Or so says this Korean I met in real life today at Borders. Anyways it's really odd that I would run into real life nationalists and Korean ones at that might I add but anyways I was picking up an interesting read at the store, Imperial China 900-1800 by F.W. Mote. As I was reading, I somehow got into a conversation with this Korean kid who was interested in my choice of reading, one discussion led to another and he claims that the Jurchens and Manchus were actually Korean therefore logically asserting that the Koreans have rightful claim over the Qing dynasty and the Jurchen Jin empire. Of course I know deep down the errors of such misinformation but as a member of this forum, I'd like to ask for your opinions about this topic especially considering my knowledge of Chinese history particularly of the Song dynasty is rather shaky.

Hm..

The stuff about the Qing dynasty is pure um..how to put it delicately BS.

There is a story behind the Jin dyansty claim though. Tianzhuwoye would know more about it though.

DIdn't both the Khitan Liao empires and the Jurchens tried to assert suzerainty over Korea? Based on what I've read in that book, the Khitans absorbed the Bohai empire in 926 and the Jurchens demanded Koryo submission as a vassal state.

Yea they did.

One of the histories might say that the first Emperor of Jin was from either Goryeo or Shilla. Once again though, I don't know much about this.

Hm..I think we might have had a thread on it though. Let me see if I can dig it up.

Found it.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...opic=1100&st=30

Post 37 and 38.

Saying that Manchus/Jurchens are Korean is quite a bit of a stretch though. Hehe.

I think the very fact that both the Jurchens and later the Manchus demanded Korean submission as a vassal state historically proves they were not. I mean with this kind of reasoning, one might as well assert that Genghis Khan was Korean and the Mongol empire was a Korean empire or the Koreans founded the Ottoman Empire under the Turks.

Hehe, you're right of course. But I bet you we could find someone who would claim those things.

It might be slightly more possible to assert something like a common ancestor between the people on either side of the Yalu from way, way back but most of the states involved weren't very literate so records are few. Ancient peoples in this area were very mobile and had no reason to think of the peninsula as politically outside of the central plains or Dongbei in the way we do now. Hanpu, the guy who started the Wanyan up on their development towards dominance of the northeast is without question from Koryeo, but at the same time former Peruvian president Fujimori was 'Japanese,' etc. Communication and ritual between the northeastern states and the far more established Koryeo and Joseon courts are full of references to a kind of 'brotherly' relationship, Parhae spanned the Yalu and Tumen Rivers, the Qing court claimed that the Manchus originated as a people from Changbaishan, many of the early states on the Korean peninsula were founded by arrivals from today's Dongbei, but concrete evidence for the 'links' or whatever between everybody are still shady. All these states were around during a time when national borders weren't nearly as definite or recognized as they are now (something that is very, very new) so people were coming and going everywhere. Still, it's the 21st century already and these theories and debates won't end up influencing anything but vague notions of nationalist pride.

As far as the Wanyan invasions or Qing demands on Joseon, that probably doesn't prove anything past the political relationship between the two states. Did the American northerners and southerners have to be 'racially' separate before starting their civil war? We tend to look over the fact that all the major central plains empires had to fight to secure their territory and didn't end up with what they had since they were ethnically entitled to it. How about the Warring States period? Any of the other periods of fragmentation in the central plains? Nurhaci or Genghis Khan's wars of 'unification?'

Think about what goes into the idea that Mongols are Chinese, that the Yuan was 'China,' and the popular notion that the territory administered by Kublai Khan was synonymous with the Mongol Empire at its height.

Another thing about the Qing/Joseon relationship that's interesting is that the Qing, who would go on to conquer the lands of the Ming Empire, Mongol tribes going way out west, the states in the area eventually known as Xinjiang, the Tibetan Empire and so on was content to maintain Joseon as a vassal state and never incorporated the peninsula wholesale into the empire. Why did things work out like this?

Perhaps they were content with the historic pattern that Korea simply remain as a vassal state was it was at times in the past. Obviously China has historically failed to incorporate the Korean peninsula into her own empire in the past and at best made them a tributary.

