In East Asia, national pride continues to exert powerful influence on research in ancient history (Duara Reference Duara2008), and leading scholars often contest one another's interpretation of a particular ancient text or polity according to nationalistic perspectives. The ancient kingdom of Koguryŏ 高句麗 (37 bce, trad.-668 ce) is one particular center of the history dispute between China and Korea. Sparked in 2003 by China's so-called Northeast Project (Dongbei gongcheng) that laid claim to Koguryŏ as a part of Chinese history, the debate seems to have further fueled a new, nationalistic, even Sinocentric, historiography on Manchuria, where the Koguryŏ state once flourished (Byington Reference Byington2004; Ahn Reference Ahn2006).

Though not attracting as much attention from the media or general public, a ninth century bce poem called “Hanyi” 韓奕 in the Classic of Poetry [Shijing 詩經] has caused a far longer history dispute. Unlike the recent, often face–to-face debates on Koguryŏ, for centuries the participants in the “Hanyi” debate have cared far less about one another's viewpoints. Not surprisingly, they have produced various interpretations on the identity of the Han 韓 polity mentioned in the poem. Whereas Chinese scholars have generally considered Han to be a Zhou feudal state ruled by a Ji 姬-surnamed scion of the Zhou 周 Dynasty (1045-256 bce), most Korean scholars have linked the polity with Old Chosŏn 古朝鮮 (n.d.-108 bce), the earliest known state in Korean history.

Critiquing some major earlier studies on the poem, which seem to have been guided by bias corresponding to the national affiliation of individual scholars, I will try in this article to re-read the “Hanyi” poem from a perspective that transcends the dichotomy of Chinese history versus Korean history. Accordingly, tracing the poem's origins requires an examination and analysis of relevant contemporary sources, especially bronze inscriptions. Though uncertainties admittedly remain, this approach helps us make a better evaluation of when and where the Han state existed, the nature of its relations with the Zhou and other groups, and the life of its inhabitants. I shall argue that “Hanyi,” partly originating from an investiture inscription, is an important text that sheds some light on the late Western Zhou state's center-periphery relations wherein Han was a non-Zhou peripheral polity in northeastern China.

The “Hanyi” and Western Zhou Investiture Inscriptions

Traditionally dated to the reign of King Xuan (r. 827/25–781 bce),Footnote ¹ the “Hanyi” provides some important information on the Han polity in the late Western Zhou period. Comprising six stanzas, the poem mentions in detail, among other things, a Zhou king's investiture of the lord of Han (Hanhou 韓侯), his marriage, and the natural surroundings of the Han region. It is necessary first to read the lengthy poem (Karlgren Reference Karlgren1950, with slight revisions):

1. 1. Great is the Mount Liang 梁山, it was Yu 禹 who put it in order. Straight are its roads; the lord of Han received the mandate, the king personally commanded him: “Succeed your ancestors, do not neglect my command, day and night never idle, be respectful in your position; the command I give you is not changeable, lead the unsubmissive states to assist your sovereign.”

2. 2. The four stallions were splendid, very tall and broad; the lord of Han came to an audience; with his great jade scepter he came to an audience with the king; the king gave the lord a fine banner and pennon ornaments, a bamboo-mat cover (for the carriage) and a patterned yoke, a dark emblazoned robe and red slippers, breast-plates with hooks (for the horses), engraved (horse's) frontlets, leathern front-rail casing (for the carriage), a short-haired covering fell, metal-adorned reins and metal yoke-bows.

3. 3. The lord of Han went out and sacrificed to the Spirit of the Road; he went out and lodged in Tu 屠; Xianfu 顯父 gave him a farewell party with clear wine in a hundred bottles (hu); What were the viands? Roast turtle and fresh fish; What were the vegetables? Bamboo sprouts and reed shoots; What were the gifts? A team of (four) horses and chariot; the dishes (bian and dou) were fully laid; the lord feasted.

4. 4. The lord of Han took a wife, the niece of the king at Fen 汾王, daughter of Juefu 蹶父; the lord of Han went to meet her in the town of Jue; the hundred carriages went bang-bang; the eight bit-bells tinkled; greatly illustrious was the splendor; many of the younger sisters followed her, in great number like a cloud; the lord of Han looked round at them, resplendent they filled the gate.

5. 5. Juefu was very martial, there was not a state he had not reached; for his daughter Han Ji 韓姞 (lady Ji of Han) he looked for a place, there was none so pleasant as Han; very pleasant is the land of Han, the rivers and pools are large, the bream and tench are big, the does and stags are numerous; there are black bears and brown bears, there are wild-cats and tigers; he found it good and caused her to live there; Han Ji feasted and rejoiced.

6. 6. Extensive are those walls of Han, built by the hosts of the Yan 燕 state; because of the mandate given to his ancestor, he led many (non-Zhou) Man 蠻 tribes; the king (further) gave the lord of Han (the) Zhui 追 and Mo 貊 tribes; receiving the northern states extensively, he became the chief (bo 伯) (of) the region; he built walls, he dug moats, he divided the land and apportioned it for tax; he presented (to the king) skins of leopard, red panther, and brown bear.

The first stanza sings about the investiture the lord of Han received from the Zhou king, probably King Xuan. It is significant that the quoted king's command in the stanza closely resembles Western Zhou investiture bronze inscriptions, especially in style. The first line in the command, “zuan rong zukao” 纘戎 祖考 (succeed your ancestors) is similar to “geng nai zukao” 更乃祖考 (succeed your ancestors), which frequently appears in the beginning of the king's commands in the investiture inscriptions. The second line, “wufei zhenming” 無廢朕命 (do not neglect my command), is a common expression in many investiture inscriptions, such as the “Da Ke ding” 大克鼎 [JC 2836] and the “Shi You gui” 師酉簋 [JC 4288]. The third line, “suye feijie” 夙夜匪解 (day and night never idle), is identical to that of the “Zhongshan wang fanghu” 中山王方壺 [JC 9735] from the Spring and Autumn period. The fourth line, “qiangong erwei” 虔共爾位 (be respectful in your position), also has its counterparts in the “Caihou pan” 蔡侯盤 [JC 10171] and the “Shu Yi zhong” 叔夷鐘 [JC 285] from the Spring and Autumn period. The sixth line, “gan butingfang” 榦不庭方 (lead the states that do not come to the court) is similar to the “shuaihuai butingfang” 率懷不廷方 in the “Maogong ding” 毛公鼎 [JC 2841], in which the kings Wen and Wu, the founders of the dynasty, are said to have led and embraced the unsubmissive polities. The final line, “yi zuo rongbi” 以佐戎辟 (to assist your sovereign) also has a similar expression in the “Jin Jiang ding” 晉姜鼎 [JC 2826]. Moreover, the second stanza's lengthy list of gifts is similar to analogous lists from the period's various inscriptions (Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy1991, 81–3).

Therefore, considering that Western Zhou investiture inscriptions generally adopted a similar style and pattern (Chen Hanping Reference Hanping1986; Li Reference Li, Feng2001–Reference Li, Feng2002), the poem's two stanzas most likely consist of reconstructed four-character phrasings based on an original investiture inscription that is no longer extant or remains unknown. There are some other examples of textual reconstruction deriving from bronze inscriptions (Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy1991, 73–6).Footnote ²

In addition to its inscriptional origin, the “Hanyi” contains abundant information about the Han polity. The place name, Liangshan, in the first stanza, has been controversial in terms of locating the Han polity. It is important to note that the first stanza adopts the rhetoric of investiture bronze inscriptions rather than providing the king's actual command. It is likely that the king's investiture of the lord of Han related to the king's recognition of the lord as the chief (bo) of the northern regions in the sixth stanza.

The second stanza sings about the lord's court visit, followed by the king's granting gifts to him. The royal audience, also documented frequently in the Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, no doubt served as a vehicle to reinforce the friendly relations between the Zhou and local polities (Falkenhausen, Reference Falkenhausen, Feng and Prager Branner2011, 257–58). The third stanza mentions the farewell banquet that a court official, Xianfu, provided for the lord after the investiture. Xianfu gives the lord a carriage and four horses, perhaps the most valuable of the gifts, on behalf of the king. Tu, where the lord lodged, is another controversial place name; but it is most likely the domain of Xianfu, probably not far away from the capital in present-day Shaanxi.

The fourth stanza sings about the marriage of the Han lord, probably while returning home. It is important to note that the spouse was the niece of the king at Fen and the daughter of Juefu. Since Zheng Xuan 鄭玄 (127-200 CE) for the first time identified the king at Fen with King Li (857/53-842/28 bce), who was exiled to the Fen River valley in Shanxi, most scholars have followed this interpretation. In the Current Bamboo Annals, Juefu is said to have followed the king's command to visit Han in the fourth year of King Xuan's reign, and the lord of Han came to an audience thereafter (Fang and Wang Reference Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling1981, 254). Juefu also appears as an official of Zhou in King You's reign (781-771 bce) in the “Shiyue zhi jiao” 十月之交 [Alignment in the Tenth Month] of the Classic of Poetry (Li Reference Li, Feng2006, 209).

The fifth stanza describes the natural and ecological environment of Han where Juefu found the husband for his daughter. Because Juefu's daughter is named as Han Ji (the lady Ji of Han or the Ji clan woman married out to the Han polity), Juefu must have been from Jí 姞 (not to be confused with the royal Jī 姬) clan, one of the marriage partners of the Zhou royal family (Chen Zhaorong Reference Zhaorong2007, 271–72). This in turn suggests that Han Ji might be a maternal niece of King Li. Juefu's reaching everywhere in the stanza may indicate the remoteness of the Han region from his domain, which was possibly in Shaanxi.

As mentioned above, the sixth stanza contains the actual investiture of the king. Following his ancestors, the lord of Han received the appointment to be the chief of northern non-Zhou tribes such as the Zhui and the Mo. This stanza further provides an important clue for the location of Han, because the people of the Yan state are said to have built the Han walls. The Current Bamboo Annals also documents that in the 12^th year of King Cheng (r. 1042/35-1006 bce) “the peoples of the king and the Yan state built walls in Han and the king gave a mandate to the lord of Han” (Fang and Wang Reference Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling1981, 240).Footnote ³ Finally, the stanza mentions the economic situation of Han, especially the importance of animal skins as the special product of the state.

If one reads the poem without care, Han appears to be a Zhou feudal state of no particular prominence. However, analyses of other place names in the poem, such as Liangshan, the state of Yan, and the names of the Zhui and Mo tribes, have produced various explanations on the identity of Han. During the late 1960s Chen Pan 陳槃 recognized seven distinct theories advanced by Chinese scholars (Reference Pan1969, 340–44). On their part, several Korean scholars have argued that Han was a Korean polity. Neither of these ideas is free from criticism.

Chinese Scholars' View of Han as a Jī-surnamed Feudal State of Zhou

In innumerable commentaries on the Classic of Poetry, Chinese scholars have treated the identity of Han as an important subject. In the second century ce, during the Han period, Zheng Xuan suggested that Liangshan was located in the present-day eastern Shaanxi area, and that the poem's Han was a state ruled by a Ji-surnamed family in Hancheng 韓城 in present-day Shaanxi before its conquest by the state of Jin 晉 in the 8^th century bce during the Spring and Autumn Period. Rather than as the name of the state in the northeast, Zheng interpreted the “yan” in the last stanza as “peaceful” (an 安) (Zheng Xuan Reference Xuan1980, 570). Centuries later during the Song period, Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130–1200 CE) disagreed and viewed the Yan as the northeastern state where the Duke of Shao supervised the construction of Han walls. Nonetheless, Zhu agreed with Zheng on locating Liangshan and Han in Shaanxi (Zhu Xi Reference Xi1936, 220–22). He was evidently not bothered by the distance between the Han and the Yan, historically known to have been located near Beijing in Hebei.

