Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Buyeo

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zessede (talk | contribs) at 09:16, 22 February 2022 (→Fuyu removed and proto-Korean added?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

would anyone mind if i renamed this article Buyeo (Korean history)? it seems more commonly known by the Korean transliteration (formerly Puyo, now Buyeo), & most links to the article are from korean history articles. it is arguably also manchurian history, so i would like some feedback. Appleby 22:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

from googling, i think "fuyu" will eventually need to become a disambiguation page, fuyu county of jilin province, fuyu persimmon, fuyu/buyeo (state), & must also mean something in japanese. Appleby 23:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Appleby - Fuyu needs a disambiguation page. Top 10 pages listed for a google search on "FUYU" pertains to FUYU persimmon, Fuyu Corporation, and Fuyu Hardware Ltd. Fuyu is hardly used (even by Chinese authorities) for Chinese variant on Buyeo. IF I muster up enough time, i'll work on it. Deiaemeth 04:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. I couldn't find reference which verify "It claimed the inheritance of Gojoseon, and the rulers continued to use the Gojoseon titles of Tanje, meaning "emperor." Am I right in guessing that some (largely Korean) claim that it is inherited from Gojoseon solely on the basis of the word "Tanje"? Until someone can give more specific source from ancient text which clearly state that "Buyeo is a successor of Gojoseon", the sentence is off. If it is based on guess or speculation, then such opinion require attribution and disambiguation. FWBOarticle

These are the only references to buyeo/puyo/fuyu (state) in the 2005 encyclopedia britannica deluxe edition (with wikilinks added):

  • under Koguryo: "Koguryŏ is traditionally said to have been founded in 37 BC in the Tongge River basin of northern Korea by Chu-mong, leader of one of the Puyŏ tribes native to the area, but modern historians believe it is morelikely that the tribal state was formed in the 2nd century BC."
  • under Korea, History of: The Three Kingdoms: "Apart from Chosŏn, the region of Korea developed into tribal states. To the north, Puyŏ rose in the Sungari River basin of Manchuria. Chin, which had emerged south of the Han River in the 2nd century BC, was split into three tribal states—Mahan, Chinhan, and Pyŏnhan."

see also [1]Appleby 04:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All these citations suggest that Fuyu/Puyo/Buyeo is part of Manchurian history rather than Korean history. Chinese romanization should be used for Manchurian history.--Endroit 05:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations does use Korean romanization over Chinese ones. If the sole reasoning beyond using the Chinese romanization for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu is that it was located in Manchuria, Goguryeo, which territory greatly occupied that of Manchuria, should only employ Chinese romanizations as well? I don't know about this. Also, I guess common English usage for whichever romanization is important for naming of the articles. Deiaemeth 05:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:MOS defers the naming conventions for Chinese place names to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). There, it specifically says Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Please follow the rules, Appleby & Deiaemeth.--Endroit 06:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to Chinese ""Place names", as in Chinese cities and such. Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyo is not a city/town/place in mainland China right now. Mainland China place names should be in Hanyu Pinyin. Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names. So use Hohhot, Kashgar, and Shigatse, not Huhehaote, Kashi, and Rikaze. This is the chinese naming conventions for historical names [2]. Please read the rules, Endroit. I wouldn't call Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu a "Chinese place".Deiaemeth 07:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I am reading it correctly, Deiaemeth. Manchuria is a non-Han Chinese place using Hanyu Pinyin. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), this would mean Place names in "Manchuria" should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used "for those places". or Place names in "Manchuria" should be romanized in "Hanyu Pinyin."
Can other editors confirm which romanization "is commonly used" in Manchuria? I don't think Korean is commonly used in Manchuria.--Endroit 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By your reasoning, should we then romanize Goguryeo as Gaoguli, seeing as how it was located in Manchuria? Btw, the naming conventions state "These conventions are guidelines only, and there are examples of exceptions, so please use your discretion. As always, all discussion is welcome on the talk page." Just because it was located in what is present day China does not automatically subjectable to Chinese romanization. Also "Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names" .. so this would mean whichever Romanization is common for "Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu" should be used, not for Manchuria. Deiaemeth
Deiaemeth, don't try to evade the issue by mixing it up with Goguryeo. Your POV with respect to Fuyu/Buyeo is at odds with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). I'd ask others for opinions if I were you.--Endroit 08:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to "Evade" the issue. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which isn't a Wikipedia policy but rather a guideline, states "Place names in Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and overseas (such as Singapore) should be romanized in whatever way is commonly used for those places. Same goes for non-Han Chinese place names". So it is stating that romanization/name used most commonly for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu kingdom should be used. It is your POV with respect to Buyeo/Fuyu that is at odds with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're suggesting that Fuyu is the most commmon romanization for Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu Kingdom, than back it up with sources and publications. Deiaemeth 08:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deiaemeth-POV prefers Korean romanization for a Manchurian placename because he believes it is the most popular in English. Endroit-POV prefers the Chinese romanization (Hanyu Pinyin), because it is actually used there in Manchuria. I believe we disagree on the interpretation of "for those places". Other people are welcome to interpret Wikipedia:MOS and naming conventions with respect to Fuyu/Buyeo and comment here. Thanks.--Endroit 08:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, contrary to Wikipedia:Naming conventions Chinese which is just a guideline and not a Wikipedia Policy, Wikipedia:Naming Conventions specifically states that Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. So, whichever one has more English usage should be the article name. Deiaemeth 08:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neither "Buyeo" nor "Fuyu" are "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." That rule wouldn't necessarily apply here. Again Deiaemeth-POV says that rule applies. Endroit-POV says it doesn't.--Endroit 08:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not many English speakers would recognize many (or any)things in relation to Korean or Chinese history. So that naming convention would mean most English publications and such, independent reference works, etc. most commonly use. Deiaemeth 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what it says in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places). The "naming conventions" merely defers this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) for "Place Names in China."--Endroit 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places) is a guideilne. Wikipedia:Naming Conventions ( a de jure policy) states that the most common English usage should be used.

Deiaemeth 09:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add Fuyu as alternative name at start. At present (Dec. 23,2019), There is no occurrence in the full text except in inserted map, which is a bit misleading. Also, add a ancient Chinese pronunciation onomatopoeia (Middle Chinese: bhu-yio) helps solve the controversy of which romanization to use. Lpyy15 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Common English usage?

by Tetsutaka Sugawara - 1996]

by Iyanatul Islam - Business & Economics - 1997 - 306 pages]

by Donald Stone MacDonald - History - 1996 - 356 pages]

edited by Keith Pratt - History - 1999 - 568 pages]

by Warren I Cohen - History - 2001 - 528 pages]

by Eun-Joo Lee, Duk-Soo Park, Jaehoon Yeon - Foreign Language Study - 2004 - 328 pages]

by James Huntley Grayson - Religion - 2002 - 320 pages]

edited by Delmer M. Brown - History - 1993 - 650 pages]

edited by Philip Baldi - 1990 - 764 pages]

by Sarah M Nelson - History - 1993 - 324 page]

by Hung-Gyu Kim - Literary Criticism - 1997 - 246 pages]

History of Korean Literature by Peter F Williams - Literary Criticism - 2003 - 654 pages]

edited by Peter H Lee, W Theodore De Bary, Ytngho Ch'oe, Hugh H W Kang - History - 1996 - 480 pages]

edited by Kozo Yamamura, John Whitney Hall, Marius B Jansen, Madoka Kanai, Denis Twitchett - History]

by Marvin C Whiting - History - 2002 - 604 pages]

by James Huntley Grayson - Social Science - 2001]

edited by Peter H Lee, W Theodore De Bary, Ytngho Ch'oe, Hugh H W Kang - History - 1996 - 480 pages]

edited by Yongho Ch'oe, Peter H Lee, William Theodore De Bary - History - 2001 - 448 pages]

Common usage in English; will list more if you guys request.Deiaemeth 08:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyu, a people of Manchuria

-- ran (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's not "64 books", it's 64 "pages. That kinda confused me too. Ancient Puyo [3] (95 results)

Fuyu people [4] (188 results) , Puyo people [5] (335 Results) and Buyeo people [6] (3 results)

[7] Puyo state (208 Results) vs. Fuyu state [8] (150 results) (most of them relating to State-owned enterprise and state-owned farms of fuyu county)

Let's look at some of these results for "Puyo people":

  • Hence people from riverine sites such as Puyo (this is about South America)
  • Specifically, Rojas Puyo told rebel leader Jacobo Arenas
  • To the Oriente, buses depart regularly for Puyo ($1.50, two hours)
  • Some people complete the whole 61km to Puyo (7—8hr with breaks), which is quite a challenging ride,
  • but they spoke Puyo Quichua perfectly and we understood each other
  • Unión Base, Puyo. Zayed, S., B. Sorg, and E. Hecker. 1984.
  • south of Puyo is home to the Shuar people, still known for their former
  • There is a constant flow of goods and people between Puyo and the Sierra through Ambato and Riobamba
  • In 1992 black people from Esmeraldas province joined indigenous peoples in a protest march from Puyo, in the Amazonian Region, to Quito.

