The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[Drake Tungsten]

Although I don't agree with your views on Shintoism, I wholeheartedly agree with you on the need to be careful when making statments about ancient East Asian history. As I've said before, historians really have no idea what was going on in Korea and Japan during this time period. People need to restrain themselves from stating "facts" about this period (as I think I have) because there are really very few actual, provable facts to mention. Much of the evidence presented in this thread is far from being proven or even accepted. I just want folks to stick to what little facts we know and not turn to speculation.

[siredgar]

It would seem logical and the vast evidence points in this direction. However, we in the West are still biased for Japan and against Korea for whatever reasons, whether a leaning towards recent history or Japanophile tendencies.

Dear Korea Watchers,

While I do not believe Korean scholars who claim that Paekche "conquered" parts of Japan nor do I argue with Wae sending military aid to Kaya (this is fact), there is not much evidence that cultural influence was a two-way street.

Wall murals in royal tombs in Japan are distinctly "Korean" in origin and that is believed to be the primary reason why Japanese archaeologists have been slow to open more imperial tombs (most of the great ones are still off-limits to research).

As one Japanese historian put it, Paekche art "became the basis for the art of the Asuka period (about 552-644)."
Hatada, Takashi. "A History of Korea", Translated by Warren W. Smith Jr. and Benjamin H. Hazard. 1969.

In fact, recent evidence shows that Japan received from Korea advanced iron products, armaments, horse trappings, gold and silver jewelry, pottery, and new methods of statecraft and diplomacy, some copied from China, but most originating from inhabitants of the peninsula. Thus, Korea is "the wellspring of Japanese culture before 700."
Farris, William. "Ancient Japan's Korea Connection", 1994.

These are just tidbits.

What bothers me the outright refusal to acknowledge early Korean influence in Japan, while recognizing Chinese influence (not anyone in particular). This is partly believed to be because of great respect for the Chinese civilization, but utter disregard for the Korean one (both by the Japanese and Westerners). To me, even claiming significant two-way exchange during this period is incredulous. Korea heavily influenced Japanese civilization providing its roots.

I am not denying the magnificence of Japanese civilization today. It is distinct and truly admirable, especially its aesthetic qualities. However, its rise is relatively new compared to China and Korea. I would estimate that the Chinese and Korean civilizations date back 5,000 years, while Japan's is only 2,000 years old(?). This I could be wrong, however.

I apologize for my earlier ignorance on religion (i.e. Shintoism). I am not religious nor have I studied religion to any significance.

Faithfully yours,

Sir Edgar

[siredgar]

By the way, what kind of a civilization gives a sword to a baby? Ancient Japan is primarily militaristic, not cultivated:


Celebrations greet Japan's new princess
December 2, 2001 Posted: 12:09 AM EST (0509 GMT)

TOKYO, Japan (CNN) -- Festivities have begun to celebrate the birth of a daughter to Japan's crown prince and princess, the first child born to the heir of the ancient Chrysanthemum Throne.
...
According to royal tradition the latest birth will be followed by a series of elaborate rituals.

Within hours of coming into the world the royal baby was presented with a specially made sword inside a crimson and white silk case and embossed with the seal of the imperial family.

Later, when she is given her first bath, court officials will stand outside the bathhouse plucking the strings of wooden bows in a ceremony said to ward off evil spirits.

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree with most of your points, Sir Edgar. When I said that it would be prudent to assume a two-way cultural exchange, I in no way meant to imply that the exchange was equal. It is clear that the vast majority of the exchange traveled from Korea to Japan and that Korea did have an effect on Japanese culture. That being said, I still think you overestimate the influence Korea had on Japan. Unfortunately, this is a common problem in this area of history. The Japanese refuse to admit Korean influence, while the Koreans overstate the influence and claim that Japanese culture was based on Korean achievements. I prefer to take the middle ground.

Korea heavily influenced Japanese civilization providing its roots.

I have a little trouble with this statment. I totally agree that Korea influenced Japan. I don't agree, however, with your belief that Korean influence somehow provided the "roots" of Japanese civilization. I am more inclined to believe that Japan already had a distinct culture at the time and, while incorporating technology and culture of Chinese and Korean origin, it still maintained a distinctive culture. That is just my opinion, however, as there is little evidence available with which to make an authoritative statement.

Despite minor disagreements, I think we agree on most things. Korea is definitely a distinct civilization as is Japan. Both have an identity of their own and are not just satellites of China.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
S. Kroeze:

Firstly, I believe that large chunks of your essay was lifed directly from the book 'Clash of Civilizations'. It was a great read, but I don't think that book is relevant at all to this debate.

