Misplaced Pages

#620379

92-481: (Redirected from Goguryeo-Wa War ) 4th to 5th century war in Korea Goguryeo–Wa War [REDACTED] Gwanggaeto Stele Date 391–404 Location Korean Peninsula Result Goguryeo and Silla victory Belligerents Goguryeo Silla Baekje Wa Gaya Commanders and leaders Gwanggaeto

184-679: A Goguryeo museum within walking distance of the Yalu River . One of the major Goguryeo steles is displayed there. Professor Joon-Young Kang at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies noted that China's interpretation of Koguryo history completely reversed South Korea's positive view on China vis-à-vis the United States. From 1992 until 2015, South Korea and China experienced a surge in positive relations, as each abandoned their traditional Cold War ally (Taiwan and North Korea) and engaged in greater economic, cultural and technological ties. This

276-578: A common bloodline. Yonson argues both philosophies contradict the exclusivity claim that many scholars try to make for either Korea or China because Goguryeo possessed territories that now are within the borders of North Korea as well as China, and descendants of Goguryeo people live in both Korea and China. She also argues that the strong distinction between "self" and "other" drives many scholars to accept only exclusive possession of history and its artifacts. Disputes over such claims are often laden with terms like "stealing." The Chinese city of Ji'an has built

368-468: A member of the Tributary system of China . For example, in the 20th century, Koreans switched the central figure in their founding myth from Jizi , a Chinese human sage, to Dangun , a god. Li Yangfan, a researcher of international relations studies at Peking University , believes that South Korean historical sensationalism, caused by the turbulent modern history of Korea, was the driving force behind

460-503: A part of Mongolian or Manchurian history. China, Japan, and other foreign states during medieval times acknowledged the legitimate succession by Korean dynasties such as Goryeo and Joseon of Goguryeo and viewed them as its rightful successors. Such is evidenced in records and scripts. Alexander Vovin believes Gorguyeo was Koreanic in origin. He pointed to Koreanic loanwords in Jurchen and Manchu , as well as Khitan and argued that

552-459: A passage describing the king's military campaigns for the sinmyo 辛卯 year of 391 ( sinmyo being a year designator in the sexagenary cycle that characterizes the traditional Sino-oriented East Asian calendar). Some officers in the Japanese army and navy conducted research during the 1880s and the rubbed copy was later published in 1889. Most Japanese scholars, notably Masatomo Suga, interpreted

644-717: A set of compatible historiographical views are necessary for China's relations with South Korea. Gari Ledyard observed that Goguryeo is also regarded as an important part of Northeast Chinese (Dongbei) identity by scholars from that region, just as it is prominent in modern Korean identity. Regarding the registration of the Koguryo UNESCO World Heritage Site , he suggested that there was likely considerable regional pressure on China's national government, and found it understandable that "Dongbei self-respect requires better maintenance for those Koguryo cultural properties". Chinese scholars are divided on

736-606: A young Japanese officer named Sakō Kageaki  [ ja ] (or "Sakao Kagenobu" ) traveling disguised as a civilian kanpo (Chinese medicine) herbalist while gathering intelligence in Manchuria. While in Liaoning he apparently heard of the stele's recent discovery, traveled to Ji'an sometime during April ~ July 1883, and procured a "tracing" of the stele's inscriptions to carry back to his homeland. The inscription drew significant attention from Japanese scholarship after

828-620: Is a branch of ancient Korea. The former Chinese premier's remarks have been made public through a document entitled "Premier Zhou Enlai's Dialogue on Sino-Korean Relations. During this time, the Chinese position was in part motivated by its good relationship with one of its key allies, North Korea . Since the 1980s, government control over scholarship liberalized, and more than 500 books about Goguryeo-related topics were published since then, comprising 90% of China's research since 1949. During this time, some scholars such as Tan Qixiang questioned

920-412: Is a country founded by Buyeo ( Yemaek ) people, one of the major ancestors of modern-day Koreans alongside the natives of Samhan . Both Goguryeo and Baekje were successors of Buyeo. The fact that a portion of Goguryeo people were assimilated into China does not necessarily make it Chinese, not to mention that the majority were assimilated into other Koreanic dynasties such as Silla and Balhae at

1012-417: Is difficult to tell when sentences begin or end because of the absence of punctuation and the necessity of reading into the text via context. Furthermore, the subjects Baekje and Silla are not recognizably mentioned in the passage; only the first character for "Baekje" ( 百 ) is noted, and even the supposed first character of Silla is not complete (only 斤 as opposed to 新). Furthermore, the character "jan" ( 殘 )

SECTION 10

#1732781018621

1104-545: Is inconsistent with China's own "peaceful rise" rhetoric and with its record of peacefully settling 17 of 23 of its territorial disputes with substantial compromises. On the other hand, some Chinese scholars perceive the Korean nationalistic sentiments of some Koreans (both North and South) as threatening to its territorial integrity. In fact, there are proponents in both the Korean liberal and conservative camps advocating for

1196-481: Is no doubt that the present-day dispute represents a case of retro-projection of modern identities. The real-life Koguryoans would have been surprised or even offended to learn that, in the future, they would be perceived by Koreans as members of the same community as their bitter enemies from Silla. Describing Koguryo as Chinese or Korean is as misleading as, say, describing medieval Brittany as French or English or Irish." Some scholars analyze empirical evidence through

1288-477: Is not a country but a pirate group, and he also denied Japan dominated the southern part of Korea. Xu Jianxin of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences discovered the earliest rubbed copy which was made before 1881. He also concluded that there was no evidence the Japanese had damaged any of the stele characters. Today, most Chinese scholars deny the conspiracy theory proposed by Lee Jin-hui in light of

1380-463: Is not based on a "pure blood line" and instead stresses unity in diversity and a supraethnic "Chinese people" or Zhonghua minzu . China also has an interest in promoting stability and the territorial status quo in its border territories, to tackle the advanced cross-border problems of drug trafficking , fundamentalist religious proselytism, ethnic separatism, and illegal immigration . An interpretation which suspects aggressive Chinese motivations

1472-538: Is one of the major primary sources for the history of Goguryeo, and supplies invaluable historical detail on Gwanggaeto's reign as well as insights into Goguryeo mythology. It has also become a focal point of national rivalries in East Asia manifested in the interpretations of the stele's inscription and the place of Goguryeo in modern historical narratives . An exact replica of the Gwanggaeto Stele stands on

1564-414: Is the subjugators being referred to here. However, Korean scholarship generally disagrees, and renders this portion as Goguryeo's claims to the two kingdoms as "our subject peoples". Some scholars also posit that "Wa" here does not refer to the "Japanese" people in the conventional sense at all. ( For further information on the "sinmyo passage" controversy, see section below ) It soon became clear that

1656-494: Is unreasonable that a monument honoring the triumphs of a Goguryeo king singles out a Japanese ("Wa") victory as worthy of mention on the stele (if one follows the Japanese interpretation). Generally, Japanese scholars points out that the rhetoric of inscription describes Gwanggaeto's battle as "overcoming the trying situation". Yukio Takeda claims that "Wa's invasion" was used as such situation when describing battles against Baekje. Some Japanese scholars also propose that Wa's power

1748-600: Is which part of history the kingdom belongs to. Korean scholars have the viewpoint that Goguryeo is part of Korean history alone. In 2002, the Northeast Project conducted by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) claimed Goguryeo as a local ethnic minority state in Northeast China . This sparked a major academic and diplomatic controversy, as Korean experts on Goguryeo history accused

1840-657: The Historical Records of the Three Kingdoms . Finally, the last part contains the list of custodians called Sumyoin , who were appointed to oversee the king's tomb. The inscription thus traces lineage from the legendary founder of the kingdom to the King who is memorialized by the stele. Note: Text written in italics in brackets has been reconstructed from glyphs chipped or eroded on the stone monument. Of old, when our first Ancestor King Ch'umo laid

1932-653: The United States with the Tang dynasty . North Korea narrates their national history to conform to Juche, by denying any indication of foreign occupation of the Korean peninsula, such as the existence of any Chinese commanderies there. North Korea 's state run media has denounced Chinese claims as "a pathetic attempt to manipulate history for its own interests" or "intentionally distorting historical facts through biased perspectives" in North Korean media. Much of

SECTION 20

#1732781018621

2024-659: The Yuan dynasty , which is important to the history of both Mongolia and China. Critics of Tan's view criticize that the division was not based in historical reality of the time. Zhang Bibo argues that Pyongyang, part of Han dynasty's Lelang Commandery, was within the territories of Han, Wei and Jin dynasties until its conquest by Goguryeo. Prior to the Han conquest , the region was part of Gija Joseon and Wiman Joseon , which successively submitted to Zhou, Qin and Han dynasties. Korean historians generally make these arguments: Goguryeo

2116-639: The "One History, Two Uses" view, who consider Goguryeo to be part of both Chinese and Korean history. Other Chinese historians see Goguryeo as a part of Korean history. In many contemporary Chinese publications on China's international relations, for example, the relations between Chinese dynasties and Goguryeo are treated as foreign relations or Sino-Korean relations. Many Chinese historians do not consider Goguryeo's positions in Chinese history and Korean history to be mutually exclusive. A highly influential view in China, later known as "One History, Two Uses" (一史两用),