"Puyo state"?:

  • A particularly relevant exogenous factor was the selection of Puyo as provincial capital in 1959,
  • Puyo None Al 18.7 21.7 Ye Yes Ye Ye No No Yes (From report on global slums)
  • In one anonymous 1997 group interview in a community outside of Puyo, Pastaza,
  • Puyo. An educated mestizo born in Pastaza
  • Puyo Pungo Post-nasal voicing [—son] -4 [+voice] / [+nasal]
  • Whitten (1985: 217-45) analyzed the 12 May Puyo parade of 1981
  • to keep, as it were, the statuteI pUYO and consistent state.
  • East of Baños, the road to Puyo, in the Oriente,
  • Puyo. 1994. 17 Waves of colonization into the Amazon region began
I Could ferret out the ones that relate to kingdom, as I've done above - I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. It would take me quite a while to link them all :P Deiaemeth 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Fuyu" has much more disambiguous meanings.

  • Fuyu Persimmon

- The most common meaning for "FUYU", many books had info on Fuyu pollination and genetic makeup.

  • Much Japanese people named Fuyu, including yu no yama
  • Chines Fuyu County, as dicussed in China's Industrial State-Owned Enterprises: Between Profitability and Bankruptcy'
  • Chinese meaning for surplus workers, "surplus' (fuyu Qigong)" [9]

[10]

-- ran (talk) 08:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, another thing: I noticed that Buyeo is the least common Romanization in the results you cited. So why did you move this page back to Buyeo again? -- ran (talk) 08:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We could move it to Puyo per McCune Reichshauer, which I don't mind at all. Deiaemeth 09:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

buyeo/puyo is a style choice, & the wikipedia convention is to use the relatively recent official Revised romanization of Korean. this means wikipedia uses Goryeo & Busan, even though Koryo & Pusan are still somewhat more common in google & academia. whether to romanize from the korean or from the chinese pronunciation is more of a substantive question, & this needs to follow the non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy of following the majority of prominent reference works. Appleby 17:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchuria

Changes were made to the Template:History_of_Manchuria to reflect actual Manchuria history. The changes were major. Please access the new changes and determine accordingly the relevence to this page.
Wiki Pokemon 02:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goguryeo and Baekje Languages, Different Languages or Dialects of Old Korean?

Before anyone claim that Goguryeo is a Korean state, it is useful to note that linguists have shown with the limited available evidence that the old Goguryeo language is cognate with Old Japanese, but no corresponding relationship has been established with the Korean language. We also know that Goguryeo and Baekje both claimed descent from the old state of Buyeo, and that Baekje not only is ethnically similar ot Goguryeo but also has extensive links with Japan. It is entirely possible that All the 3 states of Goguryo, Baekje and Yamato Japan are all old Japonic states, and that modern Korea derived from Silla, which is ethnically more distant. As such it would also provide a good explanation of Japanese roots - i.e. that they really did come from the Korean peninsular. However, they were not the descendants of the present-day Koreans of Silla but rather descendants and cousins of the defunct states of Goguryo and Baekje. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayne Leigh (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the linguists who are strongly criticizing the Goguryeoic-Japonic hypothesis emphasize that some Japanese-like toponymes (place names) found in the central part of Korean peninsula don’t reflect the Goguryeo language but previous substratum language (an indigenous Japonic language on the prehistoric Korean peninsula) of the central and southern part of Korean peninsula. Some basises of this argument are as follows.
  • None of the Japanese-like toponymes have been found in the northern part of Korean peninsula and south-western part of Manchuria where the historical homeland of Buyeo and Goguryeo were situated.
  • Some Japanese-like toponymes (such as Japanese-like numeral found in historical homeland of Silla) are also found in southern part of Korean peninsula.-Jagello (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Only Southern parts of Korean peninsula are similar to Japanese-like toponymes. The Goguryeo link with Japanese is less likely. KoreanSentry

useful evidence from talk@goguryeo page. some user posted it. i borrowed this.