If we follow that book, then the world can be divided into less than 10 civilizations. Western, Orthodox, Muslim, Confucian, Latin American, African, Indian. In such a broad division, of course there would be no place for the Koreans! There would be no place for the Spanish, Germans, French, Americans, British, Chinese, or Mongol civilizations. These are all too specific. The book calls for the highest, vaguest divisions.

However, is that the civ3 that we are looking at? No. The civ3 we play does not include the Western, Orthodox, Muslim, Confucian civs. The civ3 we play is essential a game about powerful nation-states that have made their mark on history. And these states include: England, Spain, France, Russia, China, Arabia, Greece, America, India, Japan, and Korea.

Thus, if you want to stick with the present civ3, Korea is in. Without a trace of doubt. If there's a place for the Vikings and Poles and Spanish and Dutch, not including the Koreans would be ridiculous.

However, if you want to revert to your definition (and the definition in that book, 'Clash of Civs'), then the Koreans aren't in. The English, Russians, Spanish, Mongols and Arabs aren't in either. Replacing them would be the Western, Muslim, Confucian, and Orthodox civilizations. Then we will need to revamp the entire game, since the current one is essentially a game about nation-states, not vague cultures.

I should have reacted sooner to this post, because you seem to be the only one able to understand my point! Thank you!
I felt like a voice crying in the wilderness.

And you are right: I often quote verbatim -you could have noticed it by my quotation marks- and usually mention the source, as I did now; a practice common to historians, because they are trained constantly to give chapter and verse. It is most funny, when people become completely enraged and start to abuse me, when -had they looked more carefully- they could have known I am quoting verbatim some established authority in that particular branch of historical study. Though -when you really know nothing about the subject- names like Fairbank or Reischauer will sound most unfamiliar!

It seems the others interpret the word 'civilisation' as nation-state, or they didn't even think about what it could mean. I do not agree that in the game 'Civilization' a Civ is identical to 'political power'. After all the very notion of a nation-state is only some centuries old and typically western European, while the game starts in 4000BC. In Africa and the Islamic world this structure still doesn't work today.

Especially in the beginning, when your settlers gradually spread your culture, you act more or less like a real civilisation did. And the way the game explains the government form of 'Republic' -a federation of city-states, like the Greek or Indian city-states- still fits into a Civ meaning civilisation. But you are absolutely right: in modern times you become some sort of nation-state with a most dictatorial sort of government!
Yet in that case there are far too few Civs! The modern world consists of about two hunderd nation-states.

By the way, in ancient times -when communications were much slower and culture developed more independently of one another- there were obviously more civilisations simultaneously on earth; I mean civilisations according to the definition of Huntington. I think that a civilisation like the Minoan, having a rather limited range of distribution, would nevertheless fill the bill.

I had hoped that some of these Korea experts could inform me about Korea's religion and philosophical system: Confucianism and Buddhism, both imported from China (and indirectly from India) and about the differences. So far I have seen nothing yet!

And the idea of an autonomous 'Dutch civilisation' is of course completely ridiculous! (Actually I made this clear in my first post, but I guess you overlooked it)

And why shouldn't a game try to educate people about the real forces that shaped history?

[yin26]

I had hoped that some of these Korea experts could inform me about Korea's religion and philosophical system: Confucianism and Buddhism, both imported from China (and indirectly from India) and about the differences. So far I have seen nothing yet!

The question is too vague. What do you mean exactly? Korea has long had its own native religion, which still holds a strong but sublte influence over Korean culture to this day. A number of people, for example, still have a 'mu-dang' woman come in a chant away bad spirits from a new home, or the home must face a certain direction and have certain natural landmarks around it in certain specific locations, that kind of thing.

Confusianism and Buddhism in Korea primarily served political purposes. And at this point in time, Christianity is perhaps the leading relgion in Korea in terms of members and movement of money, etc., but very few Korean Christians I have ever met really understand Christianity ... its more of a social circle here than a relgion from my point of view.

So I'd say that your question needs to be more specific, keeping in mind that the difference between a state religion and what the average person actually blieves and practices in daily life are two very different things.

Something a professor 6,000 miles away might know nothing about.

[ranskaldan]

well, s. kroeze, i daresay that you will be flamed for what you've just posted.

What I have to say is that civ is not a game about cultures and 'civilizations' as strictly defined. I certainly don't see 'Confucian' or 'Western' civilizations building military units, I see 'the Chinese Empire' or 'the Spanish Empire' building military units.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

What I have to say is that civ is not a game about cultures and 'civilizations' as strictly defined. I certainly don't see 'Confucian' or 'Western' civilizations building military units, I see 'the Chinese Empire' or 'the Spanish Empire' building military units.

You are right about the military units, though military units are generally not built but conscripted. But the "Greek Empire" didn't explore the Mediterranean and found colonies all over it, nor did the "Han Empire" establish a trade route with the Graeco-Roman world. Nor did the "Frankish Empire" convert and calm down the looting Vikings. And neither did agriculture gradually spread all over Europe because some "Sumerian Empire" actively promoted it!

[Q Classic]

s. kroeze...

i'm getting tired of this.

you constantly say you're not receiving any proof, anything of that sort...

but the thing is... if you'd look at all the posts, you'd see links peppered through out. you'd see posts that give you just that.

you have no basis for claiming that you "have seen nothing yet", because of those resources provided on this thread.

perhaps if you'd say that you've seen them, any maybe respond to them...

jesus... it seems like i have to flame people just to be listened to here.

how f*ckin' distasteful, how f*ckin' wrong is that?

[yin26]

Not only that, but says he sees no proof, I ask him to be more specific ... and he blows me off. That or he somehow missed my post and yet replied to the one right below it?

Either way, anybody who really wants to know the truth can study up on it.

[siredgar]

I'm assuming people may be "ignoring" your statements because they agree with you. Usually, responses are posted to disagree. Hmmm?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by yin26
Not only that, but says he sees no proof, I ask him to be more specific ... and he blows me off. That or he somehow missed my post and yet replied to the one right below it?

Either way, anybody who really wants to know the truth can study up on it.

Dear Yin26,

This criticism is justified indeed. And I also agree that my original question about religion and philosophy was far too vague. Nevertheless thanks for giving me some information that was useful and interesting!

The reason that I have not yet reacted is that it takes some time to formulate the question better. My last post -reacting to ranskaldan- I could write in 10 minutes. Reacting in a meaningful way to your post, takes a lot more thinking, because this is truly complicated. Religions and philosophy are complicated. And I am not 24 hours on-line!

Today I visited the library, searching for studies about Korea. This is the opportunity for all Korea experts to critisize the study I am reading now:
A.Nahm: 'Korea, Tradition and Transformation',1988
So when someone desires to expose this work as Eurocentric, imperialistic or discriminating, this is your chance!

Again, thanks for all links, but I just prefer reading a book, though I really have visited several at least aesthetically agreeable sites. But searching a site for information takes me -perhaps this is just me- a lot more time than skimming through a book. And scientific studies as a rule have a far more extensive bibliography. In my first post I also asked for a book and was dismissed by you to Amazon. Nothing against Amazon, but I have more confidence in the Eurocentric 'Britannica', though I do not doubt some of you will disagree!

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

A final note about the Civs in the game civilisations: the average state doesn't last longer than six centuries. Though the Chinese civilisation -using Huntington's definition- is the longest lasting on earth, the average succesful Chinese dynasty lasted about 300 years. So when the game would use this as a model, no Civ -in the game- would ever last till the end!

[siredgar]

Drake Tungsten:
"I am more inclined to believe that Japan already had a distinct culture at the time and, while incorporating technology and culture of Chinese and Korean origin, it still maintained a distinctive culture. That is just my opinion, however, as there is little evidence available with which to make an authoritative statement."


Dear Drake,

You are "inclined" to believe that the Japanese islands had a distinct culture prior to Korean influence and yet do not point to any actual evidence. Have you ever questioned the BASIS of this inclination? Are you so impressed with modern-day Japanese culture (this includes "Tale of Genji", etc.) that you could not fathom that it did not have anything of significance until Korean influence?

And YET, there is tremendous evidence of distinctly Korean facets of civilization taking root in Japan, especially up until the 7th century (i.e. "Korean" royal tombs, pottery, artisan townships, etc).

At the same time, I have not seen any evidence of indigenous "Japanese" culture of any significance prior to that period.

Please feel free to show me any evidence in the efforts to convince me otherwise.

Thanks.

Sir Edgar

[Drake Tungsten]

I think you are mistaken about the lack of Japanese culture before Korean influence. It is obvious that Japan had a culture; the real question is how much it was influenced and changed by Korean and Chinese influence. To say that Japan had no culture before the "enlightened" Koreans came over is not only unsupported, it seems a little biased toward the Koreans.