Mmm..nope. The Han dyansty did a pretty good job of subjugating parts of Korea.

Tang dynasty didn't do too much of a shabby job either, although their hold didn't last for very long.

The Korean claims to Liao anf Chin stem from the fact that these dynasties arose from outwith China itself. At one point the Korean Kogyuro state included much of Eastern Manchuria. The sucessor state of Parhae was conquered by the Khitan and formed much of the Liao empire. The Nuzhen/Jurchin that overthrew the khitan to form the Chin (more of a civil war than external conquest) came from the North and West, they were aided by a large number of Jurcin troops who had been part of the army of the Korean Koryo state.

It's not exactly a strong argument for Korean righte to Manchuria, though it's as good as any Chinese claim prior to the post WW2 conquest.

rgds.
Tom..

Not a very strong claim indeed, that's like saying since a good portion of the Byzantine empire is part of modern day Turkey, it was always Turkic in origin. Either way, the Jurchens and Khitans were not Korean. Based on their logic for claiming them, they might as well claim both the Mongol Empire and Ottomans as theirs as I've said before. Besides both the Khitans and Jurchens were seminomadic and pastoral. Based on what I've studied, Korea was always sedentary.

The problem of such argument is like claiming Germans are actually French because a long time ago the Charlemagne empire split into three, two parts become today's France and Germany. "Koreans," like "French" and "Germans," as well as most modern nationalities (including "Chinese") didn't exist in ancient time, but are constructions of the modern world. Another obvious problem is that the Choson Koreans and the Ming Chinese fought in an alliance against the Manchu. If one is to claim that Manchu are close kin to Koreans, one might as well argue that Chinese are also close kin to both Koreans and Manchu.

one thing i've noticed when it comes to Korean nationalists, they never actually talk about Korean history directly, they talk about supposed relations to altaic speaking nomadic people and THEIR accomplishments. Even from a bad pseudo pop pscyhology point of view, this is clearly a huge sign of insecurity.

the genetic relation of Koreans and Manchus are no more significant than Manchu relations to certain Northern Chinese or Tungus or paleosiberian populations. Koreans cluster the closest to Khalka Mongols (by their nationalist logic, the Mongol empire was Korean). Manchus lack a genetic marker found in most Koreans(i'll dig up the study)

genetic relation or not. their culture, lifestyle and ethnic identity were different.

WanYan Aguda was of the "Sheng" NuZhen. the "Shu" NuZhen could somewhat be theorized to be the descendants of the Mohe people of Kogyruo but relations with the Sheng NuZhen is too indirect to steal their history.

by korean nationalist logic, if my brother (genetic relative ) makes a million dollars, its MY accomplishment

No offense, but Koreans have always had a psychosis about their history.

I understand they had a sad history, but to cover it up with fallacy is not right. It is just like black people in America claiming Egypt and Moors as their ancestors. They had no connections with them whatsoever.

It is funny how Koreans are quick to claim any supposed link they had with Altaic empires of the past, but they are also quick to denounce or eliminate any connection they had with Chinese (ie Kija, Wiman, Han colony in Lolang, etc.).

DNA tests have already prove they have a little more than 60% connection with China and East Asia. Only a moderate strain of their genes comes from northern Asia.

::SIGH::

Psychosis?

Sad history? There are sad parts to every nation's history. I don't find Korea's particualry sad.

And who's covering up Korean history? If anyone it's being uncovered as of late. The slow death of the Mimana theory is only one example of this. Covering up Korean history? If anything the Goguryeo dispute shows who's making an attempt to cover up Korean history.

Sad history. Ugh.

What you're doing here is confusing Extreme Korean Nationalism with the mainstream view of Korean history.

Eliminate connections? I know there's a bit of un upstir about Wiman and Gija, but the Han commanderies? No one denies their existance. (No one in mainstream Korean academia that is).

And what does Genetics have to do with anything?

