Many of you ignorants seem not to have knowledge of the fact that korean history has been distorted significantly, and that modern revisionist historians in korea, japan, china, and even a few from the west all know what's going on. This is not a nationalist babling, as you guys have mistaken, it's an ongoing quest for truth by history loving people and the like. Not just korean historians, but chinese as well as eastern european historians. Russia upholds the revisionist model, as well as hungary. So read through even though it's long, it'll prove useful. Keep in mind that such conspiracies to distort history aren't rare, practically a third of the entire world's history we currently know are estimated to be false, and that's why revisionist history movements are currently reinvestigating anything that looks shady.
In serious history, much of the heretofore known "facts" and teaching methods are disregarded as mere political maneuvering. It's no secret anymore. For the knowledgeable, in the real ACADEMIC society for east asian history, and I mean people in CJK who are actually studying first hand sources and archaeological excavations, history of korea is a vastly different matter that is in full need of exploration. And exploration indeed, is going on.
Don't be skeptical and merely think it as "fantasy" and "bull$hit". You only do it in your own wrongdoing, keeping yourself ignorant. Although being critical is important, one must keep an open mind.

So how did things get distorted? First of all, it is a FACT that the japanese revised korean history to be taught in their own terms. Note I said "to be taught". The history that is taught in public schools were manipulated to hide facts and events, distort or exaggerate, or even simply add in false information. The japanese had an agenda, and it is well known how they have managed to go as far as hiding important documents that they either 1. stole from korea during the occupation or 2. written history from their own archives. Many liberal historians in japan are revisionists who cry out against what have been done. TO THIS DAY, JAPANESE RIGHT-WING NATIONALISTS AND THEIR SCHOLARS ARE REFUSING TO SHOW MANY PAGES OF HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS. They go as far as denying the existence. We are assuming they have documents about Paekje's colonization and interaction with japan. Another potential truth hidden are how the paekje and koguryo elite fled to japan and established the ruling class there. Yet more are hidden about japan's evils during the occupation, among others.

So how do we know they are hiding these facts? Well, fortunately, history is not written by one author. Korean history is well documented by ancient chinese scholars, not just by the koreans and the japanese. In fact, koguryo history written by their own people were destroyed along with the country in 668, and today we know their history mainly through chinese records. Ironically, chinese records prove to be most reliable in koguryo history, as even fellow koreans to the south, the Shila, downsized koguryo's glory. Although much bias against korea should exist, that's the only thing we have. Such chinese records are in great detail, and several books confirm similar events, one such being the paekche's enormous empire. The investigation into paekje's past glory, conducted by revisionists, unearthed resounding archaeological evidence of paekje control throught the west pacific rim, confirming chinese textual references.

The most alarming thing is how south korea's own historians, during the occupation and afterwards, distorted their own history to an absurd extent. It is very sad, a deep tragedy in our history writing. South korean right-wing historians, did barely anything but to support japan's efforts in distortion, as the scholars were among the notorious right-wing collaboration elites. They were further delighted to uphold japan's denial of paekje supremacy, as you may have guessed, the ROK elite derives from the former shila region. If you didn't know, there is violent region-animosity as the cholla-region and kyongsang(shila) region hate each other quite bitterly. And so the ROK scholars did not like the idea that their beloved shila was the only kingdom of the three that NEVER ESTABLISHED AN EMPIRE. Thus, official govnt-sanctioned paekje history, taught in south korea as well as the west, relegated paekje into an insignificant, peaceful weakling of the three kingdoms. Not only that, such traitors also belittled koguryo's extent of conquest, and consequently school history doesn't come close to teaching how far koguryo went, and maps of koguryo in text books and western books who borrowed from them shrunk koguryo's purported domain down to northern korea and a bit of southern manchuria. I don't know of any other country whose historians work against their own people and belittle their own history, but it happens in south korea. I know, unbelievable.

Combining efforts with linguists, archaeologists, and foreign historians, modern korean historians go around asia to uncover history that was never taught. Many things are being fixed, including accidental mistranslations and misplacements of city locations, as well as intended ommissions and distortions. There are of course many disagreements, and uncertainties, and unconfirmed guesses, but suitably these serious historians take a balanced account of it all, and accept only the very verified. And then of course some nationalist extremes go blow up history and exaggerate, or make misplaced conclusions. The facts that I have come to accept aren't based on these wild people and their writings. It's based on modern revionist writings from reliable and acknowledged historians of the west and east alike, which are based on solid evidence, e.g. chinese texts, archaeological remains, DNA analysis, etc.

Already such new history are making headway into mainstream history, and you might encounter some(already some western japanologists are writing about how the yamato had to do with korea proper, and how the wa was affected by the kaya confederacy in southern korea...and of course the japanese imperial line coming from paekje's royal line is no secret anymore, with the emperor Akihito visiting his ancestor's tombs against prevailing right-wing japanese protests.) and just think "man, that's not what I've learned", which is understandable...but don't think too quickly and disregard it.

Even today south korea's textbooks are in serious need of revision, and the outcry by correctminded historians are growing by day.

Now you are going to attract the flies, aka chinese nazi wankers.

Chinazi's are indeed like flies and this thread is their poo-poo platter buffet.

To go in to detail as to why the japanese imperialists decided to search and destroy evidence, confiscate national history portions of colonized korea, hide their own records into top secret national archives, and rewrite korean history in large parts....simply what their motivation was, I will explain it briefly. First of all, the japanese fascist elite wanted to remove korean pride and traditions, attempting to erase traditions, language, and even korean names. Of course the history that the japanese quickly rewrote and forcibly taught in schools in korea were designed to inspire little national pride and superimpose an overall negative perspective on the koreans' own history. Putting down the esteem of korean people and their ability to rule themselves, as well as inciting dislike for their own people, and brainwashing the koreans into thinking that they can only be ruled by foreign powers and that it was natural to be that way for millienia, was part of japanese propaganda. Even today the korean history book taught in schools overemphasize negativies, especially facts having to do with corruption in late koryo and late choson. While the glorious histories of the three kingdoms were mere sub-chapters, late choson's shortcomings were excessively prescribed in detail! Did anyone notice that when you learned history in korea? Reading the korean history textbook leaves the patriotic korean reader in depression. And that's precisely what the Japanese aimed to do. Even today the blatant result is that some south koreans believe that they actually would be better off under japan.

Another reason the j@p-imperialists were insistent on history distortion, in particular the paekje part (the very itchy part indeed), was to persuade their own country's govnt to ruthlessly suppress the korean people without remorse. With knowledge of the fact that japan owes almost its entirety to korean civilisation, and that they are de facto exiled koreans, many policy-makers would have been reluctant to pursue a reckless policy in korea. As you see, fascists have no regard for their own people, nevertheless people that are supposedly related through strong historic bonds, blood bonds. And in order to carry out their plans for korea, the right-wingers needed to fool the more moderates and take out any possibilites of opposition to colonization. So they indeed denied paekje's rule over japan, the ties of the emperor to paekje's royal line, and in fact turned it around and argued that the famous legend of a paekje woman conquering kyushu was the other way around, and paekje was occupied by japan instead. Today's japanese right-wingers are still insistent on the Imna Ilbonbu theory of japan's right of claims to paekje territory of the time. They even created evidence, not joking. How much of a blow for them when the emperor hirohito finally acknowledged that his royal line came from korea, and then when akihito payed homage to the tomb of paekje's king. As such, truths are being uncovered. There is overwhelming evidence of paekje colonizing japan, in archives of china and paekje. Paekje bongi, the text of paekje history written by china, mentions a korean(paekje) royal princess getting permission from her father to create paekje establishments in kyushu. And all sources talk about a pregnant woman conquering the indigents, and japan is just too humiliated to admit that. I'd be too. And the son of that pregnant princess was japan's first emperor. Thus japan's mythology of a sun goddess giving birth to the imperial line, making it divine.

On last note...further evidence to paekje's rome-like empire: on king kwanggeto's famous memorial stone in manchuria(yall know it), there is mentioning of their much hated enemy of the time, written as paekJAN, which is a derogatory term they used for addressing paekje. Paekje was the greatest rival to koguryo before his reign, especially over the modern day seoul area and manchuria. And the stone is not lying when it says kwanggeto conquered paekje's forts, IN MANCHURIA.

