Baekje - Foreign Relations - Relations With Japan - Cultural Impact and Military Assistance

Cultural Impact and Military Assistance

To confront the military pressure of Goguryeo to its north and Silla to its east, Baekje (Kudara in Japanese) established close relations with Japan. According to the Korean chronicle Samguk Sagi, Baekje and Silla sent some princes to the Japanese court as hostages. Whether the princes sent to Japan should be interpreted as diplomats as part of an embassy or literal hostages is debated. Due to the confusion on the exact nature of this relationship (the question of whether the Baekje Koreans were family or at least close to the Japanese Imperial line or whether they were hostages) and the fact that the Nihon Shoki, a primary source of material for this relationship, is a compilation of myth, makes it difficult to evaluate. The Samguk Sagi, which also documents this, can also be interpreted in various ways and at any rate it was rewritten in the 13th century, easily seven or eight centuries after these particular events took place. Adding to the confusion is the discovery (in Japan) that the "Inariyama sword, as well as some other swords discovered in Japan, utilized the Korean 'Idu' system of writing." The swords "originated in Paekche and that the kings named in their inscriptions represent Paekche kings rather than Japanese kings." The techniques for making these swords were the apparently similar to styles from Korea, specifically from Baekje. In Japan, the hostage interpretation is dominant.

Other historians, such as those who collaborated on 'Paekche of Korea and the Origin of Yamato Japan' and Jonathan W. Best, who helped translate what was left of the Baekje annals, have noted that these princes set up schools in Yamato Japan and took control of the Japanese naval forces during the war with Goguryeo, taking this as evidence of them being more along the lines of diplomats with some kind of familial tie to the Japanese imperial family and as evidence against any hostage status. In addition, the translation of the old documents is difficult because in the past, the term "Wa" was derogatory, meaning "midget" or "dwarf," which was a reference to the perceived smaller stature of the average Japanese in ancient times. As a result, it is difficult to assess what is truly being stated, particularly in records made in Korea after the fall of Baekje, as the reference to Yamato Wa (Japan) could have been a derogatory statement by a rival nation (specifically Silla).

As is with many long-past histories and competing records, very little can be definitively concluded. Further research has been difficult, in part due to the 1976 restriction on the study of royal tombs in Japan (to include tombs such as the Gosashi tomb, which is allegedly the resting place of Empress Jingu). Prior to 1976, foreign researchers did have access, and some found Korean artifacts in Japanese dig sites. Recently in 2008, Japan has allowed controlled limited access to foreign archaeologists, but the international community still has many unanswered questions. National Geographic has written that Japan "has kept access to the tombs restricted, prompting rumors that officials fear excavation would reveal bloodline links between the "pure" imperial family and Korea"

In any case, these Koreans, diplomats and royal relatives or not, brought to Japan knowledge of the Chinese writing system, Buddhism, iron processing for weapons, and various other technologies. In exchange, Japan provided military support.

The History of the Three Kingdoms and Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms cite some of the Baekje royal family's descendants and some nobles as dignitaries in the Japanese court, maintaining Korean influence and ensuring the continuation of the Yamato alliance, as in the time of Emperor Yomei, when the Buddhist temple of Horyuji was constructed. It is also known that Muryeong of Baekje, the twenty-fifth king of Baekje, was born in Japan.

According to mythical accounts in the controversial Nihon Shoki, Empress Jingū extracted tribute and pledges of allegiance from the kings of Baekje, Silla, and Goguryeo. At the height of Japanese nationalism in the early 20th century, Japanese historians used these mythical accounts along with a passage in the Gwanggaeto Stele to establish ideological rationale to the imperialist outcry for invasion of Korea. Other historians have pointed out that there is no evidence of this Japanese account in any part of Korea, in addition to not being in any viable text in China or Korea. Regarding the Gwanggaeto Stele, because the lack of syntax and punctuation the text can be interpreted 4 different ways, one which states that Korea crossed the water and subjugated Yamato. Due to this problem in interpretation, nothing can be concluded. Also complicating the matter is that in the Nihongi a Korean named Amenohiboko is supposed to be the maternal predecessor of Empress Jingū. This is highly inconsistent and difficult to interpret correctly.

Scholars believe that the Nihon Shoki gives the invasion date of Silla and Baekje as the late 4th century. However, by this time, Japan was a confederation of local tribes without sophisticated iron weapons, while the Three Kingdoms of Korea were fully developed centralized powers with modern iron weapons and were already utilizing horses for warfare. It is very unlikely that a developing state such as Yamato had the capacity to cross the sea and engage in battles with Baekje and Silla. The Nihon Shoki is widely regarded to be an unreliable and biased source of information on early relations with Korea, as it mixes heavy amounts of supposition and legend with facts.

Some Japanese scholars interpret the Gwanggaeto Stele, erected in 414 by King Jangsu of Goguryeo, as describing a Japanese invasion in the southern portion of the Korean peninsula. However, Mohan claims that Goguryeo fabricated the Japanese invasion in order to justify its conquest of Baekje. If this stele was a dedication to a Korean king, it can be argued that it would logically highlight Korea's conquests and not dedicate it to a strange incident regarding Japan. In any case, because of these various possible interpretations, the circumstances surrounding the stele are still highly debated and inconclusive.

Chinese scholars participated in the study of the Stele during the 1980s. Wang Jianqun interviewed local farmers and decided that no intentional fabrication occurred, adding that the lime on the Stele was pasted by local copy-making workers to enhance readability. Xu Jianxin of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences discovered the earliest rubbed copy which was made before 1881. He also concluded that there was no evidence the Japanese had intentionally damaged any of the characters on the Stele.

Today, most Chinese and Japanese scholars contradict the conspiracy theories, based on the study of the Stele itself and advocate Japanese intervention in the era, although its size and effect are disputed.

In the project of writing a common history textbook, Kim Tae-sik of Hongik University (Korea) denied Japan's theory. But, Kōsaku Hamada of Kyushu University (Japan) reported their interpretations of the Gwanggaeto Stele text, neither of them adopting the intentionally damaged stele theory in their interpretations.