The Ethnic Composition of Bohai State on the Archaeological Materials

doi:10.4236/ad.2014.21002

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Archaeological Discovery

2014. Vol.2, No.1, 6-12

Published Online January 2014 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ad) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ad.2014.21002

The Ethnic Composition of Bohai State on the

Archaeological Materials

Olga V. Dyakova

Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the Peoples of the Far East,

Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia

Email: [email protected]

Received October 28th, 2013; revised December 8th, 2013; accepted December 19th, 2013

tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the

original work is properly cited. In accordance of the Creative Commons Attribution License all Copyrights ©

are guarded by law and by SCIRP as a guardian.

Setting the Problem: Pohai State (698-926), being situated on the territory of the Russian Primorye,

North East of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and North East of China, was created by Tun-

gus-Manchus tribes Sumo Mokhe. Pohai was a poly-ethnic (multinational) state. T r ib es Mokhe were the

basic population of it. Besides, there lived Koguryo, Paleo-Asian and Chinese residents. Each ethnic

community had its own social status that could be determined by archaeological material. For deciding

such a task the author worked out methods for determining the structure of archaeological culture. In the

Russian archaeology the term “archaeological culture” means a complex of archaeological sites situated

on one and the same territory and possessed common indications of material culture (ceramics, artifacts

out of metal, necropolis, dwellings, etc.). Structure of Mediaeval Archaeological Cultures: The author

proposes to single out three layers in material culture: aboriginal layer contains the information about

ethnic belonging; state layer characterizes handcraft production and gives a possibility to determine the

state borders; epoch layer gives a poss ibility to date sites and single out military-trade-economic ties. The

aboriginal layer is represented with artifacts being made by residents themselves. They are molded ce-

ramics, traditional decorations, the specificity of dwelling construction, funeral rites, etc. The state layer

is represented with handicraft artifacts, mainly, made by alien masters and with technology different from

the aboriginal one. For example, ceramics being produced on the potter’s wheel; types of fortifications

that were built by special (foreign) masters invited for it, and etc. The epochal-making layer is repre-

sented with artifacts that were spread on the ver y vas t territory, for example, girdles (belts) of Turk type,

ceramics of Tan dynasty, armament, etc. Three Tasks of th e Investigation: According to such methodic

principles there were set three tasks: on the archaeological material to single out the ethnic (aboriginal)

structure of Pohai state; to determine state signs; to define social status Koguryo residents in Pohai. Anal-

ysis of the Material: Ceramics. The analysis of molded ceramics exposes that on Pohai sites there was

present only Mokhe type of the vessels. There is no molded Koguryo ceramics there. The analysis of ce-

ramics, being finished off on potter’s wheel, exposes handicraft traditions and the presence of kilns, i.e.

potter’s wheel ceramics of Koguryo type were produced there. The analysis of potter’s grey-clay ceramics

exposes handicraft traditions of Tan dynasty but the absence of centers of its production. It is indicative of

trade relations. Fortifications: The appearance of stone mountain sites in Pohai is connected with fortifi-

cation traditions. The appearance of valley (plain) square sites is connected with Chinese fortification tra-

ditions. Conclusions: So, the basic (aboriginal) population of Pohai was Tungus-Manchus tribes Mokhe.

Koguryo residents in Pohai were used as potters—handicrafts men and fortification masters and, may be,

warriors. The geography of stone fortresses shows up that they were constructed for defending marine and

land roads.

Keywords: Mediaeval Archaeological Culture; Koguryo Residents; Pohai State

Introduction

It is known from written sources that as for structure of pop-

ulation the Tungus-Manchu state Pohai (698-926) was poly

ethnic (multinational) one and consisted of tribes: Mokhe

(Malgal), Paleo-Asiatics, Chinese, Koguryo residents. The so-

cial status of t hes e tribes and ethnic communities in Pohai state

has not been determined yet. It is known that a considerable

number of Koguryo residents came to Pohai after the fall of

Koguryo state. Moreover, scientific debates are continued con-

cerning to ethni c belonging of the first Van of Pohai state—

whether he was of Mokhe origin or belonged to Koguryo tribe.

