The Marmot’s Hole

11 Comments

1. Michael
   Posted November 25, 2005 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

   Thanks for the link. Just glancing at it, Hong’s studies seem to parallel Jared Diamond’s thesis on early migration from the Korean Peninsula to Japan.

2. snow
   Posted November 25, 2005 at 4:12 pm | Permalink

   So there might be something to the ‘lecture’ one of my students gave in class about how Japanese royalty is descended from Paekche? Very interesting, though I didn’t like how the others were eating it up while espousing the usual anti-Japanese comments.

   It’s especially interesting that someone outside the ‘Korean academic community’ has given some attention to this professor’s work.

3. bishamon
   Posted November 26, 2005 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

   The Hydro agriculture for rice started around 1,000BC in Japan. Jomon Japanese weren’t just fisher/gatherers either with finding like 5,000 years old chestnut farming and traces of rice/wheat. This Korean professors isn’t well-informed, or just ignoring the few facts to justify his points it seems…

4. kushibo
   Posted November 26, 2005 at 6:14 pm | Permalink

   Bishamon, I’ve seen this argument convincingly made by a number of non-Koreans, some of them Japanese (though the sources I saw were not on-line).

   Do you have a link to that type of agriculture being around in Japan in 1000 B.C.?

5. Owen
   Posted November 27, 2005 at 2:59 am | Permalink

   I’m afraid that Prof. Hong is not that well respected among the Korean academic community or the Korean Studies community outside of Korea.

   That’s not to say that the historical development of the Korean peninsula and Japanese islands were not closely interlinked from very early on. I think it’s also pretty much universally accepted that there very close links between the Paekche royal family and Yamato (didn’t the Japanese emperor admit as much recently?). It’s just that Prof. Hong’s scholarship and methodology has been questioned.

6. nulji
   Posted November 27, 2005 at 4:41 am | Permalink

   ‘his methodology has been questioned…’

   by who? could you tell us?

7. nulji
   Posted November 27, 2005 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

   the blog that contains the article about professor hong indicates his work is taken seriously by reputable specialists of early korean and japanese history. he gives names and links.

   if we’re going to tarnish someone and say his methodology is questioned and/or not repected, proof should be given.

8. Michael
   Posted November 28, 2005 at 10:27 am | Permalink

   Well, Nulji, resounding silence from “Owen” on why Hong gets no respect…but I know Jared Diamond is respected, and he has a similar argument for early Korea-Japan interrelations:
   http://www.kimsoft.com/2004/japanese_roots.htm

   If you consider the theory of migration into N. America across the Bering Strait it’s not too far out to think people on the Korean Peninsula went into Japan and influenced the society there.

9. bishamon
   Posted November 28, 2005 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

   Jared Diamond’s Argument is nothing new, and in fact, it is the re-introduction of Namio Egami’s original works in 1948. But �Northern Conquerors to Yamato� theory is not supported at all in the modern day academics either, because it just cannot explain why the Yayoi to Yamato transition was already fully installed before the massive migration (�massive� means less than 8% of then-Japanese population) in the 5th century.

   In any case, �South Koreans� should know that when scholars write �Korea�s influence over Japan� in relations to Yayoi and Yamato, the word “Korea” mostlty refers to the Lelang commandery, the four protectorates of Han China based around present day Pyongyang.

   kushibo> http://www.soken.ac.jp/japanes.....ex_en.html
   http://www.t-net.ne.jp/~keally/yayoi.html
   http://sabletower.homestead.co...../jomon.htm

10. Owen
    Posted November 29, 2005 at 1:43 am | Permalink

    Oh hi, it’s “Owen” again. Funny how when I use my real name I get scare quotes. To see some criticism of Hong’s argumentation and methodology you can actually just look at his site where he has helpfully gathered a number of reviews of his previous work. In particular, I’d recommend looking at the review by Leon Serafim (Korean Studies 19) and the one by Jonathan Best (Journal of Japanese Studies 16:2). They are generally positive about his work (as I am by the way) but question whether a number of his arguments are totally convincing and point out problems with his presentation and style of argumentation.

    Although this part of Korean history is not my area of speciality, I would probably tend toward a more radical view than Hong’s. Namely that relations between the peninsula and the islands were probably very fluid in the first part of the first millennium and a simple one-way arrival of a single group from a single kingdom cannot possibly be the whole story of interaction between the various populations/polities/cultures of the area.

11. Michael
    Posted November 29, 2005 at 9:59 am | Permalink

    Hey Owen, sorry about the quotes–I use my real name too (really…). Good references, thanks. Frog in a well is a great site, by the way.