Talk:History of Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Notice: This article is already too long. It is not intended to discuss all issues related to the History of Korea, but serve only as an introduction. Before you add material to this article, please consider adding it instead to one of the many "main" articles linked from this article, e.g., Silla, Baekje, etc. Thank you.


Map of Korea WikiProject Korea invites you to join in improving Wikipedia articles related to Korea. Pavilion at Gyeongbok palace, Seoul
Korea-related tasks:


Archive 1

Contents

[edit] Length of article

This is crazy. This is too long. Someone make this make sense! --Pupster21 16:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Also, make a summary.--Pupster21 16:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) The Article. --Pupster21 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Also archive the talk page. --Pupster21 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A summary is a good idea. But I am unsure if you mean that the article is too long or that the talk page is too long. Anyway, I just perused History of Croatia and History of Canada articles, and they are more or less the same length as the History of Korea article.
Mumun 21:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:LEAD, you are quite right that there should be a summary. I have added the summary from Korea#History, adapted slightly; it could still use some work. I agree that this article should be trimmed; at 47K it is half again as long as a Wikipedia article should be. Details should be shuffled off into their respective articles. That's a rather tiresome chore, however, and a rather thankless one given the relentless insistence of people on dumping excessive detail here (and in Korea). -- Visviva 16:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It was right after I added details of prehistory in the article that someone raised the issue of the article's length. I agree now. I am willing to have the prehistoric content expunged completely or drastically cut back in favour of a new separate article called Prehistory of Korea. In fact, if the prehistory section is erased from here it would accurately reflect the current unfortunate state of affairs in Korean History and Korean Studies -- very little reliable historical depth or knowledge about the deep past. I wish I could use stronger words but I won't. However, if the expunging of anything is done, I would hope that the excessive detail in some other sections in this article would be substantially trimmed (Japanese colonization of Korea, for instance) and we need to trust the reader to click on the main article. Mumun 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Amen to the last point. However, although creating a Prehistory of Korea article is a great idea, I don't know that we need to get rid of the prehistory here entirely... it's very informative, and if it's removed it will just eventually be replaced by the sort of uninformed silliness that was there before. ;-) Ideally, we would have about a screenful summarizing what is known and theorized about Korean prehistory, including both archeological and historiographic studies, giving the reader an accurate and informed perspective on the current state of scholarship (however inconclusive that scholarship may be). Unfortunately I'm not the best one to write that section... :-)
By the way, do you consider Byeon to be a particularly unreliable source for the Paleolithic dates? Can you recommend another? Cheers, -- Visviva 10:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Byeon and the rest are great, but it would be good to support those important date statements using more specialized publications...unfortunately I couldn't identify any sources that say 700,000 bp, but there are others such as:

  • Nelson, Sarah. The Archaeology of Korea. Cambridge UNiversity Press, Cambridge, 1993, pp-26-57.

Nelson's chapter on the Palaeolithic deals with the earliest evidence of Hominind (presum. Homo Sapiens sapiens) settlement in Korea in a careful and thoughtful way. She takes a less critical approach and tries to be objective, I think. For example, "The evidence for early paleolithic in Korea is sparse but..." (pg. 30) and she goes on until pg. 42 presenting evidence that is claimed by others such as Prof. Son Bogi etc to say that there were Lower Paleolithic occupations. However, she makes it clear that the dates of the earliest occupation of Korea are an open question. In the end she seems to settle on 500,000 bp., but it seems it could be much later, c. 200,000 bp.

  • Bae, Kidong. Radiocarbon Dates from Palaeolithic Sites in Korea, Radiocarbon 44(2):473-476, 2002.

Professor Bae (Hanyang U.) lists all of the absolute scientific dates available at the time. He explains in this paper that the earliest radiocarbon dates for the Palaeolithic indicate the antiquity of occupation on the Korean peninsula is between 40,000 and 30,000 B.P. However, he argues for the possibility of a more ancient occupation.

  • Yi, Seon-bok and G.A. Clark. Observations on the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Northeast Asia. Current Anthropology 24(2):181-202, 1983.

Professor Yi (SNU) appears to reject the claims that Hominids occupied the Korean Peninsula in the Lower Palaeolithic (c. 2.5 million - 120,000 bp) in the above paper.