Yes, there are extreme Korean nationalists out there that have fun screwing with history, but that doesn't mean mainstream Korean historians believe the same.

Bah.

Just a note- this didn't last. Nurhaci tried to be of assistance in Joseon affairs early on, sending an envoy to meet a fleeing King Seonjo caught up in factional struggles, and offering his own forces for backup. These moves were cut off by the increasingly nervous Ming court. Later when war broke out, the Ming Empire used Joseon armies and tons of supplies to help with the effort but Joseon tried to opt for neutrality after the joint forces were abused by Nurhaci at the battles of Sarhu and Dungge. The Ming kept up its demands for supplies and it got to the point where Joseon shifted allegiance in favor of the Jin. In 1627, with an oath phrased in terms of an elder-younger brother relationship and topped off by the sacrifice of a white horse and a black ox, Joseon swore to join the Manchus against the Ming, but soon enough again found itself being used for resources and faced with a demand to become a vassal state. Irked, they declared war on the newly-christened Qing Empire who was all over them instantly, sending the court fleeing in various directions. King Injo, held under siege for 40 days, finally came out when the news came that just about the entire rest of the royal family had been taken prisoner, and had no choice but to submit to Huangtaiji, who had led the attack personally. Still, the state was allowed to continue and Qing demands were for tribute, and that's interesting. Maybe a pre-Dorgon Regency Qing just wasn't up for anything else yet? By the late 1600's Qing tributary requirements were negligible, and the relationship between the states was centered around formalized yearly embassies and trade at the interestingly well-defined border- settlement on a strip of land 50 miles wide under the Yalu was prohibited.


Also, nationalism is dumb no matter who's bringing it.

How can you say Manchus are Koreans. They lived on Chinese territory! The Koreans never conquered Manchuria. The Manchus might have intermarried with the Koreans, but that does not suggest they are Koreans. It might be more right to say the Koreans, the Japanese, and the Manchus are Chinese.

Chinese territory? The Manchus have long been an independent group away from China.

As for Koreans having conquered Manchuria, I guess it depends on how far back and to whom you want to extend the term "Korean" too, but names like Goguryeo, Barhae, and Buyeo come to mind.


Quite frankly, almost everyone (I'm not going to say everyone because there are no absolutes) from main stream Korean academia does not claim that the Manchus were Korean. Goodness.

How would it be more right to say that the Manchus, Koreans, and Japanese are Chinese? That's based off of loosely the same logic as these Extreme Korean Nationalists are using.

Korea had been a subject of the Qing Dynasty. Many people say the Japanese might be the sons and daughters of a ship sailed off during the Qin dynasty to look for the elixir of life across the sea to the east. While the Manchus in Manchuria were basically in Chinese territory.

Who ruled the Qing dynasty? The Manchus. So technically then would the Koreans be Manchu?

The Japanese MIGHT be the sons and daughters of that ship. I've heard the story before. The Japanese also might be descendents of the people of Baekje. So they're Korean after all.

Goodness.

All wild speculation of course eh?

I'm done with this.

If the Manchus are Korean, then China would be a subject of Korea, not the other way around.

The Japanese might be Chinese, but if Koreans are Chinese, then the Japanese would definitely be Chinese.

If thats's the case, then these people are revising nationalist history just as bad as the Chinese were claiming Koguryo. I have yet to see a valid source claiming that the Manchus were Korean. Just about every academic source about Chinese history or the history of Inner Asia and the Steppes gives me no info regarding the Manchus as Koreans. As far as I'm concerned they are not the same. They are undoubtedly related due to geographical proximity but going by that logic, so would Northern Chinese and Manchus. Also the fact that ancient Korean kingdoms held some small territory in modern day Manchuria doesn't mean anything. The Manchus/Jurchens actually originated further north from Siberia. The reason Manchuria became Manchuria is because it was absorbed by those peoples. I really apologize for starting the topic and it's starting to become total nonsense. Also I don't see how anyone can claim another groups civilization because of genetic relationship, to me there really is no logic behind that. It's like Italian people claiming the Spanish American colonies because Spanish and Italian are related. Or that since France and Germany share a border, France is responsible for the causing both world wars. The idea that Chinese are related to this or Korean related to that means they are one in the same and therefore claiming each other's accomplishments is truly idiotic.