CTM2000 should be banned. I'm sick and tired from hearing that dimwit whine. fu-kin swine.

Leave CTM alone... he's just another self-hating Chinese dude who wants to be Japanese like DetunedRadio.

are you serious. I thought he was japanese. Holy fu-k he is one miserable swine, to be chinese and wanting to be japanese to the extent that i thought wrongly.

LOL wow I must say you guys must really love me to dedicate such a tribute to me 2 hahaha. You can join my fanclub if you wish. BTW Hi-Head, nobody is trying to doubt you. We'll believe you as long as you give us verification and proof of your claims. Instead of sitting on your computer and arguing with a bunch of people you don't know on the internet, wouldn't it be far more productive of you to I dunno present your ideas to say a history faculty at a university? Your claims are not orthodox or accepted by just about anyone so obviously you've got quite a ways to go to prove your worth. If you wanna continue insulting me, so be it but just think about my suggestion for a minute, I highly advise you.

That's reasonable suggestion. I'd be interested in reading up on some of the sources.

my research is a product of years of browsing through essays and books. i don't feel like giving you all the innumerable sources, you find out on your own, it's your problem. I'll make it clear, i am not getting it all from one or two sources, and therefore throw out any attempts to classify the info as personal bias of a few. Let me assure you moreover, i am no fool to be lying or making up stuff here. I have no reason to. And my views are in no way extreme. Why don't you go look at your own chinese records. Or google it. If you can't believe me, do your own research and find out for yourself.

Translation: BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH I'm copping out due to lack of valid sources so I must save face. He who asserts himself must prove himself. When you make a claim especially unorthodox ones, it is your responsibility and solely your responsibility to prove those claims not for the defendant to disprove them. I don't have to look for anything as it is not my job to disprove your claims and it is certainly NOT my problem that you cannot prove anything you say. Since it is very clear that you have absolutely no evidence to back up anything you say and your theories go against what scholars have been teaching for centuries, I think this is more than enough to dismiss your case. Like I said, quit arguing with me. If you really want recognition, try the history faculty at your nearest university. Convince those doctorate level academics that what they've been teaching and researching for years are all wrong and that you're right. Arguing with some random person on the internet that you don't know AKA me is not gonna prove a damn thing.

LOL I don't know about the rest of you but I actually took hi-head's advice. Since he wants us doubters to actually research ourselves, I have with me publications from Patricia Ebrey, John King Fairbank, Ross Terrill, Jonathan Spence, Jacques Gernet, Mark Elvin and Nicholas Kristof. BTW these are unbiased western sources about China just in case anyone wants to know. So far I'm looking very hard and his claims that China paid tribute to Koguryo is rather non-existent. Hmm what about his other claims like Shanghai being under Korean suzerainty or that Baekje held Shantung and even held Taiwan? Hmmm looking looking and looking.....nope not finding anything. The Mongols paid tribute to Koguryo eh? Hmm what does Jack Weatherford or J.J Saunders have to say about this? Looking looking looking....Oh nopes nothing about that either. BTW in case you didn't know, the Roman empire lorded over much of Europe and many parts of Africa and the Middle East. My point? That's a $hitload of territory. Koguryo's farthest extent according to most valid academic sources stretched into parts of modern day Liaoning peninsula. Mathematically and scientifically speaking, the Korean peninsula plus a good chunk of Liaoning doesn't equate to the combination of modern day France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, England, Turkey, etc now does it? So what's this about Koguryo lording over a Rome like Empire? Hmm isn't it accepted by most western scholars that the Han Dynasty was the only empire in the world contemporary with the Roman empire? BTW the fact that you ask us to google stuff kind of kills off alot of your credibility. The internet is hardly a valid place to be looking for verification considering that anyone with half a brain can create a random internet site but you knew that. That is not to say that there aren't valid sources on google but overall it's not the greatest place to be looking. I'm not trying to insult you here but seriously your claims are really not adding up according to anyone.

Although I hate to admit it, CTM2000 is perfectly right: If hi-head wants us to believe what he has to say, then he should list all of his sources. It's not the audience's job to find out where he gets his information from. If this was an essay or argumentative piece submitted to a University professor, would any sane and intelligent person say to the marker "i don't feel like giving you all the innumerable sources, you find out on your own, it's your problem"?

Some university professors can be pretty crazy as well. "Dr" Revilo P. Oliver or Arthur Kemp were two such individuals, who claimed that Caucasoids created every civilization on earth. There are others, too Martin Bernal, Cheikh Anta Diop, and Runoko Rashidi, who claimed the same achievement for the Africoid race.

The academic community has exiled most of them 2 particularly Kemp and Oliver.

Then we should do the same with unsubstianted Korean claims.

History cleaning is the most basic part of cultural anihilation. So, basically, all invaders did it....

The Bible is the most impressive result of history cleaning - most of it was changed to be accepted by romans.

Or, as I say "History are fairy tails until someone digs it"

It takes a fifth of your brain to post on a forum.

everyone's history is not for sure. unless someone discovers a time machine....

Alright, here you go, I'll fu-kin give you some sources on self-evident facts, go take a look. It seems that it is far more accepted than you think. It's fu-kin self-evident.



http://www.fpri.org/education/teachingjapa...esehistory.html




http://www.aasianst.org/Viewpoints/ruoff.htm


Read this entire article, it's worth it. It basically goes with the current of my arguments, and current events in general

http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2352.html

In fact, I think it it pretty much widely accepted that yamato and japan's emperor were paekche originated. Any serious historian would know that paekche had enormous influence on japan, in fact paekche royalty factions, coming from koguryo's royalty, which comes from puyo, continued to migrate and conquer southward, with japan being the last stop. Even linguisitcal references show astonishing similarities in koguryo vocab and modern japanese vocabular. Moreover, literature of 5th century japan were written by a language that was more akin to korean than japanese. Japan to Paekche-Koguryo was like what america was to england, inhabited by natives that hasn't reached statehood, ripe of opportunities and exploitation. Paekche and Koguryo, related peoples, migrated to japan constantly starting 4th century, for two reasons, being that of escaping the endless wars on the penninsula, or seeking for the "Land of Opportunities" where even the common paekche man could prosper. Japan's natives were mostly Yayoi at that time, who were related to southern korean aboriginals, and Jomon, the pacific polynesian types...and they formed small village-state communities, mainly fishing communities by the inland see and coastal areas. Paekche introduced everything, the semi-tungusic people taking up the ruling class, much like they did in Puyo, Koguryo, Paekche respectively.... Thus there is the record of 8th century japan's aristocracy receiving a letter from Parhae that koguryo was refounded, a cause of celebration and perhaps return back to korea...koguryo-paekche-japan ties were firm ethically and linguistically.

On koguryo's elaborate historic details on its conquests down northeast chinese coasts, its brief conquest of chinese coastal states(when not unified) and the tributes it exacted from them, the tributes the xianpei(mongols?) paid to koguryo, Later Han dynasty of china begging for peace...these are clearly recorded in chinese texts, so go look up some books in great detail.

hi-head keep language clean. there really is no need for swearing. i'd hate to close this thread down.

