[wuTao]

Just wanted to make a thread about these two competing theories on the early relations between Korea and Japan. I don't know much about either theory... so hopefully I can get some answers.

How did the Mimana thoery come about? I've read it's mostly from the chronicles Nihon Shoki and Kojiki? Is there any archeological evidence to back it up?

I've read the Horse-Rider theory is based on burial mounds in Japan that resemble those in Korea. Is there any other evidence or archeological evidence to back this theory up?

Which is the theory that is mostly accepted in academic circles today?

Also, found a thesis written for the US Naval Academy that defends the Mimana theory here: http://www.nadn.navy...nzakiThesis.doc . What do you guys think about this person's argument?

[Yun]

For a start, here's an online book by a Korean scholar that deals with the Horse-rider Theory: http://gias.snu.ac.k...g/paekch_e.html

[Gubook Janggoon]

I think both theories are generally dismissed.

As for the paper...(Bias alert, both him and me. Take what I say with a grain of salt)

1. First of all, it doesn't help that he misspells Mahan as Mokhan.
2. He makes unrealisitic comparisions between Modern Korean/Japanese in order to justify his belief that there was no invasion. He says that if there was an invasion the languages would be similar, but not much about ancient Korean, let alone the different languages of the 3 kingdoms is known. We really can't make that jugement. Although I have heard that the language of Goguryeo is similar to Old Japanese. He also makes the mistake of claiming that Japanese is not officially part of the Altaic group and placing Korean in the Altaic group at the same time.
3. He says cites a Korean text stating that Japan invaded Shilla a few times. He's correct, Baekje did ask for millitary help from Wa, BUT the same text mentions no occupation.
4. I found this statement quite idiotic "Nihon Shoki and Kojiki both record such immigration from Korea, but the immigrants are always either skilled slaves or hostages. The exchange of hostages was a common practice used to ensure the good faith of allies both in the Japanese islands and on the continent. As for the influx of Korean artisans to Japan, this is identical to the Japanese policies during the sixteenth-century Korean campaigns, when tens of thousands of Korean ceramic ware artisans were enslaved and shipped to Japan. Japanese aggression again brought Koreans to the Japanese islands in the twentieth-century when close to one million Korean laborers were pressed into service in Japan. "

There are lots of clans in Japan who can trace their lineage back to one of the three kigndoms. These clans enjoyed great popularity in the Yamato court. Slaves? POW's? Hostages? That really doesn't make sense to me.


I'm going to stop here. He claims that a lot of these theories are made because of misinterpretations of sources. I think that he's misinterpreting sources too. IMHO he's making a mistake by taking Nihongi and Kojiki word for word. I generally see these as "propaganda" and "nationalistic" texts of that time. Why does it not bother him that no Chinese or Korean sources mentions a Japanese outpost in Korea? Heck Korean sources had no problems with talking aobut outside invasions. Samguk Yusa even dedicates whole chapters to certain Chinese comanderies.

Current Feeling:

Ok I'll stop now.

Edit:

So maybe I won't stop.

This statement is utter craziness:

"The period of the Japanese campaigns in Korea is considered to have been the peak of Korean swordsmanship. Korean cavalrymen also probably fought primarily with swords. There are many references to equestrian swordsmanship in Samguk Sagi and Samguk Yusa, but no accounts of equestrian archery"

Goguryeo wall murals clearly show horsement with spears. Not with swords. And no equestrian archery? Hmm let's check the wall murals again. Ohp! There they are!

[Gubook Janggoon]

Okay my rants over.

My opinion.

1. Minmana theory= No. There's simply no proof for it.

2. Horse rider invasion theory= No. There's simply no proof for it. I see the Korean support for this one as a reaction to the Minmana theory itself.

Paper: He did a good job in writing the paper...BUT

1) He was biased from the start.
2) He get's a lot of information wrong.
3) He relies too heavily on the authenticity of the stories in Nihongi and Kojiki.
4) He over interprets other sources to fit his agenda.

[wuTao]

Hmmm... So what about the burial mounds in Japan that resemble those in Korea? What conclusions would one draw from those about the relations between ancient Korea and Japan? Isn't that evidence of a Korea occupation (or influence) in Japan very early on?