That's a typo on my part. I meant to write that they arn't claiming that Manchus are Korean.

Much appologies. I've gone ahead and fixed my post.

My point is the contention of Manchu-Korean connection is about as strong as Chinese-Manchu and Chinese-Korean connections.

Of course Jurchens and Manchus are NOT Koreans.

Korean history has many proudable things ,but the exggerated complexed nationalistic attitude spoiled them all.

Obviously we Koreans have wrong education about historical view.
Because usually we are only open minded to listen up good things for us.

Also Koreans' attitude to face into discussion with different nationals are wrong and ugly.

Totally wrong.

slightly off topic,

But I personally want to compare Korea-Manchu relationship to the Prussia -Polish and Russian (Koenigsberg-the home of east Prussian -currently Poland) relationship.

Ethnic Koreans originally came from the Baikal lake and along the Manchu regions- we moved down to the peninsula and established Korean civilization in Korean peninsula,(of course affected most by Chinese civilization then Koreanized it to our right environment)

Prussians were originally from the Koenigsberg (currently Polish and Baltic territory) but they moved to the brandenburg region and then established tight national system and lived there till today. Currently theres no Prussians(or Brandenburgers in modern technical term) in Koenigsberg .

Are the links everybody’s talking about here supposed to be political or ‘ethnic?’ The ‘Chinese-Korean’ connection boils down to a heavily one-sided cultural exchange and political borrowing- Tang forms influenced Silla administration which would factor in to notions of statehood and legitimacy later down the line. Key: from 936-1910, there were a total of 2 states on the Korean peninsula (3 if you count Parhae), with the transition from Koryeo to Joseon being internal and ‘smooth’ in the sense rarely seen in the chaotic succession of conquest empires in ‘China.’ How many separate states came and went on the central plains in this time period? Koryeo continued even during the Mongol period- there was no ‘Chinese’ state at this time. The little brother status we usually attribute to the Korean peninsula essentially dates from Joseon, which formed at just about the same time as the Ming Empire in the aftermath of the Mongol Empire. Joseon support for a relatively stable political entity like the Ming Empire was eventually factional in character, with a ‘Confucian’ court element (with Confucianism not firmly established until the Yi came to power, taking over from the Tang-era holdover of Buddhism) interested in painting the Ming as a kind of guardian of the value systems that kept them in power- Yi Seonggye, in what is widely understood to have been a surprise move, allied with the Ming and picked up on some of their politics early on for support in his ambitions, and that’s the connection.

Any Chinese-Manchu connection consists of a handful of Sinicized Jurchens, with Jurchens as a unified concept pretty much ruled out anyway. The Manchus came to China from the outside, and China as we know today it is in no small part a Manchu creation.

The extent of 'Chinese' political domination of the northeast, or presence in general, tends to be greatly exaggerated. Even the Beijing area, which was the Liao Empire's Southern Capital, was eventually known as Khanbalik, etc, while briefly occupied by the Song was never fully within any 'Chinese' sphere of influence until later on during the Ming Empire. The Ming gradually pushed the 'cultural frontier' up as far as today's Liaoning province, leading to the confrontation with the soon-to-be-formed Manchus. Nothing north of this had any connection with the central plains until the Qing went in and took it over.

