Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Karaeng Matoaya (talk · contribs) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll take this, though I might request a second opinion from someone better-versed in the archaeology. Disclaimers:

• This is my first time doing a GA review, which is why I might ask for a second opinion
• I am Korean and was educated in the country (as you can tell from my recent edits), but I will do my best to be as neutral as possible
• I was unaware of the apparently intense edit warring that has previously taken place on the article until today
• I gave a barnstar to a user involved in the article's controversies a few hours ago, but this was out of genuine appreciation for their waka-related pages and is unconnected to this article's history

Cheers, Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The simple things:

• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: Y
• Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: Y

The article is fairly long and I've only looked at two sections in-depth, but unfortunately I've found a few issues in both. Apologies in advance if I'm a bit stringent—but I'd like to be as careful as I possibly can with controversial topics like these.

"Writing" section

1) "Some of these scholars from Baekje wrote and edited much of the Nihon Shoki, one of Japan's earliest works of history."

While Ch'on 1974 seems not to be available online, this claim is not made in Taro Sakamoto's 1970 The Six National Histories of Japan (translated in 1991), where it is said:

As for the people who did the actual work of compilation, I have mentioned Ki Kiyondo and Miyake Fujimaro... Ota's investigation indicates a possible connection between O Yasumaro and Nihon Shoki. Further research is needed on these points... None of the other compilers is named... All that is clearly recorded are the names of the twelve people commanded by Emperor Tenmu in 681 to set in order the Imperial Chronicles and the Fundamental Dicta. They organized the original materials of Nihon Shoki Of these twelve people, two were imperial princes, four were princes and six were ministers of state... From the point of view of lineage, two were Imperial clans (Kamitsukeno and Heguri), three were Divine clans (Azumi, Imbe, and Nakatomi), and one was a Sundry [immigrant] clan (Naniwa).

This seems to belie the article's claim that significant parts of the Nihon Shoki was written not just by people descended from Baekje migrants, but "scholars from Baekje."

2) "The pronunciation of Chinese characters at this period thus may well reflect that current in the Baekje kingdom."

This contradicts the cited source. "May well" means "likely", but the source actually says:

Owing to a paucity of evidence, little is known about Sino-Paekche and other varieties of Sino-Korean... Hence it is impossible to determine whether the early Japanese were learning Sino-Paekche readings, authentic Chinese readings, or readings which were somewhere in between.

The source admits that the only evidence of Sino-Baekje readings being adopted in Japan is circumstantial, and if the sentence is kept it should be marked as such.

3) Kana and gugyeol

The relationship between kana and gugyeol is not nearly as clear-cut as the article suggests. While the influence of Korean sinography on the Japanese man'yogana tradition is undeniable, whether Japanese borrowed a significant number of actual gugyeol glyphs is disputable. While Frellesvig supports a direct borrowing, there are actually strong arguments against the notion, as both Zev Handel (2019, Sinography: The Borrowing and Adaption of the Chinese Script, pp. 183, 200-202) and John Whitman (2011, "The Ubiquity of the Gloss," available here) notes:

A comparison of Japanese katakana with Korean kugyŏl shows strikingly obvious similarities in the technique of isolation and the resulting letter shapes. But it also makes clear that although the technique of phonological glossing of Literary Sinitic texts using PAPs may have been borrowed from Korea into Japan, the actual practice diverged very early, possibly from the beginning. The PAP sets used in each tradition were different, the specific graphs used to represent syllables (even syllables pronounced essentially identically in both languages, like /ni/), and the end result of abbreviation (even of the same graphs) differed in most cases. Table 5.10 gives four examples of kugyŏl graphs and kana graphs with identical forms, but which derive in each tradition from different sinograms with different phonographic values, followed by two examples where the graphic origins are identical.

