Palhae Independent of China’s Tang Dynasty
[코리아타임스 2006-09-14 17:30:28]
By Yoon Won-supStaff Reporter

The following is the third in a series of articles on China’s distortion of Korean history. This part deals with the Palhae Kingdom (698-926). _ ED.

One of the most delicate problems with the ancient Korean Kingdom of Palhae is there are few formal and authoritative historical records about the kingdom, which has caused historians to assume different views about the kingdom.

Debates boil down to two key issues: how much sovereign independence Palhae enjoyed from China’s Tang Dynasty (618-907) and what was the ethnic background of the Palhae people.

For example, a monument describing Palhae’s relations with Tang set up by the Chinese government near Mt. Paektu claims that Palhae was one of the provinces of Tang.

Part of the monument reads in red letters, ``Palhae, which was one province of Tang Dynasty, used this road to send a tribute to Tang.’’

This reflects the most important rationale of China’s claim to Palhae because Chinese historians think the tribute-investiture relationship takes place within one nation. In short, the Chinese side considers the independence of Palhae was not strong enough to be sovereign.

Sovereign Independence

Most of Northeast Asian countries see Palhae as an independent nation in its relations with Tang while China alone looks at the relations from a different perspective.

``The Chinese argument that Palhae was not independent enough is based on the fact that a tribute-investiture relationship existed between Palhae and Tang,’’ Han Giu-cheol, history professor of Kyungsung University in Pusan told The Korea Times. ``They claim Palhae kings were invested with the title of governor-general of the province of Tang.’’

However, Han said that the investiture relationship at that time must be understood as a ``diplomatic procedure.’’ The international order in Northeast Asia was led by China, but the relationship was between nations, he said.

Han said the tributary relationship was a type of trade by government officials between dynasties.

Actually, Palhae always used its ``own era name’’ and freely offered posthumous titles to deceased kings without Tang’s approval, according to the New History of the Tang Dynasty, a Chinese historical record.

There is other evidence that Palhae was independent of Tang.

Palhae, for example, even launched an armed attack on Tang in 732. King Mu, the second monarch of Palhae who died in 737, struck Tang’s military base near the border of Palhae because he feared an attack from Tang.

Palhae also used its own sovereign royal title. The tomb of Princess Chonghyo, the fourth daughter of King Mun, the third ruler of Palhae who died in 793, described Palhae as an empire and its king as an emperor.

The general view of historians at home and abroad, with the exception of China, is that Palhae was an independent kingdom, not a part of China’s Tang.

However, when it comes to the ethnic composition of the Palhae people, historians differ more widely.

Composition of Palhae People

Korean history textbooks say that rulers of Palhae were Malgal people while the subjects were displaced people from Korea’s ancient kingdom of Koguryo (37 B.C.- A.D. 668). So the question is whether Palhae belongs to the Koguryo or Malgal people.

This is a very delicate question historians with many different answers. Even Korean historians do not share the same view on this matter.

Generally, Korea maintains that Palhae was a kingdom of displaced Koguryo people. Some Korean and Japanese scholars argue that the ruling class consisted of Koguryo people who ruled the Malgal tribes.

Chinese, Russian and some Japanese scholars say that Palhae was ruled by a dynasty of the Malgal people.

Professor Han of Kyungsung University argues that if that is the case, Palhae is ``definitely a part of the history of Korea because the ruled are more important than the rulers.’’

``Japan’s colonial rule of Korea from 1910 to 1945 is also part of Korean history even though Japanese were rulers,’’ he said. ``Even though there are some debate about Malgals, it is clear that the Koguryo people were main people of Palhae.’’

Emerging from that argument, is the issue of whether Palhae is a successor state of Koguryo.

Palhae, Successor of Koguryo

China’s argument that Palhae was composed of the Malgals is based on the New History of the Tang Dynasty, which describes Tae Cho-yong, the founding king of Palhae, as a Malgal tribesman. Tae died in 719, according to historical records.

China also denies the connection between Koguryo and Palhae, citing the Old History and New History of the Tang Dynasty, which places Koguryo in the “Eastern Barbarian Dynasties’’ and Palhae in the ``Northern Barbarian Dynasties.’’

However, another Chinese historical record, the History of Sui Dynasty (581-618) included both Koguryo and Palhae in the ``Eastern Barbarian’’ section.

``China’s writers of history couldn’t accept Palhae, which was established 30 years after the demise of Koguryo, as a kingdom that succeeded Koguryo,’’ Han said, ``because they had maintained a dynasty-centered approach since the Old History of the Tang Dynasty.’’

So the consensus is that Palhae is a successor of Koguryo in both territory and inhabitants, historians said, adding that it does not make sense the Malgals suddenly replaced all the Koguryo people in former Kogyryo territory or that they suddenly increased to outnumber the indigenous Koguryo people.

Clear-cut evidence come from the Old History of the Tang Dynasty, which was written by Chinese historians.

The book indicates that Palhae is a successor of Koguryo by saying that the customs of Palhae and Koguryo were very similar.

The similarities include language and the ceremonies of coming of age, marriage, funeral rites and memorials to ancestors.

For example, tombs of Palhae’s government officials were built in the Koguryo style with the same stone chambers, stonewalls and stone coffins, historians say.

China’s attempt to distort history has been criticized not only by the world but also by Chinese people. Former Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai said that Palhae belonged to Korea and apologized over China’s chauvinism when he met with North Korean scholars in 1963.

``History must not be distorted. It is absurd to say that the western part of the Tumen River and the Yalu River were Chinese territory,’’ the former Chinese premier said. ``This error came from historians, and we must fix this error.’’

yoonwonsup@koreatimes.co.kr

ⓒ 한국아이닷컴, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지<한국아이닷컴은 한국온라인신문협회(www.kona.or.kr)의 디지털뉴스이용규칙에 따른 저작권을 행사합니다>

i think in general, history written at the time is considered to be more accurate. if u want to use ethnic arguments and ethnic arguments only, it doesn't really hold much weight in terms of arguments about legitimacy, lineage, and spirit of a kingdom.

for instance, other non korean kingdoms called Palhae the "New Koguryo". This was during the time as well. For instance, if Asianfinest closed down because it got taken over by AsianAvenue, the owners of Asianfinest were killed, and then some of the mods of Asiafinest started up Asianworld.com (random name), the format is the same as Asianfinest, the members are the same, the topics, feel, spirit of the forum is still the same, had beef with Asianavenue cus they were pissed they took over Asianfinest, and other people with legitimacy and independence to make their own shotcalls, calls Asianworld the new Asianfinest forum, then guess what. It is the "new" Asianfinest forum.

I don't agree with the bolded statement. Just because there are sources from the same era as the studied era, it doesn't eliminate the possiblity of political/cultural bias, stereotyping, or misunderstanding. For instance, there are many sources that indicate the after the invasion of the Jin by the Mongols, the mongol themselves considered the Northern Han and Jurchens the same people, all classified under the category "Han." Does that mean the Jin is a Han Kingdom, or that Han and Jurchen are interchangeable terms? Absolutely not, but rather it was lack of understanding and interest that the Mongol had with level of cultural assimilation that went on in the northern kingdom.

I don't like to use ethnic arguments either, but I also think you shouldn't ignore it. But the key to any argument like this is consistency. If you were to ignore the fact that Parhae was founded by ethnic Malgals, and use the arguement of Kogoryo cultural influence as the main argument for who is Parhae's legitimate predesessor, then you must do that for all kingdoms (at least for this school of though). Therefore, the Jurchen/Manchu roots of the Jin and Qing Dynasty's must also be ignored; which pretty much wipes the Mohe, Jurchen, Manchu, etc. off of the historical texts. An act like that is just much of an imperialistic act as the one aimed by the Northeast Project. But from what the Korean poster from above has said, in Korea, they teach the Jin as Jurchen, and Qing as Manchu; both of which contradicts Korea's argument for their claim to Parhae.

But like I said before, using today's ethnic, national, and political boundaries to make claims to historical kindgoms of the past is very problematic. History simply doesn't work like that.

Jin is a founding dynasty right? Palhae was not a founding dynasty. They clearly referred to themselves as Koguryo at least to those who were friendly to the memory of Koguryo.

Also, I believe that using modern day definitions to reconstruct ancient kingdoms is a flawed idea in itself. Also, Chinese history would have more of an emphasis on its Han politics and identity, while modern Korean history would have more of a reconciliation bent towards reunification, so the idea of trying to construct a uniform modern day definition to ancient histories is also flawed from a flawed perspective in itself if that makes any sense...

