Talk:Baekje/Archive 1

---

Fuyu

This article lack ethnic issue. Wher is Fuyu?

--210.230.7.103 06:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does it feel better now? – Wikipeditor 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Romanization

I renamed from Baekje to Paekche, since Google suggest Paekche is more common. Let me know if there is a reason to favor Baekje instead. -- Taku 02:00, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

Copy from Taku's talk page. This is the reasoning why the article is named Baekje.

Thank for a pointer. So do you think Baekje is correct than Paekche? -- Taku 02:09, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

백제 is spelled Baekje in the new South Korean romanization (Revised Romanization of Korea) and Paekche in the McCune-Reischauer romanization. I think we reached consensus on using the former except on North Korea-related articles. --Nanshu 02:17, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Shandong

I learned Shandong belonged to Baekje for a while. Is it true, or a Korean Nationalist's argument? I wanted know Chinese people's view. Ryuch 06:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never read anything to suggest that this was in dispute. However, I'm not very hip to Chinese history, and am ready to be corrected. I note that Jonathan W. Best, among the foremost Anglophone scholars of Baekje, avoids making an assertion one way or the other in his writings. -- Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to my professor, all claims of "Korean" realms stretching westward into what is now China actually boil down to trade relations or are speculative at best. – Wikipeditor 03:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

i think there is little controversy, given the archeological evidence, that gojoseon & goguryeo stretched well into manchuria & a bit west, & gando is another question. however, i haven't heard any serious contention that baekje stretched into shandong. Appleby 05:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have only heard third-hand accounts of such claims. The similarity of artefacts found on both sides of the sea alledgedly caused some nationalists to leap to conclusions. – Wikipeditor 21:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

What is appropriate for this section? I notice that the info about Baekje's contemporary symbolic significance in the local symbolism of Chungnam and Jeolla has been moved, as has the material on the contemporary symbolism of Japanese-Baekje relations. To me that content should be included in an encyclopedic treatment of Baekje, but should properly be restricted to the Legacy section. --Visviva 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I read it again. You are right. You are trying to say about the legacy. I think you could move that paragraph as you wish. -- Ryuch 06:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply, Ryuch. :-) -- Visviva 12:17, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oversea territories?

The boundaries of Baekje control shifted substantially through the centuries. According to Chinese chronicles, Baekje rule during the time of King Geunchogo extended to the Shandong peninsula in present-day China, but it's not clear. At this time Baekje controlled almost the entire coastline of the West Sea (or Yellow Sea). However, the area under Baekje control soon contracted under pressure from Goguryeo and Silla.

This demonstrates how Koreans treat history. They have an a priori conclusion. And they pick materials that are favorable for them. If they fail to find sufficient "evidences", they do not hesitate in interpretative distortion. They ignore things that conflict with their argument and they do not care about overall consistency.

This is the case! If you examine historical sources by yourself, you will certainly be surprised at the unsubstantiality of the Korean argument.--User:Nanshu

DISCLAIMER NOTICE

That is obviously a very inflammatory and biased argument. I don't know why you're so derogative towards Korean culture and history in general, but it seems to be that you are being pretty vague about your sources.

The "chinese chronichles" seems a little vague for citation, doesn't it?

Can i ask you if you're an expert on the subject of ancient Korean history?

Each side has an argument. The important thing is to not go patronizing.

-Sgt. Mikhail

Liaoxi

This article does not mention to an argument about Liaoxi, but I explain this in passing.

Quote from 宋書 列傳 夷蠻 東夷 百濟:

百濟國，本與高驪俱在遼東之東千餘里，其後高驪略有遼東，百濟略有遼西．百濟所治，謂之晉平郡晉平縣．

Quote from 梁書 列傳 諸夷 東夷 百濟:

其國本與句驪在遼東之東，晉世句驪既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣，自置百濟郡．

Quote from 南史 列傳 夷貊 東夷 百濟:

其國本與句麗俱在遼東之東千餘里，晉世句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡地矣， 自置百濟郡．

Quote from 通典 邊防 東夷 百濟:

晉時句麗既略有遼東，百濟亦據有遼西、晉平二郡．今柳城、北平之間．

These are virtually all about what "Chinese chronicles" say. Curiously Liang Zhigongtu, which is considered the source of the above-mentioned passage of Liangshu, says, "Lelang [NB: not Baekje] was at Jinbing prefecture of Liaoxi too." Maybe they are sufficient ground for those who have something decided from the beginning, but certainly not for sensible people. We need corroborative evidences but there is no such thing.

