Talk:Baekje/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Romanization

I renamed from Baekje to Paekche, since Google suggest Paekche is more common. Let me know if there is a reason to favor Baekje instead. -- Taku 02:00, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Copy from Taku's talk page. This is the reasoning why the article is named Baekje. --Taku

Thank for a pointer. So do you think Baekje is correct than Paekche? -- Taku 02:09, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
백제 is spelled Baekje in the new South Korean romanization (Revised Romanization of Korea) and Paekche in the McCune-Reischauer romanization. I think we reached consensus on using the former except on North Korea-related articles. --Nanshu 02:17, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Shandong

I learned Shandong belonged to Baekje for a while. Is it true, or a Korean Nationalist's argument? I wanted know Chinese people's view. Ryuch 06:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never read anything to suggest that this was in dispute. However, I'm not very hip to Chinese history, and am ready to be corrected. I note that Jonathan W. Best, among the foremost Anglophone scholars of Baekje, avoids making an assertion one way or the other in his writings. -- Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
According to my professor, all claims of "Korean" realms stretching westward into what is now China actually boil down to trade relations or are speculative at best. – Wikipeditor 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i think there is little controversy, given the archeological evidence, that gojoseon & goguryeo stretched well into manchuria & a bit west, & gando is another question. however, i haven't heard any serious contention that baekje stretched into shandong. Appleby 05:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have only heard third-hand accounts of such claims. The similarity of artefacts found on both sides of the sea alledgedly caused some nationalists to leap to conclusions. – Wikipeditor 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

There was a small kingdom that was run by people with the surname "Buyeo," which was also the surname of the Baekje Royal family. These Buyeo rulers of Shandong were related to those of Baekje, and when the Shandong Buyeo kingdom was about to fall, they asked Baekje for help. Baekje sent troops to help and occupied the kingdom for a while until they too were pushed out. This was only for a brief period of time. BUT, the fact that Baekje controlled the Shandong peninsula is true from a certain point of view. The Shandong Buyeo rulers gave their land to the Baekje rulers, but, as i mentioned earlier, Baekje lost control soon after. This was probably during the reign of Emperor Kun Chogo. not very sure which Baekje Emperor ruled during this time.--68.211.193.96 00:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Legacy

What is appropriate for this section? I notice that the info about Baekje's contemporary symbolic significance in the local symbolism of Chungnam and Jeolla has been moved, as has the material on the contemporary symbolism of Japanese-Baekje relations. To me that content should be included in an encyclopedic treatment of Baekje, but should properly be restricted to the Legacy section. --Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I read it again. You are right. You are trying to say about the legacy. I think you could move that paragraph as you wish. -- Ryuch 06:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Ryuch. :-) -- Visviva 12:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oversea territories?

The boundaries of Baekje control shifted substantially through the centuries. According to Chinese chronicles, Baekje rule during the time of King Geunchogo extended to the Shandong peninsula in present-day China, but it's not clear. At this time Baekje controlled almost the entire coastline of the West Sea (or Yellow Sea). However, the area under Baekje control soon contracted under pressure from Goguryeo and Silla.

This demonstrates how Koreans treat history. They have an a priori conclusion. And they pick materials that are favorable for them. If they fail to find sufficient "evidences", they do not hesitate in interpretative distortion. They ignore things that conflict with their argument and they do not care about overall consistency.

This is the case! If you examine historical sources by yourself, you will certainly be surprised at the unsubstantiality of the Korean argument.--User:Nanshu actually the signature inserted by User:Mikhailkoh 12:06, March 28, 2006 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

That is obviously a very inflammatory and biased argument. I don't know why you're so derogative towards Korean culture and history in general, but it seems to be that you are being pretty vague about your sources.

The "chinese chronichles" seems a little vague for citation, doesn't it?

Can i ask you if you're an expert on the subject of ancient Korean history?

Each side has an argument. The important thing is to not go patronizing.

-Sgt. Mikhailkoh 12:10, March 28, 2006 (UTC)

Liaoxi

This article does not mention to an argument about Liaoxi, but I explain this in passing.

Quote from 宋書 列傳 夷蠻 東夷 百濟:

百濟國，本與高驪俱在遼東之東千餘里，其後高驪略有遼東，百濟略有遼西．百濟所治，謂之晉平郡晉平縣．

Quote from 梁書 列傳 諸夷 東夷 百濟:

其國本與句驪在遼東之東，晉世句驪既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣，自置百濟郡．

Quote from 南史 列傳 夷貊 東夷 百濟:

其國本與句麗俱在遼東之東千餘里，晉世句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣， 自置百濟郡．

Quote from 通典 邊防 東夷 百濟:

晉時句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡．今柳城、北平之間．

These are virtually all about what "Chinese chronicles" say. Curiously Liang Zhigongtu, which is considered the source of the above-mentioned passage of Liangshu, says, "Lelang [NB: not Baekje] was at Jinbing prefecture of Liaoxi too." Maybe they are sufficient ground for those who have something decided from the beginning, but certainly not for sensible people. We need corroborative evidences but there is no such thing.

On the contrary, there are some grounds against this theory. The above-mentioned sources are of Southern Dynasties, which did not control Northern China, and so were unable to contact Liaoxi. If Baekje had controlled Liaoxi, it should have been recorded in Northern Dynasty records. But the Xianbei Murong clan, who actually ruled the land west of the Liao river, left no such description. So the majority of historians do not support this theory.