I haven't seen the Byeon book, and I wouldn't want to dismiss general history books out of hand. Perhaps he quotes some research that I do not know. Anyway, I will start a prehistory article soon. I really don't mind to cut back the prehistory section in the History of Korea, either. :-) By the way, I think the way that the text and references appear now shouldn't be changed in respect to the Prehistory section of the History of Korea article. For example, North Korean research is presented as a 'claim', which is a flag for all reasonable people to differentiate it from a 'fact'. So some kind of critical perspective is offered, which is always good. If there is a way to be more concise elsewhere in the article, we could actually add a single sentence to the material on the palaeolithic in this article that summarizes what I said above. A little more detail would presumably be presented in Prehistory of Korea. Mumun 12:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 宮田 節子 [Miyata, Setsuko]. "創氏改名" [Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names]

The article states : "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names.[20] "

I checked the citation 20(and 25). The book by Setsuko Miyata's "Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names", turned out that it does not support the argument. She states "創氏改名 was voluntary, however it was unnatural that 80% of people voluntarily created surnames in 6 month. So, she concludes, somehow, "there must be some peer puressure among people". http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~korea-su/korea-su/jkorea/nikkan/0311.html

There is a picture of the flyer(with Hangul and Japanese) saying "Aug, 10th is the last CHANCE you can register names! If you want here is the procedure" .. etc. http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/tokurei.JPG For more detail: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&u=http://www.ne.jp/asahi/m-kyouiku/net/seminarmizuno.htm

And Korean language never been officialy banned either. Hangul had been taught in schools throught out Korea, even Japanese kids had to learn. There is nothing like banning Korean language or Hangul, although freedom of speech was not there during the war. I did some research and found a picture of a Korean newspaper "Chosun Ilbo" (March 10th, 1940). I definitely see Hangul there. http://www.joase.org/technote/board/zzz/upimg/1037932683.gif

So, "The Korean language was banned and Koreans were forced to adopt Japanese names" are not only too strong words but also misleading. I'd say it is wrong and should be fixed.

Oh, I forgot to mention there were volunteer Japanese soldiers who kept Korean name and became a major, such as 金錫源 and 洪思翊.

How do you explain that.

[edit] There are so many wrong infomation

There are so many errors in the article and I just cannot list them all...

First, I already explained "創氏改名" [Creating Surnames and Changing Given Names] was voluntary above. The language and Hangul(charactor) was not banned, but taught in schools.

Second, the citation 22 "山脇 啓造 [Yamawaki, Keizo]. 近代日本と外国人労働者―1890年代後半と1920年代前半における中国人・朝鮮人労働者問題 [Modern Japan and Foreign Laborers: Chinese and Korean Laborers in the late 1890s and early 1920s" is about paied workders. The statement "Tens of thousands of men [22] were conscripted into Japan's military." is sooo wrong.

Besides, the conscription in Korea started in fall of 1944 ended in 1945. It's less than a year. In fact, the most Korean soldiers were volunteers. Do check the mumbers.

Third "Approximately 200,000 girls and women [23], mostly from Korea and China, were conscripted as sex slaves" is contradicts with all the evidences. Comfort_women article describes comfort women were mostly Japanese. There were no conscription of confort woman. There are the newspaper ads "confort women WANTED". http://www.hermuseum.go.kr/eng/experience_img/photo_02.gif (in the Korean goverment website) the citation 23, Yoshimi Yoshiaki, "Comfort Women. Sexual Slavery in the Japanese Military During World War II" DOES NOT say it's a conscription by Japanese goverment either. As the newspaper ads shows, confort women were gather by Korean agents... http://www.sagamiono-ch.or.jp/intercessors/2001/2001.05/2001.05.pdf

and the list goes on and on..

The article is just like a Korean nationalisctic patriotic student's anti-Japan essay.

I completely agree. (Wikimachine 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC))


In response to the above poster, I have to ask what period during the colonial occupation did the Japanese allow a more limited freedom? I understood it as a **gradual** easing of Japanese control but within the framework of Japanese assimilation policies. Indeed, there were Koreans who were resigned to the fact that their future would be a Japanese reality. By the start of WW2, already it would had been more than forty years since the occupation. Many Koreans by the 1930's to 40s had already given up or have painful memories of getting killed through direct protest ( ie March 1st movement 1910) and began living by the saying, "if you can't beat em, why not join em". That would partly explain why there were volunteers in the army by 1940 and the allowance for privileged groups of Koreans to study in Japan. Remember, Japanese government policy wanted to assimilate Koreans as "painless" as possible. (This is just a tongue-in-cheek way of saying that its better to convince the Koreans that assimilation was for their own good than to lose Japanese lives due to insurgency)

For others the struggle for independence turned more underground with different approaches such as outside military operations from the self-proclaimed interm Korean government in China to the more "peaceful" movements from Sygman Rhree in the US. The way to understand limited freedoms in Korea during the occupation is to picture a master who gives table scraps to his slave in order to keep the slave from inciting any ideas about rebellion. You give the masses a few trinklets and they'll be happy. Japanese hard-line policies against Koreans did change in light of the growing significant costs of the war. It was better to spread grand notions/propoganda of "Asian" prosperity (of course with Japan's guiding light) and the lure of renewed "status and success" in light of a depressed Korean ecnonmy than to outright say that China and the rest of Asia will be destroyed and conquered. In fact, Japanese attitudes were similar to Napoleon's delusions of eurpopean dominance under the guise of fighting against monarchial power. As we all know the opposite occured. (Napoleon actually crowned himself emperor). For Japan, the Nanking massacre is only one significant indicator. And we have to understand it in this context. The Japanese needed manpower (both in the battlefront, mines and factories)without possible insurgence from thier colonized subordinates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.7.239 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The term of period of unified silla

It is changed as "the period of south and north states" based on the high school history book written by 국사편찬위원회[1]. So, the template of "history of korea" must be changed. But, I do not know how to change it. please can somebody fix it ? --Hairwizard91 15:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would dispute that. For one thing, a high-school textbook isn't really an authoritative source by itself, although it certainly deserves some consideration. For another, the template uses "Unified Silla" and "Balhae" together, just as this article now does. Now, I think you were correct to move "Unified Silla" to a third-level heading (parallel with Balhae) in this article. However, both here and in the template, we still need to use the term "Unified Silla" in order to distinguish Three Kingdoms Silla from post-Three-Kingdoms Silla. The term 통일신라/Unified Silla seems to be widely used in both Korean and English scholarship -- considerably *more* widely than 남북국(시대)/Northern and Southern states. To wit:
    • Searching the Korean-language scholarly search engine DBPia.co.kr, we get 17 hits for 남북국 (Northern and Southern States) but 75 hits for 통일신라 (Unified Silla) ... further, several of the former results are actually papers arguing for the use of the term "Northern and Southern states," which is evidence in itself that the term is not well-established. (This surprised me a little)
    • Searching Google Scholar, we get 113 hits for "Unified Silla" (plus another 25 for "Unified Shilla"); all of these, of course, are talking about Korean history. We do get a few hits for "northern and southern states" +korea (69) or "north and south states" +korea (6), but *none* of these seem to be talking about Korean history; they just happen to use the term in referring to either US or global division, and mention the word "Korea" somewhere in the text.
From this it seems clear that the term "Northern and Southern States" is in only sparing use even in Korean-language scholarship, and is still almost never used in English-language scholarship, to refer to the Unified Silla-Balhae period. I think we can and should use this term on Wikipedia, but only when we need a superordinate term to cover both Unified Silla and Balhae. We don't need such a term in the template (there isn't even room for it), but we do need such a term in this article. -- Visviva 16:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be better to use the 1st heading for grouping Balhae and Unified Silla whatever the name is. Using the 1st headings for each Balhae and Unified Silla does not reflect on the current research of history.--Hairwizard91 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] prehistory