At the time of founding of Palhae, throughout its continuation of its history, even during its successful resistance against the Liao, and to the Palhae nobles escaping to Koryo when Palhae fell, its spirit and identity had no founding origin in the Tang Dynasty, but rather the Koguryo dynasty and nobles and peoples. But I do agree with you, I believe that trying to use modern day definitions to reconstruct ancient kingdoms is a flawed idea in itself.

Barhae did refer to itself as "Koryo" or "Koguryo" according to some contemporary diplomatic documents in Japan.

So ignoring Parhae's founders, and even majority of population, as Malgal is quite a contradiction.

Also, I never made any correlation of Parhae with the Tang. I don't know why you made that statement about it.

Korean ancient diplomatic sources clearly stated that they see Bohai kingdom as a barbaric kingdom of Mogal people. They see Bohai lineage as herpes of sorts per diplomatic letters. It's pretty obvious Bohai has little to do with koreans. Modern Korean historigraph makes a lot of dubious claims with regard to Bohai kingdom. They even make up a term called "Later Goguryo" where you can not even find a single ancient record showing the existence of the term "Later Goguryo"in korean, Japanese, or Chinese sources at all. Why is it so important to koreans to claim "Bohai" and falsely create "Later Goguryo"? It's very easy to understand. The only purpose is trying to " theorically connect" the 200 plus years gap missing between Goguryo and Koryo dynasty to make the lie looks half real. Luckily majority of those ancient sites and artifacts are in China. There is justice. More I get in touch with South Koreans in message boards or in real life, more I think North Korea is soooo important to China. Long life North Korea and Kim Jong-Il!!!

Again, your replies to the Koguryo/Parhae issue are sketchy. Almost bland. It's like your making things up on the top of your head, hoping to trick some of the naive users here. Since no one here will even correct your post, let me be the one to educate you.

Contact with the Khitan started from Taejo's regin. Not many years after the Khitan overthrew Parhae in 926 and so came to share a common border with Koryo, they sent an embassy to present fifty camels to the Koryo king(942). Taejo, however, regarded the Khitan as uncivilized and immoral, and he banished the envoys to an island, letting the camels starve to death under the Manbugyo, a bridge in Kaesong. At the same time, Taejo welcomed refugees from Parhae, worked to restore Pyongyang, the former Koguryo capital, and in other ways too sought to realize his dream of recovering the ancient territories of the Koguryo kingdom.

Historians sometimes refer Parhae as "Lesser Koguryo." Another fine example of your many misunderstandings. And to add to that, Parhae called it's self Koguryo. This is evident in the text of an official communication conveyed by a Parhae enovy to Japan, in which Parhae called itself the "state of Ko[gu]ryo." The original name was Chin(698), the name Parhae dates from 713. What's the matter? Ran out of things to nippick on? So now your questioning different aliases of Parhae? How low of you. But what do you expect from Manchurian d!ckrider. Trying to suck every last ounce. An uneducated peasant trying to lecture us on our history? Ha! Your like the poorman's SantaKlaws.

Quite an irrelevant information. Kidan was Kidan. Mohe was Mohe. Since you mentioned, I will elaborate a little bit with all citations from Korean sources (ancient and modern) in this post.

Koryo king Taejo（高丽太祖）has never said a word about “recovering” Goguryo. That’s in your imagination or over interpretation. Koryo founder drafted his version of ten national commandments (十訓要) for his successors to follow.

In 4th commandment, he mentioned that Koryo forefather had followed Tang China tradition and political system, but customs and people of two countries were still different. So my descents do not necessarily have to follow the trend of Tang of the old. On the contrary, Kidan is an animal-like kingdom with custom and language vastly different from Koryo. He warned his offsprings never act or imitate how Kidan act. Here is that original quote.

其四曰; 惟我東方, 舊慕唐風, 文物禮樂, 悉遵其制, 殊方異土, 人性各異,不必苟同. 契丹, 是禽獸之國, 風俗不同, 言語亦異, 衣冠制度, 愼勿效焉.

In his 5th commandment, he mentioned he has achieved the greatness based on the soil of Samhan. (No metioning of Gouguryo ) The security of Pyongyang is very important to the foundation of the country; it’s necessary to patrol the area four seasons around…….blah blah blah. Here is that original quote.

其五曰; 朕賴三韓山川陰佑, 以成大業, 西京水德調順, 爲我國地之根本, 宜當四仲巡駐, 留過百日, 以致安寧.

Tell me where did he say that he want to recover Goguryo? It’s all in your imagination based on the wishful thinking of modern Korean historiography. Bohai refugees also fled to China during Chinese fragmentation era. Some fled to Koryo. A lot of them fled to Malgal tribes up north. Does that prove Bohai refugees were Koreans? And most of them stayed in Bohai land where a Kidan princess formed a new kingdom named Dongdan (东丹国; meaning: east of Kidan. ), later was annexed by Kidan all together. Moreover, Bohai identity did not vanish until Mongolian Yuan dynasty. It’s in Yuen dynasty goverement census, my friend.

More to come! Korean ancient source clearly indicated they regarded Bohai as savages per diplomatic letters. I can show you right here. This is from Korean ancient source:

《谢不许北国居上表》（《东文选》卷三十三“表笺”)
臣谨按渤海之源流也，句骊未灭之时，本为疣赘部落，靺羯之属，寔繁有徒，是名粟末小蕃，尝逐句骊内徙。其首领乞四羽及大祚荣等，至武后临朝之际，自营州作孽而逃，辄据荒丘，始称振国。

read the bold: origin of Bohai people; herpes warts clan; their clan name "sumo"(Sumo Mohe or Sumo Malgal). Brother! this is from Korean ancient diplomatic letter.
I have read Nihonqi, my friend. Read carefully! You will understand that was how Japanese court perceived Bohai as a successor of Goguryo. Not that Bohai envoys had claiming so. Not mentioning, there were several times that numerous Bohai envoys were killed by Japanese guards when they landed Japan. Apparently Japan herself at the time had no clear idea where those envoys really came from.

A side note: The first name Bohai kingdom ever adopted was Chin(震国) which has nothing to with Chin (辰国) of Samhan confederation. They had no relationship. Apparantly Hanja still has its use, huh? Koreans can confuse people with characters that pronounce the same. The truth can easily get exposed when you see it in the original form.

And you don't have to argue with me. Check your own korean text book or government website. They have these terms such as "Later Goguryo" or "Later three kingdom" lingering all over the places where you CAN’T find a single existence of those terms anywhere in korean, chinese, or japanese ancient sources.

here is Korean governement website in Chinese: (read the beginning paragraph.)

http://www.hanguo.net.cn/history/?mid=135
新罗被像甄萱和弓裔这样的造反领袖闹得四分五裂。甄萱于公元900年在全州宣布成立后高句丽。最后一个造反领袖、贵族家庭子弟王建成了弓裔的首席大臣。王建于公元918年以弓裔行为不轨和滥用权力而推翻了他，并寻求和得到了地主和商人们的支持。此时地主和商人的政治和经济势力都已远远胜过新罗政府。　王建于公元934年轻而易举地向后百济发动袭击，并于公元935年接受了后百济的主动投降。翌年，王建又接受新罗景顺王的逊位....blah blah blah... look at that word 后高句丽(later Goguryo)

another korean website in Chinese: (read the last paragraph)

http://www.koreanfolk.co.kr/folk/chinese/k...tory/a/b2-1.htm

blah blah blah.........甄萱和弓裔各自建立了國家，叫后百濟和后高句麗(later Goguryo)(叫泰封)．這些國家和新羅國叫后三國(Later three kingdoms)．后三國是隨着高麗的建國而滅亡.
Terms such as "Later Goguryo" and "Later Three Kingdoms" are creative terminologies to " theorically connect" the 200 plus years gap missing between Goguryo and Koryo dynasty. Understand? I suggest you don’t waste my time and yours to argue with me. I know what Iam talking about, brother.

Funny, a Chinese questioning what our late king Taejo said? By the way, that wouldn’t be wishful thinking if Koryo was the successor of Koguryo. It was a direct quote from the New History of Korea. Not only that, the one hundred volumes entitled Yugi (Extant Records) was produced in early Koguryo and that was re-worked into a five-volume Sinjip (New Compilation). The Sinjip was used into the making of Samguk Sagi’s complied quotes from the late Koguryo kings to later Ko[gu]ryo kings. Of course, the Sinjip wasn’t Bu sik's only source.