It may be worth nothing that some scholars search through possible explanations about the historical error. One claims that Baekje deceived Southern Dynasties, who were ignorant about the north, to seek support from them. Based on Liang Zhiqongtu, one argues that Baekje was confused with Lelang. Actually the Murong clan nominally maintained Lelang commandery in its domain after it disappeared from the Korean Peninsula around 313. One thinks that Baekje was confused with the Fuyu because Baekje's royal family was surnamed Fuyu and had some other Fuyu connections. Anyway, none of them has good grounds.--Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree that Baekje had any overseas territory, but I disagree with the second to last sentence. The Baekje royal family was connected with Buyeo, even renaming itself "Nambuyeo" meaning South-Buyeo.--Bezant 04:44, April 1, 2005 (UTC)

Coastal area of Northern China

I don't know why Visvia wrote, "At this time Baekje controlled almost the entire coastline of the West Sea (or Yellow Sea)." Probably he added adverb "almost" and adjective "entire" just because they sounded nice. The Korean theory that Baekje controlled the coastal area of Northern China is based on the following passage from 南齊書 列傳 東南夷:

牟大又表曰：「臣所遣行建威將軍、廣陽太守、兼長史臣高達，行建威將軍、朝鮮太守、兼司馬臣楊茂，行宣威將軍、兼參軍臣會邁等三人，志行清亮，忠款夙著．往泰始中，比使宋朝，今任臣使，冒涉波險，尋其至險，宜在進爵，謹依先例，各假行職．且玄澤靈休，萬里所企，況親趾天庭，乃不蒙賴．伏願天監特愍除正．達邊?夙著，勤勞公務，今假行龍驤將軍、帶方太守．茂志行清壹，公務不廢，今假行建威將軍、廣陵太守．邁執志周密，屢致勤?，今假行廣武將軍、清河太守．」

This is the request of 490 from the king of Baekje to Emperor Wu of the Southern Qi. The king asked the emperor to bestow titles on his vassals. The request and the result are summarized as follows:

officials with requested titles given titles
行建威將軍・廣陽太守 長史 高達 行龍驤將軍・帶方太守
行建威將軍・朝鮮太守 司馬 楊茂 行建威將軍・広陵太守
行宣威將軍・參軍 會邁 行廣武將軍・清河太守

Let's examine the above-mentioned place names first. Guangyang had been a commandery located at modern-day Daxing Country, Hebei. Taifang had been a commandery located in midwestern Korea. There were and had been no such thing as governor of Choaxian as Chaoxian had been a prefecture of Lelang commandery. Guangling was Jiangdu, Jiangsu, or Wenan, Hebei. Qinghe was a commandery located around Wanbing, Hebei.

So we get into the main question. Weren't these titles nominal? Certainly yes. They were given by a Southern Dynasty (again!). It couldn't rule or influence the area in question.

You are hopeless idiots if you believe Chinese were all substantial. For example, the Kingdom of Bohai was named after Bohai commandery because Bohai kings were given the title of the ruler of Bohai commandery by Tang Emperors. But where had Bohai commandery been? It had been located in Hebei, which the kingdom never dominated. Another example is King Bu of Wa. In 478 he was given by the Liang the following title 都督 倭 新羅 任那 加羅 秦韓 慕韓六國諸軍事 安東大將軍 Do supporters of the coastal area theory accept Japan's control over these regions on the same basis? --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. Chinese dyansties were quite accustomed to granting Korean monarchs ceremonial titles to reward them for their loyalty/convince them to continue to be loyal. These titles, though "real" and also held by Chinese, were completely symbolic and ceremonial as far as the Korean monarchs. The examples from Goguryeo and Silla as well are too numerous to cite but they included naming them "Commander-in-chief" of elite guard units charged with protecting the imperial capital, "Supreme Pillar of State" etc. Tellingly, the Korean monarchs were at the same time usually "granted" the title of King of Goguryeo, King of Silla, etc. by the Chinese emperor at the beginning of their reign. Would this indicate that China controlled Korea and that the Korean king was a mere puppet? Not at all. It was a symbiotic relationship that I don't think we should attempt to judge merely from modern Western standards of colonizer/colonized. More substantial evidence is required than the possession of titles. Straitgate 17:33, March 28, 2006 (UTC)

Shandong

The Korean theory that Baekje ruled Shandong is based on the title (yet again!) 都督東青州諸軍事・東青州刺史, which was given to the king of Baekje by the Northern Qi in 571. In this case, the title giver was not a Southern Dynasty but actually controlled Shandong. But where was 東青州 in the first place? In 468 the Song Dynasty separated Dongqingzhou from Qingzhou (modern-day Shandong), but we cannot confirm that the Northern Qi had a political entity named Dongqingzhou. So it is also plausible that it was Baekje itself that was referred to as Dongqingzhou because Baekje was located to the east of Shandong! So the supporter of that theory have to prove not only the substantiality of this title but also the existence of the political entity, but they don't. --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You treat Koreans as though they all believed that Baekje ruled the western coast of China. Most Korean historian do not agree with the theory that Baekje at any time had control of any western part of China, and see it only as a "legend" or "heresay." --Bezant 04:42, April 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Nanshu, for your (yet again) insulting and obsolete analysis of Korean history. Unless you have eyes that work properly, you should notice the fact that modern Korean historical documents merely cite the Shandong Peninsula as an area under Baekje influence, not under Baekje control. There's a subtle difference, unless you haven't noticed by now.

On added note, I would take this oppurtunity to ask you a simple question. When will you stop insulting the intelligence of Koreans and look back on your own country's deceit? I (along with most of East Asia) see Japan as nothing more than a rude, uncouth, insolent, arrogent, pompous snotrag of a country that holds a prominent face in front of the international community while fabricating so-called evidence to support their proposterously outrageous claims to foreign territory and history. Not only that, your country has attempted to glorify its past by inventing cock-and-bull tales of Amaterasu, ignoring Korean aid in the development of Japanese culture, and exalting its imperialist ambitions of 1910, which date back to 1592. And that, Nanshu, is much, much more than the pittance of distortion Korean historians have committed. --Leonhart

Is Nanshu even Japanese? His user page suggests that he might be a Mongol or a Manchu. Ebizur 15:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nanshu, you are so anti-Korean, that you don't even stand up for Chinese issues such as the Diaoyu islands. I don't see you posting insults against the Japanese for "disagreeing" with your "views" of China in that area. --Zippie 01:24, April 4, 2005 (UTC)

Takano no Niigasa

However, the close bonds between the two nations are not in dispute. The current emperor, Akihito, has acknowledged that he is descended from Emperor Kammu, whose mother was a direct descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje.

Actually, we cannot substantiate "the close bonds between the two nations" with Takano no Niigasa. Koreans' incredible ignorance caused a fuss about His Majesty's statement.

I burst out laughing when I read George Wehrfritz and Hideko Takayama's article at Newsweek that started with:

She was a daughter of Korea's Paekche kingdom, a foreign princess betrothed in a political marriage to a Japanese prince. ...

Terribly enough, it looks like this is their average perception. They didn't even know that Baekje was overthrown about 70 years before she became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe.

To make things straight, I have to talk about Takano no Niigasa. In short, she was a Cinderella, who achieved success by good fortune, not with "noble origin". She became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe around 730s and gave birth to Prince Yamabe (Emperor Kammu) in 737. At that time his husband Prince Shirakabe had almost no chance to assume the throne because he was a grandson of Emperor Tenji and was deprived of hegemony by Emperor Temmu's descendants. As of 737 he only had the rank of 従四位下. What was worse for her was that he got married with Princess Inoe, the daughter of Emperor Shomu, around 747. When Empress Shotoku died in 769, Prince Shirakabe was installed as Emperor Konin by the northern branch of the Fujiwara clan. But it was, of course, Prince Inoe who became Empress, and her son Prince Osabe became Crown Prince. At that time Takano no Niigata's son was almost impossible to succeed the throne. But it brought her luck again. Empress Inoe and Crown Prince Osabe was entrapped into deposition by another Fujiwara branch in 772. Then Prince Yamabe became Crown Prince in the next year, but his mother wasn't given the title of empress because of her humble origin. It was after Prince Yamabe's succession (as Emperor Kammu) that she was given imperial titles.

Now we learn that she was far from a "princess" at marriage. Next, let's examine her clan. She was from the Yamato clan (the surname Takano was given during Emperor Konin's reign). According to Shoku Nihongi, her clan originated in Prince Junda, the son of King Muryeong. The Meiji-era genealogist Suzuki Matoshi 鈴木真年 offered the following genealogy of the Yamato clan.

  1. 武寧王
  2. 斯我君 (武烈7年遣倭国, 純陀?)
  3. 法師君
  4. 雄蘇利紀君
  5. 宇奈羅 (賜姓和氏)
  6. 粟勝
  7. 浄足
  8. 武助
  9. 弟嗣 (乙継)
  10. 新笠姫 (賜姓高野朝臣, 母大枝朝臣真妹)

Its accuracy is questionable, but that doesn't really matter here. You need only be aware of the wide gap in time between King Muryeong and Takano no Niigasa. According to Nihonshoki, Prince Junda died (in Japan) in 513. It was more than 200 years before Takano no Niigasa was born, and she was the ninth generation resident of Japan. How can you demonstrate "the close bonds between the two nations" with her?

Lastly, we discuss the Emperor's statement. The Emperor did not "acknowledge" but just referred to Shoku Nihongi. Koreans treat it as if it had been hidden. The fact is that Koreans are hopelessly ignorant. Everyone can access to Shoku Nihongi and almost everyone who has basic knowledge on Japanese history knows that.