LOL I was right, you still have yet to provide evidence to your claims regarding the China issue (I'm not concerned with the Japanese issue because I don't know enough about Japan much less care). Hmm funny thing is there is no mention of these conquests or tributary situations anywhere in Chinese texts, not by western scholars or Chinese scholars alike. Like I said, I have with me more than enough publications. You might say to me, go out and find more right? Well if your unsubstantiated claims are general facts then shouldn't be accepted as common knowledge in most sources anywhere? But the funny thing is it doesn't appear anywhere. To give you an example, it's common knowledge that the Mongols started the Yuan dynasty and the Manchus started the Qing dynasty right? We know this because it is common historical knowledge with clearly written and detailed recorded evidence. To deny this would be equivalent to denying the Holocaust. If you were to pick up any written source about CHinese history, these facts are undeniable. However your claims that China paid tribute to Koguryo doesn't exist anywhere, not from written academic sources or even online. So far I've googled China, Koguryo +China, "Tributary states" and I've found were that traditionally it was China who demanded tribute from smaller states including Korea. I've also read extensively on information regarding the Eastern Han Dynasty. With me right now is the Jacques Gernet book, a textbook used by many universities just in case you wanted to know. So far I've been able to find information regarding the Scholastic Philosophy of the Five Elements, the progress of commercial relations in the first and second centuries, to the breakdown of the empire from insurrections from rebellions,and corruption of the eunuchs at the court which eventually led to the breakdown of the empire and the triangular division of the Three Kingdoms. Nowhere does it mention anything about a Korean invasion or any of your fishy claims. Which texts are you referring to? BTW you're changing your story around. First you claim the Mongols paid tribute to Koguryo then you mention the Xianpei. The Xianpei were not Mongols. Were they nomadic tribesmen? Yes, but the idea of being a Mongol didn't come about until Chingghis Khan unified his confederation of tribes almost centuries later. This is a common historical fact and yet you make such a huge leap of logic on this issue. Also where and when did the Xianpei paid tribute to Koguryo? Since you changed your story around I decided to go along with it anyways. You want us doubters to research correct? Since I'm on my PC right now, let me google in "Xian-pei, Koguryo". Hmm well looks like I'm not finding anything again, all it gave me was the results of the allempires posting forum. Wow such validity eh? You continue to make baseless claims with absolutely no evidence, you continue to tell us doubters that you have sources yet time and time again you fail to provide it for us and then you defend your lack of sources based on some conspiracy theory . Most people including academics wouldn't even bother waisting their time with you but some of us, particularly myself even decided to go along with you and did research both online and with written publications, yet are still finding absolutely nothing and you continue to beat around the bush with more BS. LOL sorry but the more you speak, the more you reveal yourself to be a fraud. Your credibility is slowly dying each time you post. I've waisted quite alot of time with you and frankly I've had enough. If you want to continue with your masturbatory claims, then far be it from me to stop you but just remember one thing, your ideas are not orthodox or accepted by anyone. Even your own people disagree with these claims. When your ideas make reform and refute what high-level educated scholars have been researching and teaching for years, then maybe I will take you in a serious manner. Until then, you haven't convinced me. You might make a silly little comeback and say "Well I don't care what you think". Okay great you shouldn't. You should on the other hand care what university faculty members think, the question is will/do they care what you think?

Titanium you will not find anything usefull about Chinese history on google.
Most Chinese history writings are in Chinese and was never translated.

About the XianBei, they are accepted as the partial Ancestors of both Mongols and Manchus. Before Xianbei overran(rebelled agianst Han rule) north China they lived just north of Koguryo and may have been forced to pay tributes to Koguryo.

As for Northern Chinese dynasties paying tribute to Koguryo it is also possible though I have to look into it. this is because during North South dynasties northern China was divided into many little states who faught each other, the ones that are located near Koguryo may had to pay tribute to Koguryo when it was weak.
This does not mean that Koguryo was some all powerfull empire, it was not much different to other northern Chinese states at the time.

There is a Chinese history forum at

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com

where you can discuss Chinese history.

Thanks for the link, looks promising.

Ah common, anyone have references to the records? It's in the records, ancient chinese history volumes compiled by historians in the court. The chinese did a good job on recording east asian events in detail and in a timely manner. And all I can say is that none of you had really read into comprehensive koguryo history, and those books can probably only be found in korea as of now, (and perhaps china), as underrated as koguryo(and paekche) is. Books on koguryo, and I mean books on the entire national history in detail, are rare outside of korean publications. I can assure you, however, that the books I read are from great scholars who aren't extreme, and their bibliography was mainly history texts of china and some japanese books, and this is as close to original source you can get. I don't know if good koguryo books are out there in english or chinese, but do look for it, cuz koguryo's history is uber long, 35 different chinese dynasties coming and going throughout the 28 kings of koguryo. And among the wild and colorful lengths of koguryo's existence there were times when koguryo was a major eastern power, and I mean SUPER major power, until the chinese unified under huge dynasties like sui and tang which tipped over the power balance. Koguryo was a sprawling empire with a very small original population, and in its height only 20 % of the entire registered populations were koguryo, the rest being conquered northern asian nomads and kingdoms. Even so, Koguryo couldn't muster up a huge army, in comparison to the population-rich chinese dynasties. Koguryo conquered not with numbers but with organization, skill, and ZEAL. The fact that such a small country in a troubling area in troubling times could weather all the challenge and grow into a regional hegemon is a proud part of our history, not that it is particularly unique in world history, but still a significant nation of great impacts.

Titanium, dude I thought you were better than that. Your post was nothing but a meaningless insulting babble, I request a warning. Don't pull that $hit off again. I respect your opinion, but you need to respect mine. It's the chinese that are making up history today, not the koreans. I don't see why you gotta be so hostile to info that you weren't prepared for, especially considering the fact that you are no expert yourself. You probably have good knowledge of chinese history, but peripheral chinese history regarding barbarians are all lumped together, and so without reading in on korea-specific books, of course you're not gonna get educated much about the details of korean history. And the details of korean history, the details prescribed by your own country's recorder, are still preserved, so why don't you look for that.

Koguryo's borders fluctuated a lot during its times, and for brief moments koguryo occupied areas along the yellow sea coast of china, and chinese coastal states payed a leopard as a tribute directly to koguryo court, and as you know leopards don't live in north china. As such there were different alliances, power ballances, and tributary relations during the turmoils of east asia. It really isn't all that surprising, even the info of paekche's occupation of shantung penninsula and today's shanghai area and southeastern manchuria, when you consider the long years of infighting and lack of a unified state in china.

I'm hoping a book on koguryo or paekje does get published in the west, I think it'd be coming soon as many western historians are getting interested. Go to amazon and type the keywords, it'll yield much better results than google.

Wow somebody's a little hot-tempered and oversensitive. Care to show me where I made my supposed insults? Doubting your claims based on already ridiculous circumstances is equivalent to insults? Hmmm you're either extremely oversensitive or just have trouble understanding the English language. These are not insults BTW just very valid educational observations. AS for warnings, HA none received buddy, nice try though. BTW please don't even try to play this warning game with anyone. Judging from your past posts, you seem to be a very hot-headed person who will explode in nationalistic flames if need be. Judging from the average amount of profanity that you use, requesting warnings for you is not exactly an arduous task either. Just a suggestion, and it would be very wise of you to take it.


2 Your giving orders over to people you don't know on the internet? 2 2 2 never have I witnessed something so funny 2



A. I don't care if you respect my opinion or not.
B. I have no reason to respect yours as you've constantly beat around the bush with all of your arguments, lacking to provide sufficent detailed sources every single time.
C. CTM is right, arguing with me or anyone else on the internet is not gonna prove anything. Instead of talking about the getting respect from me, why not try the big leagues like say history or archaeology professor? Why not try your luck with them? What exactly do you have to lose? I mean you do have a well thought out assertion or claim right? So then what are you waiting for? What's stopping you? Why are you here on AF instead of say UCLA or NYU or Brown or wherever you live? Heck even the nearby resident community college will do.


Too bad this is completely off-topic and has absolutely nothing to do with anything. I'm not critiquing the entire Korean population for your wild claims but YOU and YOU alone as an individual so please don't try and cop out.


How am I being hostile? I'm simply disputing or at the very least highly doubting your groundless claims. So far none of the information you've claimed can be found anywhere I've looked, not online or in my book collection or at the nearby college libary. With all due respect but if I can't find any sources anywhere given the amount of time I've spent researching (Yes I did spend time because this topic rather interests me, I thirst for knowledge especially about a topic I'm passionate about and because I'm a nerdy college student in general), I'm going to have my doubts as would any sane or logical person. As for me not being an expert, it's a rather bold statement coming from you out of all people. The same guy that I've countless times addressed about providing first hand sources of your claims and failing to do so. I don't claim to be an expert but you on the other hand given your track record so far are not even a non-expert but a borderline semi-academic. The difference between you and I is that right now I actually have first hand sources about my field of expertise and I am more than ready to bust out my book collection and quote every last detail for you. Can you do the same for me?


Yes and your point being?


You're right, I'm not an expert on Korean history and I have never claimed to be. Mostly because I'm not particularly interested in that subject but that's not the point. I am however knowledgeable on Chinese history and your claims about ancient Korean regarding China contradicts alot about what is written or is known about Chinese history. Because your claims are unorthodox and contradict what scholars and academics have researched and written about that topic, I am interested in hearing more about it from the person making those claims (that would be you), but the problem is that not only am I not finding anything based on what I already know and have (as well as additional research outside) but you are not providing me with any credible or believable sources to support your claims. Therein lies the problem.


Again for the last time, it is not my job or anyone's job for that matter to search for your sources and where you get your info from. These are are your arguments and your assertions, not ours. If you want anyone to believe you, you're going to have to show us yourself. Oh and for the record, I already did take the time to look even though it is completely unnecessary of me to do so in the first place, keep that in mind.


Great info, now where are your sources? BTW we all know Koguryo included a piece of modern day Liaoning province, your point? In fact that was one of the main reasons why the PRC was trying to claim Koguryo in the first place. BTW just outta let you know, it was extremely wrong of them to do so and I completely oppose it. AS for paying leopard tribute, again interesting claim, but where are your sources? Please don't give me the typical "Well obviously" or "It's not that surprising". Sorry but those arguments don't work. As for paekche, I do not have a written source about that topic but out of my own gratitude and thirst for knowledge, I decided to take the time to go out of my way to research on the internet. So far I've googled it and here is an example of the sources I've found:

http://www.koreainfogate.com/beautykorea/c...e&title=Baekche
Read the whole excerpt. BTW this is a Korean source as one can expect from the title. So far the article mentions quite alot about Paekche including it's war with Koguryo, it's art, it's pottery, it's tombs, etc. In fact it actually goes into great detail about how Paekche culture influenced Japanese culture even to the point of attributing the origin of Yamato Japan to Paekche. You can rub that in CTM's face. However China is a completely different story. It mentions nothing about occupying Shantung or Shanghai. Now think about it, this is somewhat a valid source created by your own people. Obvious facts would not be negated. The influence on Japanese culture flowing from Paekche is obviously not ignored and on the contrary explained in rather sharp detail yet it mentions nothing about Shantung or Shanghai. It's like reading a piece of source on say Peter the Great, the later czar of Russia. Now think about it, what are some of the obvious facts about him? He is certainly linked with the Westernization of Russia and its rise as a great power. He instigated the Grand embassy in which he visited western European countries that sparked his interest in modernization meanwhile declaring war against the Ottoman empire. We also must mention that he was a very violent man who ruthlessly suppressed all those who opposed him and even actively partook in executing some of his enemies, particulary those who attempted to overthrow him. These are all obvious facts about the great czar, now let's say someone made a wild unsubstantiated claim about him and that being that his state at the time was conquered and annexed by the Qing dynasty. Now this is obviously a wild claim that is based on a very groundless assertion but it still can be made nonetheless. Without any written detailed sources about the topic itself, how can anyone take such a claim seriously? Same thing with Paekche, no mention of occupying Shantung or Shanghai anywhere from any source, most of them Korean based sources BTW. Also your point about the lack of info and unity during China's age of fragmentation is based on a faulty technicality. Just because China was not unified and in a state of disarray (One that might lead to lack of detailed information about that time period) doesn't mean your claims hold true. Your argument is based on the mere concept of possibility which is a very weak argument ot begin with. Like I said, it's a faulty technicality. The mere fact that something might be a possibility is in no way a conclusion that it is an absolute certainty. It's also a possibility that the moon is some fat lady who ate too much cheese and floated up in space. These possibilities should be taken with a grain of salt, not in a serious manner. Like I said, I'm tired or arguing with you. This is by far the longest and most detailed response I've given you yet but as already mentioned before, arguing with me or anyone else here is not going to prove anything. Take your claims to an insitution that actually matters, not on some random internet site.

Dude, you need to seriously examine yourself. I've provided you with the most reliable source, your own country's own archives, and directed you to that direction, and you have only insisted on "lack of evidence" and pretended to not hear what i said. I have a term for that, it's "believing in what you want to believe". Your nationalist self-ego is stopping you from learning. Like i said, there is a lack of awareness and attention on koguryo and paekche history matter in the west, so you're not going to find a book on them in english, so you need to go back to your history archives, the FIRST-HAND source. But why are you refusing to do so? Insecure, worried that my claims could be true?

So, smartass, what if my claims turn out to be true? What happened to the japan issue? Doesn't that minor victory, after all that doubting and $hitting on your chinazi part, contribute to my CREDIBILITY? I am not delusional, and the korean books i've read are serious, mainstream history with the bibliography consisting almost entirely of chinese history archives, with some korean and japanese books too. Since there seems not a comprehensive book on the topic in the west, I told you you would need to look into the old archives, the first-hand source. So before you do that, don't even come around and argue with me.

And, I don't see why you're being so hypocritical here, why don't YOU go to your college faculty and consult THEM? Why are YOU babbling your opinions on the net to complete strangers? You know you're spending more time and writing longer posts, repeating the same $hit over and over again...obviously you think it's worth talking to people online. For me, I have more than enough reason to be writing these posts, it's discussing korean history, sharing with people online and spreading knowledge(also learning too, cuz unlike you guys, I know how to learn). I don't feel the need to go talk to the experts at my university, first off they don't have such a grand east asian history department, secondly I believe they would agree with me, cuz much of current history knowledge, especially that of the experts, run in the same current as mine. I don't need no revolution. See, here comes the source of your misunderstanding, my claims aren't wildly off the mark, it's rather close to orthodox, modern orthodox, only that you haven't been able to learn it with your narrow scope of interest. Which is why i feel compelled to enlighten ignorants like you, even though you're a stranger and i can care less. Just for your sake, I will actually go talk to the professors in east asian history this weekend. We'll see what they believe in.

BTW, i apologize for one minor error in my writing, i got confused...paekche didn't occupy the shangai/nanjing region, it was koguryo, during later han dynasty. As you can expect, the occupation didn't last too long. But paekche did occupy shantung for quite a long time, and the chinese coast north and slightly south of that. Paekche artifacts and architectural remains are found in that area.

Alright, I found some info on the net that you could read immediately, in english. I guess there is some considerable western research into this matte as well, though rare. You could check its sources, and see that they mainly come from chinese records. Open this PDF file..

gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/hi3-7.pdf

I'll look for some more

please don't double post. Thanks.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
Dude, you need to seriously examine yourself. I've provided you with the most reliable source, your own country's own archives, and directed you to that direction, and you have only insisted on "lack of evidence" and pretended to not hear what i said. I have a term for that, it's "believing in what you want to believe".

[/quote]
You haven't provided me jacksquat. SO far all you've done was tell me to "look it up yourself", "Look at your own country's archives". Very vague I must say.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
Your nationalist self-ego is stopping you from learning. Like i said, there is a lack of awareness and attention on koguryo and paekche history matter in the west, so you're not going to find a book on them in english, so you need to go back to your history archives, the FIRST-HAND source. But why are you refusing to do so? Insecure, worried that my claims could be true?

[/quote]

Yes we all know that anyone who questions the validity of a faulty claim is doing so because he is an ego maniacal nationalist. Yeah sure whatever you say buddy . Apparently you simply refuse to see my point. Since the first hand sources you speak of are not available to me (Which means that I go out and search for them), you apparently would know all about it since you are the one making those claims and thus have information on those sources. Again as someone already here mentioned, if you were to write a thesis in a college course, turn it in without sources. What do you think the professor is going to say to you?

Professor: Where are your sources Mr. Head?
HH: I don't feel like giving it to you, you're smart, go out and look for them yourselves.
Professor: What in the world are you thinking boy?
HH: BTW I expect you to not only give me full credit for this work but an A as well.

Not exactly college material are you Mr. Head? Or excuse me is it Mr. Hi? 2 As for me being insecure, HAHA if you've been paying attention to the argument since the beginning you would know that I've clearly stated that I will believe anything you say as long as you can prove everything you say. I'm not refusing to look for anything, in fact on the contrary I've been looking very hard for those supposed first hand sources that you tell me of and guess what? It's not there. On top of that, you being the one who initiated those assertions are failing to provide me with them. So again therein lies the problem.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
So, smartass, what if my claims turn out to be true?