2208-487: The "restoration of the lost former territories." Chinese scholars are afraid of border changes when the North Korean government collapses. Because there are more than 2 million ethnic Koreans living in China's Jilin province, China fears that they might secede from China and join a newly unified Korea. On the whole, the Goguryeo controversy is more significant to Koreans than Chinese. Reasons for this imbalance include

2300-428: The "sinmyo passage" of year 391 is whether it states that the Goguryeo subjugated Baekje and Silla, as Korean scholars maintain, or whether it states that Wa had at one time subjugated Baekje and Silla, as Japanese scholars have traditionally interpreted. The Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office , which learned about the stele and obtained a rubbed copy from its member Kageaki Sakō in 1884, became intrigued over

2392-413: The 1910s and 20s, Torii Ryūzō and other Japanese scholars traveled to Ji'an and observed the stele close hand. They found that the inscription had been repaired by clay and lime, and therefore questioned the credibility of the rubbed copy. The first Korean scholarly study challenging the Japanese interpretation was published by Chŏng In-bo  [ ko ] in 1955. He supposed that the subjects of

2484-636: The 19th and 20th centuries, the Japanese Empire differentiated Goguryeo from the other Three Kingdoms of Korea to claim Japanese (Wa) influence in the non-Goguryeo kingdoms of Baekje and Silla to justify its colonization of Korea. To demonstrate their theories, they moved a stone monument (棕蟬縣神祠碑), which was originally located at Liaodong , into Pyongyang. Meanwhile, North Korea has glorified Goguryeo's independent qualities as part of their Juche ("self-reliance") ideology, identifying itself with Goguryeo, while equating South Korea with Silla , and

2576-518: The 19th century, when the region was opened up for resettlement. In 1876, the Qing government established the Huairen County (now Huanren Manchu Autonomous County ) to govern the area. New settlers into the region around Ji'an began making use of the many bricks and baked tiles that could be found in the region to build new dwellings. The curious inscriptions on some of these tiles soon reached

2668-735: The 2006 Asia–Europe Meeting . That year, his government renamed the Goguryeo Research Foundation to the Northeast Asian History Foundation , expanding its mandate. In 2007, the Northeast Project concluded, but neither China nor South Korea has changed their view of Goguryeo history after the dispute. In China, the diplomatic imbroglio meant that research on Goguryeo has become taboo, and former Chinese Goguryeo researchers have diverted their time and resources to other areas. During

2760-577: The Baekje and Wa forces to the castle in Alla , where the Baekje, Wa, and Gaya troops surrendered. 404: Wa unexpectedly invaded the southern border of the former Daifang territory. Gwanggaeto led his troops and defeated the Wa forces in the vicinity of Pyongyang. The Wa army was defeated and many Wa soldiers were killed. References [ edit ] ^ Mizoguchi, Koji. The Archaeology of Japan: From

2852-572: The Chinese government of using history for political purposes. In response, South Korea established the Goguryeo Research Foundation in 2004 (renamed the Northeast Asian History Foundation in 2006) and summoned the Chinese ambassador . In 2007, the Northeast Project ended, causing the study of Goguryeo history in China to decline dramatically. Various analyses of the controversy have focused on external motivations for

Goguryeo–Wa War - Misplaced Pages Continue

2944-1198: The Earliest Rice Farming Villages to the Rise of the State . Cambridge University Press. p. 51. ^ Kamstra, Jacques H. Encounter Or Syncretism: The Initial Growth of Japanese Buddhism . p. 38. ^ Matsumoto, Naoko; Bessho, Hidetaka; Tomii, Makoto. Coexistence and Cultural Transmission in East Asia . p. 155. ^ Batten, Bruce Loyd. Gateway to Japan: Hakata in War And Peace, 500-1300 . p. 16. ^ De Bary, Theodore and Peter H. Lee, "Sources of Korean Tradition", pp. 25–26 Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Goguryeo–Wa_War&oldid=1229934785 " Categories : 400s conflicts 390s 391 400s 404 4th-century conflicts 4th century in Japan 5th century in Japan Gwanggaeto

3036-892: The Goguryeo issues increased the incidence of Sinophobia in South Korea, and has possibly influenced South Korea's security strategy to become more pro-American and anti-China. In March 2004, the South Korean government established the Goguryeo Research Foundation to publish research conducive to its view of Goguryeo as part of Korean history. In April, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs deleted references to Korea's premodern history on its website, prompting South Korea to summon its Chinese ambassador. In August 2004, China sent its Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs Wu Dawei to Seoul to defuse tensions. China recognized Korea's concerns and pledged not to place