But in this report I intend not to analyze the ethnic origin of the

first Van of Pohai but to determine the role, significance and

social status of Kogurye residents in Pohai state. Written

sources are quite scanty and give no opportunity to solve this

problem objectively. In fact only archaeological artifacts are

OPEN ACCESS

O. V. DYAKOVA

preserved. And I intend to use them.

Structuring Mediaeval Archaeolodgical Culture

There have been three sources of information about the me-

diaeval Far East: 1) written evidence dealing with affairs of state,

political boundaries, and the economies of the states of Bohai

and Jurzhen; 2) the remains of fortified sites, roads and craft

centers; and 3) handicraft products such as wheel-made pottery

or metallic articles found in profusion, along with many other

objects during excavations at the urban and burial sites of the

Bohai and Jurzhen cultures. Most scholars are still quite content

with the existing interpretations of this information, even though

many are merely romantic exaggerations, among which, un-

fortunately, must be counted some descriptions of the cultures of

these particular societies. It is our contention, however, that

these interpretations display instead the apparent failure of an

approach to the s t udy of mediaeval archaeological cultures

restricted to the considering of only one aspect, namely, the

urban cultural sphere, whose characteristics are very much alike

throughout various cultures due to the effects of industrial de-

velopment, yet whose origins are not necessarily nat i ve . It is

hardly questionable that governments, not excluding medieval

ones, often promoted crafts with the help of foreign craftsmen

brought in for just such a purpose. As a result, new types of

wheel-made clay ware, as well as other goods, came into being.

They had neither intrinsical links to the culture and traditions of

the local populace nor any domestic prototypes. Therefore, we

conclude that within the existing approach to a survey of me-

diaeval sites in the Russian Far East, the genuine aboriginal

culture ha s literally fallen out of the sphere of mos t researchers’

attention. Attempts have been made to solve bas ic problems of

ethnical and cultural processes in their full complexity1 while

drawing on rather irrelevant materials. This situation has

prompted us to work out a structural scheme of mediaeval arc-

haeological culture to make it clear how a given group of traits

relates to a broad analysis of a given culture. An analysis of t he

entire body of mediaeval data brought from each of t he Far

Eastern sites allowed us to speak of the three major subdivisions

within an archaeological culture. They may be defined as 1)

culturally indicative (aboriginal), 2) regional (th ose characteris-

tic of a particular state), and 3) epochal. As culturally indicative

we define those traits represented by items embodying abori-

ginal traditions, and thus suitable for reconstructing not solely

the processes of cultural development (culturogenics), but eth-

nical dy namic s as well (ethnogenics). Among such items the

foremost importance belongs to handmade clay ware produced

by t he cultural tradition bearers of a given culture themselves. It

can serve as a clear-cut recognition symbol of a culture. Hand-

made ware could not spread outside a limited area and as a rule,

this area coincided precisely with that of the archaeological

culture. To regional traits (those characteristic of a state) we

attribute objects produced, to a greater or lesser degree, with the

use of industrial methods of manufacture, including, of course,

wheel-made ceramics. Their distribution was related with the

activi ty of craft centers (workshops, “schools”, “families”,

“kilns”), whose influence seldom reached beyond the official

state boundaries. Therefore, traits of this type can be indicative

of a particular state. Items of this category may reflect both

domestic and adopted foreign traditions. This may lay the

groundwork for reconstructing patterns of political and merce-

nary contacts but is of little use when it comes to understanding

the ways of ethnical changes (ethnogenecs). Shapes and deco-

rations of vessels and other objects within this category could

change easily, subject to vogues of the time, a ruler’s tastes, or

requirements imposed by a certain social straum, whereas tech-

nique and technological traditions were usually prone to sta bi l-

ity.