Curiously, the Emperor has made similar "kinship" references. When referring to Okinawa, the Emperor mentioned that the Emperor's grandmother was from the Shimazu clan, who had controlled Okinawa. [1] The imperial family has a history long enough for its members to feel kinship with the people whenever necessary. --Nanshu 14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what? Your reference to Japanese records only bolsters the Korean claim that Akihito is descended from King Muryeong. It doesn't matter how distantly Emperor Kammu's wife was related to Muryeong; if she was of his bloodline, that's it. Period. You don't need to make a big fuss about this whole affair and label Koreans as "IGNORANT" for the sake of your extremely derogatory hatred of all of Koreans. Furthermore, making statements such as "Koreans' incredible ignorance caused a fuss about His Majesty's statement."/"In short, she was a Cinderella, who achieved success by good fortune, not with 'noble origin'."/"How can you demonstrate "the close bonds between the two nations" with her?"/"Koreans treat it as if it had been hidden. The fact is that Koreans are hopelessly ignorant"/"The imperial family has a history long enough for its members to feel kinship with the people whenever necessary." only attempt to keep all Korean blood out of the Japanese imperial line, when in fact nothing can be done about it.--Leonhart

I believe that Nanshu is an extreme Japanese-Nationalist trying to make himself look like a ethnic Han Chinese with the username "Nanshu" and using Chinese characters to prove his point. As for his Wiki contributions, which can be obtained through Nanshu page, they are anti-Korean and anti-Chinese; that is, nothing pro-Chinese, like he supposedly is. This is also evident in his knowledge of Japanese and misinterpretation of Classical Chinese. --Bezant



Dear Nanshu. Well, then why on earth Japanese press(except Asahi) did not care to deal with the empreror's remark? If the "close kinship" is nothing so special and that it is of no danger to the "divinity" of Japanese Imperial Family then why hide the remark? and not make it a "nation-wide" fact? You say "everyone" is accessible to "nihonki" or whatsoever, but that you're terribly mistaken. Only those who are maniacs of history ever care about the "holy book" and the majority of both Japanese and Korean population does not know what Nihonki says. They simply get their historical information from press, text books and some stupid TV sagas, and I believe that it had been the very first time for both Japanese and Korean folks to ever learn about the "Kanmu's Korean lineage". And THIS DOES ANNOY SOME JAPANESE. (Apparently, for you, it doesn't :)

Please don't ever measure the public from you viewpoint. They are not historians. They simply believe what SANNKEI OR ASAHI says. And if the Emperor's statement was not broadcasted or printed, then there is no way Japanese public could find out about Kanmu Emperor's Korean blood.

Why, you seem so confident about Emperor's remark. And does it mean that you're not Japanese? lol I know you are. --Klaus314 04:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

As Nanshu points out, Takano no Niigasa was Japanese minor nobility with the Baekje royal origin. She was not really qualified as “Baekje nobility and royalty”. If the “degree of intermarriage” is limited to the Niigasa”s case, “Many members of the Baekje nobility and royalty married into the Japanese imperial line” is a gross overstatement.Dwy 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What Does Paekche or Baekche Mean?

Paekche: Means " Kingdom of 100 followers". The Japanese word Kudara means same as Korean meaning. --Teacherjjlee 11:01, February 22, 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that the term was very friendly. Baek means 100 and Che means Economics, so I thought that it was all about a person who got a 100 in economics, or in other words, someone who didn't dominate the conversation. Getting a 100 in economics is like being Jimbo Wales or Bill Gates or Conan O'Brien and finding oneself in the center of a very big burgeoning development, as its manager or guiding light, as it just keeps getting better and better.

Baekche has always been my favorite of the 3 big dynasties. Silla always seemed so arbitrary and good, like The Late Show on CBS or Spy Magazine, and Choson is a very nice name, like good produce or good restaurant food, but getting a 100 in economics is what appeals to me most of the three. These values are the strength and content of these big geo entities. Cymaerg, Deutscheland and Xhosa are big names that capture the best of a huge group of people. As I really know the Hanja values involved here I believe the article should be written for those who don't. Its more of a wiki that way.hanzomon5--64.12.116.196 12:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuyu

This article lack ethnic issue. Wher is Fuyu?

--210.230.7.103 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it feel better now? – Wikipeditor 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove Article from "Need Copy-Editing" category

Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon 08:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The English is still odd in places; when I get a chance I'll copy-edit it (unless someone gets there first). --Mel Etitis ((Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Copy-editing

When copy-editing an article, two things are important: first, improving it, and secondly, not making it worse. I'm afraid that Mr Tan/PM Poon fails in both respects. --Mel Etitis ((Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

language

wikipeditor, where did you get the info about languages? i could find very little through google, but what i saw (including the fuyu language article) seemed to indicate very very little is known about the languages of this time. the best i could figure was possible connection of gojoseon->fuyu->goguryeo->baekje->early japanese. others indicate a goguryeo->silla connection. `www.wam.umd.edu/~kozawa/J_roots.doc says "The Proto-Han-Silla language is considered a dialect of Proto-Puyeo-Kogruyeo-Paekche." do you have a source for the 2 language statement? Appleby 05:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything through Google, either. All my changes are based on what my professor said, or rather what I remember from it. I hope this backing gives them a bit higher authoritative value than the average Google results. FWIW, he has a linguistical background and long experience in Korean Studies; his main areas of interest and research seem to be Volkskunde (Cultural anthropology?), history and Middle Korean and Hanmun literature and lingustics.

P.S. I gather he was also president of AKSE for four years.

About Baekje's 2 languages: An old Chinese report about Baekje (I'll ask him which one was next time) plainly states that Baekje has two languages. This fits in with the traditional history of the two Baekjes' foundation by nobles from Goguryeo, with Baekje's capital "부여", and with ethnologic and linguistic (and archaeologic?) hints at early migrations from both across the southern seas and from Manchuria into Korea.

