북한의 동명왕릉 발굴･개건과 평양 정통론의 탄생
Creating P’yŏngyang’s Legitimacy: North Korea's Excavation and Reconstruction of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng
Article information
Abstract
본고는 동명왕릉 발굴(1974년)･개건(1993년)의 정치적･사회적 배경을 염두에 두고, 북한 고대사학의 궤적을 그려본 것이다. 6･25전쟁 이후 분단이 고착되면서 삼국시대 및 삼국통일에 대한 남북의 시각은 차이를 드러냈다. 남한이 서울과 한강 유역을 차지한 신라를 주목하였다면, 북한은 대동강 유역의 평양에 수도를 두었던 고구려를 중시하였다. 1974년 이른바 동명왕릉의 발굴은 고구려 중심의 고대사 인식을 심화하기 위한 정치적 기획이었다. 1972년 헌법상의 수도를 평양으로 변경하고 주체사상을 확립한 데 수반된 고고학･고대사의 응답이었다. 평양 중심의 고대사 인식은 나날이 굳어졌다. 1990년대 전반에 추진된 단군릉･동명왕릉･왕건릉 발굴･개건 사업이 이를 상징하였다. 특히 단군릉의 발굴･개건이 주목되는데, 이로써 한국사의 정통은 평양에 있음을 천명하였다. 평양 정통의 한국사 인식은 정치권력 승계의 정당성으로 수렴되었는데, 본고에서는 이를 ‘평양 정통론’이라고 하였다. 동명왕릉은 1993년 개건되었지만, 이는 이미 1980년대 후반부터 추진되고 있었다. 단군릉･왕건릉은 동명왕릉 개건 과정과 무관치 않았다. 본고에서는 1990년대 전반 일련의 시조왕릉 발굴･개건이 동명왕릉에서 비롯하였고, 동명왕릉이 평양 정통론 탄생에 영감을 준 면이 있었던 것으로 생각하였다. 정통은 이를 차지한 단일 주체의 단선적 계보로 구성된다. 정통의 단일 주체는 동일성을 부여받지만, 단선적 계보의 외부는 배제된다. 북한의 평양 정통론이 이를 잘 보여준다. 남한의 고대사･한국사 연구에서도 유의해야 점으로 생각한다.
Trans Abstract
This paper traces the trajectory of North Korea’s historiography on ancient history, examining the political and social contexts surrounding the excavation (1974) and renovation (1993) of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. The 1974 excavation was a political project aimed at deepening the understanding of ancient history centered on Koguryŏ, an ancient kingdom whose capital was in P’yŏngyang along the Daedong River. The 1972 constitution, which established P’yŏngyang as the capital and proclaimed the Juche ideology, was a driving force behind this project. Over time, the P’yŏngyang-centric viewpoint on ancient history grew stronger, culminating in the excavation and renovation projects in the early 1990s of the tombs of Tan’gun, Tongmyŏng, and Wang Kŏn. The assertion that the legitimacy of Korean history is rooted in P’yŏngyang was used to justify North Korea’s own legitimacy, a concept this paper refers to as the "Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy." In this context, the projects involving the tombs of Tan’gun and Wang Kŏn should be understood as extensions of the renovation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, which had been underway since the late 1980s. In other words, the series of excavations and renovations of the tombs of the founding kings in the early 1990s originated from the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, which, in turn, inspired the emergence of the "Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy." This legitimacy is constructed as a linear genealogy belonging to a single subject, which is endowed with a legitimate self-identity, while entities outside this narrative are systematically excluded. The evolution and application of the "Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy" serve as a caution against the politicization of history in South Korea’s historical research programs.
Introduction
In the early 1990s, North Korea actively pursued a series of excavations and renovation projects on tombs of dynastic founders (sijo). From September 1992 to January 1994, they excavated the Tomb of Wang Kŏn, a Koryŏ’s founder as well as the Tomb of Tan’gun, the Old Chosŏn’s founder in from October 1993 to October 1994, while renovating the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, Koguryŏ’s founder in May 1993. The discovery of the ancestral tombs of the three founding monarchs of the Old Chosŏn, Koguryŏ, and Koryŏ was accordingly commemorated as a significant national achievement in North Korea.
The tomb excavation and renovation marked a critical turning point in North Korea’s research on ancient history. The excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun was particularly groundbreaking. Using the Tomb of Tan’gun as a key reference point, they retroactively dated the formation of the Old Chosŏn to 5,000 years ago, much earlier than the previously believed 10th century BC. The discovery was also used as historical basis to assert that P’yŏngyang, located in the Taedong River basin, was the central region of the Old Chosŏn, not the Liaoning province, China, which had held the title prior to the discovery. Furthermore, they declared the Taedong River basin as the cradle of humanity and asserted its primitive and ancient culture as one of the five major civilizations in the world.1, Today, North Korean history scholarship has gone further by citing forged historical texts such as Kyuwŏn Sahwa, Tan’gi Kosa, and Tan’gun Segi (also known as Hwandan Kogi) about the royal lineage and names of the Old Chosŏn as well as its political, social, and cultural systems. A long and rich list of literature explores the problems and political implications associated with North Korea’s approach to the study of ancient history.2
In comparison to the Tomb of Tan’gun, there has been relatively little interest in the excavation and construction of the Tomb of Wang Kŏn and the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng.3, The lack of interest is partly due to the fact that South Korea’s academic community generally acknowledges the Tomb of Wang Kŏn to be authentic,4 while the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng has not had as much impact as the Tomb of Tan’gun. However, upon closer scrutiny, the authenticity of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng is questionable and the circumstances surrounding its excavation are highly dubious. In fact, this paper contends that the excavation itself was politically motivated. The excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng in 1974 preceded the excavations of other ancestral tombs, marking a turning point for North Korean ancient history studies. And the way the three ancestral tombs were excavated, renovated, and publicized in the early 1990s seems to originate from the 1974 excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. In that respect, tracing the process of the Tomb of Tongmyŏng excavation can offer valuable insight into the evolution of ancient history study in North Korea.
By taking the political and social context surrounding the discovery of the Tomb of Tongmyŏng into consideration, this paper aims to explore the development of North Korea’s study of ancient history as well as the directions it has taken. The objective is to trace the trajectory of North Korean study about the Korea’s ancient history through cases of archaeological excavation and construction. Such work may also provide opportunities to reflect upon the South Korea’s own study of ancient history.
River Basin-based Histories of Silla and Koguryŏ
In the early 20th century, Japanese historiography tended to discount human agency and emphasize space, when it comes to historical research and narration about others. In this endeavor, geography and transportation routes formed their research subjects, with regions being the unit of narration. Their studies about historical units like Chosŏn history, Manchuria-Chosen histories, and Manchuria-Mongolia histories were representative of this trend, closely tied to the empire’s invasion and domination range.5 Among these, Chosŏn history covered the southern part of the Korean Peninsula, which included the ancient kingdoms such as the Three Han Kingdoms (Mahan, Chinhan, Pyŏnhan), as well as Paekche, Silla, and Kaya, while excluding Koguryŏ, Puyŏ, and Parhae.
After the Korea became independent in 1945, Korean historiography made conscious efforts to depart from the Japanese space-centric narration and restore historical narration based on the nation. This was to re-establish the modern historical concept of ‘kuksa’ (national history), which had emerged in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. Accordingly, the main task of ancient history research was on the formation and development of the nation. In this regard, the following passages warrant the attention:
A-1. For approximately 120 years from the reign of King T’aejong Muyŏl (29th monarch) to the reign of King Hyegong (36th monarch), the great Silla, or Unified Silla, experienced a period of prosperity. During this time, there was a comprehensive unification of the nation and cultural institutions. The people of Paekche and Koguryŏ, which had long been separate, were incorporated into the large entity of the Silla nation, restarting as a united people.6
A-2. Silla, a post-Three Kingdoms state that arose in the southeastern part of the Korean Peninsula, skillfully exploited internal and external circumstances to eventually succeed in annihilating advanced foreign countries and forming the first unified nation on the peninsula. Although Silla’s territory was limited to south of the Taedong River, the regional unification of the Korean people, which later advanced the Korean history, finally occurred during this time.7
Representative introductory texts in the post-liberation period are Kuksa Kyobon (National History Textbook) by Chindan Hakhoe (authored by Kim Sang-gi and Lee Byeong-do) and Chosŏnsa Kaesŏl (Introduction to the Chosŏn History) by the Korean History Research Society at Kyŏngsŏng University (supervised by Professor Lee In-young). Both books emphasized Silla’s unification of the Three Kingdoms as the formation of the nation. They asserted that various tribes and countries reorganized into a single national entity (Kuksa Kyobon) and that the regionalized unification of the nation took place (Chosŏnsa Kaesŏl).
