Talk:Silla

Origin of Bone Rank system as an evidence of North Asian Buyeo elites as founders?

What is interesting in Silla founding myths is that the royal title for the first ten or so kings: Geoseoghan, Chachaung, Isageum, Maripghan. To me they sound like Romanization of Kasikhan / Khaghan / Iskhan / Malik Khan into Chinese characters. changing of ch to k and vice versa is observed even in Europe, where Latin pronunciation for "C" evelved from K to CH over centuries ("Celetes" as pronounced in modern Italian and Church latin) Change Chachaung's "ch into k, and you have Kakaung, or Khakan.

Also interesting is the centuries old fixation on preserving their pure lineage among the royalty /nobility using the bonk rank system, that still pervades modern Korean language "bbyeodae gip eun jib an" . Possibly early Silla society was ruled by a foreign people who were niticeably different in appearance, who sought to preserve their "superiority" by keeping a pure lineage. Based on modern DNA evidence, perhaps the Seonggol (divine bone) ruling class came from the North (Buyeo) bringing Central Asian horse riding culture, and possibly possessing the Y-DNA C-M217, as opposed to the southern agricultural DNA of O2b and O3? Maybe this explains the wider dispersion of C-M217 in the southern part of the peninsula, where legends indicate the founder of Baekje also came form Buyeo (SW Korea)... Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krusader6 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki is not the place for idle chatter (WP:FORUM) or Original Research.

I want the summary of silla of Korean history

Chris morez (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Romanization

What's going on with this romanization. Wiktionary seems to say this is Shinra or something like that, but I'm not sure why "Silla" is used. What is the proper Korean spelling (in RR, MR, and Yale) for this? WhisperToMe 02:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To understand this, one must enter the nasty intellectual bramble-patch of Korean phonology. The name is 신라 in Hangul, Silla in RR, Shilla in MR, and something foolish in Yale. The first syllable is romanized Sin or Shin, the second Ra. However, due to an assimilation rule, n + r (ㄴ + ㄹ) = ll (ㄹㄹ). So 신라 (Sin-ra) is pronounced 실라 (Silla), and romanized accordingly. -- Visviva 03:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We Koreans pronounce it "실라", which is most certainly "Shilla," which rhymes with Villa or Chinchilla. It's not that it merely "sounds that way to the western ear" as the article indicates. -201.1.40.143 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of blocks in Cheomseongdae

User:Silsor has dropped in a comment that "some sources say" the observatory is made from 366 blocks, rather than 362. However, after a cursory look around, I can't find anything that indicates there are any number other than 362. Does anyone know the basis for the alternative count? -- Visviva 03:00, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've tried to count them, but gave up after about a hundred ;) We need references for such a claim (366). Kokiri 6 July 2005 09:21 (UTC)

Found a reference, added it to the Cheomseongdae article. Now I want to find a reference that will actually explain the discrepancy... -- Visviva 14:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Wokou?

According to the text, "Facing pressure from Baekje in the west, in 400, Silla allied with Goguryeo to attack Baekje and Japanese Wokou pirates."

However, the article on Wokou states that "Wōkòu (Chinese: 倭寇; Japanese pronunciation: wakō; Korean pronunciation: 왜구 waegu) were pirates who raided the coastlines of China and Korea from the 13th century onwards."

Is there some way that this can be harmonised? Either the use of the word Wokou is an anachronism (i.e., it is extending the name back through history to a time when it had not come into use) and a different term should be used, or the article on Wokou fails to give a complete picture and should mention these earlier bouts of Wokou activity. Bathrobe 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Bathrobe, please see

The word Wokou has been used by Koreans all times to describe the Japanese Bucanners-it is even used today, in very insulting terms to refer to the Japanese, next to monkey. Didigo10

Cleanup

I placed this under cleanup because I felt coverage was spotty and all the sections needed to be pulled together, added to, and to an extent reorganizaed. I am working on getting the middle period narrative but later period has not been begun.

Straitgate 06:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Silla and the Jurchen

I find the remarks on supposedly Korean origins of the Jin dynasty wide of the mark. First, the claims about the similarity between Aisin Gioro and Silla sound extremely speculative. Second, strictly speaking, Nurhaci was not the founder of the Qing, but of the later Jin. One of his sons, later changed the name of the dynasty to Qing and created the name Manchu. Third, what is ethnic homogeneity between Manchus and Koreans supposed to mean? They don't even speak the same language.