About Southern migration(s?) to Korea by boat: All I have heard is that pig breeding traditions of the Namhae area (I think it was Jeju) are similar to Oceania pig breeding; I hope there is other evidence than just this. I have also read parts of an academic paper investigating the linguistic position of a 東夷 ethnic group (Jiangsu or Shandong area?). If I recall correctly, the paper claimed that the group likely spoke an Austronesian language. With this, it might not be too far-fetched to say that similar groups migrated to the Korean peninsular south, too. What I'd like to know more about is whether these assumed immigrants are believed to have formed the Samhan, or whether speakers of a hypothetical Han (韓) dialect who were already in Korea merely received cultural input from those Southern migrants.

Update: it's said to be the latter. The Han language(s) come from the north just like Fuyu (with Han representing an earlier migration wave, perhaps?) and were but culturally affected by peoples from the south.

About Northern migrations from Manchuria to Korea: Speakers of languages belonging to a [hypothetical?] Fuyu languages subgroup of the disputed (extended) Altaic group moved onto the peninsula in several waves, each of which can be identified by its own ceramics style. The peoples of Northern and Southern migrations met and mixed.

My professor seems to regard

  1. Goguryeo as a state representative of the northern group of speakers of a language of the Fuyu group – if you accept the 2 (Fuyu and Han) main groups hypothesis, this makes sense especially before Goguryeo's ambitions in the South,
  2. Silla as a purely Han state with the Fuyu group playing no role in its formation, and
  3. Baekje as the mixed state of Fuyu people ruling over Han peons described above.

At the stage of Old Korean, Korea was probably still linguistically divided, with a Han/Southern language being comparatively well documented in Silla's 鄕歌, and the northern (Fuyu-based) group basically not documented anywhere, with research restricted to analysing placenames and such – e.g. Southern 室 sil vs. Northern 谷 [g]ul, [g]ol[u], I'm not sure what this makes of it.

As I understand it, the term "Old Korean" is only about Silla language because not enough is known about the Northern language(s), and I gather we can only speculate about whether the Japanese language is a relative of the Goguryeo/Kudara language (see J. Diamond of UCLA).

Even though I have not found convincing what "evidence" I've personally seen placing Korean into the Altaic group, or even together with Japanese ("섬 = shima"), I am willing to believe those with sounder background than me, the undergraduate student.

Let me repeat that the above is basically just what stuck with me from my professor's lectures, and what sense I tried to make out of it. I hope I have not given an overly distorted account of what he taught, and I am fully aware that it may not sound much different from all the wild hypotheses presented as facts out there on the 'net; but while I doubt that my professor would directly contribute to the article with his findings, I trust that he has the experience and clues that would be needed to back his statements up if necessary.

It would be nice if anybody came forward with more clues either confuting or supporting the hypothesis. I am not particularly leaning to either side.
On another note, even if Proto-Fuyu and Proto-Han were not separate language groups but dialects of one group, they still must have been different enough from each other to be considered two languages by the Chinese visitor to Baekje. – Wikipeditor 21:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research) is to generally include the consensus view; significant minority views should be identified as such. we're not supposed to do independent research, nor can we cite a professor, unless he has published his research in a reputable publication. of course, that's the policy but is not always strictly followed. but that's why, in a lot of cases, careful googling can reflect the consensus view better than relying on one professor, as long as there a few credible sources agreeing.

guick googling seems to show that your professor's views are held by at least one published scholar, but because of the scarcity of actual evidence of the languages of the time, it seems like a hypothesis that many other western scholars disagree with, or at least consider too speculative to conclude.

& as to chinese considering baekje & other languages as diff't, which record are you referring to? it seems there are a few contradictory chinese records. 梁書 says Baekche language is almost identical to that of Goguryeo.

btw, i hope i don't sound combative, thanks to your pointers, i've learned a lot more about this topic. but i still think the 2 language hypothesis is not part of the consensus, & if included, should be labeled as a controversial/minority hypothesis.Appleby 04:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't sound combative. I think it's good you challenged my edit because it also made me learn about WP policy which seems very reasonable.
I don't think I said that Baekje's language is different from Goguryeo's. I merely meant to say that Baekje itself had two languages. I asked again and was told that this statement can be found in the Tangshu/唐書/당서; unfortunately I don't know any details, so it might take a long time to find it there. I also made a note that says "정신문화연구원", but I don't remember what it meant – perhaps it was the 정신문화연구원 who published a 3-volume edition of the Tangshu?
As for the (Proto-)Fuyu vs. (Proto-)Han grouping, my professor maintains that this is actually an established majority view and suggested 이기문's 국어사개설 for reference. Now if 이기문 isn't a trustworthy source, who is?
Since I haven't read any of those books myself, you can revert me if you like.
I don't want to ask my professor for every problem about Korean language and history, but if you want to give it a try, his e-mail address is publicly available here, below a list of publications that somehow seems to omit most of his works since the late Iron Age. – Wikipeditor 12:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Language II

The article 'Baekje immigrants helped spread the Chinese writing system and loanwords in Japan.' mislead a bit. The ppl who actually spreaded the language is Japanese. And should write the relationship of Chinese immigrant as well. – Brionis06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I see your point. How about this change to the sentence:
Baekje immigrants helped spread the Chinese writing system and loanwords to Japan.
This change implies that Baekje helped to spread the writing system and loans TO the Japanese Archipelago only.Mumun 無文 11:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kudara

In the interest of completeness, would it be possible to include somewhere the information that "Baekje was known to the ancient Japanese as Kudara"? Bathrobe 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that Baekje made a colony of Kudara at Kyusu... Actually, the history of Baekje has been reduced as it is.... --Hairwizard91 15:58, October 20, 2006(UTC)

Can anybody discuss about the Figure as follows?

