Jump to content

Talk:Lelang Commandery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The location of lelang commandery

[edit]

Based on chinese history books, it was located at west manchuria. So, the location of lelang commandery should be modified. See below for reference 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。
--Hairwizard91 16:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is original research by User:Hairwizard91, which directly contradicts 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".--Endroit 09:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research. It is already published as books. [1], [2]. --Hairwizard91 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this talk page is for discussion on improving the article, not a platform for korean nationalism as hairwizard is using it for. i just thought i wanted to make that clear here because alot of china related articles are being messed up by korean nationalists trying to remove material and distort history.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names for "Lelang"

[edit]

According to the following entry from Merriam-Webster Unabridged Collegiate Encyclopedia, Lelang and Lo-lang are variant names for Nangnang:

Main Entry: Nangnang
Variant(s): or Lelang or Lo-lang
Colony of Han-dynasty China in N Korea, near modern-day Pyongyang, from which the Chinese incorporated S Korea and parts of Japan into their sphere of influence. The Chinese maintained a commandery there for 400 years. Its presence introduced the local people to wet-rice cultivation, iron technology, and high-fired ceramic technology.
Collegiate Encyclopedia copyright © 2006 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

--Endroit 07:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're all the same name, just different pronunciations and romanizations thereof. Nangnang is the SK pronunciation; if I'm not mistaken, Nakrang is the standard NK pronunciation. Lelang and Lolang, of course, are differing romanizations of the standard Mandarin Chinese pronunciation. Would not oppose a move to Nangnang, although it's striking that there has never been any interest in such a move... If I'm not mistaken, this is only at the Chinese name because User:Nanshu happened to create it. -- Visviva 09:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, should we move it to "Nangnang Commandery" or just "Nangnang"? Either way, I think we should merge/redirect State of Nangnang into this article as well.--Endroit 09:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that a merge is in the offing, I think "Nangnang" would be best, per WP:NPOV and also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (unambiguous and easier to link). -- Visviva 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will agree with that merge. And "Lelang Commandery" could still be mentioned as an alternate name in the first paragraph.--Endroit 18:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source for the location of lelang

[edit]

The location of lelang was Liaodong and Liaoning. See the references [3], [4]. --Hairwizard91 04:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ >이, 덕일 (2005). 교양 한국사 1 - 단군조선에서 후삼국까지 (Korean History for College Students: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms). 서울: 휴머니스트. ISBN 8958620528.
  2. ^ 리, 순진 (2001). 평양일대 락랑무덤에 대한 연구(A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang). 서울: 중심. ISBN 89-89524-05-9.
  3. ^ >이, 덕일 (2005). 교양 한국사 1 - 단군조선에서 후삼국까지 (Korean History for College Students: From Gojoseon to Posteria Three Kingdoms). 서울: 휴머니스트. ISBN 8958620528.
  4. ^ 리, 순진 (2001). 평양일대 락랑무덤에 대한 연구(A Research about the Tombs of Nangnang around Pyongyang). 서울: 중심. ISBN 89-89524-05-9.

Sources in English

[edit]
For historical reference, the first group of references (in Korean) were added by User:Hairwizard91, and presumably support the Liaoning hypothesis; the second group (in English) were added by User:Endroit, and support the Pyongyang hypothesis. -- Visviva 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I think this article should mention that the location of Lelang/Nangnang is not known with certainty, and that some sources believe it was not located on the Korean Peninsula at all -- but also that the consensus of historians supports the Pyongyang hypothesis. -- Visviva 16:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, Visviva (I forgot to sign). The links in English above show the consensus view outside of Korea. We should definitely mention that North Korea opposes this consensus view, as Gina Lee Barnes suggests (in her link above). I am curious to see if there are any sources in English elaborating, and even supporting, any alternate view. If there aren't any sources in English, it probably proves that the alternate views are in the minority.--Endroit 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The english book to view that Nangnang state and Lelang commandery.

  • Lee Hyun Hee, Park Sung Soo and Yoon Nae Hyun, New History of Korea (2005). ISBN : 89-88095-85-5

About the location of lelang commandery in Liaoning.

hohoho, funny how your references are in korean, which would make them clearly biased in korean POV, but the references supporting the chinese side are in ENGLISH, which wouldnt make them chinese, so for all purposes what hairwizard is pulling up here is nonsense.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

korean trolling

[edit]

several koreans have removed the chinese names os people mentioned in the article, this vandalism needs to stop.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

chinese disruptive trolling

[edit]