As for proof, I think I've said many times that there is no conclusive proof for either side in this argument. I can't prove that Japan had a distinctive culture anymore than you can prove that Korean influence was the basis of Japanese culture. There is evidence that seem to point in my favor, but it is by no means the last word in the argument. "A Brief History of Chinese and Japanese Civilizations" by Conrad Schirokauer is a great source for information on East Asian history and is the book I have used to check most of my information in this post. Check it out if you want to see the evidence for a distinct Japanese culture prior to the fall of Paekche.

[siredgar]

Perhaps, you should extend your reading beyond one book?

Especially one that has in the title:

1. "BRIEF History"

and

2. Only the "Chinese and Japanese civilizations".

Hmmm?

As if there are only two great East Asian civilizations! This is an especially arrogant title when Japan's is clearly not as venerable as Korea's.

Please do share any evidence of an early indigenous culture of SIGNIFICANCE and DISTINCTION. All I can read about is the "dwarf pirates" of Japan. And that comes mostly AFTER the 7th century.

[siredgar]

I compiled all of this in less than half an hour:

1. Recent evidence suggest that as many as one one-third of the residents of Japan's Tomb period (A.D. 300-700) could trace their recent ancestry back to Korean roots.-- Farris, William, "Ancient Japan's Korea Connection", 1994.

2. One painter of Paekche ancestry in Japan was said to be the foremost court artist of the ninth century, "the first memorable painter in Japan, the first to bring landscape, for example, to the level of dignified art."-- Alexander Soper quoted in McCune, Evelyn, "The Arts of Korea: An Illustrated History", 1962.

3. Many historians now believe that the wall murals in royal tombs in Japan suggest that the imperial house lineage may have had a Korean origin.-- Cumings, Bruce, "Korea's Place in the Sun", 1997.

4. Paekche art "became the basis for the art of the Asuka period (about 552-644)."-- Hatada, Takashi, "A History of Korea", 1969.

5. "Tomb murals in Japan clearly show a strong Koguryo influence."-- Cumings.

6. Korea may have been "the fount of all ancient Japanese civilization" and certainly "the wellspring of Japanese culture before 700."-- Farris.

7. "Nearly all the iron to make the first Japanese weapons and tools" came from Korea.-- Farris.

8. "There is clear evidence of Korea's heavy influence on ancient Japan in a way that is easy to understand. Japan has long denied Korean links to its origins."-- Covell, Jon C. and Covell, Alan C., "Korean Impact on Japanese Culture: Japan's Hidden History", 1986.

9. "Bronze technology in ancient Korea also reveals much about the Japanese adoption of Korean science and technology through the ages. While this is seldom discussed in the traditional historiography of Korea, there is an abundance of materials on the topic in the Nibstn sbstki, a Japanese history compiled in the early 8th century. In 554, Paekche sent doctors, herb and calendar specialists, and diviners to Japan, and in 602, Kwalluk, a Paekche monk, was dispatched to Japan to deliver books on astronomy calendar-making, geography and divination, and to train Japanese students."--
http://www.indiana.edu/~easc/korean/9-1.htm

10. "By about 400 b.c. Korean farmers migrated across the Sea of Japan (called the Eastern Sea by Koreans) to southern Japan. This was the beginning of farming villages in Japan and much of the modern Japanese population is descended from these immigrants. The Japanese and Korean people are really close cousins."--
http://www.pbs.org/hiddenkorea/history.htm

11. "Numerous records, such as these, indicate that almost all aspects of ancient science and technology in the Nara and Heian periods were brought to Japan by Koreans. Paper and writing ink, and flour mill technology were just some of the practical technologies introduced from Korea, and, with the rise of Buddhism in Japan, all the technologies associated with Buddhist architecture and bell-making were obtained from Korean scholars and technicians."--
http://www.indiana.edu/~easc/korean/9-1.htm

12. "• 538 The ruling monarch of Paekche, King Song (r. 523–54), sends the official diplomatic mission that formally introduces Buddhism to the Japanese court. The mission presents to the court Buddhist images and sutras. Korean priests play an important part in the propagation of the religion in Japan during the second half of the sixth century, and the influence of Korean sculptors can be traced in Buddhist works of the Asuka period (538–710) from the Nara area."--
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ht/06/eak/ht06eak.htm

--

Therefore, I must ask you:

"If ceremonial burial, bronze working, warrior code, monarchy, astronomy, geography, calendar-making, divination, ink-writing, painting, and farming, all provided by Korea (in distinctly Korean ways), do not form the basis of ancient Japanese civilization, then what does? Digging holes? Living in caves? That's not 'civilization'."