While the idea that Silla’s unification served as the formation of the nation can be traced back to the first half of the 20th century,8 the aforementioned books, published in the post-liberation period, explicitly articulated the Silla-based idea of the nation. It remains as a mainstream view in the South Korean historical community today. Significantly, the Silla-based idea of the nation had similarly reigned as conventional view in the North Korean historiography until the late 1950s. During the 1950s, North Korea’s history community claimed that various tribes and tribal alliances in the primitive society evolved into quasi-nations in the ancient Three Kingdoms, which, under the central authoritarian state of Unified Silla in the medieval period, would develop into a single quasi-nation through multistage progress. The unification of the Three Kingdoms under Silla was accordingly considered a primary catalyst for the formation of the nation.
However, as the Table 1 shows, North Korean historiography in the late 1950s raised the North-South State Period theory, modifying and reducing the significance of the Silla’s unification. Beginning in the late 1970s, North Korea ultimately moved to depict the Three Kingdoms Era from the Koguryŏ-centric viewpoint, denying the unification of Silla as the formation of the Korean nation. In the late 2000s, North Korea designated the Old Chosŏn-Koguryŏ-Koryŏ-Chosŏn as the orthodox states, establishing a historical framework centered around those states in its historiography. In 2013, “First Comprehensive 12-Year Compulsory Education Regulation” was announced (hereafter “2013 Education Regulation”), according to which middle schools in North Korea now exclusively teach the history of orthodox states.9 Through the evolution of North Korea’s historiography, a gap has evidently widened between the ancient history studies in North and South Korea. The following passage from Lee Byung-do helps identify the sources of this gap.
Changing Frameworks on the Korean History in the North Korea’s Historiography
B. Ever since the liberation, whenever I lectured on national history, I took a pleasure in emphasizing the historical importance of the Han River basin, thereby refreshing the audience’s attention on the issue. However, the Han River Basin’s criticality has become more apparent in the current situation, and it would unquestionably remain so in the future, too… In the old days, when our nation was in a divided state, or today, as North and South compete against each other, the Han River basin has always been like a treasure and jewel between them. Those who held onto it for a long time prospered, became strong, and even achieved the unification they desired. On the other hand, those who lost it suffered weakness and downfall. In other words, the control of the Han River basin was closely related to the prosperity and decline of the nation. Let me illustrate this with a striking example from national history.10
The article was included in Tugyejap’il, which is Lee Byung-do’s collection of essays, which according to Lee, first appeared in the book called Ch’ŏlgyŏng.11, Ch’ŏlgyŏng was a journal, founded by the Railway Police Force (Ch’ŏldogyŏngch’aldae, 鐵道警察隊) in November 1951, and continued publication until its 20th issue in July 1953. His argument demonstrates Lee’s understanding about Korean history around the period of the Korean War. Comparing the divided state in the ancient period with the contemporary division between North and South, Lee stated the control of the Han River basin played a crucial role in determining the rise and fall of the nation. In particular, he highlighted the Three Kingdoms’ era as a significant example in Korean history.12 He noted how Paekche, Koguryŏ, and Silla successively had controlled the Han River basin and who controlled the basin enjoyed the respective kingdom’s pinnacle. He claimed that Silla, by taking control of the Han River basin, laid the foundation for the unification of the Three Kingdoms. Lee’s main message was on the importance of the Han River basin in the contemporary context, however.
C. Let’s look at the recent turmoil in Korea (the Korean War). What was the situation in South Korea when the communist forces initially invaded, breaking through the Han River basin? How did the enemy suffer losses and retreat, especially with the counteroffensive on September 15, particularly the Incheon landing and the recapture of the Seoul area? The ebb and flow of victory and defeat ultimately centered around the Han River line, and the gains and losses were defined with reference to the Han River basin. The subsequent stability and maintenance of South Korea’s status quo after the recapture of Seoul were due to a strategic holding and firm defense of Han River basin. Hence we dare to assert the following: the key to our national reunification lies in maintaining control over the Han River basin for an extended period. It is akin to ancient Silla tenaciously holding the Han River basin against Koguryŏ and Paekche, establishing an unshakable posture for the peninsula’s dominance. If we continue to safeguard and develop this region, unification will become our future enterprise. Conversely, if we fail to protect it, unification may not be achievable, and our existence could be under threat.13
After the Korean War, Lee was suggesting that, like Silla, if South Korea could control the Han River basin, reunification could be achieved. This reflected a Silla-centric understanding of the Three Kingdoms era, a perception that became conventional wisdom in South Korean historiography.14
This perspective is in contrast to the North Korea’s perception of the Three Kingdoms era that emerged after the Korean War.
D. King Changsu, the son of King Kwanggaet’o, moved the capital to P’yŏngyang in 427. Our democratic capital, P’yŏngyang, developed significantly during this time as an ancient city. King Changsu, aiming to unify the three countries through military means, initiated wars against the southern nations of Paekche and Silla. Although his 30,000 troops attacked and captured Paekche’s capital, Hansŏng (Kwangju, Kyŏnggi Province), the war ultimately failed to achieve its political objective due to the combined defense of Paekche and Silla. Wars surrounding the Han River basin between Koguryŏ and Paekche continued, and Koguryŏ consistently defeated Paekche’s forces. Koguryŏ enjoyed its peak prosperity for about a hundred years during this period.15
King Changsu moved its capital to P’yŏngyang in 427. Seeking to unify the three kingdoms, he launched wars against Paekche and Silla.16
In the quoted passage, Lim Geon-sang explained that Koguryŏ’s transfer of the capital to P’yŏngyang and launching wars to the southern states were to unify the three kingdoms. The same passage can be seen in Chosŏnt’ongsa(sang) [General History of Chosŏn Vol.1], which is one of Lim’s works. It is comparable to the passage that Koguryŏ “moved its capital to P’yŏngyang in order to maintain the peace in the northern region and fortify the hegemony over the southern region” in Chosŏn’godaesa [Ancient History of Chosŏn].17 In other words, he explicitly recognized the Koguryŏ’s aspiration for the unification of the Three Kingdoms, describing the Three Kingdoms relations centered around Koguryŏ. Regarding this perception, the explanation of the 427 relocation of Koguryŏ’s capital to P’yŏngyang as the origin of the ‘Democratic Capital’ P’yŏngyang is noteworthy.
E. P’yŏngyang’s history has been shaped by our ancestors who, from an early period, resisted external and internal enemies, built a revolutionary tradition through continuous struggles, developed production and culture from an early age, and passed down excellent traditions to us today. This has motivated us for higher, new, and creative activities. P’yŏngyang not only had a glorious history in the past but is also the proud democratic capital where the Central Committee of the Korea Workers’ Party and the Republic’s government, led by comrade Kim Il-sung, are now based. … P’yŏngyang Province has long been one of the cultural origins in Korea. … In 427, Koguryŏ finally carried out a historical capital relocation to P’yŏngyang. It evidently included the great ideals of the Koguryŏ people aiming to unify the three countries and unite all their people.18
This excerpt is part of a report by Hong Myeong-hui prepared for 1,530th Anniversary Commemorative Event for the ‘P’yŏngyang Establishment, held in 1957. The event was organized to promote post-war reconstruction of P’yŏngyang.19 In the report, Hong mentions that the capital relocation of Koguryŏ to P’yŏngyang “exemplified the great ideals of the Koguryŏ people aiming to unify the three countries and unite all their people.” Both Lim and Hong, while exploring the historical traditions of P’yŏngyang, recalled the capital relocation of Koguryŏ to P’yŏngyang and understood that Koguryŏ aspired to the unification of the Three Kingdoms through the relocation.
