Talk:State of Nangnang

[Untitled]

The most reliable source that the Nangnang nation is different from the Nangnang commandery can be found in Samguk Sagi[3], and as follows. In the story of the prince of Goguryeo, Hodong, and the princess of the Nangnang nation, a king named Choi Ri is described. If the Nangnang nation were identical with the Nangnang commandery, the king Chio Ri should have been described as a governor general. However, the most reputable source of Korean history says that it is the king of Nangnang. This implies that the Nangnang was a independent state.

This is the most reliable source for the existence of Nangnang "nation" separate from Nangnang Prefecture? No primary sources, no contemporary evidence of any sort -- just the use of one word from one place in Samguk Sagi?

If there are no objections, I will redirect this page to Lelang commandery. -- ran (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

However, there is also no primary source about Nangnang commandery(See Shiji). There is no name of Nangnang in Shiji. The name of Nangnang appeared only in the comments after Sima Qian composed it. The comments are not primary sources. In addition, there is no primary source that Nangnang actually means only Nangnang commandery. There are many conflicted name of Nangnang in history records. Based on NPOV, there must be two articles about Nangnang, which are Nangnang nation and Nangnang commandery. So, you cannot redirect this article to Lelang

--Hairwizard91 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also archeological evidence. In north korea, the tomb of Nangnang has been found at 2003 CE. See the new paper of The Chosun Ilbo in Korean [1]

No, NPOV states that views should not be given undue weight, not that they should be presented with equal time and emphasis. That the Western Han Dynasty created Lelang (Nangnang) Commandery in Pyongyang is the academic consensus up to now; that Lelang Commandery and Nangnang Nation are separate is a theory put forth recently by Yun Nae-hyeon, which has so far not found consensus in the wider academic community. This is why "Nangnang nation" should be a redirect to "Lelang commandery", and Yun Nae-hyeon's theory should be presented as being based on one interpretation of a single passage in a historical text, against other historical texts that place Lelang Commandery established by the Western Han Dynasty in Pyongyang.

Yun Nae-hyeon's theory is based on this passage from Samguk Sagi.

夏四月　王子好童　遊於沃沮　樂浪王崔理出行　因見之　問曰　觀君顔色　非常人　豈非北國神王之子乎　遂同歸以女妻之　後好童還國　潛遣人告崔氏女曰　若能入而國武庫　割破鼓角　則我以禮迎　不然則否　先是　樂浪有鼓角　若有敵兵則自鳴　故令破之　於是　崔女將利刀　潛入庫中　割鼓面角口　以報好童　好童勸王襲樂浪　崔理以鼓角不鳴　不備　我兵掩至城下　然後知鼓角皆破　遂殺女子　出降

More specifically, the theory is based on one interpretation of the word 王 as used in 樂浪王. However, the title 王 was used by not only independent rulers like the King of Goguryeo, but also by subjects of the Western Han Dynasty. The Western Han Dynasty maintained a system of regional princes (called 王), each with several commanderies under his control (after the Wu Chu Rebellion this was reduced to one commandery per prince). In addition, the Han Dynasty allowed and in fact authorized regional governors to use the word 王:

史記 卷一百十六 西南夷列傳第五十六

元封二年，天子發巴蜀兵擊滅勞洸、靡莫，以兵臨滇。滇王始首善，以故弗誅。滇王離難西南夷，舉國降，請置吏入朝。於是以為益州郡，賜滇王王印，複長其民。

In short, the word 王 does not imply an independent country.

It is also intriguing how 崔理 (Choe Ri), the only known sovereign ruler of the supposed Nangnang state, does not appear anywhere else, nor is there any kind of information on his ancestors or descendents, or the general lineage of the supposed ruling family of Nangnang.

Also -- please explain how the tomb implies the separate existence of a Nangnang nation?

Finally, the very title Nangnang nation does not follow conventional naming standards in the English language or on the English Wikipedia. "Nation" itself is a politically charged word and implies nationalism. We usually use "State of -" or "- (state)", for example State of Chu, State of Qin.

-- ran (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not new thoery by Yoon. It is suggested by Sin Chaeho in Joseon Sangosa. Please read old theory about Nangnang nation.

In addition, please dont read the korean history as you read chinese history book. Even though 王 is used for local governors in Chinese history books, 王 is definitely used for only independent state's rulers.

Also, the tomb is the king's tomb of Nangnang nation, which is currently found in North Korea.

By the way, you must answer my question about the describing the lelang in Shiji. Shiji may be the primary source of chinese commanderies. --Hairwizard91 19:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would the use of the word 王 be different in China and Korea? If a Korean historian wanted to refer to 吳王 or 楚王 in the Western Han Dynasty, would he have used some other word instead?

Also, I don't need to answer your question about Shiji. There are many secondary sources putting Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. Can you find me a single unambiguous secondary source, before Sin Chaeho, separating Lelang Commandery from independent Nangnang? Or perhaps some information on which ruler created the state of Nangnang and what the lineage between him and Choe Ri was?

"Independent" Nangnang is a theory put forward based on a single word in Samguk Sagi, a word that has multiple definitions, not all of which conflicts with traditional understanding of the history of the Han Dynasty. This article needs to reflect that. -- ran (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Your saying is only based on the chinese historical point of view. So, it is fair to have two articles about lelang commandery and nangnang nation. It has acheological evidence too! In addition, wang 王 is not used for local rulers. Dont misuderstand the meaning of wang when you read chinese history book.

No, it's not a matter of "fairness", I already explained that NPOV is about giving weight when it is due, not about equal time. Also, if you think I'm misunderstanding the word 王, then tell me again: who were the 吳王 or 楚王 of the Western Han Dynasty? Were they independent? Would a Korean historian refer to them in some other way? -- ran (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

吳王 or 楚王 -->I dont know who they are.

Obiously, 王 is used for only independent rulers in Korean history book. Dont understand the term of 王 when you read Chinese history book,

There is only one word for independent rulers in Korean history book, which is 王.

For local governors, KOrean history books use 干 or 汗

For 吳王 or 楚王, see Rebellion of the Seven States. It was a rebellion started by 吳王, 楚王, 趙王, 膠東王, 膠西王, 濟南王, 淄川王, who were all princes of the Western Han Dynasty. Each one governed one or several commanderies. I've also given the example of 滇王 above, please read it again.

Samguk Sagi was written in Classical Chinese by the Korean elite, which was familiar with traditional Chinese texts, like histories. Why would they be unaware of this use of the word 王? If a Korean historian is to refer to 吳王, 楚王, etc, what would they have used instead, according to you? -- ran (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes even though Samguk Sagi follows the writing style, but it does not use 皇 for supreme rulers. The supreme rulers in Korean history book is only 王. So, a Korean historian is to refer to 吳王 and 楚王(who are they?), it means that they are the supreme rulers of indepedent states. KOrean history book uses 汗 or 干 for local governors.

I already explained who 吳王 and 楚王 were! They were not independent rulers. The Han Dynasty had regional governors also called 王. -- ran (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have already said, please dont understand 王 in KOrean history books as you read Chinese history book. Absolutely, 王 is the supreme rulers of indepedent states IN Korea history.

王 in Korean has same concept of 皇 in Chinese.

Korea --> China

王 --> 皇

汗 --> 王

支 -->  ?

Okay, so why does Samguk Sagi use 帝 for, say, 漢光武帝? Why not 漢光武王? Korean historians use Korean titles for Korean people, but they aren't just going to change all of the Chinese titles of Chinese people to Korean titles as well! When they want to refer to (say) 吳王 and 楚王, they aren't going to change it to 吳汗 and 楚汗, and when they write 漢光武帝 they're not just going to change it to 漢光武王. Similarly, if a governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, a Korean history book isn't going to change it to 樂浪汗, because such a thing never existed.

-- ran (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For Korean king, KOrean title is used such as 王. For Chinese king, Chinese title is used such as 皇. Because the rulers of 樂浪 is considered as Korean, 王 is used. If he was Chinese, other names were used for him.

In addition, is there any local governor in Lelang commander whose family name is Choi?

But like I said, if Lelang Commandery of Han China was in Pyongyang, and its governor was called 樂浪王, then Korean books would still refer to him as 樂浪王. They wouldn't just change the name of a Chinese official.

As for Choi, well, 崔 (Cui) is a Chinese name as well. The Cui Family has a home page as well: [2] -- ran (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

樂浪王 is used because he is Korean state king. He is not local governor of chinese commanderies. Understand? For Lelang commandery, Korean history book do not used the term 王.

My Question is.... Did lelang commandery has a local governor whose family name is Choi??? I hav never find that lelang has a local governor whose name is Choi.

How can you just assert that 樂浪王 is a king of a Korean state when there is no other evidence for the existence of such a state? Also, since I've already shown that 王 was used in China for governors, and that Korean books used Chinese titles for Chinese people, how can you discount the possibility that 樂浪王 was a governor of Han China? If the governor of Lelang used the title 樂浪王, then Korean books would follow as well.

There are no sources that I know of that list the governors of Lelang Commandery. So it's not possible to prove or disprove, in this way, whether there were any governors with the last name 崔. But like I said, there is no evidence for the existence of a State of Nangnang, nor a 崔 family ruling it, other than that one single interpretation of that one single place.

-- ran (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is acheological evidence of tomb of king in north korea. Ok? And historical record prove the acheological evidence.

When does the tomb date from? Why is it a royal tomb? Which part of the tomb suggests that it was 樂浪王 in particular, and not the 王 of some other state? -- ran (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I take it that you agree that 樂浪王 may also be a Chinese governor? -- ran (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The tomb found in north korea says that it is the tomb of nangnang king. I did not agree that 樂浪王 may also be a Chinese governor.

In addition, how can you prove that the Choi is the governor of lelang commandery? If you cannot prove that Choi is the governor of lelang commandery, you cannot redirect this page to the lelang commandery because nangnang state has acheological evidence and historical record. You cannot rebut any more.

I no longer want to redirect. This is why I created this version: [3]. Is there anything in it that you disagree with? -- ran (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is much more formal way that you should mention the sentences in the current version that you do not agree with.

But I already mentioned them, I simply rephrased them. You can see in my version that:

The theory says that Lelang (Nangnang) commandery as set up by the Chinese Western Han Dynasty existed in Manchuria rather than Korea; hence, Lelang (Nangnang) commandery in Manchuria and independent Nangnang around the Taedong River in Korea were separate entities. Only later, during the Eastern Han Dynasty, was independent Nangnang conquered and incorporated into Lelang Commandery. The theory goes on to suggest that the two were later confused, leading to the misconception that Lelang Commandery was in Korea instead of Manchuria. .

If anything, my version presents Shin's theory even more forcefully and in a more organized way than the original.

So would you be ok with reverting this article to this version [4]? -- ran (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It is more formal way that you firstly say what you do not agree with the article.

My version presents the Nangnang theory first, before going into the rebuttal. Would you be okay with reverting it then? -- ran (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No your version is not the first version before the rebuttal. Start from the original version please, and say what you dont agree with...

I did start from the original version, and all I did was to rephrase what was already there. Compare the two version again -- what do you think are the things that I removed and should be put back? -- ran (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

If so, why dont you revert to your version, and then I will modify it.

This whole article should be merged to Joseon Sanggosa

This whole article should be merged to Joseon Sanggosa. This story/legend does not appear to be supported by any primary sources.--Endroit 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It appears in Samguk Sagi. Samguk Sagi is most reputable source of Korean history. It is also very weird that the nangnang state is merge to Joseon Sangosa. Nangnang state is an ancient korean nation, and joseon sangosa is history book. In addition, the Nangnang state has acheological evidence. It is not mythical nation. --Hairwizard91 23:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The contents of this article seem to follow Joseon Sanggosa, rather than Samguk Sagi... and Joseon Sanggosa's interpretation of Samguk Sagi. Alternately, you may try redirecting this article to Lelang Commandery, like Ran suggested. Either way is fine with me.--Endroit 23:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There is acheological evidence for Nangnang nation. Why should nangnang nation redirect ??

I added more explanation in nangnang nation quoted from chinese history book.--Hairwizard91 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Until the nangnang nation is proved to be identical with lelang commandery, this page cannot be redirect to lelang commandery. --Hairwizard91 23:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There does seem to be some legitimate disagreement over whether there was a Nangnang state. Some points:

• Hairwizard91's clipping, above, indicates that North Korean archeologists strongly distinguish between the Nangnang commandery and the Nangnang state. If true, this alone would probably legitimate the existence of this page.
• It's interesting that Korean encyclopedias differ in whether they speak of Choe Ri as a taesu (a hyeon-level magistrate) or a wang, and that this seems to vary depending on whether they treat him as a ruler of the commandery or an independent state. Even if this is solely due to the influence of the Joseon Sanggosa, it does suggest that this theory has been widely taken up and may deserve a detailed treatment.

Request: Can someone find the actual location of the Princess Nangnang tale in the Samguk Sagi? It doesn't seem to be in the chronicles of Daemusin in the Goguryeo Bon-gi, where one would expect it, nor can I readily find it in the Yeoljeon. A search of the online text turns up nothing, and I'm away from my books at the moment. Help? -- Visviva 03:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The passage is in 三國史記　高句麗本紀　卷第十四　大武神王

The complete passage:

十五年　春三月　黜大臣仇都逸苟焚求等三人爲庶人　此三人爲沸流部長　資貪鄙　奪人妻妾牛馬財貨　恣其所欲　有不與者即鞭之　人皆忿怨　王聞之　欲殺之　以東明舊臣　不忍致極法　黜退而已　遂使南部使者鄒素　代爲部長　素既上任　別作大室以處　以仇都等罪人　不令升堂　仇都等詣前　告曰　吾儕小人　故犯王法　不勝愧悔　願公赦過　以令自新　則死無恨矣　素引上之　共坐曰　人不能無過　過而能改　則善莫大焉　乃與之爲友　仇都等感愧　不復爲惡　王聞之曰　素不用威嚴　能以智懲惡　可謂能矣　賜姓曰大室氏　夏四月　王子好童　遊於沃沮　樂浪王崔理出行　因見之　問曰　觀君顔色　非常人　豈非北國神王之子乎　遂同歸以女妻之　後好童還國　潛遣人告崔氏女曰　若能入而國武庫　割破鼓角　則我以禮迎　不然則否　先是　樂浪有鼓角　若有敵兵則自鳴　故令破之　於是　崔女將利刀　潛入庫中　割鼓面角口　以報好童　好童勸王襲樂浪　崔理以鼓角不鳴　不備　我兵掩至城下　然後知鼓角皆破　遂殺女子　出降　【或云　欲滅樂浪　遂請婚　娶其女　爲子妻　後使歸本國　壞其兵物】　冬十一月　王子好童自殺　好童　王之次妃曷思王孫女所生也　顔容美麗　王甚愛之　故名好童　元妃恐奪嫡爲太子　乃讒於王曰　好童不以禮待妾　殆欲亂乎　王曰　若以他兒憎疾乎　妃知王不信　恐禍將及　乃涕泣而告曰　請大王密候　若無此事　妾自伏罪　於是　大王不能不疑　將罪之　或謂好童曰　子何不自釋乎　答曰　我若釋之　是顯母之惡　貽王之憂　可謂孝乎　乃伏劍而死　論曰　今王信讒言　殺無辜之愛子　其不仁不足道矣　而好童不得無罪　何則　子之見責於其父也　宜若舜之於瞽　小杖則受　大杖則走　期不陷父於不義　好童不知出於此　而死非其所　可謂執於小謹而昧於大義　其公子申生之譬耶　十二月　立王子解憂爲太子　遣使入漢朝貢　光虎帝復其王號　是立武八年也

[5]

-- ran (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha, thanks a lot. I was looking the wrong direction. :-) So it is 王 in the original. This is interesting... I guess the charge of revisionism could also be lodged against the historians who describe Choe Ri as a taesu, as well as against those who invent an unattested Nangnang state. Huh. If we can get proper secondary sources, I think this could be a legitimate entry. But it still might be better to merge it with Lelang Commandery, perhaps at a new title such as Lelang or Nangnang (or Nakrang, come to think of it). -- Visviva 04:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Everybody can see there is the king of nangnang Choi Ri 樂浪王崔理. There is no reasion for this page to be redirect because nobody have said that nangnang state is identical with nangnang commandery--Hairwizard91 07:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole article should be merged to Lelang Commandery

OK, I'm fine with what Visviva just said. Merge this article with Lelang Commandery (樂浪郡). Nangnang (樂浪) is Lelang (樂浪). And 樂浪王 (king of Nangnang) is king of Lelang. I will add the merge tags accordingly. (And if nobody objects, I will drop the merge tags for Joseon Sanggosa in favor of merge tags for Lelang Commandery.)--Endroit 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why this page should be merged. Visviva does not say that this page should be merged. 樂浪王 (king of Nangnang) is king of Nangnang, and the ruler of Lelang commandery is Taesu (太守). They are different.--Hairwizard91 08:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Your cited sources don't say 樂浪王 (Nangnang/Lelang king) is from 樂浪國 (Nangnang/Lelang nation). So I am assuming 樂浪王 (Nangnang/Lelang king) is from 樂浪郡 (Lelang/Nangnang Commandery). Others are welcome to comment here as well.--Endroit 08:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no record that Lelang commandery was ruled by Choi Ri. This means that 樂浪王崔里 is the king of Nangnang. When the ruler of Lelang commandery was refered to, 太守 is used for the rulers of Lelang commandery.--Hairwizard91 08:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the king oversaw the ruler, or vice versa, for a short period. Your guess is as good as mine. You should go find some secondary sources in English.--Endroit 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot redirect using the word PERHAPS

樂浪 (Lelang/Nangnang) has a definite meaning in Chinese history. It is rather your citations that are PERHAPS interpretations, and this article was created based on such shaky interpretations.--Endroit 08:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have said several times, Nangnang nation has acheological evidence in North Korea!!!! Why do you say that this page is based on the history book??

Important record in Samguk Sagi

• <好童>勸王襲<樂浪>. <崔理>以鼓角不鳴, 不備, 我兵掩至城下, 然後知鼓角皆破. 遂殺女子, 出降

-->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)

• 二十年, 王襲<樂浪>, 滅之.

--> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)

So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery.

If nangnang nation is same with lelang commandery, how were they destroyed two times?? This means that there were two distinct nangnang, which is nangnang nation and lelang commandery--Hairwizard91 08:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own article Daemusin of Goguryeo....

