NEW PEOPLE OF THE FAR EAST: THE LIMINAL SUBJECTIVITY OF KOREAN MIGRANTS IN THE AMUR AND USSURI REGION, 1860-1897 A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN HISTORY MAY 2021 By Batsukh Batmunkh Thesis Committee: Cheehyung Harrison Kim, Chairperson Ned Bertz Nancy Stalker Table of Contents Acknowledgments……………………………………………………….…..…………………… i Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...……..………. iii List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………...……….. v I. Introduction A. A Multicultural Frontier……………………. .………….…………………….…………. 1 B. The Concept of Liminality …………………………………………………….………… 8 C. The Amur and Ussuri Region …………………………………………………………… 9 II. A History of Migration in Northeast Asia A. Geopolitics of Migration …………………………………………………….….…...… 20 B. Transforming Manchuria …………………………………….……….……………...… 23 III. Origins of Korean Diaspora in the Early Nineteenth Century A. Socioeconomic Factors of Migration ………………………………………………...… 33 B. Koreans in Manchuria …………………………………………………......................… 36 C. Koreans in the Russian Far East ……………………………………..………………… 40 IV. Plural Jurisdictions at the End of the Nineteenth Century A. After the Treaty of Beijing ………………………………………………….……..…… 54 B. The Treaty of Seoul and New Citizenship …………..……………..……….………….. 59 V. Russianizing Koreans: Multiple Subjectivities ………………………...….……..…………. 73 VI. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….………..……….. 80 Bibliography……………………………………………………………….…………..….......... 90 Acknowledgments It was a great pleasure and quite a rewarding experience for me to study history at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. The Department of History at the UHM was quite dynamic with many student activities, history forums, and most importantly, provided me with many outstanding professors. The Graduate Chair, Professor Matthew Lauzon continually supported my academic interests and endeavors for which I am very grateful. Within the History Department, I had the privilege to become a graduate assistant which enriched my academic life, elevated my teaching experience, and further reassured my personal goal to pursue a career in academia. The Department of History awarded me merit scholarships which had been tremendous financial help. Through the History Department, I was introduced to Phi Theta Alpha, History Honor Society. With the PAT chapter at UHM and the department’s assistance, I was able to go to conferences and present my papers in an academic environment. This enriched my academic experiences and left me with many pleasant memories as a graduate student in Hawaii. I wholeheartedly thank all the professors (namely Shirley Buchanan, Karen Jolly, C.H. Kim) and all the students who supported and dedicated their time to the PAT chapter at UHM. However, the person I am foremost thankful for is my academic advisor and the chairperson of my M.A thesis committee, Professor C.H. Kim. He supported my academic endeavors when I was an undergraduate student and became my advisor when I applied for the M.A program in History. Many of my academic successes are a credit to his continuous support and faith in my pursuit for a successful career in history. I sincerely thank Professor C.H. Kim for his guidance in every step of my graduate study and thesis writing process. I sincerely thank Professor Ned Bertz for agreeing to be on my committee, for continually supporting me, for recommending books, and for helping me with the thesis writing process. I sincerely thank Professor Nancy i Stalker for agreeing to be on my committee and for all the support she gave me. The books I read in her class were very helpful for my thesis. I had the privilege to take a course from all my thesis advisors and read numerous helpful materials for my thesis. I also would like to thank Professor Keiko Matteson for continually supporting my academic goals and her advice was always encouraging and reassuring. I immensely thank Russian Bibliographer Patricia Polansky for helping me with the difficult task of finding all the necessary primary sources in the Russian language which became quite valuable research material for my thesis. I thank Professor Olga Mukhortova for helping me brush up my Russian language skills after many years of neglect. I also thank Olivia Sorenson for all the help during my graduate study at UHM. Lastly, I sincerely thank my other history and social science professors; Peter Hoffenberg, Edward L. Davis, Margot A. Henriksen, Wensheng Wang, Njoroge Njoroge, Suzanna Reiss, Yuma Totani, John B. Rosa, Fabio Lopez-Lazarro, Shana Brown, Reece Jones, and Ibrahim G. Aoude. I learned so much from each of them and I applied that knowledge into writing this thesis. ii Abstract This paper explores the liminality