![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the State of Nangnang page were merged into Lelang Commandery on 15 July 2007 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The most reliable source that the Nangnang nation is different from the Nangnang commandery can be found in Samguk Sagi[3], and as follows. In the story of the prince of Goguryeo, Hodong, and the princess of the Nangnang nation, a king named Choi Ri is described. If the Nangnang nation were identical with the Nangnang commandery, the king Chio Ri should have been described as a governor general. However, the most reputable source of Korean history says that it is the king of Nangnang. This implies that the Nangnang was a independent state.
This is the most reliable source for the existence of Nangnang "nation" separate from Nangnang Prefecture? No primary sources, no contemporary evidence of any sort -- just the use of one word from one place in Samguk Sagi?
If there are no objections, I will redirect this page to Lelang commandery. -- ran ( talk) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Hairwizard91 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, NPOV states that views should not be given undue weight, not that they should be presented with equal time and emphasis. That the Western Han Dynasty created Lelang (Nangnang) Commandery in Pyongyang is the academic consensus up to now; that Lelang Commandery and Nangnang Nation are separate is a theory put forth recently by Yun Nae-hyeon, which has so far not found consensus in the wider academic community. This is why "Nangnang nation" should be a redirect to "Lelang commandery", and Yun Nae-hyeon's theory should be presented as being based on one interpretation of a single passage in a historical text, against other historical texts that place Lelang Commandery established by the Western Han Dynasty in Pyongyang.
Yun Nae-hyeon's theory is based on this passage from Samguk Sagi.
夏四月 王子好童 遊於沃沮 樂浪王崔理出行 因見之 問曰 觀君顔色 非常人 豈非北國神王之子乎 遂同歸以女妻之 後好童還國 潛遣人告崔氏女曰 若能入而國武庫 割破鼓角 則我以禮迎 不然則否 先是 樂浪有鼓角 若有敵兵則自鳴 故令破之 於是 崔女將利刀 潛入庫中 割鼓面角口 以報好童 好童勸王襲樂浪 崔理以鼓角不鳴 不備 我兵掩至城下 然後知鼓角皆破 遂殺女子 出降
More specifically, the theory is based on one interpretation of the word 王 as used in 樂浪王. However, the title 王 was used by not only independent rulers like the King of Goguryeo, but also by subjects of the Western Han Dynasty. The Western Han Dynasty maintained a system of regional princes (called 王), each with several commanderies under his control (after the Wu Chu Rebellion this was reduced to one commandery per prince). In addition, the Han Dynasty allowed and in fact authorized regional governors to use the word 王:
史記 卷一百十六 西南夷列傳第五十六
元封二年,天子發巴蜀兵擊滅勞洸、靡莫,以兵臨滇。滇王始首善,以故弗誅。滇王離難西南夷,舉國降,請置吏入朝。於是以為益州郡,賜滇王王印,複長其民。
In short, the word 王 does not imply an independent country.
It is also intriguing how 崔理 (Choe Ri), the only known sovereign ruler of the supposed Nangnang state, does not appear anywhere else, nor is there any kind of information on his ancestors or descendents, or the general lineage of the supposed ruling family of Nangnang.
Also -- please explain how the tomb implies the separate existence of a Nangnang nation?
Finally, the very title Nangnang nation does not follow conventional naming standards in the English language or on the English Wikipedia. " Nation" itself is a politically charged word and implies nationalism. We usually use "State of -" or "- (state)", for example State of Chu, State of Qin.
-- ran ( talk) 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you must answer my question about the describing the lelang in Shiji. Shiji may be the primary source of chinese commanderies. -- Hairwizard91 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would the use of the word 王 be different in China and Korea? If a Korean historian wanted to refer to 吳王 or 楚王 in the Western Han Dynasty, would he have used some other word instead?
Also, I don't need to answer your question about Shiji. There are many secondary sources putting Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. Can you find me a single unambiguous secondary source, before Sin Chaeho, separating Lelang Commandery from independent Nangnang? Or perhaps some information on which ruler created the state of Nangnang and what the lineage between him and Choe Ri was?
"Independent" Nangnang is a theory put forward based on a single word in Samguk Sagi, a word that has multiple definitions, not all of which conflicts with traditional understanding of the history of the Han Dynasty. This article needs to reflect that. -- ran ( talk) 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of "fairness", I already explained that NPOV is about giving weight when it is due, not about equal time. Also, if you think I'm misunderstanding the word 王, then tell me again: who were the 吳王 or 楚王 of the Western Han Dynasty? Were they independent? Would a Korean historian refer to them in some other way? -- ran ( talk) 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
For 吳王 or 楚王, see Rebellion of the Seven States. It was a rebellion started by 吳王, 楚王, 趙王, 膠東王, 膠西王, 濟南王, 淄川王, who were all princes of the Western Han Dynasty. Each one governed one or several commanderies. I've also given the example of 滇王 above, please read it again.
Samguk Sagi was written in Classical Chinese by the Korean elite, which was familiar with traditional Chinese texts, like histories. Why would they be unaware of this use of the word 王? If a Korean historian is to refer to 吳王, 楚王, etc, what would they have used instead, according to you? -- ran ( talk) 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I already explained who 吳王 and 楚王 were! They were not independent rulers. The Han Dynasty had regional governors also called 王. -- ran ( talk) 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so why does Samguk Sagi use 帝 for, say, 漢光武帝? Why not 漢光武王? Korean historians use Korean titles for Korean people, but they aren't just going to change all of the Chinese titles of Chinese people to Korean titles as well! When they want to refer to (say) 吳王 and 楚王, they aren't going to change it to 吳汗 and 楚汗, and when they write 漢光武帝 they're not just going to change it to 漢光武王. Similarly, if a governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, a Korean history book isn't going to change it to 樂浪汗, because such a thing never existed.
-- ran ( talk) 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But like I said, if Lelang Commandery of Han China was in Pyongyang, and its governor was called 樂浪王, then Korean books would still refer to him as 樂浪王. They wouldn't just change the name of a Chinese official.
As for Choi, well, 崔 (Cui) is a Chinese name as well. The Cui Family has a home page as well: [2] -- ran ( talk) 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How can you just assert that 樂浪王 is a king of a Korean state when there is no other evidence for the existence of such a state? Also, since I've already shown that 王 was used in China for governors, and that Korean books used Chinese titles for Chinese people, how can you discount the possibility that 樂浪王 was a governor of Han China? If the governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, then Korean books would follow as well.
There are no sources that I know of that list the governors of Lelang Commandery. So it's not possible to prove or disprove, in this way, whether there were any governors with the last name 崔. But like I said, there is no evidence for the existence of a State of Nangnang, nor a 崔 family ruling it, other than that one single interpretation of that one single place.
-- ran ( talk) 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
When does the tomb date from? Why is it a royal tomb? Which part of the tomb suggests that it was 樂浪王 in particular, and not the 王 of some other state? -- ran ( talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I take it that you agree that 樂浪王 may also be a Chinese governor? -- ran ( talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I no longer want to redirect. This is why I created this version: [3]. Is there anything in it that you disagree with? -- ran ( talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But I already mentioned them, I simply rephrased them. You can see in my version that:
If anything, my version presents Shin's theory even more forcefully and in a more organized way than the original.