Image:Baekje power.jpg This map is considered as 4th century.
I think that it is better discussing about going into Shandong peninsula, and adding to the article. The map is the research results of Professor Yoon Naehyung--Hairwizard91 16:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC).

These may be areas of trade and cultural exchange (although questionable), according to an opinion of some fringe scholars. But the areas outside of the Korean peninsula were certainly NOT controlled by Baekje. These maps would be terribly misleading and unencyclopedic.--Endroit 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It is better discussing based on literature, archeological evidence and history books. Your discussion is somewhat emotionally biased. Please discuss scientifically why this picture is cultural exchange or why this picture is not true.--Hairwizard91 22:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is original with professor Yoon, see #Oversea territories? above for a previous discussion of this (or a related) theory. One finds this quite commonly in popularized texts, but I have yet to find a serious work on Korean history that deals with the Shandong question at all. (That said, I don't have very many Baekje-specific texts in my library, so I may be missing something).
The biggest problem with these images is licensing. Can you explain why you believe them to be released under the GFDL? -- Visviva 07:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The map is corresponding to 4 century when China was very chaotic, and Baekje was in high prosperity. This implies that the above maps can be the maximum territory of Baekje during reign years. The maps can be found in the public website.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.25.97 (talk • contribs).
I couldnt find any conclusion in #Oversea territories? . Someone had agree with it, and others dont agree with it. It can be added to the article as some kinds of theory about the Baekje's control of Shandong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.75.25.97 (talk • contribs).
That's fine with me, if it's correctly cited with reference to reliable sources. However, please note that images found on public websites generally cannot be used on Wikipedia, unless they are released under an appropriate license such as the GFDL. -- Visviva 09:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Satisfied with the map?
What do you think is the reliable sources? actually there are some books describing that baekje had ruled over Shandong, which can be tertiary sources. You stil say that it is not a reliable source to use that kinds of books. Make clear what the reliable sources are.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

*I think that it is more sound Baekje had occupied the Liaoning based on the records of Chinese history books.

  1. 三國史記 高句麗本紀 美川王 十四年 侵樂浪郡 十五年. . .南侵帶方郡 二十年 我及殷氏宇文氏 使共攻慕容廆 二十一年. . . 遣兵寇遼東
    晋書卷一百九 載記第九 慕容皝 句麗百濟及宇文殷部之人 皆兵勢所徙
  2. 宋書 列傳 夷蠻 東夷 百濟國 高麗略有遼東 百濟略有遼西 百濟所治 謂之晋平郡晋平縣
  3. 梁書 列傳 東夷 百濟 晋世句麗旣略有遼東 百濟亦據有遼西 晋平二郡地矣 自置百濟郡
  4. 資治通鑑 晋紀 穆帝 永和二年 春正月. . .初 夫餘居于鹿山 爲百濟所侵 部落衰散 西徙近燕 而不設備 燕王皝 遣世子儁 帥慕容軍 慕容恪 慕容根三將軍 萬七千騎 襲夫餘
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs) 04:42, October 22, 2006
The above image, Image:Baekje power.jpg has been listed for deletion. Please make your comments at this link.--Endroit 22:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
This map is under discussing. And truth and falsehood shall be turned out. According to the conclusion of discussion, the map should be modified, kept or deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.84.58 (talk • contribs)
The cited sources (in Chinese) from Samguk Sagi, Book of Song, Book of Liang, and Zizhi Tongjian, seem to be restricted to areas around Lelang, Liaodong, and Manchuria in general. Hairwizard91's map (Image:Baekje power.jpg) claims Baekje power extended into Southern China, Japan, Taiwan, and Northern Phillipines. There's no source for that.--Endroit 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The following statement can be possible based to the historical records.

There appears in the Samguk-sagi, a record of the King Mi-cheon of Koguryeo (309-331), in alliance with two Xianbei tribes, attacking another Xianbei tribe led by Murong Hui (?-333) in 319. The records of Jin-shu on Murong Huang, the son of Hui who called himself the king of Yan in 337 and founded the Former Yan in 349, include a statement that the allied forces of Koguryeo, “Paekche” and a Xianbei tribe took a military action.(1)
According to the Song-shu, “Koguryeo came to conquer and occupy Liao-dong, and Paekche came to occupy Liao-xi; the place that came to be governed by Paekche was called the Jin-ping district, Jin-ping province.”(2) According to the Liang-shu, “during the time of Jin Dynasty (317-420), Koguryeo conquered Liao-dong, and Paekche also occupied Liao-xi and Jin-ping, and established the Paekche provinces.”(3)
The Zi-zhi Tong-jian, compiled by Si-ma Guang (1019-1086) of the Song Dynasty (960-1279), states that in 346 Paekche invaded Puyeo that was located at Lushan, and as a result the people of the country were scattered westward in defeat toward Yan. Then, however, the King Murong Huang of Yan dispatched the Crown Prince with three generals (all with Murong names) and 17,000 cavalrymen to attack the defenseless Puyeo.(4) AD 346 was the first year of the King Keun Chogo’s reign (346-375) in Paekche.

