a) Do I have to wait for two years until the results of the archeological research have been published in scholarly journals? Or is someone going to tell me what the heck is in the tombs? I want to see grave goods. If some of these kofun have equal volume as the Giza pyramids, then they were certainly the result of a great deal of economic and industrial expenditure. I would be immensely surprised if there wasn't all kinds of archeological relics that could be analyzed.
b) Tokapi and caster, maybe your discussion belongs in another thread? Granted, it's interesting (what little I can follow). Nevertheless, I'd advise you guys to take wikipedia with a grain of salt. It isn't as peer-reviewed as, say, an academic journal, so errors creep in--sometimes huge ones.
If some of these kofun have equal volume as the Giza pyramids, then they were certainly the result of a great deal of economic and industrial expenditure. I would be immensely surprised if there wasn't all kinds of archeological relics that could be analyzed.
according tothe project team of famous construction company , if it is made by ancient method today, 16 years are taken by 20,000 ppl a day.
it is not included outer moat and Haniwas.
if we make it by todays method , it would take 2years and half by 29,000ppl .
this is the biggest one, however there are 7 Kofuns more than 300m length in Japan.
there are 40 ones more than 200m length
326 more than 100 m
around 50m class are more than 200...
But the agency has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea―or that some tombs hold no royal remains at all.
"Blood links between Korea and the Japanese imperial family are documented from the eighth century," he said.
Some of the great clans around Japan's imperial line provided wives and mothers for the emperors were descended from Baekje & Silla immigrants is clear in the Nihon Shoki and has never been censored from the history books. And there are a lot of people in Japan and in the world who would refuse to let archaeologists or anyone else dig up the graves of their ancestors, especially in a country where none of the archaeological organizations has a code of ethics.
However, the facts are much more complicated.The Imperial Household Agency has been doing some excavation work on the designated tombs, in conjunction with maintenance work, and recently they have let a select few archaeologists join in the work. And some tombs designated as imperial tombs have been excavated in the past. Nintoku's tomb is one of these. There also are major problems with the designation of kofun mound tombs as imperial tombs. During the period of mound tomb building, no one kept records of who was buried in which tombs. When the first histories of Japan were compiled in the early 8th century, the memory of these tombs was already lost and the writers had to guess. Then nothing more was done for over 1,000 years, until efforts were made in the late Edo and early Meiji periods to determine which mounds were imperial tombs. Some of these designations are now known to be wrong and a large portion of the others are suspect. If archaeologists have not already accidently excavated an imperial tomb, sooner or later they will, unless all kofun mound tombs are investigated and far more reliable designations of the imperial tombs are made. In fact, only 2 of the mound tombs are generally agreed to be designated correctly, the tombs of Emperor Temmu and Tenji.
that is nitntoku tomb surery..
left winger's historians who dont want to admit emperor' system are just shouting 'there is no evidence ..." "so let us investigate it"
Many of the objects in tomb mounds found in Japan were also found in Korea like armor, sword, horse-related objects (noting that Japan didn't have horses), and those are proto Puyo-Kaya-Baekje style objects. Despite all these evidences that are before the eyes, Japanese still deny its origin saying many of them are from qina? It's like deceiving themselves and giving credit to whom they shouldn't. It's like making any qinese feel good undeservedly and making qinese feel like "what? cool".
As far as I know Soga, Hata and Wani clan are from Korea and not qina.
Reckel says that Parhae ( 渤海 or Balhae ) indeed had a significant Mohe element to their population, it had to as the Tang took most of Koguryo's population and relocated them to the central plain as well as areas as remote as today's Burma. Out of the 600,000 households of the original Koguryo Kingdom, there was probably only 100,000 households left in Southern Manchuria, not enough to defend against Tang, Silla and Kihtan tribesman. The Mohe changed sides during the Tang/Koguryo wars. Traditional allies to the of Koguryo, the Mohe sided with Tang, but once they figured out that the Tang didn't really have any plans to develope or effectively rule the Northeast, they decided to revolt, using the distraction that the Khitan provided to do so. Da Go Wang ( 大祚榮 or Tae Jo Young in Korean pronounciation ) was a Mohe chieftan who was also a Koguryo general. He was ethnically Mohe, not Koguryo.
You can never trust qinese records since they more likely to be distorted. In the case of number of captives it's exaggerated since qinese wanted to glorify its achievements after so many hard work in defeating Koguryo, not alone, but with the help of Shilla, also because Koguryo was exhausted after the wars with sui, but even so tang suffered awful defeats in the first Koguryo-tang wars. And about the General Dae Jo Young, it is recorded in the qinese records that he was from Mohe tribe because qinese wouldn't acknowledge him of being Koguryoian since they were enemies of Koguryo and had a lot of hard work in defeating it. But the fact is he was from Koguryo stock since Balhae ruling class was from Koguryo and lower class was from Mohe tribes, also if he wasn't from Koguryo he wouldn't have the effort to revive the kingdom he has nothing to do with.
what is an evidence?
there are so many Japanese castles in korea during hideyoshi invasions.
then ,this is an evidence of Japanese castle's come from Korea?
so is in manchuria?...
after ww2 , 2milion Japanese came back to Japan as Refugees...
I think it was same at that time.
As far as I know Soga, Hata and Wani clan are from Korea and not qina
My logic is that there was no war between Baekje and Wa, and there wouldn't be any reason to any Korean settler (there weren't many before the battle of Baekgang) return to Korea. Also Baekje were sending presents as reminders to not alienate from the peninsula realizing they were siblings.
korean peninsula was always place of security and buffering for Japan..
battle of Baekgang was fear of Tang.
Yuan built base in korean peninsula to atack Japan.
russo, sino- japan war were to make a buffering in korean peninsula...
Ming thought also same during hideyoshi invasion
I actually enjoyed reading all of this thread. It was very interesting... eh,
kanji ga chotto muzukashii desu... /)_(\ I'm afraid I read it all, but maybe not understand it all.
This response is to Tokapi, proof that Yamato was founded by Puyo-Kaya tribes and was not indigenous as you claim is that native Japanese were Ryukyuans and Ainus until later settlers came from the peninsula and drove those Emishi people to the North. If not there wouldn't be reason for the Ainu be in Hokkaido today, right? Does my explanation sound stupid or too simple?
If there wasn't Yamato there wouldn't be Yamato but a bunch of warring states. So only one answer remains: KOREA.
This response is to Tokapi, proof that Yamato was founded by Puyo-Kaya tribes and was not indigenous as you claim is that native Japanese were Ryukyuans and Ainus until later settlers came from the peninsula and drove those Emishi people to the North. If not there wouldn't be reason for the Ainu be in Hokkaido today, right? Does my explanation sound stupid or too simple?
If there wasn't Yamato there wouldn't be Yamato but a bunch of warring states. So only one answer remains: KOREA.
some were from malay.
some were middle east by way of korea
some were from direction of chinese continetal by ship
I think korea Peninsula was a just place as a road where they came through..
Question, please!
I'm trying to understand a bit...
What do most Japanese think of Koreans? What has been the Japanese attitude towards Koreans since the war?
Please assist me.
:jama:
Sorry to burst in on your thread!
some were from malay.
some were middle east by way of korea
some were from direction of chinese continetal by ship
I think korea Peninsula was a just place as a road where they came through..
Jomon culture was the product of Ainu and Malayo-Polynesian people (10.000 BCE) and Yayoi was from Kaya (300 BCE-300 BC). So Korean is more recent and origin of Yamato is around 3rd century.
Let's make an analogy with the Japan of that time and let's take examples of today countries. It's like saying any country of Africa owns US or Canada. Japan of that time wasn't developed but was backwards. All the ironware, bronze, clothes, religion stuff was from Baekje and Kaya. Buddhism and qinese characteres was introduced to Japan by Baekje. And even Shinto is a descendant of Korean Shamanism.