After fending off China's attack in 28, he sent his son, Prince Hodong, to attack China's Lelang commandery in northwestern Korea in 32 and 37. The legendary love story of Prince Hodong and Princess of Lelang, recorded in the Samguk Sagi, is well known in Korea to this day. The princess is said to have torn the war drums of her castle, so that Goguryeo could attack without warning.

Wikipedia already interprets 樂浪 (Nangnang/Lelang) as Lelang Commandery, based on Samguk Sagi in this case.--Endroit 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You cannot cite wiki to wiki. --Hairwizard91 09:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I just merely pointed out that your interpretations are far off... again.--Endroit 09:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No. You cannot cite wiki to wiki to redirect this page. --Hairwizard91 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You must cite the other sources except wiki to redirect this page. and prove that nangnang nation is same with lelang commandery.--Hairwizard91 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi has been cited, same as yours, just different interpretations.--Endroit 09:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The nangnang nation is definitely based on clear understanding of Samguk Sagi.
Consistently, Samguk Sagi uses 大守 for lelang commandery, and 王 for independent states. For example, when referring to rulers of lelang commandery, Samguk Sagi used this sentence.
王遣將, 襲<漢><遼東>西<安平縣>, 殺<帶方>令, 掠得<樂浪>大守??妻子

Per Wikipedia:No original research, we do not seek to learn the actual historical truth; we only seek to transmit the scholarship of others. Thus, if this is a legitimate matter of historical dispute, it deserves to be covered as such. However, such a claim requires corresponding sources, from actual authorities on Korean history and archeology. If this claim is not found outside the writings of Sin Chaeho and his modern followers, it probably does not deserve to be covered, or should at least be sequestered in a special category a la Baedalguk. In any case, please stop trying to convince us that this claim is *true*. Whether it is true or not is immaterial; at Wikipedia, we only care whether it is considered true by significant authorities in the relevant field(s). -- Visviva 09:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not original research. It has been insisted for long time. Thus, it cannot be redirected to lelang commandery. --Hairwizard91 09:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard91: look, what you have here is fringe research, which has not been accepted by the academic community. Like I said, this has been based on one single word used in one single book. That book doesn't even say 樂浪國, it uses 王 which has many interpretations. Even the leaders of bandits and outlaws in the hills and forests of China liked to call themselves 大王. Unless there is more information about 崔理 and the history and lineage of his empire, the existence of "樂浪國" is a poor hypothesis at best.

Your logic about how Korean books don't use 王 and 皇 doesn't work either. Korea didn't use 皇 for ruler and 王 for governor, but Korean history books still follow if China used 皇帝 for emperor and 王 for governor. This is true in the past and it is true today.

You like to take about archaeological evidence. What evidence is there? For the tomb you mentioned, are there any texts inside that point to a separate state of Nangnang?

-- ran (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You stil misunderstand the concept of 王 and 皇. Korean history books seldom use 皇 because 王 is the ruler of independent states. Korean history book do not follows chinese convention especially in Samguk Sagi. Please read Samguk Sagi firstly. So, the expression of 樂浪國 and 樂浪王 proves that nangnang nation is indepedent state. Acheological evidence shows the tomb of Nangnang's king. Please dont ask the same question again...--Hairwizard91 13:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is sound theory that nangnang nation is identical with lelang commandery. Nobody can suggest the reasonable and logical theory about it. --Hairwizard91 13:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so tell me, why does Samguk Sagi refer to, say, 漢光武帝? Doesn't that contradict what you said?

Also, you have never given any more details about the "tomb of Nangnang's king". What's inside it? Which year does it date from? What proves that it is a royal tomb? -- ran (talk) 13:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They are same age if a radioactive isotope is used.

What? You didn't even answer my question. Please do so in more detail.

It's also interesting to go through, for example, [6], and see how many books doubt the existence of Lelang Commandery in Pyongyang. -- ran (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah.. Doubting the existence of Lelang commandery suggest the existence of Nangnang state.

Maybe, doubting is about the fabrication by Japan at Japanese colony of Korea. They have moved the treasure of lelang commadery from Liaoning to Pyongyang.

So, there have been literatures about nangnang nation, and it dont have to be redirect to lelang commandery. --Hairwizard91 13:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you further search and study about the relics of Nangnang in Pyongyang , you can find that the relics of Nangnang in Pyongyang is similar with the relics in south Korean peninsula, which proves that Lelang or Nangnang existed in Pyongyang has no relation with China. So, Lelang or Nangnang is not commandery of china. But it is the indepedent state of Korean, which has a similar culture and relics of Korean peninsula. --Hairwizard91 13:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my question. Firstly, why does Samguk Sagi refer to 漢光武帝? Why not change it to 王? Second, what archeological evidence proves the independent political status of Nangnang? I'm not asking about separate cultural relics. -- ran (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because he is the king of China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Exactly, so if a prince from China is called xyz王, wouldn't Korean history books follow the same logic and call him xyz王? -- ran (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because in the relics, there is a letter of 里王 (which correpsonds to 崔里) based on the advocacy of North Korean historian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Erm... The name in Samguk Sagi is 崔理. 里 means a town or neighbourhood, and 里王 would mean the prince of a town or neighbourhood. -- ran (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Please dont interpret the Hanja like chinese character. It is the representation like Idu

By the way, 女眞 does not means a true girl... 百濟 is not the hundred of empires.... Is it?? They are all representation like Idu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

So by your logic, "里王" just means someone whose name is "Riwang". The 王 is taken for its pure phonetic value and has nothing to do with kings. -- ran (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Idu system uses the phonetic value and its meaning... So, it is very difficult to interpret them. Think about the japanese writing system. They use Kanji and hiragana. Kanji is borrowing the meaning, and hiragana is borrowing the phonetic value.

Exactly the point I'm getting at. That's why you should not draw conclusions based on one single letter referring to 里王. -- ran (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

里王 is so obvious that it means the king 里...

No, it is not obvious. But you just said that Idu is hard to interpret. So 里王 can mean:

• 里 in Chinese + 王 in Chinese, the prince of a town or neighbourhood.
• 里 in Chinese + 王 in Idu, a man called Ri from the village
• 里 in Idu + 王 in Chinese, the prince of a place called Ri
• 里 in Idu + 王 in Idu, a person called Riwang.

Also, if its the case of 里 in Idu and 王 in Chinese, then 里王 would usually mean the prince of a place called Ri. To refer to a king whose name is Ri, it's usually the other way around: 王里.
In short, it is not obvious and you cannot make assertions based on just the name 里王, especially since Samguk Sagi refers to 崔理. -- ran (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not obvious to other nations' people. But, it is very obvious to Korean. For example, 首露王, 居登王...etc. they are all representing the name + kings

Please dont read and understand the korean history books as you read the chinese history books--Hairwizard91 15:27, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason why it is difficult is that Idu cannot differentiate the root of the word from the ending of the word. You should keep in mind that Korean lang. is an agglutinative language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hairwizard91 (talk • contribs)

Okay... so tell me once again why 里王 cannot be:

1. the prince of a village, or
2. a man called Wang, from a village, or
3. a man whose name is Riwang, and where 里王 is used for phonetic value only and has nothing to do with kings.

-- ran (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Prince of village cannot use wang

2) there is no word corresponding to "from."

3) usually korean do not uses the word 王 in name. Riwang... There is no name like Riwang...This name is so weird.

Consequently, the Korean king of independent state use 王 in Samguk Sagi. If you read Samguk Sagi, you can found that the local governor of 4 chinese commanderies uses 太守 consistently. --Hairwizard91 15:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

More importantly see the following sentence from Sanguk Sagi

<好童>勸王襲<樂浪>. <崔理>以鼓角不鳴, 不備, 我兵掩至城下, 然後知鼓角皆破. 遂殺女子, 出降 -->Roughly translattion: ChoiRi surrendered to Hodong (AD32)

二十年, 王襲<樂浪>, 滅之. --> Roughly translation: Nangnang is destroyed (AD 37)

So, the Nangnang destroyed at AD32 is nangnang nation of ChoiRi, and the nangnang destroyed at AD37 is lelang commandery. If they were same nation, it cannot be destroyed two times... can it?

Of course it can. It can be attacked twice. For example, 崔理, prince of Lelang Commandery, surrenders to Goguryeo in AD32 and betrays the Han Empire. Then in AD37, Goguryeo decides that he's too independent minded and attacks him again, destroying Lelang completely.

More importantly, if there were TWO 樂浪's, why is it that Samguk Sagi refers to both of them as simply 樂浪? Wouldn't the author have realized how confusing that is? Why not use 樂浪國 for one of them and 樂浪郡 for the other? This would have been a very important distinction, if it had actually existed. -- ran (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

樂浪國 is also rarely used. Check the Samguk Sagi.

After AD32 when Goguryeo destroyed nangnang nation, goguryeo had a territory in Korean peninsula. The nation destroyed at 32 AD and the commandery destroyed at 37 AD are different. It is so obvious.

Hairwizard91 has created an article on 樂浪國 (Nangnang Nation) based on pure fabrication, because there is no citation for 樂浪國 (nangnang-guk / rakrang-guk). So where exactly does it say 樂浪國 in any of your sources?--Endroit 16:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How dare you say this is fabrication???? Read firstly Samguk Sagi and Joseon Sanggosa. You should study firstly--Hairwizard91 16:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Where? Show me the passage. Don't lie to me.--Endroit 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you read korean or chinse?

Try me. I can read them well enough to know that 以鼓角不鳴 means "the signal drums/horns don't sound no more". (You missed that one.)--Endroit 16:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Samguk Sagi: 三月至牛頭州望祭太白山. 樂浪' 帶方'兩國歸服.

Joseon Sangosa: 마한이 월지국으로 도읍을 옮긴 뒤에 그 옛 도읍 평양에는 최씨(崔氏)가 일어나서 그 부근 25 국을 통속하여 한 대국이 되었으니 , 전사 ( 前史 ) 에 이른바 낙랑국 ( 樂浪國 ) 이 그것이다

Most importantly, Whenlelang commandery's ruler is mentioned in history books of korea, it is called as Taesu(太守), which means a sort of guardian. When Nangnang state's ruler is mentioned in korean history books, it is called as Wang(王), which means a king.

In addition, Korean ancient states do not used the word of 國. Check the Gojoseon, Goguryeo, Buyeo, Dongye, Okjeo, etc --Hairwizard91 17:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For the Samguk Sagi, this link has the text in question. If you use this citation, you must create an article for 帶方國 (Daebang-guk/Daifang-kuo) also. Why don't you?

The Samguk Sagi citation mentions Lelang (樂浪) and Daifang (帶方) both nations (兩國). This was during the reign of Micheon of Goguryeo. Wikipedia's article Micheon of Goguryeo still interprets 樂浪 as Lelang Commandery.--Endroit 17:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard: the passage you quote is from the reign of Girim Isageum of Silla (基臨尼師今). He ruled from 298 to 310, but the Han Dynasty was already over in 220. These aren't even the same time period. Hence it has nothing to do with the Nangnang state you're positing. -- ran (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This article starts out saying...

• According to a theory first advanced by Sin Chae-ho and recently elaborated by Yun Nae-hyeon, an independent state of Nangnang (195BCE - 32CE) existed in the northern Korean peninsula. The State of Nangnang was originally located in the area of Liaoning, but moved the capital city into the area of the Taedong River at 195 BCE.

But the cited source from Samguk Sagi (Silla-pongi) is from the year 300, which does not match this phrase. Notations for 樂浪國 (Nangnang-guk) and 帶方國 (Daebang-guk) did NOT occur until the fall of Lelang Commandery and Daifang Commandery. Where else does the 樂浪國 (Nangnang-guk) notation occur in Samguk Sagi? Is that it? So then, the rest was fabricated.--Endroit 18:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you calculate the exact year using the sexagenary cycle. You did not calculate the year correctly. How does the Samguk Sagi is from year 300 ???? Where did you see it? You are wrong. I cannot understand what you are saying. You totally misunderstand the Samguk Sagi.

Trying to lie to me again? It says right here "3년(300)" (year 300). Your cited text from Samguk Sagi "三月 至牛頭州 望祭太白山 樂浪·帶方兩國歸服" is displayed clearly there.--Endroit 08:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm also looking for a 帶方國 / 대방국 (Daebang-guk/Daifang-kuo) citation from Hairwizard91 or anybody else. Does 帶方國 / 대방국 (Daebang-guk) appear in Joseon Sanggosa also? Please cite it. Otherwise Samguk Sagi's 樂浪帶方兩國 can only be translated to Lelang & Daifang Commanderies.--Endroit 18:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Joseon sanggosa says that Nangnang nation includes 25 small city states. Daebang is the part of Nangnangn state. See the following sentence from Joseon sanggosa in Chapter 3

마한이 월지국으로 도읍을 옮긴 뒤에 그 옛 도읍 평양에는 최씨 ( 崔氏 ) 가 일어나서 그 부근 25 국을 통속하여 한 대국이 되었으니 , 전사 ( 前史 ) 에 이른바 낙랑국 ( 樂浪國 ) 이 그것이다 .

낙랑의 여러 나라로 역사에 보인 것이 25 이니 , 조선 ( 朝鮮 ) · 감한( 감邯 ) · 패수 ( 浿水 ) · 함자 ( 含資 : 貪資라고도 함 ) · 점선 ( 점蟬 ) · 수성 ( 遂城 ) · 증지 ( 增地 ) · 대방 ( 帶方 ) · 사망 ( 駟望 ) · 해명 ( 海冥 ) · 열구 ( 列 口 ) · 장잠 ( 長岑 ) · 둔유 ( 屯有 ) · 소명 ( 昭明 ) · 누방 ( 鏤方 ) · 제해 ( 提奚 ) · 혼미 ( 渾彌 ) · 탄렬 ( 呑列 ) · 동이 ( 東이 ) · 불이 ( 不而 : 不耐라고도 함 ) · 잠대 ( 蠶臺 ) · 화려 ( 華麗 ) · 야두미 ( 邪頭味 ) · 전막 ( 前莫 ) · 부조 ( 夫租 ) : 沃沮 의 잘못인 듯 ) 등이니 ,--Hairwizard91 08:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not right. Your Samguk Sagi citation says 樂浪·帶方兩國 ("both Nangnang & Daebang nations"). So Daebang (帶方) must also be a nation, just like Nangnang (樂浪), because 兩國 means "both nations." So the Joseon Sanggosa must be bogus because it considers Daebang (帶方) to be part of Nangnang (樂浪). Apparently, you just proved that Joseon Sanggosa is totally bogus.--Endroit 09:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha... Joseon sanggosa interpreted the both nations of Daebang and Nangnang as the one nation of Nangnang because several history books considered the several nations as Nangnang. So, Joseon sanggosa says that Nangnang nation include a state that annexed 25 countries including Daebang. I wish you could read Korean. It will help you to understand what I am saying. Actually, Samguk Sagi had copied the Chinese historian books blindly. There are so many errors in Samguk Sagi even though it was published by government. So, Samguk Sagi is criticzed nowadays. Joseon sanggosa is very reputable sources. It is not bogus... --Hairwizard91 11:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

So then, are you agreeing that Samguk Sagi's 樂浪·帶方兩國 means Lelang & Daifang Commanderies or not? This particular passage from Samguk Sagi is commonly interpreted to mean that the Lelang & Daifang Commanderies submitted to Goguryeo around the year 300.--Endroit 14:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is fine and we don't need to merge the two articles together. A paragraph of the connection between the two articles and links for them is sufficient. Good friend100 11:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard's theory that in Korean history books, 王 can only mean King, not Prince

In 三國史記　卷第二十一　高句麗本紀第九　寶臧王, there are several references to a prince of Tang China called 江夏王道宗. More specifically, his name was 李道宗 (Li Daozong), and his title was 江夏王 (Prince of Jiangxia).

The references:

• 副大摠管江夏王道宗　將兵數千　至新城　折衝都尉曹三良　引十餘騎　直壓城門　城中驚擾　無敢出者...
• 李世勣江夏王道宗攻盖牟城　拔之　獲一萬人糧十萬石...
• 江夏王道宗將四千騎逆之　軍中皆以爲衆寡懸絶　不若深溝高壘以待車駕之至
• 帝度遼水　撤橋以堅士卒之心　軍於馬首山　勞賜江夏王道宗　超拜馬文擧中郞將　斬張君乂
• 江夏王道宗曰　高句麗傾國以拒王師　平壤之守必弱　願假臣精卒五千　覆其本根　則數十萬之衆　可不戰而降
• 江夏王道宗　督衆築土山於城東南隅　浸逼其城　城中亦增高其城　以拒之

This directly contradicts Hairwizard91's claim that in Korean books such as Samguk Sagi, 王 can only refer to sovereign kings. In this case, it is clear that Samguk Sagi, a Korean book, is using the word 王 to refer to a prince of Tang China, not a sovereign ruler. Hence, hairwizard91's assertion in the article is false. -- ran (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You missed my point. The point is that the Korean kings of independent state use 王 in Samguk Sagi. If you read Samguk Sagi, you can found that the local governor of 4 chinese commanderies uses 太守 consistently.

Thus, you cannot find any sentence that uses 王 for the rulers of 樂浪郡.--Hairwizard91 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, this is not my theory. There are many historians that have advocacy of Nangnang state. Moreover it has acheological evidence in North Korea.--Hairwizard91 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What I showed is that not all of the occurrences of 王 in Samguk Sagi necessarily refer to kings. It is also used to refer to Chinese princes. Hence, your assertion of "Moreover, wang(王) is only used for a supreme ruler of an independent state in Korean history books because Korean history books do not used the concept of emperor such as 皇(huang)." is wrong.

Also, despite repeated requests, you have never explained what these archaeological are or why exactly they suggest an independent state. -- ran (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The local governors of Lelang commandery when Choi Ri governed the Nangnang State

At that time(around 30AD when Choi Ri was destroyed by Goguryeo), the local governor of Lelang commandery was 王調 and 劉憲. Thus, it is obvious that the king Choi Ri is different person from Wangjo and Yuheon. Consequently, the Nangnang State is different from the Lelang commandery. In addition, Book of Later Han refer to the governor of the Lelang commandery as 太守 not king....Even 王 can be used for a local governor, Nangnang commandery governors was called as 太守.

後漢書, 初，樂浪人王調據郡不服。秋，遣樂浪太守王遵擊之，郡吏殺調降。遣前將軍李通率二將軍，與公孫述將戰於西城，破之。夏，蝗。秋九月庚子，赦樂浪謀反大逆殊死已下。 更始敗，土人王調 殺郡守劉憲，自稱大將軍、樂浪太守。建武六年，光武遣太守王遵將兵擊之。至遼東，閎與郡決曹史楊邑等共殺調迎遵，皆封為列侯，閎獨讓爵。帝奇而征之，道病卒。--Hairwizard91 12:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what is the contradiction. 劉憲 was the governor in 25 AD, 王遵 was the governor in 30 AD, and 崔理 was the governor in 32 AD. -- ran (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

In chinese history books, the local governors only for lelang commandery used the name of 太守 Therefore, the expression of 王 in the nangnang nation shows that it is independent nation.--Hairwizard91 01:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already proven to you that 王 does not necessarily imply an independent ruler. Please go back and read what I posted again. -- ran (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Critical reason why the Lelang cannot be located in Pyongyang

集解張晏曰：「朝鮮有濕水、洌水、汕水，三水合為洌水，疑樂浪、朝鮮取名於此也。」索隱案：朝音潮，直驕反。

高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城，即古朝鮮地，時朝鮮王滿據之也。

括地志云：「高驪都平壤城，本漢樂浪郡王險城，又古云朝鮮地也。」

集解徐廣曰：「昌黎有險瀆縣也。」 索隱韋昭云「古邑名」。 徐廣曰「昌黎有險瀆縣」。 應劭注「地理志遼東險瀆縣，朝鮮王舊都」。 臣瓚云「王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東」也。

This is cited from Shiji written by Sima Qian. The lelang commandery was located around the current Hebei(河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 may correpons to Hebei. It is sure that 河北 昌黎 險瀆縣 is not Pyongyang) (河北 昌黎 險瀆縣). So, the commandery cannot be located at Pyongyang. Consequently, the Nangnang that was located at Pyongyang is different from Lelang that was located at Liaoning. --Hairwizard91 08:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The above interpretations/translations by User:Hairwizard91 is original research, directly contradicting the Encyclopedia Britannica's article on Nangnang. According to Britannica, Lelang Commandery (Nangnang) "occupied the northwestern portion of the Korean peninsula and had its capital at P'yongyang". User:Hairwizard91 is strongly advised not to violate WP:OR by fabricating his own personal interpretations.--Endroit 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have some mistakes in the article because there existed Lelang commandery in Liaoning and Nangnang state existed in Pyongyang. --Hairwizard91 08:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought you said we aren't supposed to look at the 集解, because those are not primary sources? But lol, you realize one of the things you quoted was:

高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城，即古朝鮮地，時朝鮮王滿據之也。

Also, according to 漢書 地理誌, 險瀆縣 is in 遼東郡, not 樂浪郡。

遼東郡，秦置。屬幽州。戶五萬五千九百七十二，口二十七萬二千五百三十九。十八：襄平。有牧師官。莽曰昌平。新昌，無慮，西部都尉治。望平，大遼水出塞外，南至安市入海。行千二百五十里。莽曰長說。房，候城，中部都尉治。遼隊，莽曰順睦。遼陽，大梁水西南至遼陽入遼。莽曰遼陰。險瀆，居就，室偽山，室偽水所出，北至襄平入梁也。高顯，安市，武次，東部都尉治。莽曰桓次。平郭，有鐵官、鹽官。西安平，莽曰北安平。文，莽曰文亭。番汗，沛，水出塞外，西南入海。沓氏。

樂浪郡，武帝元封三年開。莽曰樂鮮。屬幽州。戶六萬二千八百一十二，口四十萬六千七百四十八。有雲鄣。縣二十五：朝鮮，讑邯，浿水，水西至增地入海。莽曰樂鮮亭。含資，帶水西至帶方入海。黏蟬，遂成，增地，莽曰增土。帶方，駟望，海冥，莽曰海桓，列口，長岑，屯有，昭明，高部都尉治。鏤方，提奚，渾彌，吞列，分黎山，列水所出。西至黏蟬入海，行八百二十里。東暆，不而，东部都尉治。蠶台，華麗，邪頭昧，前莫，夫租。

-- ran (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I would encourage those parties who are citing Classical Chinese text to make use of {{linktext}}, for the benefit of those of us whose command of hanja is a trifle shaky. Using that template, the above text "樂浪郡，武帝元封三年開" becomes "樂浪郡，武帝元封三年開." Nifty, eh? However, this would also be a good time to remind everyone of WP:NOR and WP:RS, which strongly discourage the use of primary sources, especially where their interpretation is subject to dispute. -- Visviva 09:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Some things that seem clear

If I'm not missing anything, the following points are not in dispute regarding the "State of Nangnang" theory:

1. This theory was first advanced by Sin Chaeho in the Joseon Sanggosa
2. People currently supporting this theory include many North Koreans and the South Korean Prof. Yun.
3. This theory is neither universally accepted nor universally derided by the Korean mainstream; hence we find some Korean encyclopedias that accept it and some that do not mention it at all.
4. Virtually nothing is known about the details of this state, or what in practice distinguished its society, culture and politics from those of the Nangnang commandery.
5. The possible historical references to this state are ambiguous and very sparse.

In view of the above, it seems clear that:

• Since this is a matter of legitimate scholarly dispute, we should report on the dispute rather than attempting to resolve it; this is in accord with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV.
  • Accordingly, this information should be included in some form.
• Since everything Wikipedia says about this hypothetical state must be verifiable, this article can never be more than a few paragraphs long. This is in accord with WP:V.
  • Accordingly, this should be merged into a general article located at either Lelang, Nakrang or Nangnang. Perhaps a better target can be suggested, but it does seem clear that a merger should take place.

Thoughts? -- Visviva 09:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm for all this, if the merge target is the current Lelang Commandery article, to be renamed to a more appropriate name such as Nangnang Commandery (樂浪郡) or Nangnang (樂浪).--Endroit 09:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd support Nangnang commandery or nangnang as a title for both if they should be merged, because this article is about nangnang and not about a command post China put in northern Korea. Good friend100 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The explanation about nangnang state by Visviva is also applied to lelang commandery. In the primary source such as shiji, lelang commandery does not exist. --Hairwizard91 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nangnang existed

[7]

In the above link, there is a section that discusses Nangnang.

"232년동안 평양을 중심으로 해서 낙랑국이라는 나라가 있었어요."

The above can translate into "The Nangnang nation existed for 232 years, located in Pyongyang".

Good friend100 13:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

At another point in that page, Prof. Yun Chang-ryeol (at least according to this unofficial transcript) goes on to say "한사군은 없었구요." He appears to believe that the commanderies were actually set up by Goguryeo. Am I just taking this out of context, or is he completely off his rocker? Has this theory actually been published, and if so where? And what should we make of the fact that this theory appears to be based on the Hwandan Gogi, a probable 19th-century fabrication? -- Visviva 13:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Hyung Il Pai of UC Santa Barbara, because of North Korea's juche ideology, North Korean scholars started to fabricate these stories in the late 1940's. I think this should be mentioned in the article also. Hyung Il Pai says [8]:

• "In Post-war North Korea, in re-action to Japanese scholars interpretation of Nangnang remains as a Han-derived occupation confirming the Stagnant/backward nature of Koreans (Chongch'aeron) who were dependent on outside influence, the DPRK historians starting in the late 1940s rejected all Pre-war scholarship as "tainted imperialists historiography" and argued that all the Han dynastic remains ( seals, bronzes, lacquerware etc. ) were all in fact "imported" from China and the sites actually belonged to Koguryo ancestors. Thus, their "chuch'e" philosophy necessitated that there would no "foreign powers" that preceded Koguryo and so they had rewrite the history of the Nangnang sites and renamed them "Koguryo.""

Hyung Il Pai details his ideas in Constructing Korean origins: Archaeology, historiography and racial myth in Korean state formation theories pub. Asia Center, Harvard University Press-2000.
Regarding how juche afects archaeology, the book Archaeology of Asia, by Miriam T. Stark, pub. 2005 Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 1405102136 says (see bottom of page 46) [9]....

• "Han Dynasty records (first century B.C. to third century A.D.) are quite specific and detailed about the establishment of four commanderies in the northern part of the Korean peninsula and nearby regions of Manchuria. In order to assert that this self-reliance was active in the past the historicity of the commanderies must be denied. Unquestionably Chinese artifacts from tombs of the Han period near Pyongyang are explained away as mere imports, rather than as the accounterments of people of Chinese ethnicity who were members of the ruling elite sent by the Han dynasty to govern the Lelang colony in the Korean peninsula."

Apparently juche is the reason why North Korean scholars have to deny that Lelang/Nangnang was a Chinese commandery and/or colony in the Pyongyang area.--Endroit 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Pai's book would be an ideal source, if anyone can get their hands on a copy. -- Visviva 22:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldnt find that the nangnang nation is based on the juche.. There is no word of juche where you have cited. Apprently, your citation says that the artifact or relics in pyongyang is imported by Japanese when colonial period.--Hairwizard91 01:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why lelang commandery must not be located at Pyongyang

1. There is no lelang commandery in the primary source of chinese four commandery.

 In shiji, The son of Roin is sent for conciliation of Joseon people so that the 成巳(last king of Gojoseon after Ugeo is dead) is murdered. And then 4 commandery is established. (相路人之子最 告諭其民, 誅成巳, 以故遂定朝鮮, 爲四郡.)