I expect the comment about the sentences.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.84.58 (talk • contribs)

Based on the discussion, the above map is exaggerated, and Baekje had been controlled only Lelang, Liaodong, and Manchuria, which Endroit has also agreed with it. It is fair to add the fact that Baekje had controlled the Liaoning based on the discussion In addition, if the article about the governing of Liaoning by Baekje is added, the above map should be removed because of its exaggeration.--Hairwizard91 12:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason to lie about what I said, Hairwizard91: I never said Baekje controlled those areas. I merely pointed out that Hairwizard91's cited sources in Chinese don't match the areas shown in his (soon to be deleted) map Image:Baekje power.jpg. See also this link, on what people called your map, Hairwizard91: "ridiculous map", "utterly ludicrous", "grossly overexagerated", "utter nonsense", and "total fabrication of history". I suggest that you watch out for WP:POINT, because you have clearly violated it here.--Endroit 21:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to back off your comments Endroit. Isolating Hairwizard with the picture is unacceptable. The map itself was created by a Korean professor. The image is not totally accurate but the map shows Baekje on Korea and its areas of influence in Japan and China. Good friend100 12:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The picture is only a suggestion. It cannot be denied that Korean kingdoms had an influence on other areas and the fact that Baekje greatly influenced Japanese culture cannot be denied, whether or not editors decide to remove information about Baekje in Japanese articles all the time. Good friend100 12:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You (or anybody else) are welcome to explain in this link why this map should not be deleted, if you disagree. The map had no sources cited, violated WP:V, was believed to be a fabrication, and was deemed to be unencyclopedic. And Hairwizard91 was already blocked for violating WP:POINT for the other 2 images he uploaded here.
Also, your statement has no sources nor proofs either, Good_friend100. This is not somebody's personal blog; it is a talk page for Wikipedia's Baekje article, and you need to be able to back your statements with proper sources. If you disagree with me, please follow the procedure in WP:DR.--Endroit 14:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You should read carefully. I have already said that the figure or map must be deleted.. Because you mentioned about the exaggeration of map after I have said the deletion, Good friend100 said like that. You must be calm down and read from the first. Moreover, the map is not my creation, and the map is reflecting the current research about Baekje. You may research further about the Baekje. --Hairwizard91 16:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Delete the image, I agree with that. Good friend100 03:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research

The entire section on "Baekje's presence on the continent" appears to be in glaring violation of Wikipedia:No original research, which is a core principle of Wikipedia. If this section is to remain in the article, it needs to be backed up with reputable secondary or tertiary sources. Those secondary sources could in turn be supported with excerpts from the primary source(s), but as things stand this section has no acceptable references at all. I would provide citations of my own, but have yet to find a single reputable source that takes these claims seriously. -- Visviva 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not original research. There are some books about this history. I will show them.--Hairwizard91 02:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
You might want to consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and avoid misrepresenting the polemical and speculative nature of these fringe texts. Baekje wangjo sillok? That's either the worst choice of title ever, or a book that was never meant to be taken seriously as history. -- Visviva 08:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry but I could not understand exactly what you are going to say. Do you mean the books I have mentioned do not deal with history seriously?? I dont think so. Wangjo silok is just title of the book. The last two books that I have menetioned are for common people, and the first one is for expertise. But, they all explain the Baekje in Liaoing and Liaodong. The first book that I mention is written more scientifically, I think... If you want the last two reference among the three can be removed.--Hairwizard91 12:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I am guilty of "judging a book by its cover" in this case, since I don't have the actual books at hand (I will try to find copies of them shortly). I would assume that a book titled Baekje Wangjo Sillok would resemble the better-known work titled Goryeo Wangjo Sillok -- that is, a speculative reconstruction of history rather than a serious work of scholarship. Also, I find that in both Korea and the West, sober works of scholarship are almost never titled with strong declarative sentences. I would never cite The Big Bang Never Happened as a source on astrophysics, I would never cite 태백산맥은 없다 as a source on Korean geography, and I very much doubt whether a book titled 고구려 신라 백제가 중국 대륙을 지배했다 should be cited here. -- Visviva 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think I should removed the last two references based on Visviva comments.--Hairwizard91 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The cited reference is changed. One of them is a book, another is peer reviewed journal article, and the last is thesis of Seoul National University.--Hairwizard91 23:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where Hairwizard got it, but similar content is in this English book: http://www.hanbooks.com/paekofkororo.html http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi3-7.pdf --Muluz 17:32, October 30, 2006 (UTC)

a little more tweaking

'Baekje's presence on the continent' needs to be contextualized just a little bit more so that the general public are not confused. As Visviva deftly shows in the above exchange, the idea that Baekje had a presence in the places mentioned above is a fringe argument that is far removed from mainstream academia in Korea, Japan, China, and elsewhere. There are few adherents to this argument. I propose that this argument is being advanced as a personal crusade based on a twisted sense of primieval nationalism or tribalism. The editor who constructed the subsection is well-meaning, but the section needs a little more work. The very first sentence of the section on Overseas Baekje sets a good tone (e.g. word such as 'controversial'), and I encourage other editors to continue and try and massage our Hairwizard91's contribution along those lines in a collegial manner. Wikipedia is a post-modern construct and as such can accomodate many viewpoints as long as the less mainstream ones are properly contextualized. 백제사 군들 파이팅!! Mumun 20:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Self contradicted document of Baekje's founding

The founding and origin of Baekje is not consistent.