Classified as epochal need to be those cultural elements

which prove more or less ubiquitous, regardless of geographical

or political barriers, and, as characteristic traits, belong to no

particular society but to a definite time span. Such would be

Turkic belts, Mongol arrowheads, selected types of wheel-made

pottery, or certain designs of ornamentation, to mention just a

few. They are good for dating complexes and cultures, or at-

testing to martial, economic or religious events and interactions,

but are in no way suitable for building reconstructions of the

patterns of ethnical changes.

To sum up, we believe that any mediaeval archaeological

culture has to be analyzed as a triplex structure that comprises

three groups of traits: aboriginal, regional (those relating to a

state) and epochal. Thi s approach makes not only answering

questions about cultural roots, changes and chronology possible,

but also lets us advance to more adequate historical associations

and realistic interpretations, n ot in the least those helping to

solve the problem of the genesis and development of particular

states in this area.

Task One

To answer the question: what ethnic communities were the

native (indigenous) population of Pohai state? Ceramics is the

most objective material in this case. Vessels out ceramics, that

were discovered in archaeological sites of Pohai culture in the

North-East of China and on the territory of the Russian Pri-

morye are the basic material (Figure 1). My analysis of ceram-

ics revealed that as for techniq ue it is represented by thre e cat-

egories of articles: modeled vessels, ceramics, being completed

on potter’s wheel and potter’s ceramics. All these three catego-

ries a re done w ith different technique, th at is on different ethnic

traditions. The first category-modeled ceramics made with cir-

cular band model (Figure 2).

Its forms are vases, pots, jars with modeled cylinder under

the top, decoration and technique of modeling are traditional for

Mokhe tribes (Malgal). Modeled earthenware was made by

native indigenous population. Such type of vessels—Mokhe

one—was developing on the territ ory of North East China and

the Russian Far East (Priamurye and Primorye) for more than

one thousand years. Such earthenware is characteristic for

Mokhe culture (Malgal), culture of the Amur Jurchen and it

could be met almost on all Pohai sites. In Koguryo state the

other modeled earthenware was traditional, and it is absent on

Pohai sites. So, the main indigenous residents of Pohai state

were the tribes of Mokhe (Malgal), that is the Tungus-Man-

chus.

Task Two

To determine Kogurye materials on Pohai sites. In this case

we could use the second category of ceramics—handicraft p ot s

of definite form, decoration and proportions, modeled on pot-

ter’s wheel. They are met on all Pohai sites and are analogous

to Kogurye handicraft pots (Figure 3).

Such type of earthenware is marking Pohai cultures and is

defined as Pohai ceramics of Koguryo origin. Besides of Pohai

“Ethnogenesis” or ethnogenics, and “culturogenesis” or culturogenics, re

spectively, as Russian terminology puts it.

OPEN ACCESS 7

O. V. DYAKOVA

Figure 1.

The map of Pohai sites of the North East Primorye.

Figure 2.

Bohai culture of P rimorye Group 1. Handmade pottery; Novogordeevskoye town site,

Konstantinovskoye village, Kraskinskoye town site, Petrovskoye village.

pots, in Pohai culture of sites of North East Primorye—Sine-

gorye 1—ther e appeared long potter’s kilns being traditional for

Kogurye. That is, the appearance on Pohai sites handicraft Ko-

guryo earthenware is not a result of trade-economic relations

when earthenware would be bring over from anywhere. The

presence of potter’s kilns—is an index of native production and

indirect presence on Pohai monuments of Kogurye potters.

Judge by a number of potter’s articles, the r e we re quite a num-

ber of Koguryo potters in Pohai and such was the situation not

only in central provinces but on the outskirts of stat e. For ex-

ample, it was so in the north-east of Primorye where the re were

discovered kilns of Koguryo type and the very ceramics itself.

So the conclusion is that in Pohai state Koguryo residents re-

presented the strata of crafts-men.

OPEN ACCESS

O. V. DYAKOVA

(a) (b)

Figure 3.

Bohai culture of Primorye. Group 2. Bohai pottery; Novogrdeevskoye town site, Nikolaevskoye-II town site, Kunaleiskoye tow n site, Bogopol town

site, Kuznetsovskoye town site, Dzhigitovskoye town site Sinegorye dwelling site Nikolayevskoye-2 town site.