I have added some details in the prehistory section and eventually I hope everyone will be pleased. Let's edit any changes together. 선사 부분의 편집 할 것을 시원하게 열심히 함게 합시다. 여러분의 많은 참여를 바랍니다. 한국 고고학 萬歲! Mumun 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is very good to see the update article. But, I want to say something. Korean history viewpoint is based on the people's movement(I dont know the correct english term, but 속인屬人). Korean history viewpoint is not the current territory of Korean peninsula(Do you understand what I am saying. It is too hard to explain two terms). So, the Koreans had lived in north area such as Manchuria in the very very ancient period because Korean is a sort of a nomad in ancient time. I have found that Mumun is only focused on the Korean peninsula. Is there any reason ? Perhaps no Mumum potter might have been found in North of Korean peninsula. --Hairwizard91 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hairwizard91! Indeed, you are talking about 'layman' (屬人) I guess. Mumun Pottery Period culture has been defined first and foremost according to the long-term pottery traditions in the Korean Peninsula, but both archaeologists and laymen think of the term Mumun Pottery Period as a socio-technic period that has unique cultural developments along subsistence, settlement, social, and ideational components.
There is a common explanation of the origin of Mumun culture that, even though North Korean archaeologists would prefer different terminology and points of reference, a parallel explanation for the origin of Mumun culture. Long long ago, the current political, cultural, and ethnic borders did not exist as they do today. People between living around the Yellow Sea interacted intensively at various points in prehistory and protohistory. The Yellow Sea is shallow and smaller than we think. For example, through complex processes of diffusion the Jeulmun pottery-using people of Korea adopted millet cultivation from their Yellow Sea interactions some time around 3500 B.C. or before. Millet is the default crop of Northern Chinese prehistoric agriculture. Cultivation of rice was introduced to southern Korea subsequently. People living in Korea interacted more intensively with Neolithic cultures in Northern China and Shandong between 2000 and 1000. Some time before 1500 B.C. the first northern-style megalithic burials (dolmen 지석묘) were constructed in Liaodong and North Korea. Also -- stone-cist burials in the tradition of those used in southern Korea are found first in Liaodong and North Korea. Finally, the origin of manufacture and use of jade (greenstone) ornaments in southern Korea after 900 or 850 B.C. is likely North Korea.
The pottery traditions of Liaoning, northern Korea, and southern Korea have many similarities. Professor Ahn Jae-ho of Dongguk University, a highly respected archaeologist, is among many who think that pottery-making traditions diffused from Liaoning to North Korean river valleys (Cheongcheon and Taedong Rivers are frequently mentioned) 1500 or a little before to 850 B.C. Many Early Mumun Period settlements were excavated 1953-1970 by North Korean archaeologists -- villages with similar architectural features (i.e. pit-houses with rectangular plan-shapes and interior hearths) range over a large geographical area from Liaodong Peninsula to southeastern Korea.
Most archaeologists in both Koreas and China think that the Liaoning and North Korean people migrated into southern Korea along the Yellow Sea coast in successive waves between 1500 and approximately 850 B.C. In sum, pottery styles that are included under the Mumun pottery definition are made first in Northeast China and North Korea, and this pottery-making tradition slowly was adopted by/entered into the southern Korean peninsula along with many other cultural traits of Liaodong and North Korea including architectural and mortuary features. The general trend is that many aspects of Mumun culture were introduced to southern Korea from Liaoning and North Korea. 하루 잘 보내세요, 여러분! Mumun 23:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure that I have correctly understood. So, the Mumum potter is also found in Liaoning and North Korea areas. Right? If the Mumum potter is found in the area except south Korean peninsula, I think that the article about Mumun pottery in Liaoning and North Korean is also included in the current article. But, the article seems to be explain only about Mumun in the south korea peninsula. Because Korean historians consider that the history by Korean, wherever they had lived, must be included to the history of Korean(which is firstly mentioned as 속인屬人 (not laymen俗人)). This concept of viewpoint about history in Korea is different from those in China and USA. The context of Prehistory seems to be confined to only the Peninsula of Korea. But, it should be extended to the area where ancient Korean had lived such as Liaoning and south Manchuria, even Hebei. Do I say it clearly?--Hairwizard91 05:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes thank you for pointing out my mistake about 屬人, Hairwizard91. I realize now, I hope, about what you were originally musing. It think it might be fruitful to investigate a little about how this concept of 屬人主義 is characterized across time and space. In general:
  • Does 屬人主義 for Korean history change according to circumstances of time and space? For example, is 屬人主義적 interpretation appropriate for the origins of the Mumun Pottery Period?
  • You mention that 'Korean historians' use this concept, but I wonder how many would consider this an operable concept in their own research? After all, Korean historians who teach at Korean public and private universities are not educated in an academic vacuum: they are exposed to international historical theories, methods, and ways of thinking about the world.
  • I am not sure, and admit my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that the most important period relating to the formation of the Korean ethnicity took place some time after the period currently in discussion. Thus, I humbly ask of what utility is 屬人主義적 interpretation during a period of time when the majority of scholars do not yet recognize that the Korean ethnicity has formed?
  • To what extent can any ancient texts be used as reliable evidence to interpret life in Liaoning, North Korea, or South Korea circa 2000-1000 B.C.? I humbly ask if it is possible? We need to look at these invaluable texts as the fallible and biased records that they are. We cannot forget that we are involved in an encyclopaedia project -- at the minumum we need to concentrate on reflect the status quo, and at the max it would be nice to help the average reader by taking advantage of cutting edge academic research that is accepted by the majority of the academy.
I neglected to mention on this talk page, but people were already present on the Korean peninsula at the time when people who practiced Mumun period lifeways started to migrate into the Imjin, Han, Anseong, and Geum River drainages. This complicates the origins of the Mumun, as it raises the question of external versus internal influences. For example, both the indigenous people (Jeulmun pottery-using groups) and the Mumun people apparently had the ability to plant, tend, and harvest agricultural crops, albeit at different levels/scales. Full-blown agriculture in Korea developed between 1500-850 B.C., but to what extent was this development attributable to native Jeulmun cultivation? By the same token, to what extent was full-blown agriculture related to the Early Mumun traditions? Unless I continue to misunderstand the 屬人主義 concept, this might make interpretation along 屬人主義적인 lines somewhat difficult in regard to the time and place in question. Archaeological data have limits -- the state of the art in archaeology cannot tell us if external or internal inluences were more important in this case (yet). As such, using 屬人主義적 concepts to envelope prehistoric peoples living in Liaoning into a nationalistic idea of Korean history might not help the average reader to understand the origins of Korean civilization. Not to mention the current addition on prehistory in this article -- does it make sense for the average reader? This also needs to be addressed.
Please forgive me, Hairwizard91 et al, if I have once again misunderstood you. Hope this may help.-- Mumun 21:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Korea_ee51.html"