其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘句麗同. <三国志>

(Manchurian tribe) are looks similar with Buyeo people (Note : Like Chinese and Japanese looks same), But, Their languages is completely difference from Buyeo, Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Records of Three Kingdoms>

挹婁, 古肅愼之國也. 在夫餘東北千餘里, 東濱大海, 南與北沃沮接, 不知其北所極. 土地多山險. 人形似夫餘, 而言語各異. <後漢書>

(Manchurian tribe) are originally Sushen. They located at (almost) 1000 ri from North East of Buyeo. Their East side is sea, Their south side is buyeo, They look similar with Buyeo people, But their language is completely difference from Buyeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of the Later Han>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 舊肅愼國也. … 言語獨異.<魏書>

(Manchurian tribe) locate at North of Goguryeo. They are originally Sushen. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, Book of Wei>

勿吉國在高句麗北, 一曰靺鞨. … 言語獨異.<北史>

(Manchurian tribe) They called as Mohe. their language is completely difference from Goguryeo. --<Chinese history record, History of Northern Dynasties>
  1. Lineage: Manchurian Language was completely difference from Goguryeo and Buyeo. They are difference race.
  2. Geographical reason: They located at different place. They located at North of Buyeo and Goguryeo. They are difference race.
  3. Culture: Goguryeo and Manchu tribes were completly difference races each other. Also, There is absolutely no evidence that Goguryeo and Buyeo race haircutting like Manchurian Pig Tail Hair(Queue (hairstyle)). They are difference race.
  4. History records: Manchurian never treated as Buyeo race. Even classic machurian history record never mentioned that Buyeo was their ancestor. Even classic Chinese history record never mentioned that Buyeo was Manchurian. They are difference race.

I think this is useful data that buyeo and manchurian are completely difference race. --Fc57zj (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Buyeo?

Does anyone have a map of Buyeo's borders during various times of its existance? What were Buyeo's borders in 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD, 475 AD, etc? I'd like to show borders for Buyeo in the maps I've created for those years, but I haven't found a map that shows enough info about its borders. Thomas Lessman (talk) 08:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, Buyeo/Puyo/Fuyu(list more?) doesn't have complete borders. It is not complete.Kfc18645 talk 05:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was Buyeo "absorbed" into Baekje?

Both on this and related pages, it is written that the remnants of Buyeo was probably absorbed into Baekje. I don't quite see how this is possible, since Baekje was on the other side of the peninsula (past Gokuryou), and they by no means shared borders (at least not if we are to believe the geographic explanation and the map). I guess it is possible that the large amounts of Buyeo people (including officials etc.) simply moved to Baekje when their own lands became uninhabitable, but is this the prevailing theory? As the article stands now, it is very confusing. 121.160.52.133 (talk) 23:34, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Buyeo language

http://books.google.com/books?id=2AmspKX3beoC&pg=PA34#v=onepage&q&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Buyeo kingdom → Buyeo – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC – Article editor (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Korean POV

This article reads like it is written from a Korean POV.

See for example the history of Fuyu from a Chinese POV.

http://www.chinaknowledge.de/History/Altera/fuyu.html

"It was founded by a people belonging to the Tungus branch of the Altaic peoples and flourished from the the 2nd century BCE to the 5th century CE."

"A decade later the rest of the people of Fuyu joined the federation of the Wuji 勿吉 and withdrew to the north again, where they lived in the region of River Fuyu'r 富裕爾, a tributary to the River Nenjiang, whose name reflects the name of the ancient Fuyu."

Nowhere does it say that the Fuyu people were Korean or even proto Korean Historicalchild (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast China is more appropriate as place name

I think Northeast China is more appropriate as place name here. Manchuria means somewhat Manchusfied, but it's not the case with Fuyu. Fuyu / Buyeo is culturally more Han Chinese than Manchusic, as people mainly engaged in agriculture and animal husbandry instead of fishing and hunting (what Manchu-Tungusic people mainly do). Also, as pointed out in the passage, Fuyu language is very different from Manchusic (Yilou) language. Furthermore, Fuyu / Buyeo has clearly more ties with its South-neighboring ancient Han Chinese and proto-Koreans. Conversely, Manchu (Mohe) influence southward in this region is after the fall of Goguryeo (7th century). Lpyy15 (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchuria is a geographical term, and does not mean something that is Manchusfied. Northeast China is a neologism invented by China. It can be misleading, especially in historical contexts, and it can be confused with the meaning of northeastern China. And contrary to your belief, Buyeo's culture has close cultural ties with Koreans and Tungusic peoples, and not the Han Chinese. Koraskadi (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manchuria, in a narrow sense (i.e., Inner Manchuria), is most often referred to as Northeast China. I don't think there's anything that is misleading for hostoric usage, especially on non-Manchusic topics.
It also reflects the non-Manchusic beginning in history in southern part of Northeast China. For Manchusic, Manchuria is a endonym. For non-Manchusic, it more like a xenonym. In my POV, from a modern perspective, Northeast China has better neutruality in this context.
What's more, this phrase "Northeast China" is much more common in English than the word Manchuria. Lpyy15 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast China is a recent creation that is indeed misleading in historical context and is often confused with northeastern China. Manchuria is the preferred terminology in academic sources, especially in those that cover Northeast Asia, and in a broader context, it is also used in Korean and Japanese to refer to this region. Koraskadi (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyu removed and proto-Korean added?