Regardless, the political argument for a Koryeo/Joseon-Manchu connection is pretty much out once stability was achieved on the peninsula, but the common ancestral root theory is still alive, again since conclusive evidence one way or the other is lacking. Professor Zhao Jie of Beijing University, a linguist, has a theory that Manchu is a more recently diluted form of a language that once spread across the northeast, including the peninsula, whose other modern representative is Korean. Highlights are mentions in the Sanguo Zhi that the language of the ‘Dongyi’ was almost identical to that of the Buyeo, but with the Okjeo language starting to show differences with the Koguryeo language, and the Yilou, recorded to be a very similar people as the Buyeo, speaking a language diverging from Buyeo/Koguryeo. The《北史》 records that by the time the Mulgil 勿吉 showed up as a term (note Korean ‘Malgal,’ Mandarin 沃沮) Koguryeo was settled in to a completely unique language, and this is asserted to be the beginning of the break with Tungusic. There are lexical comparisons between Manchu and Korean if anybody’s interested, but they’re in a weird transcription that I’m still working on. Language isn’t supposed to count for much anymore, plus this is a long time ago and the differences arising are apparently political, resulting from stability and isolation, but there was clearly a bunch of interaction up in the area well before the ‘China/Korea’ border became a thing. Fun to note is the occasional notion back from the 60’s and 70’s that the Buyeo rulers of Baekje were supposed to be oppressive foreign occupiers…

Here’s a thing: where is Jianzhou? Joseon had full control of all lands south of the Yalu only by 1447. Previous to this the area was Jurchen and (tell this to the nationalists) Yi Seonggye got his start late in the Koryeo period conquering the Jurchens when the court decided to start reclaiming all lands held by Koguryeo. Regardless, Jianzhou had already formed at this point (1411, but held very briefly by a different house than the one that would become the Aisin Gioro), most likely including land well into the peninsula. Mongke Temur, the first Jianzhou chief in the line leading to Nurhaci 6 generations later, died fighting the Yain, 野人 Yeren ‘Wild’ Jurchens who were harassing Yi outposts in the area. Whatever lip service was paid to the Ming by federations like Jianzhou had a similar counterpart to the closer Joseon, and if Ming recognition implies political control, Joseon had the same claim. Still there's no indication that Nurhaci figured himself to be representing the Yi court, and obviously whatever happened in the past was rendered irrelevant by Huangtaiji’s invasion.

Well the nationalistic attitude was raised to propel development at hard times.
They needed confidence that fight againt the feeling that Koreans are minor and looser-
which was educated during the Japanese oppucation period.
It made some side-effect of over-reactant nationalism - sad but it is.

However, you need to undertand the previous education - Japanese occupation.
In the period, Han occupation and govern of Korea is exaggerated.
For example, I personally start to think Han occupation reached LiaoDong close to Yalu river not further, even though Gojeosun included North Korea region.
(This is still on debate even amongst Korean scholars)
Gojeosun main capital could be in Liaodong area - I am not so sure but it is highly likely. There is even a claim that Japanese produced false art (like the seals of Han dynasty which is out of standard size of Han seals - according to North Korean scholar).

I heard that some Korean history books were lost or ignored as improper during Japanese occupation (in particular those reflecting Korea's strong independence or glory - this is what I read from the Korean nationalist history site)
This is why Balhe (Bohai?) is not strongly included by Japanese occupation version of Korean history text book (Silla unification? it is funny to say with the existence of Balhe in North) it has not changed even after liberation because the professors were educated by Japanese scholars.
So the current Korean nationalism in history is a kind of reactive response. Some went too much too far - claiming just with the fact that a name of region in Korean history locates in China (this is stupid there are many Anyang even these days)
However, some are reasonable.

P.S.
I do not think that Manchurian is Korean, but they are close.
Considering the mix of some Chinese into Korea, it is certain that North-east Chinese are very close in ethnic DNA as well as Korean - Manchurian.
In fact, many Northestern Chinese are assimilated Manchurian and Xianbei.
They now claim that they are 'Han'.

It is find to say that Korean old kingdom come from Liao area and some from Dong-Yi. The problem of Korean nationalist is to ignore that Dong-Yi tradition left more (to my thought) in mainland China than small branch that went to Korea. They insist that China = Xia people which is not true. Chinese core ethnic composition - Han?- (to my eyes) includes the old Dong-Yi.
Maybe some old Dong-Yi went to later Dong-Yi (Chosun, Korean, and Liao river area people) and the Tungus composition caused Dahn-gun Wangguhm.

