Korean History in Maps

August 19, 2015 - Michael D. Shin, lecturer in Korean Studies at the University of Cambridge, and editor of the new historical atlas, Korean History in Maps from Prehistory to the Twenty-First Century, discusses Korea’s history through maps, from early Choson to the present.
Korean History in Maps provides overviews of the political, cultural, economic, and social systems for each period of Korean history, along with chronologies and lists of monarchs. With numerous images of artifacts, paintings, and architectural structures, the atlas helps to make Korean history accessible in a beautifully presented, full-color coverage of all periods of Korean history from prehistoric times to the present day.
For more information, please visit the link below:
www.koreasociet...
Produced, Directed, and Edited by Peter Stuehmke.

[@vettaj9752]

I want to say Thank you. I am doing self study of the Korean language and culture. I reviewed the video yesterday and discussed it with a friend of mine. I was very touched by the information. It highlighted areas that I have a previous understanding and an in-depth understanding of the continued struggle in regards to the geographical areas. My friend was weary our discussion regarding the topic would be limited, however; I was able to bring my knowledge and he was impressed. I want my Korean friends to know my interest of South Korea is not because of K-pop, but my love for the people and my friends. 감사합니다 😊

[@myc541]

I visited the youtube page and website but The Korea Society does not have a section on HISTORY. There may be political issues, but if you are for academics, history is where it begins. I believe history can provide answers for the reasons behind the art, culture, the politics, and the future.

[@timeup3583]

Dokdo is korean island

[@ChineseHOME1]

A kimchi mouse in the forgery of history, unfortunately unearthed a large number of Han cultural relics in the northern part of the Korean peninsula, the ancient Chinese history book clearly states that the northern part of the peninsula is China's territory!

[@michaeljung498]

Han commanderies (3) is basically old map except Hyundo. this map ignores all Chinese history books and the Korean history book's descriptions of Nak rang. Chinese history books indicate that Nak rang is located at the end of the great wall. they also list some other descriptions of the location. we don't even know how many commanderies there were. history books are not consistent about that. all the generals of the war of old Joseon and Han Chinese were executed after the war. on the other hand, officials of old Joseon were appointed as governors of Shantong area. these don't make sense if Han Chinese won the war and successfully set up so called four commanderies. what is the proof that relics found in the Pyung yang area are of the Han commanderies' relics? are they stamped with Han Chinese seals? are there any other explanations for the relics? is the commanderies the only explanation? Korean history book describes a different story about Nak rang. it states that Nak rang is a nation, not a commandery. also, Nak rang surrendered its nation to Shin la. do the relics explain these history books different views/ descriptions? as you have stated the location of the commanderies is of the very sensitive issue in Korea. the proponents of the view that the commanderies were in the peninsula face very strong challenge from other scholars in Korea. the proponents of the the map (3) are losing the argument slowly. by the way are there any recent relics supporting your map?

[@kenbuckley3294]

One place Yongpyong-ri, or, Yong-ri appears to have dissapeared on current maps. During the War it was very much in evidence as the site of the 1st Marine Division CP., and later as the1st Marine Regiment. An attached airstrip quartered HMR 161, the Marine transport Helicopter group. Appreciate a pointer, if possible.

[@michaeljung498]

it is not true that only Han Chinese have one character for its countries' name. Ching, Yuen, T'ang, Suei are not Han Chinese. at least their ruling classes are non Han Chinese. it seems that Korean and some other people didn't care how many character their countries' name have. from the beginning, Korean have two characters for the name.

[@kimcarrier9834]

Tang, Sui imperial family are Han-Xianbei Mixed race. The Patrilineal lineage inherited from Han Chinese. As Xianbei Chinese are totally mixd with Han Chinese. So Sui, Tang are under govl of Han chinese.

[@michaeljung498]

可舟 tang, sui maybe mixed with Han Chinese. Still, there were a lot more different people using one character for their country's name at their own time.

