Lelang Commandery

In 108 BCE, Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty conquered the area under King Ugŏ, a grandson of King Wiman. The Emperor set up Lelang, Lintun, Xuantu and Zhenfan, known as the Four Commanderies of Han in the northern Korean peninsula and Liaodong peninsula. The Book of Han records Lelang belonged to Youzhou, located in northwestern Old Chosŏn consisted of 25 prefectures, 62,812 houses, and the population was 406,748.^[5][6] Its capital, then the prefecture of Joseon (朝鮮縣, 조선현), was located at modern Pyongyang. (Rakrang 樂浪/락랑, a district in central P'yŏngyang today, is named after Lelang.)^[7]

After Emperor Wu's death, Zhenfan and Lintun were abolished and Xuantu was moved to Liaodong. Some prefectures of the abolished commanderies were incorporated into Lelang. Lelang after the consolidation is sometimes called "Greater Lelang Commandery". Since Lelang became too large, the Defender of the Southern Section (南部都尉) was set up to rule the seven prefectures which formerly belonged to Zhenfan. Before that, the Defender of the Eastern Section (東部都尉) was set up to rule former Lintun's seven prefectures.^{[citation needed]}

While the Han dynasty was taken over by Wang Mang, Wang Tiao (王調) started a rebellion and tried to secede from China. In 30 CE, the rebellion was stopped by Wang Zun (王遵), whom Emperor Guangwu appointed as governor. The Han dynasty reasserted its authority over Lelang in the late 1st and 2nd centuries.^[6] However, the shortage of human resources caused by the turmoil resulted in the abolishment of the seven eastern prefectures. The administration was left to the Eastern Ye natives, whose chiefs were conferred as marquises.

At the end of the Eastern Han dynasty, Gongsun Du, appointed as the Governor of Liaodong in 184, extended his semi-independent domain to the Lelang and Xuantu commanderies. His son Gongsun Kang separated the southern half from the Lelang Commandery and established the Daifang Commandery sometime between 204 and 220.^[6] As a result, the Lelang Commandery reverted to its original size.

In 238, under the order of Emperor Ming of Cao Wei, Sima Yi overthrew the Gongsun family and annexed Liaodong, Lelang and Daifang to Wei. Sima Yi did not encourage frontier settlers to continue their livelihoods in the Chinese northeast and instead ordered households who wished to return to coastal and central China to do so, evacuating the region of Chinese settlers. The Book of Jin records the number of households in the Korean commanderies of Lelang and Daifang as 8,600 households, less than a sixth of the figures given in the Book of the Later Han for Lelang (which included Daifang). Liaodong would be out of Chinese hands for centuries due to the lack of Chinese presence there as a result of the policies the Wei court adopted for the commanderies after the fall of the Gongsun family.^[8]

As the only remaining territory in Korea, Lelang was then inherited by the Jin dynasty. However, due to constant civil wars within China and the geographical isolation of the commandery, Jin was unable to control its holdings within the northern section of the Korean peninsula at the beginning of the 4th century and was no longer able to dispatch officials to the frontier commanderies, which were maintained by the dwindling local population of remaining Han Chinese residents. The Zizhi Tongjian states that Zhang Tong (張統) of Liaodong, Wang Zun (王遵) of Lelang and over one thousand households decided to break away from Jin and submit to the Xianbei warlord of Former Yan Murong Hui. Murong Hui relocated the remnants of the commandery to the west within Liaodong.^[9][10]

In 313, the territory of Lelang was annexed by Goguryeo under King Micheon, ending China's rule over the northern part of the Korean peninsula after the fall of Old Chosŏn. With the collapse of the commanderies after four centuries of Chinese rule, Goguryeo and the native Korean polities in the south that became Paekche, Kaya, and Silla began to grow and develop rapidly, heavily influenced by the cultural impact left by the Four Commanderies of Han.^[11][10]