1. Yes, the current Northeastern poople are very close entity. Han China only had Liao area for 800 years (?) or so. That is what PRC is afraid of - people of northeast realise the fact that they are not Han chinese in blood - .
'Han China' cannot accommodate the identity of northeastern people. So it is a reason to promote multi-cultural or ethnic China to accommodate these people.
A funny thing can happen making Ghengis Khan as a Chinese hero. That is funny.

2. However, it was Korean who did not accept Northern relatives as close family in history. Korea during Chosun (Yi) era reached its maximum in terms of adoring Chinese regime, and despised north brother as barbarian.

Um that is not true. The majority of the North East feature Han Chinese. Just check wikipedia.org.

But majority of Han Chinese in the North East migrated from Shandong right?

Jilin and Heilongjiang was most definitely outside of the Han Chinese orbit. But, Liaoning had always been within it. Even before China became an empire, there was a Chinese kingdom in today's Beijing and Liaoning area (Yen kingdom). How else do you think Chinese culture and genes were easily transmitted to Korea?

Yep, mostly Shandong and Hebei.

'Han' presence in the area wasn't widespread until later on during the Qing, even if the wildly vast majority of the people in Dongbei today are descendents of the late Qing-era 'settlers' or from families that are officially recognized as Han by now.

A bit into Shunzhi's reign the emperor worried that the northeast was underpopulated (PRC works highlight the scale of the fighting in the area during the late Ming and the southward flow of the ruling northeastern population into China after the Qing took over) and became concerned about the potential to make the most of its resources. So he initiated a settlement project to entice farmers from the central plains to settle in the northeast, complete with an elaborate incentive and reward system. His successor Kangxi, with the excuse that the ancestral Manchu homelands would be lost if mass scale immigration were to occur, sealed off the area with the famous 'Willow Palisades' (English?) policy. This obviously was next to impossible to enforce 100% and people trickled into the area, which eventually became easier as the Qing began to weaken. There were later bursts of immigration, especially during the 20th century, once other empires with interests in the region began to offer relatively high wages.

A key hint at the level of Chinese involvement in the area is the fact that the first Chinese records and surveys of the northeast were only written during the Qing, and produced by educated Southerners exiled to the northeast by the Qing court. The celebrated first one of these is the《绝域纪略》, written in recollection by 方拱乾 Fang Gongqian in the early 1660's after he returned home to Anhui following his exile to the Ningguta area. The book, like most that would follow through to the Republican era, was a compilation of jottings and recollections by a literate Sinophone visitor to new and strange lands. The men writing these texts (really getting into it only after the Daoguang period) would delight in describing the bizarre features of the landscape and lifestyles of the native populations, as well as in pointing out how incorrect the geography of the area as understood back home was (even if they ending up contradicting themselves on occassion). While often less than rigorously presented, these few texts are invaluable resources for providing rare glimpses into a region that we just don't have any earlier records of.

Not that there weren't any immigrants from the central plains in the area before the Qing took over Beijing. The numbers were relatively few and most likely fall short of indicating the amount of political control we usually assume that earlier central plains empires had over the northeast.


The problem with this (and nationalist/racialist views in general) is it needs to assume that monolithic concepts of Chineseness and Koreaness, where modern politics, written records and some weird takes on biology are supposed to be the same thing, had to be maintained for well over two thousand years. We understand this in retrospect only (otherwise, how is the northeast so closely tied to the PRC today?). Still, even with these standards, Liaoning might not make the cut.

Also, the state of Yan fell long before Han orbit existed.

You are right. Korean had influx from Yan (Xienbei), but until recently the monolithic concept of Korean has not accepted this. Only after nationalist historian insist the grand Dong-Yi (even including part of Xienbei?), it starts to be accepted rather smoothly. So politics always impose monolithic concept in either one form (narrow Han/narrow Korean ) or another (grand Han/Korean - including Xienbei and Mongol). When the concept of two group (Chinese&Korean) extends to the latter, there might be conflict becasue they have not graduated from monolithic concept school, (pretending they did).

