44 replies to this topic

[altaicmania]

The originator of Jin(金, Kim) dynasty was from Korea whoes name was Kim Ham-bo.

"The name of the originator of Jin(金) is Hambo(函普). When he came first from Goryeo(高麗), his age was 60"
金之始祖諱函普，初從高麗來，年已六十餘矣 (in 1st chapter of the history of Jin(金史))

Royal family of Silla moved to northern Korean penninsular and founded Jin dynasty with Jurchens (AD 1068). They occupied north China and moved capital to Beijing. This country was destroyed by Mongol's Chingis Khan in 1234.

But, their descendents founded Later Jin(金, Kim) dynasty again in 1616 (changed to Qing(淸) later) and conquered China in 1644. They governed and colonized China until Chinese got independence in 1912.

Following is the documentary broadcased in KBS.

Short version with English subtitle:




Full version:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfTDO8tjEDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nF_lWtM0QY


Not only the originator of Jin, but also Agolta (阿骨打), the founder of Jin dynasty, was called originally a person from Silla

"Agolta (阿骨打) of the Jurchens declared to be the Emperor, ... He was originally a person of Silla (新羅人)"
女真阿骨打稱帝，姓王名做旻，本新羅人，號完顏氏 (in 3 宣和遺事 (大宋宣和遺事))

"Jurchen Agolta named the state Great Jin (大金) (... He is originally a person of Silla)."
女真阿骨打稱帝國號大金(...本新羅人) (in《佛祖歷代通載》卷19)

There are lots of history records showing that the originator of Jin dynasty was a Silla person (or from Goryeo)

"The originator of Wonan family (Jin's royal family) is a person of Silla"
完顏之始祖指蒲者，新羅人 (in 大宋遗民)

"The name of the originator of Jin is Hambo. He came first from Goryeo (髙丽)"
金之始祖諱函普初從高麗來 ( in 大金國誌 written by Song Chinese)

"The originator of Jin, Hambo was first from Goyreo."
金之始祖諱哈富(舊作函普)初從髙麗來 (in 三朝北盟會編 written by Song Chinese)

Mongol and Korean records are consistent showing that the originator and the king of Jin dynasty are Silla persons. Goryeo claimed that Jin dyansty was originally inside Goryeo and they were people of Goryeo, and Goryeo was the mother country of Jin dynasty

"People of Jin was originally Pyungjoo people in our country Goyreo. Goryeo was a mother country of Jin."
金則本我國平州之人, 稱我爲父母之國, 尹灌築九城之地, 以先春嶺爲界, 終金之世, 兵不相加。(高麗史 written by Korean dynasty)

"The king of Jurchens is originally a Silla person"
其初酋長本新羅人 (in 金志 written by Mongols in Yuan dynasty)

When Jin dynasty invaded Song China, two Chinese emperors were captured as hostages in 1127. Song Chinese visited Jin dynasty to negotiate with Jin to find a way to get their emperors back in 1129. They recorded that the king of Jin dynasty (the second empeor of Jin) was a person of Silla . It shows that the royal family of Jurchen was called Silla people even after Jin dynasty was founded.

"The king of the Jurchens is a person of Silla."
女真酋長乃新羅人 (in 松漠記聞 (洪皓, 宋), 1129, written by Song Chinese)

Qing government published their own history book, "The origin of Manchu (滿洲源流考)" in 1777. They worte that the originator of Jin dynasty was first from Goryeo in the book. Also, they wrote that the origin of the country name Jin (金) was from the surname of kings of Silla(新羅).

"The name of the originator of Jin is Hambo. He came first from Goryeo (髙丽)"
金之始祖讳哈富(旧作函普)初从髙丽来 (in Chapter 7, The Origin of Manchu (滿洲源流考) )

"The name of Jin(金) was originated from the surname of Kings of Silla(新羅)"
新罗王金姓则金之逺派 (in The Origin of Manchu )

"Silla came to Wannan family. Silla kings' surname 金(Kim in Korean) inherited ten generations. So, Jin(金) came from Silla. There is no doubt that it became the country name."
"本自新羅來姓完顔氏 新羅王金姓 相傳數十世則金之自新羅來 無疑建國之名 "(in The Origin of Manchu)

The Manchu royal family Aishin Giro (愛新覺羅) clan were people who lived in Odoli Castle which is in current Hoeryong (회령), North Hamgyong in North Korea where was part of Joseon dynasty since 14th century. They were a vassal tribe to Joseon dynasty, and they treated Joseon as a mother country. Nurhachi called Joseon dynasty "mother country" in the letter to Joseon showing willingness to help Joseon at the invasion of Japan in 16th century. The foundation story of Qing dynasty explains the birth place of Nurhachi, who was the founder of Qing, as the east of Baekdu Mountains which is current North Korea.

"There was a lake called Bulhūri at the foot of Bukūri Mountain, located to the east of the Baekdu Mountains. When three angels bathed in that lake, a magpie left a fruit on the youngest angel Fekulen's clothes. She ate the fruit and became pregnant. She mothered Bukūri Yongšon, the founder of Aisin Gioro. He was later welcomed by the people as the Beile. He settled at Odoli Castle on the Omohoi Plain and became the founder of the Manchu State."

Qing government announced the definition of Manchu and prohibited the term 'Jurchen' referring to them. The half of Manchu tribes were Korean tribes .

Definition of Manchu from "The origin of Manchu (滿洲源流考)"
Manchu Tribe 1: Suksin (肅愼), Buyeo(夫余, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 2: Yilou (挹娄, Ainu), Samhan(三韩, Korean), and Mulgil (勿吉)
Manchu Tribe 3: Baekje(百济, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 4: Silla(新羅, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 5: Malgal(靺鞨)
Manchu Tribe 6: Balhae(渤海, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 7: Wanan (完颜, Korean royal family and Jurchens), and GeonJu (建州)

reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvLF0KQ0yhA
Hanpu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://altaic-wiki.w...tion to Manchus
watch the episode in KBS (in Korean)
The Full version of documentary by KBS

Edited by altaicmania, 03 November 2009 - 04:54 PM.

[shengcaixiansheng]

what is the significance of the claim?

[yongzheng freak]

Probably to show that the Manchus have Korean roots....

[sunflower1]

Presentation wise this is a good documentation, eventough less english translation available. But still I am interested to see what other member comments, especially those who know this topic well.

[Peng]

Is this claim accepted by Chinese, Korean, and Japanese historians?

[Yizheng]

This assertion has come up in the past. It just joins all the various similar statements claiming this or that dynasty/ruler/ great person etc belongs to this or that ethnic group or had this or that origins. But really, so what.

Considering the historic links between Joseon and Manchuria, there would be nothing surprising for people in Manchuria to have some Korean roots too. But what implication does this posibly have for the Jin or Qing dynasties, who even if they maybe had Korean roots, did not define themselves with a Korean identity (or Silla/ Koryo identity) but with a Jurchen/Manchu identity.

And anyway, does it even really matter? All peoples and dynasties are really all mixed origin in terms of blood, and what counts is the identity by which they define themselves, the cultural/ religious etc identity is more important than whatever mix of blood in their veins. Chinese dynasties had got their mix of northern peoples but defined themselves with a Chinese identity, the early Russian rulers had scandinavian origins, and the Romanov dynasty became practically more German in blood than Russian, though this did not make it any less of a Russian dynasty in identity, and who could be more British than Queen Elizabeth II, but she is really a descendent of German aristocracy brought in to inject new fertility to the fading English rulers, and the British royal family's last name was, historically speaking, not so long ago changed from Saxe-Gotha Coburg to Windsor. Even very British Queen Victoria would have heard German spoken at home growing up, but does this make the British royal family German and not British? No, not at all, because the dynasty exists as conscious enterprise with a consciously chosen identity that has little to do with ethnic origins.

So really, the Jin and Qing could be Koreans for all I care, it makes no difference in terms of history, not for Korea or for the Jurchens/Manchus.

[Eidolon]

It might not make much of a difference to you, but it does make a difference in the sense that Korean nationalism, which is based on blood and ancestry, would now be able to claim the Jin and Qing as Korean history.

(That said, I don't know of any general acceptance of the above theory, mostly because the Mohe tribes to which the Jin and Qing trace their descent were identified as a distinct group by old Korean sources that are accepted as "official" historiography. But, many of them undoubtedly became Korean, like the Xianbei became Chinese.)

Edited by Eidolon, 14 November 2009 - 03:32 PM.

[yongzheng freak]

Do they think of themselves as Korean in the first place? What sort of contribution they (korea) made to the Jin and Qing governments? What is the place Jin and Qing have in Korean history? That Korea ruled over China by proxy?

Edited by yongzheng freak, 16 November 2009 - 06:07 AM.

[Yizheng]

Do they think of themselves as Korean in the first place? What sort of contribution they (korea) made to the Jin and Qing governments? What is the place Jin and Qing have in Korean history? That Korea ruled over China by proxy?

That's the same point I was trying to make too. By the nationalist logic taking only blood and ancestry into account, without paying attention to conscious identity, Britain could say it was ruling America by proxy for so long because of all those US presidents with British blood and ancestry, and now Kenya is ruling America by proxy through Obama. And Germany is still ruling Britain through the Windsor royal family.

Like I said before, you have to look at the chosen identity of the historical figures in question, rather than whatever blood and ancestry they might have. If it's of comfort to Korean nationalists that Jin and Qing had Korean ancestry, well, fine, let it comfort them, but it makes no difference to objective history given that the Jin and Qing did not in anyway expressly define themselves as Korean.

[yongzheng freak]

That's the same point I was trying to make too. By the nationalist logic taking only blood and ancestry into account, without paying attention to conscious identity, Britain could say it was ruling America by proxy for so long because of all those US presidents with British blood and ancestry, and now Kenya is ruling America by proxy through Obama. And Germany is still ruling Britain through the Windsor royal family.

Like I said before, you have to look at the chosen identity of the historical figures in question, rather than whatever blood and ancestry they might have. If it's of comfort to Korean nationalists that Jin and Qing had Korean ancestry, well, fine, let it comfort them, but it makes no difference to objective history given that the Jin and Qing did not in anyway expressly define themselves as Korean.

I agree with you totally and I am also very interested and curious to see how the Korean Nationalists would answer my questions.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

It might not make much of a difference to you, but it does make a difference in the sense that Korean nationalism, which is based on blood and ancestry, would now be able to claim the Jin and Qing as Korean history.

That's the same point I was trying to make too. By the nationalist logic taking only blood and ancestry into account, without paying attention to conscious identity, Britain could say it was ruling America by proxy for so long because of all those US presidents with British blood and ancestry, and now Kenya is ruling America by proxy through Obama. And Germany is still ruling Britain through the Windsor royal family.

Like I said before, you have to look at the chosen identity of the historical figures in question, rather than whatever blood and ancestry they might have. If it's of comfort to Korean nationalists that Jin and Qing had Korean ancestry, well, fine, let it comfort them, but it makes no difference to objective history given that the Jin and Qing did not in anyway expressly define themselves as Korean.

But wait, even by nationalist logic, if we trace the origin of Jin far back enough it would point to a Chinese origin because according to both the Bei Shi and Samguk Sagi, Sillan people came from China!

here is the passage:

"新罗者，其先本辰韩种也。地在高丽东南，居汉时乐浪地。辰韩亦曰秦韩。相传言秦世亡人避役来适，马韩割其东界居之，以秦人，故名之曰秦韩。其言语名物，有似中国人。....其文字、甲兵，同于中国 "

"Silla came from Zhen Han. Its southeast of Koguryo, belonging to the Lelang prefecture during Han. Zhen Han is also known as Qin Han. According to a common saying, after Qin fell, many people came as refugees. Ma Han took the eastern part of its territory and gave it to them, because they are Qin people, they are also called Qin Han. Their language and words used to describe things are similar to the Chinese...their writing, armament, are the same as China's."

So the Jin was actually Han Chinese if we use the same logic that Altaicmania and other ultranationalists like him uses which now plagues the internet.

By that logic, Wiman Chosun, Silla, and perhaps even Koryo should also be considered Chinese since their founder or the ancestor of their founder were supposedly Chinese.


On a more serious note. Altaicmania needs to get intoned with academic scholarship. Its a common knowledge now that the Qing is not descended from the Jin. And despite Altaicmania's quotations of "Qing ding Man Zhou Yuan Liu Kao"滿洲源流考, its apparent that he never actually read it. Because if so he would have picked up from the second page of that text that the Manchus themselves were aware that they were not of the same family as the Wan Yan clan of the Jin. To quote the passage from the text: "Although our dynasty and the Great Jin are both at the east, we are not of the same tribe...The Wan Yan family are all subject of our dynasty at the present."
本朝者謂雖與大金俱在東方而非其同部則所見殊小我朝得姓曰愛新覺羅氏國語謂金曰愛新可為金源同派之証盖我朝在大金時未嘗非完顔氏之服屬猶之完顔氏在今日皆為我朝之臣

The Qing's ancestors were the black water Mohe(which was never subjugated by Koguryo), a different group of Jurchens than the Jin. The claim made by Nurhachi as descended from the Jin rulers was purely for political purposes and has no factual basis, and Qing rulers knew that since the beginning, which was why Huang Taiji changed the name of his dynasty to Qing. So there is still yet evidence which the Qing is in any way related to Korea even if the Jin was.

Manchu Tribe 1: Suksin (肅愼), Buyeo(夫余, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 2: Yilou (挹娄, Ainu), Samhan(三韩, Korean), and Mulgil (勿吉)
Manchu Tribe 3: Baekje(百济, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 4: Silla(新羅, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 5: Malgal(靺鞨)
Manchu Tribe 6: Balhae(渤海, Korean)
Manchu Tribe 7: Wanan (完颜, Korean royal family and Jurchens), and GeonJu (建州)

You totally failed to understand the categorization method of Manzhou Yuan Liu Kao. The Qing ding Man Zhou Yuan Liu Kao was describing a geographical area rather than a cultural or national sphere. Man Zhou here refers to an area similar to "Manchuria" rather than an ethnic group. This is actually explained in the text if you actually read it. This geographical area apparently includes Korea as well and is quite different from the modern concept of Manchuria. So maybe the Manchus here could claim that Korea is part of Manchuria rather than the other way around?
In fact the Man Zhou Yuan Liu Kao even challenged the notion that the Sam Han were one ethnic group; "夫三韓命名苐列辰韓馬韓弁韓而不詳其義意當時三國必有三汗各統其一史家不知汗為君長之稱遂以音同誤譯而庸鄙者甚至訛韓為族姓尤不足當一""The people who named the three Han; Zhen Han, Ma Han and Mo Han did not understand their meaning. At the time, there were 3 states which must have 3 Khans that ruled each, the historians did not know that Khan was the name of a ruler and mistakenly translated the similar sound and made Han into the name of the ethnic group, but they should not be treated as one."

If you actually read the text, you'll know that Manchu was listed as a separate tribe from all of those above. These tribes are not part of the Manchus, but listed side by side with it as different tribes. Sushen 肅愼 and Fuyu 夫余 are not Koreans, they are Han-Northern dynasty names for tribes in southern Manchuria, while the Mohe靺鞨 is the Tang dynasty name of the Sushen. They are the ancestor of Manchus, and they did not speak the same language as Koreans and their descendants live in Manchuria, not Korea.




Despite discrepances, in fact the Korean claim of what defines their nation is not so different from the Chinese claims. This can be seen in the following characteristics that both countries share.
1) Both tends to claim all ethnic "minority" groups inside their border as part of their history. In fact despite the fighting, the Koguryo case is an example of both doing the same thing. Koguryo was neither ethnically Han Chinese or modern Korean, but claims are based on legitimate succession on Korea's part, little different from the Chinese claim of Yuan.
2) Both claim territories occupied by these "ethnic minority" states in the past as part of their national historical territory. So Korea's claim is hardly monoethnic in nature, it just tend to group all of its ethnic groups as a single "Koreanic" nation. But then China is doing similar things in grouping many of these ethnic minorities as part of the "zhonghua min zu" and even try to trace all their ancestry to the Yellow emperor!

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 16 December 2009 - 02:05 AM.

[three_kingdoms]

My personal opinion is that the Qing/Jin dynasty is Manchurian/Malgal/Jurchen. Because that is how they defined themselves, and that is how the root of their clan origination. Yes, the founder of the Jin Dynasty was a former Korean who changed his "nationality" or "tribal affiliation". Yes the Qing Dynasty would have had zero power to rule if they had not claimed the Jin Dynasty. These tribal rules are actually quite similiar to the Crips and the Bloods lol.

But the other side of this, to recognize that Qing Dynasty/Jin Dynasty was Manchurian/Malgal in its identity is that Han Chinese cannot say to a Korean "Yes, your country was a colony to Han Chinese".

Because Manchurian/Malgal/Jurchen NEVER considered themselves Han Chinese as well. JUST like they never considered themselves KOREAN. You can imagine what a large percentage of the royal court of Choseon thought of the Qing dynasty's moniker "Love and Remember Silla". Obviously it made a suzerainty relationship comfortable because of the origns of the Qing/Jin dynasty.

So given this context, a Han Chinese simply does not have the authority to be arrogant towards a Korean, and proclaim "You Korean was a colony of mine".

Edited by three_kingdoms, 23 December 2009 - 04:49 AM.

[Borjigin Ayurbarwada]

Yes the Qing Dynasty would have had zero power to rule if they had not claimed the Jin Dynasty. These tribal rules are actually quite similiar to the Crips and the Bloods lol.

I beg to differ. Nurhachi would have ruled the Manchus with or without a claim to the Wan Yan lineage; he already had absolute power before he declared the later Jin. There is no need to call upon an extinct family line which the Jurchen population barely remembered.

You can imagine what a large percentage of the royal court of Choseon thought of the Qing dynasty's moniker "Love and Remember Silla".

Except that they didn't. The Chosun court actually thought the Qing were barbarians and that the Koreans were the only inheritors of Chinese civilization after China was overran! Thats a twist of nationalistic history for you.

But the other side of this, to recognize that Qing Dynasty/Jin Dynasty was Manchurian/Malgal in its identity is that Han Chinese cannot say to a Korean "Yes, your country was a colony to Han Chinese".

Because Manchurian/Malgal/Jurchen NEVER considered themselves Han Chinese as well. JUST like they never considered themselves KOREAN. You can imagine what a large percentage of the royal court of Choseon thought of the Qing dynasty's moniker "Love and Remember Silla". Obviously it made a suzerainty relationship comfortable because of the origns of the Qing/Jin dynasty.

So given this context, a Han Chinese simply does not have the authority to be arrogant towards a Korean, and proclaim "You Korean was a colony of mine".

Not this nationalistic "authority" BS again. Anybody with any in depth understanding of nationalist history should know by now that anyone can claim anything they want and they can easily devise an argument that fits their model of what constitute a nation. The only thing that matters is if anyone gives a crud about what you claim.

Nationalist history is purely constructive, so whether the Qing was Han Chinese or Manchu, if China choose to construct it in a way that is inclusive of Manchus in an multio-ethnic nation(as the PRC is doing now), then they can claim it just the same. Nor did the Han Chinese ever claim Korea was a Han Chinese colony. But just because Korea was not a vassal of a Han Chinese regime doesn't mean that it was not a vassal of China, since the Qing officially called tbeir state by that name(zhongguo), and this gives nationalist historians a thing to claim around. But since you have the freedom to not give a crud. Why should you play their game?

Edited by Borjigin Ayurbarwada, 24 December 2009 - 05:24 PM.

[WuXiaHer0]

Anybody with any in depth understanding of nationalist history should know by now that anyone can claim anything they want and they can easily devise an argument that fits their model of what constitute a nation. The only thing that matters is if anyone gives a crud about what you claim.

Nice one,Borjigin!

You can imagine what a large percentage of the royal court of Choseon thought of the Qing dynasty's moniker "Love and Remember Silla". Obviously it made a suzerainty relationship comfortable because of the origns of the Qing/Jin dynasty.

Here's what I got from Wikipedia:

During its reign, Joseon consolidated its absolute rule over Korea, encouraged the entrenchment of Confucian ideals and doctrines in Korean society, imported and adapted Chinese culture, and saw the height of classical Korean culture, trade, science, literature, and technology. However, the dynasty was severely weakened during the late 16th and early 17th centuries, when invasions by the neighboring Japan and Qing virtually overran the peninsula, leading to an increasingly harsh isolationist policy for which the country became known as the Hermit Kingdom. After invasions from Manchuria, Joseon experienced a nearly 200-year period of peace.

Korea suffered from two invasions by the Manchus, in 1627 and 1637. Korea surrendered to the Manchus and agreed to pay tribute to the new Qing dynasty emperors as a Qing dynasty's protectorate, which at this time involved two way trade missions with China. The Qing rulers adopted a foreign policy to avoid the creation of foreign trading enclaves on Chinese soil. This policy limited the presence of the traditional entrepot of the foreign hongs to Macau. These entrepot handled the significant trade of Chinese silks for foreign silver. This arrangement relegated foreign trade to the southern provinces of China, leaving the more unstable northern region under careful regulation and limiting the influence of foreigners. This decision affected Korea since China was Korea's main trading partner.

I can't see how the Koreans managed to get along with the Jin/Qing.

Edited by WuXiaHer0, 25 December 2009 - 11:59 AM.

[three_kingdoms]

so whether the Qing was Han Chinese or Manchu, if China choose to construct it in a way that is inclusive of Manchus in an multio-ethnic nation(as the PRC is doing now), then they can claim it just the same.

The Qing was Manchurian. Not Han Chinese. The Qing never claimed to be Han Chinese.

This thread evolved from upper educated people claiming that what the Qing claimed itself to be was important (claiming that it is not Korean), to middle to lower ranking "intellectuals" saying what the PRC claims is history is actually true. Sure the Han Chinese identity can be complicated I am sure, but does Michael Jordan marrying a Chinese woman now let PRC claim African history? LOLZ People can believe what they want, as history has shown for thousands of years, naturally directions will diverge and fates are set as a result.

So as Manchus have decided to become extinct, (or Taiwan has claimed Qing dynasty legacy, whatevers) the fact will never change that during the Qing dynasty, they never considered themselves Han Chinese. This is a fact. It cannot change. Im sorry but it doesn't have to make you mad or complicate your Han identity. No one asked you to feel stupid watching Korean dramas anyways.

Edited by three_kingdoms, 26 December 2009 - 07:00 AM.