Are you not familiar with Koryo’s northern expansion?

When Parhae perished at the hands of the Khitan around this same time, much of it’s ruling class, who were of Koguryo decent, fled to Koryo. Wang Kon (king Taejo) warmly welcomed them and generously gave them land. Along with bestowing the name Wang Kye (“Successor of the Royal Wang”) on the Parhae crown prince, Tae Kwang-hyon, Wang Kon entered his name in the royal household register, thus conveying the idea that they belonged to the same lineage, and also had rituals performed in honor of his progenitor, as stated in the Samguk Sagi in traditional Chinese dynastic format.

King Taejo put a northern expansion policy for later kings when he made Koryo’s boundary line to the Chongchon River in 942. Chongjong (945-949) planned to move the capital to Pyongyang and so undertook construction there on a large scale; it was also he who formed the Resplendent Army (Kwanggun) to prepare against the Khitan. From the time of Kwangjong (949-975), then, Koryo began to actively push toward the Yalu, establishing numerous garrison forts across the Chongchon River.

Koryo’s enhanced consciousness of national identity, aroused by the trauma of reaching bellicose neighbors (Mongols), naturally found it’s reflection in the literature of the period. One manifestation of this awareness of nationhood, in narrative poetic form, is Yi Kyu-bo’s “Saga of King Tongmyong” (romanization: Tongmyong wang pyon), the semi-legendary founder of Koguryo.

Majority of Parhae citizens went down to Koryo or joined the kingdom of Ting-an.
The Magals were left behind when the Khitans took over. The remaining natives fought off the Khitans and formed the kingdom of Ting-an. Founded by remnants of Parhae and Jurchen envoys. Note Parhae and Magals were different entities. Hell, even you aknowledge it.

You keep citing that qoute and calling it legit yet, I have never heard about it. Why are you showing me something you know I can’t read. And from what kingdom does this so-called diplomatic letter come from? Is the qoute complied in a book I can look into, or is this information from a internet site?

Now now, is it that hard for you to believe Parhae called it self the "state of Koguryo?" Well, too bad. It's sad you rely on the Nihongi of all sources. It's more of a historical juncture with a fictional peotic aspects of events not written in correct Chinese dynastic form. Similar to the Samguk Yusa in way. Where it's more of a story then historical textbook.

Is this the subject your now targeting? Names? This is a new low for you my little fortune cookie. The name "later Koguryo" might have been used for the Liaotung region when Tang placed the last Koguryo king as governer with the title "King of Chaohsien(Chosun)" Tongmu's decendants were gradually able to secure virtual autonomy for the region they governed.

Don't put your words in my mouth. I am not questioning whatever your Koryo king Taejo（高丽太祖）said. It's all laid out in the open for everyone to see. I am questioning how your modern korean historians construct her historiography in a nationalistic fashion. BIG DIFFERENCE.

Like I have said many times, they can fool people who doesn't know any better. But thier overly stretched "Theorized Goguryo-Koryo Connection" can not fool people in the know. I also stated earlier that I understand why Korean historians want to construct the historiography the way it is. I have no objection. But there is no way they can convince me with thier "THEORY" because that theory got too many holes in it.

Christ. I don't even know why I am having a discussion with you since you can not read the link I gave you. I thought you can read classic Hanja. If you are really intereted in HISTORY, please do learn some classic Hanja and READ. It's interesting history.

You want the original "original" korean ancient text? here is a good source. Good luck.

http://kyujanggak.snu.ac.kr/info/info01.jsp#

north koreans, south koreans, yanbianese all look distinctly korean.

^hmm? i remember toki saying something about north koreans and south koreans do look different.

I think yall need to recognize that there is an agreement to make. Palhae, or Bohai, was a part-korean part-mohe nation. It's a kingdom whose history we koreans and the mohe and other manchurian tribes share. Bohai clearly regarded herself as a successor of koguryo, as their official title was koryo.