[Handel 2019, p. 183]

However, of the 147 source characters for Koryŏ period kugyŏl graphs listed by Paek (2005: 23-27), only 20 show this match in form and function (Note that both scripts used multiple alternate phonographs for the same syllable.) All 20 are commonly used phonograms not just in Korea and Japan but in the entire Sinosphere. In the case of other phonograms, for example kugyŏl  /ni/ and katakana 尓, 仁 /ni/, the two scripts make different choices for the same syllable, even though 尼 is a fairly widely attested ongana (Sino-Japanese) phonogram in Japanese 8th century materials as well. If kugyŏl graphs were directly borrowed to form the basis for katakana, we would expect to find exact matches in every case where Japanese and Korean had homophonous syllables, but we do not. The set of phonograms used in Japan in the 8th century formed a well established syllabary (Case 2000). Katakana were selected from this syllabary. Here again, focusing on the direct borrowing of graphs is an example of graphic fixation. It is possible that the technique of abbreviated phonogram glossing in Japan was influenced by models from Silla, without it being the case that each individual gloss was borrowed.

[Whitman 2011, p. 18]

In my opinion, "Japanese katakana share many symbols with Korean Gugyeol, for example, suggesting the former arose in part at least from scribal practices in Korea" should not be presented as simple fact, with the mildly stated "though the historical connections between the two systems are obscure" being the only caveat.

"Shipbuilding" section

1) "Technicians sent from the Korean kingdom of Silla introduced advanced shipbuilding techniques to Japan for the first time."

One of the sources (Kim 2012) is probably too general to be used to support such a specific statement, and I simply can't find Lee Hyoun-jun's articles anywhere outside Wikipedia mirrors. Could you give me their Hangul name? I can't find archaeological support for the statement in Miyashita 2006, which, although only a master's thesis, is cited in The Oxford Handbook of Maritime Archaeology. Miyashita says only:

Points of similarity between Korea and Japan have been confirmed in iconographic evidence, showing that there is a strong cultural linkage... It is interesting that the example found in Korea had an inrotsugi and kannuki technique and iron nails for the fastening which were the same as examples from Japan, although its date is in more recent years. It is feasible that these techniques of composite logboats derived from the continent and were brought to Japan along with wet-rice cultivation and metal-working technology.

And does not mention any Silla influence, although connections to Korea are covered explicitly.

2) "In the first half of the ninth century, the private fleet of the Silla merchant Jang Bogo dominated the Yellow Sea and maritime trade between China and Japan. As ambassador to China, Fujiwara no Tsunetsugu chartered Korean vessels for his embassy to the mainland in 838, as they were more seaworthy. A Japanese court edict issued in 839 ordered that Kyūshū construct a "Silla ship" to cope with stormy weather."

Most of this material is not germane to the stated article topic because it does not explain how Korean shipbuilding influenced Japan, only that it was superior to Japan's.

Final notes

I'm withdrawing the GA review per the GA submitter's request, but I do hope the issues with these two sections are addressed.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Korean influence on Japanese culture/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: StoryKai (talk · contribs) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I will examine the quality of this article within one week.StoryKai (talk) 05:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@TH1980:Thanks for all your hard work on this. I don't have too much to criticize. I recommend the following changes...​ ​​

--"the building of gigantic tomb"="Tomb" should be pluralized.​ ​​

--"Yamato kingdom has sent military expeditions"=Delete "has".​ ​​

--"Kingdom of Baekje in 538 AD"=Most of the article uses CE, and this should too.​ ​

--The paragraph starting with "According to the historian Beatrix von" cites the same source three times, though one citation would suffice.​ ​​

However, the biggest problem is the inconsistency of the citations. Some of the Farris citations are in brackets for some reason. Some citations have google view over the pages numbers and others don't. Also, the titles of many books in the bibliography aren't italicized. StoryKai (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've begun making the changes you've recommended.TH1980 (talk) 01:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have finished implementing your recomended changes. Many thanks for your input.TH1980 (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Immigration from ancient Korea to Japan

This genealogy should be deleted because it misleads people into thinking that Emperor Kanmu, the Minamoto, Taira, and other famous warlord clans are of Baekje descent. The author of this genealogy clearly misleads the reader by giving extreme importance to the specific fact that Emperor Kanmu's mother is a distant descendant of the king of Baekje. The title of this page is even more misleading because of the Korean influence on Japanese culture. So I think this genealogy is WP:WEIGHT and WP:COATRACK.

If the distant ancestors of the emperor's mother were from Baekje, it is absurd to say that all subsequent people are of Baekje descent. Emperor Kammu's mother, Takano no Niigasa, was descended from Prince Junda of Baekje more than 200 years later. The descendants of Junda naturally intermarried with the Japanese in Japan.