[@kimcarrier9834]

Modern gene sequencing has proved, Xianbei鮮卑 and Han漢 are same people living in different culture. When Xianbei start mixing with Han and living in Han culture, they ARE Totally Han Chinese. As the chinese names of chinese: Xia夏 HuaXia華夏 ZhongHua中華 including tons of ethnic groups. And many of the 55 minority ethnic groups today are actually Han people living in different culture or even different area. Just like Liao遼 Dynasty ruled by Khitan契丹, Khitan claimed themselves as 'son of Yan炎'. 'Yan', ‘YanDi炎帝’ is one of the 2 ancestors YanHuang炎黃, YanDi and HuangDi黃帝(not HuangDi皇帝Empire). So Khitan and Han is from the same ancestors. When Shang商 defeated Xia夏, Xia people split up to many parts. Some of them moved to Siberia, even some went across Bering Strait to N-America. When you check the origin of northen ethnic groups. You will find them are Xia people and West Asian mixed race. Just like the Turks突厥. And the Xia people are the origin of Han people after Sino-Tibet people split up to Han and Tibetens. So. Sui, Tang imperial family is almost Han Chinese. Qing imperial family has a same origin with Han Chinese. Yuan imperial family is not Han Chinese and just half Chinese. Sometimes, same name ≠ same thing. Just like 'Tang唐', there are many different 'Tang唐' Dynasties in different period and rule by different people. Sometimes, different names ≠ different things. Just like 'Tang唐' and 'WuZhou武周', they are actually one dynasty.

[@michaeljung498]

What's your point? Are they "ALMOST" Han Chinese or Han "Chinese"? Did you do DNA sequencing and their DNA match with Han Chinese? If so, how did you get the samples of the dead people? You're not talking about DNA's of Chinese "MINORITIES", are you? It doesn't matter whether they match perfectly or not. Those sui called "MINORITIES" didn't considered themselves Han Chinese. In fact, they separated themselves from Han Chinese when they ruled the land. We are neither talking about today's Chinese political power nor mixing of minorities' gene with Han Chinese.

[@kimcarrier9834]

They are 'almost Han' because we can't know if they are totally as same as Han. But we know they become Han in the end. Han as 1 of the 2 purest ethnicities in the world. Only about 30% of Han genes are foreign genes. So it's very easy to figure out where do majority foreign genes come from. And luckily, they are figured out. 1- Archeology proved Xianbei and Han are mixed up, not went to bully those Non-East-Asian. 2- DNA sequencing shows, there is no enough unknow foreign genes in today's Han people, which can prove a unknow "Xianbei gene". So, 2 possibilities. 1-Xianbei and Han share same genes. 2-Xianbei are a mixed race, mixed by Han and some others. So. 2 conclusions. Sui and Tang's imperial family is Han, maybe with a little foreign descent. Xianbei become Han in the end. Same basis with Khitan. which "MINORITIES" are you talking about? In Yuan Dynasty, yes. But in Qing Dynasty, Manchu people just claim themselves as the legitimism of ‘HuaXia’ which is the source of Han. So, Manchu people are just trying to replace the standing of Han people in Han civilization. Change a name, but things didn't change.

[@myc541]

Dokdo is Korean. East Sea is correct. The Han commanderies are listed incorrectly. Was never in the peninsula.

[@PaekDongho]

Dr. Shin is no longer a professor at Cambridge. Cambridge did not renew his contract.

[@aminadm2136]

Why?

[@PaekDongho]

@@aminadm2136 Dr. Shin was unable to meet the academic standards Cambridge expects of its permanent professors.

[@aminadm2136]

Okay .Thank you very much for the information.

[@ustunod7962]

Han commander it's didn't exist. fabrication by japanese. ssu ma chien, a contemporary didn't write about them. Chinese relics found in north korea, 100s of year later in date. read 환단고기, real korean history. it straightens all the confusion surrounding korean history before the turn of centuries.

[@ChineseHOME1]

A kimchi mouse in the forgery of history, unfortunately unearthed a large number of Han cultural relics in the northern part of the Korean peninsula, the ancient Chinese history book clearly states that the northern part of the peninsula is China's territory!