Faced with this inconsistency, a Qing dynasty commentator, Chen Huan 陳奐 (1786–1863 CE) surmised that two different Hans had coexisted (Chen Huan Reference Huan1995, 380–84). In advancing this argument, Chen cited two references in the Zuozhuan 左傳 [Zuo's Tradition] that described the two Hans as, respectively, “the descendant of King Wu” (wu zhi mu 武之穆, Xi 25) and “a Ji-surname” (jixing ye 姬姓也, Xiang 29) (Yang Bojun Reference Bojun1981, 422, 1160). King Wu enfeoffed the first one in Hedong commandery 河東郡 (the present-day Ruicheng 芮城 area) of southwestern Shanxi, and it lasted until the early Spring and Autumn period when it was conquered by the Jin.Footnote ⁴ Chen noted the pavilion of Han (Hanting 韓亭) in the region documented in the “Jun Guo zhi” 郡國志 [Record of Commanderies and States] of the Hou Hanshu 後漢書 [History of the Later Han] (Fan Ye Reference Ye1959, 3398). He further proposed another Han, enfeoffed by King Cheng, at Fangcheng prefecture 方城縣 to the north of present-day Gu'an prefecture 固安縣 in Hebei. For this argument, he relied on the Shuijing zhu 水經注 [Commentary to the Water Classic] compiled by Li Daoyuan 酈道元 (466 or 471–527 CE), in which, quoting Wang Su's 王肅 (195-256 CE) location of the walls of the Han lord to Fangcheng prefecture, the Sheng River 聖水 is said to have flowed to the east of the walls (see below). Agreeing with the explanation of an earlier Qing scholar, Gu Yanwu 顧炎武 (1613–82 CE) (Gu Reference Yanwu1994, 100), Chen identified the Han in the “Hanyi” as the second Han state that was in Hebei. Moreover, he identified Zhui and Mo, which were given to the lord of Han in the poem, with Hui-Mo 濊貊. Most Korean scholars believe the Hui-Mo to be the forefathers of the Korean people. In modern times, like the two commentators, Qu Wanli 屈萬里 (1907–79) and Gao Heng 高亨 (1900–86) (Qu Reference Qu Wanli1980, 381–83; Gao Reference Gao Heng1980, 345–46), Shen Changyun 沈長雲 has agreed with Chen's idea (Reference Changyun1982, 135–38).

However, some scholars still identify southwestern Shanxi as the home of the Han of the “Hanyi.” Taking up the idea of another Qing scholar, Yu Zhengxie's 兪正燮 (1775–1840), in his Guisi leigao 癸巳類稿 [Classified Expatiations in the Year of Guisi], Yang Kuan 楊寬 identifies the Yan state in the poem not with the northern Yan near Beijing but with the southern Yan of Jí surname in Henan (Yang Kuan Reference Kuan1999, 601).

Finding it unlikely that two states of the same name coexisted, another group of Chinese scholars have proposed that the Han might have relocated. Chen Pan, depending on Qing scholar Lei Xueqi's 雷學淇 notion, surmises that, after its first establishment near Yan in Hebei, the state of Han moved first to southwestern Shanxi and finally to Hancheng in Shaanxi (1969, 345–46). On the other hand, Cho-yun Hsu, following two Qing scholars, Jiang Yong and Wang Zhichang 汪之昌, suggests the reversed route (Hsu and Linduff Reference Hsu and Linduff1988, 162).

The various ideas Chinese scholars have proposed on the identity of Han are not free from criticism. First, Zheng Xuan's commentary has a critical weakness in locating Han in Shaanxi, because all other scholars but Zheng have accepted Yan in the poem as a state name. The general locations of the Zhui and Mo tribes, which the lord of Han received from the king, to the north or northeast also do not correspond to the Shaanxi location. However, it is important to note why Zheng, a prominent scholar at that time, interpreted the “yan” not as a polity name but an adjective. To Zheng, who mistakenly believed in the Shaanxi location, it must have been contradictory to accept the building of the Han walls by the Yan people of the northeast. This in turn leads me to propose that at least by Zheng's time the theory of two different Ji-surnamed Hans had not yet emerged. This supposition is further supported by the fact that Sima Qian (ca. 145–85 bce) recorded only the Han enfeoffed in southwestern Shanxi in the “Han shijia” 韓世家 [Hereditary House of Han] of the Shiji 史記 [Records of Historian]. He perhaps did not have any information about the second Han in Hebei proposed by later scholars.

In addition to Zhu Xi's ignorance about the distance between the Han in Shaanxi and the Yan in Hebei, recent excavations in the present-day Hancheng area further dispute the Shaanxi location. In particular, the bronze inscriptions of the Rui 芮 polity unearthed from large tombs in Hancheng's Liangdaicun 梁帶村 designate the region not as the home of Han but as that of Rui from the late Western Zhou to the early Spring and Autumn period (Shaanxisheng kaogu yanjiusuo Shang Zhou yanjiushi Reference Shaanxisheng kaogu yanjiusuo Shang Zhou yanjiushi,2006, 3–4).

Meanwhile, Yang Kuan's identification of Yan as the southern Yan of Jí surname and his location of Han in Shanxi might be seemingly convincing, because the spouse, Han Jí, to whom the lord of Han got married in the “Hanyi,” was also Jí surnamed. However, the marriage took place after the Han walls were built by the people of Yan so that it is unclear whether their marriage relationship started earlier. The distance of several hundred kilometers from Yanjin 延津, the probable location of the southern Yan, in northeastern Henan to southwestern Shanxi further contradicts the connection (Shen 1982, 137).

Although more sophisticated than any of earlier explanations and thus followed by many later scholars, Chen Huan's theory also has a critical weakness. To begin, since it is certain that King Wu's descendants were definitely of a Ji-surname, the two Hans in the Zuozhuan seem to have been an identical state described in different ways. All other states listed with Han in the two usages of the text are of Ji-surname (Yang Bojun Reference Bojun1981, 422, 1160). That the state of Jin, which appears in both usages, was no doubt the same state especially supports my criticism of Chen's theory of two different Hans in the Zuozhuan.