of Korean peasants and migrants in the Amur and Ussuri region by examining their socioeconomic conditions, legal jurisdictions, and individual subjectivity under Joseon Korea, Qing China, and Tsarist Russia between the 1860s-1897. In this paper, the Amur and Ussuri region is defined, subsequently its regional history and the indigenous inhabitants. By the late 19th century, Joseon Korean society was declining steadily due to factionalism among elites, corruption of the examination system, abusive yangban class, and heavy tax burden on impoverished peasants. Joseon Korea also experienced a series of natural disasters and peasant revolts. By this time, Qing China was also greatly weakened from foreign encroachments and had to sign numerous unequal treaties. In 1860, the Treaty of Beijing was concluded between Qing China and Tsarist Russia which transferred a large territory, known as Primorsky Krai (formerly a part of Manchuria), to Tsarist Russia. The treaty created tripartite modern borders between Joseon Korea, Qing China, and Tsarist Russia. This treaty marked an entirely new period for Korean history as it gained a new and powerful neighbor, Tsarist Russia. By this time, in Northeast Asia, the common people increasingly began to undermine the imperial subjectivity rooted in Confucian traditionalism and embraced the nascent consciousness of individual agency, which was particularly prevalent among the migrant groups. As a result, many impoverished Korean peasants searched for a better life elsewhere and simultaneously migrated to Manchuria and Primorye. The arrival of Korean migrants caused confusion between the three nations over their jurisdictional status. While Qing China and Joseon Korea had some previous understanding of illegal migrants, Tsarist Russia and Joseon Korea never had any diplomatic relationship. All three nations struggled to find a common ground to manage their movements and govern them. The officials of Tsarist Russia attempted to contact Joseon Korea iii and start a diplomatic relationship in the hope to resolve the issues of Korean migrants and open trade negotiations. However, Joseon Korea was still closed to the West, and therefore refused, at this time, Joseon Korea only traded with Qing China and sometimes with Meiji Japan. Over two decades later, Tsarist Russia and Joseon Korea finally managed to sign their first official treaty in 1884 (the Treaty of Seoul) with encouragement from Qing China. Between 1860-1884, Korean migrants were quintessentially the liminal subjects, betwixt in the transborder spaces. This case of Korean migrants is particularly unique in migration studies and does not fit into the existing migration categories. In this thesis, I will argue that applying the concept of liminality to Korean diasporic communities will highlight the resilience and adaptations of Korean migrants amidst various policies implemented by Tsarist Russia to successfully colonize their newly acquired territory and control its diverse inhabitants. This paper’s examination of Korean migrants in the Amur and Ussuri region, their subsequent struggles in new environments, and their liminal experiences as Korea’s first diasporic communities will help historians to broaden the understanding of overall historical changes and geopolitics of Northeast Asia. iv List of Figures 1. Photo - Vladivostok …………………………………………………………………..…. 6 2. Photo - Vladivostok …………………………………………………………………..…. 7 3. Photo – Vladivostok ………………………………………………………….…………. 7 4. Map – Northeast Asia, 1897 ……………………………………………...……………. 10 5. Map – East Asia, 16th and 17th cent. ……………………………………...……………. 11 6. Photo – Heje children …………………………………………….……………………. 16 7. Photo – Korean children ……………………………………………………………….. 17 8. Map – Manchuria ………………………………………………………………………. 24 9. Map – The Russian Far East …………………………………………...………………. 29 10. Table - Number of Korean settlers, 1864 …………………………………………..….. 30 11. Table - Numbers and Settlements of Korean Populations, 1897 .……………………… 31 12. Photo - Chinese ginseng gatherers in Ussuri taiga ……………………………….……. 37 13. Table - Land use in Primorye, 1864-1872 …………………………………….….……. 50 14. Table - Economic conditions in Korean villages in Poset, 13 November 1875 .…....…. 51 15. Table - Grain and vegetable harvests of Korean peasants in Poset, 1875 ………...…… 53 16. Map - Overlapping borderlands in East Asia, 1840-1860 ………………………..……. 61 17. Photo - Copy of a “bilet” for Koreans in RFE …………………………….…………… 69 18. Photo - Classroom in an Orthodox Christian church-school, 1904 ……………………. 75 19. Table - Number of Koreans baptism in Primorye, 1883-1886, 1888 .….…………..….. 78 20. Table - Number and S.G. of Baptized Koreans on November 13, 1875. ……………… 78 v I. Introduction A. A Multicultural Frontier “As I was sailing