[@pkim5992]

My blood is boiiling when the Korean peninsular is divided instead of Japan at the end of the WWII. The biggest victim of the Imperial Japan got the biggest punishment. Japan got the biggest economic boost when Korea got the biggest war in the land, the Korean War. Still Japanese people actually did not apologize in their minds. Just pretending. Even Japan manipulates its history in regards of relation with Korea in history. The history manipulation vastly made in Imperical Japan and the view is still there.

[@Kunfucious577]

Why? You should be thankful. You’d be stuck in Korea praising the kim family.

[@gbeverstx]

Dr. Shin is being dishonest when it comes to "Dokdo." First, "Takeshima," which means "Bamboo Island," was once the Japanese name for the Korean island of Ulleungdo, where there was a lot of bamboo. In fact, there is a 1618 Japanese document giving two Japanese families permission to travel to Ulleungdo to harvest the bamboo and other products. A 1667 Japanese document mentions both Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo / Takeshima). At the time, Ulleungdo was referred to as "Takeshima" and Liancourt Rocks as "Matsushima." The 1667 document says that Takeshima and Matsushima were uninhabited and that Takeshima (Ulleungdo) was considered the northwest boundary of Japan. The reason Ulleungdo was uninhabited was that Korea had banned its citizens from traveling to the island, even though Korea still considered the island to be Korean territory. So, if Takeshima was the old Japanese name for the Korean island of Ulleungdo, how did Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo) come to be called "Takeshima"? In 1789, the British ship "Argonaut" arrived at the island of Ulleungdo and thought they had discovered a new island because they had made a mistake in mapping the coordinates of their location, marking it much farther northwest of Ulleungdo where there was nothing but sea. That mistake caused mapmakers to include the nonexistent island of "Argonaut" on their maps. When the Japanese saw these Western maps, they assumed the nonexistent island of "Argonaut" must be Ulleungdo, which they called "Takeshima," and that the island to the southeast of Argonaut must be Matsushima because they only knew of those two islands in that area. That was how the nonexistent island of Argonaut came to be called "Takeshima" and Ulleungdo came to be called "Matsushima. By the time the Japanese discovered that Argonaut did not exist, they had already grown accustomed to calling Ulleungdo "Matsushima" and Liancourt Rocks as "Liancourt Rocks," using a Japanese version of the Western name. In 1905, when Japan officially incorporated Liancourt Rocks as a part of Shimane Prefecture, they decided to name the Rocks using the old Japanese name for Ulleungdo, which was "Takeshima. That means that Ulleungdo and Liancourt Rocks ended up switching names because of a British mapping error. Second, map evidence is on Japan's side, not Korea's. In fact, Korea has no old maps that show Liancourt Rocks (Dokdo), but Japan has many old maps that show them. Moreover, there are no old Korean documents that show that Koreans ever traveled to Liancourt Rocks before the Japanese started taking them there on Japanese fishing boats in the early 1900s. Third, the reason the 1952 San Francisco Treaty does not list Takeshima (Liancourt Rocks) is that the treaty only listed the islands Japan recognized as Korean territory. Article 2a of the treaty reads as follows: "(a) Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right, title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet." Quelpart was a reference to the Korean island of Jeju, Port Hamilton a reference to the Korean island of Geomun, and Dagelet a reference to the Korean island of Ulleungdo. So the treaty is evidence that Liancourt Rocks (Takeshima / Dokdo) was not recognized as Korean territory. In fact, in an August 10, 1951 letter to the Korean ambassador, Secretary of State Dean Rusk wrote the following: "As regards the island of Dokdo, otherwise known as Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks, this normally uninhabited rock formation was according to our information never treated as part of Korea and, since about 1905, has been under the jurisdiction of the Oki Islands Branch Office of Shimane Prefecture of Japan. The island does not appear ever before to have been claimed by Korea." In 1954, after visiting the Far East, Special Ambassador for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, General James Alward Van Fleet, wrote the following in his report to the president: "4. Ownership of Dokto Island The Island of Dokto (otherwise called Liancourt and Take Shima) is in the Sea of Japan approximately midway between Korea and Honshu (131.80E, 36.20N). This Island is, in fact, only a group of barren, uninhabited rocks. When the Treaty of Peace with Japan was being drafted, the Republic of Korea asserted its claims to Dokto but the United States concluded that they remained under Japanese sovereignty and the Island was not included among the Islands that Japan released from its ownership under the Peace Treaty. The Republic of Korea has been confidentially informed of the United States position regarding the islands but our position has not been made public. Though the United States considers that the islands are Japanese territory, we have declined to interfere in the dispute. Our position has been that the dispute might properly be referred to the International Court of Justice and this suggestion has been informally conveyed to the Republic of Korea."