Task Three

To show: what function, besides handicraft one, was exer-

cised by Koguryo residents? This task could be seen through

analyzing fortification constructions. After the fall of Koguryo

state on the territory of Primorye, in particular in the north-east,

there appeared stone fortresses that were constructed according

to Koguryo traditions. They wer e built out of stones (rocky)

and without cement linking. Stones had g ot special trim, and

walls became solid. Stone fortresses on isolated hills are located

on the tops of separately standing hills, often rock outcrops, and

are built of stones without cementing. Positioned so as to do-

minate local landscapes, such fortifications permit a good view

of neighboring valleys and obviously must ha ve served strateg-

ic purposes. Today we know of ten stonework fortresses in

Primorye, six of the m are located in central Sikhote-Al in

mountain range and on East Sea’s (Sea of J a pa n’ s ) eastern and

northeastern coasts: Shmyrkov Klutch, Zabolotnoye (Altar) in

Serebryanka rive r basin, Klutchi (Dzhigitovka river basin),

Vaskovskoye (Rudnaya river basi n ), Seselevskoye (Zhivopis-

naya river basin), Yashu. Pla nigraphy of stone fortre sse s

is simple. The builders chose flattened areas and adjacent sur-

faces available on suitable hills. Fortifications consist of round

or serpentine stonework walls encircling a hill. Constructing

technologies are interesting for the presence of persistent tech-

nical patterns and ultimate skill. Building s t o ne was usually

procured on the locality. Durability of walls highly depended

on methods of stone processing. Prior to raising of wall, build-

ers would flatten an underlying surface. The width of a stripe to

be flattened was up to 2 - 6 m. It was to be covered with a layer

of big stones, specially processed—each piece of stone had a

raised border on its edge so that an overlying stone would not

slip. Stones in the upper layers are pyramidal in shape. The

higher the laye r, the smaller the stones. It seems that the size of

stones was standardized for each layer. T he shape of the stones

has some notable particularities—each stone was rectangular in

the base, had rounded corners in the middle, and was tapered at

the top. T he lowest part of the wall on the inside was stair-

case-shaped (Figures 4 and 5).

To sum up, the stone-built mountain fortresses can be cha-

racterized by the following features: placement in strategically

important localities atop dominating heights; the use of

OPEN ACCESS 9

O. V. DYAKOVA

Figure 4.

Stone fortress of the North East Primorye; Zabolotnaya.

Figure 5.

The map of the Stone Fortresses of Northeastern Primorye.

local building material; lack of cementing; standardized stone

shapes and sizes of certain wall parts; staircase-shaped inner

wall configuration; absence of continuous vertical seams; ar-

tificial flattening of hill surface before construction. According

to collected data, stonework fortresses were built during the

Mohe and Bohai times.

This method was widely used only by Koguryo representa-

tives. The Mokhe residents never built such fortresses. These

fortresses were situated on separate hills, usually on bare terri-

tory, on dominating hills giving opportunity to control all en-

OPEN ACCESS

O. V. DYAKOVA

trances to the valleys. There are ten such fortresses: in Yashu,

Zabolotnaya, Shmyrkov Kliuch, Vas’kovskoye site, Kliuchi,

Soenskon site. So, a definite part of Koguryo residents was on

military service, and judging to location of s t one fortresses,

Pohai used them for defending his boundaries, in particular, of

North East Primorye.

By choice of location, constructing methods, a nd purposes,

stone fortresses of Primorye derive from fortification traditions

of Koguryo fortresses, often bei ng virtually identical with those.

Perhaps this tradition of arranging a fortified site was adopted

by t he Mohe and Bohai not before 7th century AD, i.e. after the

downfall of Koguryo state and Koguryo people having become

the Bohai citizens.

The Koguryo traditions in medialval town-planning in Pri-

morye. The construction technology used in northeastern Pri-

morye to erect stone fortresses (Shmyrkov Klu tc h, Zabolotnaya,

Klutchi, Vaskovskoe Ozero) obviously reproduces the Koguryo

technology and actually derives from the latter.