3128-553: The Goguryeo language was the ancestor of Koreanic people, and spread southwards to replace the Japonic languages of the Samhan. James Unger has proposed a similar model on historical grounds. According to John B. Duncan of UCLA: "For the last 1,000 years, Goguryeo was an important factor in helping modern Korea find its identity. Goguryeo is part of Korean history." According to Mark Byington of Harvard University, who has followed

3220-522: The Great Invasions of Korea Japan–Korea relations Wars involving Baekje Wars involving Gaya confederacy Wars involving Goguryeo Wars involving Japan Wars involving Silla Hidden categories: Articles with short description Short description matches Wikidata Articles needing additional references from April 2017 All articles needing additional references Gwanggaeto Stele The stele

3312-906: The Great Naemul Asin The Goguryeo–Wa War occurred at the end of the 4th century and the beginning of the 5th century between Goguryeo and the Baekje – Wa alliance. As a result, Goguryeo made both Silla and Baekje its subjects, bringing about a unification of the Three Kingdoms of Korea that lasted about 50 years. Timeline [ edit ] [REDACTED] This section needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. ( April 2017 ) ( Learn how and when to remove this message ) 396: Gwanggaeto

3404-464: The Great led his troops and attacked Baekje, conquering many castles along the way. Gwanggaeto captured the Baekje capital and forced Asin to surrender and become his subject. Gwanggaeto gained 58 towns and 700 villages, and returned home with hostages, including a Baekje prince and several ministers. 399: Baekje broke its previous allegiance to Goguryeo and allied with Wa . In Pyongyang , Gwanggaeto

3496-658: The Japanese Army in the 20th century to justify the Japanese invasion of Korea. According to his books, Sakō altered the copy and later the Japanese General Staff thrice sent a team to make the falsification of the stele with lime. In 1981, the Korean Lee Hyung-gu began putting forth the argument, based on the irregularity of the Chinese character style and grammar, that the sinmyo passage was altered so as 後 read 倭, and 不貢因破 read 來渡海破. Thus,

3588-604: The Korean Peninsula, while omitting Goguryeo and Balhae, whose main territories belonged to the current North Korea and some parts of Manchuria, the current Chinese territory. This sparked diplomatic protests and demands of apology from the Republic of Korea, which accused the National Museum of China of tampering the chronology that Korea had initially given to China. This is raising speculation that Beijing

3680-406: The Northeast Project annihilated China's diplomatic accomplishments in South Korea with a stroke. On the celebration of the 30th anniversary of Korea-China ties, the National Museum of China presented a chronology of Ancient Korean history which only included information about kingdoms like Baekje (18 B.C.-660 A.D.) and Silla (57 B.C.-935 A.D.) which were located on the southern and central parts of

3772-432: The Northeast Project's conclusions in its history textbooks, and both South Korea and China expressed the desire not to see the issue damage relations. However, China's expressed concerns that Korean irredentism towards northeast China were not addressed by the South Korean side. In September, the South Korean government declared that the 1909 Jiandao Convention , which ceded Korean claims to northeast Chinese territory,

Goguryeo–Wa War - Misplaced Pages Continue

3864-554: The South Korean popular press in South Korea expressed outrage over the Northeast Project, and some commentators suspected, that because the CASS receives government funding, the Chinese government might support the Northeast Project. However, the CASS's Center for Borderland History and Geography Research is underfunded, understaffed (containing only 21 researchers), and not self-sufficient; government subsidies came in response to

3956-418: The Wa (people from what is now Japan). The king of Goguryeo is described as assisting Silla when it was invaded by the Wa, and punishing Baekje for allying with the Wa. The inscription states that since the "sinmyo" year (391 AD), the Wa had been crossing the sea into Korea. The passage continues by saying that "it" subjugated the two kingdoms Baekche and Silla. Japanese scholarship generally considers that Wa

4048-489: The advent of this copy. Imperial Japanese Army General Staff Office invited leading sinologists and historians to decode the text, later publishing their findings in Kaiyoroku 會餘録, volume 5 (1889). The first authentic rubbings of the full inscriptions were not made until 1887 according to one researcher. It was after the authentic "rubbings" (rather than "tracings") became available that Chinese scholars started studying

4140-414: The attention of Korean, Chinese and Japanese scholars, the third often supplemented by Japanese spies travelling incognito to spy the region's fortifications and natural layout, prescient of a future of increased international rivalry. Initially only rubbings of sporadic individual letters could be made, due to the overgrowth. In order to uncover the entire inscription, the county magistrate in 1882 ordered

4232-427: The conflict. Li views that South Korean historians push for a strong selective narrative in Korean history, and that the motive for rejecting Goguryeo's Chinese connections is to establish a narrative of a continuous Korean nation-state from Dangun Joseon to Goryeo and modern Korea. As both China and South Korea are in the process of nation-building , Li believes that recognizing South Korea's changes and establishing