Thus, after the Korean War, North and South showed different perspectives regarding the Three Kingdoms era and the idea of unification. While Silla was the center of South Korea’s understanding of the Three Kingdoms era for its control over Seoul and the Han River basin, Koguryŏ was a focus of North Korea’s ancient history study, which had P’yŏngyang as its capital located in the Taedong River basin. Both South and North Korea envisioned unification based on the contrasting readings of the Three Kingdoms era. Yet, both Hong and Lim acknowledged that Koguryŏ’s attempt at Three Kingdoms unification was ultimately unsuccessful. In the 1950s, P’yŏngyang was depicted as the “city reaching for Seoul,”20 and was not emphasized as a history city with a singular orthodoxy.
Nevertheless, from the late 1950s, the historical tradition of P’yŏngyang initiated by Koguryŏ has gradually gained more significance. In this trend, the achievements in Korean archaeology accumulated in the P’yŏngyang area supported this, especially from 1958 to 1970 when North Korea excavated relics related to the Koguryŏ capital, such as Taesŏng Sansŏng (Taesŏng Mountain Fortress) and Anhakkung (Anhak Palace).21, This laid the foundation for comprehensive research in the 1970s.22 The announcement of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng excavation was made during the period of this deepening academic interest.
Excavation of Tomb of King Tongmyŏng in 1974 and the P’yŏngyang-centric Perception of Ancient History
In 1974, Kim Il-sung University excavated the tombs and ancestral shrines in Chinp’a-ri Tomb Complex, located in Wangnŭng-dong, Mujin-ri, Ryokpo area, P’yŏngyang. The results were comprehensively summarized in Koguryŏ Relics of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng and Its Vicinity (1976, Kim Il-sung University Press), a report written in commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the founding of Kim Il-sung University. According to the report, the excavation took place during the spring and fall of 1974, spanning over 100 days.23
Particular emphasis was placed on Tomb No. 10 in Chinp’a-ri. Through a comprehensive analysis of the location, form, and excavated artifacts of the tomb mound, the tomb was claimed to be one of King Tongmyŏng, the Koguryŏ’s founding father, as recorded in the Samguk Sagi. The Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was said to have been moved to P’yŏngyang when Koguryŏ moved its capital in the spirit of ancestral worship, and Chŏngnŭng Saji was identified as a temple associated with the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. North Korea’s excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was publicized through the “News in Academia” section of “Historical Science” in 1978.24, This was subsequently reflected in the “Korean History” (1979), which was published shortly afterward.25 The view expressed here has firmly remained as the mainstream interpretation since then.
According to North Korean academia, Chinp’a-ri Tomb No. 10 is believed to have been constructed in the late 4th to early 5th centuries.26, There had been a claim that the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng had existed in the P’yŏngyang area from the Koryŏ to Chosŏn periods, and in the late 19th century, commemorative monuments related to it were erected in Chinp’a-ri Tomb Complex.27, However, the evidence is inconclusive whether the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng moved to P’yŏngyang with Koguryŏ’s relocation of its capital.28 Even the North Korean academia noted that Chinp’a-ri Tomb Complex may not be the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng.
F. Chinp’a-ri Tomb refers to about 10 tombs located in Chinp’a-ri, Gangsŏ-gun, Pyŏngannam-do. Among them, there is a tomb believed to be the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, the founder of Koguryŏ, and there are excellent mural tombs around it. The Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, in reality, is a fiction. In the 1880s, Min Byung-seok, a governor of Pyeongan province, for the purpose of exploiting people, called an unnamed tomb the one of King Tongmyŏng, which subsequently acquired an official approval. The Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was excavated and examined in 1950, but no evidence supportive of the claim was found.29
Nevertheless, in 1974, the North Korean academic community comprehensively revised its previous views and confirmed Chinp’a-ri Tomb No. 10 as the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. It appears to have reflected non-scholarly demands coming from outside the academia.
G. The great leader, Comrade Kim Il-sung, despite his busy schedule leading the revolution and construction to brilliant victories, on January 23, 1974, shed light on the issue of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, which historians had not properly explained in the past and had not even paid attention to. He graciously assigned the honorable task of clarifying the issue and properly organizing the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng to Kim Il-Sung University.30
Research also indicates that the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng followed Kim Il-Sung’s guidance.31, Chae Hee-guk recalled that there was much debate about the protagonist of the tomb before Kim Il-sung provided a clear solution. Kim Il-sung stated that the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng is the genuine tomb brought when Koguryŏ moved its capital to P’yŏngyang and assigned the “honorable task of excavation and maintenance to the faculty and students of Kim Il-Sung University.”32
H. The Tomb of Tongmyŏng Wangnŭng had long been a subject of debate in academia. Those influenced by China-centric viewpoints (sadae) questioned how the tomb of the founder of Koguryŏ could be in P’yŏngyang, the central region of Tongbuk, and believed that the Ryongsan-ri Tomb was artificially constructed in later years. The scientifically minded great leader (Kim Il-Sung) stated that our ancestors had a tradition of relocating the king’s tomb when moving the capital, and it was likely that the tomb of the founding ancestor was brought when the Koguryŏ royal family moved to P’yŏngyang. He urged historians and associated staffs not to engage in baseless debates but to deepen the research scientifically based on this tradition. In the mid-1970s, the great leader watched a recorded documentary with members, which depicted historic scenes of overseas compatriots finding the socialist homeland they had dreamt of. Scenes of compatriots living in Japan being embraced by their motherland and the warm fraternal love from fellow countrymen welcoming them overflowed on the screen. Witnessing the remains of compatriots disembarking from the ship, carrying the longing for the homeland even in death, the great leader, deeply moved, passionately and confidently said, ‘Look, comrades, don’t the people of Korea bring the remains of their ancestors even from distant lands? How could the people of Koguryŏ, who were once mighty, abandon the tombs of their founding ancestors and come?’ After that, the great leader, with great excitement and conviction, spoke to the historians about the scene in the documentary where overseas compatriots, in line with the tradition of ancestors descending with the remains when they return home, bring the remains of their ancestors. He emphasized that the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, too, without a doubt, must be the tomb of the founding king when the people of Koguryŏ moved their capital to P’yŏngyang.33
Kim Il-Sung’s supposedly scientific guideline was the ‘clear argument that no one had thought of,’ which naturally made the excavation a political task with a predetermined conclusion. One may ask, then, where Kim Il-Sung’s interest in the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng originated from. In Koguryŏ Relics of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng and Its Vicinity, the excavation and research of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng were considered an ‘important opportunity for self-arming with a self-relying historical perspective.’34, The study ‘Research on the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng’ by Jeon Jehyun noted that the failure to view Chinp’a-ri 10 as the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was related to the thought perspective of historians not armed with a self-reliance viewpoint.35 The excavation and research of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng seemed closely linked to the Juche ideology.
Juche ideology was finalized in the 1970s, with its core principle emphasizing the principle of self-reliance in various issues of the party and the state.36, Historical research was no exception in the application of Juche principle. The main content focused on the autonomous and creative stance of the people and emphasized the struggle, modifying the economic determinism of Marxist historiography.37, At that time, the term ‘people’ referred to the single-bloodline and single-ethnicity of the Korean people.38, After the establishment of Juche ideology, it was not Marxism but nationalism that led the perspective and attitude in Korean history research.39
However, from 1967 to the 1970s, North Korea extensively purged officials in the cultural and educational sectors along with the Kapsan faction and modified its existing national cultural policy.40, They rejected foreign and medieval traditional cultures such as Confucianism and Buddhism. Even the previously highly regarded silhak (pragmatism tradition from the Chosŏn era) were criticized as a practice of China-centric stance.41, As a result, the nationalist focus during the rise of the Juche ideology was found on archaeology and ancient history, inevitably leading to a concentration in these fields.42 They particularly emphasized the history of Koguryŏ.