With Koguryo bulders, just the same way as with the Jurzhen

from East Xia State, the main criteria of choosing a building

location were precipitous mountainous landscape and presence

of lar ge ri ve r.

Of 176 Koguryo town sites found in northeastern China and

North Korea only 56 have been researched. Among them th e re

are 47 stonework fortresses and only 9 earthen ones (Sokson,

Ensonja, Thapsan, Koi, Puksansondja, Rendam, Sariho, Mokki,

Hongenno in Manchuria and Anhak in North Korea). The au-

thor have already published her stu dy of links between me-

diaeval stone fortresses of Russian Primorye and Koguryo, thus

no point in elaborating on this here. We must remember though

that construction technology used in northeastern Primorye to

build sto ne fort re sse s (Shmyrkov Klutch, Zabolotnaya, Klutchi,

Vaskovskoe Ozero) obviously reproduces the Koguryo tech-

nology and actually derives from the latter (Dyakova, 2005).

All the more so because ceramic materials from the above men-

tioned Primorye’s fortresses are comparable with the Mohe and

Bohai traditions, contemporaneous with the Koguryo culture. It

is known that military and technical innovations spread fast

enough. Koguryo’s fortified earthen mountain towns, as op-

posed to stone fortresses, are scarcely explored for various rea-

sons. For a l o ng time Korean, Chinese, and Russian scholars

worked separately in their own countries. Today we have got an

opportunity to analyze and compare the results relevant to the

problem of genesis and development of mediaeval fortifications

in the Far East. Geophysical parameters of Russian Primorye,

northeastern Korea and northeastern China are similar enough,

and this fact should have in similar way influenced the process

of choosing a location by inhabitants of these territories when it

came to building a fortified site. The choi ce woul d be dictated

by landscape. The Koguryo pe op l e as well as the Jurzhen from

East Xia preferred a s teep mountainous topography and pres-

ence of large river. Korean written sources state that, as a rule,

the Koguryo placed their mountain towns on hillto ps facing the

lowlands. “… Outside the fortresses they raised earthen bul-

warks to prev e nt the use of ladders and v isibility of actions

inside the fortress… Even if enemies fiercely attacked, their

hike from the ba se of the hill to the fortress exhausted them,

they breathed interruptedly, their ardor died away, while our

soldiers remained calm, inspired and ready to fight against in-

truders by letting big boulders roll down t he hill—enemies fell

right on the run” (Un, 2005). Kim Gi Un wrote that the Ko-

guryo mountain towns were always found in the presence of

water source. Water not only provided means of transportation,

but served as a natural border helping to control an enemy’s

movement and limiting the latter’s maneuverability (Nosov,

2001). To build mountain towns, the Koguryo chose places

near the valleys inhabited by people who could supply human

force as well as food, yet find shelter in the fortress in danger-

ous situations. Such pattern is comparable to the Jurzhen of

East Xia’s. An unconditional rule for the Koguryo to choose a

place to build a town was the presence of convenient means of

transportation, i.e. waterways and roads, permitting both ma-

neuverability and communicability with neighboring fortresses.

The Jurzhen obeyed the same rul e , as we noted before. All of

the Koguryo’s mountain towns were crossed by rivers or

streams, otherwise had ponds and wells. For example, accord-

ing to ancient scripts, the Koguryo town of Taeson had 99

ponds plus a brook. The East Xia’s Jurzhen provided t he m-

selves with water the similar way. To ensure the combatant

value of their towns the Koguryo paid ultimate attention to

reinforcement of fortress walls, the basic fortification element.