Let's make an analogy with the Japan of that time and let's take examples of today countries. It's like saying any country of Africa owns US or Canada. Japan of that time wasn't developed but was backwards. All the ironware, bronze, clothes, religion stuff was from Baekje and Kaya. Buddhism and qinese characteres was introduced to Japan by Baekje. And even Shinto is a descendant of Korean Shamanism.
please give me a document..
for example, buddhism were from India by way of Korea..
how did buddhism came from ?Japan demanded it to korea to get textbook
from china acoording to certain document.
then ,they realized the lack of that.
many Japanese like kukai went to china directly
Many of the objects in tomb mounds found in Japan were also found in Korea like armor, sword, horse-related objects ( noting that Japan didn't have horses ).
Because both countries shared Han cultural-origin of Lelang
Pai, Hyung Il. "Culture Contact and Culture Change: The Korean Peninsula and its Relations with the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang." World Archaeology 23:3 (February 1992): 306-319.
One of the most controversial topics in Korean archaeology and history concerns the Han Lelang commanderies that were established in the Korean peninsula during the Han dynasty in 108 BC and lasted for 400 years.
In the traditional view, the importance of the Lelang in Korean history was seen in its role as the common enemy, at the time when Korea first experienced colonial rule.Such sentiment is so strong that there are actually some Korean ultranationalists who even deny the very existence of the Lelang commandery.
This view has been further complicated by the fact that some of the earliest archaeological work on Lelang was initiated by the Japanese around the time of the First World War. Back then, the ulterior motives of territorial claims by the Japanese Government General's Office of Korea over the Korean peninsula and Manchuria made some Japanese Lelang scholars claim that Han Lelang culture in Korea was a purely Han Chinese phenomenon, with no native Korean variants and forms.
But what really were the relations between the Korean Peninsula and the Han Dynasty Commandery of Lelang ? Hyung Il Pai (1992) presented a more balanced theoretical view that may help reconcile the nationalistic view of contemporary Korean scholars with pre-war Japanese colonial interpretations of Han Lelang's position in Korean prehistory. Basically,she argued that social and regional differentiation in the Korean peninsula were not possible without initial Han contact. Before the Lelang period, regional differences find expression ony in terms of minor variation in pottery styles. In contrast, third-century texts of the Weizhi (300 years after initial Han contact) reveal the existence of various guo 国 (or tribal kingdoms) such as Puyo, Koguryo, Okcho, Eastern Ye and Samhan. They are recorded as having distinctively different social organizations, subsistence systems, customs, and rituals.
The most important "traits of civilization" such as iron technology, writing, gold craftsmanship, and intesive rice agriculture, were derived from Han Lelang culture. Such widespread distribution of ideas and technology would not have been possible without the elite distribution network of seals, bronze mirrors, and luxury Han goods which stimlulated the initial exchange network.
According to Pai (1992), once this network was established in the core areas of Lelang, it quickly spread to all other parts of Korea and into southern-western Japan, forming the "Lelang Interaction Sphere" in Korean prehistory (that included Koguryo, Wa of Japan, and Samhan - Chinhan, Pyonhan, and Mahan)".Without this initial phase, the second stage of the interaction sphere that comprised Koguryo, Paekche, Silla, and Kofun Japan, would not have been possible. Extensive trade and diplomatic activities were heightened and reinforced by competition and warfare with Yamato Japan and the three kingdoms. These states shared common features in palatial architecture, in the spread of Buddhism and associated sculpture, as well as in gold artwork and jewellery.
References:
Pai, Hyung Il. "Lelang and the 'Interaction Sphere': An Alternative Approach to Korean State Formation." Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8:1 (1989): 64-75.
J. Edward Kidder, Jr. (who released a 400+ page book on the history, archaeology, and mythology surrounding Himiko and the location of Yamatai this Spring) covers the history of horses in Japan in his article "The Archaeology of the Early Horse-Riders in Japan". You can read it in "The Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan". He also provided some great evidence that discredits a few pillars of Egami's horseriders theory.Of course,every theory has aspects that reflect cultural/social/historical currents.
I recommend you guys checking out his article. I'll only lay out a few points he made in this post.
-The Kiso horse is indigenous to Japan, yet it's presently endangered. The horse that spread throughout the archipelago was imported from Korea.
-Horses began to be ridden widely in the 5th century.
