A Criticism of Edwin O. Reischauer’s Pronouncements on ...ijkh.khistory.org/upload/pdf/16-02.pdf · International Journal of Korean History (Vol.16 No.1, Feb. 2011) 25 A Criticism

International Journal of Korean History (Vol.16 No.1, Feb. 2011) 25

A Criticism of Edwin O. Reischauer’s Pronouncements

on Ancient Korea-Japan Relations

Choi, Jae-seok (Ch’oe Chaesŏk)*

Foreword

As is well-known, Edwin O. Reischauer was University Professor at Harvard and was United States Ambassador to Japan from 1961 to 1966. This paper aims to examine the ancient Korea-Japan relations as mentioned in his book entitled The Japanese (Charkes E., 1977, Tokyo: Tuttle), which is said to have been a best seller in the United States. Being an American best seller, the book is supposed to have been read widely all over the world as well as in Europe. Now, if that history book has distorted parts in it, chances are that most readers must have accepted that distortions as true without questioning. As a matter of fact, this book by Reischauer is no exception to the general rule among Japanese ancient historians' practices of historical distortions,1 at times even overshadowing them. Although it is more than thirty years since the book was first published, I couldn't sit idle by and just watch. That is why I have taken up my pen to write my paper. Including this paper, I have written four critical articles on Western scholarship on ancient Korean-Japanese relations.2

* Professor emeritus, Department of Sociology, Korea University

26 A Criticism of Edwin O. Reischauer’s Pronouncements on Ancient Korea-Japan Relations

On Ancient Burial Mounds On ancient Japanese burial mounds, Prof. Reischauer has this to say.

A 1 During the next three centuries (3rd, 4th, and 5th) many large burial mounds were built throughout the western two-thirds of the islands, suggesting considerable concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of a military aristocracy. (p. 42)

As seen in the above quotation from Reischauer's aforementioned book,

it seems he takes for granted that those ancient tombs belonged to privileged Japanese aristocracy, but I regret to say that nothing could be farther from the truth. If the cases of hitherto excavated burial chambers with a laterally attached entrance corridor with relics such as ceramic earthenware, U-lettered plow tops, harness, etc. were to be marked on a map of Japan, the whole Japanese islands would be covered with alien tombs. All relics excavated from so-called Japanese emperors' mausoleums were very similar to those unearthed from ancient tombs in the Korean Peninsula.3 It follows, therefore, that the ancient burial mounds were not of the privileged Japanese aristocracy but of the influential and powerful immigrants from the Korean Peninsula. In this connection, it is natural that we should be reminded of the fact that many place-names of ancient Japan were named after the ancient kingdoms of the Korean Peninsula - Silla, Baekje (Kudara), Kogurŏ, and Kaya.4 Those immigrants used to call various places by the names of their homelands - the village they lived in, the mountains they looked up at, bridges, Buddhist temples, posts, pastures, ferry stations, harbors, and what not. Examples include such place names as Shiragimura (Silla chon) or, Kudaramura (Paekche chon).

Choi, Jae-seok 27

Japan’s Political Milieu Up Till the Sixth Century In the first place, let's hear what Reischauer has to say about Japan's

political background until the sixth century. His avowals are the following B1, B2, and B3.

B 1 By the sixth century a group centered in the small Yamato

or Nara Plain, which lies across a range of hills a little to the east of Osaka, had established clear leadership over most if not all of western Japan.

B 2 Most of the land remained under the control of semi-autonomous tribal units called uji, which were bound to the ruling family of the Yamato group by mythological ties and real or fictitious bonds of kinship. (p. 42)

B 3 Our first clear view of the Japanese is offered by Chinese records of the third century A.D. They are described as having sharp class divisions and living by agriculture and fishing. They were divided into a hundred or more tribal units under female or male chieftains of semi-religious status. What the records call the “queen's country” had a certain hegemony over the others. The presence of women rulers suggest an originally matriarchal system, which fits well with the mythological tradition of the descent of the historical imperial line from the sun goddess. (p. 42)

Reischauer's pronouncements above may be summed up as follows:

(1) Before the sixth century (until the end of the fifth century) a powerful family existed in the Nara Plain to govern the whole western Japan.

(2) Uji, semi-autonomous tribal units inhabiting certain districts and sharing a common language and religion, administered most of the Japanese islands.


(3) Uji ostensibly had a strong tie with the ruling family of the Yamato group by bonds of kinship, real or imaginary.

(4) Uji was practically in charge of most of Japan. (5) According to the Chinese records, around the third century

there existed a hundred or more tribal units in the Japanese islands, and among the chieftains there were women rulers, which coincided with the myth that the Japanese imperial lineage began with the sun goddess Amaterasu Ohmikami.

As is indicated above, Reischauer is describing the history of Japan as

if writing a novel instead of a history. I have yet to find a historian describing Japan's history with such a fictional pen even among the Japanese historians. Clearly unfounded is his statement that in pre-sixth-century Japan’s semi-autonomous community of uji practically ruled Japan. According to a Japanese dictionary, uji was a unit of ancient Japanese ruling class5 inhabiting a certain districts and having a common language and religion.6 Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that an early form of the Korean language was spoken in ancient Japan.7

The third-century Wa (Japan) were divided into a hundred-odd small states. Males had tattooed faces and arms wearing a loin cloth consisting of cloths bound together with a string, as they didn't know how to sew, while women had a hole made in the middle of a square cloth for the head and put it on like a poncho, with disheveled hair, always walking barefoot, according to a Chinese record.8 Insisting obstinately, however, that the Chinese records do say that there were a “queen's kingdom” and “female rulers”, Reischauer tries to justify as a historical person Amaterasu Ohmikami that figures in the made-up Japanese mythology. He adds that the Japanese the Chinese records mention must have been the natives of the Japanese islands because they had various traits distinct from Korean immigrants. The Chinese record in question, however, only mentions there being a hundred or more small states, not even hinting at a “queen's kingdom” or “female rulers”.