As you can see I have used only non-Korean sources, including some Japanese ones, because of the heavy Korean "bias" accusations I've seen on this thread. This is despite the fact that many posters here, including Yin and myself, are not Korean. Anyhow, if you cannot trust PBS and New York's Metropolitan Museum, then who can you trust?

If Korea can acknowledge Japan's heavy influence during the 20th century, why can't the Japanese recognize Korean cultural roots in ancient history?

This goes back to asking the question why do you think Japanese religion and ancient "history" (more like mythology) makes so many claims to "uniqueness", etc?

What I don't understand is why is it so "shameful" to not have indigenous beginnings? The Koreans are not entirely indigenous to the peninsula either. Hmmm?

In conclusion, early Korean civilization formed a large basis for ancient Japan. Prior to the 19th century, Japanese influence on Korea is minimal. In the 20th century, however, Japanese influence is significant.

By the way, most "Early Japanese Civilization" history courses begin at the 7th century. I wonder why... Hmmm?

[yin26]

S. Kroeze: Thanks for that. By the way, I have read the book by Nahm. It's quite a good introduction to Korea. You are a true exception to the rule that most people simly refuse to study something new when they already imagine themselves to be 'right.' My hat is off to you, sir.

SirEdgar: EXCELLENT! You gave me two new Web links I was missing from my compilation...and they are outstanding ones at that. Further, you have given me a great idea for the book I am working on, similar in tone and object to how this thread started. I am now going to devote an entire section of the book to Korea's seeding early Japan.

Wonderful!

By the way, if and when this book is ever written, I will make mention of some of the people on this site and even send out some copies if I can. But we're talking a year or two from now at least.

[siredgar]

Yin,

If it helps, I would be very happy to work with you on any research into early Korean-Japanese history. I have a Master's degree in Political Economy, with an emphasis on U.S. Foreign Policy and East Asian studies. However, there is much that I have yet to learn and this is definitely an area that I would like to delve into.

Also, I have a professional editing background, so I would be more than glad to proof-read any interesting drafts you may have.

By the way, have you been playing Civilization III? From what I understand, that has been quite a story of debate for you.

Edgar

[siredgar]

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCJAPAN/ANCJAPAN.HTM
"JAPAN DOES NOT APPEAR IN HISTORY UNTIL 57 AD when it is first mentioned in Chinese histories, where it is referred to as "Wa." The Chinese historians tell us of a land divided into a hundred or so separate tribal communities without writing or political cohesion. THE JAPANESE DO NOT START WRITING THEIR HISTORY UNTIL AROUND 600AD; this historical writing culminates in 700 AD in the massive chronicles, The Record of Ancient Matters and the Chronicles of Japan. These chronicles tell a much different and much more legendary history of Japan, deriving the people of Japan from the gods themselves.

THE JAPANESE ARE LATE-COMERS IN ASIAN HISTORY. Preceding their unification and their concern with their own history in the latter half of the first millenium AD is a long period of migration and settlement. Where did the Japanese come from? Why did they settle the islands? What did life look like before history was written down?

In order to get a handle on ancient Japanese history, it helps to consider that it is driven by outside influences. The first involved the settlement of Japan by a group of peoples from the Korean peninsula in the third century BC. Overnight they transformed the stone-age culture of Japan into an agricultural and metal-working culture. THESE EARLY IMMIGRANTS ARE ULTIMATELY THE ORIGIN OF JAPANESE LANGUAGE AND CULTURE."

I wonder why they don't start writing their own history until 600AD? Maybe because they didn't have anything to write with??? That is until the Koreans provided ways of writing to them.

[yin26]

SirEdgar:

Please look for an e-mail from me later today. I assume the one in your profile will work? If not, please shoot me a quick e-mail at namk26@hotmail.com

I'd very much like to discuss this project with you. It has already culminated in a very successful 'pamphlet' form, similar to what you see on this thread. However, I feel the time is at hand to expand and publish it. And looking at your background and enthusiasm for the project, we might make an outstanding team.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by siredgar
Perhaps, you should extend your reading beyond one book?

Especially one that has in the title:

1. "BRIEF History"

and

2. Only the "Chinese and Japanese civilizations".

Hmmm?

As if there are only two great East Asian civilizations! This is an especially arrogant title when Japan's is clearly not as venerable as Korea's.

Please do share any evidence of an early indigenous culture of SIGNIFICANCE and DISTINCTION. All I can read about is the "dwarf pirates" of Japan. And that comes mostly AFTER the 7th century.

I have most certainly read more than one book on the subject. I use Schirokauer's book mainly for checking up on facts that I remember from other sources. It really is a great overview of East Asian history. Maybe you should try reading it yourself instead of judging it solely on its title. You're patronizing attitude doesn't impress me.

By the way, most "Early Japanese Civilization" history courses begin at the 7th century. I wonder why... Hmmm?

Because there aren't any written records from before this period! What the hell have I been harping on in everyone of my posts! There is very little evidence available about Japan and Korea before the 7th century, so I prefer to leave my options open. You, however, look at similarities between paintings in Japan and Korea and assume that Korea must be the source of all Japanese culture. What a joke. China had more of an influence on Japanese culture than Korea did, yet I don't see you saying that China is the "root" of all Japanese culture. I never denied that China and Korea heavily influenced Japan, but it is clear that a distinct Japanese culture existed before and after the fall of Paekche. If you don't believe this, then how do you explain Shinto and its uniquely Japanese ceremonies? How do you explain the survival of the Japanese language? If Korea really was the source of all Japanese culture, why wouldn't Korean be the spoken tongue of Japan? And what about the unique and interesting mythology of Japan that you so deride? I guess oral history and folklore don't count as culture to you.

Japan most definitely copied Korean art styles and Chinese metallurgical techniques, but you have given no proof that a Japanese culture did not exist before this. Weapons making techniques are not the source of culture. Neither is art style. Culture is based on a set of shared values and a belief in the uniqueness of a people. Were the Romans really Greeks because they copied greek art? Is China the source of all the world's culture because they invented gunpowder first? Of course not. We have no idea what Japanese culture was like before the introduction of writing, so for you to state "facts" like you have is just absurd.

Please do share any evidence of an early indigenous culture of SIGNIFICANCE and DISTINCTION. All I can read about is the "dwarf pirates" of Japan. And that comes mostly AFTER the 7th century.

I don't know if you would consider anything I show to be significant or distinctive. You seem to have a low opinion of the early Japanese that I'm pretty sure I can't change. Then again, I guess I really don't care.

[siredgar]

Drake,

I have given you 12 pieces of evidence from different sources all in less than half an hour and all non-Korean, even from places like PBS and the Metropolitan Museum.

What do you mean by no evidence? Where do I make references to similarities equating to facts? The quotes that I have provided are not my judgments, but statements from scholars.

It seems to me that you are the one who is making statements based on feelings, rather than the facts. Show me the quotes, show me the evidence! It's your turn, if you dare.

Chinese influence on Japan is very strong, but many Japanese are more likely to acknowledge this than any inheritance from Korea for their own inferiority-superiority complex reasons. This is something that needs to be understood.

Where is the evidence of the distinctly Japanese civilization prior to the 7th century?

Also, there is no written history prior to that because the Koreans introduced writing during the 7th century!

In my opinion, Korea had a greater influence on Japan than China. That is against the commonly accepted rhetoric, which you seem to prescribe to, and I understand that. That is why I am here to argue the facts against these beliefs.

When you start playing Civilization III, what are the first civilization advances? Bronze working? Warrior code? Pottery? Writing? Koreans passed along all of these to the Japanese.

As I have pointed out, Korean migrants moved to Japan and introduced farming. That is why Koreans and Japanese eat the same kind of rice, different from Chinese rice.

"The unique and interesting mythology" of Japan that you talk about was created around the time that Koreans began introducing writing, etc to the Japanese. Interesting timing, hmmm?

The Romans are not really Greeks nor are the Japanese really Koreans. I never said that. However, much of Roman civilization is based on Greek principles and the Romans ACKNOWLEDGE this. The Japanese do not and instead claim more ties to China. Korea is not "worthy" in their eyes, nor yours.

Concepts such as bronze working, pottery, writing, and irrigation are the first steps of a nascent civilization. Thus, ancient Japanese civilization has primarily Korean roots.

The Japanese don't speak Korean, but their language is based on Korean phonetics.

Did you even read the post with this link?

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/ANCJAPAN/ANCJAPAN.HTM

Please do so, it is only three short paragraphs.

Thanks.

Edgar

[siredgar]

As I've said previously, I am not that knowledgeable about religion, but I clipped this from Washington State University's East Asian Studies department:

"Despite this optimism, Shinto is probably not a native religion of Japan (since the Japanese were not the original "natives" of Japan), and seems to be an agglomeration of a multitude of diverse and unrelated religions and mythologies. There really is no one thing that can be called "Shinto," since there are a multitude of religious cults that gather beneath this category. The name itself is a bit misleading, for "Shinto" is a combination of two Chinese words meaning "the way of the gods" (shen : "spiritual power, divinity"; tao : "the way or path") and was first used at the beginning of the early modern period. The Japanese word is kannagara: "the way of the kami ." Calling the religion of the early Japanese "Shinto" is a gross and unsupportable anachronism.