[/quote]
Why thank you for acknowledging my intelligence. I am indeed a smartass, if only I could say the same thing about you Mr. Head 2 As for your claims, if your claims turn out to be true then they'll turn out to be true. I'll accept it and I've even acknowledged that numerous times before. The problem is your unorthodox claims:
A. Have virtually no sources to elaborate from anywhere and believe me I've looked.
B. So what if your claims turn out to be true? Hmm this sounds rather familiar. Something I've already mentioned about the faulty technicality argument. The one you seemed to love ignoring. So what if the moon is actually a fat lady who floated up in space due to a large cheese diet?

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
What happened to the japan issue? Doesn't that minor victory, after all that doubting and $hitting on your chinazi part, contribute to my CREDIBILITY?

[/quote]
Ah yes the typical Mr. Head profane dog bark. You once again reveal your lack of comprehension skills. I've already stated that the sources that I searched for online regarding Paekche and Koguryo go into elaborate detail about Japan. Would you like me to quote for you? "In fact it actually goes into great detail about how Paekche culture influenced Japanese culture even to the point of attributing the origin of Yamato Japan to Paekche. You can rub that in CTM's face." This very clearly shows that I acknowledge the validity behind the Koguryo, Paekche claims to Japan. However since the beginning, I've made it clear that Japan was not my area of interest nor will it be in the future. My argument has been about China the whole time, so yeah nice try kiddo but you strike out once again 2. Oh and BTW this isn't really a ball game just in case you didn't know. Funny how you would refer to it as a minor victory. Hmm a minor victory as opposed to a minor loss? Sorry but logically speaking, that doesn't make sense, you either win or you lose but I'm sure you knew that 2

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
I am not delusional, and the korean books i've read are serious, mainstream history with the bibliography consisting almost entirely of chinese history archives, with some korean and japanese books too.

[/quote]
So serious that most of the academic communities around the world reveal nothing about it. Yes if that's their idea of seriousness, I'd hate to think what they would see as a joke.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
Since there seems not a comprehensive book on the topic in the west, I told you you would need to look into the old archives, the first-hand source. So before you do that, don't even come around and argue with me.

[/quote]

Well then there you go. Since you seem to be expert and the one making bold claims, why don't you teach us more about it? You apparently have some kind of access or knowledge about those claims since you are the ones arguing on behalf of them. Well then teach me more about it, I'm all ears. Oh and BTW I've already spent a good deal of time looking for your supposed first-hand sources (Not finding anything either), something that I clearly didn't even have to do in the first place. Again refer to the professor conversation above.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
And, I don't see why you're being so hypocritical here, why don't YOU go to your college faculty and consult THEM? Why are YOU babbling your opinions on the net to complete strangers?

[/quote]

Wow reversing the spotlight to me. Nice try kiddo, but before you go continue with your hot-headed rant. A few critical factors to consider:

A. I'm not the one making the bold claims. I have no reason to consult my college faculty about anything as I'm not the one making the claims. I say to thee once more, he who asserts himself must prove himself. Since I'm not the one making those assertions, I have nothing to prove.
B. I'm not babbling anything, just questioning your claims.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
You know you're spending more time and writing longer posts, repeating the same $hit over and over again...

[/quote]
As are you.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
obviously you think it's worth talking to people online.

[/quote]
And nowhere in my post have ever I denied that. The fact that I'm still speaking to you prove it. Again that's not the point. You should be thanking me since I'm the one encouraging you to go further into your claims.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
For me, I have more than enough reason to be writing these posts, it's discussing korean history, sharing with people online and spreading knowledge(also learning too, cuz unlike you guys, I know how to learn).

[/quote]
So great at learning that you simply dismiss our questions by asking us to research for you and to find out where you get your own sources from? Wow what a great teacher you will make one day 2

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
I don't feel the need to go talk to the experts at my university, first off they don't have such a grand east asian history department,

[/quote]
And I suppose you're more knowledgeable than they are correct? Well then Mr. Head, go out and prove your worth. You have nothing to lose, go get em tiger

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
secondly I believe they would agree with me, cuz much of current history knowledge, especially that of the experts, run in the same current as mine. I don't need no revolution.

[/quote]
They'll believe you as long as you can elaborate on your claims with sufficient and detailed proof. As for your just admitted indifference, so in other words, you've just defeated your whole purpose as of right now? I mean afterall, weren't you the one who was rambling and complaining about how much Korean history is buried and erased? ABout how there's this evil conspiracy theory to help destroy Korean culture and pride? About how so many people are ignorant about the supposed truths of Korean history? Now you're telling me you don't really care and don't need to revolutionize? Well then buddy why in the hell are you even waisting more time? Apparently you don't really care. Well okay then, so be it, just don't throw any more fits when people like me question your claims or when people in general give an opinion about Korean history in which you might not see fit with.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
See, here comes the source of your misunderstanding, my claims aren't wildly off the mark, it's rather close to orthodox, modern orthodox, only that you haven't been able to learn it with your narrow scope of interest.

[/quote]
See this is where your misunderstanding comes in. You've assumed that I'm being nothing more than a nationalist due to the fact that I question your claims. The truth is I'm more than willing to learn more about this issue. I've already taken the time to look up information about this topic myself. Since I can't find anything and you're just dismissing me to go out and look for it myself nevermind the fact that it's your job to do so since you were the original person to make such a claim, I can't say I'm satisfied.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
Which is why i feel compelled to enlighten ignorants like you, even though you're a stranger and i can care less.

[/quote]
You do care, otherwise you wouldn't be here at all.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
Just for your sake, I will actually go talk to the professors in east asian history this weekend. We'll see what they believe in.

[/quote]
Well okay then, I look forward to hearing it.

[quote=hi-head,Mar 2 2005, 01:44 PM]
BTW, i apologize for one minor error in my writing, i got confused...paekche didn't occupy the shangai/nanjing region, it was koguryo, during later han dynasty.
As you can expect, the occupation didn't last too long. But paekche did occupy shantung for quite a long time, and the chinese coast north and slightly south of that. Paekche artifacts and architectural remains are found in that area.

[/quote]

Well okay I'll look into that. I'll even start right now and google in "Later Han dynasty", Shanghai, Koguryo as well as a number of different combinations. I must say once again the results are not promising. Not finding anything about a Koguryo invasion or an occupation of Shanghai/Nanjing. In fact the only results I'm seeing are Koguryo being a tributary state and that Han Wudi sent an invasion force off to Koguryo.

PS. I've googled in quite alot of info. I've tried the keywords "Koguryo occupied Shanghai" and the same with Paekche occupying Shantung in quotes. No results were found. Based on the info I've researced about Koguryo, the ancient Korean kingdom once occupied parts of manchuria and siberia. Not exactly the great kingdom you made her out to be I must say. I've also googled in search results for the other two Kingdoms, Shilla and Paekche. So far the info I've found concluded that all three kingdoms were influenced by Chinese culture and that Buddhism was introduced into Koguryo from China. Also the three kingdoms constantly fought/alied with/against each other and China. That's about all I can really find about the supposed Rome like Korean empire.

Read that source i gave you, fu-kin chinese imbecile. The point is, you don't know jack about korean history, and you've even admitted it. Reading through your disgustingly long post, all I can conclude is that you don't understand my position. You're not worth arguing with, you're a complete fu-kin idiot. Why do you have to be so offensive in your posts, notice my attitude change now comes from the fact that i've been polite in my last 3 posts while your posts are nothing but faggot @$$ rambling and pure disrespect? You haven't made an argument, except for whining "you dont got source i can access immediately, and the stupid google doesnt show results, so you're wrong!"

what about that link i posted? try that?

Let's end this stupid discussion, it seems no one is paying attention anymore, and you're not worth arguing with.

Personal attack. Warned.

Personal kiss. Loved.

Wow if that didn't nail the coffin on your credibility, I don't know what does. HAHA it's so amusing watching little people get so upset over the internet, 2 2 2 you're a funny guy Mr. Head.

Guess the argument's over. There was none to begin with, but whatever. Titanium you need to learn some netiquettes, so you don't offend people with your way of posting. In forums, a little bickering could quite sound offensive on the other line.

Hey titanium, you are never going to believe what hi-head is saying. You know why?? Because you are so close-minded and arrogant and you refuse to believe anything unless it is appealing to you. So when you doubt someone elses argument you should provide your own information showing why it is false. If you can't then just don't just say he's wrong and look like an idiot.

Right on the money, that applies to every single ethnicity on AF.

