Talk:Capital Cities and Tombs of the Ancient Koguryo Kingdom
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
To User:Cydevil38, why do you put a disputation label in the article just now? What is the controversy being disputed? The controversy made up against UNESCO without reliable sources? (Please don't use the following as reliable sources: Google search results or some "big" names like Do-sit-again Encyclopedia which most users have never heard of)--Jiejunkong 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Cydevil should clarify what disputation he has with the article itself. Anything he disagrees with UNESCO interpretation shoudl not become a disputation point of the article. The disputation label should go if he does not make any clarification.Wiki Pokemon 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
For first time readers, this article is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hwando (fortress) where some dubious personal claims are being argued, such as UNESCO misidentifies Wandu Mountain City as the ancient ruin; same mistake for UNESCO to misidentify Guonei City's ruin; or "Hwando" is the ancient name (despite the fact, before 15th century, every history record of east Asia continent was written in classical Chinese, in this case 丸都 with no possibility of romanization written in the original record Samguk Sagi). UNESCO has never mentioned such controversy, and it is likely the user who said so are doing some original research.--Jiejunkong 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Despite Jiejunkong's accusations of original research, my edits were sourced material. Please look at Jiejunkong's reverts and you'll they had references attached to them. Cydevil38 08:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody has any controversy with UNESCO interpretation. Your own view that there is, is original research. I guess the disputaton tag should go. Wiki Pokemon 20:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
This article is clearly in dispute. Wiki pokemon and Jiejunkong are persistently attempting to hide materials backed by secondary sources that the actual locations of the said historic Goguryeo entities are controversial. Cydevil38 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I know you have sources which study the locations of the entities. But these sources are not disputing the UNESCO interpretation. It is original research when you claim that these sources are disputing or implying that they are disputing the UNESCO interpretation.Wiki Pokemon 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- Those edits didn't say they were "disputing" the UNESCO interpretation. It simply stated the controversial nature of today's location of these historic entities, and the various interpretations of these historic entities. Cydevil38 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute of what? UNESCO's official site clearly states that the site includes archaeological remains of three cities and 40 tombs: Wunu Mountain City, Guonei City and Wandu Mountain City Clearly, Wandu Mountain City refers to the ancient city, and the current site includes the archaeological remains of that ancient city. Your original research has a head-on clash with the UNESCO's official description. Where is your source? If you have no reliable source, then why are you editing the articles in such a disruptive way?--Jiejunkong 20:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did your sources mentioned the word controversial? If not then your edit is original research. Did your sources reference UNESCO? If not then your edit is irrelevant to this article. You need to come up with something better, else your edit will have to go.Wiki Pokemon 22:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Cultural heritage of Goguryeo
It's good that UNESCO accepted the heritage listing of tombs of the ancient Goguryeo, but they denied the application from North Korea, this cultural heritage is clearly belongs to Korean culture however, China denies it's Korean culture when bulk of the ancient Goguryeo cultural sites are located in boarders of China and Korea and Korean peninsula. --Korsentry 02:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
You need some evidence to prove "this cultural heritage is clearly belongs to Korean culture". Goguryeo was not Korean even though it was related to today's Korea. Stop convincing people to believe your Korean nationalist theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This article is better sourced than most Chinese World Heritage Site articles or those on Chinese archeology. So I removed the tag. Regards, --Mattisse 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow users, I brought following sentences in case. Clearly, I disagree what some users argued but here we need to confront.
- Firstly, the reason that the capital cities lie within Chinese border area doesn't mean the whole archaeological excavations only to Chinese art, as current categories refer to. The name of Korea itself has its roots in Goryeo (Koryo) which meant the successor of Goguryeo (Koguryo) Kingdom.
- Secondly, the style and tombs have similarity with Chinese tombs. However, it is written and accepted the pyramid type of tombs and inside mural paintings have shown uniqueness of Koguryo.
- Thirdly, several facets of culture of Koguryo demonstrate didn't come only from China but also far northeastern Asia, incorporating northern nomadic people as its people and members of society.§
The title PRC submitted to UNESCO itself shows the error. Aside from the Chinese media pronunciation (Zhongguo Gaouli), the title itself clearly says Koguryo, the way Korean language as it is. Additionally, Goguryeo language is a root that spread toward Okjeo, one of Goguryeo's first colonization in eastern Korean peninsula and headed to the other two nations of Baekje and Silla. (See Martin Robbeets p.25: Diachrony of Verb Morphology: Japanese and the Transeurasian Languages)
§ Sarh M. Nelson, the archaeology of Korea The earliest archaeological sites which can be attributed to Koguryeo are near present Chinese city of Jian …The ancient wall which surrounded the city of Jian is still in place on two sides. This wall, 8 km in circumference, was constructed of large shaped stones, with each level bantered in. … The city wall is rectangular, following the pattern of Chinese cities but the wall itself was constructed of stone, unlike the Chinese stamped-earth walls.
- [Phuoc, Le Huu (2010). Buddhist architecture. [S.l.]: Grafikol. p. 137. ISBN 9780984404308. Retrieved 4 February 2016.The latter, like Lo-lang tombs, were constructed for aristocrats and kings having vaulted … but unlike the Lo-lang tombs, they were stone (granite) and generally covered with murals in the interior, the plan of a Koguryo tomb typically consists of ananteroom connected with the main chamber...]
- [Fraker, Sara E. (2009). The oboe works of Isang Yun. pp. 63–64. ISBN 9781109217803. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
Tombs fashioned in the Koguryo tradition have been discovered even at the Japanese sites of Takamatsuzka and Kitora, suggesting that the kingdom was an important vehicle for the transmission of culture, especially Buddhism, to other parts of East Asia.]
- [Silberman, Neil Asher (2012). The Oxford companion to archaeology (2nd ed. ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 194. ISBN 9780199735785. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
Among the early states of Korea, Koguryo in the north and Paekche in the west-center shared a mature form of stone pyramid tomb construction, which had developed from earlier cairn burials in the Koguryo region. Outstanding examples include the “General’s Tomb”, … The transfer of pyramid burial architecture from Koguryo to Paekche might have been the material result of a splitting of the Koguryo ruling line.]
- [Hall, John Whitney (1993). The Cambridge history of Japan (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. p. 302. ISBN 9780521223522. Retrieved 4 February 2016.
Evidence from burial mound sites indicates the extent to which Koguryo’s tomb construction methods, burial practices, and equestrian culture – transmitted from both China and northeast Asia – was passed on in turn to Japan.]