-It was expected that aristocrats know how to ride horses.
-The native horses were from the Late Jomon period (1000 B.C.-300 B.C.)
-He gives 114.5 cm as an average height for the indigenous horses (measured up to the "withers")
-Yayoi horses are, on average, 132 cm (again, "withers")
-Jomon and Yayoi (300 B.C.-250 A.D.) sites don't imply the eating or sacrifice of horses. I believe Farris mentioned they were beasts of burden, however they apparently weren't ridden, yet.
-After the Yayoi period, horses began to be used in religious rituals. They were sacrificed. The Taika Reforms of the 7th century prohibited the sacrificing of horses (among other mourning practices after one's lord/leader had died).
-Horse sacrifice is actually a bit debated, as Kidder wonders why the Japanese would sacrifice the few horses that lived on the islands during the first years of the Kofun period.
-The use of horse haniwa around kofun seems to imply that the Japanese believed that horses were mediums or intouch with the spiritual world. 8th century rituals involving horse figures attest to this.
There's a lot more information in the short article. If you can get your hands on it, it'd go nicely with Walter Edwards rebuttal of Egami's theory. Both are from an archaeological standpoint.
The migrations in Yayoi period happened way before there was any nation-state in Korea peninsula.And now,the re-evaluations of carbon 14 had indicated the possibility that maybe Yayoi period began 500 years earlier than previously recognized ( BC 800 ).
It is noteworthy that this is the first time that NMJH has been awarded a Grant-in-Aid for Creative Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology for research on, "The Origin of the Farming in the Yayoi Period and East Asia: Establishment of High-Precision Chronology by Carbon 14 Age Analysis", the NMJH Centers of Excellence grant since 1997
" The Origin of the Farming in the Yayoi Period and East Asia: Establishment of High-Precision Chronology by Carbon 14 Age Analysis" (2004-2008) (General Organizer: NISHIMOTO Toyohiro)
NMJH has been conducting studies on the application of high-precision C14 dating techniques with the use of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS).This research was approved in order to confirm preliminary results that the Yayoi period had started in the 10th century BCE, or 500 years earlier than previous archaeological theories have proposed. At the end of 2003, NMJH established a research facility to create a framework for C14 dating experiments. With the award of the grant, the group decided to conduct nation-wide research on age determination, primarily of Yayoi period remains.
In the 2004 fiscal year, more than 2,000 samples of wood, seeds, and carbide residue on earthen vessels were extracted from 190 sites; among them, measurements were conducted on 500 samples. As a result, we speculate that irrigated rice cultivation of the Yayoi cultures first appeared in northern Kyushu approximately 930 BCE and that the "early Yayoi" period began around 800 BCE. We also tentatively concluded that "early Yayoi" culture appeared in the Chugoku and Kinai areas between 700 and 600 BCE, 100 to 200 years later than northern Kyushu. We are also beginning to get a clear picture of ocean reservoir effects and millet.
By the way,王 have always been a Han-Chinese surname.
Wani ( 王仁 ) of Baekje who transmitted Chinese characters 千字文 to Japan came from " LeLang Commandary " ( 王 clan ) Wang clan during China's Han Dynasty controlled northern part of the peninsula.His ancestors ( Han-Chinese ) originally from present day China's Shandong peninsula.
Daniel Kane and Mark Byington: N American academia historians Dr. Johannes Reckel professor at the University of Guettingen: German ( by the way,your original post#81 quoted a portion of his Ph.D thesis based on comprehensive archeological study on the Parhae Kingdom ) Dr Hyung Il Pai: was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea
Present your case here,what archaelogical evidence or reading materials do you have.
* Gina Barnes of the University of Durham in Great Britain admits the possibility while citing the lack of evidence:
"There is no direct historical evidence of a (Japanese) emperor born on the Korean Peninsula. There is considerable evidence of contact with peninsular kings and elites. But given other monarchical systems in which 'stranger kings' may be incorporated, such as the British Hanover line, which has produced the current queen, it's not an impossible thought that the Yamato rulership incorporated foreign allies."