There were three nations that were called koryo, officially in the international scene: the original koryo (KOGURYO), Koguryo 2 (palhae/bohai), and Koryo third ( Koryo dynasty). And gotmilk, you have mistaken later koguryo, it was not palhae that was called later koguryo, and your assumption of historical intent on part of the koreans to fill in the gap is misplaced. Later koguryo existed and it eventually became Koryo. Palhae is included in korean history because the nation was the OFFICIAL successor of koguryo, and included koguryo identity, cultural, and demographic aspects.

Palhae did not disclose their official succession only to the japanese. Chinese documents record Bohai in the alternative term, koryo.

Korean nationalism has got nothing on mind here, and if anything, the chinese accounts are more questionable, because modern interpretation of chinese academia is loaded with horse$hit and agenda, as even ancient chinese would firmly disagree with the stance that today's chinese historians are taking. For example, how could we take seriously an academia that regards koguryo as chinese history? Let me give you a juicy quote that Kublai Khan was known to say to a Koryo envoy sent out to surrender:

"I am utterly pleased that the envoy of Koryo had come all the way to my court with intent to accept our demands, from a country that even the great Tang Taizong had failed to subdue."

Clearly the ancients viewed koguryo, koryo and the penninsula as one merged identity.

Though demographically and culturally mixed, Palhae was for all these years regarded as, and regarded themselves as, the Second Reich of Koguryo legacy. Palhae was seen as mohe at times, and it was seen as koguryo at others, but nonetheless the royalty consisted of koguryo elite, with a spirit to expand back into the past glory. The nation was found as a revival effort ( a joint effort between mohe and koguryo) and rebellion against the Tang who had destroyed koguryo's capital but not their spirit.

The first thing palhae did was to kick tang's butt out and declare the re-founding of koguryo to her neighbors, including japan where a bulk of koguryoans fled. Many koguryo refugess are recorded to have returned to palhae.

Mohe and other manchurian tribes have always existed within koguryo's domain, as part of the empire's tributaries. In Palhae's case, these non-korean tribes consisted the majority i believe, though still vastly rural. For this reason palhae could easily be seen as mohe. But one must also note palhae's identity in the context of its foundation, and the ruling class of that nation was clearly koguryoans.

Thus for all said reasons you can NOT argue that Palhae was an exclusively mohe nation and deny any sort of korean direct connection to the country. Furthermore, it is true that the last Koryo has decidedly declared an intent to expand and recover koguryo, and it was the mission of the first few kings. And Koguryo herself had existed all her life with a goal to recover ancient Choson. As you know, there is a more recent equivalent of that name as well. So you see, all these dynastic legacies fall neatly in place, and exhibit the korean peoples' strong sense of identity, which is why korea exists to this day after surmounting impossibilities. It is not unnatural to perceive parhae as the intermediary existence between koguryo and koryo, not to mention a successor state of ancient Choson as all korean nations are.

As for the hahn tribes of southern korea and descendants of shilla, to which recent chinese nationalist bogus historians are trying to limit korean identity, it is true that at one point in time these people were different from those in the north, and probably had their own identity and regarded koguryo or others as foreign. However, gradually these two great peoples merged, which reached a pinnacle of fusion in the founding of the Koryo dynasty (which, as declared successor of kogruyo, accepted palhae nobles and replaced shilla officially as the sole ruler of unified Sam-Hahn). Thus I view the true unification of the korean peoples and the appearance of a Korean Identity to be at this critical period, and I am glad that this dynasty's name became the means by which the rest of the world calls us.

Bohai saw silla as enemy as well, it tried to get japan to open a second front against silla.

Bohai was mohe, does not matter if it was like malaysia or not, its people were mohe and spoke manchu-tungusic language that would be closer to raindeer herders of northern arctic circle then to korean.

Where do you get these information? Can you name some book or document that shares your same views? The Book of Tang? Is that what it says in there? Like the majority of Parhae was Magal, or they spoke a language close to the tungistic branch? Parhae cleary used the Puyo languge as it own, since they are in way a, successor and protector of the Puyo people. I'm not trying to be aggressive here, just asking where you people get this idea that Parhae was a Magal kingdom. Then, is it safe to say it was the first Manchurian kingdom ever estalblished? That's quite a bold statement.

