Talk:Three Kingdoms of Korea

Archaeological evidence of the start of KTK period

This article is informative, has many strengths, and hits on a lot of the main points that one would want to mention about the Three Kingdoms. Yet Wikipedia articles should aim to be more balanced than this one. This article is biased too much toward historical interpretations that have very little basis in archaeological evidence. One startling example is the claim that highly developed state level societies had formed on the Korean peninsula before A.D. 0.

Archaeologists apply a set of strict theoretical guidelines derived from anthropology, ethnology, analogy, and ethnohistory to the concept of what defines a state-level society. For example the presence of urban centres (especially capitals), monumental architecture, ostentatious burials, writing or recording systems, bureaucracy, demonstrated political control of geographical areas that are usually larger in area than a single river valley, etc make up some of these correlates.

The best evidence from the vast archaeological record in Korea indicates that states formed on the Korean peninsula between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300/400. It is during this 'protohistoric' period that it is possible to find evidence of a few of these archaeological correlates. However, archaeologists are not prepared to suggest that this means there were states in the B.C. era. It is some time in the 4th century A.D. (A.D. 300-400) that many of the correlates of state societies coalesce to the point that state-level societies can be confidently identified using the copious and incredibly rich data provided by the many excavations that have taken place in Korea since the mid-20th century.

It may be possible to claim 'states' existed before A.D. 0, however, provided that some indication is given that one is referring to the the East Asian intellectual concept of guk (국 or 國) that is still actively discussed in the discipline of HISTORY. Guk is not the same as anthropological and archaeologically defined 'state-level societies'. For example, these are more similar to complex chiefdoms or even the Lee Ki-baek-esque "wall-town states". However, if this is the case in the current version of the text, it should be more clearly expressed.

We should be more critical of the textual evidence that is presented in the Samguk Yusa and Samguk Sagi. These texts are indispensibly useful and wonderful, but we should see those texts for what they really are.

My intention is not to upset the hard-working contributors who are doing an excellent job in the wonderful task of bringing Korean early history to the Wikiworld. I simply suggest that the article be re-written in parts to provide an archaeological perspective that exists alongside of the original historical perspective.

Sorry for the long-winded text.

Mumun 14:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi 삼국시대 꾼들,

Further to the above statement, I am currently in preparation of a new section that I would like to add on to this article. I would like to base it exclusively on archaeological evidence and make it brief but informative. Hundreds of excavations, many of them on a large-scale, are changing the face of what we know about the Three Kingdoms. This is a good thing largely because excavations act as a supplement to what we already know and can help us create a Braudelian 'thick description'. For example, major strides have been made in a new understanding of industrial-scale production of pottery, roof-tiles, and figurines in Silla. Additionally, as many of you are aware, the 신라왕경 (the heart of the Silla capital) is in in the process of being excavated, step-by-step year-by-year. It's going to take me a while to get things down to a tight paragraph, but in the meantime if their are any comments or suggestions, please leave them here or on my talk page. --Mumun 20:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started to add an archaeological perspectives section. I hope to add stuff about industrial sites, 5th and 6th century burials (and thus tie in with Heavenly Horse Tomb and many others), and other stuff. Not totally complete yet. Feel free to add! Mumun 02:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff! More please... Would be wonderful to have a whole full-length article surveying this topic. -- Visviva 15:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Goguryeo and Baekje Languages, Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean?

Regarding the statement that mentioned all 3 states sharing the same culture and language, it is useful to note that linguists have shown with the limited available evidence that the extinct Goguryeo language is cognate with Old Japanese, but no corresponding relationship has been established with the Korean language which derived from that of Silla. We also know that Goguryeo and Baekje both claimed descent from the old state of Buyeo, and that Baekje not only has ethnic similarities with Goguryeo but also has extensive links with Japan. It is entirely possible that All the 3 states of Goguryo, Baekje and Yamato Japan are all old Japonic states, and that modern Korea derived from Silla, which is ethnically more distant. As such it would also provide a good explanation of Japanese roots - i.e. that they really did come from the Korean peninsular. However, they were not the descendants of the present-day Koreans of Silla but rather descendants and cousins of the defunct states of Goguryeo and Baekje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeoic-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that the Japanese-like toponymes (place names) found in the central part of Korean peninsula don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language on the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.

• None of the Japanese-like toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated.
• Some Japanese-like toponymes (such as Japanese-like numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in southern part of Korean peninsula. Jagello (talk) 14:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that proto-Japonic people lived in the central and southern part of Korean Peninsula (including Jeju, a big southwestern Island where some elements of Japonic Language have survived) suggests that at least the linguistic ancestors of the Japanese-Ryukuan people (it may be worth considering the possibility that some of the Yayoi people were originated from the lower basin of Yangzi River) migrated from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago and made a important contribution to the formation of Yayoi culture in Japan. On the other hand, proto-Japonic people who remained on the peninsula were pushed to the south by proto-Korean peoples who expanded southwards from Manchuria into the peninsula and founded successively new small states which gradually developed into the Three Kingdoms of Korea, on the prehistoric Korean peninsula. Eventually indigenous proto-Japonic people on the central and southern Korean peninsula were assimilated into Koreanic peoples.

Jagello (talk) 07:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Three Kingdoms of Korea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110614021313/http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?VOLUMENO=43&BOOKNUM=4&PAPERNUM=2 to http://www.ekoreajournal.net/archive/detail.jsp?VOLUMENO=43&BOOKNUM=4&PAPERNUM=2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Two issues, although archive.org is okay, but (1) the bot added tags <ref>...</ref> which were not picked up by the {{reflist}}, and (2) apparently the cited site had a restructure of urls, and instead of using archive.org, merely repairing the {{deadlink}} with the current correct url would seem to be better. WurmWoode^T 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Three Kingdoms of Korea

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Three Kingdoms of Korea's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "chosun":

• From Samhan: 이덕일. "[이덕일 사랑] 대~한민국". 조선닷컴 (in Korean). Chosun Ilbo. Retrieved 2 July 2018.
• From North Korea and weapons of mass destruction: "How Powerful Was N.Korea's Nuke Test?". The Chosun Ilbo. February 14, 2013. Archived from the original on February 17, 2013. Retrieved February 17, 2013. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From Korean Wave: Korean Cultural Exports Still Booming, The Chosun Ilbo
• From Chuseok: Chosun Ilbo,2010, September 22
• From Korean sword: Ancient Art of Korea. Swords in Chosun Kingdom Archived 2015-07-25 at the Wayback Machine

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Scope of article

Hi @Dallcomm, I saw your edits and wanted to open up a general discussion about the scope of the article. Specifically, whether the article should be primarily about the period or the three kingdoms themselves.

Opening by saying I have no strong preference btw, just wanted to get your thoughts. I assumed the article was about the period because of the "About" template on the top of the page ("This article is about the time period in Korea.") I didn't add that template in myself btw.

My current thought is that the article should be primarily about the period and not about the three kingdoms themselves. Several reasons:

1. The Three Kingdoms article for China is about the period
2. The scope of the body of the article reads to me like it's about the period, and not like a list of each kingdom or a comparison between the kingdoms.
3. The kingdoms already have their own individual articles.
4. I'd argue having an article for the period is higher priority than having an article for the three states

toobigtokale (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

1. What another article does shouldn't matter imo. Each Wikipedia article should be its own thing. Read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_on_discussion_pages#What_about_other_content?

2. I don't see it that way at all. Also, the body is clearly a work in progress and requires a lot of work still.

3. As they should. Sorry, I don't see why that matters. I don't see why there can't be, for example, a "History of the Three Kingdoms period" article or a "Timeline of the Three Kingdoms period" article if you want to focus on the period.

4. This article should be an overview imo, like a central hub, and it should be about the kingdoms AND the period imo. The chronology of the period itself is debated btw. That's why I added the period is "traditionally" dated from yadda yadda. Dallcomm (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I can see how it could be made to focus on both; we should start by removing the "This article is about the time period in Korea" at the top. Again I have no strong feelings, but wanted to document the discussion here. Based on the original writing of the lead and that template I think others had different expectations. toobigtokale (talk) 05:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Date range?

I don't know much about ancient Korean history; can someone put at least an approx date range for the time period in the first paragraph of the lead and in the short description? toobigtokale (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This issue still stands toobigtokale (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)