In sum, these claims like they were taken from the works of Sin Chae'ho, who wanted to claim Manchuria for Korea. Just quoting the Manzhou yuanliu kao is not sufficient, a chapter and a page reference should be given. (I doubt that the author of this paragraph has read that book. Furthermore, Manzhou yuanliu kao was written in the 18th century in order to create a history of the Manchu, so anything that book say about Korean kingdom some eight hundred years earlier should be taken with some caution. If no credible source is quoted, I suggest that this paragraph be deleted.--Niohe 15:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph regarding the legacy of Silla through Kim Hambo. A historical text called the Jin Shi states it as well. Kim Hambo, a descendant of Silla, left Goryeo and entered Manchuria at the age of 60, but his brother stayed behind in Goryeo. This descendant of Silla married and had children and his 8th generation descendant was Kim Aguta, who was the founder of the Jin Empire. This isn't something that I decided to make up from the top of my head. I actually did some reading, and no i did not read Sin Chaeho's analysis of Manchuria history. I didn't know such a book existed. Aisin Gioro and Silla. Numerous historians have discovered it to be true. Aisin Gioro has many different meanings. Aisin Gioro means "Golden Clan", which can be translated to Geum clan. Geum is the equivalent of the Korean surname Kim. Another meaning of Aisin Gioro is "Love Silla and never forget it." I'm not completely sure about the "never forget it" part because i didn't directly cite it, but its very close to the true meaning. And the Manchu and Korean do not have the same language as you said, but that doesn't mean that they aren't connected. They come from the same language family and have SIMILAR but not the same languages. There's a difference. Just as the countries that speak Germanic languages do not share the SAME language, but they have similar lingual elements that have led historians and scientists to come to the conclusion that they come from the same lingual family and must have had a root language at some point in history. The Chinese do not share the same language either. There are numerous languages spoken in China due to the fact that numerous ethnic groups live within China. How can those that are not Han Chinese be called Chinese? They live within the country that is known today as the People's Democratic Republic of China, more commonly known as China. Nurhaci did not establish the Qing Empire. His son and successor Huang Taiji changed the state-name to Qing in 1636. Similar to how Dae Jung-sang established the first kingdom known as "Later Goguryeo", and his son Dae Joyeong changed the state-name to the Great Jin kingdom, also known as Balhae. Or also how Genghis Khan did not establish the Yuan Dynasty, but is still considered a founder. If that still gets in your way, then I'll change it and be extra specific. --Kprideboi 18:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Silla fought Japanese pirates. Good friend100 00:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

original Jurchen clans (various Tungusic tribes) shared same ethnic line with Koreans; 70% of Korean people are from Tungusic clans, that originally migrated to Korean peninsula and thus even later languages became different, genetically Jurchen shared closest to Korean people than anyone else. --Korsentry 03:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Redirect from Shinra?

Please comment on whether Shinra should be a redirect to this article at Talk:Shinra#Requested move. (It's a common spelling in late 19th and early 20th century books, for example.) Right now, the page Shinra discusses a fictional corporation from Final Fantasy VII; I have proposed that be moved to Shinra Electric Power Company instead. Cheers, cab 21:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical problem

In my Firefox 2.0.0.12, all the edit buttons of the History part appear together behind the list of monarchs, behind the title of the Culture part.

El Comandante (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Longest Dynasty?

The opening paragraph states that Silla was the "longest sustained dynasty in Asian history." What is the basis for this claim? For example, the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty#Japan gives the rule of the Emperor of Japan as lasting from 606 BC to the present. This is longer than the period of 57 BC-935 AD for Silla. Should the "longest sustained dynasty" claim for Silla be removed or qualified in some way? 76.209.130.154 (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I note that even in the Korea part of the Dynasty article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynasty#Korea, Gojoseon is listed as having a longer period of rule (2333-108 BCE) than Silla. Perhaps Gojoseon was not a single sustained dynasty, so it may not belong in the "Dynasty" list. Should the "Dynasty" article be edited also? 76.209.130.154 (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, I have added a link from Silla to the Dynasty article, so interested persons can investigate these claims themselves. 76.209.130.154 (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I expected some sort of response, but since I got none, I will go ahead and qualify "longest sustained dynasty" to read "one of the longest sustained dynasties" since this appears to be true. 76.209.130.154 (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese Emperor is (throughout history) really more of a religious figure with almost no political or military power, so comparing his/her reign to a traditional dynasty is questionable. Of course, many dynasties, especially modern ones, turn into figureheads, but Japan seems to have been that way for most of the Imperial families existence, and indeed the word Emperor seems to have been ill chosen. 75.94.224.91 (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Shifting of power" section

I have taken the liberty of removing the most egregious and quite trivially false claims, but I would strongly recommend that this section be deleted as it is not only unsourced and questionable, but irrelevant to the part of the article at hand (it would be better treated as a topic under "Society and politics" if it is to be treated at all). --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Chinese Elite

The Bei Shi records that Silla elite were of partially Chinese descent and that the population was partially Chinese.