4324-481: The debate since 1993, Goguryeo "was clearly not a Chinese state in any sense, as demonstrated abundantly by China's own dynastic histories". Byington says that the Chinese position is "historically indefensible" and "historically flawed", but at the same time has valid reasons, politically (e.g. territorial concerns), and is not as "sinister" as many Koreans believe (i.e., "a prelude to an active aggression against Korea"). Finnish linguist Juha Janhunen believes that it

4416-403: The earnest, and the first scholarly paper produced by the Chinese was Wang Chih-hsiu (王志修; Wang Zhixiu), Kao-chü-li Yung-lo t'ai-wang ku pei k'ao (高句麗永樂太王古碑攷 1895). And Korea was not aware of the monument until Kaiyoroku was published in 1889. Thus, the Japanese scholars were the ones to make the first detailed analysis of the stele's ancient text. There is some discrepancy with regards to

4508-500: The ears of Chinese scholars and epigraphers . A few tiles were found inscribed "May the mausoleum of the Great King be secure like a mountain and firm like a peak". It was around 1876 that a local Chinese official named Guan Yueshan, who also dabbled as an amateur epigrapher, began collecting such tiles and discovered the mammoth stone stele of Gwanggaeto obscured under centuries of mud and overgrowth. The discovery soon attracted

4600-684: The extremely low salaries in CASS's history and philosophy departments, in contrast to the more lucrative fields of economics and law, and the money given does not match the high strategic value of borderland research. Historically, the CASS has produced research that disagreed with or is critical of government policies. Other, still more moderate voices in Korea pointed out that several official publications in China refer to Goguryeo simply as Korea's history. Chinese scholars who disagreed with Sun and Zhang's "Chinese local history" view were interviewed by South Korean newspapers. The negative press coverage over

4692-464: The fact that in modern Korean nationalism , Goguryeo's history is presented as a contrast to Korean history in the 19th and 20th century, during which Korea was subjugated during Korea under Japanese rule after which it became the first major battleground during the Cold War . Another founding tenet of Korean nationalism is to establish independence from China, which it had long been subordinate to as

SECTION 50

#1732781018621

4784-476: The foundations of our state, he came forth from Northern Buyeo as the son of the Celestial Emperor. His mother, the daughter of Habaek , gave birth to him by cracking an egg and bringing her child forth from it. Endowed with heavenly virtue, King Ch'umo [ accepted his mother's command and ] made an imperial tour to the south. His route went by the way of Puyo's Great Omni River. Gazing over the ford,

4876-550: The grounds of the War Memorial of Seoul and the rubbed copies made in 1881 and 1883 are in the custody of China and Japan. The stele's location, in Ji'an in the northeastern Chinese province of Jilin , was key to its long neglect. Following the fall of Goguryeo in 668, and to a lesser extent the fall of its successor state Balhae in 926, the region drifted outside the sway of both Korean and Chinese geopolitics. Afterwards

4968-583: The hereditary position. Accordingly, he [ritually] summoned the Yellow Dragon to come down and "meet the king." The King was on the hill east of Cholbon, and the Yellow Dragon took him on its back and ascended to Heaven. He left a testamentary command to his heir apparent, King Yuryu , that he should conduct his government in accordance with the Way. Great King Churyu succeeded to rule and the throne

5060-468: The heyday of Maoism , the Chinese government line was that the history of Goguryeo ( Gaogouli in Chinese) was Korean history. Notable statements on Goguryeo being Korean included those by Chinese Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, who said in 1963 that Korean people have lived in the northeastern region of China since ancient times and excavated relics prove that Balhae, considered a successor state of Goguryeo,

5152-426: The inviolability of its territory and the unity of its ethnic groups. Some scholars have also criticized the projection of modern-day national identities onto ancient peoples. As neighboring areas, northeast China and North Korea have both laid claim to the history of ancient kingdoms that occupied the region. The interpretation of history in this region has implications for contemporary territorial sovereignty. During

5244-546: The issue concerning the historical place of Goguryeo. As early as the 1940s, Jin Yufu (金毓黻), a prominent scholar in Northeast Chinese history, asserted that Fuyu (Buyeo) and Goguryeo were indisputable members of the Chinese nation . The following arguments largely represent research work after the 1980s by Sun Jinji, Zhang Bibo, et al., who regard Goguryeo as a Chinese state first and foremost, as well as supporters of

5336-716: The king said, "I am Ch'umo, son of August Heaven and the daughter of the Earl of the River. Weave together the bulrushes for me so that the turtles will float to the surface." And no sooner had he spoken than [the God of the River] wove the bullrushes so that the turtles floated to the surface, whereupon he crossed over the river. Upon the mountain-fort west of Cholbon in Piryu Valley established his capital, wherein his family would long enjoy