2. After Shiji described the 4 chinese commandery, the name of four commandery is added after about 200 years. Some of them are comment of Shiji.

 Ju(注) says that Heomdok險瀆縣 in Liaodong遼東 is the capital city of Gojoseon. 
 Shinchan臣瓚 says that the capital city of Gojoseon is located at the east of Lelang commandery樂浪郡. (應* 注 地理志 遼東險瀆縣, 朝鮮王舊都. 臣瓚云 王險城在樂浪郡浿水之東也)

Consequently, the lelang commanderies must be located at the west of Liaodong, which corresponds to Liaoning. So, the artifact or relics in Pyongyang can not be the relics of Lelang.

However, Samguk sagi says that the existence of nangnang nation at the south of Goguryeo, which corresponds to the current North Korea.

Therefore, it is so obvious that nangnang nation exited around pyongyang, and the location of lelang should be described that it was located around Liaoning.

I can show much primary source that the capital city of gojoseon is located at Liaodong, and the lelang commandery is also located around the capital city of gojoseon in Chinese history books--Hairwizard91 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, the site that I have mentioned has showed that Nangnang existed around Pyongyang. Good friend100 03:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read the source I posted? 險瀆縣 was not even in 樂浪郡, it was in 遼東郡. -- ran (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they are describing in conflicting ways. some source is 險瀆縣, and others 遼東.

Any way, Lelang commandery is not located at Pyongyang based on either descriptions. So, Nangnang nation is different from Lelang commandery--Hairwizard91 05:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The source you yourself posted says:

高驪平壤城本漢樂浪郡王險城，即古朝鮮地，時朝鮮王滿據之也。

-- ran (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is this source? Please tell me. I could not find it. --Hairwizard91 05:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You posted it yourself, in the section "Critical reason why the Lelang cannot be located in Pyongyang". -- ran (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I see. 平壤城 represent the first capital city of Goguryeo. 平壤 is the borrowing only sounds, and have a similar meaning of "new field". This is a sort of Idu.

See this (from Shiji) 正義: 地理志云 浿水出遼東塞外, 西南至樂浪縣西入海. 浿普大反
This shows that 浿水, where the captial city of joseon was located, corresponds to Lelang. And this lelang is located at Liaodong. --Hairwizard91 05:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Secondsary source of nangnang state

See this book, History of Korean: from Gojoseon to posteria three kingdoms, ISBN 8958620528 --Hairwizard91 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

State of Nangryang

State of Nangryang? I suggest we move this article to State of Nangryang. The Korea 낙랑 should be translated to "Nangryang". Its not "낭낭", which would be then "Nangnang". I believe that the article should be moved.

I know this is really trivial, but don't you think "Nangnang" just sounds so corny? Good friend100 03:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the romanization must be done based on the sound after consonant assimilation자음동화 is applied. But, I am not sure. --Hairwizard91 03:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiman Joseon

Note that Hairwizard91 has been making the same kind of revisionist edits to Wiman Joseon. -- ran (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hairwizard91: do not remove content from talk pages. -- ran (talk) 05:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is Nangnang... Why do you post the content about Wiman??? --Hairwizard91 05:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because I'm sure people who're interested in the Nangnang discussion may also be interested in a discussion on the location of the capital city of Wiman Joseon. After all, the two issues are closely related. -- ran (talk) 05:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Location of boundary between Yan and Gojoseon

正義音致。

漢使楊信於匈奴。

是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡，而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。

漢又西通月氏、大夏，又以公主妻烏孫王，以分匈奴西方之援國。

又北益廣田至胘雷為塞，而匈奴終不敢以為言。

是歲，翕侯信死，漢用事者以匈奴為已弱，可臣從也。

楊信為人剛直屈彊，素非貴臣，單于不親。

單于欲召入，不肯去節，單于乃坐穹廬外見楊信。

楊信既見單于，說曰：「即欲和親，以單于太子為質於漢。」

單于曰：「非故約。故約，漢常遣翁主，給繒絮食物有品，以和親，而匈奴亦不擾邊。今乃欲反古，令吾太子為質，無幾矣。」

匈奴俗，見漢使非中貴人，其儒先，以為欲說，折其辯；其少年，以為欲刺，折其氣。

每漢使入匈奴，匈奴輒報償。

漢留匈奴使，匈奴亦留漢使，必得當乃肯止。

正義即玄菟、樂浪二郡。

正義今肅州。

是時漢東拔穢貉、朝鮮以為郡，而西置酒泉郡以鬲絕胡與羌通之路。

This says that Hyungdo(玄菟) and Lelang(樂浪) was located at the current 甘肅省, 肅州.--68.75.25.47 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Insufficient information, failing WP:V. Cannot verify what document is being cited.--Endroit 08:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You can find it Shiji in wikisource. [10]--Hairwizard91 09:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Another source that Lelang is located at Liaoning or Liaodong

集解孔安國曰：「碣石，海畔之山也。」

集解徐廣曰：「海，一作『河』。」索隱地理志云「碣石山在北平驪城縣西南」。

太康地理志云「樂浪遂城縣有碣石山，長城所起」。

又水經云「在遼西臨渝縣南水中」。

蓋碣石山有二，此云「 夾右碣石入于海」，當是北平之碣石。

It is so obvious that Lelang commandery is in Liaoning and Nangnang nation is in current Pyongyang.--Hairwizard91 06:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In north of Lelang, there was Yan

燕地尾、箕之分野。

召公封於燕，後三十六世與六國俱稱王。

東有漁陽、右北平、遼西、遼東；

西有上谷、代郡、鴈門；

南有涿郡之易、容城、范陽；

北有新成、故安、涿縣、良鄉、新昌及渤海之安次，樂浪、玄菟亦宜屬焉。

Yan燕 was located at the south of Lelang. If Lelang is located at current Pyongyang, Yan should have been located at current South Korea, but this is not true. So, Lelang was located at Liaoning --Hairwizard91 06:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research again, Hairwizard91? This just says that Lelang/Nangnang (樂浪) was one of the many states to the north of Yan (state) (燕). Yan was in the vicinity of Beijing, from where you go towards Pyongyang by land, going north, and then making a U-turn going south. Big deal.--Endroit 08:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You must use scientific words to discuss in here. Your saying is not persuasible --Hairwizard91 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, this is not original research. See the main article that is cited correctly. --Hairwizard91 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is based on travelling by land along the Yellow Sea coast, which allows you to reach Pyongyang by first traveling north. My interpretation contradicts your interpretation; it's your word against mine, Hairwizard91.--Endroit 10:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yan燕 was located at the south of Lelang --> This says only straight line. There is no u-turn. --Hairwizard91 10:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's still your word against mine, which makes your interpretations original research, Hariwizard91.--Endroit 10:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read these two books. A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang ISBN 89-89524-05-9, Active Korean History: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms, ISBN 8989899583. It is not original research.

If Che-ho Shin & Lee Byungdo said what you said above, and you can cite them, then it wouldn't be original research. You'd better rephrase yourself. Otherwise, it's original research.--Endroit 10:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already added another references. See the above or these. A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang ISBN 89-89524-05-9, Active Korean History: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms, ISBN 8989899583.--Hairwizard91 10:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See this [[11]]. This is the text of Joseon sanggosa. You can find "마한이 월지국으로 도읍을 옮긴 뒤에 그 옛 도읍 평양에는 최씨 ( 崔氏 ) 가 일어나서 그 부근 25 국을 통속하여 한 대국이 되었으니 , 전사 ( 前史 ) 에 이른바 낙랑국 ( 樂浪國 ) 이 그것이다 ."--Hairwizard91 10:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So did your cited authors say what you said above, or not?--Endroit 10:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

See the main article. They say consistently that nangnang nation is different from lelang commandery --Hairwizard91 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your saying is not persuasive any more. You say the same things repeatedly. --Hairwizard91 10:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If Che-ho Shin, Lee Byungdo, or anybody else didn't say it, then it's YOUR own interpretation, which means it's original research. Please be careful. I'll be checking your wording, per WP:V.--Endroit 10:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They say it. and the secondary source prove it such as Jibhae. --Hairwizard91 10:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel to reply to your comments because your comments are not scientific any longer. You have no sources and references. And you just say this is original research even though I have the secondary sources. --Hairwizard91 10:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've got news for you. You CANNOT cite the primary sources directly in these cases because that would be novel interpretation of history. You MUST cite Che-ho Shin, Lee Byungdo, or whoever IN EACH CASE, as having interpreted the primary sources in such a way. Otherewise, it would be considered original research on your part.--Endroit 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the Che-ho shin. The author of Joseon sanggosa is Che-Ho shin. So, it is not origianl research. please calm down and read carefully our talks--Hairwizard91 10:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No you haven't. You always started out by citing Samguk Sagi, or one of the 24 histories directly. Don't do that. You need to cite your secondary source EACH TIME especially if the interpretations are controversial. Please go back and make sure you do that, redo everything if you haven't done that yet.--Endroit 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully please