Another important source Chen relied on for his argument about the second Ji- surnamed Han in Hebei was the Shuijing zhu. But the following “Shengshui” 聖水 part of the text Chen quoted also reveals serious problems:

Li Daoyuan composed the above quotation based on three different sources: The part on the “Hanyi,” from the commentary by Zheng Xuan, and Wang Su's idea about the Han walls that is no longer extant. Above all, I find serious problems in Li's understanding of Zheng's commentary of the “Hanyi.” In the commentary, locating Han in the vicinity of the royal domain in Shaanxi, Zheng designates the Zhui and Mo as “the states to the north of the royal domain.” Nevertheless, it is illogical for Li to rely on Zheng's commentary in order to place the Han walls near the Sheng River in present-day Hebei. Again in Zheng's commentary, the groups that moved towards the east because of the pressures from Xianyun were Zhui and Mo (Zheng Xuan Reference Xuan1980, 572). But Li rather quotes the part as if the Han polity moved to escape the pressure from Xianyun. If Li identified the Han walls in Zheng's commentary with that to the west of the Sheng River, he seems to have misunderstood or distorted Zheng's idea.

Li's quotation of Wang Su to place the walls of the Han lord in Fangcheng prefecture (present-day Gu'an) is also problematic. As mentioned above, the theory of two different Hans may not have appeared by the time of Zheng Xuan. However, about 60 years later, following Ma Rong's 馬融 (79–166 ce) scholarship to compete with the school of Zheng Xuan, Wang Su for the first time specified that the walls of the Han lord were located in the present-day Gu'an area, to the south of Beijing. Although it is impossible to know the context Wang Su proposed the idea because it is preserved only in the above quotation of the Shuijing zhu, about a century before Wang Su's time Wang Fu 王符 (ca. 85–162 ce) already proposed that the Han polity in the “Hanyi” existed in the vicinity of the state of Yan in Hebei (Wang Reference Wang Jipei1985, 446). However, as will be mentioned later, Wang Fu did not stipulate the location of the Han walls as in the Gu'an area; he evidently did not see the Han as a Ji-surnamed feudal state of Zhou as well. It is difficult to prove Wang Su's location, which seems to have extended Wang Fu's idea.Footnote ⁵ Even if we accept Wang Su's location, it is highly probable that, like Wang Fu, Wang Su did not see the Han as a Ji-surnamed feudal state. Thus, it is difficult to follow Chen Huan's proposal of the two different Ji-surnamed Hans.

Finally, the relocation theories too have weaknesses. As some scholars have pointed out, if the Zhou feudal states in general were indeed first established in the west and were then moved to the east (Hsu and Linduff Reference Hsu and Linduff1988, 162; Li Reference Li, Feng2006, 233–78), it is rather unlikely that the Han somehow moved from Hebei to Shaanxi or Shanxi. All the same, the Current Bamboo Annals suggests that the reverse relocation is not likely either, as the source mentions the Jin conquest of a Ji-surnamed Han in 757 bce (Fang and Wang Reference Fang Shiming and Wang Xiuling1981, 262). Because the “Hanyi” clearly shows that a Han existed before the destruction of the Ji family Han, the notion that in the Western Zhou period the Han moved from Shaanxi or Shanxi to Hebei seems illogical.

All of the various Chinese explanations that we have considered so far assume that Han was a Zhou feudal state ruled by a scion of the Zhou Dynasty, but some Chinese scholars have put forth different interpretations. Noting that the natural surroundings and local products (especially the animals and their skins) of Han as depicted in the “Hanyi” indeed reflect northeastern China, Xu Zhongshu 徐中舒 (1898–1991) suggested that the lord of Han in the poem was the leader of the northeastern tribes, the Hui and Mo (Xu Reference Xu Zhongshu1992, 178). Zhang Binglin 章炳麟 (1869–1936) was even more specific, linking the Han in the “Hanyi” with the “Three Hans” (Ch. Sanhan 三韓, Ko. Samhan) that the “Dongyi liezhuan” 東夷列傳 [Memoir of the Eastern Barbarians] of the Hou Hanshu described as the people of southern Korea in the second to first century bce (Zhang Taiyan Reference Taiyan1992, 15–9). Except for the identification of Han as a Zhou feudal state, Zhang's theory shares much in common with those of most Korean scholars, as I shall explain next.

Korean Scholars' Linking of Han with Old Chosoăn

Documented study of the “Hanyi” in Korea goes at least as far back as the 18^th century during the Chosŏn period (1392–1910). Some Sirhak (Practical Learning) scholars such as Han Ch'iyun (1765–1814) and Yi Kyugyŏng (1788-n.d.) followed Gu Yanwu's notion of locating the Han in Hebei. But quoting the Yanshi 燕史 [History of Yan] of a Ming scholar, Guo Zaoqing 郭造卿, in which the Zhui and Mo that the lord of Han received from the king were northern tribes, they placed the Han polity to the north or east of the Yan state near present-day Beijing (Han Ch'iyun Reference Chi'yun1996, 29–31; Yi Kyugyŏng Reference Kyugyŏng1959, 17–21). Identifying the Liangshan in the first stanza of the poem with Liangmenshan 梁門山 of Liaoxi 遼西, Han Ch'iyun tried to locate the Han state in present-day western Liaoning. It is above all significant to note that these scholars associated the lord of Han in the “Hanyi” with the ruler of the so-called Kija (Chinese Jizi) 箕子 Chosŏn, which was an Old Chosŏn state that an exiled Shang prince and his descendants were said to have ruled. In making this argument, they cited the following “Zhi shixing” 志氏姓 [Recording Lineages and Clans] of Wang Fu's Qianfu lun 潛夫論 [Comments of a Recluse] from the second century ce:

In the citation above, Wang Fu recognized two different Hans of the Zhou period: one, the Ji- surnamed descendants in Shanxi whose polity eventually became one of the seven major powers of the Warring State period; and two, the “Hanyi” poem's Han near the Yan state in the northeast. Interestingly Wang identified the latter Han as the ancestor of a ruling family that, conquered by Wi Man, moved either to the sea or to the south. In other words, he identified the Han in the “Hanyi” not only with the ancestor of Old Chosŏn (n.d-108 bce)Footnote ⁶ but also with that of Three Hans (Samhan) (ca. 1C BCE-3C CE) in the southern Korean peninsula. This kind of recognition is further reflected about one hundred years later in the Sanguo zhi 三國志 [History of the Three Kingdoms] by Chen Shou 陳壽 (n.d.-279), in which the ruler of Old Chosŏn, Chun 準, is said to have been conquered by Wi Man and moved (south) to Han through the sea route to become the king of the region. Chen further identified Chun as the descendant of about forty generations after Kija who came to Chosŏn to educate the people by introducing the “Eight Prohibitions.” In the Weilüe 魏略 [Brief Account of the Wei Dynasty], written by Yu Huan 魚豢 in the third century CE but remaining only in the form of quotation by Pei Songzhi 裵松之 (372–451 CE) in the commentary to the Sanguo zhi, Chun is also said to have been the ruler of Chosŏn and the descendant of Kija (Chen Shou Reference Shou1959, 848–50).