As I mentioned earlier, since ancient Japan abounded with places

Choi, Jae-seok 29

named after Baekje (Kudara), Silla, Koguryŏ, and Kaya, it would be reasonable for a man of sense to regard those small states as so many settlements set up by the collective immigrants from the four kingdoms in the Korean Peninsula. Ancient Korean had good reason to emigrate from their war-torn countries to the islands of peace and no war just beyond the sea.

The middle of the fourth century which marked the beginning of the Kofun (ancient burial mounds) period saw mass immigration of Gaya people, and from the fifth century on a mass exodus of Baekje refugees immigrated to Japan in a series of waves.9 Although there is no record whatever of Gaya people administering Japan, the Nihonshoki abounds with records suggesting that Baekje administered Yamato-Wa (Japan) throughout the sixth century. 10 I regret to say, therefore, that the foregoing pronouncements of Reischauer's are so many fictions. Regarding Japan's political milieu preceding the sixth century I will deal with it in Korea-Japan Relations.

On So-Called Prince Shotoku On Prince Shotoku Prof. Reischauer maintains as follows:

C 1 From 593 to 622 the regent for his reigning aunt, he proved a great champion of the new religion and the continental civilization that accompanied it. (p. 43)

C 2 Shotoku himself wrote commentaries on Buddhist scriptures and erected Buddhist monasteries. One of them, the serenely beautiful Horyuji near Nara, is noted for having the oldest wooden buildings in the world and a wealth of beautiful Buddhist images dating from this period. (pp. 43-44)

C 3 Shotoku also dispatched embassies to the Chines capital to learn directly from this source of high culture, and he


began to copy Chinese political institutions and drafted a so-called “constitution,” embodying Buddhist and Chinese precepts. (p. 44)

Reischauer's avowals may be summed up as follows:

(1) From 593 to 622 Prince Shotoku became regent to the reigning Empress Suiko.

(2) Prince Shotoku authored Buddhist books and founded the Horyuji Temple.

(3) Prince Shotoku sent embassies to Tang China to directly import advanced Chinese political institutions, drafting the “Seventeen-Article Constitution.”

Now let's examine whether or not Reischauer's pronouncements are

valid. In the first place, the Horyuji Temple is known to have been constructed by Baekje people,11 so Prince Shotoku can never take the credit for erecting the celebrated monastery. According to the Nihonshoki, The Seventeen-Article Constitution was promulgated in April 604 (Suiko 12th year). Now Reischauer declares Prince Shotoku dispatched embassies to the capital of Tang China to copy Chinese political institutions. A moment's thought suffices to convince us Prince Shotoku is supposed to have sent his embassies long before 604. In point of fact, however, the Japanese court was unable to dispatch envoys to Tang China even as late as 657, 50-odd years later, due to the notoriously underdeveloped shipbuilding technology and poor navigation skills. In an entry for Saimei 3rd year the Nihonshoki says that the Japanese court sent their embassy to Tang China first to Silla to be allowed to accompany Silla's embassy to Tang. On Silla's refusal, the Japanese envoys had no choice but to return home, their mission unfulfilled. 12 It follows, therefore, that it was out of the question for Prince Shotoku to send embassies to Tang China to adopt Chinese political system long before the year of 604 when the spurious Seventeen-Article Constitution was

Choi, Jae-seok 31

reportedly promulgated. Tamura Encho, the most distinguished religious historian once remarked that Prince Shotoku was more of a legendary character than of a historical person. 13 At the same time, Tamura unequivocally declared that the Buddhism, scholarship, and art of Japan were all subject to Korean influence, not to Tang China,14 and clarified the following, presenting evidence.

(1) Ancient Japanese Buddhism cannot be grasped without

presupposing the history of Korea-Japan relations. (2) The Buddhism, scholarship, and art of Prince Shotoku's

days were established by the direct influence from ancient Korea, not from Sui China.

(3) All the culture of Prince Shotoku's days cannot outgrow ancient Korea's framework, remaining identical.

(4) The Japanese government of the Hakuho Period was positive in absorbing the Silla culture, not the Tang Chinese culture.

(5) The origins of the Hakuho art were in Silla, not Tang China. (6) The origins or background of the Buddhism of the Asuka

Period, the Hakuho Period, and the Nara Period were the ancient Buddhism of Korea, not of China.

(7) The task of reconstructing the Horyuji Temple cannot be comprehended apart from the cooperation of Silla folks.

Viewed in this light, Reischauer's statements in C 2 and C 3 turn out to

be unfounded, far from facts. Ishiwatari Shinichiro, Japan's most distinguished ancient historian,

investigated six different epigraphs only to find no trace of the actual existence of Prince Shotoku. In consequence, he published Prince Shotoku Was Non-Existent in 1992,15 claiming once and for all that ancient Japan was a state established by the immigrants who crossed over to Japan from the Korean Peninsula.


Sino-Japanese Relations Regarding Sino-Japanese relations Prof. Reischauer says as follows: (D

1 - D 9)

D 1 Already by the sixth century there had been a heavy flow of cultural influences into Japan from the nearby continent. Agriculture as well as bronze and iron were examples of this. But in the middle of the sixth century the flow quickened, and the Japanese became conscious of it in a way they had not been before. (p. 43)

D 2 In the next generation a group of innovators, seizing power at the court in the so-called Taika Reform of 645, pushed forward the borrowing of Chinese technology and institutions with increased vigor. The effort continued at full flood for almost two centuries more. (p. 44)

D 3 The first city to have much permanence was Heijo, or Nara, as it was later known. It was laid out in the Yamato Plain in the checkerboard pattern of the Chinese capital. Since it served as the seat of government from 710 to 784, the eighth century is commonly known as the Nara Period. (p. 46)

D 4 The Japanese also accepted the Chinese concept of an all-powerful monarchy, attempting to transform their native, semi-sacred leader into a secular ruler of the Chinese type. Ever since, the Japanese emperor has in theory had the dual character and functions of a religious leader of the native Shinto cults and the secular monarch of a Chinese-type state. (p. 45)

D 5 Despite the massive wave of influences that swept over the Japanese between the seventh and ninth centuries, they seem to have managed to retain a clear sense of their own identity. (p. 48)

Choi, Jae-seok 33

D 6 While political innovation lay at the heart of the borrowings from China, all of Japan's higher culture was affected. The scholarship, philosophy, and literature of China were much studied and deeply influenced styles of thought and even habits of life. There was a great surge forward in technology in such diverse fields as weaving, lacquer-ware, and metallurgy. (pp. 46-47)

D 7 It transformed Japan from a backward, tribal area into a full participant in the higher civilization of the Old World, modeled, even if imperfectly. (p. 45)

D 8 The Chinese since antiquity had seen their civilization as centering around the political unit, and the Japanese and other peoples of East Asia accepted this concept of the primacy of a unified political system. (p. 44)

D 9 The Japanese were lucky to be able to learn from China, then the most advanced nation in the world. (p. 47)

The above pronouncements of Reischauer's may be summed up as

follows:

(1) Until the end of the sixth century Chinese culture influenced the Japanese heavily.

(2) With the so-called Taika Reform of 645 the ruling class of Japan spurred on absorbing Chinese technology and institutions with renewed vigor.

(3) Japan's new capital Heijokyo with an orderly grid of streets was constructed in imitation of the Chinese capital.

(4) In the eighth century Japan introduced the Chinese monarchy. Ever since, the Japanese emperor has had the dual character of a religious leader of the native Shinto cults and of all-powerful monarch of a Chinese type.

(5) The massive wave of Chinese influences swept over the Japanese between the seventh and ninth centuries.


(6) The Japanese indiscriminately imported things Chinese - the scholarship, philosophy, literature and technology in weaving, lacquer ware, and metallurgy.

(7) Having imitated China thoroughly, Japan was transformed into a highly civilized society.

(8) In common with other peoples of East Asia, the Japanese accepted the Chinese concept of the primacy of a unified political system.

(9) The teacher of the Japanese culture and civilization was China, the most advanced nation in the world.

In short, what Reischauer avows boils down to this - from before the

sixth century through the ninth century the Japanese never deviated from their unqualified pro-Chinese tendencies. Let's examine whether or not his pronouncements are true. The Sino-Japanese relations are to be approached from the three angles of exchange of envoys between Japan, China, and Korea, the Chinese attitude toward the Japanese, and lastly what the Japanese brought back from Tang China.

As is clearly shown in the above Table 1, the dispatch of Japanese

envoys to Tang China was carried out negligibly few times, while the exchange of envoys between Japan and Korea (Silla) was much more frequent. It is brought home to us that the enactment of the Taiho Code, construction of the new capital Heijokyo (now Nara), foundation and reconstruction of the Horyuji Temple - all of these were smoothly carried out only with the assistance of Silla. Inasmuch as the construction of the Todaiji Temple was finished before the Japanese envoys were dispatched to Tang China, slight is the possibility that it was built under the influence of China. In other words, viewed from the light of envoy exchange between the three countries, Japan's enactment of the basic laws, construction of a new capital, and construction of a temple are presumed to have been made possible only under the influence of Silla, not China. Taking into consideration the Chinese disdainful way of dealing with the

Choi, Jae-seok 35

Japanese envoys and the fact that the Japanese envoys brought back home from Tang China next to nothing, Reischauer's avowals turn out to be unfounded. Concrete evidence to support my statement follows.16

(1) According to Japanese monk Jikaku (Ennin) who traveled in

Tang China. the position of Japanese envoys sent to Tang China was below that of Nanshokoku, a small state set up in Yunnan by Thai (Siamese) tribes. This is the entry for February 27, 839 of Jikaku's book, Account of a Pilgrimage to Tang in Search of Law.

<Table 1> Envoy Exchange between Japan, China, and Korea and Japan's Institutions

Japan's Institutions Japanese envoys

sent to China Japanese envoys sent to Silla

Silla envoys sent to Japan

The Taiho Code completed (700-701)

693. 3 695. 9 700. 5 - 700.10

697.10 - 698. 2 700.11 - 701 (?)

Basic Laws The Yoro Code legislated (715-721) 717. 3 - 718.10

712.10 - 713. 8 718. 5 - 719. 2 719. 8

714.11 - 715. 3

Construction of Fujiwarakyo (692 -694)

693. 3 690. 9 - 690.12 692.11 - 693. 2 693. 2 -

Construction of Heijokyo (708-710) 702. 6 - 704. 7 700. 5 - 700.10

703.10 - 704. 8 705.10 - 706. 1 709. 3 - 709. 6

Capital Transfer Construction of Heiankyo (793-794) 777. 6 - 778.10 779. 2 - 779. 8 779.10 - 780. 2

The Horyuji Temple founded (627) The Horyuji Temple reconstructed (at the end of the 7th century)

675. 7 - 676. 2 676.10 - 677. 6 681. 7 - 681. 9 684. 4 - 685. 5 687. 1 - 689. 1 693. 3 - 695. 9 -

679.10 - 680. 6 680.11 - 681. 8 681.10 - 682. 2 683.11 - 684. 3 684.12 - 685. 3 685.11 - 686. 5 687. 9 - 688. 2 689. 4 - 689. 7 690. 9 - 690.12 692.11 - 693. 7 697.10 - 698. 2

Buddhist Temples

Construction of the Todaiji Temple (743-752)

752. 3 - 753.12 (the 2nd ship) 742.10 - 752. 1


(2) Fujiwara no Tsunetsugu, Japanese Ambassador to Tang China, had presented a memorial to the emperor entreating for permission for monk Jikaku, whom he took to China, to sojourn in China four times in vain, when it was obtained at last through the kind offices of the Silla concession in Tang China.

(3) So severe was the surveillance of the Japanese Ambassador and his suite by the Chinese administrative authorities that their individual civil liberty was hardly sanctioned.

(4) The members of the Japanese Ambassador to Tang China were not free to buy Chinese goods in Changan, the metropolis.

(5) Of the seven Japanese missions to Tang China since 702 there was only one mission that managed to bring home some Chinese commodities.

(6) The Chinese commodities brought home were no more than five kinds - books, arrows, measuring rules, and musical instruments. Books were mainly on good manners, calendars, and musical books.

(7) Of the seven Japanese missions to Tang China from 702 through 838, only two missions of 777 and 838 made a survey report on Tang China respectively, the five missions failing to make any report on returning home.

(8) To illustrate : Judge Ono Shigeno, Japanese chief envoy, who left Japan in 777 and returned home the next year, gave the name and age of the Chinese emperor, the name of the prince, and that the Japanese era name Hoku 9th year corresponded to Tang Chinese Daireki 13th year. That was all in his report on returning home. Fujiwara no Kadonomaro, Japanese Ambassador to Tang China, who departed from Japan in 804 and returned home the next year, made a homecoming report which was no better. In it he gave the name and age of the Tang emperor, the number of

Choi, Jae-seok 37

his children, the name and age of the Crown Prince, the surname of the Empress Dowager, and that the Japanese era name Enreki 24th year corresponded to Tang Chinese Taigen 21st year. That was all he reported on Tang Chinese situation.

Korea-Japan Relations Prof. Reischauer's statements on Korea-Japan relations are as follows:

E 1 It started with a fight at the Yamato court over the acceptance of Buddhist images and beliefs as a magical system of equal or possibly greater power than the native Shinto. The supporters of Buddhism won out. (p. 43)

E 2 There were somewhat similar efforts, however, among other peoples in the penumbra of Chinese civilization, such as the Koreans and the tribal peoples of Manchuria. (p. 44)

E 3 An orchestral court music and dance were learned from China and Korea and still preserved in Japan as probably the world's oldest authentic music and dance tradition. (p. 47)

E 4 Starting around 200 A. D., Japan seems to have been overrun by waves of mounted invaders from the Korean Peninsula, or at least by cultural influences from Korea. (p. 42)

Although Reischauer does not give his sources, E 1 is a distortion of

the entry for October, Kinmei 13th year in the Nihonshoki. Originally, King Seong of Baekje sent Nori Sachigye, a Baekje official, to Japan to give directions to Emperor Kinmei that they believe in Baekje Buddhism. Though they had traditional Shinto worship, the Japanese finally came to believe in Buddhism in accordance with Baekje king's instructions.


Reischauer, however, left out Baekje King Seong's directions to the Japanese emperor.

Devoting much space to his pet theory that all institutions of Japan were imported directly from Tang China, Reischauer speaks slightingly of Koreans on the same level with the tribal peoples of Manchuria. Regarding an orchestral court music and dance, Reischauer admits the Japanese learned them from China and Korea, which is only partly true, because in the sixth and seventh centuries the Japanese were in no position to import Chinese culture directly. Nor is the statement in E 4 true that there was a country called Japan around 200 A. D., and that Japan was overrun by mounted invaders from the Korean Peninsula. Reischauer's statement is a slight variation of Egami Namio's assertion that around 200 A. D. an equestrian people invaded the Japanese islands to establish a kingdom in the fourth and fifth centuries.17 All of these are assertions unsupported by facts. Chiefly based on ancient burial mounds, Ishiwatari Shinichiro presents a well-grounded claim that from the mid-fourth century on Gaya people of the southern Korean Peninsula and from the end of the fifth century on an exodus of Baekje people settled in the Japanese islands to establish an ancient state there.18

Then what were Korea-Japan relations like? Let's look into Korea-Japan relations in the sixth century, which are recorded in detail in the Nihonshoki.

Korea-Japan Relations in the Sixth Century

King Muryeong of Baekje, who was on the throne from 501 to 522 A.

D. sent Baekje prince and the doctor of five Chinese classics to rule Yamato-Wa (Japan) where office rank system was not yet known. Once he had 40 horses, an endemic species, brought from Yamato-Wa. King Muryeong's administering Yamato-Wa was substantiated concretely by King Muryeong's mausoleum excavated at Kongju in 1971, with the findings of an epitaph and the coffin wood, a speciality of Japan.

King Seong of Baekje, succeeding to his father king's wishes, regularly

Choi, Jae-seok 39

dispatched Yamato-Wa-administering teams composed of scholars and experts in various field, introducing Baekje Buddhism for the first time. King Seong had more varied materials brought from Japan than did King Muryeong, e.g. on January 9, 554, he had 1000 sok of barley seed, 70 good horses, 10 ships, etc. brought from across the sea. (See Table 2.)

King Wideok, who took over and boosted his father King Seong's Buddhist policy towards Japan, erected temples and Buddha images in many places by dispatching Baekje officials, scholars, monks, temple carpenters and architects, sculptors of Buddha statues, etc. Of those structures the Kankoji Temple Asuka-tera which took eight years to build from 588 to 596 was the most representative. Moreover, King Wideok allowed the Japanese nun Zenshin and her company to learn Baekje Buddhism and discipline in Baekje and sent her back to live at the Hokoji Temple, at the same time erecting the Standing Kannon Statue at Yumedono of the Horyuji Temple, as is recorded in the Seiyosho.

Whereas King Muryeong started administering Yamato-Wa by

<Table 2> Army, Workers, and Munitions Baekje Kings had Requisitioned from Yamato-Wa

Classification Date

Horse Ship Barley Seed Arrow Bow Worker Army Weapon

512 (King Muryeong 12: Keitai 6) Apr. 6 40

546 (King Seong 26: Kinmei 9) Jan. 3 70 10

548 (King Seong 26: Kinmei 9) October 370

550 (King Seong 28: Kinmei 11) Feb. 10 30 gu

551 (King Seong 29: Kinmei 12) March 1000 seok

553 (King Seong 31: Kinmei 14) June 2 2 50 jang 50 gu

554 (King Seong 32: Kinmei 15) Jan. 9 100 40 1000

556 (King Wideok 3: Kinmei 17) January plenty Plenty


dispatching the doctor of five Chinese classics and others, and King Seong showed enthusiasm for propagating Baekje Buddhism, King Wideok had temples and Buddhist images made by sending temple architects, carpenters, expert tile and brazier makers, sculptors and painters of Buddhist images, etc. So even if there is no record substantiating that the Standing Statue of Savior Kannon at Yumedono of the Horyuji Temple was erected at King Wideok's orders, it goes without saying that the statue was made during King Wideok’s reign, not before that.19

It is a well-known fact that in 672 a Japanese fleet commanded by Baekje Prince Pung was annihilated by the Tang-Silla allied navy at Hakusukinoe (the mouth of the Kum River), thus failing to relieve Baekje. If three successive Baekje kings regularly dispatched administration teams consisting of scholars and technical experts to set up temples and to enshrine a Buddhist statue specially in memory of the deceased Baekje king, it becomes self-evident that Yamato-Wa belonged to Baekje's territorial extent as much as Baekje proper.

The Korea-Japan relations in the sixth century are marked by Baekje's drafting soldiers and requisitioning munitions from Yamato-Wa (Japan).

King Muryeong, King Seong, and King Wideok not only administered Yamato-Wa by sending Baekje officials and scholars for three years' tenure of office, which was later extended to seven years, but they also had “the fruits of administration” brought to Baekje. In contrast to King Muryeong and King Wideok who had materials brought from Yamato-Wa once respectively, King Seong requisitioned men, horses, weapons and provisions six times. To quote from the Nihonshoki, the contents are as follows.20

King Muryeong had in 512 (Muryeong 12th year) 40 horses brought from Yamato-Wa, and King Wideok had in 556 (Wideok 3rd year) unspecified number of horses and weapons brought, whereas King Seong mobilized 370 workers from Yamato-Wa to repair fortresses in 548 (Seong 26th year), in 551 (Seong 29th year) and in 550 (Seong 32nd year) requisitioned 1000 seok of barley seed and 1000 soldiers respectively; in

Choi, Jae-seok 41

546 (Seong 24th year) 70-odd horses and 10 ships, 30 gu of arrows; in 553 (Seong 31st year) 50 jang of bows, 50 gu (2500) of arrows. In this way the sixth century saw King Muryeong, King Seong and King Wideok requisitioning an army, horses, provisions, etc. from Yamato-Wa (Japan) which was under the dominion of Baekje. More than one hundred years later in the latter half of the seventh century the Japanese fleet under Baekje King P'ung's command fought with Tang-Silla combined navy. From the sixth century well into the seventh century Baekje would have men and munitions requisitioned from Japan whenever they were required.

The Samguk sagi (History of the Three Kingdoms) records that in July 554 (Seong 32nd year) King Seong of Baekje attacked Silla. Six months before, in January of 554 Baekje had an army, horses, ships and munitions requisitioned from Japan. So it is apparent that Baekje had prepared for the attack with the army and munitions collected from Japan.

Korea-Japan Relations in the Seventh & Eighth Centuries

Ever since 668, when defeated Baekje, i.e. Japan (Yamato-Wa) made

vast amount of reparations in kind to the Silla envoys sent to Japan, began the relations of the two countries (i.e. Japan and Silla).21 When Baekje's resistance army finally surrendered to Silla in 663, Baekje generals retreated to the Japanese islands to build up Baekje-style hillforts at strategic points at Tsushima, Tsukushi and the Inland Seas (the Setonaikai) in preparation against the likely invasion of Silla army.22 If it had not been for Baekje's dominion of Japan, Baekje could not have constructed Baekje hillforts, some of which still remain. If the pre-668 Japan was under the dominion of Baekje, the post-668 Japan remained under the dominion of Silla for the rest of the seventh century through the eighth century.

Silla sent its envoys to Japan three times - in November 685, in September 687, and in March 695 - to direct and guide Japan's national administration. On receiving the news of Silla King Hyoso's decease in October 703, the Japanese court presented Silla envoys with 2 pil of


Japanese brocade and 40 pil of silk for the expense of the Silla royal funeral.

In 706 the Japanese court sent an ambassador to Silla to report on building a new capital Heijokyo (now Nara) and to get Silla's go-ahead approbation, inviting Silla's ambassador for a visit at the same time. In 709 Silla sent Ambassador Kim Shin-bok to Japan. How important was Silla's approbation of Japan's transference to the new capital was evidenced by the Japanese court's dispatching welcoming delegates by land and sea as far as Tsukushi, Kyushu. In token of gratitude for Silla's approbation Japan presented Silla king 20 pil of silk, 30 pil of Mino brocade, 200 gu of threads, 150 don of cotton through the invited Silla ambassador. In March 710 when the court was moved to Heijokyo Japan sent an ambassador again to Silla as a token of thankfulness.

Although the capital was transferred from Fujiwarakyo to Heijokyo in March 710, some workers on their way back home after three years of construction work starved to death on the road. Even after the transference to Heijokyo the construction work was not finished completely. In October 712 when the construction was nearly finished, Michinokimi Obito, Japanese Ambassador to Silla, of the Junior Fifth Court Rank, reported to Silla Queen Sŏndŏk on the court moving to Heijokyo, returning home in August 713. Thereupon, in November 714 Silla sent Ambassador Kim Weon-jeong accompanied by 20-odd envoys, to give formal approbation of Japan's new capital. With the express purpose of escorting the Silla delegation the Japanese government mobilized 990 cavalry from all over the land to be dispatched as far as Tsukushi on the 15th of the same month. On December 26 of the same year a Japanese high official led 170 mounted guards to the outskirts of Heijokyo to welcome the Silla delegation. Thus Kim Weon-jeong and his party were the first Silla embassies to pass the Shujaku-Dairo of Heijokyo. The Shujaku-Dairo was the widest road leading to the royal palace direct from the south used by foreign delegation formally invited by the emperor. In token of gratefulness for Silla's approbation of Heijokyo, the Japanese court presented the Silla embassies with no less than 5,450 don of cotton

Choi, Jae-seok 43

and a ship.23 What I have observed so far were the actual circumstances of ancient

Korea-Japan relations. Viewed from this angle, the pronouncements of Reischauer's that ancient Japan unconditionally accepted Chinese culture directly without an intermediary are far from the truth, for as the pre-668 Japan was altogether under the dominion of Baekje, so was the post-668 Japan totally under the dominion of Silla till the end of the eighth century. That Japan absorbed various institutions of Tang China in those centuries was possible as a wishful fact, but there is no record whatever to support the idea.

Conclusion Despite the proven fact that the ancient burial mounds extant in Japan

were the tombs of the influential immigrants from the Korean Peninsula, Reischauer insists they were the tombs of Japanese natives. Despite the established fact that the period preceding the sixth century was the era when a series of mass exodus of immigrants from Gaya and Baekje settled in the Japanese islands, Reischauer insists that there were semi-autonomous tribal units of natural growth. Notwithstanding that Prince Shotoku was a fictitious figure, Reischauer maintains that he was a historical person who founded the Horyuji Temple.

Again, regardless of the fact that from before the sixth century until the end of the eighth century Japan was under the dominion of Korea-Baekje in pre-668 years and Unified Silla after that, and that what little culture they had they sucked up from Korea, Reischauer declares in a gross distortion of historical facts that the Japanese absorbed Tang culture and civilization extensively and single-mindedly.

It is now an open secret that massive influxes of immigrants with highly advanced civilization and culture from Korea settled in the Japanese islands among unlettered natives living off fish and marine products. Entirely ignoring this fact, Reischauer misrepresents ancient


Korea-Japan relations in an outrageous manner. I have read more than one historian who distorts ancient Korea-Japan

relations, but I haven't come across one who avers with such self-assurance things so far away from the truth. I heartily recommend Prof. Reischauer’s readers to turn their eyes to the accounts in the Nihonshoki on Korean immigrants settling in the Japanese islands to found a new state, to investigate if Koreans and the Japanese share the same DNA, which the Japanese are unwilling to look into, and to take notice of the fact that ancient place-names of Japan were named after Korean kingdoms, most of which were renamed in recent ages, only a few still remaining.

Keywords : Edwin O. Reischauer, The Japanese, ancient Korea-Japan relations, historical distortions, ancient Japanese burial mounds, Prince Shotoku, Nihonshoki, Korean immigrants, place-names of Yamato-wa

Notes :

1 Almost all of Japanese ancient historians misrepresent the history of ancient Korea-Japan relations. The list of articles below is those in which I criticize only the most representative ones. 1) Choi, Jae-seok. “Suematsu Yasukazu ui Silla sanggosa bipan (A Criticism of

Suematsu Yasukazu's A History of Ancient Silla)”. Hangul hakbo 43 (1966). 2) Choi, Jae-seok. “Mishina Akihide ui hangug godaesa sinhwaron bipan (A Criticism

of Mishina Akihide's Ancient Korean Mythology)”. Minjok munhwa yeongu 20 (1987)

3) Choi, Jae-seok. “Imanishi Ryu ui hangug godaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Imanishi Ryu's Ancient Korean History)”. Hanguk hakbo 46 (1987).

4) Choi, Jae-seok. “Suematsu Yasukazu ui Ilbon godaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Suematsu Yasukazu's A History of Ancient Japan”). Hanguk hakbo 53 (1988).

5) Choi, Jae-seok. “Ikeuchi Hiroshi ui Ilbon sangdaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Ikeuchi Hiroshi's A History of Ancient Japan)”. Inmun nonjip 33 (1988).

Choi, Jae-seok 45

6) Choi, Jae-seok. “Oota Makoto ui Ilbon godaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Oota Makoto's A History of Ancient Japan)”. Ilbonhak (Japanology) 8 & 9 Combined (1989).

7) Choi, Jae-seok. “Tsuda Sokichi ui Ilbon godaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Tsuda Sokichi's Ancient Japan)”. Minjok munhwa yeongu 23 (1989).

8) Choi, Jae-seok, “Kuroita Katsumi ui Ilbon godaesaron bipan (A Criticism of Kuroita Katsumi's A History of Ancient Japan)”. Jeongsin munhwa yeongu 38 (1990).

9) Choi, Jae-seok. “Hirano Kunio ui Ilbon godae jeongchi gwajeong yeongu (A Criticism of Hirano Kunio's A Study of Political Process in Ancient Japan)”, in Choi, Jae-seok ui Ilbon godaesa yeongu bipan (Choi, Jae-seok, Criticisms on The Studies on the History of Ancient Japan). (Seoul: Iljisa. 1990)

10) Choi, Jae-seok. “Suzuki Yasutami ui tongil Silla Balhae wa Ilbon ui gwangyesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Suzuki Yasutami's A Study of Unified Silla-Japan Relations)”. Jeongsin munhwa yeongu 50 (1993).

11) Choi, Jae-seok. “Nishina Akihide ui Nihonshoki yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Nishina Akihide's A Study of the Nihonshoki)”. Tongbang hakji 77, 78, 79 Combined (1993).

12) Choi, Jae-seok, “Tamura Encho ui godae Han-Il bulgyo gwangyesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Tamura Encho‘s A Study of the History of Ancient Korea-Japan Buddhist Relations)”, Minjok munhwa 19 (1996).

13) Choi, Jae-seok. “Suzuki Yasutami ui godae Han-Il gwangyesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Suzuki Yasutami's A Study of the History of Ancient Japan-Korea Relations)”. Minjokmunhwa 25 (2002).

14) Choi, Jae-seok. “Hayashi Yasuhiro ui Joseonsa bipan - godae Han-Il gwangyesa reul jungsim euro (A Criticism of Hayashi Yasuhiro's A History of Choson - Centering around ancient Korea-Japan Relations)”. Seonsawa godae 19 (2003).

15) Choi, Jae-seok. “Inoue Hideo ui godae Han-Il gwangyesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Inoue Hideo's A Study of the History of Ancient Korea-Japan Relations)”. Minjokmunhwa 26 (2003).

16) Choi, Jae-seok. “Tamura Encho ui godae Han-Il gwangyesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Tamura Encho's A History of Ancient Korea-Japan Relations)” in Choi, Jae-seok, Kodae Han-Il gwangyesa yeongu bipan (Criticisms of Studies on the History of Ancient Korea-Japan Relations). (Seoul: Gyeonginmunhwasa. 2009).

2 Choi, Jae-seok. “E. F. Fenollosa ui dongyang misulsa bipan - godae Han-Il gwangye reul jungsim euro (A Criticism of E. F. Fenollosa's A History of Oriental Fine Art - Centering around ancient Korea-Japan Relations),” Misulsa nonchong 16 & 17 Combined (2003); Choi, Jae-seok. “A Criticism of Ancient-Korean Japan Relations as


Seen inDietrich Seckel's The Art of Buddhism,” Bakmulgwanji 13 (2006); Choi Jae-seok. “A Criticism of John Whitney Hall’s Study on Ancient Korea-Japan Relations,” International Journal of Korean History 13 (2009). and Choi, Jae-seok. “John W. Hall ui Ilbonsa e natanan godae Han-Il gwangyesa bipan (A Criticism of John W. Hall's Ancient Korea-Japan Relations as Manifested in the History of Japan)”. op. cit. (Seoul: Gyŏngin munhwasa, 2009).

3 Mori Koichi. “Kyoshi no kofun bunka (Kofun Culture in kyoshi)” in Nazono kodai - kyo afumi (Mysterious Ancient Times - kyo Afumi) (1981). Ishino Hironobu. Kofun jidaishi (History of the Kofun Period). (Tokyo: Yuzankaku. 1990), 142

4 Chosen sotokufu Chusuin (Central Bureau, Chosen Government-General), Chosen no Ookokumi chinamel meishiko (A Study on Proper Nouns Related to Ancient Kingdoms of Korea), (1940).

5 Kojima Tamio (comp.), Kokugo jiten (Japanese Dictionary), (Tokyo: Shueisha. 1993), 142.

6 Kojima Tamio, op. cit., 1537. 7 Ishiwatari Shinichiro, Shotoku daishiwa inakatta (Prince Shotoku was Non-existent),

(Tokyo: Sanichi shobo, 1992), 25. 8 Jin shu(晋書), Woren zhuan(倭人傳). 9 Ishiwatari Shinichiro, Kudara kara toraishita ojin tenno (Emperor Ojin Who Crossed

Over from Kudara), (Tokyo: Sanichi shobo, 2001), 13. 10 Choi, Jae-seok. “Muryong wang kwa kuŭchunhu sidae ui Yamato-Wa kyongyong (King

Muryong and Yamato-Wa Administration circa that Period)”, Han’guk Hakpo Vol. 66 (1991)

11 Ito Chuta, Nihon kenchiku no kenkyu (A Study of Japanese Architecture) Vol. 1, (1942), 220-221. Choi,Jae-seok. “Muryeong wang gwa geu jeonhu sidae ui Yamata-wa gyeongyeong (King Muryeong and Yamato-wa Administration circa that period,” Hanguk hakbo 66 (1991).

12 Cf. The entry for Saimei 3rd year of the Nihonshoki. 13 Tamura Encho, Asuka hakuho bukyoshi (A History of AsukaㆍHakuho Buddhism) Vol.

1., (Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kobunkan, 1995), 154. 14 Choi, Jae-seok, Godae Han-Il bulgyo gwangyesa (A History of Ancient Korea-Japan

Buddhist Relations), (Seoul: Iljisa, 1998), 152. 15 Ishiwatari Shinichiro, Prince Shotoku Was Non-Existent. op. cit., 154. 16 Choi, Jae-seok. Godae Hanguk gwa Ilbon yeoldo (Ancient Korea and Japanese

Islands), (Seoul: Iljisa, 2000), 344-347. 17 Choi, Jae-seok. Ilbon godaesa yeongu bipan (A Criticism of Studies on Ancient History

of Japan), (Seoul: Iljisa, 1990), 189-194.