Korean in Chosun period (recent Chosun) did not think Jurchens as highly related people. The influence from Han Chinese caused them to think Han-civilised Korean is superior to less Han-civilised Jurchens.

Korean seem to feel sorry for Jurchens about the past attitude.

^What are you talking about? Yen kingdom had always been a Huaxia (Han Chinese) kingdom. Their Chinese ancestors conquered lands in the northeast and was granted a kingdom status by early Zhou Dynasty. Qin Shihuangdi's childhood friend was the prince of Yen. It is obvious they are from the same race.

Also, Han Dynasty had ruled over Liaoning for over 400 years. It was the bridge that connected China with Korea. There were governors who often ruled hereditarily (ie Gongsun family). From there, Chinese culture, immigrants and genes flowed into Lolang (Korea) and on to southern parts of Korea and Japan.

Gongsun family is Han definately. I am talking of general people of Yan (Yen) and somewhat like Moyong (Morong? 慕容) family.

Yan in warring state invaded Gojeosun and occupied Liaoxi. Just before Qin Shihuangdi, I suppose.
At that time it was not Gongsun faimily. Well uncle of Zhou was the first ruler of Yan..?.. so ruler class came from central plain.

Still I am suspicious of the general people living there.
I suppose old Dong-Yi people were general people there (please do not be offended, majority of old Dong-Yi people become Chinese in my opinion). However, in terms of ethinic spectrum, they were somewhat middle of Shang-Zhou people and Gojeosun (ancestor of Korean) people.

However, Zhou Dynasty? Yan at the time central Chinese occupied Liao-river?
At that time it was near Beijing I suppose?
Could you give more firm evidence like remained arts etc. (I might not have learned recent findings or biased in getting information, so please let me know)

The whole Northeast area of China and presentday Korea is a enormous landmass. Via DNA testing Northern Han,Manchurian,Mongolian and present day Koreans share common the same DNA. "Chosun" or present day North or South Korea's were part of various Chinese empires along mankinds historic timeline. I think it's fair to say presently China observes and respects the current boundaries. Any internet hostilty flamming is unwarranted and determental to Asian Unity.

^Via DNA testing, Koreans as well as northern Han have Y markers (paternal genes) more in line with East Asian and Southeast Asian patterns. Esp. Haplogroup O marker.

Manchus and Mongols have more of the Haplogroup C marker.

Refers to this picture:

Haplogroup C is a 'brother' of F, a far ancestor of many lineages.


Look at this picture of Autosomal gene, HLA class 2:
(taken from www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/index/N553DJ52AF8XLD7U.pdf)

Udegeys (seems Mongolians) seem quite far from Guans(Tibetan) in this group, even farther than BouYei (some of descendants of BaiYue)

^Wajin (Japanese) and Korean cluster with the Han and Guan (Tibetans). It is apparent that even though they are Altaic linguistically, their genetics are Sino-Tibetan.

I think the language was imposed on their them via Puyo invasions, but the genes changed little. Either that, or the Han Chinese invasions and migrations significantly altered their genes.

Is Haplogroup K an Asian or Caucasian marker? I noticed that Asians, Central Asians and some Middle Eastern groups have it. More in Asia, and decreasing in Central Asia/Middle East.

You know, there really isn't any proof that Korean or Japanese is Altaic...there's barely any proof that Altaic even exists either.

I think that the more accepted grouping of Korean and Japanese is as isolates.


And it wouldn't be right to say the Buyeo imposed language on the Koreans and Japanese. These terms didn't exist back then and there was certainly no Korean people as of yet.

Yeah ,the history is just how we interpretate the records

I have also many things to say here but poor my English and my laziness.
Despite of them,I enjoy reading this forum very pleasantly ,

Hope many Koreans would come here like you-mister Doma Hwang-who can speak good english and rationally understanding different sources from Korean natiolism. (means who won't be emotionally tempered mode )

Too much flatter. It took long time for me to get out of ultra-nationalism that inherited from the education under the late ex-president Park 1970s (dictator, though I respect his work for the development of Korea except his previous carrier during Japanese occupation).
Now, I believe that I am a rational nationalist who try to understand cosmopolitan mind. Having studied in UK helped me a bit, Europeans are more rational to realise the tragedy of ultra-nationalism that caused WW twice.