Since the Peninsula was divided after the Korean War, North Korea had sought to find historical traditions in P’yŏngyang, viewing the history of the Three Kingdoms era centered around Koguryŏ. In this context, the capital relocation in the North Korean constitution was a significant event. In the Article 103 in the original Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, enacted on September 8, 1948, the capital of North Korea was Seoul.43, On December 27, 1972, the newly enacted Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, however, declared P’yŏngyang to be its new capital.44, The new constitution institutionalized Juche ideology as a constitutional principle.45
It is in the context of Juche ideology gaining constitutional recognition that Koguryŏ-centric perspective became more pronounced. For example, in “History of Korea” (1979), Koguryŏ’s southern advance formed the bases for the unification of the Three Kingdoms, creating shared identities among the Three Kingdoms.46
I. The most significant aspect of Koguryŏ’s history from the first half of the 5th century to the first half of the 7th century lies in the strong pursuit of the struggle to unify our nation, which had developed from a single ethnic group, into a single country, achieving great success. The relocation of the capital of Koguryŏ to P’yŏngyang was aimed at achieving the unification of the Three Kingdoms. At that time, P’yŏngyang was constructed as a base for the unification of the Three Kingdoms and developed into the most magnificent city in our history, holding a unique position even in the history of medieval world city construction. Koguryŏ, based in P’yŏngyang, vigorously pursued the policy of unifying the Three Kingdoms, resulting in the integration of most regions of the Three Kingdoms from the late 5th century, making it the country with the widest territory in our history. This was one of the most important events in our nation’s history.47
On the other hand, the significance of Silla’s unification of the Three Kingdoms was reduced to a selfish, incomplete endeavor. The description in ‘History of Chosŏn’ (1979) is representative of this reinterpretation. It states that Silla grew with the help of Koguryŏ but betrayed Koguryŏ for its own ambition. Also, Silla was alleged to have induced the Sui and Tang dynasties to invade Koguryŏ, having only the ambition of territorial expansion rather than unification.48, Similarly, it noted that Silla had no intention of unifying the Three Kingdoms and had no achievements. It “expanded the war by involving foreign forces in internal issues of the nation” and “created a significant obstacle to the people’s struggle for national completion by abandoning the anti-invasion struggle midway, committing crimes that negatively affected the subsequent development of the country.”49, Highlighting the contrast between Koguryŏ and Silla, North Korea formed and advanced the theory of the Koguryŏ-centric Three Kingdoms era.50
In this way, the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng in 1974 was based on the establishment of the Juche ideology and the theory of the Three Kingdoms era was now centered around Koguryŏ. The Koguryŏ-centric theory was paired with the denial of the Silla-led unification of the Three Kingdoms, which unmistakably reflected the contemporary division in the Peninsula. The ethnocentric perception of Korean history was based on P’yŏngyang-centered understanding of the ancient history. In that sense, it is not far-fetched to argue that the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was a political project aimed to bolster the historical significance of P’yŏngyang.
On the other hand, Kim Jong-il, a then heir-apparent to Km Il-Sung, was thought to have formulated the Koguryŏ-centric theory of the Three Kingdoms era. ‘Regarding the Reconsideration of the Three Kingdoms Unification Issue’ (October 29, 1960) is one such document supportive of this view.51, Not only in this essay but in several others, Kim Jong-il is said to have advocated the “Koguryŏ-Centric Three Kingdoms Era – the North-South State Period” theory from the early 1960s.52, However, as the Table 1 shows, North Korea’s Korean history framework underwent a change sequentially from (1) Proposing the North-South State Period Theory - Amending Silla’s Unification Theory, to (2) Koguryŏ-Centric Three Kingdoms Era Theory - Rejecting Silla’s Unification Theory. Compared to this, Kim Jong-il’s essay, published in 1960, presented both (1) and (2) simultaneously. The timing mismatch raises questions about the exact date of the essay’s publication.
As noted, several essays attributed to Kim Jong-il from the 1960s and 1970s were only made public from 1982 onwards, and his earlier activities cannot be confirmed. Hence, it is difficult to accept these essays, allegedly published in the 1960s and 1970s, as original documents.53, Kim Jong-il’s essays containing the Koguryŏ-centric Three Kingdoms era theory similarly seem to have been an official packaging of North Korea’s historiographical position since the late 1970s.54
At the same time, however, the Koguryŏ-centric Three Kingdoms era theory is not entirely separate from Kim Jong-il. The background of the ethnic culture policy and the purge in the cultural and educational sectors, along with the Kapsan faction, were intertwined with the establishment of Kim Jong-il’s succession path and the generational change in political power. Kim Jong-il began to control the party’s cultural and artistic organs since 1967 and expanded his activities, while officially designated as the successor at the 4th Plenary Meeting of the 8th Central Committee in February 1974.55 Under this context, policies related to history, such as the excavation and research of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng around that time, may have been within the scope of Kim Jong-il’s activities.
The reinforcement of P’yŏngyang-centric historical perception occurred in the early 1990s, including the extensive excavation and construction projects of ancestral tombs. This includes the series of projects initiated in the early 1990s, the excavation of ancestral tombs related to the legendary founders of Korea.
Restoration of Tongmyŏng Wangnŭng in 1993 and the Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy
In the early 1990s, North Korea launched a series of projects to excavate and refurbish ancestral royal tombs. First and foremost, the refurbishment of the Tomb of Wang Kŏn, located on Mansu Mountain in Kaep’ung County, Kaesŏng City, is worth noting. In September 1992, during the restoration of the mausoleum, a bronze statue was unearthed, which then was identified as a statue of Wang Kŏn. Subsequently, in March 1993, the Social Science Institute’s Archaeological Research Institute excavated and investigated the tomb, confirming it as Wang Kŏn’s tomb and completing the refurbishment in January 1994. Following the discovery of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, North Korea now located and refurbished the tombs of the founders of Koryŏ.
The Tomb of Tan’gun started gaining attention around the same time.56, In October 1993, the History Research Institute of the Social Science Institute officially announced the excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun on Taebak Mountain in Kangdong-gun, P’yŏngyang.57, This discovery marked a significant turning point in North Korean ancient history research and led to the redefinition of P’yŏngyang as not only the “Revolutionary Capital housing Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il” but also as an “ancient capital boasting a rich history of over a half ten thousand years.”58 The excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun expanded the global and trans-historic understanding of Korean history centered around P’yŏngyang. In strengthening the P’yŏngyang-centric perception, it is hard not to notice the continuity from the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng to the excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun.
The Tomb of Tan’gun, like the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng, is said to have been located in the P’yŏngyang area from the Koryŏ to Chosŏn periods. In the early research, this was thoroughly denied. For example, in 1957, Hong Myeong-hui stated, “Not all the legends that P’yŏngyang possesses are loved and boasted by all Koreans.” and asserted that the tradition of Tan’gun founding the capital in P’yŏngyang was “already a legend that cannot be trusted.”59 However, in September 1993, the traditional views were completely revised, confirming Tan’gun’s tomb based on the tradition.
The excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun was also said to be based on Kim Il-sung’s guidance. The news of the excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun was reported on September 28, 1993, and on September 27, Kim Il-sung provided on-site guidance, instructing both the excavation and the foundation, along with the “guidance that is imperative in the study of Tan’gun and ancient Korean history.”60, According to the director of the Institute of History Research, Jeon Yeong-yul, Kim Il-sung ordered the excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun on January 8, 1993, and issued guidance more than 20 times until October.61 The excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun was a politically orchestrated task with a predetermined conclusion.
In this respect, the excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun was a replay of the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. A testimony that Kim Il-sung had been visiting the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng since 1989 is noteworthy. On April 2, 1989, it was reported,62, that Kim Il-sung visited the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng,63, and that instructions were given for the preservation of historical relics and the preservation of artifacts. On September 20, 1991, a meeting of gratitude for the construction workers of the redevelopment project was held in Kim Il-Sung’s presence.64, On December 28, 1992, it was stated that Kim Il-sung provided on-site guidance for the redevelopment project site.65
Thus, the redevelopment of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng had been underway since the late 1980s, and it received considerable attention from Kim Il-sung. Considering this, the renovation of the Hyŏllŭng and the discovery of the Wang Kŏn statue in September 1992 could be thought as tasks carried out along with the redevelopment of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng. The excavation of the Tomb of Tan’gun, following the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng and the Tomb of Wang Kŏn, may have followed the party’s guidance. In this context, attention could be drawn to the related steles that were renovated along with the redevelopment of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng (Table 2).66
Steles associated with the development of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng
In ‘Table 2,’ items 1–4 have clear construction years. Although their value as ancient historical data is low, their authenticity is not under dispute. However, items 5 and 6 in the Table 2, although claimed to be established during the Koryŏ and Chosŏn periods, cannot be taken as original. ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngseongwangbi’ is said to be a transcription of Lee Gyu-bo’s ‘Tongmyŏngwangpyeon,’ and ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngseongwanggijeokbi’ is to have directly engraved Yoon Hee’s King Tongmyŏng’s story on the stele.67 In the latter case, even the authenticity of content is questionable.