New people are adding Korean nationalist historiography back into this article by describing it as "proto-Korean" when Cambridge, De Gruyter, ... articles do not use this term. They also removed "Fuyu", the name used by many books for 100+ years even in Korea! [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo

Please see that the historical description is corrected. History Department, UCR. 168.228.50.151 (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2022

User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo
Please stop the new accounts which continue to keep the Korean nationalist version and delete names used by historians for over 100 years. 168.228.50.151 (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Morrisonjohn022 User:MarkH21 User:Kanguole User:Esiymbro User:Qiushufang User:C.Fred User:MGetudiant User:Thiam-Yee-Teo
Zessede and his other accounts are doing it still, they remove the details from Western sources in favor of the nationalist Korean sources. 200.119.185.137 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zessede: Proto-Korean in academic usage has a specific meaning that is described in the linked article, and nothing predating that has scholarly consensus. None of the citations are verified, but even if they are true citations, it is hard to take any source that use the term for BCE polities seriously. Based on what is currently available, Japonic and Tungusic are both equally as likely as Koreanic for Fuyu/Buyeo. Esiymbro (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Esiymbro: Aside from the linked article, Proto-Korean is also a referential term in a definitive sense referring to the early Koreanic groups that predated the foundation of full-fledged ancient Korean states, most notably, the Three Kingdoms. Amongst them were the Yemaek people that founded Korean BCE polities such as Saro, Okjeo, Eastern Ye, and so forth after the fall of Gojoseon. It's a term used by Western scholars such as Alexander Vovin, John Whitman, Jan Jahunnen et cetera in this regard to refer to these specific ethnic groups. In respect to its binding categorization, sources from classical Chinese records to the work of both Western and Korean scholars note the distinctive features between Buyeo and Tungusic groups. Based on what is, for example, the Records of the Three Kingdoms, Book 30, Chapter of Eastern Barbarians (Dongyi), Section of Buyeo states: 其人形似夫餘, 言語不與夫餘·句麗同. It clearly marks the contrast in both language and culture between the Koreanic Buyeo people and Tungusic Yilou people who coexisted at the same time. As some like to think that the Buyeo people were Tungusic Manchurians in nature, works such as Buyeo group and Manchu (Akulov, 2020) clarifies that the two were not related in a linguistic manner. From Koguryo to Tamra (Vovin, 2013) continues on with similar premises that explicate the relationship between the Koguryo (Buyeo) language and Koreanic, rather than Japonic (which was more prevalent in the Southern regions of the Korean Peninsula). The Lamadong burial grounds of which were those of the Buyeo people excavated by Chinese archaeologists including professor Chen Shan and 田立坤, and later examined by Jilin University's research team stated that the genetic sequences shown as results marked a significant genetic connection with Modern Koreans compared to other ethnic groups such as the Xianbei, Manchus, Mongolians, Han Chinese, etc. (东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究) & (Comparison of Lamadong and Immediate Modern Asian Mongoloid with Values) Upon these descriptions, it is important to note Buyeo's significance in Korean History through the connection it has with the Korean kingdoms of Goguryeo/Baekje/Gaya, and no other. Based on what is given, there is no sign or implication of state succession or inheritance of consciousness by Tungusic groups not to mention Japonic as well. Many of the citations that have been linked with the texts are 'true' and 'verified' ones that are from the official page of KCI (Korea Citations Index) of which the works of scholars are available to all. Speaking based on these accounts, it is biased to deem the revision of this page done by myself upon the premises of these works 'nationalistic' as user:168.228.50.151 puts it. The term 'Fuyu' is not the official term used widely in academia by Western/Korean scholars and historians who specialize in Korean and Japanese History albeit used by some such as Colonel Smallwood (1932) who in fact is not a specialist in this regard. Just because the term was used for a 'century' does not mean it has the justification as an official term. In keeping with the example of Gaya, a southern Korean federation of city-states that maintained close ties with Yamato Japan and held a presence of Japonic-speakers was also called Mimana or Imna, but this is not the official term used thoroughly. And no, Zessede is the only account I use, and the claims made by user:200.119.185.137 who outright speculates that I use different IDs are false. Aside from the comments regarding the terminology and historical references, I'd like to add that I have updated citations for the texts of this section which was lacking in it. Thank you. Zessede (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vovin is the only prominent Western scholar that definitively puts Puyo in the Koreanic family, while there are many articles that discuss the possibility of a Japonic classification for the Puyo languages. Jahunen clearly states that he considers Puyo to be Amuric (see "The Lost Languages of Koguryo"). I am not able to check the other sources, but I have to suspect that you are mis-intepreting those as well.