On the other hand, if many clans in Japan can trace their lineages to one of the Three Kingdoms, as the author of the thesis points out, how would one explain the lack of written records until the eighth century? Did these immigrants just forget how to write?

[Gubook Janggoon]

wuTao, on May 25 2005, 07:36 PM, said:

Hmmm... So what about the burial mounds in Japan that resemble those in Korea? What conclusions would one draw from those about the relations between ancient Korea and Japan? Isn't that evidence of a Korea occupation (or influence) in Japan very early on?

On the other hand, if many clans in Japan can trace their lineages to one of the Three Kingdoms, as the author of the thesis points out, how would one explain the lack of written records until the eighth century? Did these immigrants just forget how to write?

Good points.

There was a Korean influence on Japan. It was in terms of religion, philosophy, writing, and ect. I wouldn't say that there was an occupation though. Baekje and Japan were on very friendly terms though. The Japanese Emperor recently admitted that the Imperial line is partly descended from an individual from the Baekjean royal family.

As for the second, I don't know. Nihonshoki (Nihongi) was written around 720 CE, a time when Baekjean immigration would have passed it's height. It's also interesting to note that the individual who wrote Nihongi was of Baekje origins.

[Pingpong]

How did the Japanese and Ryukyuan language come about?

[caocao74]

Gubook Janggoon, on May 26 2005, 12:18 PM, said:

Okay my rants over.
My opinion.
1.  Minmana theory= No.  There's simply no proof for it. 
2.  Horse rider invasion theory= No.  There's simply no proof for it.  I see the Korean support for this one as a reaction to the Minmana theory itself.
Paper:  He did a good job in writing the paper...BUT
1) He was biased from the start.
2) He get's a lot of information wrong.
3) He relies too heavily on the authenticity of the stories in Nihongi and Kojiki.
4) He over interprets other sources to fit his agenda.

Not sure how much credit the chap will get for this essay, but he has largely used basic sources, the most intriguing being only Wontack Hong's, the rest being rather general sources.
And as you say he makes errors, or builds upon the errors of others; one of the worst being the assumption that Kojiki and Nihonshoki are essentially the same material, just repackaged, which they are not.

[Gubook Janggoon]

I got a question. Does Mimana refer to the whole Gayan entity or just to Dae Gaya?

Is it the same as Mioyama (彌烏邪馬) which evolves into the Dae Gaya (大加耶) state?

[caocao74]

Gubook Janggoon, on Aug 28 2005, 03:30 AM, said:

I got a question.  Does Mimana refer to the whole Gayan entity or just to Dae Gaya?
Is it the same as Mioyama (彌烏邪馬) which evolves into the Dae Gaya (大加耶) state?

Mimana (or Imna) appears in the Nihon shoki to refer to Karak/Kara, part of the Gayan 'federation'.

[Gubook Janggoon]

caocao74, on Aug 28 2005, 08:30 AM, said:

Mimana (or Imna) appears in the Nihon shoki to refer to Karak/Kara, part of the Gayan 'federation'.

Interesting. I always thought that Garak, Gara, and Gaya were all just different ways to refer to the whole of the Gaya Federation.

[caocao74]

Gubook Janggoon, on Aug 29 2005, 02:52 AM, said:

Interesting.  I always thought that Garak, Gara, and Gaya were all just different ways to refer to the whole of the Gaya Federation.

Sorry typing faster than thinking, meant to say "all or part of.."

http://gias.snu.ac.k...e/eng/hi5-2.pdf
Check out notes for p.234

[Gubook Janggoon]

Thanks for the name clarification.

I'm immensely curious now. Where could Imna have been?

[caocao74]

Gubook Janggoon, on Aug 30 2005, 12:48 AM, said:

I'm immensely curious now.  Where could Imna have been?

If you can give me a day, I'll photograph then show if possible (my scanner is a much use as a chocolate riot-shield as the moment) two different ideas of where Imna could have "been", according to a history book I bought at Incheon last Xmas. If I can't produce the goods that way I'll give you a reference for the book.

[tianzhuwoye]

Hey guys,

Sorry about this, but what was the argument that the inscription on the King Kwanggaeto stele somehow proved, or could be used to prove, the Mimana theory? Can I bother someone to help walk me through what happened there, and would anybody know where to get at the text written on the stele? Thanks!