Where does your history start and my history end?

Korean, not Chinese, history. Photo by Matthijs Gall

There’s an brief but interesting article on Yonhap News today, President Roh expresses regrets over China history project.

South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun on Sunday expressed regrets to Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao over Beijing’s history research program that claims part of Korea’s ancient history as its own.

What I find interesting isn’t that it happens, but rather that it doesn’t happen more often. The English origin myth is that they’re all Anglo-Saxons, yet traditional histories are tied to the land rather than people. This makes sense for archaeology, it’s associated with the ground, but history is rather more malleable as it can also be genealogical as well as locational. The popular English disinterest in 1st millennium AD Germany is a curiosity. Instead if you look at English Heritage it’s generally about the land rather than the people. Hence the conflict in Cornwall, where some people object to sites built thousands of years before the Anglo-Saxon arrival as English heritage.

There are exceptions. Many European nations draw a line between themselves and classical Greece via Rome. I can see how this works. Theatres like the one found in St Albans are ultimately derived from the Greek model, but does that make the classical Greek past part of the British past? Are the Elgin Marbles are part of our Greek inheritance? According to Tim Loughton, MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, they belong to “the whole of humanity, not just to any one nation”, but he also states they are owned by the British Museum. I’m struggling to make sense of that. I’m not sure that Quechua farmers have the right to declare part ownership of the marbles simply because they reckon they look nice. From a UK perspective there is at least a traceable a connection. If the Parthenon was an event that occurred purely in the 5th century BC, you could make an argument that the marbles belong to cultures that derive some of their essence from the classical Greeks.

At it happens though the Parthenon wasn’t an event. Nor is it purely a 5th century temple. It was also around in the 4th century BC, the 3rd century BC, the 2nd… Equally a history is not a discrete point but part of a continuous narrative and this is where conflict occurs. For the UK the classical Greek past is part of a history which starts with Homer and ends in 410 with the departure of the legions from Britannia. For the Greeks the Parthenon is part of a history which is still connected to the present. So while the connection to the Greek past is real there is room for a lot of debate as to what rights other nations have to claim Greek history as their history. This is part of what academics debate, but it has implcations for the present as President Roh is aware:

He told the premier that even if it is an academic endeavor, the research could have negative repercussions on bilateral relations.

For China the influence of Korea may have ended and moved on since the ancient period. For Korea their ancient history remains a living and connected construction. When Chinese scholars make a claim about the Korean past, what does this mean in terms of what China inherits from Korea? Are historical claims also political claims? I can see why President Roh is bothered.

At the same time defining the past by presidential fiat rather than research also seems a dangerous route. Ruling research unacceptable because you don’t like the conclusions is perfect for injustice. On reflection, I’d argue that just as there may be connection between ancient Korea and China, the succeeding centuries also show difference leading to the modern state of affairs. If China decides this difference is unimportant then you’re not really having a discussion about history anyway, but modern politics instead.

You can read more on Korean and Chinese history at Frog in a Well. I could link to the individual blog pages, but the title page is beautiful.