5428-553: The launching of the Project as a defensive reaction to preserve China's own territorial integrity and stability." Various explanations advanced for China's interest in northeastern history include: South Korean irredentism over Jiandao ( Gando in Korean), privileges granted by South Korea to Koreans in China , and the possible collapse of North Korea . Modern Chinese nationalism , which in contrast to Korean nationalism ,

5520-426: The lens of nationalism and ethnocentrism. Yonson Ahn and Jie-Hyun Lim believe that projecting modern concepts of national territory and identity onto ancient nation states is self-serving. Yonson says that the Chinese claims on Goguryeo history tend to be centered on territory: because Goguryeo and Balhae shared territories with modern-day China, it is therefore Chinese. Korean arguments tend to stem from ancestry,

5612-499: The maintenance of Gwanggaeto's tomb in perpetuity. It is the rest of the inscription, which provides a synopsis of Gwanggaeto's reign and his numerous martial accomplishments (see section above) that is rife with the most controversy. The most controversial portion of the stele's narrative has come to be known simply as the "sinmyo passage". The sinmyo passage as far as it is definitively legible reads thus (with highly defaced or unreadable characters designated by an X): Disagreement in

SECTION 60

#1732781018621

5704-698: The modern Goguryeo controversy. However, the Northeast Project cannot be equated with the study of Goguryeo, because it studied more topics than Goguryeo, including the history of the Russian Far East , the Bohai Kingdom , economic history, and local histories in ancient China and Korea. China states that Goguryeo was an ethnic Tungusic state and in modern-day China, Tungusic ethnicities like Manchus, Xibe, Oroqen, and Nanai are citizens of China and viewed as part of China's multi-ethnic historical civilization. The Tungusic Yemaek founded Goguryeo and it

5796-459: The newly discovered rubbed copy. In the project of writing a common history textbook, Kim Tae-sik of Hongik University (Korea) denied Japan's theory. But, Kōsaku Hamada  [ ja ] of Kyushu University (Japan) reported his interpretation of the Gwanggaeto Stele text, neither of them adopting Lee's theory in their interpretations. In refuting the interpretation that Wa conquered Baekje and Silla, some Korean scholars alleges that it

5888-482: The number of inscribed characters. Some sources state that the stele has 1,802 characters, while others say it has 1,775. The inscribed text can be grouped by content into three parts. 1) Foundation myth of the Goguryeo kingdom; 2) the military exploits of King Gwanggaeto; and 3) personal record of the custodians of the monarch's grave. The first part details the legend of the Goguryeo's founder and his lineage while

5980-412: The passage as follows (brackets designating a "reading into" the text where the character is not legible): And in the sinmyo year (辛卯年) the Wa (倭) came and crossed the sea (來渡海) and defeated (破) Baekje (百 殘), [unknown], and [Sil]la (新羅) and made them (以爲) subjects (臣民) They presumed that Wa referred to a centralized Japanese government at the time that controlled the entire western part of Japan. In

6072-414: The passage is that Goguryeo, not Japan, crossed the sea and defeated Baekje or Wa. In the case of this interpretation, and the abbreviation of King Gwanggaeto's title in the passage, the passage states: And in the sinmyo year the Wa crossed the sea. King Gwanggaeto (abbreviation) made Silla and Baekje subjects of (?) Some point out several facts that put in doubt the traditional Japanese interpretation of

6164-459: The reevaluation of history, including Korean irredentism towards adjacent Chinese territory, the possibility of North Korean collapse, and the challenge to China from transnational separatism . Nationalist historiography has inflamed both sides of the debate, as Korean nationalism treats the themes of a powerful Korean Goguryeo and independence from China as central (see: Korean nationalist historiography ), while Chinese nationalism stresses

6256-626: The region came under the control of numerous Manchurian states, notably the Jurchen and from the 16th century the Manchu . When the Manchu conquered China in 1644 and established the Qing dynasty , they instituted a "closure policy" ( fengjin 封禁) that blocked entry into a vast area in Manchuria north of the Yalu River, including the stele's site. This seclusion came to an end in the latter half of

6348-464: The repair of the stele and concluded that Sakō's copy had not been made by the rubbing method but rather had been traced, a method known in China as shuanggou tianmo ( 双鉤塡墨 ). The North Korean scholar Kim reported his conclusions in a 1963 article. He had studied the Japanese chronicles Kojiki and Nihonshoki , and concluded that Wa referred to colonies of Samhan in Japan. He claimed that these colonies were established by Korean immigrants and