Therefore, since the Later Han period (25–220 CE), Chinese scholars seem to have shared the recognition that the royal family of Old Chosŏn, conquered by Wi Man, was surnamed Han, and that they were the descendants of the Han lord in the “Hanyi” and of Kija. The general tendency among traditional Chinese scholars to regard Kija as the founder of Old Chosŏn in turn led Han Ch'iyun and Yi Kyugyŏng to link the Han with Kija Chosŏn. The strong worship of Kija during the late Chosŏn period as a sage who brought civilization to ancient Korea especially affected the connection (Han Reference Han, de Bary and Haboush1985).

Reflecting such views, in the 1940s and 1960s, Kim Sanggi of South Korea and North Korea's Ri Chirin produced influential studies. Though accepting the Chinese scholars' argument that the Han relocated from Shaanxi to northeastern China, Kim understood the Han, along with the Zhui and Mo, to be early Korean people of the Dongyi 東夷 line rather than a Zhou feudal state ruled by a Ji family (Kim Reference Kim Sanggi1984, 355–68). Assuming that the Zhui and the Mo appearing in the “Hanyi” were early Korean polities, Ri too traced the origins of Korean people in northeastern China, and regarded the poem's Han as an ancient Korean state (Ri Reference Ri Chirin1964, 263–66).

In the 1980s, investigation of new archaeological discoveries in northeastern China further encouraged some South Korean scholars to regard northeastern China as a part of ancient Korean history, and Yun Naehyŏn was at the forefront (Yun Reference Naehyŏn1986, 156–62). As is true with earlier Korean scholars, Yun assumed that the Zhui and the Mo were Korean groups in northeastern China. In fact, as Chen Huan had suggested, Chinese scholars have also equated the Zhui with the Hui that Chinese historical works such as the Shiji, the Hanshu 漢書 [History of the (Former) Han], the Hou Hanshu, and the Sanguo zhi frequently linked to the Mo. Since these sources associated the Hui-Mo with Old Chosŏn, most Korean scholars regard the Hui and Mo, or “Ye-Maek” in Korean, as an ancestral Korean group that founded Old Chosŏn. Another one of Yun's key assumptions is that rather than a place name, the “han” in the poem's title “Hanyi” is a transliteration of the Manchurian and Mongolian terms han 汗 and kahan 可汗, both meaning “chief” or “great man.” This leads him to interpret the “Lord of Han” or “Hanhou” in the “Hanyi” and the Qianfu lun as a Zhou style rendering of the leader of a Korean group in northeastern China.

Likewise, there have been few Korean scholars who do not associate the Han in the “Hanyi” with the members of ancient Korean peoples, whether it was Kija Chosŏn or Old Chosŏn. In order to support this identification, they further note the similar local product, animal skins, between the Han polity in the “Hanyi” and Chosŏn in the Guanzi 管子 [(Writings of) Master Guan] (Rickett Reference Rickett1998, 2: 438, 464–65).Footnote ⁷

Despite Yun and other Korean scholars' seemingly probable speculations, however, Han Ch'iyun properly confessed over two hundred years ago that there was indeed no clear evidence to identify the Han in the “Hanyi” with Kija Chosŏn or Old Chosŏn (Han Ch'iyun Reference Chi'yun1996, 31). Of course, it is difficult to deny the possibility that the Han polity may have existed in northeastern China during the ninth century bce. Nevertheless, the association of the Han with Kija Chosŏn or Old Chosŏn must require more substantial evidence than the ambiguous belief that the two polities may have existed in the same region of northeastern China.

In this regard, Korean scholars may insist on Wang Fu's idea as the crucial evidence for the connection. However, we must remember that Wang Fu's time was more than 900 years later than that of the “Hanyi.” It seems reasonable to suppose that the record of Han in the Qianfu lun is not a primary source but only a secondary source reflecting Wang Fu's opinion. Likewise, the Sanguo zhi and the Weilüe, both of which further provide the basis for the association between the Han and Kija Chosŏn, may also be nothing but the “artifacts” that mirrored the recognition of Chosŏn among Chinese scholars during the second and third century ce (cf. Schaberg Reference Schaberg2001).

It is above all necessary to argue the relationship between Kija and Chosŏn in order to examine the validity of Wang Fu and his followers' ideas, because Korean scholars have relied on various textual` references to the “Eastward Migration of Kija to Chosŏn” after the Zhou conquest of the Shang in 1045 bce as key evidence for the antiquity of Chosŏn. Kija is then said to have become the ruler of Chosŏn at that time. To Korean scholars, the discovery in the 1970s of seemingly Kija-related vessels (especially the “Jihou fangding” 㠱侯方鼎) in the Daling River 大凌河 valley has substantiated the existence of Chosŏn in northeastern China (Yi Hyŏnggu Reference Hyŏnggu1991, 7–33), thus locating the state close to the Han in the “Hanyi.” They certainly have not failed to take note of some pre-Qin texts such as the Guanzi, the Shan Hai jing 山海經 [Classic of Mountains and Rivers], and the Zhanguo ce 戰國策 [Strategies of the Warring States], all of which seem to place Chosŏn in the northeast (see Shim Reference Shim2002, 293–95).