ChaeHo shin -->"마한이 월지국으로 도읍을 옮긴 뒤에 그 옛 도읍 평양에는 최씨 ( 崔氏 ) 가 일어나서 그 부근 25 국을 통속하여 한 대국이 되었으니 , 전사 ( 前史 ) 에 이른바 낙랑국 ( 樂浪國 ) 이 그것이다 "--Hairwizard91 10:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Lee Byungdo -->북경(北京) 가까운 곳의 낙랑군(樂浪郡)과 한반도(韓半島) 내의 평양지역에 최리崔理의 낙랑국樂浪國 이 있었는데 여러사서에서 이를 혼돈하여 낙랑군이 평양부근에 있었던 것으로 오해하고 있다--Hairwizard91 10:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but they're not referring to Yan (燕) there, so that bit about Yan would still be original research on your part.--Endroit 11:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They have interpreted based on Shiji so that they did not referred to Yan. they interpret Shiji which is very reputable chinese books. See the Shiji that I have mention. --Hairwizard91 11:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

But those are YOUR words Hairwizard91, not Che-ho Shin's, not Lee Byungdo's. Che-ho Shin or Lee Byungdo must have specifically said that about Yan (燕), or else it's original research.--Endroit 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please study first and then discuss with me. It seems that I teach you the history.--Hairwizard91 11:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're teaching people here in Wikipedia based on your knowledge, that proves that you're doing original research. You are advised to stop doing that. Read WP:OR & Wikipedia:Citing sources, and read them carefully.--Endroit 11:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha. It is because you dont know the korean history. lol--Hairwizard91 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you dont have any comments. and dont say that this is original research. There are books to describe this nation, and it is obvious that nangnang nation exist. but, you could not show nothing against my advocacy. I want you to talk based on the references. --Hairwizard91 11:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you cite your sources properly, you've got nothing to worry about, do you? That bit about Yan is a classic example of original research, and you are strongly discouraged from using it in Wikipedia. That's all.--Endroit 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you repeatedly say the Yan. I did already cite the work of Chae Ho Sin and Byung Do Lee. If you commnet about original research, I won't reply to you because I have proved that this is not original research by citing the work of Chae Ho Sin and byung Do Lee. --Hairwizard91 11:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Because you didn't show me the part where they talk about Yan. Show me where. Show me where Che-ho Shin or Lee Byungdo talks about Yan.--Endroit 11:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I say this thing three times. See the above. They did not interpret Yan. They interpret Shiji's jibhae. So, they did not refer to Yan. OK???--Hairwizard91 11:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That means YOU interpreted the bit about Yan in Shiji, which means it's original research on your part, Hairwizard91.--Endroit 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

THEY interpret Shiji's Jibhae. It is not me... ok?? I just cited their explanation ok????--Hairwizard91 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They interpret the literature. OK?????--Hairwizard91 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No it's NOT OK because you did NOT cite "their explanation" of Yan. Read WP:OR.--Endroit 11:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is ok because my explanation is based on their works of Byungdo Lee and Chae Ho Sin. --Hairwizard91 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wont reply to you if you refer to original research because it is not original research any more. I dont want to play with you. --Hairwizard91 11:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The bit about Yan above IS original research, because you admitted that Che-ho Shin and Lee Byungdo do NOT talk about Yan. Therefore, the bit about Yan above is YOUR interpretation of the Shiji, hence original research on your part.--Endroit 11:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of primary sources say that the location of Lelang commandery was around Liaoning. So, the Nangnang state in Pyongyang different from Lelang commandery. Also, there is secondary sources so that this is not original research. Consequently, this page can neither be redirect nor removed. --Hairwizard91 06:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Both of you guys need to cool it. Just keep it simple. Hairwizard, if you have any secondary sources then present it. And Endroit, if Hairwizard is doing original research prove that. I don't understand why you two are arguing over this when there is lots to do on the article itself. Good friend100 00:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already shown the secondary source, but I dont understand why this is original research.

• Yi Shunjin (2001). A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang. ISBN 89-89524-05-9.
• Yi Deokil (2003). Active Korean History: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms. ISBN 8989899583.
• Sin Chaeho, Ancient Joseon History) (This is not primary source)
• Yi Byeongdo (1989). An Introduction to ancient Korean History.
• Yi Deokil (2005). Korean History for College Students: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms. ISBN 8958620528. --Hairwizard91 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Since those aren't English works, it would make verification much easier if you left the titles in the original Korean (feel free to translate parenthetically). -- Visviva 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Though it is cited in the main article, it is shown again due to the requesting

리, 순진 (2001). 평양일대 락랑무덤에 대한 연구(A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang). 서울: 중심. ISBN 89-89524-05-9.

이, 덕일 (2003). 살아있는 한국사 1 - 단군조선에서 후삼국까지 (Active Korean History: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms). 서울: 휴머니스트. ISBN 8989899583.

신채호, 조선상고사 (Ancient Korean History)

Yi Byeongdo (1989). 한국 상고사 입문(An Introduction to ancient Korean History). 서울: 고려원.

이, 덕일(2005) 교양 한국사 1 - 단군조선에서 후삼국까지 (Korean History for College Students: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms). 서울: 휴머니스트. ISBN 8958620528. --68.75.25.47 06:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also a good point to remind all parties that if there is a legitimate controversy, then it is Wikipedia's task to record that controversy rather than attempting to resolve it. But we are also obliged to avoid giving undue weight to non-mainstream opinions. The Nangnang state hypothesis, particularly in its extreme form, does not appear to be a mainstream opinion, although it has some legitimate support. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it is noteworthy that almost no English-language works, and relatively few Korean-language scholarly writings, refer to this putative state. I'm still holding out hope for Pai's book as a definitive reference on this topic ... anyone got a copy? -- Visviva 05:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is the reviews of the Pai's book [12]. It may support more strongly nangnang nation based on my just reading through--Hairwizard91 06:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I will quote some of them.

They(Japanese) not only excavated hundreds of burial sites, but also identified more than two thousand of them. Because, moreover, they published their findings in many reports over the years in a language similar to Korean and would eventually even train the first generation of Korean archaeologists (p. 35),their work and methodology have had an enormous impact on Korean historiography and archaeology to date

In the consecutive chapter, "Korean State-Formation Theories: A Critical Review" (pp. 97-126), she shows how racism already imbedded in the methodology of Japanese archaeologists led to the contrivance of Korean state-formation theories. Criticizing the methodology of the general Korean archaeology today, she says

"Korean scholars today have yet to fathom the imperialistic motives lurking behind colonial scholarship's imagined Korean racial origins in primitive Manchuria, even though they continue to target Japanese ancient historians as arch-villains for their distorted view of Korean history (p. 98)

The book may warned that the colonial strategy by Japan was used in acheological and historical studies, even though she wrongly concluded that the first Korean state cannot be dated earlier than around 108 B.C. She may not know the bronze daggers and dolmen tombs in manchuria and korean peninsula. I think her book is junk because she says that the first korean state must be after 108B.C. This year corresponds to the desctruction year of Wiman Joseon as everybody (China, Japana and Korea without exception) agree with. --Hairwizard91 07:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

She even argue that Korean is not Tungusic and Altaic people, and this theory is caused by the faulty russian ethnography (see another book review in Journal of Asian studies, vol 60(3), 892-894 (2001)).

Consequently, this book does not say nothing about the nangnang nation. She just want to say that the centralized state of Korean cannot be ealier than 108 BC, because the glorious ancient states such as buyeo and gojoseon were caused by nationlist historians against Japanese colony. Thus, her book also implies that all chinese historical records about Korean are totally wrong. She does not know anthing about the east asian history. Her book is garbage. --Hairwizard91 07:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

To Visviva, This site [13] may help you to understand the difference between the nangnang relics and chinese relics if you can read korean scripts. This is the outline of the book published in North Korea about nangnang relics--Hairwizard91 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is great to have Hairwizard91 here, working hard on his interests. However, the tone of this debate has become PERSONAL and ugly. I am disappointed that the work of a professional scholar is disparaged in such a brutal and inappropriate way, i.e. Pai's work is "junk" or "garbage". We should attempt to argue points intelligently and keep in mind that we should be trying to be objective, and not argue from a disruptive or insulting point of view. Once we start throwing around such rough and insulting language THE DEBATE OVER NANGNANG IS OVER!!!! What can be accomplished with such a disruptive attitude? Professor Pai is a friend and colleague. To remark that she does not know anything about East Asian History is simply UNACCEPTABLE. It is mean and uncalled for to suggest that a Korean editor should consult an article "if you can read Korean scripts". What is the purpose of insulting Visviva, who has done his best and has made valuable contributions? How incredibly insulting!! I find this whole thing very disruptive. Is it so wrong to be civil, kind, and helpful in Wikipedia talk page correspondence?

I did not have intention to insult Visviva. I am sorry if I made Visviva angry. It is because of my bad english.

However, it is so sure that Pai's work is bad... It is not because I am Korean but because she does not know history. She is archeologist. Moreover, her work started from a biased point of view such that all Korean historians are nationalists... How dare she say that all korean historians are nationalist??? In order to be construct high quality article, unbiased historians' work should be consulted. She has never seen the relics of Nangnangn in Pyongyang. If she is right, what about the records of China and Korea? Are all the records in China and Korea WRONG?? If she is right, half of the history of china and korea is a lie. But, I do not think so. --Hairwizard91 23:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article that Pai wrote and that is germane to the topic: Pai, Hyung Il. 1989. Lelang and the 'Interaction Sphere': An Alternative Approach to Korean State Formation. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 8(1):64-75.