Some Korean historian wrote this:

[Seems like you have been doing your research on Koguryo. I've been studying ancient Korean history for four years myself. Lolang has played an understudied and underappreciated role in Korean history. North Koreans completely deny its existance entirely.

The Han Dynasty first had three commandaries in north and central Korea. The largest was Lolang (Nangnang) and the others were Chenfan (Chinbon) and Lintun (Imdun). The original San Han states in the south of Korea destroyed Chenfan and Lintun. Taifang (Taebang) was established later. In order to placate marauding Sam Han states (particularly Mah Han), Taifang and Lolang gave them royal symbols, trade and culture. Silla and Kaya crowns have some similarities but are completely different from Paekje crowns. The Paekje kings conqured the Mah Han states and the Mah Han states got their crowns from Taifang. Lolang is really the main colony here as Taifang was really a buffer region to seperate Lolang from the Sam Han states. Lolang and Taifang had an enormous influence on all the tribal states of Korea. The contributions of the Chinese commandaries cannot be underestimated, but at the same time, it cannot be overestimated either. Archeology of Lolang clearly indicate a Chinese civilization, but it does not extend beyond the main centers of commerce and administration. The majority of the population in Lolang were still Korean tribal people working for the Chinese administrative headquarters in Anak and Wanggomsong (Pyongyang). Excavation of Lolang tombs indicate people who adopted Chinese dress, art and symbols, but at the same time, these tombs contained a large amount of native Korean artifacts such as shamanistic symbols, bronze mirrors and bronze and/or stone daggers that are clearly not of Chinese origin. This can mean that many of even Lolang's upper class were sinofied Koreans. Ultimately, Koguryo conquered Lolang (not mentioning Taifang as it couldn't survive without the existance of Lolang) in the middle of the 4th century. The Chinese polulation in Lolang became Koguryo subjects and were completely assimilated. Lolang's administrative capital- Wanggomsong- became Pyongyang, Koguryo's capital. Surnames, such as Hong, Wang and Han, were originally Chinese settlers from Lolang.

The Chinese enjoyed a rich life as colonial overlords in Lolang, living and working among themselves, apart from the local populace. Lolang's new residents brought new concepts and techniques in art, philosophy, architecture, and government administration. The district governor, his staff and other government officials moved about the city in their canopied chariots on streets paved with brick. The Chinese nobility adorned itself with delicate gold jewelry inlaid with semi-precious stones and dined on excellent lacquerware brought from China. Chinese merchants, artisans, and craftsmen made and sold a variety of iron and bronze products including military weapons, chariot fittings, agricultural tools, textiles, and ceramic ware. As the Chinese colonists settled into their new life in a new land, Lolang became an important trade center, carefully watched over by the district military commander and his troops.

Koguryo came from Puyo, which was a kingdom founded by nomads. When you read the account of the Eastern Barbarians in the San Kuo Chih, Koguryo and the surrounding proto-korean tribes were not very sinofied at all. Significant sinofication probably didn't start until after they conquered Lolang. As a matter of fact, Koguryo, like most other Central Asian societies traced lineage through mothers, not fathers, something the Chinese looked upon very disapprovingly.

^This proves beyond doubt that much of northern Korean (including Pyongyang) was once a direct part of China. The Chinese can actually make a counter-arguement that the northern part of Korea once belonged to them.

Er yea. The Han dynasty controled a parts of Northern Korea with their commanderies. That's a well known fact. You act as if main stream Korean academia denies its existance. In every single Korean history book (that's credible) that I have read, the authors have always put off a special section for the commanderies, and none of them, I repeat none of them, have denied their existance.

What are you trying to say?