"Korea's 1st kingdom ruled today's Beijing"

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
This is actually the flimsiest of arguments when it comes to Gojoseon. The fact of the matter is, there are no records of the Gojoseon language. The first records of Koreanic are tentatively from the Three Kingdoms period. The exact dating & placement is still contested among linguists, but it is in the vicinity of the Korean peninsula. Whether Gojoseon's elite language was an earlier prototype of this language vs. a different language that was displaced by Koreanic is an open problem. It's not though language displacement was rare in this area of the world - simply look at the case of Japonic, which used to be located in the Korean peninsula before it was displaced there by Koreanic, and in its turn displaced the languages of the Jomon Japanese when it migrated to Japan.

Not to mention, language, much less linguistic families (separate languages that are not mutually comprehensible) and ethnic identity is not identical, which has long been established in anthropology.

Modern definition of language often requires an acceptance of its identity by a common community of speakers. Since there was no such thing in the 1st century BC, to label them all as one language, even if they are of the same linguistic family is misleading.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Only Koreans claim to come from Gojoseon. Not Japanese. Not Chinese. Not Mongolics. And this is the only connection that was accepted by East Asian societies in the past.

If we look at Hongshan culture, which IS Gojoseon, we find out that Gojoseon people were the likely founders of Chinese civilization on the Yellow River.

From a Chinese reference point, we know the front part of Gojoseon was in northern Hebei, but there is very little information on the back part. But it really doesn't matter because there were people who descend from Gojoseon in each of the three Korean kingdoms.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
Claims and believes are irrelevant. You can say the same with religion. Only hard evidence counts as this is a history forum. No one doubted the existence of the Yellow emperor for thousands of years and its also a tradition, and the Old Shang Shu has been accepted as historically accurate for over a thousand years but has been conclusively proven to be forged recently. Tradition and believes are just that, faith, not critical analysis or facts.
 
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Claims and believes are irrelevant. You can say the same with religion. Only hard evidence counts as this is a history forum. No one doubted the existence of the Yellow emperor for thousands of years and its also a tradition, and the Old Shang Shu has been accepted as historically accurate for over a thousand years but has been conclusively proven to be forged recently. Tradition and believes are just that, faith, not critical analysis or facts.
Claims and beliefs are the basis for everything in history. Are you even a historian? Do you know that history is compiled by just asking a lot of people for testimonies and stories.

The only reason a claim might be rejected is if it involves miracles or magic. But in this matter, none of those are involved. Why don't you just leave the history to the actual historians and go back to number crunching or logistics. Your involvement in this matter is not helpful. Gojoseon has nothing to do with you, so why don't you leave it to the people who are actually among Koreans exploring the claims in detail rather than judging it with no actual information.

I also doubt you have a shred of rationality for claiming Gojoseon didn't exist.
 
Last edited:

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
These claims are the basis for everything in history. Are you even a historian? Do you know that history is compiled by just asking a lot of people for testimonies and stories
Umm no they aren't. You are confusing disciplines here. Compiling testimonies and stories are usually the methodologies used by anthropologists and political scientists today; people who are trained in contemporary studies. Historians are trained to decipher not only whether what is compiled is accurate, but also how and under what context such facts are compiled; basically, the compiler and the story tellers themselves are not immune from scrutiny.

Claims can be imaginary or real and thats why we need actual critical textual analysis, backed by linguistic methodologies and archeology to back it up. The later two fields are historical methodologies of a pre-modern historian, most modern historians uses a different set of methodology; usually applying social and anthropolical scientific models and theories whereas pre-modern historians often have to deal with examining the factual aspect of records and events themselves because of the lack of records.


I also doubt you have a shred of rationality for claiming Gojoseon didn't exist.
Read post #90 twice so you don't repeat redundant strawmans again.
And don't speak about rationality; this is coming from a person who thinks tradition is impeccable, which unfortunately is all that is needed to be denounced as incompetent in the discipline of history.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Umm no they aren't. You are confusing disciplines here. Compiling testimonies and stories are usually the methodologies used by anthropologists and political scientists today; people who are trained in contemporary studies. Historians are trained to decipher not only whether what is compiled is accurate, but also how and under what context such facts are compiled; basically, the compiler and the story tellers themselves are not immune from scrutiny.

Claims can be imaginary or real and thats why we need actual critical textual analysis, backed by linguistic methodologies and archeology to back it up. The later two fields are historical methodologies of a pre-modern historian, most modern historians uses a different set of methodology; usually applying social and anthropolical scientific models and theories whereas pre-modern historians often have to deal with examining the factual aspect of records and events themselves because of the lack of records.




Read post #90 twice and so you don't repeat redundant strawmans.
And don't speak about rationality; this is coming from a person who thinks tradition is impeccable, which unfortunately is all that is needed to be denounced as incompetent in the discipline of history.
The records come from testimonies and stories. Each chronicler has their own ways or beliefs on how to get an accurate story or testimony.

There is no such thing as an impeccable or error free.

Testimonies and stories, from which we get records, are also axiomatic for archaeology because they provide the basic reference point for understanding the artifacts and cultural patterns.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
The only reason a claim might be rejected is if it involves miracles or magic. But in this matter, none of those are involved. Why don't you just leave the history to the actual historians and go back to number crunching or logistics. Your involvement in this matter is not helpful. Gojoseon has nothing to do with you, so why don't you leave it to the people who are actually among Koreans exploring the claims in detail rather than judging it with no actual information.
Yeongsang if you are actually trained in history at all, you wouldn't be making this asinine remark, yet you have the stupidity to denounce those who actually received training in such a discipline. Historical traditions have been challenged and overthrown since the development of 17th century textual criticisms in the form of biblical criticism in Europe and evidential scholarships in the form of Qiang Jia school in China both developing around the same time. Post modernist history moved even beyond that and entered the realm of historical construct and historicism. Your ignorance of these trends just shows you don't understand the topic.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
The records come from testimonies and stories. Each chronicler has their own ways or beliefs on how to get an accurate story or testimony.

There is no such thing as an impeccable or error free.

Testimonies and stories, from which we get records, are also axiomatic for archaeology because they provide the basic reference point for understanding the artifacts and cultural patterns.
Which is precisely why traditions are not impeccable. Thanks for accepting this fact.

However, I must remind you testimonies and stories are completely irrelevant to your anachronistic claim here because no primary sources stated what people of Gu Chaoxian spoke, much less their "national" identity. Whereas primary pre-Han texts gives us all the evidence that this kingdom originated west of the Liao river.
 
Last edited:
Jan 2015
433
Northern City
Which is precisely why traditions are not impeccable. Thanks for accepting this fact.
Records are not impeccable either, so why don't you throw away all of history, all testimonies, all beliefs.

It's because we accept beliefs even if they are not impeccable.

It's really obvious you're not from a history background.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,486
Records are not impeccable either, so why don't you throw away all of history, all testimonies, all beliefs.

Except, to repeat again; testimonies and stories are completely irrelevant to your anachronistic claim here because no primary sources stated what people of Gu Chaoxian spoke, much less their "national" identity. Whereas primary pre-Han texts gives us all the evidence that this kingdom originated west of the Liao river. Accepting that Gu Chaoxian is "Korean" is a Ming era construct, and far from contemporary "testimonies" and "stories".


It's because we accept beliefs even if they are not impeccable.

It's really obvious you're not from a history background.
No, its because we have actual primary sources to examine, whereas you have nothing but a later historical construct to draw your evidence. A person who is not trained in history clearly can't use the proper methodologies and have the naive arrogance to denounce others who has.
 
Last edited: