The state of Mimana任那 ?

[William Farris]

A quick hello:

        Time to go to bed here in South Africa, but Tom's email uses the term "Mimana".

        I wonder:  what is the most recent "skinny" on the supposed state of "Mimana" ?  任那日本府  When I was writing about "ancient Japan's Korean connection" twenty years ago, this supposed state was thought to be an invention of the editors of the Nihon shoki.  The state at the very southern tip of Korea was really Kaya 加羅, an independent Korean state claimed by the Yamato court, but not controlled.  In other words, 任那 is a fiction. 

      Comments?

Wayne

[Thomas D. Conlan]

Dear Wayne and All:

The Shinsen Shōjiroku refers to the Tatara lineage (the ancestors of the Ouchi) as hailing from “Mimana.”  I am happy to leave it to others to discuss Mimana/Kaya geographical, cultural, and historical context, but I don’t think any contemporary scholars see Mimana or Kaya as constituting part of the Japanese “state” like you suggest-e.g.- 任那日本.   My use of the term is unrelated to that issue entirely.   

Best wishes,

Tom

--
PMJS is a forum dedicated to the study of premodern Japan.
To post to the list, email pm...@googlegroups.com
For the PMJS Terms of Use and more resources, please visit www.pmjs.org.
Contact the moderation team at mod...@pmjs.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PMJS: Listserv" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to pmjs+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5QkokMVL_zsHc2MG47RW6m%2BsNVPhaiq935OAzzBR45BUA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexander Vovin]

Dear Wayne,

Several observations.

First, geography. Mimana/Kara(k) was not located on the southern tip of Korean peninsula, which is called ttang kkït (땅 끝) in Korean and is located in cholla Namdo province, that was in the Paekche territory. Beautiful place, btw. Mimana was sandwiched between Paekche and Silla, and occupied by Silla in 562.

Second, 加羅 cannot be possibly read as Kaya, but only as Kara (btw., the source of Jpn. Kara). Kaya ( 加耶) also occurs, but the reasons for this variation are complex and require a long trip into Korean and Chinese historical phonology, which would be of no interest to the majority of PMJS members.

Third, to answer your main question, I believe that saying that Mimana is a fiction is an overstatement. The definition of it as a "Japanese colony" certainly has no basis in reality, but the state was real, and possibly even a metropoly (there is a study by Grierson on this topic). And in addition, existence of two different names for the same state does not necessarily imply an invention. Thus, e.g. Sweden is called Ruotsi in Finnish, but it is NOT an invention but a preservation of an ancient ethnic name. Finally it is difficult to invent something that is completely meaningless in your own language, and Mimana is certainly not a Japanese placename. It might have a Korean etymology, but this is debatable.

All the best,

Sasha

Alexander Vovin
Membre élu d'Academia Europaea
Directeur d'études, linguistique historique du Japon, de la Corée et de l'Asie centrale

ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES;

CENTRE DE RECHERCHES LINGUISTIQUES SUR L'ASIE ORIENTALE

Membre associé de CENTRE DE RECHERCHES SUR LE JAPON

Laureate of 2015 Japanese Institute for Humanities Prize for a Foreign Scholar

Editor-in-chief, series Languages of Asia, Brill

Co-editor, of International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, Brill

PI of the ERC Advanced Project, AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE JAPONIC LANGUAGES

105 Blvd Raspail, 75006 Paris

sasha...@gmail.com
https://ehess.academia.edu/AlexanderVovin

https://www.edj-vovin.com/

--

[William Farris]

Dear Tom and all:

        I attended Tom's interesting lecture on the Ouchi family and western Japan earlier on March 15, I think.

       I have just a few brief comments:

        1)  As everyone knows, Korea-Japan relations are political dynamite these days, no less than in 1998 when I published "ancient Japan's Korean connection."  I wonder, given these circumstances, whether it might not be wise to stipulate that the origins of Tatara were purported to be Mimana, according to SSSR.  It is, after all, a Japanese court record with its own biases and a Japanocentric point-of view.  The reality may have been quite different.  This is just a suggestion to cover yourself, a behavior at which I have become an expert!

        2)  I'm interested in WHY the Ouchi sought to seek or stress their origins in Korea, or at least to advertise this fact.  Was it for political gain with the Koreans?  Economic?

       3)  Tatara, as you and many others know, is associated with iron smelting.  Most of the iron in Japan (and there isn't much) is in their domain.  Do you think that the Tatara were people of Korean background with skills in working iron?  Also, and this is for general consumption, iron-producing areas include Izumo.  Could this be a reason that Izumo was such a threat to Yamato during state formation?

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/5A7C52D6-305C-42F4-AD8C-EA4F81A10AD2%40princeton.edu.

[William Farris]

Dear Professor Vovin:

        If Japanese occupation of 任那 is and was a fiction invented by the Yamato court and maintained for centuries thereafter, a position with which I agree, then why use the Japanese pronunciation of "Mimana"?  Shouldn't the correct pronunciation be the Korean word, which I presume was Imna?

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAKDAMNR%3DhXPKNLR57sEKcqzpXKzio4BwLodu8hLy3m1BRPNvnw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alexander Vovin]

DEar Prof. Farris,

I agree with you that this topic might be potentially explosive, but I disagree with your evaluation of Japanese court role. It made enough reverence to the opposite side, but it all seems to be happily lost on the latter. Ultimately, I am not interested and do not care about what politicians might be saying on either side. Anyway, it should not keep us from engaging in the research of this topic.

I trust I said nowhere that Mimana was a Japanese colony. Quite to the contrary, I stated (with a reference to Grierson) that it might be a metropoly from where some rulers of Japan have come. All I said is that there is no Korean etymology for Mimana (see more below).

Unfortunately, there is a tendency in East Asian studies to reach conclusions on the basis of MODERN readings of Chinese characters. This is anachronistic. Thus, in our particular case, Sino-Korean reading im of  任 in 任那 Imna could not possibly exist in 5-6 c., because even in 15th c. it was Nim-. The shift n- > to O- before -i- or -y- is very well known in Korean, cf. the following words: (first is Middle Korean, second is modern Korean): nirum ~ irum 'name', ni ~ i 'tooth', nyerum ~ yerum 'summer' etc. Second palatalization of mi- to ni- is very well-known phenomenon in the languages of the world, including Japonic, cf. e. g. Iejima nini 'ear' < mimi. But I am unaware of the reverse shift ni- > mi-. Syncope is also well attested in Korean. Thus, the natural solution would be Mimana > Nimna. The situation here is further complicated that Late Han Chinese reading of 任 was ńim, with a palatal ń-, but it is not contrastive in either J or K throughout their history, thus, an m- was chosen in J as an approximation.

According to the concordance by Song Ki-cwung, 任那 appears only three times in Old Korean materials: once in an inscription in the pagoda of Phwunglimsa temple (風林寺), and twice with Kara(ng) (加羅、加良) immediately following it: once in Koguryŏ's king Kwannggaytho inscription (廣開土王碑) , and once Samguk sagi 46.2. Compared to this, Kara(ng) is much more frequent. This is the fact that cries for explanation

In the Kojiki emperor Sujin is called Mima ki2 iri-biko 'prince coming to/from/entering in/to Mima fortress' Note that it is just Mima, not Mimana. Mima is an OJ term meaning 'divine grandsons', and indicating earthly descendants of Amaterasu. Thus, we have parallel forms Mima-na and Mima-ki2. It is the na part, which is difficult to explain, but possibly it means 'earth, territory'. There is OJ nawi 'earthquake', but the difficulty is that we have no verb wi- 'to shake' attested in the OJ corpus. This is the uncertain part I was referring to yesterday. Thus we have 'divine gramsons' fortress/territory', but there is no K etymology.

Best wishes,

Alexander Vovin
Membre élu d'Academia Europaea
Directeur d'études, linguistique historique du Japon, de la Corée et de l'Asie centrale

ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES;

CENTRE DE RECHERCHES LINGUISTIQUES SUR L'ASIE ORIENTALE

Membre associé de CENTRE DE RECHERCHES SUR LE JAPON

Laureate of 2015 Japanese Institute for Humanities Prize for a Foreign Scholar

Editor-in-chief, series Languages of Asia, Brill

Co-editor, of International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, Brill

PI of the ERC Advanced Project, AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE JAPONIC LANGUAGES

105 Blvd Raspail, 75006 Paris

sasha...@gmail.com
https://ehess.academia.edu/AlexanderVovin

https://www.edj-vovin.com/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5SFN2rryLED4j2zStn%2BaBO7XieTiRHqaMC-%2B62Fji-SxA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Thomas D. Conlan]

Dear Wayne,

Thank you for your questions. To answer them completely would require a book! (Indeed, this is something that I am working on).  In brief, there was great movement of metallurgists to western Japan from the Korean peninsula. The western tip of Honshu is mineral rich, relatively easily mineable and close to Korea so many people, especially those with skills in mining migrated from the myriad of polities that existed there. I don’t know enough to speculate on whether Tatara is solely linked to mining of iron or other metals or the role of Izumo, although this is an interesting point. 

The Ouchi believed themselves to be immigrants and requested and received recognition for this status by Chosŏn officials in the 1390s. They did so in order to emphasize their kingly status, to foster close ties to Korea, to stress independence from the Ashikaga and to promote trade.  

Although the actual origins are unknown—we just see references to Tatara appearing in mokkan—it is possible to trace the Ouchi exploration of their ancestry over time. Their unique status was recognized by both  Chosŏn  officials and Japanese courtiers, but their genealogical research caused them to reinterpret their origins. 

That being said, the SSSR refers to Tatara settling in Yamashiro, so they may not be absolutely related to the  Ouchi ancestors, but Ouchi Masahiro took it that way in the 1470s. In that text, (I believe—I don’t have access to a good edition from home) the place name of their origins appears variously as 御真名 or 御間名. I assumed that the only plausible read for this is “Mimana” although perhaps Prof. Vovin has an enlightening suggestion as to how that was pronounced according to ancient Korean etymology.  

Best wishes,

Tom

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5TzohQBM24aw_%3D6pFgT6b4o4UbrbhdZzVV0sNj%3Dw1ULvw%40mail.gmail.com.

[William Farris]

Dear Sasha (if I may):

          Your expert explanation of the linguistic aspects of the Mimana "problem" are quite beyond me, and I must accept them on faith.  Thank you. "It made enough reverence to the opposite side, but it all seems to be happily lost on the latter."  This sentence has me confused, b/c I am not sure what the antecedents for "It" and the "latter" might be?  Are they the Yamato court (It) and Mimana (the latter)?  Do I have this right?

          I agree that modern political tensions should not play a role, but inevitably they do.  I also agree that this topic of the Yamato court's ties to the southern Korean states must be investigated, despite the dearth of sources.  Perhaps archaeology will turn up more.

         My (rather naive) concern is that the term Mimana might be read as implying Yamato court control of the Kaya states.  I think we agree that this was not so.  Better to use Kaya? I wonder:  what were the Kaya states like in terms of political structure? What kind of economic base did they have?  Could they have been trading states that transhipped iron or other goods to Japan in return for military support or political recognition or slaves?  Was there some blood relationship between the ruling elite of Yamato and Kaya?

         That's enough.  It's a knotty problem with too little hard evidence.  Your contribution to this debate is so important and welcome by all. 

With best wishes,

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAKDAMNQ-xe46xhX%3DDO_jYMWcEd7RP5rY-dUpwDhZHSB1uNebrA%40mail.gmail.com.

[William Farris]

Dear Tom:

         Thank you for answering my questions so thoroughly and expertly.  You have hit upon some really interesting and significant material.  I look forward to seeing the book soon.

With kind regards,

Wayne

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/0AF730FA-7FBF-418C-B320-E9BC2DF4CE7E%40princeton.edu.

[Scheid, Bernhard]

A big question lurking in the background would be whether the Mimana people were Wa (or Japonic) speakers or Han-speakers or in more abstract terms, whether political alliances were built on common ethnic/linguistic features or not. As far as I understood Sasha Vovin or Marshall Unger for that matter, they both assume that such Wa speakers existed on the peninsula from where they were gradually driven to the archipelago. If so, the question of „colonization“ becomes two sided: I am sure that Sasha has more to comment on that but I think it is essential to keep the possibility in mind that there were not only “Korean” minorities in Japan but also „Japanese“ minorities in Korea. Perhaps experts could add a word on that?

 

Bernhard

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/CAFSdm5Qn5u4rdvzGKHk5HMfi%2B5878_m81Fhb%3DM%2BNKPJ4u9sgvQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Sujung Kim]

As someone who straddles both in Japanese Buddhist and Korean Buddhism, this particular thread is extremely intriguing to me, and I would like to share a few thoughts after reading Prof. Farris's "The state of Mimana 任那?"

I am currently writing an encyclopedia entry on Korean Buddhism during the Three Kingdoms and Unified Silla periods, and in it, I deal with some of the questions more in-depth such as the question of 任那 and also the scholarly reception on Samguk yusa & Samguk sagi versus Nihon shoki. I'd like to share what I have observed so far highlighting how the issues have been discussed within Korean scholarship. 

As for the 任那 issue: 

Korean scholarship regards 任那 as a fictional invention (notably Kim, Tae-sik, the first Kaya historian in Korea, and Park, Cheun-Soo) and in fact, this question has been one of the key tasks to debunk for numerous scholarship in Korea until the 1980s (For more on this, see Moon, pp. 55-78). But with increasing scholarly interests in Kaya and following numerous archeological excavations, Korean scholarship now believes that 任那 is nothing more than a byproduct of the Japanese colonial scholarship. The fictional nature of the theory seems to be also a scholarly consensus in major Japanese scholarship, although there are still some who use the same archeological findings from Kaya to make a completely opposite argument (in favor of proving the existence of the Mimana nihonfu in the peninsula).   

As for the Saumguk Yusa & Samguk sagi vs Nihon shoki:

Whereas most Korean scholarship tends to give primary textual authority to Samguk sagi and Samguk yusa, newer Anglophone scholarship has raised questions about the reliability of these texts as the sources of historical records. Applying extensive use of archeological, epigraphic, and cross-textual examinations with Chinese and Japanese chronicles, several scholars (Best 2016; McBride 2016; Byington 2016; Lee Sungjoo 2016; and Jack Davey 2016) argued that Samguk Sagi should be read with a considerable degree of caution. Noting the differences between the two texts, some scholars also find Samguk yusa generally reliable despite historical anachronism and other errors (McBride 2006).  What’s interesting to me, however, is that there are still irreconcilable scholarly baises on both sides: Korean scholarship often discredits accounts found in Nihon shoki pointing to its Japan-centric bias, whereas Japanese scholarship tends to devalue the Korean sources because obviously, these sources are coming from much later periods than Nihon shoki.  

For the sources I cited above (which also will be helpful for the history of Kaya):

Park, Cheun Soo, “Kaya and Silla in Archeological Perspectives” in Early Korea: Reconsidering Early Korean History Through Archeology (Early Korea, 1). Ed. Mark Byington, pp. 113-153, Cambridge, MA: Early Korea Project, Korea Institute, Harvard University, [Honolulu, Hawaii] : Distributed by the University of Hawaii Press, 2008.

Moon, Chang Rho, “Research on Kaya History and Issues of Academic Debate” in The Rediscovery of Kaya in History and Archaeology (Early Korea 3), Ed. Mark Byington pp. 55-78, Cambridge, MA: Early Korea Project, Korea Institute, Harvard University, [Honolulu, Hawaii] : Distributed by the University of Hawaii Press, 2012.

Kim, T’aesik, “Sources for the Study of Kaya History,” in The Rediscovery of Kaya in History and Archaeology (Early Korea 3), Ed. Mark Byington pp. 17-48, Cambridge, MA: Early Korea Project, Korea Institute, Harvard University, [Honolulu, Hawaii]: Distributed by the University of Hawaii Press, 2012.

McBride, Richard II. "Is the Samguk yusa Reliable?: Case Studies from Chinese and Korean Sources," The Journal of Korean Studies 11, 1 (2006): 163-189. 

For Best 2016, McBride 2016, Byington 2016, Lee 2016, and Davey 2016), see (Jonathan W. Best edited) 

Seoul Journal of Korean Studies 29, 1 (2016).  

[William Farris]

Briefly:

        I'm with the Koreans:  Mimana is a fiction of the NS, IMO.

WWF

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/bcb2c874-4fd2-495b-828c-46a356d2d1f0n%40googlegroups.com.

[Alexander Vovin]

Dear Bernhard and all,

Responding to your question, it is quite clear that the southern part of the Korean peninsula (roughly speaking, from the Hangang valley to the sea of Japan and Yellow sea) had Japonic substratum once upon a time. But we do not know when it was or how long it lasted into AD, because the major bulk of information remained in Korean place names recorded in Samguk sagi. Still, there is some indication that at least some kind of bilingualism lasted well into the Three Kingdoms period. For details please see the articles by Kōno Rokurō and myself that I mentioned in one of the previous postings. The subject was studied quite extensively, but not always up to the standards of modern linguistic methodology.

Whether these Japonic speakers on Korean peninsula can be called "Wa", or whether they were a "minority" (up to a certain point, namely before the Korean migration from Manchuria into the Korean peninsula they certainly were a "majority") is entirely a different matter.

All the best,

Sasha

Alexander Vovin
Membre élu d'Academia Europaea
Directeur d'études, linguistique historique du Japon, de la Corée et de l'Asie centrale

ECOLE DES HAUTES ETUDES EN SCIENCES SOCIALES;

CENTRE DE RECHERCHES LINGUISTIQUES SUR L'ASIE ORIENTALE

Membre associé de CENTRE DE RECHERCHES SUR LE JAPON

Laureate of 2015 Japanese Institute for Humanities Prize for a Foreign Scholar

Editor-in-chief, series Languages of Asia, Brill

Co-editor, of International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics, Brill

PI of the ERC Advanced Project, AN ETYMOLOGICAL DICTIONARY OF THE JAPONIC LANGUAGES

105 Blvd Raspail, 75006 Paris

sasha...@gmail.com
https://ehess.academia.edu/AlexanderVovin

https://www.edj-vovin.com/

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/pmjs/95b63225f79647a0b59f87655ef718c8%40oeaw.ac.at.