6440-636: The same lineage as the Chinese in the Northeast region, while the Korean people were a part of the Silla lineage." Another faction of historians, led by Sun Jinji ( 孙进己 , Sūn Jìnjǐ ) and Zhang Bibo ( 张碧波 , Zhāng Bìbō ), of the Heilongjiang Academy of Sciences, criticized Tan and put forth the thesis that Goguryeo should be regarded as a regional subset of Chinese history ("local Chinese history") rather than purely Korean history. They cited

6532-459: The scholarship on the Goguryeo controversy has focused on China's strategic intentions towards the Koreas, and presumptively overlooked the validity of Chinese scholars' historical claims. Yonson Ahn, a Korean scholar who has studied Korean comfort women and historical debates in Korea and Japan, writes that historians such as Quan Zhezhu , Sun Jinji , Kim Hui-kyo , and Mark Byington "perceive

6624-470: The sea." But, it is probable that the phrase indicate Battle in Gwanmi, a maritime fortress of Baekje until 391. Goguryeo controversies The Goguryeo controversies are disputes between China and Korea ( North and South ) on the history of Goguryeo , an ancient kingdom (37 BC – 668 AD) located in present-day Northeast China and the Korean Peninsula. At the heart of the Goguryeo controversy

6716-463: The second outlined Gwanggaeto's martial accomplishments, beginning with the conquest of Paeryo ( 稗麗 ) in 395. The record of the king's conquest was outlined in the form of a list of the castles he occupied and the surrender of the states conquered such as Paekche 's in 396. The stele identified a total of seven conquests, which were corroborated by the historical accounts found in the Samguk sagi , or

6808-422: The sentence 渡海破 and 以爲臣民 were respectively Goguryeo and Baekje. By Chŏng's interpretation the entire passage read as follows: And in the sinmyo year Wa [invaded Goguryeo], [and Goguryeo also] came and crossed the sea and defeated [Wa]. Then Baekje [allied with Wa] and subjugated [Sil]la In 1959 the Japanese scholar Teijiro Mizutani published another important study. He had acquired rubbed copies made before

6900-545: The sinmyo passage. Firstly, the term Wa at the time the stele was made did not solely refer to people from Japan but could also refer to the people from southern Korean, particularly from the Gaya Confederacy. In 1972 the Zainichi Korean scholar Lee Jin-hui (Yi Jin-hui; romaji : Ri Jinhi) reported the most controversial theory of the interpretation. He claimed the stele had been intentionally damaged by

6992-563: The state's old interpretation of history, arguing for the study of all polities within China's territory as part of Chinese history. Jiang Mengshan proposed a "one history, dual use" ( 一史两用 , yīshǐ liǎngyòng ) system whereby Goguryeo would also be considered part of China's history, arguing that the kingdom's capital, for 460 out of 706 years, lay in modern northeast China, and that three-quarters of its population were not ethnic Korean . He related ancient identities to modern-day peoples by suggesting that "the people of Buyeo and Goguryeo had

7084-441: The stele was dedicated to king Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo, who reigned 391–413 CE It also became clear the stele was raised as a grand memorial epitaph to the celebrated monarch, whose empty tomb lay nearby. Though historians and epigraphers still grapple with the interpretation of portions of the text, the inscription's general layout is clear. One face provides a retelling of the foundation legend of Goguryeo. Another provides terms for

7176-401: The stele. Therefore, the statement in the stele that claims Baekje was a Goguryeo subject before the sinmyo passage would be propaganda on the part of Goguryeo; thus the conquest of Baekje would not be redundant. Further, Japanese arbitrarily assert the Korean interpretation which claim Goguryeo as the subject that conquered Baekje and Silla as an inconsistency with the preceding phrase "crossed

7268-441: The subject of the sinmyo passage becomes Goguryeo. Geng Tie-Hua questioned another character, claiming 毎 was altered to 海. Chinese scholars participated in studies of the stele from the 1980s. Wang Jianqun interviewed local farmers and decided the intentional fabrication had not occurred and the lime was pasted by local copy-making workers to enhance readability. He criticized Lee Jin-hui's claim. He considered 倭 ("Wa") word meaning

7360-665: The time of its fall and afterwards. Additionally, significant numbers of dispersed Goguryeo people taken into Tang custody would break free and escape to these neighboring states during the Khitan rebellion of 696 led by Li Jinzhong . Many would later be subjugated by Balhae in its conquest of Little Goguryeo during the era of King Seon . Certain amounts of dispersed population having been assimilated into foreign polities also took place with other Korean dynasties like Goryeo ( Mongol invasions of Korea ) and Joseon ( Manchu Invasions of Korea ) during times of war. This does not make them