"新罗者，其先本辰韩种也。地在高丽东南，居汉时乐浪地。辰韩亦曰秦韩。相传言秦世亡人避役来适，马韩割其东界居之，以秦人，故名之曰秦韩。其言语名物， 有似中国人。....其文字、甲兵，同于中国 "

"Silla came from Zhen Han. Its southeast of Koguryo, belonging to the Lelang prefecture during Han. According to a common saying, after Qin fell, many people came as refugees. Ma Han took the eastern part of its territory and gave it to them, because they are Qin people, they are also called Qin Han(another name for Zhen Han). Their language and words used to describe things are similar to the Chinese...their writing, armament, are the same as China's."

"其人杂有华夏、高丽、百济之属"

"there were Chinese, Koguryo, and Paekche people" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.63.125 (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

"Shilla"

The usage and primary topic of Shilla is under discussion, see talk:Shilla (6132m) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What excavation?

The last paragraph of "Society and politics," about "items uncovered during the excavation," seems to be a non sequitur. It looks like it was added last April in a significant edit by a since-blocked IP address. I think it's supposed to be part of the material discussed under "Foreign relations" but if so, it's out of order. B.adkins (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Population?

It seems population is poorly sourced for this article, specifically in that some of them reference the Samguk Sagi without providing a direct citation/online citation which would be preferrable. I'll look for some myself later but if anyone has statistics already would appreciate adding citations to the population of Silla Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Any updates on this? If anyone has reliable population stats I would appreciate it Sunnyediting99 (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Keeping Hangul on Infobox and Wikipedia Page

It's not productive at all to just remove Hangul from the various Korean states, especially because now in its current form Hangul is entirely non-existent on the infobox for readers to see. Additionally, the Korean states are not unique at all in this context. Đại Việt has both the traditional Vietnamese script that derived from Chinese as well as the modern romance language inspired script. The Shang dynasty has both the bone script and the modern Chinese script. Same with the Ottoman Empire, etc etc. Hanja is already in the article, it's not like it's being erased from the article, and keeping Hangul with it is the most efficient and productive design. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The point is entirely that hangul was not the native script used in this polity. While it's of course more nuanced than saying "Chinese characters represent the same system in 1100 BC as in 1900 AD", there is an obvious distinction in the contiguous graphemic evolution of that system, as opposed to hangul, which was essentially invented from scratch in the 15th century. Its presence where the native name would be is misleading to readers who may not know this history. Remsense诉 16:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see this until now, but the key counterpoint is that first and foremost, this effectively erases Hangul from the infoboxes, the resulting changes essentially had Hangul entirely absent from many of the pages of Baekje, Silla, Goguryeo, Goryeo, etc. We have cases of multiple Korean dynasties with no Hangul that not only makes the pages look awkward but also does erasure of Korean identity, hence why again keeping it with Hanja and Hangul is preferable.

Additionally, there are various states that I mentioned beforehand that the same metric is not applied at all towards, such as the Shang Dynasty article, or Dai Viet. There's also numerous other ones like the Ottoman Empire too. And also let's not forget that Joseon had its own hangul removed, which means this rule wasn't even applied fairly to the one state where it shouldn't have been applied to given that Hangul was invented very early on into Joseon and quickly became the script of the commoners, women, and the Buddhists.

The status quo, which has existed for the past two decades or so, is the correct path of keeping Hanja and Hangul together, this change is unnecessary and frankly would cause more confusion to readers. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no real justification to have forms that were not used by the state in question, because WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Moreover, since the subject is obviously a part of Korean history, the name with hangul is in numerous other locations in the article, just not the |native_name= parameter, because it was not the native name. If this constitutes some erasure, then that it is an erasure of clear misconceptions about Korean history that we don't want a general audience to have. Remsense诉 23:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is not the case at all, in numerous edits, the Hangul was non-present and thus was only really visible in the infobox such as for Silla. In this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1231296695, 신라 doesn't appear anywhere in the introduction and doesn't appear until the second paragraph of Etymology. In some of the less egregious cases, they still didn't appear until the first page of Etymology. Additionally, I saw in the recently made edits it was even worse for the Vietnamese articles, in this case, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1236166538, the current modern Latin-based Vietnamese script was entirely erased from the article.

While you make a fair point, the edits here can just as easily endanger the exact opposite, that people who aren't familiar with the Korean or Vietnames (or other countries) wikipedia articles can get the wrong impression that the Sino-script is the script of modern Korea/Vietnam (and vice versa for other countries) due to the removal.

Again, the compromise of Hanja and Hangul has been the status quo for the past twenty years, I would be supportive and open to notes that state that the script of the era was Hanja, but the edits made for these articles often lead to complete erasure of the modern script. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Then hangul should probably be added back to the lead, and not specifically to an incorrect place for it. Longevity and oblique comparisons with other articles are the weakest arguments for retaining a certain presentation of information; each article is assessed on its own needs, and many articles have glaring deficiencies for decades at a time that must nevertheless be corrected. (WP:BEENHERE; WP:OTHERCONTENT). There's nothing to compromise about: hangul wasn't the native script, so it doesn't go in that particular spot regardless of whatever makes a particular editor happy; an idiosyncratic local consensus does not override sitewide policies or basic logic. To be clear, I would also be fine with removing hanja from the infobox if it's seen as misleading, as parameters shouldn't be filled unless they are clear and helpful in the context of a particular article. Remsense诉 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

In an ideal situation it should, but that is not what is happening. What is happening is that Hangul is being erased from the articles, and there is no follow up on it, creating the opposite problem that I have been talking about that can lead to other misperceptions.

And the native script argument creates problems of its own, when does the native script become applicable and when does it not? How would we even define what is the native or official script, what makes the script deserving to be in the infoxbox?

For example the extensive list of Joseon monarchs has both Hangul and Hanja, at what point does it start applying to one or the other? Hangul wasn't officially used until late Joseon, but then again does not mean that Sejong the Great shouldn't have Hangul in his infobox despite inventing it, just because officially it wasn't the Joseon Government's script? And technically, the native script of original hangul was very different from modern Hangul, so then by that technically we should use the exact native Hangul to write out Sejongs name if we did (which would further complicate things, I'm not even sure if the Korean Wikipedians on here would know how to do that unless if we had a linguist). Furthermore, Hangul nearly died out post-Sejong until the Imjin War, this would completely disrupt uniformity for Hangul to appear and then disappear from infoboxes and could confuse readers.

This isn't even getting into the colonial period, Korea under Japanese rule, the Japanese Government tried to ban and eradicate Hangul, so it wasn't the official script of Colonial Korea and not used for government documents and etc and there were generations of Koreans between 1910-1945 who grew up not knowing Hangul due to the spread of the Japanese language, by this point its muddied on if we use Hangul or not because the script was widely banned and not used in official documents. When the script becomes native/official would be impossible to define in these situations.

By doing these changes it would create chaos and irregularity amongst the Korean states infobox pages, not to mention we can't even completely verify if Hanja was used in many of these states (almost all the pre-Three Kingdoms States such as Gojoseon, Buyeo, early Tamna, Jin have barely any historical records or none at all given that the earliest verified and still existing Korean historical records only really begin around the 300s/400s AD). Sunnyediting99 (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to dispute any other articles that may or may not also be doing something idiosyncratic and incorrect; we are talking about this article, once again per WP:OTHERCONTENT. If it's not the native name, it shouldn't be presented as the native name, period. To me, it makes perfect sense to be in the lead sentence of the article, but since it's not obviously wrong it would be something that would be decided per article like any other on the encyclopedia. I'd appreciate your help in rectifying articles rather than gesturing to some secret "compromise" that seems to serve the tastes of specific editors rather than the readership or anything else transparent or rooted in site guidelines.

By doing these changes it would create chaos and irregularity amongst the Korean states infobox pages,

Nonsense. Let's do things the right way and stop intoning darkly about nonsense. Whatever clique that decided this do not own these articles independently of site guidelines; the next step would be to open an RfC about it, where I would guess the broader community would make the obvious choice to use the parameter for what it plainly says it's for.Remsense诉 02:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)