Goguryeo absorbed much of what was left of Lelang through its infrastructure, economy, local inhabitants, and advanced culture. Unable to govern the region directly and form a new political center immediately, Goguryeo began to consolidate authority by replacing previous government administrators with its own appointed officials, many of whom were refugees and exiles from China, the most famous being Dong Shou (冬壽) who was entombed at Anak Tomb No. 3, overtly retaining the previous administrative system of Lelang. In 334 Goguryeo established the fortress and city of Pyongyang-song within the center of the former commandery.^[12]

The nature of Dong Shou's relationship to Goguryeo is disputed. According to one side, Dong Shou was an émigré official subservient to Goguryeo. However this is disputed by Minku Kim, who notes that the textual evidence of Goguryeo's conquest of Daifang Commandery, which was listed as one of Dong Shou's territories, rests on a single line that King Micheon attacked it in 314. Later events during Dong Shou's life point to a weakening of Goguryeo's control. Micheon's tomb was ransacked by Murong Huang's invasion of Goguryeo and his corpse was taken back to Former Yan as ransom. In 355, Former Yan enfeoffed the Goguryeo king as a duke of Lelang, which is the same tier of title attributed to Dong Shou in his epitaph. Furthermore, the epitaph uses the defunct Eastern Jin dynasty's regnal date (Yonghe) rather than Goguryeo's. Accordingly, Kim argues that Dong Shou ruled the region autonomously independently of Goguryeo.^[13]

Towards the end of the 4th century, in order to focus on the growing threat of Paekche and having checked the power of Former Yan in Liaodong, Goguryeo began to actively strengthen and govern the city. In 427 Goguryeo moved its capital to Pyongyang from its former capital of Gungnae as the new political center of the kingdom in order to administer its territories more effectively.^[12]

According to Andrew Logie, contemporary sources, pre-20th century tradition, Japanese colonial scholarship, and modern academic consensus all locate the seat of the Lelang Commandery, Chaoxian (kr. Chosŏn), around modern Pyongyang. The capital of Wiman Chosŏn, Wanghŏm, is also believed to be in the same location.^[22]

The earliest sources on the Lelang Commandery are the Shiji (2nd to 1st centuries BC) and the Book of Han (111 AD). In their accounts of Chosŏn, the Han army attacked their capital by land from Liaodong (modern central and eastern Liaoning) and by sea from Shandong (Qi). Revisionist historians believe Wanghŏm was in modern Liaoning and argue that "ancient Liaodong" was further west. However, Logie notes that Liaodong Commandery did not exist in isolation and was connected to other administrative commanderies and districts in such a way that shifting Liaodong further west would have a knock-on effect of the broader historical geography of China. The 3rd century AD Records of the Three Kingdoms explicitly describes the Samhan as being located to the south of Daifang, the southern portion of Lelang. It also describes Eastern Okjeo being located to the east of Goguryeo's Kaema Mountain with the Yilou tribes and Buyeo to the north. Furthermore, Okjeo was east of the Tandan Mountains and formed the eastern section of Lelang. Revisionists argue that Kaema and Tandan were located in Liaodong, but archaeological evidence from tombs and fortresses all confirm Goguryeo's position in southern Manchuria and northern Korea. Thus Okjeo must have been located along the eastern coastline of northern Korea in modern Hamgyong Province, matching the location of Lelang in Pyongyang by virtue of being to its east.^[23]

After the fall of Lelang, names previously associated with it were repurposed for other locations. The Shiji jijie (c. 425), a commentary on the Shiji, states that Wanghŏm was associated with Xiandu County, located in western Liaoning. However, Logie suggests that this was a speculative match based on the characters for xian (險) and hŏm (儉), both of which were likely used to represent the phonetics of a non-Chinese toponym. The Book of Wei (c. 554) and Book of Jin (c. 646) use names previously associated with Lelang in reference to other locations. TheBook of Wei (c. 554) states that Chaoxian County belonged to Beiping Commandery and that originally Chaoxian was subordinate to Lelang. With the end of Lelang, Chaoxian was re-established in Feiru by people from Chaoxian and according to the Shiji and Book of Han, Feiru was a subordinate county of Liaoxi Commandery (modern western Liaoning).^[24] Other Chinese sources continued to equate the location of Lelang Commandery with Pyongyang (Goguryeo's capital), including the Commentary on the Water Classic (early 6th century), Kuodi Zhi (7th century), Old Book of Tang (10th century), and Xuanhe fengshi Gaoli tujing (12th century).^[25]

