28 replies to this topic

[Wayne]

Hi

I have tried several times to make sense of the history of ancient Korea written in Wikipedia. Its obviously written by some Nationalist who interwove mythology with facts. So much so I cannot separate these, and cannot get a true picture of how it all happened. Am I to equate the Neolithic (with some appearance of bronze artifacts towards the end) Mumun culture or the Liaoning Dagger culture (another culture without signs of imperial pretensions) with the glorious Gojoseon state that was said to exist and to rival the Shang and Zhou dynasties? Surely there's a disconnect somewhere! Apparently, according to the contributor in Wikipedia, the existence of Gojoseon was attested to in various Chinese records of the Han or later periods which relate events of the Shang and Zhou. Any comment from the experts of Han dynasty history?

Rgds

[WangGeon]

I'm no expert in Chinese history, but my area of study for my Master's program is specifically Korean culture so I would happily share what info, however limited, I have.

There are some issues from an archeological and cultural history perspective that hasn't yet been addressed. First is that "Gojoseon" is regarded as a state and the use of the Samguk Yusa founding date. There are actually variations of Dangun myth that have different years given; the Samguk Yusa version is only the most known. The myth of Gija (Chinese: Qizi), who fled during the fall of the Shang Dynasty, and establishing Joseon would make Joseon a contemporary of the Zhou Dynasty; Gija's flight is mentioned in the Shiji. Some scholars point out, however, that the Gija myth may not actually have anything to do with Joseon's founding, but instead represent the beginnings of the iron culture in the Joseon region. The Wiman Joseon myth also perhaps may be related to the rise of iron culture and not exactly the "founding". Chinese histories, however, do specifically mention a Chaoxian (Joseon); there is a clear indication of its existence in the late second century BCE. But there is no archeological evidence that suggests that Gojoseon was a "state" society; most likely it consisted of federations of chiefdoms or affiliated walled-town enclaves. Specific dolmen and artifact styles are often attributed to Gojoseon, but again, there's no evidence to suggest that it was a unified "state."

Another is the use the "traditional" founding dates of the Korean Three Kingdoms. There is no clear archeological evidence that the Korean kingdoms became actual "state" societies until the third century CE even though their traditional founding dates are in the first century BCE; the early dates are either a Silla or Goryeo embellishment to increase prestige (a practice not unheard of in East Asia as Chinese histories also posit questionable dates for the Xia and the Japanese Nihon Shoki also followed the same trend of extending history further back).

In any case, any history written on Wikipedia should be approached from a distance; even if it gives decent general info, there's always a dispute going on and it's wiser to take a look at the available scholarship for clearer pictures on what might be the case.

If you look up stuff on Korean folklore culture on Wikipedia, a lot of it is accurate; I know the professor who writes the articles.

Edited by WangGeon, 25 June 2009 - 08:04 PM.

[SNK_1408]

Hi

I have tried several times to make sense of the history of ancient Korea written in Wikipedia. Its obviously written by some Nationalist who interwove mythology with facts. So much so I cannot separate these, and cannot get a true picture of how it all happened. Am I to equate the Neolithic (with some appearance of bronze artifacts towards the end) Mumun culture or the Liaoning Dagger culture (another culture without signs of imperial pretensions) with the glorious Gojoseon state that was said to exist and to rival the Shang and Zhou dynasties? Surely there's a disconnect somewhere! Apparently, according to the contributor in Wikipedia, the existence of Gojoseon was attested to in various Chinese records of the Han or later periods which relate events of the Shang and Zhou. Any comment from the experts of Han dynasty history?

Rgds

Same for all other nation's history if you look at in your POV.
Japan also uses many legends and myths to describe their early stage of ancient Japan, why do you target only Korea?
What about early British history? there are full of myths and legends about them, yet no one pointed fingers at them.

Archaeological evidence doesn't lie, are you going to forget about Hongshan culture which is at least 1000 years older than Yellow river culture, and what about Dolmens and Menhirs that still standing at Korean peninsula and Southern Manchuria? Are you going to say these are all came from ancient cultures of China?

I know exactly what was your motive posting your topic here, you are trying to paint "ancient Korean" history is bunch of lies and fabricated stuffs, well "Gojoeson" theory is very much ancient stage of early development of Proto-Korean speaking tribes and archaeological evidence proves accordingly with old text records.

If you've the problem with "Ancient Korean history" then prove it with Korean history scholars and experts, let's see how far you fly.

[WangGeon]

I don't think Wayne had any malicious intent; it seems to me he was more interested in finding out what derives from myth and what actually has more supporting evidence in the Wikipedia history.

The Wikipedia entries for any history are not really reliable. Most educated people already know that.

Wayne, if you're interested in the archeology of early Korea but don't have enough Korean language skills to read through primary sources, then Gina Barnes's work is an excellent start. She offers a very balanced view of the different archeological perspectives.

Edited by WangGeon, 25 June 2009 - 09:26 PM.

[Juchechosunmanse]

Same for all other nation's history if you look at in your POV.
Japan also uses many legends and myths to describe their early stage of ancient Japan, why do you target only Korea?
What about early British history? there are full of myths and legends about them, yet no one pointed fingers at them.

True, almost every country/civilization has some sort of founding/origin myth.

Archaeological evidence doesn't lie, are you going to forget about Hongshan culture which is at least 1000 years older than Yellow river culture, and what about Dolmens and Menhirs that still standing at Korean peninsula and Southern Manchuria? Are you going to say these are all came from ancient cultures of China?

Says who Hongshan culture was Korean or proto-Korean?

[Juchechosunmanse]

There are some issues from an archeological and cultural history perspective that hasn't yet been addressed. First is that "Gojoseon" is regarded as a state and the use of the Samguk Yusa founding date. There are actually variations of Dangun myth that have different years given; the Samguk Yusa version is only the most known. The myth of Gija (Chinese: Qizi), who fled during the fall of the Shang Dynasty, and establishing Joseon would make Joseon a contemporary of the Zhou Dynasty; Gija's flight is mentioned in the Shiji. Some scholars point out, however, that the Gija myth may not actually have anything to do with Joseon's founding, but instead represent the beginnings of the iron culture in the Joseon region. The Wiman Joseon myth also perhaps may be related to the rise of iron culture and not exactly the "founding". Chinese histories, however, do specifically mention a Chaoxian (Joseon); there is a clear indication of its existence in the late second century BCE. But there is no archeological evidence that suggests that Gojoseon was a "state" society; most likely it consisted of federations of chiefdoms or affiliated walled-town enclaves. Specific dolmen and artifact styles are often attributed to Gojoseon, but again, there's no evidence to suggest that it was a unified "state."

Tangun, who supposedly founded Gochosun in 2333 BC should be viewed as a mythical figure at best. While I don't doubt that Gochosun existed before Qizi allegedly went to Gochosun (if that ever happened), I think he should be treated as such, just like how Qizi Chosun is, which is, until archeological evidence is unearthed to support its existence he did not.

[WangGeon]

Tangun, who supposedly founded Gochosun in 2333 BC should be viewed as a mythical figure at best. While I don't doubt that Gochosun existed before Qizi allegedly went to Gochosun (if that ever happened), I think he should be treated as such, just like how Qizi Chosun is, which is, until archeological evidence is unearthed to support its existence he did not.

That's why I referred to it as the "Dangun myth." North Korea claims to have found supposed evidence of Dangun, but given the current situation, we obviously can't confirm that. I seriously doubt that it's a genuine claim.

[Juchechosunmanse]

That's why I referred to it as the "Dangun myth." North Korea claims to have found supposed evidence of Dangun, but given the current situation, we obviously can't confirm that. I seriously doubt that it's a genuine claim.

On the other hand, I was surprised that you labelled Wiman Chosun a "myth" too, even nationalist Korean historians are not contesting its existence.

[Wayne]

I don't think Wayne had any malicious intent; it seems to me he was more interested in finding out what derives from myth and what actually has more supporting evidence in the Wikipedia history.

The Wikipedia entries for any history are not really reliable. Most educated people already know that.

Wayne, if you're interested in the archeology of early Korea but don't have enough Korean language skills to read through primary sources, then Gina Barnes's work is an excellent start. She offers a very balanced view of the different archeological perspectives.

