The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[Drake Tungsten]

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

[siredgar]

Why China->Korea, but not Korea->Japan?

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

Dear Korea Watchers,

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

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

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

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

These are just tidbits.

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

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

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

Faithfully yours,

Sir Edgar

[siredgar]

Interesting tidbit...

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


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

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

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

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

[Drake Tungsten]

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

Korea heavily influenced Japanese civilization providing its roots.

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

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

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by ranskaldan
S. Kroeze:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yin26]

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

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

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

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

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

[ranskaldan]

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

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

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by ranskaldan

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

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

[Q Classic]

s. kroeze...

i'm getting tired of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[yin26]

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

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

[siredgar]

Q Cubed

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

[S. Kroeze]

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

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

Dear Yin26,

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

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

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

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

Sincere regards,

S.Kroeze

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

[siredgar]

Any evidence of this indigenous culture?

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


Dear Drake,

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Sir Edgar

[Drake Tungsten]

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

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

[siredgar]

Perhaps, you should extend your reading beyond one book?

Especially one that has in the title:

1. "BRIEF History"

and

2. Only the "Chinese and Japanese civilizations".

Hmmm?

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

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