This has already been detailed in Kim Rak-ki’s paper,68, which pointed out that the construction year written at the end of the stele is marked with the posthumous title created afterward, ‘April of the 23rd year of King Myŏngjong of Koryŏ’ (1193), and ‘January of the 14th year of King Sejong’ (1432), making it evident that the stele was erected later. Moreover, there is no confirmation of the existence of such steles during the Koryŏ and Chosŏn periods. In the book Tongmyŏngwangneung and the Koguryŏ Relics (1976, Kim Il-sung University Press), it is also stated that, ‘In front of the stone structures, there is a Chŏngjagak (T-shaped Repository for Ceremonial Ware), and to the east and west of them, there is one stele each. These steles were written by P’yŏngan-do officials in 1892 about Tongmyŏngwang and Tongmyŏng Wangnŭng.’ The construction years are also arbitrary. April 1193 was the time Lee Gyu-bo read Ku Samguksa and wrote “Tongmyŏngwangp’yŏn.”69, January 1432 was when ‘P’aldo Chiri Chi’ recording the location of King Tongmyŏng’s tomb was compiled.70 Even visually, the steles appear to be a recent construction.
‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwang Kijŏkpi ‘ also raises doubts about its content, as Kim Rak-ki again detailed in his 1999 paper.71, The contents of the stele are generally similar to Tan’gun-kogi as quoted in Sejong Sillok, while some parts reference Samguk Sagi and others appearing to be fabrications. Particularly noteworthy is the claim in the Sejong Sillok that the foundation of Koguryŏ was “in the year of Kapsin, which was 1708 years before.”72
The year corresponds to 277 BCE, the founding year of Koguryŏ according to the current North Korean historical academic community, first suggested in 1990.73, According to the North Korea’s report on the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng development, ‘Recently, our country’s historians have newly revealed that King Tongmyŏng founded Koguryŏ in 277 BCE.’74, Therefore, one may conclude that ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwang Kijŏkpi ‘ was constructed after 1990. Mansudae Studio was reportedly responsible for stone sculptures for the development of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng.75 One may legitimately suspect that ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwangbi’ and ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwang Kijŏkpi ‘ were constructed along with the production of these stone sculptures.
Thus, ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwangbi’ and ‘Koguryŏ Dynasty Tongmyŏngsŏngwang Kijŏkpi’ appear to be forgeries. Yet, the two steles are claimed to confirm that the Chinp’a-ri 10 are in fact authentic Tomb of the King Tongmyŏng.76, Yet, the evidence strongly suggests that the steles are fabrications and North Korea used it as evidence for misguided historical reasoning. Following the development of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng in August 1993, North Korea aired a documentary film “the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng,’77 just before the excavation of Tan’gun’s tomb in September 1993. In short, the development of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng seems to have inspired the excavation of Tan’gun’s tomb, just as it evolved from subjective interpretations of history and archaeological data to fabrication and forgery.
Through the excavation of Tan’gun’s tomb, North Korea claimed to have found the tombs of the ancestral kings of the Old Chosŏn, Koguryŏ, and Koryŏ. Since the late 2000s, North Korea has classified the Old Chosŏn, Koguryŏ, and Koryŏ as so-called ‘legitimate states,’ distinct from ‘coexistent states’ like Samhan, Paekche, and Silla. In the ‘2013 Education Guidelines,’ North Korea’s history and history education were reconstructed around the concept of legitimate states, which naturally centered around P’yŏngyang. Although both North and South Korea claim a single ethnic origin stemming from Tan’gun,78 the legitimacy of the ethnic history was attributed to North Korea.
After Kim Jong-il came to power in 1994, Kim Il-Sung was presented as the founder of socialist Korea, and North Korea was depicted as ‘Kim Il-sung’s nation.’79, And as Kim Il-sung was recognized as the founding father of Kim Il-sung’s nation, Tan’gun was the founding father of the Korean nation.80, The legitimacy of the ancestral kings of the legitimate state, including Tan’gun, symbolized legitimacy. Therefore, these ancestral kings cannot be evaluated as representatives of exploitative ruling classes but progressive figures,81 since Kim Il-sung was the embodiment of progress. The legitimacy of ethnic history bestowed upon P’yŏngyang through ancestral kings and tombs converged with Kim Il-sung’s political power. The entire conceptual justification converge to the ‘Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy.’
If, following the Tan’gun, King Tongmyŏng and Wang Kŏn took up the legitimacy of ethnic history, the legitimacy was succeeded by the Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, and Kim Jong-un regimes in North Korea. Dates of excavation are highly indicative of this political engineering. The Tomb of King Tongmyŏng was excavated in 1974, a year when Kim Jong-il became an heir-apparent. The tombs of Tan’gun, King Tongmyŏng and Wang Kŏn were excavated and developed around 1993 when Kim Jong-il succeeded his father as a North Korea’s new leader. These activities related to the excavation and development of ancestral king tombs point to a possibility of being arranged to justify the succession of political power. The establishment of the Korean history system centered around ‘a legitimate state’ in 2013 can also be understood in the same context, which followed the Kim Jong-un’s assumption of power in 2011. In this context, the Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy appears to be a symbolic manipulation, as the three ancestral kings and tombs are equated with those in power.
Conclusion – Contest for Legitimacy between North and South Korea
The Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy is a modified version of the medieval dynasty’s legitimacy theory, pushing the North Korean historiography to degenerate from its Marxist tradition of historical studies. However, the logic of legitimacy did not end with the medieval historical narrative. The framing of Korean history during the early 20th century, in general, also derived its structure from the modified narrative about dynastic legitimacy. For example, Shin Chae-ho centered around the Puyŏ tribe, establishing the categories and legitimacy of national history through the histories of Koguryŏ, Paekche, and other entities. He framed the Korean history around the legitimacy of the Puyŏ tribe, utilizing and modifying the dynastic legitimacy to justify the nation’s legitimacy in modern historiography.82
Legitimacy is built on a linear genealogy. Only those who are listed in a linear genealogy are bestowed with a legitimate self-identity, while any entities that sit outside of it are systematically excluded in the legitimacy narrative. North Korea’s idea of ‘legitimate state’ vividly illustrates this point, with the main target of exclusion being South Korea. The practice of historical exclusion is not exclusive to North Korea. Tellingly, South Korea also recently underwent a controversy regarding the legitimacy of the Republic of Korea and the Provisional Government of the Republic of Korea. Although the controversy primarily focused on the modern period, the way the legitimacy controversy is politically motivated and seeks exclusion of supposedly non-legitimate targets shows striking similarities to the evolution of North Korea’s P’yŏngyang Legitimacy Theory.83 This is arguably the lesson to be learnt from the evolution of the North Korea’s Principle of P’yŏngyang Legitimacy. Not only does it demand caution against politicization of histories in the study of modern and contemporary period but also for South Korea’s ancient history research.
Although no systematic evidence is available from academic research at this point, current history textbooks in South Korea also appears to be grounded on a linear genealogy, selectively studying ancient the Old Chosŏn and various states in the early Iron Age from which vertical genealogies are set up. The dynasties from the Three Kingdoms’ period onwards are narrated as a single linear genealogy. Such conceptualization vindicates the Korean history to define what belongs the Korea’s national history as well as what ethnicities, societies, and groups are to be excluded in that preordained genealogy.84
No notion matters more than legitimacy in the linear genealogy. Calling upon its significance, South Korean society and academia recently engaged in revisiting the contrasting historical genealogies implied in the Silla’s Unification Theory and the North-South States Period, and their implications on historical legitimacies.85 The attempt to evaluate the two perspectives made scholarly contributions by strengthening the logic of each perspective and raising timely and critical questions about the Korea’s framing of its own history and the associated perception. And yet, these discussions also demonstrate the Korea’s oversensitivity to the issue of legitimacy in ethnic history. Ultimately, a more nuanced and balanced self-reflection would better address the complex historical narratives.