As I have argued (Shim Reference Shim2002, 274–75, 299), however, the various pre-Qin textual references to Kija, such as those in the Zhou Yi 周易 [Zhou Changes], the Analects, and the Shangshu 尙書 [Venerated Documents], have nothing to do with Old Chosŏn. It was not until the Han period to the best of the records at our disposal that the sources such as the Shangshu dazhuan 尙書大傳 [Great Tradition of the Venerated Documents] and the Shiji—unequivocally associating Kija with Chosŏn—appeared, stating that after Kija's exile to Chosŏn, King Wu enfeoffed him as its ruler. Moreover, these aforementioned pre-Qin texts that many Korean scholars have depended on for their argument on the antiquity of Old Chosŏn cannot be dated with certainty. Many scholars date them to Liu Xiang's 劉向 (77-6 bce) compilation of the Guanzi and the Zhanguo ce in about 26 bce, and in any event, no further back than the mid-second century bce (Loewe Reference Loewe1993, 1, 244–48, 260; Rickett Reference Rickett1998, 430, 446). Thus the Korean scholars who have cited descriptions of Old Chosŏn as given in the ostensibly seventh-century bce text of Guanzi or others have failed to recognize that these details may have only reflected the perspective of whoever actually compiled the text at a much later date. Although these three texts may provide the clues to the location of early Chosŏn, there is no question that they cannot warrant the existence of Chosŏn during the eleventh century bce.

In general, during the Warring States period, the statesmen and intellectuals of the central plain had little interest in or knowledge of their northern or northeastern neighbors (Di Cosmo Reference Di cosmo, Loewe and Shaughnessy1999, 962), but available textual references are still informative. Above all, the names of various peoples as recorded in the “Hanyi” make it certain that in the ninth century bce the Zhui and the Mo resided in the north or the northeast. In fact, many other pre-Qin texts, such as the Analects, the Mozi 墨子 [(Writings of) Master Mo], and the Mencius 孟子, used the terms “Mo” 貊, “Man-Mo” 蠻貊, and “Hu-Mo” 胡貊 for various groups in northern and northeastern China. All the same, another group of pre-Qin texts including the Zuozhuan, the Guoyu 國語 [Sayings of the States], the Bamboo Annals, and the “Shuxu” 書序 [Preface to the Documents] of the Shangshu designated the people in the northeast as “Sushen” 肅愼. These texts give the impression that the Sushen had been present in the region for centuries—even as far back as the time of the Zhou conquest of the Shang. At the very least, we can surmise that during the Warring States period, the intellectuals of the Yellow River valley considered the Sushen as a representative of northeastern China at the beginning of the Western Zhou period. In addition, the Shanrong 山戎, the Donghu 東胡, the Guzhu 孤竹, the Lingzhi 令支, and the Tuhe 屠何 are said to have resided in present-day western Liaoning during the pre-Qin era. Most likely, Old Chosŏn was only one among many groups present in the northeast at that time—thus hardly attracting any attention from the central plain's intellectuals unless it was distinct in some way (Shim Reference Shim2002, 300).

After the Qin unification in 221 bce, though, Old Chosŏn emerged as a central power either in Liaodong or the P'yŏngyang area. The Shiji's “Qin Shihuang benji” 秦始皇本紀 [Basic Annals of the First Qin Emperor] mentions that in the east the Qin territory extended to Chosŏn (Sima Qian Reference Qian1959, 239). But it is the “Chaoxian liezhuan” 朝鮮列傳 [Memoir of Chosŏn] which narrates the history of Chosŏn at some length. According to the chapter, in 194 bce Wei Man, a refugee from Yan, usurped the rulership of Chosŏn. Thereafter, the state became more powerful, emerging as an intermediary in the trade between the Han empire on one hand and various groups in Manchuria and Korea on the other. The chapter explains that when Chosŏn prevented direct contacts between the Han and eastern groups in addition to ignoring Emperor Wu's (r. 141–87 bce) warning, in 109 bce the latter attacked. Evidently, the Chosŏn was a significant military power, as its resistance lasted over a year until 108 bce, when the Han finally prevailed (Sima Qian Reference Qian1959, 2985–90).

Thus, to post-Qin scholars, the perception that Chosŏn was the strongest or the representative power in the northeast may have been inculcated. Accordingly, even long after the Han conquest of Chosŏn in 108 bce and at least by the sixth century ce, the term “Chosŏn” anachronistically designated the northeastern frontier region.Footnote ⁸

I suggest this new recognition of Chosŏn as the central power of the northeast affected Han scholars to link Kija and Chosŏn for the first time. Needless to say, the rise of the “Hongfan” 洪範 (Great Plan) of the Shangshu as an important Confucian canon in the Han political philosophy (Nylan Reference Nylan1992, 45–61) spurred Han scholars to trace the whereabouts of Kija, who is said to have taught the chapter to King Wu. It is not simply coincidental that the earliest extant text recording the “Eastward Migration of Kija to Chosŏn” is none other than the “Hongfan” section of the Shangshu dazhuan, the first commentary to the Shangshu.

As many scholars acknowledge the possibility that, like many other Shang refugees, the Kija family was exiled to the Daling River valley after the fall of the Shang, and as the “Qisu xun” 齊俗訓 [Placing Customs on a Par] of the Huainanzi 淮南子 [Masters of Huainan], which was compiled in the second century bce, mentions Kija himself's flight somewhere (Huainanzi 1936, 11.14b), a tradition may have existed since the ancient times regarding Kija's exile to the far northeast. From the perspective of Han period scholars, the place to which Kija moved was none other than Old Chosŏn, the representative power to the northeast of Han China. Accordingly, I have argued that the post-Qin notion of Kija's migration to Chosŏn was an anachronistic explanation shaped by what the historians at that time knew (Shim Reference Shim2002, 302–3). Thus, about two hundred years after the probable genesis of the story of eastward migration, it apparently became natural for Wang Fu to equate the descendants of Old or Kija Chosŏn with the “Hanyi” poem's Han that he believed was located in the northeast.

Overall, then, Korean studies on the identity of the Han in the “Hanyi” poem are not any less problematic than the works by Chinese scholars. For all the reasons I have explained so far, identification of the poem's Han with Kija or Old Chosŏn is not fully logical. For a more accurate understanding of the “Hanyi” and the Han, it is necessary to re-read the poem from a different perspective that is neither Chinese nor Korean centered.

The Center-Periphery Relations in Light of Bronze Inscriptions

So far I have pointed out various problems inherent in Chinese and Korean scholars' explanations on the identity of the Han polity in the “Hanyi,” but at this juncture I would like to highlight their common logical points. Chronologically, it seems certain that the investiture and marriage mentioned in the “Hanyi” indeed took place during the late Western Zhou, more specifically during King Xuan's reign from the late ninth to the early eighth century bce. In addition, during this time the Han polity was located near the Yan state in northern Hebei or possibly southwestern Liaoning.