On the contrary, there are some grounds against this theory. The above-mentioned sources are of Southern Dynasties, which did not control Northern China, and so were unable to contact Liaoxi. If Baekje had controlled Liaoxi, it should have been recorded in Northern Dynasty records. But the Xianbei Murong clan, who actually ruled the land west of the Liao river, left no such description. So the majority of historians do not support this theory.

It may be worth nothing that some scholars search through possible explanations about the historical error. One claims that Baekje deceived Southern Dynasties, who were ignorant about the north, to seek support from them. Based on Liang Zhiqongtu, one argues that Baekje was confused with Lelang. Actually the Murong clan nominally maintained Lelang commandery in its domain after it disappeared from the Korean Peninsula around 313. One thinks that Baekje was confused with the Fuyu because Baekje's royal family was surnamed Fuyu and had some other Fuyu connections. Anyway, none of them has good grounds.

I do not agree that Baekje had any overseas territory, but I disagree with the second to last sentence. The Baekje royal family was connected with Buyeo, even renaming itself "Nambuyeo" meaning South-Buyeo.

Coastal area of Northern China

I don't know why Visvia wrote, "At this time Baekje controlled almost the entire coastline of the West Sea (or Yellow Sea)." Probably he added adverb "almost" and adjective "entire" just because they sounded nice. The Korean theory that Baekje controlled the coastal area of Northern China is based on the following passage from 南齊書 列傳 東南夷:

牟大又表曰：「臣所遣行建威將軍、廣陽太守、兼長史臣高達，行建威將軍、朝鮮太守、兼司馬臣楊茂，行宣威將軍、兼參軍臣會邁等三人，志行清亮，忠款夙著．往泰始中，比使宋朝，今任臣使，冒涉波險，尋其至險，宜在進爵，謹依先例，各假行職．且玄澤靈休，萬里所企，況親趾天庭，乃不蒙賴．伏願天監特愍除正．達邊?夙著，勤勞公務，今假行龍驤將軍、帶方太守．茂志行清壹，公務不廢，今假行建威將軍、廣陵太守．邁執志周密，屢致勤?，今假行廣武將軍、清河太守．」

This is the request of 490 from the king of Baekje to Emperor Wu of the Southern Qi. The king asked the emperor to bestow titles on his vassals. The request and the result are summarized as follows:

officials with requested titles	given titles
行建威將軍・廣陽太守 長史 高達	行龍驤將軍・帶方太守
行建威將軍・朝鮮太守 司馬 楊茂	行建威將軍・広陵太守
行宣威將軍・參軍 會邁	行廣武將軍・清河太守

Let's examine the above-mentioned place names first. Guangyang had been a commandery located at modern-day Daxing Country, Hebei. Taifang had been a commandery located in midwestern Korea. There were and had been no such thing as governor of Choaxian as Chaoxian had been a prefecture of Lelang commandery. Guangling was Jiangdu, Jiangsu, or Wenan, Hebei. Qinghe was a commandery located around Wanbing, Hebei.

So we get into the main question. Weren't these titles nominal? Certainly yes. They were given by a Southern Dynasty (again!). It couldn't rule or influence the area in question.

You are hopeless idiots if you believe Chinese were all substantial. For example, the Kingdom of Bohai was named after Bohai commandery because Bohai kings were given the title of the ruler of Bohai commandery by Tang Emperors. But where had Bohai commandery been? It had been located in Hebei, which the kingdom never dominated. Another example is King Bu of Wa. In 478 he was given by the Liang the following title 都督 倭 新羅 任那 加羅 秦韓 慕韓六國諸軍事 安東大將軍. Do supporters of the coastal area theory accept Japan's control over these regions on the same basis?

Shandong

The Korean theory that Baekje ruled Shandong is based on the title (yet again!) 都督東青州諸軍事・東青州刺史 , which was given to the king of Baekje by the Northern Qi in 571. In this case, the title giver was not a Southern Dynasty but actually controlled Shandong. But where was 東青州 in the first place? In 468 the Song Dynasty separated Dongqingzhou from Qingzhou (modern-day Shandong), but we cannot confirm that the Northern Qi had a political entity named Dongqingzhou. So it is also plausible that it was Baekje itself that was referred to as Dongqingzhou because Baekje was located to the east of Shandong! So the supporter of that theory have to prove not only the substantiality of this title but also the existence of the political entity, but they don't. --Nanshu 14:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You treat Koreans as though they all believed that Baekje ruled the western coast of China. Most Korean historian do not agree with the theory that Baekje at any time had control of any western part of China, and see it only as a "legend" or "heresay."

Thank you, Nanshu, for your (yet again) insulting and obsolete analysis of Korean history. Unless you have eyes that work properly, you should notice the fact that modern Korean historical documents merely cite the Shandong Peninsula as an area under Baekje influence, not under Baekje control. There's a subtle difference, unless you haven't noticed by now.

On added note, I would take this oppurtunity to ask you a simple question. When will you stop insulting the intelligence of Koreans and look back on your own country's deceit? I (along with most of East Asia) see Japan as nothing more than a rude, uncouth, insolent, arrogent, pompous snotrag of a country that holds a prominent face in front of the international community while fabricating so-called evidence to support their proposterously outrageous claims to foreign territory and history. Not only that, your country has attempted to glorify its past by inventing cock-and-bull tales of Amaterasu, ignoring Korean aid in the development of Japanese culture, and exalting its imperialist ambitions of 1910, which date back to 1592. And that, Nanshu, is much, much more than the pittance of distortion Korean historians have committed. --Leonhart

Nanshu, you are so anti-Korean, that you don't even stand up for Chinese issues such as the Diaoyu islands. I don't see you posting insults against the Japanese for "disagreeing" with your "views" of China in that area.

Takano no Niigasa

However, the close bonds between the two nations are not in dispute. The current emperor, Akihito, has acknowledged that he is descended from Emperor Kammu, whose mother was a direct descendant of King Muryeong of Baekje.

Actually, we cannot substantiate "the close bonds between the two nations" with Takano no Niigasa. Koreans' incredible ignorance caused a fuss about His Majesty's statement.

I burst out laughing when I read George Wehrfritz and Hideko Takayama's article at Newsweek that started with:

She was a daughter of Korea's Paekche kingdom, a foreign princess betrothed in a political marriage to a Japanese prince. ...

Terribly enough, it looks like this is their average perception. They didn't even know that Baekje was overthrown about 70 years before she became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe.

To make things straight, I have to talk about Takano no Niigasa. In short, she was a Cinderella, who achieved success by good fortune, not with "noble origin". She became a concubine of Prince Shirakabe around 730s and gave birth to Prince Yamabe (Emperor Kammu) in 737. At that time his husband Prince Shirakabe had almost no chance to assume the throne because he was a grandson of Emperor Tenji and was deprived of hegemony by Emperor Temmu's descendants. As of 737 he only had the rank of 従四位下. What was worse for her was that he got married with Princess Inoe, the daughter of Emperor Shomu, around 747. When Empress Shotoku died in 769, Prince Shirakabe was installed as Emperor Konin by the northern branch of the Fujiwara clan. But it was, of course, Prince Inoe who became Empress, and her son Prince Osabe became Crown Prince. At that time Takano no Niigata's son was almost impossible to succeed the throne. But it brought her luck again. Empress Inoe and Crown Prince Osabe was entrapped into deposition by another Fujiwara branch in 772. Then Prince Yamabe became Crown Prince in the next year, but his mother wasn't given the title of empress because of her humble origin. It was after Prince Yamabe's succession (as Emperor Kammu) that she was given imperial titles.

Now we learn that she was far from a "princess" at marriage. Next, let's examine her clan. She was from the Yamato clan (the surname Takano was given during Emperor Konin's reign). According to Shoku Nihongi, her clan originated in Prince Junda, the son of King Muryeong. The Meiji-era genealogist Suzuki Matoshi 鈴木真年 offered the following genealogy of the Yamato clan.

1. 武寧王
2. 斯我君 (武烈7年遣倭国, 純陀?)
3. 法師君
4. 雄蘇利紀君
5. 宇奈羅 (賜姓和氏)
6. 粟勝
7. 浄足
8. 武助
9. 弟嗣 (乙継)
10. 新笠姫 (賜姓高野朝臣, 母大枝朝臣真妹)

Its accuracy is questionable, but that doesn't really matter here. You need only be aware of the wide gap in time between King Muryeong and Takano no Niigasa. According to Nihonshoki, Prince Junda died (in Japan) in 513. It was more than 200 years before Takano no Niigasa was born, and she was the ninth generation resident of Japan. How can you demonstrate "the close bonds between the two nations" with her?

Lastly, we discuss the Emperor's statement. The Emperor did not "acknowledge" but just referred to Shoku Nihongi. Koreans treat it as if it had been hidden. The fact is that Koreans are hopelessly ignorant. Everyone can access to Shoku Nihongi and almost everyone who has basic knowledge on Japanese history knows that.

Curiously, the Emperor has made similar "kinship" references. When referring to Okinawa, the Emperor mentioned that the Emperor's grandmother was from the Shimazu clan, who had controlled Okinawa. [1] The imperial family has a history long enough for its members to feel kinship with the people whenever necessary. --Nanshu 14:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So what? Your reference to Japanese records only bolsters the Korean claim that Akihito is descended from King Muryeong. It doesn't matter how distantly Emperor Kammu's wife was related to Muryeong; if she was of his bloodline, that's it. Period. You don't need to make a big fuss about this whole affair and label Koreans as "IGNORANT" for the sake of your extremely derogatory hatred of all of Koreans. Furthermore, making statements such as "Koreans' incredible ignorance caused a fuss about His Majesty's statement."/"In short, she was a Cinderella, who achieved success by good fortune, not with 'noble origin'."/"How can you demonstrate "the close bonds between the two nations" with her?"/"Koreans treat it as if it had been hidden. The fact is that Koreans are hopelessly ignorant"/"The imperial family has a history long enough for its members to feel kinship with the people whenever necessary." only attempt to keep all Korean blood out of the Japanese imperial line, when in fact nothing can be done about it.--Leonhart

I believe that Nanshu is an extreme Japanese-Nationalist trying to make himself look like a ethnic Han Chinese with the username "Nanshu" and using Chinese characters to prove his point. As for his Wiki contributions, which can be obtained through Nanshu page, they are anti-Korean and anti-Chinese; that is, nothing pro-Chinese, like he supposedly is. This is also evident in his knowledge of Japanese and misinterpretation of Classical Chinese. --Bezant

Dear Nanshu. Well, then why on earth Japanese press(except Asahi) did not care to deal with the empreror's remark? If the "close kinship" is nothing so special and that it is of no danger to the "divinity" of Japanese Imperial Family then why hide the remark? and not make it a "nation-wide" fact? You say "everyone" is accessible to "nihonki" or whatsoever, but that you're terribly mistaken. Only those who are maniacs of history ever care about the "holy book" and the majority of both Japanese and Korean population does not know what Nihonki says. They simply get their historical information from press, text books and some stupid TV sagas, and I believe that it had been the very first time for both Japanese and Korean folks to ever learn about the "Kanmu's Korean lineage". And THIS DOES ANNOY SOME JAPANESE. (Apparently, for you, it doesn't :)

Please don't ever measure the public from you viewpoint. They are not historians. They simply believe what SANNKEI OR ASAHI says. And if the Emperor's statement was not broadcasted or printed, then there is no way Japanese public could find out about Kanmu Emperor's Korean blood.

Why, you seem so confident about Emperor's remark. And does it mean that you're not Japanese? lol I know you are. -anonymous

As Nanshu points out, Takano no Niigasa was Japanese minor nobility with the Baekje royal origin. She was not really qualified as “Baekje nobility and royalty”. If the “degree of intermarriage” is limited to the Niigasa”s case, “Many members of the Baekje nobility and royalty married into the Japanese imperial line” is a gross overstatement.Dwy 17:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

What Does Paekche or Baekche Mean?

I always thought that the term was very friendly. Baek means 100 and Che means Economics, so I thought that it was all about a person who got a 100 in economics, or in other words, someone who didn't dominate the conversation. Getting a 100 in economics is like being Jimbo Wales or Bill Gates or Conan O'Brien and finding oneself in the center of a very big burgeoning development, as its manager or guiding light, as it just keeps getting better and better.

Baekche has always been my favorite of the 3 big dynasties. Silla always seemed so arbitrary and good, like The Late Show on CBS or Spy Magazine, and Choson is a very nice name, like good produce or good restaurant food, but getting a 100 in economics is what appeals to me most of the three. These values are the strength and content of these big geo entities. Cymaerg, Deutscheland and Xhosa are big names that capture the best of a huge group of people. As I really know the Hanja values involved here I believe the article should be written for those who don't. Its more of a wiki that way.hanzomon5--64.12.116.196 12:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove Article from "Need Copy-Editing" category

Improvements to the English have been made by many contributors. I do not see anything wrong with the English now. Ought not the administrators remove this article from the "need copy-editing" category? PM Poon 08:59, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The English is still odd in places; when I get a chance I'll copy-edit it (unless someone gets there first). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Copy-editing

When copy-editing an article, two things are important: first, improving it, and secondly, not making it worse. I'm afraid that Mr Tan/PM Poon fails in both respects. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

language

wikipeditor, where did you get the info about languages? i could find very little through google, but what i saw (including the fuyu language article) seemed to indicate very very little is known about the languages of this time. the best i could figure was possible connection of gojoseon->fuyu->goguryeo->baekje->early japanese. others indicate a goguryeo->silla connection. `www.wam.umd.edu/~kozawa/J_roots.doc says "The Proto-Han-Silla language is considered a dialect of Proto-Puyeo-Kogruyeo-Paekche." do you have a source for the 2 language statement? Appleby 05:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything through Google, either. All my changes are based on what my professor said, or rather what I remember from it. I hope this backing gives them a bit higher authoritative value than the average Google results. FWIW, he has a linguistical background and long experience in Korean Studies; his main areas of interest and research seem to be Volkskunde (Cultural anthropology?), history and Middle Korean and Hanmun literature and lingustics.

P.S. I gather he was also president of AKSE for four years.

About Baekje's 2 languages: An old Chinese report about Baekje (I'll ask him which one was next time) plainly states that Baekje has two languages. This fits in with the traditional history of the two Baekjes' foundation by nobles from Goguryeo, with Baekje's capital "부여", and with ethnologic and linguistic (and archaeologic?) hints at early migrations from both across the southern seas and from Manchuria into Korea.

About Southern migration(s?) to Korea by boat: All I have heard is that pig breeding traditions of the Namhae area (I think it was Jeju) are similar to Oceania pig breeding; I hope there is other evidence than just this. I have also read parts of an academic paper investigating the linguistic position of a 東夷 ethnic group (Jiangsu or Shandong area?). If I recall correctly, the paper claimed that the group likely spoke an Austronesian language. With this, it might not be too far-fetched to say that similar groups migrated to the Korean peninsular south, too. What I'd like to know more about is whether these assumed immigrants are believed to have formed the Samhan, or whether speakers of a hypothetical Han (韓) dialect who were already in Korea merely received cultural input from those Southern migrants.

Update: it's said to be the latter. The Han language(s) come from the north just like Fuyu (with Han representing an earlier migration wave, perhaps?) and were but culturally affected by peoples from the south.

About Northern migrations from Manchuria to Korea: Speakers of languages belonging to a [hypothetical?] Fuyu languages subgroup of the disputed (extended) Altaic group moved onto the peninsula in several waves, each of which can be identified by its own ceramics style. The peoples of Northern and Southern migrations met and mixed.

My professor seems to regard

1. Goguryeo as a state representative of the northern group of speakers of a language of the Fuyu group – if you accept the 2 (Fuyu and Han) main groups hypothesis, this makes sense especially before Goguryeo's ambitions in the South,
2. Silla as a purely Han state with the Fuyu group playing no role in its formation, and
3. Baekje as the mixed state of Fuyu people ruling over Han peons described above.

At the stage of Old Korean, Korea was probably still linguistically divided, with a Han/Southern language being comparatively well documented in Silla's 鄕歌, and the northern (Fuyu-based) group basically not documented anywhere, with research restricted to analysing placenames and such – e.g. Southern 室 sil vs. Northern 谷 [g]ul, [g]ol[u], I'm not sure what this makes of it.

As I understand it, the term "Old Korean" is only about Silla language because not enough is known about the Northern language(s), and I gather we can only speculate about whether the Japanese language is a relative of the Goguryeo/Kudara language (see J. Diamond of UCLA).

Even though I have not found convincing what "evidence" I've personally seen placing Korean into the Altaic group, or even together with Japanese ("섬 = shima"), I am willing to believe those with sounder background than me, the undergraduate student.

Let me repeat that the above is basically just what stuck with me from my professor's lectures, and what sense I tried to make out of it. I hope I have not given an overly distorted account of what he taught, and I am fully aware that it may not sound much different from all the wild hypotheses presented as facts out there on the 'net; but while I doubt that my professor would directly contribute to the article with his findings, I trust that he has the experience and clues that would be needed to back his statements up if necessary.

It would be nice if anybody came forward with more clues either confuting or supporting the hypothesis. I am not particularly leaning to either side.
On another note, even if Proto-Fuyu and Proto-Han were not separate language groups but dialects of one group, they still must have been different enough from each other to be considered two languages by the Chinese visitor to Baekje. – Wikipeditor 21:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:No original research) is to generally include the consensus view; significant minority views should be identified as such. we're not supposed to do independent research, nor can we cite a professor, unless he has published his research in a reputable publication. of course, that's the policy but is not always strictly followed. but that's why, in a lot of cases, careful googling can reflect the consensus view better than relying on one professor, as long as there a few credible sources agreeing.

guick googling seems to show that your professor's views are held by at least one published scholar, but because of the scarcity of actual evidence of the languages of the time, it seems like a hypothesis that many other western scholars disagree with, or at least consider too speculative to conclude.

& as to chinese considering baekje & other languages as diff't, which record are you referring to? it seems there are a few contradictory chinese records. 梁書 says Baekche language is almost identical to that of Goguryeo.

btw, i hope i don't sound combative, thanks to your pointers, i've learned a lot more about this topic. but i still think the 2 language hypothesis is not part of the consensus, & if included, should be labeled as a controversial/minority hypothesis.Appleby 04:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you don't sound combative. I think it's good you challenged my edit because it also made me learn about WP policy which seems very reasonable.

I don't think I said that Baekje's language is different from Goguryeo's. I merely meant to say that Baekje itself had two languages. I asked again and was told that this statement can be found in the Tangshu/唐書/당서; unfortunately I don't know any details, so it might take a long time to find it there. I also made a note that says "정신문화연구원", but I don't remember what it meant – perhaps it was the 정신문화연구원 who published a 3-volume edition of the Tangshu?

As for the (Proto-)Fuyu vs. (Proto-)Han grouping, my professor maintains that this is actually an established majority view and suggested 이기문's 국어사개설 for reference. Now if 이기문 isn't a trustworthy source, who is?

Since I haven't read any of those books myself, you can revert me if you like.

I don't want to ask my professor for every problem about Korean language and history, but if you want to give it a try, his e-mail address is publicly available here, below a list of publications that somehow seems to omit most of his works since the late Iron Age. – Wikipeditor 12:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kudara

In the interest of completeness, would it be possible to include somewhere the information that "Baekje was known to the ancient Japanese as Kudara"? Bathrobe 04:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)