Notes
Heo Jong-ho, “Taedonggangmunhwanŭn segye 5tae munmyŏngŭi hana [Taedong River Culture is One of the Five Major Civilizations],” Ryŏksagwahak 1999–1 (1999).
Lee Seon-bok, “Ch’oegŭnŭi ‘tan’gullŭng’ munje [Recent Issues in ‘Tangun’s Tomb],” Han’guksa simin’gangjwa 21 (1997); Lee Ki-dong, “Pukhan yŏksahagŭi chŏn’gaegwajŏng [Development Process of North Korean Historiography],” in Chŏnhwan’giŭi han’guksahak [Transition Period of Korean History] (Seoul: Iljogak, 1999), 176–177; Kwon Oh-young, “Tan’gullŭng sagŏn’gwa taedonggangmunhwaronŭi chŏn’gae [Tangun’s Tomb Incident and the Development of Taedong River Culture Theory],” in Pukhanŭi yŏksamandŭlgi [North Korean History Making], ed. Han’gukyŏksayŏn’guhoe puk’ansahaksayŏn’guban (Seoul: P’urŭnyŏksa, 2003); Ha Mun-sik, “Taedonggangmunhwaronesŏ pon pukhak hakkyeŭi yŏn’gu kyŏnghyang [Research Trends in the Northern Academic Community Seen from the Taedong River Culture Theory],” Kojosŏndan’gunhak 14 (2006); Jo Beop-jong, “Pukhanŭi ‘taedonggangmunhwaron’kwa kojosŏninsik kŏmt’o [North Korea’s ‘Taedong River Culture Theory’ and Review of Understanding of the Old Chosŏn],” Sŏnsawa kodae 43 (2015).
However, the current status and issues related to the excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng have been thoroughly reviewed by Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi ‘kaegŏn’kwa koguryŏsijo tongmyŏngsŏngwanggijŏkpi [Reconstruction of the tomb of King Tongmyŏng and ‘Koguryŏ Progenitor Tongmyŏngsŏngwang Kijŏkpi’]” Inhasahak 7 (1999).
Park Kyung-sik recognizes the accomplishments in his work “Koryŏ t’aejoŭi hyŏllŭnggwa wanggŏnsang [The Hyollung and Wang Kŏn Statues of King Taejo],” in Kyŏnggi, ch’ŏnnyŏnŭi munhwasa [A Thousand Years of Cultural History: Early Koryŏ Period], ed. Kyŏnggi Cultural Foundation (Paju: Kyŏngin munhwasa, 2018), 34–35..
Nakami Datsuo, “Political Nature of the Concept of Region” [Chiyŏkkaenyŏmŭi chŏngch’isŏng], trans. Kim Jun-young, Manjuyŏn’gu, no. 9 (2009).
Chindan Hakhoe, compiled by Kim Sang-gi and Lee Byeong-do, Kuksa Kyobon [National History Textbook] (Seoul: Military Government Education Department, 1946): 21–22.
Kyŏngsŏng University Korean History Research Society, Chosŏnsa Kaesŏl [Outline of Korean History] (Seoul: Hongmunsŏgwan, 1949), 132.
Yun Sun-tae, “T’ongilssilla’ŭi palmyŏnggwa kŭndae yŏksahagŭi sŏngnip [Invention of ‘Unified Silla and Establishment of Modern History Study], Sillamunhwa [Culture of Silla] 29 (2007): 14–17.
Lee Jeongbin, “Kimjŏngŭn chipkwŏn ihu pukhanŭi ‘chŏngt’onggukka’ kangjowa p’yŏngyang chŏngt’ongnon pusangŭi kwejŏk [Emphasis on the ‘Orthodox State’ in North Korea and the Emergence of the Pyongyang Orthodoxy],” Yŏksagyoyuk 166 (2023).
Lee Byung-do, “Han’gangyuyŏgŭi yŏksajŏgŭiŭi [The Historical Significance of the Flow Area of the Han River],” in Tugyejapp’il [Miscellaneous Writings of Tugye] (Seoul: Iljogak, 1956), 52.
Lee Byung-do, “Han’gangyuyŏgŭi,” 57. Presently, some issues of Ch’ŏlgyŏng can be seen in Korea Institute of Police, Korea National Police University. Among them, Lee’s articles such as “Hanilgyosŏpsasange nat’anan ullŭngdo mit toktomunjeŭi kaeyo,” Ch’ŏlgyŏng pu inaugural issue (1951). Yet, the cited passage is not available. I could check the materials with the assistance of Professor Lee Yoon-jeong of Korea National Police University.
Lee Byung-do, “Han’gangyuyŏgŭi,” 52–56.
Lee Byung-do, “Han’gangyuyŏgŭi,” 57.
Shin Hyeong-sik, “Han’gukkodaesae issŏsŏ han’gangyuyŏgŭi chŏngch’i,kunsajŏk sŏnggyŏk [The Political and Military Characteristics of the Han River Basin in Ancient Korean History],” Hyangt’osŏul 41 (December 1983): 72.
Lim Geon-sang, “Che yi chang, noye soyuja kukkadŭl(5)-kiwŏn chŏnhu~7segi chungyŏp koguryŏ kukkaŭi paljŏn- [Chapter 2, Slave-owning States (5) - Development of Koguryŏ in the Early to Mid-7th Century],” Minjuch’ŏngnyŏn, March 19, 1956, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88 – chosŏllodongdangŭi kodaesa insik pyŏnhwa 2(kojosŏn·tan’gun·nangnang) 1986~2001 – [North Korean Relations Documents Collection 88 – Changes in North Korea’s Ancient History Perception 2 (Koguryŏ, Dangun, Nakhlang) 1986–2001] (Gwachŏn: National History Compilation Committee, 2020).
Science Institute History Research Center, Chosŏnt’ongsa (sang) [General History of Chosŏn Vol.1], (Seoul: Kwahagwŏn, 1956): 40.
Chosŏnlyŏksa p’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe [The Committee of Compiling History of Chosŏn], Chosŏn’godaesa [Ancient History of Chosŏn] (Chosŏnlyŏksa p’yŏnch’anwiwŏnhoe, 1951), translated and reprinted by Yŏnbyŏn kyoyuk ch’ulp’ansa [Yanbian Education Publisher].
Hong Myeong-hui, “P’yŏngyang ch’anggŏn 1530chunyŏn kinyŏm p’yŏngyangsi kyŏngch’uk pogohoeesŏ han hongmyŏŭi pususangŭi pogo [Report by Hong Myeong-hui at the Pyongyang City Celebration Commemorating the 1,530th Anniversary of its Establishment],” Rodong Sinmun, October 15, 1957; National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
For more discussion, see Lee Jun-sung, “Pukhan chŏnggwŏnŭi p’yŏngyang insik pyŏnhwawa hwaryong-kojosŏn koguryŏsa yŏn’gu ch’uiwa kwallyŏnhayŏ- [The changes and usage of the perception of Pyŏngyang by the North Korean regime – in regard to the trend of the studies about the Old Chosŏn and Koguryŏ],” Sŏnsawa kodae 65 (2021): 59–60.
Kim Dong-min, “Commemorating the 1530th Anniversary of P’yŏngyang’s Creation—Kija and P’yŏngyang,” P’yŏngyang Shinmun, September 19, 1957.
Kim Yong-nam, “Koguryŏsayŏn’guesŏ kogohakkyega irukhan sŏnggwa [The achievements of the Archaeological community in the studies about Koguryŏ],” Ryŏksagwahak 1980–4, (1980).
Han Chang-gyun, “1960nyŏndaeŭi pukhan kogohak yŏn’gu [The archaeological studies of the North Korea in 1960’s],” Paeksanhakpo 55 (2000): 44–45; Baek Jong-oh, “Pukhanŭi koguryŏ yujŏk yŏn’gu hyŏnhwang mit sŏnggwa [The current state and achievement of the North Korean studies about Koguryŏ’s archaeological sites],” Chŏngsinmunhwayŏn’gu 31, no. 1 (2008): 337.
Kim Il-sung University, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnggwa kŭ pugŭnŭi koguryŏ yujŏk [Koguryŏ Relics in the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng and Its Vicinity] (Pyŏngyang: Kim Il-sung University Press, 1976), 1–2.