While finding these common observations valid, I disagree with most Chinese and Korean scholars on the nature of the Han state itself. Neither a Zhou feudal state ruled by a Ji family nor a form of Old or Kija Chosŏn, I would like to argue that the Han as described in the poem most likely was a peripheral, non-Zhou group in the north or northeast. I base this argument on the fact that like the “Hanyi,” several Western Zhou bronze inscriptions also document the development of peripheral polities in the context with their relations with the Zhou court. In particular, both sources record with certainty regional rulers' royal audiences and their marriage relations with the royal family, both of which played important roles in reaffirming and strengthening the relationship between the Zhou and local polities (Falkenhausen Reference Falkenhausen, Feng and Prager Branner2011, 257–58; Chen Zhaorong Reference Zhaorong2007).

It is interesting in this regard to note that, as I mentioned above, some parts of the “Hanyi” probably derived from an original investiture inscription.Footnote ⁹ Though not be free from some uncertainties, the original could read as follows:

Typically, the Western Zhou investiture inscriptions comprise four parts: one, a preface noting the time and location of the investiture ceremony; two, the kings' command; three, a list of his gifts to the appointee; and four, a pro forma conclusion consisting of a recognition of the king's beneficence, a dedication to ancestors, and future wishes (Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy1991, 76–85). The reconstruction above corresponds to mostly the middle part of an investiture inscription, which is usually composed of direct quotations.

Based on Chen Hanping's 陳漢平 classification of investiture inscriptions in his study of the Western Zhou investiture system (1986, 29–35), the above passage fits very well with a typical investiture of the time (the appointee's court visit; the continuation of the appointment the appointee's ancestor received; and the title, hou 侯 [marquis] or bo 伯 [chief], given to the appointee). According to Chen, out of 80 specimens 76 deal with invested subjects within the Zhou royal domain, 3 concern hou-titled individuals closely associated with the Zhou court,Footnote ¹⁰ and just a single case is that of a bo-titled person, the “Lu Bo Dong gui”彔伯簋 [JC 4302] (1986, 343–44). Since the Han ruler mentioned in the “Hanyi” is of hou title, it would seem that the three extant inscriptions recording the investiture of a hou should be relevant for reconstructing the original inscription describing the Han ruler's investiture. All the same, the poem's last stanza indicates that the Zhou king invested the Han ruler not with the hou but instead the bo.Footnote ¹¹ Since the Han lord in the poem is said to have become a chief (bo) commanding non-Zhou northern tribes such as the Zhui and the Mo, it is likely that he was also a non-Zhou regional ruler in the north.

Likewise, the “Lubo Dong gui,” the only inscription specimen that concerns a bo-titled leader in Chen's classification, not only records a non-Zhou ruler but also resembles the investiture of the Han ruler as described in the “Hanyi.” The “Lubo Dong gui” inscription reads as follows:

As is true with the poem “Hanyi,” this mid-Western Zhou inscription records that in the court audience the king commanded Dong, the Lu ruler, to follow his ancestors, reminding him of the title that they had received from the court. The king's emphasis on the investiture from the Zhou state (Zhoubang) to Dong's ancestor may suggest that originally the Lu polity was not a part of the Zhou realm. Interestingly, the bronze vessel is dedicated to Dong's deceased father, King Li. In Western Zhou bronze inscriptions, the title of king rarely addresses any rulers other than a Zhou monarch, so it seems that Dong's father may have been a ruler of a non-Zhou polity on the fringe of the Zhou realm (Shirakawa 1969–84, 17.92, 221; Zhu Fenghan Reference Fenghan2004, 386), like the Han in the “Hanyi.” As Shirakawa Shizuka has noted, the similarity between the ritual and gift lists of the inscription and the “Hanyi” poem further suggests a correspondence between Lu and Han's political position vis-à-vis the Zhou court (Shirakawa Reference Shizuka1969–84, 223). Nonetheless, the “Lubo Dong gui” inscription's uncertain provenance and other Lu related vessels unearthed from Fufeng prefecture 扶風縣, the heartland of Zhou, in 1975 (Luo Xizhang Reference Xizhang1976, 51–60) may present a problem.Footnote ¹²

Fortunately, the bronze inscriptions commissioned by other rulers of the Zhou periphery support my argument. In his recent study on the transmission of literacy across cultural borders during the Western Zhou period, Li Feng highlights the case of Guai 乖, a northwestern frontier polity in eastern Gansu or southern Ningxia, and its ruler Mei'ao 眉敖 (2002, 212–21). The following “Guaibo gui” 乖伯簋 [JC 4331] inscription from the mid-Western Zhou offers some revealing information on the court audience of a non-Zhou frontier polity:

The inscription is full of information useful for better understanding the Han. This inscription begins with the Zhou attack against Mei'ao (the Guai ruler). After the attack, Mei'ao visits the Zhou court with gifts to the king and in return receives the king's gift with a royal command. The king addresses Mei'ao as “Guaibo” in Zhou style, which seems analogous to a Zhou king's addressing of the Han ruler as “Hanhou.” The expression, “another state” (tabang), when discussing the assistance of Mei'ao's ancestors for the Zhou court long time ago, is intriguing, as it signifies that the polity that they ruled was not part of the Zhou realm. As the king regards their aid as in effect a “foreign aid,” it is noteworthy that Mei'ao dedicated the bronze vessel to his father, Martial King Ji of Guai (Wu Guai Ji Wang)—an action mirroring that of Dong of Lu as recorded in the “Lubo Dong gui” inscription.Footnote ¹³ The “Guaibo gui” inscription also states that the Guai and the Zhou were not always at peace. Mei'ao's visit to the Zhou court was the result of a Zhou campaign led by Yi Gong (Li Reference Li, Feng2002, 220).