Despite the difficulty in pinning down the form and nature of early Shinto, several general assertions can be drawn about it. First, early Shinto was a tribal religion, not a state one. Individual tribes or clans, which originally crossed over to Japan from Korea, generally held onto their Shinto beliefs even after they were organized into coherent and centralized states."

Conclusion of author:
1. "Shinto is not a native religion of Japan."
2. It has its origins in tribes or clans from Korea.

[Q Classic]

hm... look, let's stop with the japan bashing here.

i'm not a fan of them either, but we seem to be struggling too hard to slam japan in favor of korea...

this should not be the case.

korea is distinct. so is japan. ancient japan was heavily influenced by ancient korea.

but our focus here should be on korea, and its merits, not japan, and how it's not a great civ.

[siredgar]

The term "Japan-bashing" was developed by a PR firm representing the Japanese government. It made any critique of Japan unfashionable overnight. Very clever:

---

http://www.debito.org/PALE898.html#japanbashing
ORIGIN OF THE EPITHET "JAPAN BASHING"
(excerpted from an email by Robert Angel)

Date: Sun, 03 Mar 1996
From: Robert Angel
Organization: University of South Carolina

While president of the Japan Economic Institute in Washington, D.C., I used the phrase [Japan Bashing] to discredit the more effective critics of Japan's economic policies. Several years later I admitted authorship to John Judis, a Washington journalist friend, but still refused to admit it in public. He persuaded me to "confess," so to speak, and wrote the whole thing up in a Columbia Journalism Review article. It is amusing to watch otherwise thoughtful people fall right into the trap, although my views on political economy have changed considerably since then.

I resigned the presidency of JEI in 1984, returned to Columbia and re-wrote my dissertation, and in 1986 took a teaching job here at the University of South Carolina. Lucky to get it too since, as you might imagine, universities these days want Japan specialists who are willing to raise money from Japanese PR sources. [snip]

Robert Angel is a professor at the University of South Carolina

---

I've used the term "America-bashing" in a separate thread to generate a similar response, being curious to see the results.

Anyhow, the point is that if Japan is one of "the great civilizations" of the world, then why isn't Korea even considered a major civilization? Some of the posts have claimed that Japan is a unique civilization on par with China or ALL of Western Europe. And yet, Korea is treated as the equivalent to a province of China.

Well, if Korea was far more advanced than Japan for a long time and it indeed provided the roots of this great civilization called Japan, then that's something to think about, isn't it? Hmmm?

[yin26]

SirEdgar: Check your PM on this site.

As for the 'Japan-bashing,' I think it's important to realize that Japan has ACTIVELY and even BRUTALLY tried to distort the historical record. As we speak, the international community is putting pressure on Japan to write the truth in its history textbooks, which so far the hardliners there have refused to do.

Thus, what might seem like Japan-bashing is actually the difficult and even bitter process of setting the record straight. That said, to overlook Japan's unique accomplishments would skew the arguement to the other extreme.

[siredgar]

The only thing "unique" that the Japanese have really done, which by the way I consider one of its greatest acheivements (if not greatest), is becoming the first and only non-Western nation to industrialize.

So far, there is no major nation that has achieved this since Japan. While there are small city-states like Singapore and oil-rich Gulf nations that have reached a high standard of living like the West, only Korea appears to be a candidate among nations of any significant size.

By some measures, it already has by being accepted into the OECD, i.e. "rich nations' club". In my opinion, however, it still has a few years to really attain this level.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
korea is distinct. so is japan. ancient japan was heavily influenced by ancient korea.

My feelings exactly. Once again Q-Cubed is the voice of reason.

SirEdgar: I admire your persistence, but it is obvious that you lack expertise in this area. You also don't seem to get what I'm saying. I never said that Korea was "not worthy". I actually feel that it is an important civ and needs more recognition than it currently gets (especially in Western societies). I also don't approve of the knee-jerk reaction of many Japanese historians who deny any Korean influence on Japanese culture. This is absurd and against what little evidence we have. I am certainly not an apologist for Japanese nationalists and their political agenda.

Anyway, a major problem I see with your arguments is that you don't distinguish between the early colonizers of Japan, called the Yayoi, and later Koreans. This is best evidenced in your point on Shinto.