“Hakkyesosik: saero palguljŏngnihan koguryŏ tongmyŏngwangnŭng [News in Academia: Excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Ryŏksagwahak 1978–4 [Historical Science] (1978), 42–46.
Social Science Research Institute, Chosŏnjŏnsa 3-chungsep’yŏn koguryŏsa- [Korean History Volume 3 - Medieval Koguryŏ History] (Pyŏngyang: Kwahak paekkwasajŏnch’ulp’ansa [Science & Encyclopedia Publishing Company], 1979), 168–173.
Kim Kyung-chan, “P’yŏngyangŭi tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭn koguryŏsijo tongmyŏngsŏngwangŭi mudŏm [The Tomb of Tongmyŏng in P’yŏngyang is the Tomb of Koguryŏ ‘s Progenitor Tongmyŏngsŏngwang],” Minjok Munhwa Yusan 2009–4 (2009).
Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi,” 227–232; Kim Yong-gwan, “Koguryŏ tongmyŏngwangnŭnge taehan insikpyŏnhwawa tongmyŏngwangnŭngjungsugi [Changes in Recognition of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng and Records of its Restoration],” Koguryŏyŏn’gu 20 (2005).
Kang Hyun-sook, “Chŏn tongmyŏngwangnŭnggwa chinp’arigobun’gunŭi sŏnggyŏkkŏmt’o [Review of the characteristics of the so-called tomb of King Tongmyŏng and Chinp’a-ri Tombs],” Hosŏgogohak 18 (2008): 44–48.
Kim Yong-tae, Chosŏnŭi kojŏk [Korean Antiquities] (N.p.: Kungnipch’ulp’ansa, 1954); Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi,” 233.
Kim Il-sung University, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnggwa, 1.
“News in Academia: Excavation of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng,” 42; Social Science Research Institute, Chosŏnjŏnsa 3, 168.
Chae Hee-guk, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭng munjega palk’yŏjigikkaji [Until clarifying the issue surrounding the controversy on the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Ch’ŏllima 1989–7 (1989).
Munhagyesulch’ulp’ansa, “T’aeyangirhwa han changmyŏnesŏ ch’ajajusin tongmyŏngwangnŭng [Finding Tomb of King Tongmyŏng in a Scene from ‘Taeyangilhwa’],” Chosŏnyesul [Chosŏn Arts] 2008–10 (2008).
Kim Il-sung University, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnggwa 2, 214–215.
Chŏn Chehŏn, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnge kwanhan yŏn’gu [Research on Tomb of King Tongmyŏng], (Pyŏngyang: Sahoegwahakch’ulp’ansa, 1994), reprinted (Seoul: Paeksanjaryowŏn, 1998), 7–8.
Lee Jong-seok, Saeropke ssŭn hyŏndae pukhanŭi ihae [Understanding Modern North Korea Anew] (Seoul: Yŏksabip’yŏngsa, 2000), 222–223; Pukhanŭi yŏksa 2-chuch’esasanggwa yuilch’eje 1960~1994- [North Korea’s History 2-Juche Ideology and the Single Party System 1960–1994] (Seoul: Yŏksabip’yŏngsa, 2011), 41–43, 59–60, 74–79.
Hong Jong-wook, 2022, “Chuch’e sagwanesŏ inmin’gwa minjogŭi chari [The Position of the People and Nation in Juche Thought],” Yŏksabip’yŏng 140 (2022): 349–359.
Hong Jong-wook, “Chuch’e,” 363.
Hong Jong-wook, “Chuch’e,” 359.
Lee Jong-seok, Saeropke, 206–207.
Ahn Byeong-woo, 1990, “Minjongmunhwayusan p’yŏnggaŭi kijun’gwa naeyong [Criteria and Content of the Evaluation of National Cultural Heritage],” in Pukhanŭi han’guksainsik [Understanding North Korea’s Perception of Korean History], ed. Ahn Byeong-woo and Do Jin-soon (Seoul: Han’gilssa, 1990): 411–417.
Lee Jong-seok, Saeropke, 207.
The Supreme People’s Assembly of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, “Article 103,” in Chosŏnminjujuŭi inmin’gohwaguk hŏnbŏp [Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea], (1948): 41.
Socialist Constitution of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, “Article 149,” published in 1972, as cited in the National Unification Institute, “Pukhanch’oegoinminhoeŭijaryojip (che3chip: 4ki1ch’ahoeŭi ~ 5ki7ch’ahoeŭi) [Collection of North Korean Supreme People’s Assembly Materials (Vol. III: 4th Session 1st Meeting ~ 5th Session 7th Meeting)]” (Seoul: Kukt’ot’ongirwŏn [National Unification Institute], 1988): 635.
Lee Jong-seok, Pukhanŭi yŏksa 2, 74–76.
Social Science Research Institute, Chosŏnjŏnsa 3, 190–192.
Chae Hee-guk, Koguryŏryŏksayŏn’gu - p’yŏngyang ch’ŏndowa koguryŏŭi kangsŏng [A Study of Koguryŏ History - The Relocation of the Capital to Pyongyang and the Strength of Koguryŏ] (Pyŏngyang: Kim Il-sung University Press, 1982): 5.
Social Science Research Institute, Chosŏnjŏnsa 4-chungsep’yŏn paekche mit chŏn’gisillasa- [History of Choson 4 - Paekche and Early Silla in Medieval Part -] (Pyŏngyang: Kwahak paekkwasajŏnch’ulp’ansa [Science Encyclopedia Publishers], 1979): 188–195.
Social Science Research Institute, Chosŏnjŏnsa 4, 249.
Cho In-sung, “Koguryŏt’ongillon [A Theory of the Unification of Koguryŏ],” in Han’gukkodaesayŏn’guŭi hyŏndan’gye [The Current Status of the Studies about Ancient Korean History], ed. Sŏngmun Igidong gyosu jŏngnyŏn’ginyŏm nonch’ong ganhaeng wiwŏnhoe (Seoul: Churyusŏng, 2009), 165–170.
Kim Jong-il, Samgukt’ongilmunjerŭl tasi kŏmt’ohalde taehayŏ-1960nyŏn 10wŏl 29il- [Regarding the Reconsideration of the Three Kingdoms Unification Issue - October 29, 1960 -] (Pyŏngyang: Chosŏllodongdangch’ulp’ansa [Workers’ Party of Korea Publishing House], 2004); “Samgukt’ongilmunjerŭl tasi kŏmt’ohalde taehayŏ( 1960.10.29.) [Regarding the Reconsideration of the Three Kingdoms Unification Issue (October 29, 1960)],” in Kimjŏngilssŏnjip 1(chŭngbop’an) [Collected Works of Kim Jong-il Volume 1 (Expanded Edition)] (Pyŏngyang: Chosŏllodongdangch’ulp’ansa, 2009): 32–38.
For instance, in his speech on November 10, 1960, titled l he urged for the establishment of a historical narrative system centered around Koguryŏ, breaking away from the Silla-centric narrative system in Korean history. (Kim Jong-il, “Ryŏksayumulgwa charyojŏnsirŭl charhalde taehayŏ-kimilssŏngjonghaptaehak ryŏksahakpu chosŏllyŏksayŏn’gusirŭl torabomyŏnsŏ kyowŏn, haksaengdŭlgwa han tamhwa 1960nyŏn 11wŏl 10il, in Kimjŏngilssŏnjip 2 [Collected Works of Kim Jong-il Volume 2] (Pyŏngyang: Chosŏllodongdangch’ulp’ansa [Workers’ Party of Korea Publishing House], 2012): 181–182.)
Lee Jong-seok, Saeropke, 57–58.
Cho In-sung, “Koguryŏt’ongillon.”
Lee Jong-seok, Saeropke, 501–503 and Pukhanŭi, 93.
Kang In-suk, “Minjoksaŭi ch’ŏt kŏn’guksijo tan’gune taehan uri sŏnjodŭrŭi rihae [Our ancestors’ understanding of T’angun, the first progenitor of our people’s history],” Minjujosŏn, July 9, 1993; “Iljeŭi tan’gun malssalch’aektong,” Minjujosŏn, August 31, 1993; “Tan’gunŭn kojosŏnŭi kŏn’guksijo [T’angun is the progenitor of the Old Chosŏn],” Minjujosŏn, September 7, 1993, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
“Widaehan suryŏng kimilssŏngdongjikkesŏ tan’gullŭngŭl torabosiŏtta [The great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung observes the Tomb of T’angun],” Rodong Sinmun, September 28, 1993; Social Science Research Institute, “Yuguhan chosŏnminjoksae t’ŭkkihal ildae sabyŏn,” Minjujosŏn, October 2, 1993, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
Cho Hui-seung, Yuguhan ryŏksarŭl charanghanŭn tan’gunjosŏn [The Old Chosŏn, boasting its long history] (Pyŏngyang: Sahoegwahakch’ulp’ansa, 2004), 97–98.
Hong Myeong-hui, “P’yŏngyang,” quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
“Widaehan suryŏng kimilssŏngdongjikkesŏ tan’gullŭngŭl torabosiŏtta [The great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung observes the Tomb of T’angun],” Rodong Sinmun, September 28, 1993.
Lee Gi-dong, “Pukhanesŏ tan’gunyŏn’guwa kŭ sungangundong [Research on Dangun and its Worship in North Korea],” Han’guksa simin’gangjwa 27 (2000): 120.
“Widaehan suryŏng tongilssŏng tongjikkesŏ tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭl torabosiyŏtta [The great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung observes the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Minju Chosŏn, April 4, 1989, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88; Chae Hee-guk, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭng.”
“Hullyunghi kkuryŏjigo innŭn tongmyŏngwangnŭng [Tongmyŏngwangnŭng is splendidly arranged],” Minju Chosŏn, September 7, 1990, quoted in National
“Widaehan suryŏng kimilssŏng tongjikkesŏ tongmyŏngwangnŭng kŏnsŏljadŭrege kamsarŭl chusiyŏtta [The great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung gave thanks to the construction workers of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Minju Chosŏn, September 21, 1991, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
“Widaehan suryŏng kimilssŏng tongjikkesŏ tongmyŏngwangnŭng kaegŏn’gongsajangŭl hyŏnjijidohasiyŏtta [The great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung provided on-site guidance for the redevelopment project of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Minju Chosŏn, December 29, 1992; “Tongmyŏngwangnŭng kaegŏn’gongsarŭl chŏkkŭk naemilgo itta [Actively pushing forward with the redevelopment project of the Tomb of King Tongmyŏng],” Minju Chosŏn, December 30, 1992, quoted in National History Compilation Committee, Pukhan’gwan’gye saryojip 88.
Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi,” 235–237.
Jeon Jehyun, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnge, 80 and 86.
Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi,” 241–242.
Lee Gyu-bo, “Tongmyŏngwangp’yŏn [Chapter of King Tongmyŏng],” Tonggugisanggukchip, Vol. 3, Koyulssi [ Ancient O des]; L ee H am, “Tonggugisanggukchip yŏnbo,” Tonggugisanggukchip.
Annals of King Sejong, Vol. 55, January 19, 1432
Kim Rak-ki, “Tongmyŏngwangnŭngŭi,” 235–237
Jeon Jehyun, Tongmyŏngwangnŭnge, 89.
Son Young-jong, “Koguryŏ kŏn’gungnyŏndaee taehan chaegŏmt’o [Reconsideration of the Founding Year of Koguryŏ],” Ryŏksagwahak 1990–1 (1990).
“Hullyunghi,” Minju Chosŏn, September 7, 1990.
“Widaehan” Minju Chosŏn, December 29, 1992.
“Kirogyŏnghwa tongmyŏngwangnŭngi nawatta [The Documentary Film ‘The Tomb of King Tongmyŏng’ Has Been Released],” Minju Chosŏn, August 21, 1993.
“Kirogyŏnghwa” Minju Chosŏn, August 21, 1993; “(Kirogyŏnghwa) Tongmyŏngwanggwa tongmyŏngwangnŭng [(Documentary Film) King Tongmyŏng and his Tomb],” Chosŏn’gwahakkyoyuk yŏnghwach’waryŏngso [Choson Science Education Film Production Office], available in Collection of the North Korea Information Center.
Kim Jong-il, Language and the National Question - Talks with Kim Il-sung University Students on February 20, 1964 (Pyŏngyang: Chosŏllodongdang ch’ulp’ansa [Workers’ Party of Korea Publishing House], 1999).
Jung Il-yeong, “Pukhanesŏ minjokchuŭi tamnonŭi hyŏngsŏnggwa chŏn’gae-’minjokkongjo’wa ‘kimilssŏngminjok’ŭl chungsimŭro- [Formation and Development of Nationalistic Discourse in North Korea - Focusing on ‘Ethnic Cooperation’ and ‘Kim Il-sung’s Nation],” Minjogyŏn’gu 56 (2013): 137–138; Lee Jeong-bin, “Pukhanŭi kojosŏn kyoyukkwa ‘kimilssŏngminjok’ŭi tan’gun - 1993nyŏn ihu kodŭngjunghakkyo chosŏllyŏksarŭl chungsimŭro- [North Korea’s Education on Ancient Chosŏn and ‘Kim Il-sung’s Nation’ - Focusing on the ‘History of Chosŏn’ in High Schools Since 1993],” Han’guksahaksahakpo 32 (2015), 90–92; Kang Hye-seok, “Pukhanŭi minjokkŏnsŏlgwa tu kaeŭi ‘minjongnon’-’t’ongillon’kwaŭi kinjangŭl chungsimŭro- [‘National Construction in North Korea and Two ‘Ethnic Theories’ - Focusing on the Tension between ‘Unification Theory’ and ‘Kim Il-sung’s Nation],” Han’gukchŏngch’ihakhoebo [Korean Political Science Association Journal] 53, no.1 (2019), 143–148.
Kim Chang-ho, “Kimilssŏngminjogŭrosŏ uri minjogŭi hyŏlt’ongŭl kosuhae nagasinŭn widaehan ryŏngdo [Great Guidance to Maintain the Bloodline of Our People as Kim Il-sung’s People],” Ryŏksagwahak 2000–2 (2000): 18.
See Ahn Jae-Myeong et al., Chunghakkyoryŏksagyosubangbŏmnon - sabŏmdaehak ryŏksahakkwa - [Teaching Middle School History—Department of History, College of Education] (Pyŏngyang: Kyoyuktosŏch’ulp’ansa [Education Publisher], 2016), 60–61. Tangun, Tongmyŏngwang, and Wang Kŏn did represent such classes. They are viewed as progressive figures who contributed to the development of ethnic history by unifying the national territory as the ancestral kings of the Chosŏn nation and the first ruling kings.
Do Myeon-hoe, “Kukkanŭn ŏttŏk’e kusŏngdoeŏnnŭn’ga?–han’guk kŭndaeyŏksahagŭi ch’angch’ulgwa t’ongsach’egyeŭi hwangnip [How Was the Nation Formed? - The Establishment of Korean Modern History and the Consolidation of the Historical System],” in Yŏksahagŭi segi–20segi han’gukkwa ilbonŭi yŏksahak [The Century of History - Historiography in Korea and Japan in the 20th Century], ed. Do Myeong-hoe and Yun Hae-dong (Seoul: Humanist, 2009).
Hong Seok-ryul, “Yŏksajŏnjaengŭl sŏngch’ar hamyŏ–chŏngsa· chŏngt’ongsŏngnonŭi hamjŏng [Reflecting on the History War - Traps of Historical Narratives and Legitimacy Theories],” Yŏksabip’yŏng 128 (2009).
Lee Jeong-bin, “Yŏksagyogwasŏŭi kuksujŏk han’guksa ch’egyewa yŏksajŏngch’aek sŏngch’al [Reflection on the Korean History System and Historical Policy in the Context of the Comprehensive Korean History System of History Textbooks],” Yŏksawa kyoyuk 33 (2021).
Jung Yo-geun, ed., Sillanŭn chŏngmal samgugŭl t’ongirhaessŭlkka- ‘samgukt’ongil’ŭl tullŏssan haesŏkkwa nonjaeng’ [Did Silla Truly Unify the Three Kingdoms? – Interpretation and Debates Surrounding the Unification] (Goyang: Yŏksabip’yŏngsa, 2023).