  • In the introduction, it is explained that " It began as a chiefdom in the Mahan confederacy during the Samhan period."
  • However, in the section of founding it is explained that "Baekje was founded in 18 BC by King Onjo, who led a group of people from Goguryeo to the Han River region of Korea, near present-day Seoul."

As everybody knows, Mahan is conquered by King Jun from the Gija Joseon when he fled again Wiman at 195BCE. But, the founding years of Baekje is 18BCE. The central area of Mahan is Jeolla, and the first capital city of Baekje is current Seoul by the son of Jumong even someone insists that the first capital city of Baekje started from Liaodong.

Thus, the sentence about the origina of Baekje from Mahan should be removed based on the true Korean history. --Hairwizard91 03:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As you mentioned there are two contradicted theories definately. -Cheol 21:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

History/Founding

According to Jonathan W. Best ("Tales of Three Paekche Monks who Traveled Afar in Search of the Law," Harvard J. of Asiatic Studies 51(1): 13-9197; 1991), Chinese records indicate that "the royal stae of Paeckshe" likely "did not come into existence until the fourth centry" (p. 139). Considering Best's standing, I think this should be mentioned (I couldn't find it reading the text as it now is). Best, would be some-one with access to A history of the early Korean kingdom of Paekche together with an annotated translation of the Paekche annals of the Samguk sagi /Jonathan W. Best., Cambridge, Mass. :Harvard University Asia Center :Distributed by Harvard University Press,2006. Best, Jonathan W. seeing what he now has to say. Kdammers 08:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you provide the actual words within the literature that might "indicate"? This could be WP:OR. (Wikimachine 19:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC))

Kujiki

Kujiki is a false document in popular lore. See Kujiki.Neomoon 22:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

separate 'Relations to Japan' section

I suggest to separate Relations to Japan section into another article such as 'Baekje and ancient Japan'. It has enough interested editors to pay attentions and the section is little longer than other section in this article. Cheol 05:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ethnicity of Baekje, Goguryeo, Old Japan and Old Korea

Based on Beckwith's landmark studies on the language of Goguryeo, where he found it to be cognate with Old Japanese, but not with Old Korean, the Ledyard hypothesis that the Goguryeo and the Japanese are of the same stock of horse-riding invadors has gained worldwide attention again. Since Goguryeo language and Old Japanese are different branches of a root language, it is therefore inferred that their kinfolk in Buyeo and Baekje also speak a branch of Old Japonic (to differentiate it from modern Japanese). This would put together the entire jigsaw puzzle.

The Proto-Japonic Buyeo conquerors and their offshoot peoples moved southwards from Manchuria into the Korean peninsula in the process forming the Goguryeo and Bakje kingdoms, in places where they subdued the Bronze Dagger Culture people (identified by Korean archaeologists as Gojoseon) in parts of the peninsula, with other areas maintaining their independence amongst which the state of Silla is the strongest of these native kingdoms. But the Buyeo invadors did not stop in Korea, for they also crossed the sea and conquered the Yayoi people (the Yamatai state with rulers such as Queen Himiko, as described in Wei-Shu) to start the Kofun culture.

When Silla finally successfully evicted these Japonic conquerors from the peninsula, those from Goguryeo fled back into Manchuria, where they helped to form the new state of Parhae. But the Japonic Goguryeo people were eventually absorbed by the Jurchens. In the case of Japonic Baekje, however, many of them fled to their Japonic brethen across the sea and settled there, being assimilated into the main population. Thus the modern population of Japan is molded out of a class of Buyeo (Proto-Japanese) rulers over a native Yayoi-Jomon people.

The people of Silla are in reality the descendents of the Bronze Dagger/Gojoseon peoples who conquered this place a few centuries before moving from Liaoning into Korea. Incidentally the native people of Korea are those of the neolithic Mumun culture. It was the Bronze Dagger/Gojoseon conquest that lead many of the Mumun peoples to flee across the sea to found the Yayoi culture in Japan. Thus the modern Koreans come from a mixture of the Bronze Dagger Gojoseon ruling class over a Mumun general population, plus some remnant Japonic Buyeo mixture.Wayne Leigh (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeo-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that some Japonic toponymes or place names, found in the central part of Korean peninsula, don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language in the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
Firstly, None of the Japonic toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated. Secondly, some Japonic toponymes (such as Japonic numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in the southern part of Korean peninsula. On the contrary, many Koreanic toponymes were evenly distributed all around the territory of Goguryeo kingdom from Manchuria to the Korean peninsula.
The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new small states which gradually developed into the Three Kingdoms of Korea, on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples.
Jagello (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →