchŏ, an area within Lelang Commandery’s jurisdiction, was described as a region where the commandery faced significant difficulties in maintaining its governance from the beginning. This was partly because the majority of its population presumably consisted of ethnic peoples with distinct cultural backgrounds from mainland China. Additionally, it was located in the far eastern region of the Korean Peninsula. Sanguozhi illustrates the specific methods the Han Empire used to manage the local ethnic groups of Okchŏ and sustain Lelang Commandery’s authority as follows:
K) …Okchŏ was included in the [administrative boundary of] Lelang. Han dynasty, considering that the area was too large and far away, divided the eastern area from Tantan Mountain Chain (單單大領), and installed Defender of the Eastern Section (東部都尉). The administration office of the district was placed in Pulnae Fortress (不耐城), separately governing the seven counties of the eastern part of the mountain. From this point, every villages of Okchŏ became counties.45
L) …In the sixth year of Jianwu (建武; 30 AD), when [Han dynasty] decreased the number of the frontier commanderies, Defender of Eastern Section of Okchŏ was abolished. After this, the dynasty made every Kŏsu (渠帥) in counties Marquess of County(縣侯). All counties [of Okchŏ] such as Pulnae, Hwaryŏ (華麗) and Okchŏ(a county) became marquisates. The barbarians (in Okchŏ) fought and invaded each other.46
According to these records, Okchŏ was an area once occupied by the Lelang Commandery, which installed seven counties to govern the local ethnic people. In the first century AD, however, the Han Empire abandoned direct control over the region for unknown reasons. According to Record F, Lelang’s seven counties were separated from the commandery’s administrative boundary and became marquisates in 30 AD. A marquisate in the Han dynasty was originally a fief given to a marquis, typically the size of a county. In principle, these marquises, appointed by the central government, did not have any administrative role over their marquisates.47
However, records in Sanguozhi indicate certain exceptions in the first century. According to Record E, the Han dynasty abolished the Defender of the Eastern Section (東部都尉) in the sixth year of Jianwu (30 AD). In this process, the empire turned the seven counties into marquisates, appointing Kŏsu (渠帥) as the marquises of the counties (縣侯). Kŏsu, also known as Kunjang (君長) or Chusu (主帥), is a title that Chinese sources traditionally used for ethnic local lords, who were usually lords of small chiefdoms. According to Kim Jung-bae, chiefdom in historical records regarding ancient Korea usually refers to a society with a class structure, arguably a polity in the process of state formation.48
If Kŏsu, originally from a local ethnic background, existed in this region up to 30 AD, it is likely that they preserved his position as a leader of his chiefdom even after the establishment of the commandery. Kwon O-Jung (Ojung Kwŏn) asserts that, to secure their collaboration, the commandery guaranteed local ethnic lords a certain degree of their previous authority. As a result, several states or kingdoms under the rule of local lords could coexist within the commandery’s boundaries, even if this method contradicted the principles of the Chinese commandery system.49
Thus, after 30 AD, Okchŏ consisted of marquisates ruled by local ethnic leaders referred to as Kŏsu. According to Record I, these marquisates entered into armed conflict with each other, indicating that the Han Empire did not have direct control over them by this period. In consideration of this political situation, it is possible that Koguryŏ invaded one of these marquisates in the first century. This conflict later became a motif in the tale of the ‘Lelang Kingdom.’ Since it acted as an independent polity after 30 AD, it could be described as a polity with a ‘king’ like Ch’oe Ri.
Given the characteristics of the kingdom in the tale, and the hypothesis that the tale was derived from the historical event Koguryŏ people had before the fourth century, it seems the most logical solution for the origin of the tale. However, it should be pointed out that these kinds of explanations still do not address the crucial question about this record: why was it referred to as ‘Lelang’? If this Lelang Kingdom was modeled after an independent and indigenous polity led by a local Kŏsu, why was it not simply called by its indigenous name, as Okchŏ was?
Emergence of ‘Lelang(Nangnang)’ Identity
Previous studies have usually emphasized the kingdom’s independence or ‘indigenousness’ distinct from the Chinese culture. As noted before, some of these studies asserted that the kingdom was modeled after one of the marquisates in Okchŏ, consequently presuming that they emerged due to their revolt against the Chinese ‘exploiters’ and the commandery’s abandonment of the counties. Some studies argued that the kingdom was a polity formed by an alliance of ethnic groups in Okchŏ,50 and Ch’oe Ri was an ethnic leader who rose to dominate the region after the commandery abandoned the counties.51
As mentioned previously, the reason for the Han Empire’s abandonment of the seven counties is unknown, but no records indicate any indigenous people’s movements against the commandery. In fact, as we will discuss in more detail later, numerous records indicate that local ethnic elites in this area cooperated with the commandery’s governance to a certain extent before the abandonment. The perspective that the kingdom was founded by local ethnic people hostile to the Chinese commandery might be influenced by the lingering viewpoint that the Chinese commanderies, established after the fall of Old Chosŏn, were seen as a ‘common enemy’ of the indigenous people, despite there being no clear indication of such sentiment in historical sources. Pai Hyung Il criticized the traditional portrayal in some Korean studies of the Lelang Commandery as an imperialistic power exploiting native labor and resources. According to her study, this perspective resulted from a nationalistic view that “tribal unity and national solidarity are depicted as a conscious alliance and an inevitable reaction to foreign intrusion,”52 and ultimately, archaeological remains and Lelang history were used to propagate nationalist goals and positions in Korea.53
Pai’s criticism may not apply to studies about the Lelang Commandery in South Korea after the 1990s, since the view of the Lelang Commandery as a Chinese agent exploiting indigenous people is not as predominant in South Korean academia.54 Nevertheless, assuming that strong anti-Chinese sentiment among indigenous people led to a revolt and the ousting of the commandery is also groundless. Interpreting the relationship between the Lelang Commandery and the indigenous people as a consistently hostile exploiter-versus-victim dynamic would not be the best way to ascertain the nature of the kingdom named ‘Lelang’ in Samguk Sagi.55
In this sense, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the name ‘Lelang’ hints at ethnic polities in this region’s acceptance of Chinese cultural elements from the Lelang Commandery, a process which previous studies often describes using the terms such as ‘acculturation’ or ‘hybridization.’56 This phenomenon may have been so profound that one of the polities in this area were recognized and described as the ‘Lelang Kingdom’ by neighboring peoples like Koguryŏ. In other words, it is possible that an indigenous polity maintained its ethnic identity as ‘Lelang,’ and the Koguryŏ people’s encounter with these people in the first century provided a source material for the tale of the Lelang Kingdom.
The Chinese historical records show that the region called Okchŏ (or Ye) became counties of the Chinese commanderies after the fall of the Old Chosŏn in 108 BC. Following over a century of dominance, the Han Empire abolished the counties in this region and relinquished direct control over Okchŏ, leading to internal conflicts amongst these groups.
M) The barbarians [in Okchŏ] fought and invaded each other. Only the marquisate in Bulnae [County] maintained its existence, and had institutions such as Magistrate (功曹), Administrate Office (主簿), and all officials [in the institutions] were Ye (濊) people. Kŏsu in many villages of Okchŏ still calls themselves Sanlao (三老; county educator). This was a custom [of the people in Okchŏ] when [Okchŏ was the Han Empire’s] counties and states.57
According to this record from Sanguozhi following Record L, the marquisates derived from the local ethnic groups began wars amongst themselves. As the result of this internal competition, by the third century, only Bulnae County survived and remained as a marquisate. Sanguozhi states that Kŏsu in Okchŏ called themselves “Sanlao” in the third century, a custom they preserved since they were governed by the Han dynasty. Sanlao was essentially a Han dynasty’s title given to local elders in counties or commanderies with the duty of educating residents in Confucianism. During the Later Han period, the commandery often entrusted Sanlao with administrative roles, as they were regularly power holders in their counties.58
If the local leaders in Okchŏ continued to claim or display their status using such titles as late as the third century, it is likely that this custom remained intact during the first century. Although the precise political significance behind such claims from local leaders is unclear, this phenomenon shows that these leaders maintained their political identities as defined by the Chinese government, implying that those local ethnic leaders in Okchŏ had been cooperative with the Lelang Commandery’s authority while they were under its governance. Therefore, one of these ethnic polities may have been particularly cooperative, maintaining their allegiance to the commandery even after the abolition of the seven counties. If this is the case, it is feasible that this polity formed its political identity as ‘Lelang,’ or at least became referred to as ‘Lelang’ by the Koguryŏ people.
