[wuTao]

WangKon936, on Sep 22 2006, 02:49 PM, said:

DaMo.... couple of things here.

Wiman was a Yan general, not a Han general. Wiman never founded Joseon. It had already existed for awhile and Wiman lead a revolt to topple the existing king.

Wiman may not have been a native Han Chinese. An analysis of his name may indicate that he had northern Xianbei origins. The subject is covered here: http://www.chinahist...p...t&p=4738144

The best source on the Han/Wiman Joseon war would be the Records of the Grand Historian. PM me if you want the quick, dirty and barely legal way of reading the relevant passages. You'll notice that Han had a lot of the same difficulties in invading Joseon as Sui and Tang had in invading Koguryo.

Just a clarification on Wangkon936's remark here.

naruwan's analysis of Wiman's surname to ascertain Wiman's ethnicity is unconventional, and as far as I know, not one that's ever been used in academia. Other than Korean "historians", the great majority of researchers (including Brett Hinsch and Sarah Taylor, as mentioned in the link provided by Wangkon936, Sarah Nelson, and Hyung Il Pai) believe that Wiman was Chinese and ethnically Han, as I've explained here.

In addition, the wealth of archeological evidence suggested that Wiman was Chinese. Artifacts found in Korea from around the time of Wiman's conquest are Chinese in nature. From Sarah Nelson's "The Archaeology of Korea":

Quote

For instance, of the twelve excavated tombs at Taesongni, eight have evidence of wodden coffins, five are double burials, and one (Tomb 11) is probably a woman alone (Kim J.B. 1987a:40-1). Lee Soon-jin (1983) notes the large number of native Korean bronze weapons found in the wooden coffin burials. These burials were made over a period of perhaps two centuries. Probably the earliest are two graves with more bronze than iron. Other graves contain either a short iron sword, which is intermediate in age, or a long iron sword, the latest of all. When first excavated, these were interpreted as Lelang tombs, but mounting evidence suggests that they are earlier than Lelang, from the time of Wiman Choson or even his reputed predecessor King Chun. An inscription on one weapon dates it to the "25th year of the First Emperor of China," or 221 BC (Kim J.B. 1978a:43), before Wiman's arrival. Of course it could have been an heirloom placed in the grave many years after its manufacture, but it is at least suggestive of a previously existing polity.

If Wiman and his followers were ethnically Xianbei, it would seem strange to me that they carry weapons forged in the Central Plains. As I understand it, the people of Northeast Asia had their own distinctive metal-working technologies. It would seem to me that if Wiman and his followers were Xianbei in origin, they would not be carrying Chinese weapons and armor.