Questions about Goguryeo

May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
Or else he thought that the tale about being a Silla prince would bring him followers.
Where is the Sedalsa temple, where Gung Ye was monk?
1. I'm not sure about that Gungye made the tale about being prince of Silla to get some supports from Sillans because even after he changed his kingdom's name and capital, he made his people to call Silla as 滅都, and he killed every Sillans who surrendered to him.
2. Sedalsa is located in Yeongweol in Gangwon province.
 
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
Was Wang Yung a noble or a merchant? Were these distinguished in late Silla?
More like powerful local clan. It's not really clear that Wang clan of Songak was merchant or pirate, it was just estimate from Jakjegun(Wang ryung's father)'s myth that Jakjegun married with daughter of Dragon king when he went to the sea.
 
May 2015
151
Hanam city, Korea
So, who administered the local governments of Silla? Was it Silla people sent out from Kyongju, or people from powerful local clans appointed to offices by Silla government?
It depends on what unit of local administration. The governor of ju(州), gun(郡) and hyun(縣) were sent from central government, and governor of chon(村) which was lower than hyun were local noble. However since queen Jinseong Silla totally lost its control over its regions except old Silla territory(Gyeongsang province nowday) and those policy were collapsed. Wang ryung was Sachan(8th ranked officer) of Songak-gun. He became Taesu(太守) after he surrendered to Gungye.
 
Mar 2015
861
Europe
The governor of ju(州), gun(郡) and hyun(縣) were sent from central government, and governor of chon(村) which was lower than hyun were local noble. However since queen Jinseong Silla totally lost its control over its regions except old Silla territory(Gyeongsang province nowday) and those policy were collapsed. Wang ryung was Sachan(8th ranked officer) of Songak-gun. He became Taesu(太守) after he surrendered to Gungye.
Was Wang Ryung therefore born of Head Rank 6? For the highest rank to which Head Rank 5 was eligible was Daenama (Rank 10).
 
Feb 2011
1,018
I read somewhere in some academic books that stated Korea only started to homogenize until Koryo, and this really took off and intensified during the Joseon dynasty when the government made an effort to forcibly relocate and move the people around from different regions all over.

Similarly, I really don't understand how in Chinese history they could get away with calling all the earliest cultures, states and kingdoms in their history Chinese when in fact they could belong to an entirely distinct culture and have spoken entirely different languages from Chinese.
The practice of calling ancient cultures/states "Chinese," "Korean," etc. is more of a nationalist short-hand for "primarily Chinese ancestors," "primarily Korean ancestors," etc. than a reflection of their contemporary identities. Thus, a statement such as "Goguryeo was a Korean kingdom" can be read as "Goguryeo was a kingdom comprised of primarily Korean ancestors," in which case it can then be debated in a historical sense as opposed to a semantic sense. To try and argue that they were actually Korean in a modern ethnic sense would require powerful evidence that does not exist. As such I don't put value into such arguments.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
4,412
Most of those are strictly geographic names, and this was also my problem in the other thread about Goguryeo - how do we know that when a memorial mentions Samhan, it is meant in the ethnic sense? Perhaps the criteria is too harsh. "Place of origin" was frequently enough in East Asian history to mark one's identity. But when Goguryeo descendants use different "place of origin" for themselves, it becomes hard to use this to prove that they shared the same identity. I am not against the idea that these people might have thought of themselves as Samhan, but I insist that this is not the best evidence for it because many of the memorials don't even mention Samhan.

Having said all that, I am generally speaking not an opponent of the current historical orthodoxy in which Goguryeo is written as "Korean heritage." Thus, I disagree with Chinese scholars who insist that Goguryeo is "Chinese heritage" or "Jurchen heritage" to the same degree as it is "Korean heritage." But I do not think you can go from this to stating that there was an unified "Korean" identity during the Three Kingdoms, and to subsequently paint wars between the Three Kingdoms and others as ethnic conflicts between Koreans and other peoples, which is what nationalist Korean historiography tries to do, starting from people such as Shin Chae-ho. This is a false reading of the historical record.

I'm wondering why China today even bothers trying to hold on to the term Minzu (ethnicity/nationality) and construct a history around it (it is simply anachronistic and incorrect historically and causes more problems, both intellectual and political ones than it helps). It should just completely discard western, namely Marxist definitions of Minzu/nation (based on descent and language) altogether, and return to the traditional geographic/institutional/cultural/civilization identity (combined with PRC's own ideas). Now, I'm not suggesting using some sociologist such as Ma Rong's idea of getting rid of ethnic ID cards, but I think China can take the character "zu" out of the ID, and just have the ID say "Mongol" or "Tibetan" for anyone who wishes to keep that identity (people basically have a choice). That identity shouldn't be "minzu", it is just that, a more fluid group based on institutions and culture as it always has in history. Not just China, but all countries would probably benefit from this (including Korea and its claim of Koguryo), as we find more and more evidence of how identities are multi-faceted and ancestry of the ancients not necessarily directly related to modern people.
 
Last edited:

heylouis

Ad Honorem
Apr 2013
6,400
China
I'm wondering why China today even bothers trying to hold on to the term Minzu (ethnicity/nationality) and construct a history around it (it is simply anachronistic and incorrect historically and causes more problems, both intellectual and political ones than it helps). It should just completely discard western, namely Marxist definitions of Minzu/nation (based on descent and language) altogether, and return to the traditional geographic/institutional/cultural/civilization identity (combined with PRC's own ideas). Now, I'm not suggesting using some sociologist such as Ma Rong's idea of getting rid of ethnic ID cards, but I think China can take the character "zu" out of the ID, and just have the ID say "Mongol" or "Tibetan" for anyone who wishes to keep that identity (people basically have a choice). That identity shouldn't be "minzu", it is just that, a more fluid group based on institutions and culture as it always has in history. No just China, but all countries would probably benefit from this (including Korea and its claim of Koguryo), as we find more and more evidence of how identities are multi-faceted and ancestry of the ancients not necessarily directly related to modern people.
in the last decades, it is shown to be convenient to keep fair for less developed(on economics and education) people.
 

Similar History Discussions