Some disruptive chinese editor named ㄏㄨㄤㄉ (talk · contribs) has removed the Korean category and tried to insert redundant links to the article, this vandalism needs to stop.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, mocking the above editor won't help your cause though (as you did here and in your edit summary when you edited the article). If the editor in question is really a nationalist, you wouldn't want to mock him or her! 122.105.150.242 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow this korean caspainblue thinks hes above the rules here, first of all, the chinese names were here FIRST, until historapher changed them, and second when i added them back, i had been nice enough to keep the korean names... keep going on like this and i will ensure the korean names will be GONEㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt delete the korean category intentionally... i was reverting your unconstructive vandalism....ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did, so I reverted your vandalism. Stop such disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow you think your the boss, huh? the chinese names were here first, until histographer changed them, but you decide to come along and delete them....ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hut, look whose talking? you're very arrogant for everything from the start. Do not falsely accuse somebody who disagree with your nationalistic POV of being a vandal. That does not help you for anything.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation shouldn't even be happening. It's a simple solution: keep both the Chinese and Korean names. That's it. It's not rocket science, people.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow caspian look whos talking, YOU were the one who removed the chinese names beforeNefbmn (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop fighting!

[edit]

Can the two above editors accept that quite often, an event or place can be part of the history of more than one country please? Or have I missed something here? 122.105.150.242 (talk) 04:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nice sockpuppet david.Nefbmn (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) one ref map from textbook. Evawen (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lelang location, once and for all

[edit]

Lelang location has never been in controversy. The academia has globally confirmed it to be in the northern Korea peninsula with sufficient written records and archeleogical evidence. The Korean nationalists keep moving Lelang outside Korea peninsula which has been considered as a sad joke by western scholars. Several supporting evidence are listed below; as a reminder, the ref book "Korea, Old and New" is reviewed by academia to be "most reliable and useful" on Korean history study.

1. the book "Korea, Old and New":

pp 13: The territorial extent of the Four Chinese Commanderies seems to have been limited to the area north of the Han River.

pp 14: As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. The variety of burial objects found in their wooden and brickwork tombs attests to the lavish life syle of these Chinese officials, merchants, and colonial overloads in Lelang's capital. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded.

pp 16: map of "Korea in the confederated Kingdoms period (ca. 1st-3rd centuries A.D)"

2. http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Korea.html

Han Chinese built four commanderies, or local military units, to rule the peninsula as far south as the Han River, with a core area at Lolang (Nangnang in Korean), near present-day P'yongyang. It is illustrative of the relentlessly different historiography practiced in North Korea and South Korea, as well as the projection backward of Korean nationalism practiced by both sides, that North Korean historians deny that the Lolang Commandery was centered in Korea. They place it northwest of the peninsula, possibly near Beijing, in order to de-emphasize China's influence on ancient Korean history.

3. the book "A history of Korea, from Antiquity to the present":

pp 18: For the next four centuries a northwestern part of the Korean peninsula was directly incorporated in to the Chinese Empire.... The Taedong River basin, the area where the modern city of P'yongyang is located, became the center of the Lelang commandery.

pp 19: The way of life maintained by the elite at the capital in the P'yongyang area, which is known from the tombs and scattered archaeological remains, evinces a prosperous, refined, and very Chinese culture. --EJcarter (talk) 08:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lelang Commandery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What scholars say about Lelang Commandery

[edit]
"Lelang Commandery was crucial to understanding the early history of Korea, which lasted from 108 BCE to 313 CE around the P'yongyang area. However, because of its nature as a Han colony and the exceptional attention paid to it by Japanese colonial scholars for making claims of the innate heteronomy of Koreans, post 1945 Korean scholars intentionally avoided the issue of Lelang."
"After a period of decline, Old Choson falls to Wiman, an exile from the Yan state in northern China. Wiman proves to be a strong ruler, but his ambitious program of expansion eventually brings him into conflict with the Han dynasty of China. The Han defeats Wiman Choson and establishes a protectorate over northern Korea in 108 b.c. Resistance to Chinese hegemony, however, is strong, and China reduces the territory under its active control to Nang-nang colony with an administrative center near modern Pyongyang."
"Chinese civilization had started to flow into the Korean Peninsula through Nang-nang. This was the only time in Korean history that China could establish its colonies in the central part of Korea, where occupation forces were stationed. The Han Empire not only occupied Korea, but expanded westward to Persia and Afghanistan."
"In the corridor between the peninsula and northeast China, the Chinese Han dynasty established four “commanderies” that ruled over parts of the peninsula and Manchuria, much as modern imperial powers governed their colonies."
  • Eckert, Carter J. (1991). Korea Old and New: A History. Ilchokak Publishers. p. 14. ISBN 978-0962771309.
"As its administrative center, the Chinese built what was inessence a Chinese city where the governor, officials, merchants, and Chinese colonists lived. Their way of life in general can be surmised from the investigation of remains unearthed at T'osong-ni, the site of the Lelang administrative center near modern P'yongyang. The variety of burial objects found in their wooden and brickwork tombs attests to the lavish life syle of these Chinese officials, merchants, and colonial overloads in Lelang's capital. ... The Chinese administration had considerable impact on the life of the native population and ultimatedly the very fabric of Gojoseon society became eroded."
The sources look reliable, except the first one which has an invalid Google books url and ISBN (which I just removed from the article). The key is that you need to write coherently, avoid repeating the same points to push a point of view, and stop edit warring. -Zanhe (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
see
"Lelang Commandery was crucial to understanding the early history of Korea, which lasted from 108 BCE to 313 CE around the P'yongyang area. However, because of its nature as a Han colony and the exceptional attention paid to it by Japanese colonial scholars for making claims of the innate heteronomy of Koreans, post 1945 Korean scholars intentionally avoided the issue of Lelang."--133.137.209.160 (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Debate over the location of Lelang started as early as 500AD by Chinese historians