Thank you WangGeon. You have answered my question precisely. I will look for her book.

SNK - I know that all nations harbour myths. I reject Chinese myths of the Yellow Emperor etc, and also take the Xia dynasty with a pinch of salt. I also reject Japanese myths of their imperial dynasty going back to centuries BCE. In the case of Gojoseon, the archaeological evidence from Neolithic and Bronze age artifacts and the late records of this legendary empire does not jive. That is my difficulty in accepting it as history.

Due credit has to be given to the Western countries in separating their myths from their ancient history. I do not think the British include their myths as part of the ancient history of their nation. Indeed, some of their early history parallels that of Korea. The Romans occupied part of their country, just as the Han did in Korea, and both invaders left some form of influence. Prior to that the British had some form of Celtic society which they did not inflate into legendary empires. The Germanic conquests are paralleled by the Buyeo conquests in Korea, and these conquests led to the foundation of both nations. Myths regarding King Arthur are recognized as exaggerations of the activities of a Celtic ruler of only a small realm, not regarded as Biblical truth by them.

[WangGeon]

On the other hand, I was surprised that you labelled Wiman Chosun a "myth" too, even nationalist Korean historians are not contesting its existence.

I was referring to the questions about the founding of Joseon itself. Some suggest that Joseon started with Wiman.

Also, there still isn't a definite agreement about the nature of Wiman Joseon; Gardiner (1969) rejects the Wiman account as fabrication while Hatada (1969) ignores it.

@Wayne: The book title is State Formation in Korea: Historical and Archeological Perspectives. It's not terribly long (just under 200 pages) and it doesn't use too many technical terms so it's quite easy to get into.

Edited by WangGeon, 25 June 2009 - 10:13 PM.

[Juchechosunmanse]

Has anybody read this book? "Constructing 'Korean' Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories" by Hyung Il Pai? Is it any good?

[WangGeon]

Has anybody read this book? "Constructing 'Korean' Origins: A Critical Review of Archaeology, Historiography, and Racial Myth in Korean State Formation Theories" by Hyung Il Pai? Is it any good?

I think that book is at my university's library. I'll have to take a look at that.

[Juchechosunmanse]

I think that book is at my university's library. I'll have to take a look at that.

Looking forward to your extensive review before I order it. Certainly not a book people belonging to the 민족사관 school of thought would subscribe to.

[SNK_1408]

Says who Hongshan culture was Korean or proto-Korean?

Wow, wait! who said anything about Hongshan culture was Proto-Korean?
I was referring to Yellow river culture and Hongshan.
Don't jump ahead. I can sense the communist style of accusation from you.

Did Hongshan culture came from Yellow river culture?

SNK - I know that all nations harbour myths. I reject Chinese myths of the Yellow Emperor etc, and also take the Xia dynasty with a pinch of salt. I also reject Japanese myths of their imperial dynasty going back to centuries BCE. In the case of Gojoseon, the archaeological evidence from Neolithic and Bronze age artifacts and the late records of this legendary empire does not jive. That is my difficulty in accepting it as history.

Due credit has to be given to the Western countries in separating their myths from their ancient history. I do not think the British include their myths as part of the ancient history of their nation. Indeed, some of their early history parallels that of Korea. The Romans occupied part of their country, just as the Han did in Korea, and both invaders left some form of influence. Prior to that the British had some form of Celtic society which they did not inflate into legendary empires. The Germanic conquests are paralleled by the Buyeo conquests in Korea, and these conquests led to the foundation of both nations. Myths regarding King Arthur are recognized as exaggerations of the activities of a Celtic ruler of only a small realm, not regarded as Biblical truth by them.

That's your personal opinion.

According to experts and scholars myths and legends are just another exaggeration of some events, so it might be not seen logical because it is myths after all, told by mouth to mouth without any written records. But important enough to included in early human history because there was no records before creation of writing system. Bible is widely excepted as Myth/legend, so are you going to de-credit them too?