* Walter Edwards of Tenri University in Nara Prefecture downplays the Korean connection:
"Would we expect to find that the occupants of the earliest large tombs, the third-century figures who originally carved out the Yamato polity , to have been Korean aristocrats who came over and wrested power from indigenous leaders, helping raise a backward nation up to the level of early statehood? That is what is all too often implied by whisperings of 'Korean bones'. That view I reject. The emergence of the ancient Yamato polity was an indigenous phenomenon."
Ironware already existed in Korea before Lelang Commandery.
BLADE OF BRONZE DAGGER CAST SEPARATELY FROM HILT
We find some hint of bronze in the Neolithic Hongshan
culture (c. 4000-3000 BCE). The Lower Xiajia-dian
culture (c. 2000-1500 BCE) produced small bronze objects
such as rings, knives, and handles. Most archeologists, however,
believe that the full-fledged Bronze Age began c. 1500 BCE in
the Manchurian basin and c. 1000 BCE in the Korean
peninsula.4 According to Barnes (1993: 162), "the peninsular
Bronze Age per se is defined by the intrusion of the [broadbladed]
Liao-ning dagger from the Manchurian Basin." Unlike
the Han Chinese bronze daggers, the blade of Liao-ning
daggers was cast separately from the hilt. According to Nelson
(1993: 133), "Liao-ning dagger is found abundantly in the Liaodong
peninsula and around Bohai Bay, as well as in Korea, but
it is not found in China south of the Great Wall."
Molds for bronze daggers, arrowheads, (fine-lined)
mirrors, fishhooks, and axes, and other bronze artifacts such as
bells, (animal-shaped) belt buckles, buttons, horse trappings,
and chariot ornaments have appeared in the plain Mumun
pottery sites throughout the peninsula.5 The origins of the
(broad and narrow bladed) bronze dagger and the fine-lined
mirror that are found in abundance in the Korean peninsula are
traced to the Upper Xiajia-dian culture (1100-300 BCE).
In 2003, Korean archaeologists alleged that they discovered burnt grains (domesticated rice) in Soro-ri, Korea, that predate the oldest grains in China. This find potentially challenges the mainstream explanation that domesticated rice originated in China.[31] The media reports of the Soro-ri charred grains are brief and lack sufficient detail for archaeologists and scientists in related fields to properly evaluate the true meaning of this unusual find.
Reliable, mainstream archaeological evidence derived from palaeoethnobotanical investigations indicate that dry-land rice was introduced to Korea and Japan some time between 3500 and 1200 BC. The cultivation of rice in Korea and Japan during that time occurred on a small-scale, fields were impermanent plots, and evidence shows that in some cases domesticated and wild grains were planted together. The technological, subsistence, and social impact of rice and grain cultivation is not evident in archaeological data until after 1500 BC. For example, intensive wet-paddy rice agriculture was introduced into Korea shortly before or during the Middle Mumun Pottery Period (c. 850–550 BC) and reached Japan by the Final Jōmon or Initial Yayoi circa 300 BC.
The people of Korea proper began cultivating millet
in the north and rice in the south before 2,000 BCE. They
started using bronze between 1,500-1,000 BCE, and iron c. 400
BCE. Diamond (1998) has raised the following question: With
all these developments going on for thousands of years just
across the Korea Strait, doesn't it seem astonishing that the
Japanese islands were occupied by stone-tool-using huntergatherers
until 300 BCE? How did the Jōmon culture survive
so long? Why did the Korean rice farmers wait so long to cross
the Korea Strait and commence the Yayoi era in the Japanese
islands? He gives an answer, but it does not ring true in the
context of the times. One of my objects in this chapter is to
give a more plausible answer to this puzzle.
Rice, be it aquatic or dry land, does not originate from
the Japanese islands. The Japanese archeologists have submitted
carbonized rice grains from several Jōmon sites in northern
Kyūshū to C-14 dating and come up with a tentative date of
900 BC. The rice cultivation on a full scale, however, was
introduced into the Japanese islands together with new cultural
elements, including the stone tools, pottery and pit-dwelling
similar to those found in the Korean peninsula around 300
BCE.7
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