Like Guai in the northwest, a southern frontier state, E 噩(卾), in present-day Hubei or southern Henan, may have developed a similar relationship with the Zhou court. The “Ehou Yufang ding” 噩侯馭方鼎 [JC 2810] and the “Ehou gui” 噩侯簋 [JC 3929], both dated to the Zhou King Li's reign, mention friendly relations between the E and the Zhou. In particular, as in the case of the “Hanyi,” the “Ehou gui” mentions the marriage between the king and the lord of E's daughter, Wang Ji 王姞. However, the famous “Yu ding” 禹鼎 [JC 2833] inscription in the same reign records that, in alliance with the Southern Huaiyi 南淮夷 and the Dongyi, the lord of E rebelled against the court (Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy, Loewe and Shaughnessy1999, 330–1; Li Reference Li, Feng2002, 222–30).

Another important case is Hu on the southern periphery (present-day southern Henan) during the reign of King Mu (956-918 bce). In the “Lu zuo Xingong gui” 彔作辛公簋 [JC 4122], the “Yu ding” 鼎 [JC 2721], and the “Yu yan” 甗 [JC 948], Hu appears to have been under the control of Zhou, and led by a general, Yongfu 雍父. Especially, in the “Yu yan” inscription, the ruler of Hu is addressed as hou of the Zhou king. However, a generation later, in the “Dong gui” 簋 [JC 4322] inscription, Hu became an aggressor of Zhou, attacking as far as the southern passes that led into its eastern capital, Chengzhou (Luoyang). It is interesting to note that a derogative term “rong” 戎 (belligerent) is prefixed to designate the antagonistic Hu in the inscription (Shim Reference Shim2005, 14–23; Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy1991, 179–81).

In dealing with such peripheral groups that alternated between resistance and submission in their interactions with the Zhou, the latter may have utilized investitures like those recorded in the “Lubo Dong gui” and “Guaibo gui” inscriptions. It is precisely from this perspective that we need to explain the investiture of the lord of Han as described in the “Hanyi.” Despite King Xuan's effort to recover the authority of Zhou court, the incessant attacks by Xuanyun from the northwest contributed to the dynastic decline (Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy, Loewe and Shaughnessy1999, 345–47; Li Reference Li, Feng2006). Such a challenge most likely motivated the king to maintain good relations with the Han in the northeast (Li Reference Li, Feng2006, 137).

The investiture of the Han ruler as the chief of the northeastern region benefited both parties. It elevated the king in the ritually superior position of giving power to a reasonably reliable local leader on the periphery of the Zhou realm. At the same time, all the splendid gifts from the king functioned as symbols of the Han leader's authority vis-à-vis the neighbors of his own territory. Needless to say, the marriage between the Han ruler and a Zhou royal, possibly the king's maternal cousin, had important political implications for center-periphery relations. In addition to the “Ehou Ding” inscription mentioned above, the similar marriage pattern appears in the inscriptions of the Yu polity in present-day Baoji 寶鷄, Shaanxi (Li Reference Li, Feng2002, 231).

Therefore, as is true with the several bronze inscriptions that I have mentioned, the poem “Hanyi” is an important additional source for a better understanding of the late Western Zhou center-periphery relations. As a matter of fact, it was not until the Warring States period that China entered into a territorial state (Li Reference Li, Feng2008, 275–77), so that demarcating clearly the center, periphery and frontier of the Western Zhou kingdom is almost impossible. This further makes it difficult to study the diplomatic aspects of the Western Zhou government. Nevertheless, in the Western Zhou warfare inscriptions we can find many hostile powers, such as the Rong, Dongyi, Huaiyi, Nanyi 南夷, Chu-Jing 楚荊, and Xianyun. Located by and large in the frontiers of all four directions, they consistently appear to have had wars against the Zhou court (Shim Reference Shim2006, 73–5; cf. Shaughnessy Reference Shaughnessy1991, 176–82). We may designate them as the “antagonistic frontier powers” from the Zhou perspective.

Indeed, these “antagonistic frontier powers” are distinguishable from the peripheral groups mentioned above that alternated between resistance and submission in their relationships with the Zhou court. I propose to use the term “peripheral powers” from the Zhou perspective to designate such groups as the Lu, Guai, Hu, Ze, E, and Yu. The Han polity in the “Hanyi” could no doubt be one of them. Although it is impossible to schematize their exact locations, it is safe to place them in the buffer between the Zhou and the “antagonistic frontier powers.”

Of course, the diplomatic policies that the Zhou court pursued may have been inconsistent, and varied depending on the different regions as well as over the course of time. Nevertheless, recording the Zhou court's effort to keep a friendly relationship with a peripheral power in the northeast, the poem “Hanyi” should be a valuable addition to the understanding of center-periphery relations during the Western Zhou period, which are somewhat understudied. Moreover, except for the Yan-related early Western Zhou artifacts excavated at Liulihe 琉璃河, Beijing (Sun Reference Sun2003), few other sources on the mid or late Western Zhou period polities and groups in the northeast are known. The “Hanyi” could fill this gap.

Final Thoughts

Reflecting on contending nationalistic historiographies, it is desirable to re-read controversial sources from the larger East Asian perspectives free from national concerns, and I have sought to do so with the poem “Hanyi.” Such a reading reveals the previously unappreciated value of the poem as a historical source on center-periphery relations during the Western Zhou period. This insight has eluded the Chinese scholars who have been bound to the notion of Han as a Zhou feudal state ruled by a Ji family. Likewise, the Korean scholars committed to understanding Korean origins independently of early China have not fared better.

My approach further finds several previously neglected but important features of the poem. Among them, the third stanza seems to supplement the likely brevity of investiture inscriptions. The stanza mentions that a person named Xianfu, probably a court official in charge of hosting the Han ruler, provided him with a banquet before his return home. On behalf of the king, Xianfu is said to have given him a bronze chariot and four horses, probably the most important gifts of all to the Han leader. The stanza also offers some details on the feast such as the dishes with the drinking of the wine. Then the fourth stanza concerns the wedding ceremony of the Han ruler and the daughter of Juefu, who is indicated to have been a brother-in-law of King Li. The fifth stanza observes the Han state's natural environment in a relatively detailed fashion. The last stanza describes the Han economy, noting its local products.

If my argument about the inscriptional origin of the “Hanyi” is acceptable, the poem could be a good source for the textual history of the Classic of Poetry from the late Western Zhou to the Spring and Autumn period. Finally, I hope that the alternative interpretation I have proposed in this study contributes toward reconciling the history controversy in East Asia.