Like the Jurzhen, the Koguryo builders erected watch posts and

towers over gates. Near a gat e the fortress’ wall was usually

duplex, while in front of the gate there was a protective wall

with embrasures at sides, known as “chokte”. Watch posts, as a

rule, helped to strengthen wall corners and served as command

posts. Similar constructions are typical for mountain towns of

Jurzhen too. With Koguryo fortresses, an important defensive

role played embrasures placed so as to permit shooting at an

enemy directly or from sides. Before the invention of embra-

sure it was impossible to shoot at the troops which had made

their way right under the walls. Korean scholars believe em-

brasures to be a Koguryo’s invention while protective walls,

gates in the wall without tower, defensive lin es, and double

walls to be distinctive features of Koguryo mountain fortresses.

Having analy zed Primorye’s mountain towns belonging to the

Jurzhen of East Xia and Koguryo’s mountain fortifications, we

come to the conclusion that the influence of Koguryo’s fortifi-

cations on the development of Jurzhen type of mountain towns

was an immense one. To say the least, the Jurzhen people did

adopt Koguryo’s principles of placement of fortresses in

mountainous landscape. Those principles include the following:

protection by hills on three sides, while on one side, usually

southern, the presence of water-containing ravine; methods of

obtaining and keeping fresh water; distribution of fortification n

elements (on the wall, at gates, by corners). At the same time

Jurzhen’s mountain towns retained some Chinese fortification

traditions, Hantu earthen wall-mounds in the first place. It is

known that from the ancient times Chinese tow ns were sur-

rounded with earthen walls where the filling soil was put in

layers, each layer being rammed by special wooden rollers. As

a re su lt, the walls became ve ry firm and reached eight meters in

height. This method ha ve been known in China since 4th cen-

tury BC, and since 6th century BC the Chinese ha ve used stone

lining of curtain-walls and built the towers. Apparently the

Koguryo adopted the method of erecting earthen walls from the

Chainese as early as in antiquity, but further adapted it to

mountainous environment. On the other hand, by geomorphol-

ogy as well as fortification and constructing technologies the

stonework mountain fortresses built by the Mohe and Bohai

peoples correspond well with Koguryo traditions and appear to

be derived from the latter. Thus we are to co nc l ud e that in Pri-

morye the two types of mountain fortified sites built by me-

diaeval Tungus-Manchurians—the Mohe, Bohai, and Jurzhen

OPEN ACCESS 11

O. V. DYAKOVA

peoples—obviously meet the requirements typical of Ko-

guryo’s town-building traditions, having been, as it seems,

founded on the latter.

Conclusion

Thus, the an a l ysis of archaeological material let such conclu-

sions be made: the indigenous residents of Pohai state were

tribes of Mokhe (Malgal). After the fall of Koguryo a consi-

derable number of Koguryo residents joined Pohai state. It was

so significant tha t Koguryo earthenware became the princ ipal

indicator. Therefore, a certain part of Koguryo residents got the

status of crafts-men, in particular, potters. The presence of

stone fortresses, being built according to Koguryo building

traditions, shows that in Pohai there were a considerable num-

ber of Koguryo fighting men and fortification builders (masters)

building st o ne fortresses and defending borders. Undoubtedly,

some part of Koguryo residents bore a rela tion to administrative

sys t em of Pohai, but it is difficult to trace it according to arc-

haeological data. Evidently, Koguryo peasants inculcated agri-

cultural practice to Tungus Manchus population of Pohai, b ut

there are fe w archaeological facts on it yet.

Acknowledgements

The work is done under financing of grant by RGNF No.

12-31-09008.

REFERENCES

Dyakova, O. V. (2005). Gorodischa i kreposti Dalnego Vostoka (seve-

rovostochnoye primorye). (Ancient Town Sites and Fortresses of Far

East. (Northeastern Primorye)). Vladivostok, 171.

Nosov, K. S. (2001). Zamki i kreposti Indii, Kitaya i Japonii (Castles

and Fortresses of China and Japan). Rejttarj, Moscow, 27.

Un, K. G. (2005). Research of Particulariries of Koguryo Mountain

Towns (pp. 138-152). Separately printed copy. Similar characteriza-

tion of Koguryo towns was offered by Prof. Na m Il Ren, University

Kim Il Sung, at Second International Conference on Korean Studies.

OPEN ACCESS