  • The self-constructed consciousness of later states does not need to comply with the actual ethnic identity of earlier peoples. Otherwise, the Roman Empire is going to be a Greek nation (Aeneid).
  • I have checked the article "东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究" and there is nothing in it that supports your claim.
  • There is no such thing as an "official term". Fuyu/Puyo is as important in the regional history of Northeast China as it is for the early history of Korea. Most Western sources, even if they don't use the name Fuyu, will at least mention and discuss the terminology. It is completely ridiculous to claim unbiasedness when you are removing every "Fuyu" from the article. Esiymbro (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from Vovin, Unger is also an advocate from the West that does the same based on a similar model. Meanwhile, most of the works discussing the proposed linkage with Japonic if not all, are based on and influenced by Christopher Beckwith's (who specializes in Sinitic languages) theories that have been criticized by Western and Korean scholars alike. Robeet's 2021 theories which have been influenced by Beckwith's work are already being criticized along the same lines. Meanwhile, Jahunen's ideas on the language of Buyeo are different from those of Unger, Whitman, or Vovin as he relates the Buyeo languages to the Tungusic family despite what classical Chinese sources say otherwise. However, the terminology of 'Proto-Koreanic' is used. As I said, the term works as a reference to the specific ethnic groups predating the formation of full-fledged ancient Korean kingdoms that managed to formulate a centralized political system. Let's also not forget that Alexander Vovin, is a renowned linguistics researcher with perfect command over the Japanese and Korean language whereas Beckwith, Robeets, Janhunen, Whitman, Ramsey are not.
  • The self-constructed consciousness of later states and their compliance towards their former predecessors defer by ethnic groups and countries according to historical contexts. In this case, the collective consciousness preserved by later states such as Goguryeo, Baekje, Balhae, and onto Goryeo is made through its inheritance of ethnic lineage, culture, language, and national identity. Such revelations are not deeply looked into amongst Western or Chinese scholars. Comparing Buyeo to the case of the Greek East Roman Empire is insufficient for a good comparison. I would rather compare it with the connections between the Achaemenid-Sassanian empires.
  • 东北亚地区古今居民种族类型的比较研究 by professor Zhu Hong goes along with the research conducted by <Comparison of Lamadong and Immediate Modern Asian Mongoloid with Values>. The values based on the Morant Method show a sequence of 0.442 for the Koreans compared to other ethnicities including the Nanai (0.538), Huabei Chinese (0.722), Mongols (0.888), Eskimos (0.956), Tungusic (1.903). The dendriform representation of cluster analysis based on the values classifies the Lamadong and Koreans as a single group while the others were classified as other groups. (Lamadong/Buyeo-Koreans)/(Mongols-Tungusic)/(Nanai-Eskimos / Huabei Chinese). In summary, China's research team on trait anthropology at Jilin University had regarded the remains as Buyeo people ancestral to modern Koreans through their analytical techniques. In the end, this thesis actually supports the fact that the Buyeo people (and the groups closely related to this, the Goguryeo people), are very close to modern Koreans in terms of trait and anthropology which isn't a surprise.
  • Apparently, there is a general term that is wildly used working as the de facto official. And that is definitely not Fuyu. Buyeo may have had a strong presence in Manchuria, in what we would call 'Northeast China', but it wasn't a Chinese nor Tungusic dynastic kingdom so to speak. Establishing tributary relationships with China or having territories in modern-day China does not imply a historical affiliation to it. Similar to how we don't refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in Russian terminology just because it held a presence in territories considered modern Russia. Hence, the domestic pinyin term of 'Fuyu' cannot be represented along with other Korean names such as Buyeo or Puyo. In fact, the Chinese terminologies of pinyin regarding Koreanic kingdoms are never consistent in the sense some do not even bother to regard other successor states of Buyeo like Dumakru other than the Korean term 'Dumakru'. This is largely due to the fact that the comprehension and understanding in regards to the history of Buyeo and Korean history overall are relatively thin. Not to mention that coverage of northern Korean kingdoms is often cherry-picked and thus influenced by the contentious Northeast Project driven by political motives and criticized by Western, Korean, Russian, and even Chinese scholars. This is where the factual evidence and academic interpretations come to be contested and be branded as 'nationalistic' when in fact are in-depth research-based upon objectivity and neutrality. Zessede (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This stance contradicts the sources given by the initial poster here. They gave French and British sources dating back to the 1930s with "Fuyu"... MGetudiant (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please use scholarly sources besides Korean journals and Korean encyclopedias? For example, the journals from Oxford, Cambridge, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc. MGetudiant (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Esiymbro is correct about the Puyo languages. Vovin is the only one who puts Puyo as strictly Koreanic. Unger actually argues that Koreanic and Japonic are in the same family, divergently descending from a proto-Korean-Japanese (pKJ) language. So Unger does not actually see Japonic and Koreanic as being different. This is discussed thoroughly in Unger's book The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages and its reviews. So that makes the Puyo languages Koreanic-Japonic in Unger's theory. MGetudiant (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My arguments remain intact along the same lines. Your reference to Korean sources sounds as if they aren't "scholarly" when in fact Korean Academia has been conducting in-depth research far off and longer than any 'French' or 'British' researchers out there. Chinese as well. These are finalized research materials from universities and research centers that have a wider and deeper range of command over Korean History than you think. Not to mention that these are works done without any government intervention and state-supported ideals like the Chinese counterparts being advocated in this section of Wikipedia. Let's also note that while Unger doesn't speak Korean fluently like a native, Vovin actually has mastered both languages of Japanese and Korean on a level higher than that of its original Japanese and Korean speakers. But then again, Unger does not even state that the Puyo Languages were Koreanic-Japonic in The Role of Contact in the Origins of the Japanese and Korean Languages. Nor does the review from Ohio State University where Unger dwells state that Puyo was Japonic in any way or sense. "Non-Korean elements in ancient peninsular place names were vestiges of pre-Yayoi Japanese language: one should doubt the assumption that Korean developed exclusively from the language of Silla. More likely, the rulers of Koguryo, Paekche, and Silla all spoke varieties of Old Korean, which became the common language of the peninsula as their kingdoms overwhelmed its older cultures and vied for dominance." Pretty much seems that Professor James Marshall Unger and Ohio State University states otherwise? Unger's theory is based on the connection between Old Korean and Old Japanese with the possible genetic intermingling by the Japonic Yayoi folks who left and stayed in what is now to be the Korean Peninsula. It's not a surprise to see users from a 'certain' country vandalizing Korea-related topics like Hanbok, Balhae, and Buyeo to assert their state-supported Northeast Project-aligned narratives on history, which is in fact accepted as a fuss in mainstream academia over the West to Korea. To see how users take over a certain Wikipedia page and 'reach consensus', hence the deliverance of falsified information with intentions too obvious. Zessede (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Korean scholars that you agree with are "conducting in-depth research" and have a "deep command" over history, and Western scholars that you don't agree with are amateurs funded by the Chinese government. Unfortunately, it is not up to you to decide who are trustworthy and who are not.
As for Korean works being "without any government intervention and state-supported ideals", I recommend everyone to take a look at the website of NAHF, where much of the Korean research on NE Asian history cited here is being produced, and decide for themselves how much of it is not "state-supported". While every Korean ultranationalist is indoctrinated to hate the "Northeast Project" as imagined by Korean media, they apparently don't find a problem at all with actual, explicit state-sponsored revisionism as long as it aligns with their interests. Esiymbro (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zessede, it is ridiculous that you (and Q1A1Z) remove the name "Fuyu" as "outdated back to the 'colonial era'" when the references include an Antiquity article (Cambridge University Press) from 1999 and a Asiatische Studien - Études Asiatiques article (De Gruyter) from 2021. Your other changes are wholly unhelpful because those sources do not say that Buyeo was Korean. You also remove many tags added by User:Qiushufang, User:Esiymbro, and others without any reasoning. The article history shows that your changes (identical to ones made by other accounts) have been contested by editors (those two, myself, and ones mentioned by the IP above like User:MarkH21) here for months. You are behaving very disruptively. MGetudiant (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Zessede is not acting in good faith here. The removal of the maintenance tags was not warranted or noted in the reversion. Zessede is obviously WP:POVPUSH right now. Qiushufang (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Buyeo