Xin Tangshu account of the history of Bohai (Barhae):

The Bohai kings were originally Sumo Malgal subjects of Koguryo, with the surname of Da. After the destruction of Koguryo, they led their people to occupy Mount Dongmu of the Yilou people (former name for the Malgal), 2,000 li east of Yingzhou. On their south was Silla, with the Ni River as the border between the two. On the east was the great ocean, and on their west were the Khitan. They built cities to live in, and some of the remnants of Koguryo pledged allegiance to them.

In 696-697, the Khitan chieftain (Li Jingzhong) rebelled and killed the Commander-in-Chief of Yingzhou, Zhao Wenhui. A man named Sheli Qiqi Zhongxiang fled east with the Malgal chieftain Qisi Biyu and remnants of Koguryo, crossing the Liao River and occupying the northeast of the Taibai mountains.

They blocked traffic on the Aolou River and erected their own fortifications. Empress (Wu Zetian) enfeoffed Qisi Biyu as Duke of Xu and Qiqi Zhongxiang as Duke of Zhen, and offered them an amnesty. But Biyu refused to accept this, and the Empress then issued an edict for Grand General Li Kaigu and Guards General Suo Qiu to attack and kill him. At this time, Zhongxiang had died, and his son Zuorong led the remainder of his followers to flee.....

"Ancestor of Jin are Mohe, mohe was called wuji, wuji lived on land of sushen. then lists the seven wuji tribes including sumo.

During early Tang sumo mohe was a vassal of koguryo surname 'Da'.

Tang destroys koguryo, sumo mohe runs to eastern hills and estabilishes bohai calling itself king and has writing, music five capitals....
......

When Taizhu(Aguda) defeats Liao, Wodaci proclaims to Bohai people "Bohai, Jurchen were originally one family" both were from seven tribes of Wuji.
"

<XingTangShu>(new book of tang)
sent a mission to visit Dazuorong(大祚荣), entitled him (...3 tiltles…), since then eliminated the name of Mohe, for a name Bohai.

《三国史记 卷三十七•杂志六》
高丽(高句丽)盛时，士三十万抗唐为敌。则可谓地胜而强兵，至于季末君臣昏虐失道，大唐再出师，新罗援助讨平之。其地多入渤海靺鞨, 新罗亦得其南境。”
<Samguksagi>
During the prosperous era of Koguryo, Koguyo had 300 thousand soldiers against Tang. It was indeed a place with prosperity and strong military. At the end of Koguryo, Koguryo king and bureaucratic officials were corrupted with ruthless rules. Tang again marched military and pacified Koguryo with the assistance of Silla. Koguryo land mostly was taken by Bohai Mohe. Silla also got the south portion of Koguryo.

And Silla scholar’s ,崔致远, description with regard to the origin of Bohai kingdom.

《谢不许北国居上表》（《东文选》卷三十三“表笺”)
臣谨按渤海之源流也，句骊未灭之时，本为疣赘部落，靺羯之属，寔繁有徒，是名粟末小蕃，尝逐句骊内徙。其首领乞四羽及大祚荣等，至武后临朝之际，自营州作孽而逃，辄据荒丘，始称振国。

Bohai’s lineage, before Koguryo’s demise, was originally a clan of warts, belonging to the clan of Mohe, with many people, the name of these little barbarian is Sumo(Sumo Mohe), tried to move into or invade with Koguryo. His chiefs were chishiyu(乞四羽) and dazhuorong(大祚荣), ……

Personally I think Koguryo which was known as Koryo to China back then was independent of Tang control.
Tang viewed itself as 'middle kingdom' and viewed koryo as foriegn but its land(liaodong) belonging to middle kingdom since ancient times.

However Silla also viewed Koguryo as foriegn and asked Tang to help it defeat this foriegn aggressor. that is why If Tang is seen as the ancestors of Han people then Silla was the ancestor of Koreans, but Koguryo was a kingdom that was annexed by silla and tang and simply disappeared but belong to exclusively to neither but also belong to both as a shared heritage.

As for Bohai it was a mohe kingdom not koguryon or korean, just like modern day malaysia which has large percentage of ethnic Chinese yet isn't seen as chinese state, bohai had a percentage of koguryons yet its majority and the ruling elite were mohes.

Who cares about Korea, we owned them for centuries. Now we are bored, they deserve a little free time on their own lol