Choi, Jae-seok 47

18 Ishiwatari Shinichiro, Emperor Ojin Who Crossed Over from Kudara. op. cit., 13. 19 Choi, Jae-seok, “6 saegi ui Baekje e uihan Yamato-Wa gyeongyeong gwa Horyuji

Yumedono ui gwaneumsang (Administration of Yamato-Wa in the 6th century by Baekje and Kannon Statue at Yumedono),” Hanguk hakbo 109 (2002).

20 Choi, Jae-seok, “Godae Han-Il gwangyesa yeongu ui gibon sigak (Basic Angle of Studying the History of Ancient Korea-Japan Relations)”, Hanguk hakbo 112 (2003).

21 Choi, Jae-seok, Tongil Silla · Balhae wa Ilbon ui gwangye (The Relations between Unified SillaㆍBalhae and Japan), (Seoul: Iljisa, 1993), 272.

22 Choi, Jae-seok. Godae Hanguk gwa Ilbon yeoldo (Ancient Korea and the Japanese Islands), (Seoul: Iljisa, 2000), 192.

23 Choi, Jae-seok, The Relations between Unified Silla, Balhae and Japan, op. cit., 276-289.

†

Submission Date: 2010. 9. 10. Completion Date of Review: 2010. 10. 6. Accepted: 2011. 1. 31.


<Abstract>

A Criticism of Edwin O. Reischauer’s Pronouncements

on Ancient Korea-Japan Relations

Choi, Jae-seok

This paper aims to examine the ancient Korea-Japan relations as mentioned in the book entitled The Japanese, (Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, 1977). The book was written by Edwin O. Reischauer, University Professor at Harvard, who was United States Ambassador to Japan from 1961 to 1966. The book reflects the distorted view of Japanese historians who misrepresent the history of ancient Korea-Japan relations.

He insists that there were semi-autonomous tribal units of natural growth in Japan and the ancient burial mounds belonged to privileged Japanese aristocracy. But they were proven to be the tombs of the influential immigrants from the Korean Peninsula to Japanese islands. Notwithstanding that Prince Shotoku was a fictitious figure, Reischauer maintains that he was a historical person who founded the Horyuji Temple. Also he declares that the Japanese absorbed Tang culture and civilization extensively and single-mindedly.

But from before the sixth century until the end of the eighth century, Japan was under the dominion of Korea-Baekje (Paekche) in pre-668 years and Unified Silla after that. And it is now an open secret that massive influxes of immigrants with highly advanced civilization and culture from Korea settled in the Japanese islands among unlettered natives living off fish and marine products. They can be proven to the accounts in the Nihonshoki on Korean immigrants settling in the Japanese islands to found a new state. And ancient place-names of Japan were named after Korean kingdoms, most of which were renamed in recent ages, only a few still remaining.

Choi, Jae-seok 49

<국문초록>

Edwin O. Reischauer의 고대한일관계사 서술 비판

최재석(고려대학교 사회학과 명예교수)

이 논문은 하버드대학교 교수와 주일미국대사를 역임했던 라이샤워(Edwin O.

Reischauer)의 The Japanese(Tokyo: Charles E. Tuttle, 1977)에 서술되어 있는 고대한일관계를 고찰하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이 책은 고대한일관계사를 잘못 전달

하는 일본 역사가들의 왜곡된 견해를 반영하고 있다. 따라서 이 책을 비판적으로 살펴보는 것은 고대한일관계사를 객관적으로 이해하는 데에 일조할 것이다.

이 논문에서는 The Japanese에 서술되어 있는 왜곡된 고대한일관계사에 대해 다섯 가지 측면, 즉 일본의 고분, 6세기까지의 일본의 정치적 상황, 쇼토쿠타이

시(聖德太子), 일본과 중국 관계, 한국과 일본 관계의 측면에서 살펴보았다. 라이샤워는 일본 내에서 자생한 반자치적인 부족국가가 존재했다고 주장했다.

그리고 일본의 고분이 일본 특권계급의 무덤이라고 설명했다. 그러나 이는 한

국에서 일본으로 이주한 한국인 무덤인 것으로 입증되었다. 이와 더불어 쇼토

쿠타이시가 허구의 인물임에도 불구하고, 라이샤워는 그가 호류지(法隆寺)를 창건한 역사적 인물이라고 주장했다. 또한 일본이 당나라 문화와 문명을 광범위

하고 충실하게 받아들였다고 설명했다. 그러나 6세기 전부터 8세기 말까지의 한일관계를 살펴보면, 668년 이전까지

일본은 백제의 지배하에 있었으며, 그 이후에는 신라의 지배하에 놓여있었다. 그리고 고도의 문명과 문화를 지닌 한민족이 대량 이주하여 물고기와 해산물을 먹고사는 문맹의 토착민들이 살고 있는 일본에 정착한 것은 공공연한 사실이다. 그것은 새로운 영토를 찾기 위해 일본에 정착한 한민족 이주민들에 대한 『일본

서기』(日本書紀) 기록에서 입증된다. 그리고 일본의 고대 지명은 한국의 지명을 본 따 이름 지어졌다. 그것의 대다수는 최근에 개칭되었고, 단지 소수만이 여전

히 남아있다.

Documents

A Criticism of Edwin O. Reischauer’s Pronouncements on ...ijkh.khistory.org/upload/pdf/16-02.pdf · International Journal of Korean History (Vol.16 No.1, Feb. 2011) 25 A Criticism