Gojoseon is just another name given to tribal factions that purposely ruled parts of Liaodong and Korean peninsula, I wouldn't say it was empire, it was after all just another collection of state like kingdoms, possibly more considering Gojoseon history is very long. Most archaeological experts do agreed according to what various texts said about Gojoseon.
Who knows these Dolmens and Menhirs were belongs to different culture. This is why Gojoseon is often labeled as "myth", well let's say it's myth with archaeological proofs. I think it's more like Bible to me, considering what Bible told became true after modern archaeologists discovered real archaeological proofs. Good enough to included in history.

The Romans occupied part of their country, just as the Han did in Korea, and both invaders left some form of influence

Same for Mongols, Khitans, Jurchens and Manchu who occupied parts of China, and Germanic & Hunnic tribes occupied Roman Empire. I take it, you like to deliberately dis-credits others who occupied them.

Also, where was that Buyeo conquests in Korea? you mean Goguryeo and Baekje? They weren't Buyeo rulers, they were another clans off shoot from Buyeo tribes. What about Shilla? aren't their founding myth similar to Baekje & Goguryeo as well?

or what about that Nurhaci's myth or Buddha myth? are they all lies?

[Wayne]

According to experts and scholars myths and legends are just another exaggeration of some events, so it might be not seen logical because it is myths after all, told by mouth to mouth without any written records. But important enough to included in early human history because there was no records before creation of writing system. Bible is widely excepted as Myth/legend, so are you going to de-credit them too?

My answer : Bible is part legend and part fact. It cannot be taken as a totally reliable historical record, but as one of many points of references when we research into history. By the way, when I say 'Biblical truth' I am using a metaphor. I agree on the possibility that some myths and legends could be exaggerations of events. But I would disagree in taking it as a whole truth because there are some elements which might not be true.

Gojoseon is just another name given to tribal factions that purposely ruled parts of Liaodong and Korean peninsula, I wouldn't say it was empire, it was after all just another collection of state like kingdoms, possibly more considering Gojoseon history is very long. Most archaeological experts do agreed according to what various texts said about Gojoseon.
Who knows these Dolmens and Menhirs were belongs to different culture. This is why Gojoseon is often labeled as "myth", well let's say it's myth with archaeological proofs. I think it's more like Bible to me, considering what Bible told became true after modern archaeologists discovered real archaeological proofs. Good enough to included in history.

My answer : I am trying to find out more about Gojoseon. I think your collection of states is believeable, but not empire like some sources on the internet say. By the way, the Bible is historically unreliable on many aspects. It is anachronistic and embellished.


The Romans occupied part of their country, just as the Han did in Korea, and both invaders left some form of influence
Same for Mongols, Khitans, Jurchens and Manchu who occupied parts of China, and Germanic & Hunnic tribes occupied Roman Empire. I take it, you like to deliberately dis-credits others who occupied them.

My answer : I know all these, I also see a parallel between the rise and fall of the Roman and Han empires. But in my thread I am trying to specifically address the Wikipedia's narration of ancient Korea. I already know sufficiently about the impact of the nomadic invasions of China and Rome, and thus did not talk about them. I see nothing to discredit about the nomads and their conquests. Its the way of things. I do not feel that I should be so ashamed of the nomad invasions of China that I have to discredit others. Its nobody's fault. Just survival of the fittest. The invaders too influenced their conquered territories in ways that are both positive and negative. I believe that to understand the whole truth, one has to be detached and impartial in judgement.

Also, where was that Buyeo conquests in Korea? you mean Goguryeo and Baekje? They weren't Buyeo rulers, they were another clans off shoot from Buyeo tribes. What about Shilla? aren't their founding myth similar to Baekje & Goguryeo as well? or what about that Nurhaci's myth or Buddha myth? are they all lies?

My answer : Doesn't clans off-shoot from Buyeo tribes indicate that they are also of the same ethnicity? I do not care about founding myths, whether Chinese, Korean or Japanese. To me they are of no historical value besides sometimes offering some clues to help us see the true picture. No sensible historian would ever believe in Nurhaci's myth. Buddha's life itself is shrouded in mystery, and many myths have been interwoven with facts. According to my limited knowledge, historians are still not very clear if Shilla belong to the same Tungus ethnicity as Baekje and Goguryeo. It could well be.


I am a Minimalist when it comes to ancient history. Thus my rejection of myths as history in general.

Edited by Wayne, 26 June 2009 - 01:18 AM.