is listed as Korean history. But why isn't Buyeo a history of Korea? Q1A1Z (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buyeo is important to Korean history, as you can say Normandy is important to the history of England. No one is doubting this. Esiymbro (talk) 15:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Where much of the Korean research on NE Asian history cited here is being produced". I count only two references and those are ones that reflect the case of which Goguryeo and Buyeo hostages were taken by the Murong Xianbei and the war between these factions that led to such results. Stop distorting the facts. Thing of it is, the Northeast Asia History Foundation was founded in 2006 by Korean historians to counteract and refute forced claims by the CCP's narrative on Northeast Asian History, linking Ancient Korean states that were located in Manchuria as "Chinese" or "Tungusic (now that the Manchurian minority are Chinese nationals)" since 2002. Let's also note that China has been doing the same with the histories of other people around its borders like Mongolia, Tibet, Uighur, Vietnam, Dali, etc. State-sponsored? It is an organization established to respond to China's fantastical and ridiculous Northeast Project (which you seem to abide well with as a 'strong possibility) and is never a group united with extreme national sentiment and nationalism. How would it be so when scholars from the same organization exchange with historians from neighboring countries like China and Japan while China doesn't even let Korean historians and archeologists into historic sites in Manchuria? Governmental interference in historical studies are a taboo in Korea; like how the Korean president Moon Jae-in was criticized by the Korean public for 'supporting' studies conducting based on the History of Gaya (加倻). By the way, did I mention or brand any Western scholars having to disagree with their claims on Buyeo? I did assert that the Buyeo is a topic out of the scope of interest to Western Academia compared to Korean Academia. But I don't reckon any doings of false claims but refuting to Jan Janhunen's that the Goguryeo language was Tungusic when Classical Chinese texts certainly states they are not + Christopher Beckwith's (refuted by painstaking details forwarded by Vovin, etc) and Martine Robbeet's (too based on Archaeological discoveries without linguistic profundity). Korean ultranationalist? Then why is it that I see only Chinese users vandalizing Korea-related content herein Wikipedia having a wonderful consensus that feels so artificial? Why is it that I don't see Korea-based users vandalizing China-related content in Wikipedia? I reckon Qiushufang on other Korea-related pages like Goryeo, etc doing the same thing there. How are you even doing Wikipedia when Google isn't even allowed in China? Strange...
    The Antiquity journal by Pak Yangjin mentioning 'Fuyu' doesn't make the term representative whatsoever compared to the original term <Buyeo/Puyo> like how he referenced the Korean kingdom of Goguryeo as Goguryeo but including '(Gaoguli in Chinese pronunciation)'. This is the equivalent of stating that the Tang Dynasty (Tang-chao) was called Dang-nara, or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was officially known as 'Речь Посполитая' by the Russian version. Asiatische Studien - Études Asiatiques article (De Gruyter) doesn't even cover Korea-related topics like they do for China <"The quarterly journal presents, in a fixed schedule, regional issues on China, the Islamic World, Japan, South or Central Asia as well as general and special issues."> and uses pinyin terminologies like it's the lingua franca. Not to mention that there are equally published works that refer Silla/Shilla (a Southeastern Korean state which is speculated to have had a peninsular Japonic-substratum before the emigration of Gojoseon/Buyeo-based northern refugees) as 'Xinluo' by the Chinese pinyin term. Another funny thing to note is, Buyeo's direct successor states such as Eastern Buyeo and Dumakru (and classified as Korean) aren't even mentioned by the Chinese term like how it is insisted here on this page. Quite the contrast, I see here.  Zessede (talk) 18:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Puyo languages

Alexander Vovin and James Marshall Unger argue that Goguryeo brought an early form of the Korean language to the peninsula from Manchuria, replacing the Japonic languages which they believe were spoken in the Samhan.[1][2]

In the preface to this document, Puyo languages are linked only to Japonic, Amuric and Tungusic. The recent theory that the Puyo languages is a direct ancestor of the Koreanic languages is not reflected. The currently most cited argument by Lee Ki-moon et al. is that Puyo languages belonged to Koreanic languages and were intermediate languages between Korean and Japanese. On the other hand, Alexander Vovin and James Marshall Unger and others classify Goguryeo language, which is recorded as using almost the same language as Buyeo language, as a direct ancestor of modern Korean. According to Chinese records, the Buyeo language and Goguryeo language differ from those of the Tungus ethnic groups such as Sushen, Yilou, and Mohe.

  1. ^ Vovin (2013), pp. 237–238.
  2. ^ Unger (2009), p. 87.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buyeo&oldid=1073356620"