[edit]

The Pei river in the original <<Water classic>> by Chinese historian Sang Qin(300 AD)- 浿水出乐浪镂方县，东南过临浿县，东入于海 Translation : The Pei river flows out of Lelang luofang County, passes Linyi County in the southeast, and enters the sea in the east.

The Pei river in the revision <<commentary on the water classic>> by Li Daoyuan (500 AD) -若浿水东流，无渡浿之理，其地今高句丽之国治，余访番使，言城在浿水之阳。其水西流迳故乐浪朝鲜县，即乐浪郡治，汉武帝置，而西北流。故《地理志》曰：浿水西至增地县入海。又汉兴，以朝鲜为远，循辽东故塞至浿水为界。考之今古，于事差谬，盖《经》误证也。 If the Pei river flows eastward, there is no reason to cross the Pei river. The river is now under the control of Goguryeo, upon interviewing the Goguryeo missionaries, it's located in the city, the water flows westward to Lelang Korea County, namely Lelang County, which was set up by Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, thus flows northwest. GoldenTaurus (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a non-primary source for this? Qiushufang (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We had the discussion and came to an consensus before.
WP:NOR Primary source is allowed in Wikipedia
WP:V Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. GoldenTaurus (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but someone else removed the content citing WP:OR, so it would be good to clear it up with a non-primary souce now. Qiushufang (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page Talk:Four_Commanderies_of_Han GoldenTaurus (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This does not negate point 2, 3, 4 of WP:PRIMARY or WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is no mention of a debate in the primary source, which would make it original research as Esiymbro pointed out. Qiushufang (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The quotations you cited are Shuijing zhu correcting a mistake in the original Shuijing on the direction of the river. Again, there was no debate in 500 AD about the location of Lelang.

Also, Shuijing zhu explicitly said that Lelang was Goguryeo's capital at the time. Similarly, Bak Jiwon's argument was that both Lelang and Goguryeo's Pyongyang was located in Liaodong, which is completely different from the modern North Korean view that Goguryeo's Pyongyang, but not Lelang, was at the same place as the modern city. You seem to be deliberately leaving this part out.

Unless you go all the way to Tangshan or Beijing there are no major eastward flowing rivers. While some online nationalists indeed claim that Lelang was around Beijing, I have not yet seen anyone crazy enough to say that Goguryeo was also centered in Beijing. Instead they just selectively ignore these texts, like you did. Esiymbro (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The revision by Li daoyuan <<commentary on water classic>> just so happened three hundred years after the original <<water classic>> was published and the revision was merely based on Li Daoyuan’s conversation with Goguryeo missionaries, No mention of field trip or on-site investigation ever made to verify the claim. The added content doesn’t conclude whether original text or revised text is correct, it merely states the fact that ancient Chinese records are not consistent and had gone through revision. added content is not claiming Lelang was in Beijing or Goguryeo was centered in Beijing. Please refrain from ad hominem sarcasm and base your argument on facts with respect. Healthy discussion, No WP:NPOV dispute POV pushing GoldenTaurus (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is all interpretation. The "debate", the dates, and authors are not mentioned once in the primary source and this is WP:SYNTH. You are interpreting the primary source which violates point 3 of WP:PRIMARY since it's in Classical Chinese and cannot be easily verified by other users. This does require a secondary source regardless of the translated quotation provided and I had provided tags for it to be improved, which it never was. Qiushufang (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lelang_Commandery&oldid=1208140324"