A statement by Sima Zhen (656-720) on the location of Great Wall of the Qin dynasty and Suicheng County of Lelang Commandery has been used as evidence for the position of Lelang by both revisionists and orthodox historians. According to Zhen, the Qin Great Wall and Suicheng County were located in the same place. Mount Jieshi in Hebei was seen as an immovable anchor point relative to the location of these places, which revisionists argue meant that they should be located further west. The same logic has been applied by Chinese and Japanese scholars to argue for a location further east. The mainstream South Korean academic community considers the relevant records, which are ultimately based on a commentary on the Shiji by Sima Zhen quoting the Taikang dili zhi, to be erroneous.^[25]

Like North Korean scholars, revisionists in South Korea argue that according to the Samguk Sagi (1145), an independent Nangnang (Lelang) Kingdom governed by a king named Choi Ri existed independently of Lelang Commandery, which was situated in Liaodong. This is rejected by most scholars, but Tay Jeong notes that there is no unanimously agreed upon explanation for the existence of this record.^[25]

The History of Liao (1344) states that both Pyongyang and Lelang were in Liaoyang.^[25] According to Logie, the History of Liao conflates historical commanderies with later locations bearing their name. Geographical entries for the area around modern Liaoyang contains historical toponyms associated with eastern Manchuria and Korea. This was caused by the relocation of people such as the Parhae and Goryeo prisoners taken in the Goryeo-Khitan War from 1010-1018. As a consequence, the historical geography pertaining to Parhae and Liaoyang are blended together. It has also been argued that the Khitan-led Liao dynasty sought to portray themselves as inheritors of Parhae and Goguryeo, which incentivized them to claim Pyongyang and locate Wanghŏm in Liaoyang. These place associations carried over to the Qing dynasty and were included in the Liaoning gazetteer Shengjing tongzhi (1684) and the officially commissioned Researches on Manchu Origins (1783). These two sources and the introduction of the Shengjing tongzhi to the Joseon court in 1697 became a cornerstone of revisionist conceptualizations.^[26][25]

During the Japanese colonial era, a walled site on the southern bank of the Taedong River in Pyongyang was discovered with seals and roof tiles bearing the name "Lelang". Both North and South Korean revisionists have doubted their authenticity as pieces of evidence produced by the Japanese Empire. Oh Youngchan states that while it is impossible that Japanese archaeologists forged these artifacts, they may have been counterfeited by private merchants. Korean revisionist scholars characterize the Chinese style tombs surrounding the walled site as indigenous developments in Old Chosŏn. However, even North Korean scholarship has produced archaeological evidence supporting Lelang's placement in Pyongyang. Starting in 2006, North Korean scholars gradually published the discovery of wooden tablets unearthed in the early 1990s recording a population census of Lelang Commandery. This has also elicited skepticism from Korean revisionists who doubt the origin of the tablets and their written content.^[27]

While evidence of Lelang Commandery has been identified through archaeology, there is no archaeological evidence associated with pre-Lelang Wanghŏm, the capital of Old Chosŏn and Wiman Chosŏn. The absence of evidence has led to theories that it was located to the northwest of Pyongyang. Lelang specialist Chŏng Insŏng is one notable proponent of this theory and his work has been used by revisionists to challenge the placement of both Lelang and Wiman Chosŏn in Pyongyang. This position is not shared by Chŏng, who maintains on archaeological grounds that Lelang was located in Pyongyang. One problem and implication of the placement of Wanghŏm outside Korea is that there is no other evidence, whether textual or archaeological, of the existence of Chosŏn's capital, severing any link between the Korean Peninsula and Old Chosŏn aside from the Tan'gun and Kija traditions.^[28]

A couple of South Korean historians argue that Lelang was pushed back to Liaodong by the 2nd century AD based on a 2nd-3rd century AD dating of several stone mounds with Goguryeo characteristics.^[29]

A seal with the inscription "Lintun taishou zhang" was excavated in Huludao in 1997, lending archaeological support for possible ties between Liaodong and the Four Commanderies (through Lintun Commandery).^[25]

Following the Qing invasion of Joseon (1636-1637), Hyojong of Joseon lived as a hostage for seven years in Mukden (Shenyang). He planned an invasion of the Qing dynasty called Bukbeol (Korean: 북벌; Hanja: 北伐; lit. 'northern expedition') during his ten years on the Joseon throne, though the plan died with his death on the eve of the expedition. The northern expedition spurred a rising concern with the northern territory among Joseon literati. The location of the Four Commanderies of Han became politicized and was tied to support for or against the northern expedition. Scholars who argued against the northern expedition situated all Four Commanderies within the Korean Peninsula while those who argued for the expedition situated them outside the peninsula but still within the former territory of Old Chosŏn. This framework of the Four Commanderies as both outside the Korean Peninsula but within Old Chosŏn's former territory lent support to a possible invasion of Manchuria and Liaodong (Yodong) by justifying it as recovering the lost lands of Old Chosŏn. A nostalgia grew for these lands covering Manchuria and Liaodong as part of Old Chosŏn.^[30][31]

The view that the location of the Four Commanderies and Old Chosŏn were both centered around the northwestern Korean Peninsula in modern Pyongyang is exemplified by the writing of the Silhak scholar Chŏng Yagyong (1762 – 1836). This "peninsular view" of the Four Commanderies and Old Chosŏn was widely embraced by Joseon's Neo-Confucian literati. According to Andrew Logie, the identification of Lelang with Pyongyang was an uncontroversial orthodox position in Korea until the start of the 20th century. Other views, however, also existed. One writer proposed that the Lelang Commandery covered both northwestern Korea and Liaodong. Pak Chiwŏn, an 18th century Silhak scholar, claimed that the Four Commanderies were in Liaodong and that "Korean territory was shrunk without anyone lifting a finger to preserve it". He condemned other Korean scholars for not taking a more expansive view of the territory of ancient Korean polities such as Old Chosŏn.^[32][33][34]

During the period of Japanese colonial rule (1910–1945), Japanese scholarship firmly placed the location of the Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. Some Japanese scholars such as Nishikawa Ken and Ōhara Toshitake suggested that Lelang encompassed both Liaodong and northwestern Korea.^[35] In response to the crisis of annexation, a generation of Korean revisionist historians sought to build a nativist Korean identity by separating it from Chinese influence. Part of this effort was to argue that the periods of Chinese rule - Kija, Wiman, Four Commanderies - all occurred only on the far western end of Old Chosŏn in Liaodong/Hebei where the second capital Wanghŏm was supposedly located.^[32] These "resistance historians" such as Sin Ch'aeho (1880–1936) strongly opposed the identification of Lelang with Pyongyang and placed Lelang as well as the other Han Commanderies in Liaodong instead of northwestern Korea. Jeong Inbo (1893-195), another influential resistance historian, questioned the Japanese archaeological findings and also placed Lelang in Liaodong and Liaoxi. These works by a handful of resistance scholars became the origins of alternative historiographies after Korea regained independence.^[35][32]

Elements of these revisionist histories were adopted by the post-colonial nationalist historiographies in North Korea and South Korea. The most extreme exaggerations were rejected in professional academia but continued to live on among civil associations who introduced a polemic to defame the academic establishment as peddlers of Japanese colonial scholarship.^[36]