Completely off-topic but I found a rather interesting article from Jared Diamond, author of the book Guns, Germs, and Steel. This article is a little old, 1996 but still an interesting read, enjoy:

Empire of Uniformity
By Jared Diamond

Immigration, affirmative action, multilingualism, ethnic diversity—my state of California pioneered these controversial policies, and it is now pioneering a backlash against them. A glance into the classrooms of the Los Angeles public schools, where my sons are being educated, fleshes out the abstract debates with the faces of children. Those pupils speak more than 80 languages in their homes; English-speaking whites are in the minority. Every single one of my sons' playmates has at least one parent or grandparent who was born outside the United States. That's true of my sons also—three of their four grandparents were immigrants to this country. But the diversity that results from such immigration isn't new to America. In fact, immigration is simply restoring the diversity that existed here for thousands of years and that diminished only recently; the area that now makes up the mainland United States, once home to hundreds of Native American tribes and languages, did not come under the control of a single government until the late nineteenth century.

In these respects, ours is a thoroughly “normal” country. Like the United States, all but one of the world's six most populous nations are melting pots that achieved political unification recently and that still support hundreds of languages and ethnic groups. Russia, for example, once a small Slavic state centered on Moscow did not even begin its expansion beyond the Ural Mountains until 1582. From then until the late nineteenth century, Russia swallowed up dozens of non-Slavic peoples, many of whom, like the people of Chechnya today, retain their original language and cultural identity. India, Indonesia, and Brazil are also recent political creations (or re-creations, in the case of India) and are home to about 850, 703, and 209 languages, respectively.

The great exception to this rule of the recent melting pot is the world's most populous nation, China. Today China appears politically, culturally, and linguistically monolithic. (For the purposes of this article, I exclude the linguistically and culturally distinct T!bet, which was also politically separate until recently.) China was already unified politically in 221 B.C. and has remained so for most of the centuries since then. From the beginnings of literacy in China over 3,000 years ago, it has had only a single writing system, unlike the dozens in use in modern Europe. Of China's billion-plus people, over 700 million speak Mandarin, the language with by far the largest number of native speakers in the world. Some 250 million other Chinese speak seven languages as similar to Mandarin and to each other as Spanish is to Italian. Thus, while modern American history is the story of how our continent's expanse became American, and Russia's history is the story of how Russia became Russian, China's history appears to be entirely different. It seems absurd to ask how China became Chinese. China has been Chinese almost from the beginning of its recorded history.

We take this unity of China so much for granted that we forget how astonishing it is. Certainly we should not have expected such unity on the basis of genetics. While a coarse racial classification of world peoples lumps all Chinese people together as Mongoloids, that category conceals much more variation than is found among such (equally ill-termed) Caucasian peoples as Swedes, Italians, and Irish. Northern and southern Chinese, in particular, are genetically and physically rather different from each other; northerners are most similar to T!betans and Nepali, southerners to Vietnamese and Filipinos. My northern and southern Chinese friends can often distinguish each other at a glance: northerners tend to be taller, heavier, paler, with more pointed noses and smaller eyes.

The existence of such differences is hardly surprising: northern and southern China differ in environment and climate, with the north drier and colder. That such genetic differences arose between the peoples of these two regions simply implies a long history of their moderate isolation from each other. But if such isolation existed, then how did these peoples end up with such similar languages and cultures?

China's linguistic near-unity is also puzzling in comparison with the linguistic disunity of other parts of the world. For instance, New Guinea, although it was first settled by humans only about 40,000 years ago, evolved roughly 1,000 languages. Western Europe has by now about 40 native languages acquired just in the past 6,000 to 8,000 years, including languages as different as English, Finnish, and Russian. Yet New Guinea's peoples are spread over an area less than one-tenth that of China's. And fossils attest to human presence in China for hundreds of thousands of years. By rights, tens of thousands of distinct languages should have arisen in China's large area over that long time span; what has happened to them? China too must once have been a melting pot of diversity, as all other populous nations still are. It differs from them only in having been unified much earlier: in that huge pot, the melting happened long ago.

A glance at a linguistic map is an eye-opener to all of us accustomed to thinking of China as monolithic. In addition to its eight “big” languages—Mandarin and its seven close relatives (often referred to collectively as Chinese), with between 11 million and 700 million speakers each—China also has some 160 smaller languages, many of them with just a few thousand speakers. All these languages fall into four families, which differ greatly in their distributions.

At one extreme, Mandarin and its relatives, which constitute the Chinese subfamily of the Sino-T!betan language family, are distributed continuously from the top of the country to the bottom. One distinctive feature of all Sino-T!betan languages is that most words consist of a single syllable, like English it or book; long, polysyllabic words are unthinkable. One could walk through China, from Manchuria in the north to the Gulf of Tonkin in the south, without ever stepping off land occupied by native speakers of Chinese.

The other three families have broken distributions, being spoken by islands of people surrounded by a sea of speakers of Chinese and other languages. The 6 million speakers of the Miao-Yao family are divided among five languages, bearing colorful names derived from the characteristic colors of the speakers' clothing: Red Miao, White Miao (alias Striped Miao), Black Miao, Green Miao (alias Blue Miao), and Yao. Miao-Yao speakers live in dozens of small enclaves scattered over half a million square miles from southern China to Thailand.

The 60 million speakers of languages in the Austroasiatic family, such as Vietnamese and Cambodian, are also scattered across the map, from Vietnam in the east to the Malay Peninsula in the south to northeastern India in the west. Austroasiatic languages are characterized by an enormous proliferation of vowels, which can be nasal or nonnasal, long or extra-short, creaky, breathy, or normal, produced with the tongue high, medium high, medium low, or low, and with the front, center, or back of the tongue. All these choices combine to yield up to 41 distinctive vowel sounds per language, in contrast to the mere dozen or so of English.

The 50 million speakers of China's fourth language family, Tai-Kadai, are scattered from southern China southward into peninsular Thailand and west to Myanmar (Burma). In Tai-Kadai languages, as in most Sino-T!betan languages, a single word may have different meanings depending on its tone, or pitch. For example, in Thai itself the syllable maa means “horse” when pronounced at a high pitch, “come” at a medium pitch, and “dog” at a rising pitch.

Seen on a map, the current fragmented distribution of these language groups suggests a series of ancient helicopter flights that dropped speakers here and there over the Asian landscape. But of course nothing like that could have happened, and the actual process was subtractive rather than additive. Speakers of the now dominant language expanded their territory and displaced original residents or induced them to abandon their native tongues. The ancestors of modern speakers of Thai and Lao, and possibly Cambodian and Burmese as well, all moved south from southern China and adjacent areas to their present locations within historical times, successively inundating the settled descendants of previous migrations. Chinese speakers were especially vigorous in replacing and linguistically converting other ethnic groups, whom they looked down on as primitive and inferior. The recorded history of China's Chou Dynasty, from 1111 B.C. to 256 B.C., describes the conquest and absorption of most of China's non-Chinese-speaking population by Chinese-speaking states.

Before those relatively recent migrations, who spoke what where? To reconstruct the linguistic map of the East Asia of several thousand years ago, we can reverse the historically known linguistic expansions of recent millennia. We can also look for large, continuous areas currently occupied by a single language or related language group; these areas testify to a geographic expansion of that group so recent that there has not been enough time for it to differentiate into many languages. Finally we can reason conversely that modern areas with a high diversity of languages within a given language family lie closer to the early center of distribution of that language family. Using those three types of reasoning to turn back the linguistic clock, we conclude that speakers of Chinese and other Sino-T!betan languages originally occupied northern China. The southern parts of the country were variously inhabited by speakers of Miao-Yao, Austroasiatic, and Tai-Kadai languages—until they were largely replaced by their Sino-T!betan-speaking neighbors.

An even more drastic linguistic upheaval appears to have swept over tropical Southeast Asia to the south of China, in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and peninsular Malaysia. It's likely that whatever languages were originally spoken there have now become extinct—most of the modern languages of those countries appear to be recent invaders, mainly from southern China. We might also guess that if Miao-Yao languages could be so nearly overwhelmed, there must have been still other language families in southern China that left no modern descendants whatsoever. As we shall see, the Austronesian family (to which all Philippine and Polynesian languages belong) was probably once spoken on the Chinese mainland. We know about it only because it spread to Pacific islands and survived there.