In addition, Japan is a patriarchal society, and emperors in particular had to be of male lineage. Eight of the successive emperors were women, but they were all of male lineage. Therefore, the emperor's genealogy is written on the basis of male lineage. On the other hand, Takano no Niigasa was the mother of Kanmu.

Moreover, the Oda, Tokugawa, and various other clans who claim to have ancestors in the Minamoto or Taira clans are only self-proclaimed, and their lineage is not scientifically supported.

This genealogy is the same as misleading people into thinking that a drop of kimchi juice in a swimming pool will turn the entire pool into kimchi. I am sure that almost all Japanese who see this genealogy will have strong doubts about it.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is another problem. This user has definitively concluded that the Hata clan is descended from Silla, but there are many theories. Even though Kyoto and the Fushimi Inari Shrine insist on the Silla theory, there is also the Baekje theory, the Later Qin theory, and the Jinhan confederation theory. It is obviously misleading to present it as a definitive genealogy.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Those are reputable sources whose claims are endorsed and backed by the Japanese government of Kyoto and the official shrine built by the Hata clan. It is illogical to discard such evidence as mere "opinions" by non-credible sources. The modern consensus in Japan leans heavily towards Silla and is not questioned outside of the major sphere. Therefore, your criticism regarding the qualitative aspect of the sources is moot. Kolossoni (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Emperor Kanmu had mentioned about his Baekje heritage since his ascension to the throne. In fact, he is the one who had stretched the conversation to the times of ancient Goguryeo and Habaek. it is not some propaganda made by Koreans, but a talking point the emperor himself commented on several times in ancient records. The genealogy was to demonstrate from which king from Baekje stretched to which individuals/clans throughout history as is the point of a family tree. It is not up to you to dictate which ancestors descended from whom. The fact remains unchanged.

"This genealogy is the same as misleading people into thinking that a drop of kimchi juice in a swimming pool will turn the entire pool into kimchi."

Your "Kimchi juice" analogy is unnecessary, not to mention deemed as an act of negatively stereotyping the Korean demographic. Kolossoni (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree. Emperor Akihito himself mentioned his lineage in 2001, despite being centuries ago. A family tree should not be discarded simply because some nationalistic Japanese might feel uncomfortable facing the facts. If the mentioned clans (Oda clan, Tokugawa clan, etc) are not truly of Kanmu (and his descendants)'s line, then it should simply be removed from the tree, not delete the tree as a whole. Turtle Historian (talk) 21:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

About the Baekje genealogy

I know that what Emperor Akihito said is true, and I am not saying that the genealogy should be removed from the Japanese nationalist point of view. On the other hand, it should be noted that this genealogy is the same as the claim often made by some Korean nationalists that the Japanese are Baekje itself.

I have no objection to your writing that Emperor Kammu's mother was Takano no Niigasa and that Takano no Niigasa descended from Prince Junda more than 200 years later. However, the inclusion of the Taira and Minamoto clans and later warrior clans in this genealogy is WP:WEIGHT, WP:COATRACK and WP:VERIFY and should be removed.

You created this genealogy by giving extreme weight to a person named Takano no Niigasa, the mother of Emperor Kammu. In fact, Emperor Akihito mentioned the Baekje connection based on the fact that Emperor Kanmu's mother was Takano no Niigasa. However, this genealogy somehow fails to mention that Takano no Niigasa was a woman more than 200 years after the Baekje prince, and that her child was Emperor Kanmu.

Since Japan's genealogy is based on the male lineage, the fact that only King Kammu's maternal line, King Muryeong, and Prince Junda are listed in the genealogy will surely lead to the misconception that any family following Emperor Kammu is from the male lineage of the Baekje royal family.

And to include in this genealogy the Taira and Minamito clans descended from Emperor Kanmu, as well as the various clans claiming to have Minamoto and Taira as ancestors, is highly misleading since the page is titled Korean Influence on Japanese Culture. In no way were these clans influenced by King Muryeong or Prince Junda, and even if these people really did inherit the bloodline of Emperor Kanmu, the people of each of these clans intermarried with other people for a long time in each period. Therefore, the "concentration" of the blood of King Muryeong and Prince Junda in the blood of the people of these clans is extremely small, and there is no need to write about it on this page.

Furthermore it is almost certainly not true that many of the warrior clans are descended from the Minamito and Taira clans. Warrior clans have considered ancient lineages valuable and have claimed that their clans are descended from the Minamito, Taira, Fujiwara, and Tachibana clans. However, it is common knowledge in Japanese history that these claims are completely unreliable. The most famous examples of this are the Oda and Tokugawa clans. It is absolutely wrong to write definitively about the many clans that followed the Taira and Minamoto, genealogies that have absolutely no historical authenticity.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have claimed multiple times that the tree should be removed from a "Korean nationalist" point of view (or whatever that means) which gives me red flags since you were the one who made a racist analogy in regards to the Korean people being "Kimchi" from the start which clearly screams "agenda" (it doesn't matter if you're English is not your native language, you should know better even if it was in your own language). Regardless, you failed to realize that the clans claimed descent from those specific emperors hence why they're named "SAGA Genji" and etc.

Clans claim descent from emperors -> Emperors (Kanmu) claim descent from Muryeong -> Muryeong claimed descent from Chumo -> Chumo claimed descent from Habaek

It is not chronology that matters when it comes to genealogy. According to your logic, Muryeong should not claim descent from Chumo since it was hundreds of years ago AND Chumo should not claim descent from Habaek because it was not from his father's side. It's purely illogical and nonsensical, not to mention, contradictory to the things you have said.

"the "concentration" of the blood of King Muryeong and Prince Junda in the blood of the people of these clans is extremely small, and there is no need to write about it on this page."

You keep asserting your personal bias and assumptions into this debate. It does not matter if YOU think they intermarried. Those clans claimed descent from Kanmu's descendants, which the prior claimed descent from Korea.

A "concetration" of blood is not important if the fact remains unchanged. By saying this, you are denying the claims made by Emperor Kanmu and Akihito who literally came out and claimed descent of Korea which in my opinion is rather disgraceful.

Here's a question:

If a Japanese clan claims descent from a "kami" should it then be removed simply because it is highly unlikely due to lack of "scientific evidence" and they probably intermarried with regular "humans" for HUNDREDS of years and their "concentration" is extremely low?

I'm interested in hearing your answer. Kolossoni (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You are obsessed with claiming in various pages that some important Japanese figure is a descendant of a Korean. I would like to know your motive for drawing this inaccurate genealogical chart with King Baekje at the top and the Japanese clans at the bottom.

I began to suspect that you had deliberately drawn that genealogical chart to exaggerate or fabricate the influence of the Koreans over Japan and mislead the reader. My suspicion was deepened when you claimed to have participated in Wikipedia while discussing it with your Korean-Australian housemate on the discord. This is because it is important to have the cooperation of friends in order to enforce demands that do not make sense.

So I have two questions for you.

The first question is, why did you draw a misleading genealogy of Emperor Kanmu of Japan, as if he were a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of the king of Korea, without writing down the most important information?

The only connection Emperor Kanmu of Japan has with the royalty of Korea is his mother, Takano no Niiigasa, and she is almost 300 years after the Baekje　(Korea) royalty. However, you have somehow left out the most important information about her and mislead us into believing that Emperor Kammu is a patrilineal descendant of the king of Baekje. The reason why this point is important is that Japanese emperors from that time to the present are required to be patrilineal descendants, and who the emperor's mother is is not important in the lineage of Japanese emperors. Emperor Akihito mentioned Takano no Niigasa to deepen his friendship with Korea, but there is no influence of the Baekje royalty on the Taira and Minamoto clans descended from Emperor Kammu. I suspect that you understand this fact, which is why you deliberately drew a genealogy that misleads us into believing that Emperor Kanmu was a paternal descendant of the Baekje royal family.

The second question is why did you apply double standards in drawing up your ridiculous genealogical chart of Japanese warlords related to the lineage of King Baekje (Korea)?

Your editorial history shows that you gave more weight to the claims of some historians that the person was of Korean descent than to the descriptions in authoritative books of the time on the ancestry of Japanese figures and their official genealogical trees. The pages on Sakanoue no Tamuramaro and the Hata clan are good examples.

However, you completely ignore the views of modern historians only with regard to this genealogy. The clans in this genealogy, especially the Oda and Tokugawa clans, are almost certainly not actual descendants of the Taira or Minamoto clans. For some reason, you only emphasize in this genealogy that the Japanese clans claimed to be descended from the Taira and Minamoto clans.

Of course, the Japanese clans in this genealogy had absolutely no cultural influence from the Baekje (Korean) royal family.

This double standard of yours is another reason why I am suspicious of you.--SLIMHANNYA (talk) 10:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong fellow editor. I was on Wikipedia for a LONG time. Over 8 years in total. Not THIS particular account, but another previous one that I made that is inactive due to the rather inappropriate naming choice I made back when I was a lot younger and immature. Second, it is not an "obsession" but rather trying to set the records straight. The only individuals who I have tackled and/or edited extensively on WP are Yuzuki no Kimi (an article I started btw), Achi no omi and Wani from the level of most to least input. these individuals coincide with my thorough investigations with the Hata clan, Yamatonoaya clan (page created bu yours truly) and the Kawachinofumi clan (page created bu yours truly). In fact, I became interested in the aforementioned clans after reading about Vovin's books in regards to the origins of the Japanese language, something that got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. If you read Vovin's books about Peninsular Japonic and Toraijins, he mentions several times the clans that are mentioned above as evidence as to why Japanese and Korean could be separate language families that were only affected through the sprachbund effect.

If you look at the pages of the clans and the individuals prior to my edits, you would clearly tell that it was VERY under-sourced, alluding to unreliable whataboutisms and personal takes that are not backed by any sources. I took the time and liberty to find CREDIBLE sources to back the claims made by prominent Japanese publishers and improved on making them be more readable not to mention accurate to modern standards.

why did you draw a misleading genealogy of Emperor Kanmu of Japan, as if he were a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of the king of Korea, without writing down the most important information?

Simply put, I did not. At least under the pretext you're giving. The emperor is NOT a descendant of the patrilineal lineage of Baekje. His mother is, but not Yamabe. Second, I have a hard time understanding what "most important information" is.

why did you apply double standards in drawing up your ridiculous genealogical chart of Japanese warlords related to the lineage of King Baekje (Korea)?

It was to provide an insight to which clans were related to one another, hence why the clan names were listed FIRST with the founders (if any) were listed inside (brackets). You must also realize that this is specifically on the article of "Korean influences in Japan" and it was done under the certain monarch's title. Again, you are complaining about something that is SOLELY pertained within a very specific topic.

"Your editorial history shows that you gave more weight to the claims of some historians that the person was of Korean descent than to the descriptions in authoritative books of the time on the ancestry of Japanese figures and their official genealogical trees. The pages on Sakanoue no Tamuramaro and the Hata clan are good examples."

And judging by your nuance, you are not fond of associating the Japanese with the Koreans unless it's blatantly obvious. But regardless, the claims made in those articles are backed by valuable, reasonable and official sources from multiple Japanese published academia.

IN FACT!

I added information that is not taken kindly by nationalistic Koreans who deny ANY influence of Japan in their homeland. See here: Yamatonoaya clan Etymology.

"Some nationalist historians used this to support the claims over the Mimana controversy stating that Mimana (Gaya) was in fact Japanese due to the relations between the kingdom of Aya and the Aya clans of Japan. Despite the lukewarm reception in Korea, evidence alludes to the possibilities of Japanese speakers in the region."

I am a firm believer of Japanese influence in Korea through Vovin's Peninsular Japonic theory, despite backlash from certain individuals.

Of course, the Japanese clans in this genealogy had absolutely no cultural influence from the Baekje (Korean) royal family. This double standard of yours is another reason why I am suspicious of you.

And frankly, I do not care. I am not personally motivated by Korean propaganda. I read, research and translate by reading into MULTIPLE sources across SEVERAL languages and the conclusions I end up are mostly objective except for articles that lack MUCH research in East Asian history sphere.

-

So, now that I have answered your questions, I think it's human decency to answer back to mine.

If a Japanese clan claims descent from a "kami" should it then be removed simply because it is highly unlikely due to lack of "scientific evidence" and they probably intermarried with regular "humans" for HUNDREDS of years and their "concentration" is extremely low?

Thanks, and good day. Kolossoni (talk) 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Since this article is about cultural influence, it is inappropriate to describe only blood-related genealogy without mentioning cultural influence. I agree that genealogy should be removed. 薔薇騎士団 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)