7452-404: The traditional view in Chinese historiography that Korea was founded by the Chinese prince Jizi , as well as Goguryeo's status as a tributary to ancient China . In 2002 these scholars, mostly from northeast China themselves, established the Northeast Project of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to investigate this view. The establishment of the Northeast Project marks the beginning of

7544-440: The vegetation to be burnt off, causing damage to the stele's surface. Almost every inch of the stele's four sides were found to be covered with Chinese characters (nearly 1800 in total), each about the size of a grown man's hand. But rubbed copies could not initially be made due to the irregular surface and other factors, so that the early batch of copied inscriptions were actually "tracings" rather than "rubbings". In 1883,

7636-484: Was a character used derogatively by Goguryeo in place of the character "jae" ( 濟 ) in Baekje's official name (this may have denoted wishful thinking on the part of Goguryeo that another nation came and conquered Baekje). Thus, when taking into consideration the major absence of characters and lack of punctuation, the passage reads: And in the sinmyo year the Wa (Japanese) crossed the sea. (Abbreviation of someone's title) made (?) subjects of (?) However, further analysis of

7728-593: Was also populated by Tungusic Mohe people. In 2003, China applied with UNESCO to register the Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom within its territory as a World Heritage Site . In December, the South Korean government published a report denying that Goguryeo could be considered part of Chinese history, and giving directions to Korean civil society groups on how to counter Chinese claims. Korean nationalists groups and

7820-497: Was centered in Kyūshū , Kinai , Izumo . Later, according to Kim, the colonies were absorbed by Yamato polity , which was also founded by Koreans. He also posited that the subject of 來渡海破百殘 was Goguryeo, and 百殘 was not the Baekje kingdom but Baekje's colony in Japan. Other North Korean scholar also argued for Goguryeo's invasion of Japan. Many Korean scholars reject the interpretation that Japan ( 倭 ) conquered ( 破 ) Baekje and Silla. It

7912-717: Was further empowered by the two nation's mutual grievances towards Japan due to the atrocities committed by the Empire of Japan during the Second World War, which often led to them jointly filing protests alongside North Korea towards Japan on topics such as the Rape of Nanking and Comfort Women . However, according to Han-Wool Jung, vice-director of the Center for Public Opinion Analysis of the East Asia Institute,

8004-537: Was greeted by the Sillan envoy Silseong who notified him that Baekje and Wa troops were crossing the border to invade Silla, and requested Goguryeo's aid. As Silla was a loyal ally of Goguryeo, Gwanggaeto agreed to help them. 400: Gwanggaeto sent 50,000 soldiers to defend Silla. As Goguryeo troops reached the Silla capital, the Baekje and Wa armies retreated toward Gaya. The Goguryeo and Silla alliance attacked and pursued

8096-479: Was handed on, [eventually] to the seventeenth in succession, [who], having ascended the throne at twice-nine [i.e., eighteen], was named King Yongnak ("Eternal Enjoyment") (Gwanggaeto the Great) The inscription continues with the king's obituary and an account of the erection of the stele. The stele records entire battles of Gwanggaeto's reign and his triumphs. Many of the battles concern conflict with

8188-439: Was invalid. In 2005, South Korea conducted joint research projects with North Korea on Goguryeo relics near Pyongyang . Meanwhile, Chinese social scientists continued to publish research articles on the ancient Northeast Asian polities, including Guchaoxian (Gija Chosun), Fuyu (Puyo), Goguryeo, and Bohai, which Koreans exclusively considered their own. In 2006, South Korean president Roh Moo-hyun protested this research at

8280-441: Was likely that a " Tungusic-speaking elite" ruled Goguryeo and Balhae, describing them as "protohistorical Manchurian states" and that part of their population was Tungusic, and that the area of southern Manchuria was the origin of Tungusic peoples and inhabited continuously by them since ancient times, and Janhunen rejected opposing theories of Goguryeo and Balhae's ethnic composition. According to scholar Andrei Lankov : "There

8372-450: Was more or less exaggerated by Goguryeo to illustrate the triumph of the King, and the sinmyo passage does not necessarily prove the power of Wa in Korean peninsula of the late 4th century. On the other hand, they generally reject the Korean interpretation because the stele says Baekje was previously a state subservient to Goguryeo before the sinmyo passage and that recording the conquest into Baekje would result tautology in this section of

8464-472: Was proposed by Chinese historical geographer Tan Qixiang in the 1980s. In 427 AD, Goguryeo moved its capital to Pyongyang, and its political and economic center shifted to the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, Tan divided Goguryeo history into two phases: it is considered a regional Chinese power until 427, and a foreign state after moving its capital. Jiang Mengshan suggested that Goguryeo was simultaneously part of Chinese and Korean history. He compared Goguryeo to

#620379