The language replacements in East Asia are reminiscent of the way European languages, especially English and Spanish, spread into the New World. English, of course, came to replace the hundreds of Native American languages not because it sounded musical to indigenous ears but because English-speaking invaders killed most Native Americans by war, murder, and disease and then pressured the survivors into adopting the new majority language. The immediate cause of the Europeans' success was their relative technological superiority. That superiority, however, was ultimately the result of a geographic accident that allowed agriculture and herding to develop in Eurasia 10,000 years earlier. The consequent explosion in population allowed the Europeans to develop complex technologies and social organization, giving their descendants great political and technological advantages over the people they conquered. Essentially the same processes account for why English replaced aboriginal Australian languages and why Bantu languages replaced subequatorial Africa's original Pygmy and Khoisan languages.

East Asia's linguistic upheavals thus hint that some Asians enjoyed similar advantages over other Asians. But to flesh out the details of that story, we must turn from linguistics to archeology.

As everywhere else in the world, the eastern Asian archeological record for most of human history reveals only the debris of hunter-gatherers using unpolished stone tools. The first eastern Asian evidence for something different comes from China, where crop remains, bones of domestic animals, pottery, and polished stone tools appear by around 7500 B.C. That's no more than a thousand years after the beginnings of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, the area with the oldest established food production in the world.

In China plant and animal domestication may even have started independently in two or more places. Besides differences in climate between north and south, there are also ecological differences between the interior uplands (which are characterized by mountains like our Appalachians) and the coastal lowlands (which are flat and threaded with rivers, like the Carolinas). Incipient farmers in each area would have had different wild plants and animals to draw on. In fact, the earliest identified crops were two drought-resistant species of millet in northern China, but rice in the south.

The same sites that provided us with the earliest evidence of crops also contained bones of domestic pigs, dogs, and chickens—a livestock trinity that later spread as far as Polynesia. These animals and crops were gradually joined by China's many other domesticates. Among the animals were water buffalo (the most important, since they were used for pulling plows), as well as silkworms, ducks, and geese. Familiar later Chinese crops include soybeans, hemp, tea, apricots, pears, peaches, and citrus fruits. Many of these domesticated animals and crops spread westward in ancient times from China to the Fertile Crescent and Europe; at the same time Fertile Crescent domesticates spread eastward to China. Especially significant western contributions to ancient China's economy were wheat and barley, cows and horses, and to a lesser extent, sheep and goats.
As elsewhere in the world, food production in China gradually led to the other hallmarks of “civilization.” A superb Chinese tradition of bronze metallurgy arose around 3000 B.C., allowing China to develop by far the earliest cast iron production in the world by 500 B.C. The following 1,500 years saw the outpouring of a long list of Chinese inventions: canal lock gates, deep drilling, efficient animal harnesses, gunpowder, kites, magnetic compasses, paper, porcelain, printing, stern-post rudders, and wheelbarrows, to name just a few.

China's size and ecological diversity initially spawned many separate local cultures. In the fourth millennium B.C. those local cultures expanded geographically and began to interact, compete with each other, and coalesce. Fortified towns in Chica in the third millennium B.C., with cemeteries containing luxuriously decorated graves juxtaposed with simpler ones—a clear sign of emerging class differences. China became home to stratified societies with rulers who could mobilize a large labor force of commoners, as we can infer from the remains of huge urban defensive walls, palaces, and the Grand Canal—the longest canal in the world—linking northern and southern China. Writing unmistakably ancestral to that of modern China is preserved from the second millennium B.C., though it probably arose earlier. The first of China's dynasties, the Hsia Dynasty, arose around 2000 B.C. Thereafter, our archeological knowledge of China's emerging cities and states becomes supplemented by written accounts.

Along with rice cultivation and writing a distinctively Chinese method for reading the future also begins to appear persistently in the archeological record, and it too attests to China's cultural coalescence. In place of crystal balls and Delphic oracles, China turned to scapulimancy—burning the scapula (shoulder bone) or other large bone of an animal, such as a cow, then prophesying from the pattern of cracks in the burned bone. From the earliest known appearance of oracle bones in northern China, archeologists have traced scapulimancy's spread throughout China's cultural sphere.

Just as exchanges of domesticates between ecologically diverse regions enriched Chinese food production, exchanges between culturally diverse regions enriched Chinese culture and technology, and fierce competition between warring chiefdoms drove the formation of ever larger and more centralized states. China's long west-east rivers (the Yellow River in the north, the Yangtze in the south) allowed crops and technology to spread quickly between inland and coast, while their diffusion north and south was made easy by the broad, relatively gentle terrain north of the Yangtze, which eventually permitted the two river systems to be joined by canals. All those geographic factors contributed to the early cultural and political unification of China. In contrast, western Europe, with an area comparable to China's but fragmented by mountains such as the Alps, and with a highly indented coastline and no such rivers, has never been unified politically.

Some developments spread from south to north in China, especially iron smelting and rice cultivation. But the predominant direction of spread seems to have been the other way. From northern China came bronze technology, Sino-T!betan languages, and state formation. The country's first three dynasties (the Hsia, Shang, and Chou) all arose in the north in the second millennium B.C. The northern dominance is clearest, however, for writing. Unlike western Eurasia, with its plethora of early methods for recording language, including Sumerian cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphics, Hittite, Minoan, and the Semitic alphabet, China developed just one writing system. It arose in the north, preempted or replaced any other nascent system, and evolved into the writing used today.

Preserved documents show that already in the first millennium B.C. ethnic Chinese tended to feel culturally superior to non-Chinese “barbarians,” and northern Chinese considered even southern Chinese barbarians. For example, a late Chou Dynasty writer described China's other peoples as follows: “The people of those five regions—the Middle states and the Jung, Yi, and other wild tribes around them—had all their several natures, which they could not be made to alter. The tribes on the east were called Yi. They had their hair unbound, and tattooed their bodies. Some of them ate their food without its being cooked by fire.” The author went on to describe wild tribes to the south, west, and north indulging in equally barbaric practices, such as turning their feet inward, tattooing their foreheads, wearing skins, living in caves, not eating cereals, and, again, eating their food raw.

States modeled on the Chou Dynasty were organized in southern China during the first millennium B.C., culminating in China's political unification under the Chin Dynasty in 221 B.C. China's cultural unification accelerated during that same period, as literate “civilized” Chinese states absorbed or were copied by the preliterate “barbarians.” Some of that cultural unification was ferocious: for instance, the first Chin emperor condemned all previously written historical books as worthless and ordered them burned, much to the detriment of our understanding of early Chinese history. That and other draconian measures must have helped spread northern China's Sino-T!betan languages over most of China. Chinese innovations contributed heavily to developments in neighboring regions as well. For instance, until roughly 4000 B.C. most of tropical Southeast Asia was still occupied by hunter-gatherers making pebble and flake stone tools. Thereafter, Chinese-derived crops, polished stone tools, village living, and pottery spread into the area, probably accompanied by southern Chinese language families. The southward expansions from southern China of Lao, Thai, and Vietnamese, and probably Burmese and Cambodians also, completed the “Sinification” of tropical Southeast Asia. All those modern peoples appear to be recent off-shoots of their southern Chinese cousins.

So overwhelming was this Chinese steamroller that the former peoples of the region have left behind few traces in the modern populations. Just three relict groups of hunter-gatherers—the Semang Negritos of the Malay Peninsula, the Andaman Islanders, and the Veddoid Negritos of Sri Lanka—remain to give us any clue as to what those peoples were like. They suggest that tropical Southeast Asia's former inhabitants may have had dark skin and curly hair, like modern New Guineans and unlike southern Chinese and modern tropical Southeast Asians. Those people may also be the last survivors of the source population from which New Guinea and aboriginal Australia were colonized. As to their speech, only on the remote Andaman Islands do languages unrelated to the southern Chinese language families persist—perhaps the last linguistic survivors of what may have been hundreds of now extinct aboriginal Southeast Asian languages.

While one prong of the Chinese expansion thus headed southwest into Indochina and Myanmar, another headed southeast into the Pacific Ocean. Part of the evidence suggesting this scenario comes from genetics and linguistics: the modern inhabitants of Indonesia and the Philippines are fairly homogeneous in their genes and appearance and resemble southern Chinese. Their languages are also homogeneous, almost all belonging to a closely knit family called Austronesian, possibly related to Tai-Kadai.