In this sense, this local ethnic group would have been assuredly receptive to the Han cultural elements to a certain extent, a phenomenon which had often defined as ‘Sinicization.’ This can indeed be substantiated by the archaeological records and relics for this area. The culture of the regions where the Lelang Commandery was situated, covering most of present-day North Korea from the first to the third century, has been a topic of debate for decades, closely related to the location of the commandery as mentioned earlier. During the Japanese colonial period, Japanese archaeologists such as Komai59 interpreted the culture of this period as purely Han Chinese, ignoring indigenous variants and forms. As a result, the culture in this area before the third century was interpreted as generally ‘Chinese,’ while the indigenous population was viewed as a “passive, exploited, and oppressed peasantry.”60
Since the 1990s, however, many archaeological studies have reevaluated the culture in this area and started to emphasize the active role of the indigenous people in the Lelang Commandery. While these studies do not deny the presence of Chinese cultural elements in the relics excavated from this area, they highlight the mixture of Chinese and indigenous cultures as the result of the indigenous people’s active importation and adaptation of the former. For example, Pai Hyung Il analyzed the archaeological data from the Lelang Commandery area, proposing that the indigenous people participated in and eventually evolved their culture through ‘acculturation’ with Han Chinese culture, developing a distinct cultural group separate from those of mainland China or other surrounding regions.61
In a related study, Oh Yŏngch’an focused on historical records concerning the ethnic identity of the people in the commandery. He concluded that the inhabitants developed an identity as “Lelang people (Naknangin, 樂浪人),” signifying the formation of a distinct ethnic identity following the establishment of the Lelang Commandery and the subsequent influx of Chinese culture.62
More recently, Andrea de Benedittis interpreted the cultural development in this area after the establishment of the commandery as a process of ‘hybridization’ of the local culture. He suggested that indigenous people actively accepted Chinese culture, while the migratory flow of people from China led to a ‘remodeling’ of local culture. He viewed this process as an opportunity for the indigenous people within their new geopolitical context, while still maintaining their original culture and values to a certain extent.63
If we consider the perspectives of these studies, the question arises whether a similar process occurred in Okchŏ. However, simply applying any of these theories would not be an appropriate method for understanding the cultural changes in this area, as these changes were too complex to be reduced to a specific formula.64 Moreover, this region, covering present-day Hamhŭng to Anbyŏn, was relatively isolated, and far less archaeological research has been conducted there compared with other locations. The quantity of burial items of Chinese origin naturally declines with increasing distance from Pyŏngyang, making it difficult to confirm the level of Han Chinese cultural influence.
Nevertheless, it may still be possible to verify the Chinese cultural elements from the commandery in this area that influenced the indigenous people to the extent of altering their political or even ethnic identity. Various sites identified by Japanese and North Korean excavation teams up to the 1970s revealed direct contact between Han Chinese culture and the indigenous people. In this region, many “bronze slim daggers (細形銅劍)” were excavated, primarily in the Hamhŭng and Kŭmya areas. These regions, also known as the ‘Yŏngdong area,’ are notable for archaeological sites with an exceptional number of bronze daggers. Many archaeologists, from early 20th-century Japanese scholars to subsequent Western scholars, agree that these daggers were prestigious and religious artifacts used by local leaders with a certain connection to the Old Chosŏn.65
However, many relics of Han Chinese culture have also been excavated in the same area. Curiously, these Chinese relics often appear sequentially after the bronze daggers, suggesting that the culture of the local elites in this region either coexisted with or was replaced by Chinese culture. Yi Hyŏnhye suggested that the coexistence of the bronze daggers and iron weapons from Chinese culture represent the ruling class’s cultural shift in this region. These materials are understood to be evidence that the indigenous groups, who originally had a culture centered on bronze daggers, later accepted Chinese culture through the influence of the Lelang Commandery.66
Another example of this phenomenon is the Sorari Fortress in Kŭmya-gun, which was supposedly used as a county’s administrative office. The shape of the walls, distinct from the typical Chinese fortress, i.e., usually square, indicates indigenous construction. Archaeologists believe that this fortress was built by local indigenous people before the counties of the Lelang Commandery were established, and that it served as a base for the ruling group in the area. After the Lelang Commandery was established in 108 BC, a county, presumably Pulnae or Hwaryŏ, reused the fortress as a base for the county’s administrative offices.