So would you be ok with reverting this article to this version [4]? -- ran ( talk) 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My version presents the Nangnang theory first, before going into the rebuttal. Would you be okay with reverting it then? -- ran ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I did start from the original version, and all I did was to rephrase what was already there. Compare the two version again -- what do you think are the things that I removed and should be put back? -- ran ( talk) 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This whole article should be merged to Joseon Sanggosa. This story/legend does not appear to be supported by any primary sources.-- Endroit 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears in Samguk Sagi. Samguk Sagi is most reputable source of Korean history. It is also very weird that the nangnang state is merge to Joseon Sangosa. Nangnang state is an ancient korean nation, and joseon sangosa is history book. In addition, the Nangnang state has acheological evidence. It is not mythical nation. -- Hairwizard91 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The passage is in 三國史記 高句麗本紀 卷第十四 大武神王
The complete passage:
十五年 春三月 黜大臣仇都逸苟焚求等三人爲庶人 此三人爲沸流部長 資貪鄙 奪人妻妾牛馬財貨 恣其所欲 有不與者即鞭之 人皆忿怨 王聞之 欲殺之 以東明舊臣 不忍致極法 黜退而已 遂使南部使者鄒素 代爲部長 素既上任 別作大室以處 以仇都等罪人 不令升堂 仇都等詣前 告曰 吾儕小人 故犯王法 不勝愧悔 願公赦過 以令自新 則死無恨矣 素引上之 共坐曰 人不能無過 過而能改 則善莫大焉 乃與之爲友 仇都等感愧 不復爲惡 王聞之曰 素不用威嚴 能以智懲惡 可謂能矣 賜姓曰大室氏 夏四月 王子好童 遊於沃沮 樂浪王崔理出行 因見之 問曰 觀君顔色 非常人 豈非北國神王之子乎 遂同歸以女妻之 後好童還國 潛遣人告崔氏女曰 若能入而國武庫 割破鼓角 則我以禮迎 不然則否 先是 樂浪有鼓角 若有敵兵則自鳴 故令破之 於是 崔女將利刀 潛入庫中 割鼓面角口 以報好童 好童勸王襲樂浪 崔理以鼓角不鳴 不備 我兵掩至城下 然後知鼓角皆破 遂殺女子 出降 【或云 欲滅樂浪 遂請婚 娶其女 爲子妻 後使歸本國 壞其兵物】 冬十一月 王子好童自殺 好童 王之次妃曷思王孫女所生也 顔容美麗 王甚愛之 故名好童 元妃恐奪嫡爲太子 乃讒於王曰 好童不以禮待妾 殆欲亂乎 王曰 若以他兒憎疾乎 妃知王不信 恐禍將及 乃涕泣而告曰 請大王密候 若無此事 妾自伏罪 於是 大王不能不疑 將罪之 或謂好童曰 子何不自釋乎 答曰 我若釋之 是顯母之惡 貽王之憂 可謂孝乎 乃伏劍而死 論曰 今王信讒言 殺無辜之愛子 其不仁不足道矣 而好童不得無罪 何則 子之見責於其父也 宜若舜之於瞽 小杖則受 大杖則走 期不陷父於不義 好童不知出於此 而死非其所 可謂執於小謹而昧於大義 其公子申生之譬耶 十二月 立王子解憂爲太子 遣使入漢朝貢 光虎帝復其王號 是立武八年也
-- ran ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Everybody can see there is the king of nangnang Choi Ri 樂浪王崔理. There is no reasion for this page to be redirect because nobody have said that nangnang state is identical with nangnang commandery-- Hairwizard91 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Important record in Samguk Sagi
-->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)
--> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)
So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery.
If nangnang nation is same with lelang commandery, how were they destroyed two times?? This means that there were two distinct nangnang, which is nangnang nation and lelang commandery-- Hairwizard91 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The nangnang nation is definitely based on clear understanding of Samguk Sagi.
Consistently, Samguk Sagi uses 大守 for lelang commandery, and 王 for independent states. For example, when referring to rulers of lelang commandery, Samguk Sagi used this sentence.
王遣將, 襲<漢><遼東>西<安平縣>, 殺<帶方>令, 掠得<樂浪>大守??妻子
Hairwizard91: look, what you have here is fringe research, which has not been accepted by the academic community. Like I said, this has been based on one single word used in one single book. That book doesn't even say 樂浪國, it uses 王 which has many interpretations. Even the leaders of bandits and outlaws in the hills and forests of China liked to call themselves 大王. Unless there is more information about 崔理 and the history and lineage of his empire, the existence of "樂浪國" is a poor hypothesis at best.
Your logic about how Korean books don't use 王 and 皇 doesn't work either. Korea didn't use 皇 for ruler and 王 for governor, but Korean history books still follow if China used 皇帝 for emperor and 王 for governor. This is true in the past and it is true today.
You like to take about archaeological evidence. What evidence is there? For the tomb you mentioned, are there any texts inside that point to a separate state of Nangnang?
-- ran ( talk) 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there is sound theory that nangnang nation is identical with lelang commandery. Nobody can suggest the reasonable and logical theory about it. -- Hairwizard91 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so tell me, why does Samguk Sagi refer to, say, 漢光武帝? Doesn't that contradict what you said?
Also, you have never given any more details about the "tomb of Nangnang's king". What's inside it? Which year does it date from? What proves that it is a royal tomb? -- ran ( talk) 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What? You didn't even answer my question. Please do so in more detail.
It's also interesting to go through, for example, [6], and see how many books doubt the existence of Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. -- ran ( talk) 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question. Firstly, why does Samguk Sagi refer to 漢光武帝? Why not change it to 王? Second, what archeological evidence proves the independent political status of Nangnang? I'm not asking about separate cultural relics. -- ran ( talk) 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, so if a prince from China is called xyz王, wouldn't Korean history books follow the same logic and call him xyz王? -- ran ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm... The name in Samguk Sagi is 崔理. 里 means a town or neighbourhood, and 里王 would mean the prince of a town or neighbourhood. -- ran ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So by your logic, "里王" just means someone whose name is "Riwang". The 王 is taken for its pure phonetic value and has nothing to do with kings. -- ran ( talk) 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly the point I'm getting at. That's why you should not draw conclusions based on one single letter referring to 里王. -- ran ( talk) 15:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not obvious. But you just said that Idu is hard to interpret. So 里王 can mean:
Also, if its the case of 里 in Idu and 王 in Chinese, then 里王 would usually mean the prince of a place called Ri. To refer to a king whose name is Ri, it's usually the other way around: 王里.
In short, it is not obvious and you cannot make assertions based on just the name 里王, especially since Samguk Sagi refers to 崔理.
--
ran (
talk)
15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay... so tell me once again why 里王 cannot be:
-- ran ( talk) 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Consequently, the Korean king of independent state use 王 in Samguk Sagi. If you read Samguk Sagi, you can found that the local governor of 4 chinese commanderies uses 太守 consistently. -- Hairwizard91 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
More importantly see the following sentence from Sanguk Sagi
<好童>勸王襲<樂浪>. <崔理>以鼓角不鳴, 不備, 我兵掩至城下, 然後知鼓角皆破. 遂殺女子, 出降 -->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)
二十年, 王襲<樂浪>, 滅之. --> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)
So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery. If they were same nation, it cannot be destroyed two times... can it?
Hairwizard: the passage you quote is from the reign of Girim Isageum of Silla (基臨尼師今). He ruled from 298 to 310, but the Han Dynasty was already over in 220. These aren't even the same time period. Hence it has nothing to do with the Nangnang state you're positing. -- ran ( talk) 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is fine and we don't need to merge the two articles together. A paragraph of the connection between the two articles and links for them is sufficient. Good friend100 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In 三國史記 卷第二十一 高句麗本紀第九 寶臧王, there are several references to a prince of Tang China called 江夏王道宗. More specifically, his name was 李道宗 (Li Daozong), and his title was 江夏王 (Prince of Jiangxia).
The references:
This directly contradicts Hairwizard91's claim that in Korean books such as Samguk Sagi, 王 can only refer to sovereign kings. In this case, it is clear that Samguk Sagi, a Korean book, is using the word 王 to refer to a prince of Tang China, not a sovereign ruler. Hence, hairwizard91's assertion in the article is false. -- ran ( talk) 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What I showed is that not all of the occurrences of 王 in Samguk Sagi necessarily refer to kings. It is also used to refer to Chinese princes. Hence, your assertion of "Moreover, wang(王) is only used for a supreme ruler of an independent state in Korean history books because Korean history books do not used the concept of emperor such as 皇(huang)." is wrong.
Also, despite repeated requests, you have never explained what these archaeological are or why exactly they suggest an independent state. -- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
At that time(around 30AD when Choi Ri was destroyed by Goguryeo), the local governor of Lelang commandery was 王調 and 劉憲. Thus, it is obvious that the king Choi Ri is different person from Wangjo and Yuheon. Consequently, the Nangnang State is different from the Lelang commandery. In addition, Book of Later Han refer to the governor of the Lelang commandery as 太守 not king....Even 王 can be used for a local governor, Nangnang commandery governors was called as 太守.
後漢書, 初,樂浪人王調據郡不服。秋,遣樂浪太守王遵擊之,郡吏殺調降。遣前將軍李通率二將軍,與公孫述將戰於西城,破之。夏,蝗。秋九月庚子,赦樂浪謀反大逆殊死已下。 更始敗,土人王調 殺郡守劉憲,自稱大將軍、樂浪太守。建武六年,光武遣太守王遵將兵擊之。至遼東,閎與郡決曹史楊邑等共殺調迎遵,皆封為列侯,閎獨讓爵。帝奇而征之,道病卒。-- Hairwizard91 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what is the contradiction. 劉憲 was the governor in 25 AD, 王遵 was the governor in 30 AD, and 崔理 was the governor in 32 AD. -- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have already proven to you that 王 does not necessarily imply an independent ruler. Please go back and read what I posted again. -- ran ( talk) 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
集解張晏曰:「朝鮮有濕水、洌水、汕水,三水合為洌水,疑樂浪、朝鮮取名於此也。」索隱案:朝音潮,直驕反。
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
括地志云:「高驪都平壤城,本漢樂浪郡王險城,又古云朝鮮地也。」
集解徐廣曰:「昌黎有險瀆縣也。」 索隱韋昭云「古邑名」。 徐廣曰「昌黎有險瀆縣」。 應劭注「地理志遼東險瀆縣,朝鮮王舊都」。 臣瓚云「王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東」也。
This is cited from Shiji written by Sima Qian. The lelang commandery was located around the current Hebei(河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 may correpons to Hebei. It is sure that 河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 is not Pyongyang) (河北 昌黎 險瀆縣). So, the commandery cannot be located at Pyongyang. Consequently, the Nangnang that was located at Pyongyang is different from Lelang that was located at Liaoning. -- Hairwizard91 08:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said we aren't supposed to look at the 集解, because those are not primary sources? But lol, you realize one of the things you quoted was:
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
Also, according to 漢書 地理誌, 險瀆縣 is in 遼東郡, not 樂浪郡。
遼東郡,秦置。屬幽州。戶五萬五千九百七十二,口二十七萬二千五百三十九。十八:襄平。有牧師官。莽曰昌平。新昌,無慮,西部都尉治。望平,大遼水出塞外,南至安市入海。行千二百五十里。莽曰長說。房,候城,中部都尉治。遼隊,莽曰順睦。遼陽,大梁水西南至遼陽入遼。莽曰遼陰。險瀆,居就,室偽山,室偽水所出,北至襄平入梁也。高顯,安市,武次,東部都尉治。莽曰桓次。平郭,有鐵官、鹽官。西安平,莽曰北安平。文,莽曰文亭。番汗,沛,水出塞外,西南入海。沓氏。
樂浪郡,武帝元封三年開。莽曰樂鮮。屬幽州。戶六萬二千八百一十二,口四十萬六千七百四十八。有雲鄣。縣二十五:朝鮮,讑邯,浿水,水西至增地入海。莽曰樂鮮亭。含資,帶水西至帶方入海。黏蟬,遂成,增地,莽曰增土。帶方,駟望,海冥,莽曰海桓,列口,長岑,屯有,昭明,高部都尉治。鏤方,提奚,渾彌,吞列,分黎山,列水所出。西至黏蟬入海,行八百二十里。東暆,不而,东部都尉治。蠶台,華麗,邪頭昧,前莫,夫租。
-- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would encourage those parties who are citing Classical Chinese text to make use of {{ linktext}}, for the benefit of those of us whose command of hanja is a trifle shaky. Using that template, the above text "樂浪郡,武帝元封三年開" becomes " 樂 浪 郡, 武 帝 元 封 三 年 開." Nifty, eh? However, this would also be a good time to remind everyone of WP:NOR and WP:RS, which strongly discourage the use of primary sources, especially where their interpretation is subject to dispute. -- Visviva 09:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not missing anything, the following points are not in dispute regarding the "State of Nangnang" theory:
In view of the above, it seems clear that:
Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In the above link, there is a section that discusses Nangnang.
"232년동안 평양을 중심으로 해서 낙랑국이라는 나라가 있었어요."
The above can translate into "The Nangnang nation existed for 232 years, located in Pyongyang".
Good friend100 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Hyung Il Pai of UC Santa Barbara, because of North Korea's juche ideology, North Korean scholars started to fabricate these stories in the late 1940's. I think this should be mentioned in the article also. Hyung Il Pai says [8]:
Hyung Il Pai details his ideas in Constructing Korean origins: Archaeology, historiography and racial myth in Korean state formation theories pub. Asia Center, Harvard University Press-2000.
Regarding how
juche afects archaeology, the book Archaeology of Asia, by Miriam T. Stark, pub. 2005 Blackwell Publishing,
ISBN
1405102136 says (see bottom of page 46)
[9]....
Apparently juche is the reason why North Korean scholars have to deny that Lelang/Nangnang was a Chinese commandery and/or colony in the Pyongyang area.-- Endroit 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1. There is no lelang commandery in the primary source of chinese four commandery.
In shiji, The son of Roin is sent for conciliation of Joseon people so that the 成巳(last king of Gojoseon after Ugeo is dead) is murdered. And then 4 commandery is established. (相路人之子最 告諭其民, 誅成巳, 以故遂定朝鮮, 爲四郡.)
2. After Shiji described the 4 chinese commandery, the name of four commandery is added after about 200 years. Some of them are comment of Shiji.
Ju(注) says that Heomdok險瀆縣 in Liaodong遼東 is the capital city of Gojoseon. Shinchan臣瓚 says that the capital city of Gojoseon is located at the east of Lelang commandery樂浪郡. (應* 注 地理志 遼東險瀆縣, 朝鮮王舊都. 臣瓚云 王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東也)
Consequently, the lelang commanderies must be located at the west of Liaodong, which corresponds to Liaoning. So, the artifact or relics in Pyongyang can not be the relics of Lelang.
However, Samguk sagi says that the existence of nangnang nation at the south of Goguryeo, which corresponds to the current North Korea.
Therefore, it is so obvious that nangnang nation exited around pyongyang, and the location of lelang should be described that it was located around Liaoning.
I can show much primary source that the capital city of gojoseon is located at Liaodong, and the lelang commandery is also located around the capital city of gojoseon in Chinese history books-- Hairwizard91 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the source I posted? 險瀆縣 was not even in 樂浪郡, it was in 遼東郡. -- ran ( talk) 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The source you yourself posted says:
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
-- ran ( talk) 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See this (from Shiji)
正義: 地理志云 浿水出遼東塞外, 西南至樂浪縣西入海. 浿普大反
This shows that 浿水, where the captial city of joseon was located, corresponds to Lelang. And this lelang is located at Liaodong. --
Hairwizard91
05:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See this book, History of Korean: from Gojoseon to posteria three kingdoms, ISBN 8958620528 -- Hairwizard91 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
State of Nangryang? I suggest we move this article to State of Nangryang. The Korea 낙랑 should be translated to "Nangryang". Its not "낭낭", which would be then "Nangnang". I believe that the article should be moved.
I know this is really trivial, but don't you think "Nangnang" just sounds so corny? Good friend100 03:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Hairwizard91 has been making the same kind of revisionist edits to Wiman Joseon. -- ran ( talk) 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hairwizard91: do not remove content from talk pages. -- ran ( talk) 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm sure people who're interested in the Nangnang discussion may also be interested in a discussion on the location of the capital city of Wiman Joseon. After all, the two issues are closely related. -- ran ( talk) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
正義音致。
漢使楊信於匈奴。
是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡,而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。
漢又西通月氏、大夏,又以公主妻烏孫王,以分匈奴西方之援國。
又北益廣田至胘雷為塞,而匈奴終不敢以為言。
是歲,翕侯信死,漢用事者以匈奴為已弱,可臣從也。
楊信為人剛直屈彊,素非貴臣,單于不親。
單于欲召入,不肯去節,單于乃坐穹廬外見楊信。
楊信既見單于,說曰:「即欲和親,以單于太子為質於漢。」
單于曰:「非故約。故約,漢常遣翁主,給繒絮食物有品,以和親,而匈奴亦不擾邊。今乃欲反古,令吾太子為質,無幾矣。」
匈奴俗,見漢使非中貴人,其儒先,以為欲說,折其辯;其少年,以為欲刺,折其氣。
每漢使入匈奴,匈奴輒報償。
漢留匈奴使,匈奴亦留漢使,必得當乃肯止。
正義即玄菟、樂浪二郡。
正義今肅州。
是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡,而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。
This says that Hyungdo(玄菟) and Lelang(樂浪) was located at the current 甘肅省, 肅州.-- 68.75.25.47 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
集解孔安國曰:「碣石,海畔之山也。」
集解徐廣曰:「海,一作『河』。」索隱地理志云「碣石山在北平驪城縣西南」。
太康地理志云「樂浪遂城縣有碣石山,長城所起」。
又水經云「在遼西臨渝縣南水中」。
蓋碣石山有二,此云「 夾右碣石入于海」,當是北平之碣石。
It is so obvious that Lelang commandery is in Liaoning and Nangnang nation is in current Pyongyang.-- Hairwizard91 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
燕地尾、箕之分野。
召公封於燕,後三十六世與六國俱稱王。
東有漁陽、右北平、遼西、遼東;
西有上谷、代郡、鴈門;
南有涿郡之易、容城、范陽;
北有新成、故安、涿縣、良鄉、新昌及渤海之安次,樂浪、玄菟亦宜屬焉。
Yan燕 was located at the south of Lelang. If Lelang is located at current Pyongyang, Yan should have been located at current South Korea, but this is not true. So, Lelang was located at Liaoning -- Hairwizard91 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of primary sources say that the location of Lelang commandery was around Liaoning. So, the Nangnang state in Pyongyang different from Lelang commandery. Also, there is secondary sources so that this is not original research. Consequently, this page can neither be redirect nor removed. -- Hairwizard91 06:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To Visviva, This site [13] may help you to understand the difference between the nangnang relics and chinese relics if you can read korean scripts. This is the outline of the book published in North Korea about nangnang relics-- Hairwizard91 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is another article that Pai wrote and that is germane to the topic: Pai, Hyung Il. 1989. Lelang and the 'Interaction Sphere': An Alternative Approach to Korean State Formation. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8(1):64-75.
사실, 우리는 기본적으로 똑 같은 마음이 있어서, 도움 되지않는 짓을 합지맙시다, 응?? 웃기는 말 그만 하자, 응? To me, Korean history, archaeology, and so many other things are fun. But this is not fun AT ALL. I will attempt to help out with this problem, if I am needed. However, this is not fun at all. I do not think this is the kind of inclusive and friendly philosophy that Jimbo Wales and the others are talking about. Let's make it fun and respect each other ^^. Kiss and make up (Smooch). Have a great day! -- Mumun 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Nangnang commandery was establisehd after Wiman Joseon was destroyed by Han dynasty at 108BC, and China established the Chinese commandery where Wiman joseon was destroyed. There are many relics in Pyonyang that seems to be contructed at about 108BC, and chinese and japanese historians say that these relics were developed after Chinese culture was imported by the Chinese commandery. So, Pai says in her book (published at year 2000) that the state of Korean cannot be earlier than 108 BC. If she were right or there were no state in korea before 108BC, what is the wiman joseon that Han dynasty had destroyed ? Did Han dynasty destroyed a bogus state? Are all the historical records of China about Korean history fake?? Her theory is based on only relics so that her theory cannot be concrete and objective. Thus, it is not good source to be cited for the history of nangnang commandery and nangnang state. -- Hairwizard91 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I can guess what you are going to say about state or kingdom... Nangnang was a small nation such like Dongye, Okjeo, Samhan. So, I made this article as Nangnang nation, but someone has moved to State of Nangnang. I also could not get her book... -- Hairwizard91 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Finally I can get her book. I am the first borrower of this book. Nobody have checked it out... haha This book seems to be a bound volume of her previous paper and add a few chapters even though I have not read it very carefully. She provides other historical theories about Nangang or Lelang including Yoon and North Korean histoirans, and then she explained her thoery because her thoery is based on the assumption that there is no nangnang nation. So, she just explained the relation between Lelang, goguryeo, samhan and Wa. I think this is not good source for nangnang state, but is a good source about cultural interconnection by lelang commandery. -- Hairwizard91 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the State of Nangnang page were merged into Lelang Commandery on 15 July 2007 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The most reliable source that the Nangnang nation is different from the Nangnang commandery can be found in Samguk Sagi[3], and as follows. In the story of the prince of Goguryeo, Hodong, and the princess of the Nangnang nation, a king named Choi Ri is described. If the Nangnang nation were identical with the Nangnang commandery, the king Chio Ri should have been described as a governor general. However, the most reputable source of Korean history says that it is the king of Nangnang. This implies that the Nangnang was a independent state.
This is the most reliable source for the existence of Nangnang "nation" separate from Nangnang Prefecture? No primary sources, no contemporary evidence of any sort -- just the use of one word from one place in Samguk Sagi?
If there are no objections, I will redirect this page to Lelang commandery. -- ran ( talk) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-- Hairwizard91 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, NPOV states that views should not be given undue weight, not that they should be presented with equal time and emphasis. That the Western Han Dynasty created Lelang (Nangnang) Commandery in Pyongyang is the academic consensus up to now; that Lelang Commandery and Nangnang Nation are separate is a theory put forth recently by Yun Nae-hyeon, which has so far not found consensus in the wider academic community. This is why "Nangnang nation" should be a redirect to "Lelang commandery", and Yun Nae-hyeon's theory should be presented as being based on one interpretation of a single passage in a historical text, against other historical texts that place Lelang Commandery established by the Western Han Dynasty in Pyongyang.
Yun Nae-hyeon's theory is based on this passage from Samguk Sagi.
夏四月 王子好童 遊於沃沮 樂浪王崔理出行 因見之 問曰 觀君顔色 非常人 豈非北國神王之子乎 遂同歸以女妻之 後好童還國 潛遣人告崔氏女曰 若能入而國武庫 割破鼓角 則我以禮迎 不然則否 先是 樂浪有鼓角 若有敵兵則自鳴 故令破之 於是 崔女將利刀 潛入庫中 割鼓面角口 以報好童 好童勸王襲樂浪 崔理以鼓角不鳴 不備 我兵掩至城下 然後知鼓角皆破 遂殺女子 出降
More specifically, the theory is based on one interpretation of the word 王 as used in 樂浪王. However, the title 王 was used by not only independent rulers like the King of Goguryeo, but also by subjects of the Western Han Dynasty. The Western Han Dynasty maintained a system of regional princes (called 王), each with several commanderies under his control (after the Wu Chu Rebellion this was reduced to one commandery per prince). In addition, the Han Dynasty allowed and in fact authorized regional governors to use the word 王:
史記 卷一百十六 西南夷列傳第五十六
元封二年,天子發巴蜀兵擊滅勞洸、靡莫,以兵臨滇。滇王始首善,以故弗誅。滇王離難西南夷,舉國降,請置吏入朝。於是以為益州郡,賜滇王王印,複長其民。
In short, the word 王 does not imply an independent country.
It is also intriguing how 崔理 (Choe Ri), the only known sovereign ruler of the supposed Nangnang state, does not appear anywhere else, nor is there any kind of information on his ancestors or descendents, or the general lineage of the supposed ruling family of Nangnang.
Also -- please explain how the tomb implies the separate existence of a Nangnang nation?
Finally, the very title Nangnang nation does not follow conventional naming standards in the English language or on the English Wikipedia. " Nation" itself is a politically charged word and implies nationalism. We usually use "State of -" or "- (state)", for example State of Chu, State of Qin.
-- ran ( talk) 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way, you must answer my question about the describing the lelang in Shiji. Shiji may be the primary source of chinese commanderies. -- Hairwizard91 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Why would the use of the word 王 be different in China and Korea? If a Korean historian wanted to refer to 吳王 or 楚王 in the Western Han Dynasty, would he have used some other word instead?
Also, I don't need to answer your question about Shiji. There are many secondary sources putting Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. Can you find me a single unambiguous secondary source, before Sin Chaeho, separating Lelang Commandery from independent Nangnang? Or perhaps some information on which ruler created the state of Nangnang and what the lineage between him and Choe Ri was?
"Independent" Nangnang is a theory put forward based on a single word in Samguk Sagi, a word that has multiple definitions, not all of which conflicts with traditional understanding of the history of the Han Dynasty. This article needs to reflect that. -- ran ( talk) 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not a matter of "fairness", I already explained that NPOV is about giving weight when it is due, not about equal time. Also, if you think I'm misunderstanding the word 王, then tell me again: who were the 吳王 or 楚王 of the Western Han Dynasty? Were they independent? Would a Korean historian refer to them in some other way? -- ran ( talk) 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
For 吳王 or 楚王, see Rebellion of the Seven States. It was a rebellion started by 吳王, 楚王, 趙王, 膠東王, 膠西王, 濟南王, 淄川王, who were all princes of the Western Han Dynasty. Each one governed one or several commanderies. I've also given the example of 滇王 above, please read it again.
Samguk Sagi was written in Classical Chinese by the Korean elite, which was familiar with traditional Chinese texts, like histories. Why would they be unaware of this use of the word 王? If a Korean historian is to refer to 吳王, 楚王, etc, what would they have used instead, according to you? -- ran ( talk) 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I already explained who 吳王 and 楚王 were! They were not independent rulers. The Han Dynasty had regional governors also called 王. -- ran ( talk) 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so why does Samguk Sagi use 帝 for, say, 漢光武帝? Why not 漢光武王? Korean historians use Korean titles for Korean people, but they aren't just going to change all of the Chinese titles of Chinese people to Korean titles as well! When they want to refer to (say) 吳王 and 楚王, they aren't going to change it to 吳汗 and 楚汗, and when they write 漢光武帝 they're not just going to change it to 漢光武王. Similarly, if a governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, a Korean history book isn't going to change it to 樂浪汗, because such a thing never existed.
-- ran ( talk) 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But like I said, if Lelang Commandery of Han China was in Pyongyang, and its governor was called 樂浪王, then Korean books would still refer to him as 樂浪王. They wouldn't just change the name of a Chinese official.
As for Choi, well, 崔 (Cui) is a Chinese name as well. The Cui Family has a home page as well: [2] -- ran ( talk) 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How can you just assert that 樂浪王 is a king of a Korean state when there is no other evidence for the existence of such a state? Also, since I've already shown that 王 was used in China for governors, and that Korean books used Chinese titles for Chinese people, how can you discount the possibility that 樂浪王 was a governor of Han China? If the governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, then Korean books would follow as well.
There are no sources that I know of that list the governors of Lelang Commandery. So it's not possible to prove or disprove, in this way, whether there were any governors with the last name 崔. But like I said, there is no evidence for the existence of a State of Nangnang, nor a 崔 family ruling it, other than that one single interpretation of that one single place.
-- ran ( talk) 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
When does the tomb date from? Why is it a royal tomb? Which part of the tomb suggests that it was 樂浪王 in particular, and not the 王 of some other state? -- ran ( talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, I take it that you agree that 樂浪王 may also be a Chinese governor? -- ran ( talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I no longer want to redirect. This is why I created this version: [3]. Is there anything in it that you disagree with? -- ran ( talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
But I already mentioned them, I simply rephrased them. You can see in my version that:
If anything, my version presents Shin's theory even more forcefully and in a more organized way than the original.
So would you be ok with reverting this article to this version [4]? -- ran ( talk) 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
My version presents the Nangnang theory first, before going into the rebuttal. Would you be okay with reverting it then? -- ran ( talk) 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I did start from the original version, and all I did was to rephrase what was already there. Compare the two version again -- what do you think are the things that I removed and should be put back? -- ran ( talk) 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This whole article should be merged to Joseon Sanggosa. This story/legend does not appear to be supported by any primary sources.-- Endroit 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears in Samguk Sagi. Samguk Sagi is most reputable source of Korean history. It is also very weird that the nangnang state is merge to Joseon Sangosa. Nangnang state is an ancient korean nation, and joseon sangosa is history book. In addition, the Nangnang state has acheological evidence. It is not mythical nation. -- Hairwizard91 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The passage is in 三國史記 高句麗本紀 卷第十四 大武神王
The complete passage:
十五年 春三月 黜大臣仇都逸苟焚求等三人爲庶人 此三人爲沸流部長 資貪鄙 奪人妻妾牛馬財貨 恣其所欲 有不與者即鞭之 人皆忿怨 王聞之 欲殺之 以東明舊臣 不忍致極法 黜退而已 遂使南部使者鄒素 代爲部長 素既上任 別作大室以處 以仇都等罪人 不令升堂 仇都等詣前 告曰 吾儕小人 故犯王法 不勝愧悔 願公赦過 以令自新 則死無恨矣 素引上之 共坐曰 人不能無過 過而能改 則善莫大焉 乃與之爲友 仇都等感愧 不復爲惡 王聞之曰 素不用威嚴 能以智懲惡 可謂能矣 賜姓曰大室氏 夏四月 王子好童 遊於沃沮 樂浪王崔理出行 因見之 問曰 觀君顔色 非常人 豈非北國神王之子乎 遂同歸以女妻之 後好童還國 潛遣人告崔氏女曰 若能入而國武庫 割破鼓角 則我以禮迎 不然則否 先是 樂浪有鼓角 若有敵兵則自鳴 故令破之 於是 崔女將利刀 潛入庫中 割鼓面角口 以報好童 好童勸王襲樂浪 崔理以鼓角不鳴 不備 我兵掩至城下 然後知鼓角皆破 遂殺女子 出降 【或云 欲滅樂浪 遂請婚 娶其女 爲子妻 後使歸本國 壞其兵物】 冬十一月 王子好童自殺 好童 王之次妃曷思王孫女所生也 顔容美麗 王甚愛之 故名好童 元妃恐奪嫡爲太子 乃讒於王曰 好童不以禮待妾 殆欲亂乎 王曰 若以他兒憎疾乎 妃知王不信 恐禍將及 乃涕泣而告曰 請大王密候 若無此事 妾自伏罪 於是 大王不能不疑 將罪之 或謂好童曰 子何不自釋乎 答曰 我若釋之 是顯母之惡 貽王之憂 可謂孝乎 乃伏劍而死 論曰 今王信讒言 殺無辜之愛子 其不仁不足道矣 而好童不得無罪 何則 子之見責於其父也 宜若舜之於瞽 小杖則受 大杖則走 期不陷父於不義 好童不知出於此 而死非其所 可謂執於小謹而昧於大義 其公子申生之譬耶 十二月 立王子解憂爲太子 遣使入漢朝貢 光虎帝復其王號 是立武八年也
-- ran ( talk) 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Everybody can see there is the king of nangnang Choi Ri 樂浪王崔理. There is no reasion for this page to be redirect because nobody have said that nangnang state is identical with nangnang commandery-- Hairwizard91 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Important record in Samguk Sagi
-->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)
--> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)
So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery.
If nangnang nation is same with lelang commandery, how were they destroyed two times?? This means that there were two distinct nangnang, which is nangnang nation and lelang commandery-- Hairwizard91 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The nangnang nation is definitely based on clear understanding of Samguk Sagi.
Consistently, Samguk Sagi uses 大守 for lelang commandery, and 王 for independent states. For example, when referring to rulers of lelang commandery, Samguk Sagi used this sentence.
王遣將, 襲<漢><遼東>西<安平縣>, 殺<帶方>令, 掠得<樂浪>大守??妻子
Hairwizard91: look, what you have here is fringe research, which has not been accepted by the academic community. Like I said, this has been based on one single word used in one single book. That book doesn't even say 樂浪國, it uses 王 which has many interpretations. Even the leaders of bandits and outlaws in the hills and forests of China liked to call themselves 大王. Unless there is more information about 崔理 and the history and lineage of his empire, the existence of "樂浪國" is a poor hypothesis at best.
Your logic about how Korean books don't use 王 and 皇 doesn't work either. Korea didn't use 皇 for ruler and 王 for governor, but Korean history books still follow if China used 皇帝 for emperor and 王 for governor. This is true in the past and it is true today.
You like to take about archaeological evidence. What evidence is there? For the tomb you mentioned, are there any texts inside that point to a separate state of Nangnang?
-- ran ( talk) 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there is sound theory that nangnang nation is identical with lelang commandery. Nobody can suggest the reasonable and logical theory about it. -- Hairwizard91 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, so tell me, why does Samguk Sagi refer to, say, 漢光武帝? Doesn't that contradict what you said?
Also, you have never given any more details about the "tomb of Nangnang's king". What's inside it? Which year does it date from? What proves that it is a royal tomb? -- ran ( talk) 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What? You didn't even answer my question. Please do so in more detail.
It's also interesting to go through, for example, [6], and see how many books doubt the existence of Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. -- ran ( talk) 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
You still haven't answered my question. Firstly, why does Samguk Sagi refer to 漢光武帝? Why not change it to 王? Second, what archeological evidence proves the independent political status of Nangnang? I'm not asking about separate cultural relics. -- ran ( talk) 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, so if a prince from China is called xyz王, wouldn't Korean history books follow the same logic and call him xyz王? -- ran ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm... The name in Samguk Sagi is 崔理. 里 means a town or neighbourhood, and 里王 would mean the prince of a town or neighbourhood. -- ran ( talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
So by your logic, "里王" just means someone whose name is "Riwang". The 王 is taken for its pure phonetic value and has nothing to do with kings. -- ran ( talk) 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Exactly the point I'm getting at. That's why you should not draw conclusions based on one single letter referring to 里王. -- ran ( talk) 15:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it is not obvious. But you just said that Idu is hard to interpret. So 里王 can mean:
Also, if its the case of 里 in Idu and 王 in Chinese, then 里王 would usually mean the prince of a place called Ri. To refer to a king whose name is Ri, it's usually the other way around: 王里.
In short, it is not obvious and you cannot make assertions based on just the name 里王, especially since Samguk Sagi refers to 崔理.
--
ran (
talk)
15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay... so tell me once again why 里王 cannot be:
-- ran ( talk) 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Consequently, the Korean king of independent state use 王 in Samguk Sagi. If you read Samguk Sagi, you can found that the local governor of 4 chinese commanderies uses 太守 consistently. -- Hairwizard91 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
More importantly see the following sentence from Sanguk Sagi
<好童>勸王襲<樂浪>. <崔理>以鼓角不鳴, 不備, 我兵掩至城下, 然後知鼓角皆破. 遂殺女子, 出降 -->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)
二十年, 王襲<樂浪>, 滅之. --> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)
So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery. If they were same nation, it cannot be destroyed two times... can it?
Hairwizard: the passage you quote is from the reign of Girim Isageum of Silla (基臨尼師今). He ruled from 298 to 310, but the Han Dynasty was already over in 220. These aren't even the same time period. Hence it has nothing to do with the Nangnang state you're positing. -- ran ( talk) 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The article is fine and we don't need to merge the two articles together. A paragraph of the connection between the two articles and links for them is sufficient. Good friend100 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In 三國史記 卷第二十一 高句麗本紀第九 寶臧王, there are several references to a prince of Tang China called 江夏王道宗. More specifically, his name was 李道宗 (Li Daozong), and his title was 江夏王 (Prince of Jiangxia).
The references:
This directly contradicts Hairwizard91's claim that in Korean books such as Samguk Sagi, 王 can only refer to sovereign kings. In this case, it is clear that Samguk Sagi, a Korean book, is using the word 王 to refer to a prince of Tang China, not a sovereign ruler. Hence, hairwizard91's assertion in the article is false. -- ran ( talk) 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What I showed is that not all of the occurrences of 王 in Samguk Sagi necessarily refer to kings. It is also used to refer to Chinese princes. Hence, your assertion of "Moreover, wang(王) is only used for a supreme ruler of an independent state in Korean history books because Korean history books do not used the concept of emperor such as 皇(huang)." is wrong.
Also, despite repeated requests, you have never explained what these archaeological are or why exactly they suggest an independent state. -- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
At that time(around 30AD when Choi Ri was destroyed by Goguryeo), the local governor of Lelang commandery was 王調 and 劉憲. Thus, it is obvious that the king Choi Ri is different person from Wangjo and Yuheon. Consequently, the Nangnang State is different from the Lelang commandery. In addition, Book of Later Han refer to the governor of the Lelang commandery as 太守 not king....Even 王 can be used for a local governor, Nangnang commandery governors was called as 太守.
後漢書, 初,樂浪人王調據郡不服。秋,遣樂浪太守王遵擊之,郡吏殺調降。遣前將軍李通率二將軍,與公孫述將戰於西城,破之。夏,蝗。秋九月庚子,赦樂浪謀反大逆殊死已下。 更始敗,土人王調 殺郡守劉憲,自稱大將軍、樂浪太守。建武六年,光武遣太守王遵將兵擊之。至遼東,閎與郡決曹史楊邑等共殺調迎遵,皆封為列侯,閎獨讓爵。帝奇而征之,道病卒。-- Hairwizard91 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see what is the contradiction. 劉憲 was the governor in 25 AD, 王遵 was the governor in 30 AD, and 崔理 was the governor in 32 AD. -- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have already proven to you that 王 does not necessarily imply an independent ruler. Please go back and read what I posted again. -- ran ( talk) 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
集解張晏曰:「朝鮮有濕水、洌水、汕水,三水合為洌水,疑樂浪、朝鮮取名於此也。」索隱案:朝音潮,直驕反。
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
括地志云:「高驪都平壤城,本漢樂浪郡王險城,又古云朝鮮地也。」
集解徐廣曰:「昌黎有險瀆縣也。」 索隱韋昭云「古邑名」。 徐廣曰「昌黎有險瀆縣」。 應劭注「地理志遼東險瀆縣,朝鮮王舊都」。 臣瓚云「王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東」也。
This is cited from Shiji written by Sima Qian. The lelang commandery was located around the current Hebei(河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 may correpons to Hebei. It is sure that 河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 is not Pyongyang) (河北 昌黎 險瀆縣). So, the commandery cannot be located at Pyongyang. Consequently, the Nangnang that was located at Pyongyang is different from Lelang that was located at Liaoning. -- Hairwizard91 08:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said we aren't supposed to look at the 集解, because those are not primary sources? But lol, you realize one of the things you quoted was:
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
Also, according to 漢書 地理誌, 險瀆縣 is in 遼東郡, not 樂浪郡。
遼東郡,秦置。屬幽州。戶五萬五千九百七十二,口二十七萬二千五百三十九。十八:襄平。有牧師官。莽曰昌平。新昌,無慮,西部都尉治。望平,大遼水出塞外,南至安市入海。行千二百五十里。莽曰長說。房,候城,中部都尉治。遼隊,莽曰順睦。遼陽,大梁水西南至遼陽入遼。莽曰遼陰。險瀆,居就,室偽山,室偽水所出,北至襄平入梁也。高顯,安市,武次,東部都尉治。莽曰桓次。平郭,有鐵官、鹽官。西安平,莽曰北安平。文,莽曰文亭。番汗,沛,水出塞外,西南入海。沓氏。
樂浪郡,武帝元封三年開。莽曰樂鮮。屬幽州。戶六萬二千八百一十二,口四十萬六千七百四十八。有雲鄣。縣二十五:朝鮮,讑邯,浿水,水西至增地入海。莽曰樂鮮亭。含資,帶水西至帶方入海。黏蟬,遂成,增地,莽曰增土。帶方,駟望,海冥,莽曰海桓,列口,長岑,屯有,昭明,高部都尉治。鏤方,提奚,渾彌,吞列,分黎山,列水所出。西至黏蟬入海,行八百二十里。東暆,不而,东部都尉治。蠶台,華麗,邪頭昧,前莫,夫租。
-- ran ( talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I would encourage those parties who are citing Classical Chinese text to make use of {{ linktext}}, for the benefit of those of us whose command of hanja is a trifle shaky. Using that template, the above text "樂浪郡,武帝元封三年開" becomes " 樂 浪 郡, 武 帝 元 封 三 年 開." Nifty, eh? However, this would also be a good time to remind everyone of WP:NOR and WP:RS, which strongly discourage the use of primary sources, especially where their interpretation is subject to dispute. -- Visviva 09:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not missing anything, the following points are not in dispute regarding the "State of Nangnang" theory:
In view of the above, it seems clear that:
Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
In the above link, there is a section that discusses Nangnang.
"232년동안 평양을 중심으로 해서 낙랑국이라는 나라가 있었어요."
The above can translate into "The Nangnang nation existed for 232 years, located in Pyongyang".
Good friend100 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
According to Hyung Il Pai of UC Santa Barbara, because of North Korea's juche ideology, North Korean scholars started to fabricate these stories in the late 1940's. I think this should be mentioned in the article also. Hyung Il Pai says [8]:
Hyung Il Pai details his ideas in Constructing Korean origins: Archaeology, historiography and racial myth in Korean state formation theories pub. Asia Center, Harvard University Press-2000.
Regarding how
juche afects archaeology, the book Archaeology of Asia, by Miriam T. Stark, pub. 2005 Blackwell Publishing,
ISBN
1405102136 says (see bottom of page 46)
[9]....
Apparently juche is the reason why North Korean scholars have to deny that Lelang/Nangnang was a Chinese commandery and/or colony in the Pyongyang area.-- Endroit 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
1. There is no lelang commandery in the primary source of chinese four commandery.
In shiji, The son of Roin is sent for conciliation of Joseon people so that the 成巳(last king of Gojoseon after Ugeo is dead) is murdered. And then 4 commandery is established. (相路人之子最 告諭其民, 誅成巳, 以故遂定朝鮮, 爲四郡.)
2. After Shiji described the 4 chinese commandery, the name of four commandery is added after about 200 years. Some of them are comment of Shiji.
Ju(注) says that Heomdok險瀆縣 in Liaodong遼東 is the capital city of Gojoseon. Shinchan臣瓚 says that the capital city of Gojoseon is located at the east of Lelang commandery樂浪郡. (應* 注 地理志 遼東險瀆縣, 朝鮮王舊都. 臣瓚云 王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東也)
Consequently, the lelang commanderies must be located at the west of Liaodong, which corresponds to Liaoning. So, the artifact or relics in Pyongyang can not be the relics of Lelang.
However, Samguk sagi says that the existence of nangnang nation at the south of Goguryeo, which corresponds to the current North Korea.
Therefore, it is so obvious that nangnang nation exited around pyongyang, and the location of lelang should be described that it was located around Liaoning.
I can show much primary source that the capital city of gojoseon is located at Liaodong, and the lelang commandery is also located around the capital city of gojoseon in Chinese history books-- Hairwizard91 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the source I posted? 險瀆縣 was not even in 樂浪郡, it was in 遼東郡. -- ran ( talk) 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The source you yourself posted says:
高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城,即古朝鮮地,時朝鮮王滿據之也。
-- ran ( talk) 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See this (from Shiji)
正義: 地理志云 浿水出遼東塞外, 西南至樂浪縣西入海. 浿普大反
This shows that 浿水, where the captial city of joseon was located, corresponds to Lelang. And this lelang is located at Liaodong. --
Hairwizard91
05:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
See this book, History of Korean: from Gojoseon to posteria three kingdoms, ISBN 8958620528 -- Hairwizard91 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
State of Nangryang? I suggest we move this article to State of Nangryang. The Korea 낙랑 should be translated to "Nangryang". Its not "낭낭", which would be then "Nangnang". I believe that the article should be moved.
I know this is really trivial, but don't you think "Nangnang" just sounds so corny? Good friend100 03:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Note that Hairwizard91 has been making the same kind of revisionist edits to Wiman Joseon. -- ran ( talk) 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Hairwizard91: do not remove content from talk pages. -- ran ( talk) 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Because I'm sure people who're interested in the Nangnang discussion may also be interested in a discussion on the location of the capital city of Wiman Joseon. After all, the two issues are closely related. -- ran ( talk) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
正義音致。
漢使楊信於匈奴。
是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡,而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。
漢又西通月氏、大夏,又以公主妻烏孫王,以分匈奴西方之援國。
又北益廣田至胘雷為塞,而匈奴終不敢以為言。
是歲,翕侯信死,漢用事者以匈奴為已弱,可臣從也。
楊信為人剛直屈彊,素非貴臣,單于不親。
單于欲召入,不肯去節,單于乃坐穹廬外見楊信。
楊信既見單于,說曰:「即欲和親,以單于太子為質於漢。」
單于曰:「非故約。故約,漢常遣翁主,給繒絮食物有品,以和親,而匈奴亦不擾邊。今乃欲反古,令吾太子為質,無幾矣。」
匈奴俗,見漢使非中貴人,其儒先,以為欲說,折其辯;其少年,以為欲刺,折其氣。
每漢使入匈奴,匈奴輒報償。
漢留匈奴使,匈奴亦留漢使,必得當乃肯止。
正義即玄菟、樂浪二郡。
正義今肅州。
是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡,而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。
This says that Hyungdo(玄菟) and Lelang(樂浪) was located at the current 甘肅省, 肅州.-- 68.75.25.47 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
集解孔安國曰:「碣石,海畔之山也。」
集解徐廣曰:「海,一作『河』。」索隱地理志云「碣石山在北平驪城縣西南」。
太康地理志云「樂浪遂城縣有碣石山,長城所起」。
又水經云「在遼西臨渝縣南水中」。
蓋碣石山有二,此云「 夾右碣石入于海」,當是北平之碣石。
It is so obvious that Lelang commandery is in Liaoning and Nangnang nation is in current Pyongyang.-- Hairwizard91 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
燕地尾、箕之分野。
召公封於燕,後三十六世與六國俱稱王。
東有漁陽、右北平、遼西、遼東;
西有上谷、代郡、鴈門;
南有涿郡之易、容城、范陽;
北有新成、故安、涿縣、良鄉、新昌及渤海之安次,樂浪、玄菟亦宜屬焉。
Yan燕 was located at the south of Lelang. If Lelang is located at current Pyongyang, Yan should have been located at current South Korea, but this is not true. So, Lelang was located at Liaoning -- Hairwizard91 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of primary sources say that the location of Lelang commandery was around Liaoning. So, the Nangnang state in Pyongyang different from Lelang commandery. Also, there is secondary sources so that this is not original research. Consequently, this page can neither be redirect nor removed. -- Hairwizard91 06:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
To Visviva, This site [13] may help you to understand the difference between the nangnang relics and chinese relics if you can read korean scripts. This is the outline of the book published in North Korea about nangnang relics-- Hairwizard91 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is another article that Pai wrote and that is germane to the topic: Pai, Hyung Il. 1989. Lelang and the 'Interaction Sphere': An Alternative Approach to Korean State Formation. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8(1):64-75.
사실, 우리는 기본적으로 똑 같은 마음이 있어서, 도움 되지않는 짓을 합지맙시다, 응?? 웃기는 말 그만 하자, 응? To me, Korean history, archaeology, and so many other things are fun. But this is not fun AT ALL. I will attempt to help out with this problem, if I am needed. However, this is not fun at all. I do not think this is the kind of inclusive and friendly philosophy that Jimbo Wales and the others are talking about. Let's make it fun and respect each other ^^. Kiss and make up (Smooch). Have a great day! -- Mumun 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Nangnang commandery was establisehd after Wiman Joseon was destroyed by Han dynasty at 108BC, and China established the Chinese commandery where Wiman joseon was destroyed. There are many relics in Pyonyang that seems to be contructed at about 108BC, and chinese and japanese historians say that these relics were developed after Chinese culture was imported by the Chinese commandery. So, Pai says in her book (published at year 2000) that the state of Korean cannot be earlier than 108 BC. If she were right or there were no state in korea before 108BC, what is the wiman joseon that Han dynasty had destroyed ? Did Han dynasty destroyed a bogus state? Are all the historical records of China about Korean history fake?? Her theory is based on only relics so that her theory cannot be concrete and objective. Thus, it is not good source to be cited for the history of nangnang commandery and nangnang state. -- Hairwizard91 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I can guess what you are going to say about state or kingdom... Nangnang was a small nation such like Dongye, Okjeo, Samhan. So, I made this article as Nangnang nation, but someone has moved to State of Nangnang. I also could not get her book... -- Hairwizard91 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Finally I can get her book. I am the first borrower of this book. Nobody have checked it out... haha This book seems to be a bound volume of her previous paper and add a few chapters even though I have not read it very carefully. She provides other historical theories about Nangang or Lelang including Yoon and North Korean histoirans, and then she explained her thoery because her thoery is based on the assumption that there is no nangnang nation. So, she just explained the relation between Lelang, goguryeo, samhan and Wa. I think this is not good source for nangnang state, but is a good source about cultural interconnection by lelang commandery. -- Hairwizard91 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)