But just as in tropical Southeast Asia, the archeological record in the Pacific shows more direct evidence of the Chinese steamroller. Until 6,000 years ago, Indonesia and the Philippines were sparsely occupied by hunter-gatherers. Beginning in the fourth or fifth millennium B.C., pottery and stone tools of unmistakably southern Chinese origins appear on the island of Tai Wan, which is in the straits between the southern Chinese coast and the Philippines. Around 3000 B.C. that same combination of technological advances spread as a wave to the Philippines, then throughout the islands of Indonesia, accompanied by gardening and by China's livestock trinity (pigs, chickens, and dogs). Around 1600 B.C. the wave reached the islands north of New Guinea, then spread eastward through the previously uninhabited islands of Polynesia. By 500 A.D. the Polynesians, an Austronesian-speaking people of ultimately Chinese origin, had reached Easter Island, 10,000 miles from the Chinese coast. With Polynesian settlement of Hawaii and New Zealand around the same time or soon thereafter, ancient China's occupation of the Pacific was complete.

Throughout most of Indonesia and the Philippines, the Austronesian expansion obliterated the region's former inhabitants. Scattered bands of hunter-gatherers were no match for the tools, weapons, numbers, subsistence methods, and probably also germs carried by the invading Austronesian farmers. Only the Negrito Pygmies in the mountains of Luzon and some other Philippine islands appear to represent survivors of those former hunter-gatherers, but they too lost their original tongues and adopted Austronesian languages from their new neighbors. However, on New Guinea and adjacent islands, indigenous people had already developed agriculture and built up numbers sufficient to keep out the Austronesian invaders. Their languages, genes, and faces live on in modern New Guineans and Melanesians.

Even Korea and Japan were heavily influenced by China although their geographic isolation from the mainland saved them from losing their languages or physical and genetic distinctness. Korea and Japan adopted rice from China in the second millennium B.C., bronze metallurgy in the first millennium B.C., and writing in the first or early second millennium A.D. Not all cultural advances in East Asia stemmed from China, of course, nor were Koreans, Japanese, and tropical Southeast Asians noninventive “barbarians” who contributed nothing. The ancient Japanese developed pottery at least as early as the Chinese did, and they settled in villages subsisting on Japan's rich seafood resources long before the arrival of agriculture. Some crops were probably domesticated initially or independently in Japan, Korea, and tropical Southeast Asia. But China's role was still disproportionately large. Indeed, the influence of Chinese culture is still so great that Japan has no thought of discarding its Chinese-derived writing system despite its disadvantages for representing Japanese speech, while Korea is only now replacing its clumsy Chinese-derived writing with its wonderful indigenous Han'gŭl alphabet. The persistence of Chinese writing in Japan and Korea is a vivid twentieth-century legacy of plant and animal domestication that began in China 10,000 years ago. From those achievements of East Asia's first farmers, China became Chinese, and peoples from Thailand to Easter Island became their cousins.

Source: Diamond, Jared. “Empire of Uniformity.” Discover Magazine, March 1996.

Just wondering, exactly how have YOU read throught he Koguryo archives? Any primary source material orginating from that time period would have been recorded in classical Chinese. Korean writing wasn't invented for another several hundred years. Hell, at this point in time, they hadn't even developed a system for writing Korean in Chinese characters yet. Do you happen to have the text of the "Paekje bongi", since you said it was a Chinese source? The name doesn't even sound Chinese.

I'm with Titanium and the others on this one. I've read through your links, and a couple of them say that Korean immigrants introduced a lot of technology and culture into Japan, and that the royal family might have its roots on the peninsula, but nothing solid, and certainly nothing like the claims of Paekche being a huge Rome-like empire. All the sources, western included, show that it couldn't even conquer any of its neighboring kingdoms. Losing your temper when asked for sources only ruins credibility and doesn't convince anyone.

Interesting article, thought a bit long... china was the center of eastern asian civilisation, we all knew that...and it seems china was the core of it all, receiving inputs and churning out finalised outputs the rest of asia absorbed... one's got to remember that china proper was made by various different people, including people of its neighbors, not by the Han chinese alone. China is comparable to an early United States...of Asia, melting pot and center of movement.

LOL nice catch. Yeah can that be explained?

He probably meant recently in the ways that archeologists are wont to use the term. I believe Korea started using their own writing system en mass mid-20th century? Before then, Chinese characters were mandatory during the Japanese rule, and before then, the native writing system wasn't widely used, AFAIK.

Mid 20th?! Really? The Korean alphabet is that recent? That's amazing....

Uhh.. no it's not.

Mid 20's? Is that another bull$hit from chinese?

That is highly laguable, don't even try to explain. Hangul was used during 15th century during king Sejong's era. It was used untill Japanese annexation during 19th century. Right after WW2 around 1945, Hangul was used as an offcial language again.



Coming from chinese, that is the most ridiculous bull$hit I've seen so far

I'm not trying to lie. That's just what I read when I learned about it, that it was invented hundreds of years ago, but wasn't a very popular system until the 20th century.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/korean.htm



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul

In a way one can say that's true. Chinese characters dominated the newspapers till the 90s, and before the modern era in the choson times korean characters were used mainly by commoners only. Chinese was still official intellectual written language, even though it hell did not fit the actual spoken language in any way.

Yuje- you know, I didn't want to be all flamed up either, I wouldn't be normally pissed when people doubt my views, it's the disrespect with which he treated my views that pissed me off. See, there's a difference between " I can't simply accept your views, show me evidence" and "LOL korea had an empire? Quit dreaming your fantasy". It's impossible to carry out a careful, intellectual conversation with such a backward mind.

Also, most of chinese historical records concerning korea has been translated and studied upon by korean scholars, so there are plenty of books regarding paekche and koguryo's empires in korean, all in serious academic realms. What I'm saying, and i hope you see, is that books on such underrated segments of korean history has seldom made it in other languages...so since my sources come from korean books that have their sources mainly from chinese records, that's all I can tell you concerning the sources. No, I'm not messing around and hiding lies, I'm quite as frustrated as you are in the lack of english texts on the subject.

And regarding paekche, I had said it was Rome-like, but did not mean to compare directly with Rome. It was rome-like in characteristics, not in sheer size, as it controlled the wide sea trades along yellow see and East sea, with more sea coverage than land...like how Rome had dominated the mediterranean. Paekche's domination of the west pacific seas and coasts were much like it, with colonizations spread out in different locations, though not much land. It was brief I believe, however, and paekche did not hold its empire for too long, koguryo's expansion and china's unification quickly tipped the power balance.

hey hi-head, i don't see how japan was included in the empire. I do acknowledge large cultural contributions and royal kinship ties, but japan wasn't under full "control" or colonized. I prefer the word "settled". Immigration into japan at the time did not all come from paekche, but rather many different countries, including china..so based on royal ties alone and some massive paekche immigration looking for "opportunities", it doesn't really imply paekche suzerainty over japan. I see that as a misconclusion.

deleted

Sure, that's one way to view it, and I see where you're thinking. But there's also many ways to view korea's subjugation to the mongols, as korea was also "sovereign" in many ways...suggesting that korea under mongolia as interpreted by nationalists would be merely "coming under influence". Similarly, most japanese prefer the word settled than colonized, while the koreans see it as the other way. There is no real objective conclusion to make here, except that japan was clearly under paekche's influence and was established, ruled, and unified by de facto paekche's royal line and their followers who hopped onto japan in AD 4th century, permanently and substantially changing japan's landscapes. Japan to paekche was quite exactly like what america was to britain, and also provided troops and intimate relations with its cousins, the yemaek people of paekche and koguryo. Similarly, japan's natives are quite analogous to native americans, and korean influence was like the white replacement of america...not to sound condescending.

There's also the famous quotes by Hideyoshi's generals, who claimed that their conquest of korea was a revenge "thousand years in the making"...referring to when shila ripped apart paekche and koguryo and unified the country. The japanese were full aware of their origins, especially the samurai, of how their ancestors suffered and had to flee to the souther islands. So as such demonstrated, yamato/feudal japan shares their identity with the paekche-koguryo line of ancient horse riding warriors, maintaining many yemaek customs....