Although it is difficult to trace the exact process of how the Chinese county established their base within the local ethnic community, it can be said that governance of the county was built upon the social infrastructure of the predecessors centered on the fortress. This is a distinct approach compared with that of other commanderies established in regions of different ethnic groups in Korean peninsular and Manchuria. For example, the Xuantu Commandery established their base in a location remote from their subject ethnic groups, which is suggested as one of the reasons for its relatively short duration on the Korean peninsul a.67
While the fortress’s function is still debatable, we can at least assert that the Lelang Commandery’s administration in this region involved closer interaction with the indigenous people, whether hostile or friendly, leading to a significant influx of Chinese culture. Previous studies assert that after its establishment, the Commandery implemented policies to gain cooperation from the indigenous people. One such policy was allowing the indigenous people to participate in the administration of the commandery by recruiting them as officials.68 When the Han dynasty conquered and established regions with people of different cultures, it sought to ‘Sinicize’ the indigenous populations in the Lelang Commandery, regardless of the result.69
It is uncertain whether these relics and sites represent purely Chinese culture or contain indigenous elements as well. Nevertheless, this situation would have allowed local elites or political leaders to emerge as pro-Lelang Commandery figures, who might have identified as people of the Han Empire and Lelang Commandery even after the abolition of the county in 30 AD. This scenario could provide the context and origin for the myth of the “Lelang Kingdom,” which centers on Koguryŏ’s competition against the pro-Chinese ruling class in the region.
Conclusion
Although the entire story about the Lelang Kingdom cannot be considered a historical fact, the record conceivably reflects certain traces of historical events in the first century concerning Koguryŏ, the ethnic groups in Okchŏ, and the Lelang Commandery. To summarize, the tale was based on the conflict between an indigenous polity with a pro-Chinese position and Koguryŏ. Ch’oe Ri, the king of the Lelang Kingdom, was likely a historical or symbolic figure representing a local ethnic leader cooperating with the Lelang Commandery. He, or the historical figure upon whom the story was based, would have been entrusted with authority over part of Okchŏ when the commandery abandoned direct control over the counties after 30 AD. Although he was not a ‘king’ in any official sense under the Han Chinese commandery system, he was a traditional ethnic ruler in this area, and the Lelang Commandery had allowed his authority to a certain extent.
If there were local ethnic groups who accepted the commandery system of China, it is plausible that some of them outwardly expressed their identities as residents of the Lelang Commandery. Additionally, some of these local ethnic leaders in Okchŏ were entrusted with authority over the residents after the Han dynasty abolished the Eastern Part District and abandoned the seven counties in Okchŏ, making the villages in the area appear to act as an independent polity. A story about Koguryŏ’s conquest over this group was naturally remembered and allegorized as a tale of a kingdom called ‘Lelang.’
It may be suggested that the political marriage between Prince Hodong and Ch’oe Ri’s daughter metaphorically described the forced alliance between these groups and Koguryŏ, which had actively infiltrated the area. However, the tale indicates that Ch’oe Ri’s attempt to appease Koguryŏ ended in failure when Koguryŏ invaded the kingdom. Ch’oe Ri could not prepare a defense, and the kingdom collapsed because the ‘drum and horn’ that had delayed Koguryŏ’s invasion were destroyed. These “supernatural” objects may have symbolized the Eastern Part District, originally a militaristic force defending the frontier of the Lelang Commandery, but abolished in 30 AD. Koguryŏ allegedly attacked the kingdom in 32 AD, a time when the Lelang Commandery had already abandoned the counties in Okchŏ, leaving them vulnerable to occupation by ‘big countries’ like Koguryŏ, as described in record H.
PDF Links
PubReader
ePub Link
Full text via DOI
Download Citation 
Print 