My university library does not have this journal. --Hairwizard91 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I doubt she really saw the relics of nangnang in North Korea or how many times she saw the relics. --Hairwizard91 00:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

사실, 우리는 기본적으로 똑 같은 마음이 있어서, 도움 되지않는 짓을 합지맙시다, 응?? 웃기는 말 그만 하자, 응? To me, Korean history, archaeology, and so many other things are fun. But this is not fun AT ALL. I will attempt to help out with this problem, if I am needed. However, this is not fun at all. I do not think this is the kind of inclusive and friendly philosophy that Jimbo Wales and the others are talking about. Let's make it fun and respect each other ^^. Kiss and make up (Smooch). Have a great day! --Mumun 15:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I'm not actually Korean. :-) I agree that the level of discourse here has left much to be desired, and have found the whole business rather draining. I look forward to revisiting the topic when tempers have cooled all around. -- Visviva 16:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Reason Why Pai's work is junk

Nangnang commandery was establisehd after Wiman Joseon was destroyed by Han dynasty at 108BC, and China established the Chinese commandery where Wiman joseon was destroyed. There are many relics in Pyonyang that seems to be contructed at about 108BC, and chinese and japanese historians say that these relics were developed after Chinese culture was imported by the Chinese commandery. So, Pai says in her book (published at year 2000) that the state of Korean cannot be earlier than 108 BC. If she were right or there were no state in korea before 108BC, what is the wiman joseon that Han dynasty had destroyed ? Did Han dynasty destroyed a bogus state? Are all the historical records of China about Korean history fake?? Her theory is based on only relics so that her theory cannot be concrete and objective. Thus, it is not good source to be cited for the history of nangnang commandery and nangnang state. --Hairwizard91 00:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

So, her work cannot be cited because you disagree with it? Interesting. Your criticisms may be valid. However, they have no place at Wikipedia unless you can find a reputable secondary source that supports them. Please review our policy on original research. Certainly, on the surface, the work of Prof. Pai seems eminently suited to being cited here. Namely, it is:

• written in English,
• by a well-respected scholar,
• in her field of specialization,
• of recent vintage, and
• published by a respected academic press.

If you can cite criticisms of her work that also meet these standards, then I will heartily agree that those criticisms should also be included here. But if not, there is no reason for us not to take her work at face value. -- Visviva 08:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

For instance, you cited a review which you claimed argued against Pai's interpretation. But in fact, in that review (first published in Acta Koreana), Maliangkay states "Pai proves quite convincingly that the first Korean state cannot be dated earlier than around 108 B.C," and he concludes "Constructing Korean Origins is a wonderful achievement." This certainly does not suggest any glaring problems with the book. -- Visviva 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

New History of Korea. Written by Lee Hyun Hee, Park Sung Soo, Yoon Nae Hyung, published by Jimundang, Published year 2005,

You can find the Nangnang nation by Choi House

Her work is also conflicted with the work by Lee Ki-Baik because he says that the first state of Korea started from the age of bronze which corresponds to 3-4 BC at least. See "A New History of Korea" written by Lee, Ki-Baik. --Hairwizard91 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, her works does not concerned with the nangnang nation. She just says that the origin of Korean state was too exaggerated by nationalistic historians based on Nangnang relics. She is just archaeologist. She is not historian. Usually, archaeological research based on only relics reduces the starting era of history, and it is always disputed by historians research. It is generally accepted as history if the literature historians' theory is supported by the archaeological works or relics.

If the Wiki article about Korean history follows the theory of Pai, all history articles of Gojoseon, Gija Joseon, Wiman Joseon, Buyeo, Mahan confederacy and Jin (Korean history) must be removed (I can show you more Korean-related articles in Chinese hisotry that must be removed if Pai's work is right). If you think that Pai's work is completely right, you can remove all the articles about korean history before 108BC. Her work cannot be cited not because I disagree with it but because her work was not based on the generally accepted history. --Hairwizard91 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I must say this is very strange coming from someone who has pushed on several fronts (most notably Sinsi and Nakrang) for keeping material in Wikipedia that is definitely not based on the generally accepted history.

On the merits of the point, again, her work seems to be an almost perfect example of a reliable source; furthermore, it appears that her specific claim has drawn widespread agreement from other authorities in the field. Also, apart from this widely-acclaimed volume, Pai has published widely on matters of Korean history, archeology, and anthropology; she is not "just an archeologist." That her theories are somewhat different from those proposed by a leading historian of three decades ago should not come as a surprise; like all other fields of inquiry, history moves gradually toward a clearer understanding of its subject. Nor should it come as a surprise that historians with overt nationalistic agendas (such as Yoon) disagree with her work; however, if we can verify that they have raised problems with this specific work, that should certainly be mentioned.

As for the articles you mention, of course they should not be removed, since they are (at the very least) notable aspects of Korean historiography. However, we should probably rewrite them to make it clear that today's scholarship does not regard these entities as having been "states" or "kingdoms" in the usual sense. (just as for early Baekje and Silla).

I must qualify this again by saying that I haven't been able to get a copy of Pai's book yet, so this is all rather abstract. That said, I'm looking forward eagerly to reading it, and to introducing appropriate citations in appropriate Wikipedia articles. -- Visviva 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

She is certainly archaeologist. She is not main historian such like Lee Ki-Baik, Yi Byeong Do and Yoon Nae Hyun. If you search the journal and books published by her, you can see the topics is about the relics and nationalism. --Hairwizard91 18:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There are a number of different ways to study and learn about the region and the complex societies that were located there. Archaeology is a valid and worthy one. Archaeology claims to be objective, especially anthropological archaeology. There are a number of other different authors that look at the same time-space continuum in archaeological terms. One is Sarah Taylor. Here are a number of references:

• Taylor, Sarah. 1989. The introduction and development of iron production in Korea: A survey. World Archaeology 20(3):422-431.

• Kim, Jangsuk. 2001. Elite Strategies and the Spread of Technological Innovation: The Spread of Iron in the Bronze Age Societies of Denmark and Southern Korea. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(442-478.

• Rhee, Song-nai, and Choi Myong-lyong. 1992. Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Korea. Journal of World Prehistory 6(1):51-95.

The above papers are by scholars at the top of their field (like Pai H.I.) and the journals are all top-notch peer-reviewed. 짱...

Said it before, and I'll say it again. I like Hairwizard and his contribution, particularly the one here.

What I'll add is that we shouldn't erase major parts of anything in this article. However, we need to expose Sin Chae-ho, Yoon Nae-hyeon, their scholarship, as well as North Korean scholarship, for what it is and who they are. This does not include insulting the work of Yoon or North Koreans -- they are all scholars, and should be respected. We need to counter all the major points made in this article with two counter-perspectives: 1) modern history that is accepted by the academic community in the Republic of Korea AND the general public, (2) South Korean archaeological perspectives AND anthropological archaeological perspectives. I think that the additional content could be organized in this way. We need not write a lot or add a whole bunch of stuff.

This is for Hairwizard: Yo! Pai Hyung Il was LEE KI-BAEK'S STUDENT AT SEOGANG-DAE 메롱 ^^. ㅋㅋ 짜장면 한그릇 사주시오! ㅎㅎ

Hope these things may help. Visviva and Hairwizard 파이팅!

Mumun 00:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Her perspective is much more reduced than her teacher's perpective. Lee considers ancient state was established around bronze age, and Pai considers ancient state was established after 108BC. ^^ Where are you. I live in Ohio US. I can buy Jjajangmyun and Jjamppong if you live close to me. --Hairwizard91 02:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, is any research about the Nangnang nation's history based on archaeological perspective except by North Korean? I cannot find anything except by North Korean. The study of Nangnang still continues using historical records. Pai's work is based on the assumption that Nangnang located at Pyongyang was a chinese commandery, while Yoon's work is based on the assumption that the Nangnang located at Pyongyang was not a commandery but a state. The only research about Nangnang relics concerned with Nangnang nation was done by only North Korean. It may be caused from prohibited area of North Korea...--Hairwizard91 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Good friend100 13:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

State or Kingdom

I can guess what you are going to say about state or kingdom... Nangnang was a small nation such like Dongye, Okjeo, Samhan. So, I made this article as Nangnang nation, but someone has moved to State of Nangnang. I also could not get her book... --Hairwizard91 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have the book by Pai

Finally I can get her book. I am the first borrower of this book. Nobody have checked it out... haha This book seems to be a bound volume of her previous paper and add a few chapters even though I have not read it very carefully. She provides other historical theories about Nangang or Lelang including Yoon and North Korean histoirans, and then she explained her thoery because her thoery is based on the assumption that there is no nangnang nation. So, she just explained the relation between Lelang, goguryeo, samhan and Wa. I think this is not good source for nangnang state, but is a good source about cultural interconnection by lelang commandery. --Hairwizard91 20:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your opinion is reasonable. Thank you for going to the trouble of looking at her book. I agree that it seems that only North Koreans and Professor Yoon have looked at the possibility that Nangnang was located in Liaoning or otherwise outside the Pyeongyang area. --Mumun 21:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)