2. It has its origins in tribes or clans from Korea.

This is very true, but it doesn't mean that Shinto, or more appropriately proto-Shinto, was Korean. The Yayoi people did cross into Japan from the Korean peninsula, but they were very definitely not Korean. The Yayoi entered Japan around 300 B.C., long before a Korean or Japanese civilization existed. Who they actually were is a mystery, although genetic studies seem to indicate that they were very closely related to the ancestors of present day Koreans. It may be that the Koreans and Japanese are descended from the same people. That would make their current hatred for each other very ironic...

You also don't seem to understand that Korea was not a unified nation in the period we were discussing. It is misleading to refer to the culture of Paekche as "Korean". As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, both Paekche and Koguryo were conquered by Silla in 562 AD. Consequently, we have almost no written records from these kingdoms. You seem to assume that all three kingdoms had a similar culture, but we really don't know what their culture was like. Today's Korean culture is descended from the culture of Silla. We don't even know what language was spoken in Paekche; one interesting theory proposes that Paekche's language was closer to Japanese than Korean. (Sorry, I don't remember what book I read that in) Anyway, my point is that even referring to the influx of Paekche's culture in Japan as a "Korean" influence is debatable. There really was no Korea to influence a not yet formed Japan. People need to stop viewing the interactions of ancient peoples based on what nation exists in that region today.

Now for some various rebuttals.

Where is the evidence of the distinctly Japanese civilization prior to the 7th century?

I never claimed that there was a Japanese civilization before the 7th century. I claimed that there was a distinct Japanese culture. There is a difference between a civilization and a culture.

Also, there is no written history prior to that because the Koreans introduced writing during the 7th century!

The writing was Chinese, however, so I don't really think this counts as a Korean influence.

When you start playing Civilization III, what are the first civilization advances? Bronze working? Warrior code? Pottery? Writing? Koreans passed along all of these to the Japanese.

Once again, these were mostly Chinese advance merely transmitted through Korea. I don't know how that is relevant.

As I have pointed out, Korean migrants moved to Japan and introduced farming. That is why Koreans and Japanese eat the same kind of rice, different from Chinese rice.

Very true, rice was introduced by the Yayoi. However, I've already covered why it is wrong to consider the Yayoi as "Korean".

1. "Shinto is not a native religion of Japan."

No it isn't, it was brought along with the Yayoi. I never said that it was native, only that it was uniquely Japanese.

"The unique and interesting mythology" of Japan that you talk about was created around the time that Koreans began introducing writing, etc to the Japanese. Interesting timing, hmmm?

No, it was written down after the introduction of writing. No one knows when Japan's mythology first began to take form, but almost everyone accepts that it had a history extending long before the introduction of writing.

The Japanese don't speak Korean, but their language is based on Korean phonetics.

As I've stated before on this thread, this isn't true. The most accepted theory is that Korean and Japanese are both members of the Altaic family. That said, they really aren't very closely linked and Korean is certainly not the basis for Japanese. No one really knows where Japanese came from.

Finally, you seem to want links to sources, but I can't oblige. I'm of the opinion that most web sources are useless, especially when discussing a topic as obscure as this. Why should I search high and low for a website that will have less information than a book I have at my fingertips? Most websites are rather short and cursory, like that site you linked to. Only six paragraphs on the Yayoi? What a joke. My "brief history" of both Japan and China has three pages on the Yayoi. If you really want to know about early Japan, you should read the first volume of "The Cambridge History of Japan". Truly an excellent source. I'll list more books, if you really want to know where I've gotten my information from. I can't make any guarantees that I'll remember magazine and journal articles I've read.

[yin26]

Drake: In general, I agree with your stance. I will say, though, that even if Korea was not unified at the time, they were clearly the same 'family' in a kind of civil war. To NOT refer to them as Korean is even more misleading, IMO, though one might say 'Pre-Unified' or something like that if the distinction is that important.

As for writing, the earliest wood block was found in Korea a few years back from the 7th century. So while writing may have come from China, it's clear that Koreans took the concept and highly refined the process.

[Drake Tungsten]

I totally agree Yin. I didn't mean that Paekche was not ethnically Korean, only that it was culturally distinct from Silla. Looking at my post, I realize that I didn't make that clear; I'm sorry. A term like 'Pre-Unified' or proto-Korean would probably be more historically accurate, but it is also unwieldy and that makes me hesitant in using it. I think it would be sufficient if people just remembered that political and ethnic divisions were vastly different in antiquity and we must be careful not to make the past fit our world view. I hope that makes sense, its pretty late here.