[@wakaka2waka]

The presentator doesn't look Korean.. He looks like a Chinese.

[@jojogeneral2928]

wakaka2waka What a stupid thing to say. Go back and do some research on where Koreans and Japanese originated from.

[@user-xm9ur1yy1w]

Hey Hey Hey, Dokdo is beautiful island of Japan both on the international rules and history basis. We have various old maps and official documentations. The reason why you has broughtJapan's map is that South Korean doesn't have any historical evidences. Stop illegal occupying and stand at international court soon!!!!!!!!!

[@michaeljung498]

百地三太夫 Japanese have Japanese official documents stating Dokdo is NOT Japanese.

[@user-xm9ur1yy1w]

Michael Jung No, there is no such statement in Japan.

[@michaeljung498]

百地三太夫 are you sure? It's not too hard to get that information from KZbin. I suggest you to do some research.

[@user-xm9ur1yy1w]

Michael Jung I know you guys can't submit such evidence.

[@michaeljung498]

Try to be more open minded. There is no one sided story. It seems you want to ignore the fact or don't want to try. You try first. If you can not find any evidence that disproves your claim, I will provide the the Japanese official document that clearly states the island, Dokdo is doesn't belong to Japan. You need to try a little bit.

[@dongf2618]

The thing is even some western scholars don't consider Balhae and Goguryeo as Korean. So why did Korean scholars make a big fuss about them? Goguryeo and Balhae r foreigners (minority ethnic different from both Korean and Han Chinese or the proto-Manchurians) to both China and Korea and it was a period of history shared by both countries. The reason for Korean nationalist scholars' claim of Goguryeo and Balhae was a politically motivated aim to incorporate Manchuria into Korean territory, and the same logic is applied to the mythical dynasty called Gojoseon. So essentially, Korean nationalist scholars are not content with their territory right now and wants to grab more land and that is why Korean government is so sensitive and cut the funding of Harvard scholars because they said Han commandaries occupied parts of the Korean peninsula. Also, why can't Chinese government list Goguryeo remains on China's side as UNESCO heritage? This is very unreasonable. Koreans always want to compete with China on the number of UNESCO heritage sites. They even claimed movable metal type printing was invented by Koreans, 70 years before Gutenberg, without ever mentioning that movable type printing itself was introduced into Korea from China. Even the very notion that movable metal type is invented in Korea can be called into question because a lot of new evidences suggest even movable metal type was introduced into Korea from China. Looks like the Korean librarian who claimed that she found the oldest extant copy of movable metal type book only compared the date of that book with the date of Guttenberg's invention but no one else and started claiming Korea invented the movable metal type. Korea even tried to claim woodblock printing but failed to become recognized. Korea always try to grab whatever they can from history to gloss over their past. Whenever they see an amguibity in the dating between a shared culture or invention, they will claim they had it first, start developing on that theory, and propagate it until they had been disproved. And sometimes, they completely ignored their counterparts' arguments and objections. This is nationalism.

[@megannyberg4094]

Wow. Why so defensive?

[@ytn00b3]

So which Western scholars said that? Goguryeo's name got shorten to Goryeo and that's where Korea comes from. Also, Silla incorporated Goguryeo soldiers to their military units.