KJC Korea
Journal Central

Traditionally, Goguryeo has valued the memorial services held before the grave. However, in considering the epigraph produced around 5th century as well as the archaeological relics of the time, we can see that they had become less and less important while the royal ancestor’s shrine had become more important. This trend went on for a while after then. Examining the shift in the status of memorial services held before the grave, we can say that there was a turning point between 4th century and 5th century. There are multiple factors that led to the shift in their status. There was a transition after the late 4th century. As Buddhism spreaded to Goguryeo, people accepted the rebirth thought and the idea of free soul. As a result, they did not consider tomb as important any longer. Additionally, it was hard to preserve tombs because there always was the chance of war. As the idea of genealogy got reinforced, progenitor’s tomb got more and more attention. This led to the reform of the ancestor’s shrine ritual. It is not the result of the acceptance of Chinese culture; rather, it implies that the society of Goguryeo caused its own change.

For years, the weapons of Three Kingdom's period have been studied with archaeological specimens. Even though the 6～7th was the most active time in Three Kingdom's period, excavated weapon data rarely exists. To study the weapon system, we must refer to the literature record. In particular, Samguksagi could be the main reference data. There were diverse weapons used in the 6～7th. These weapons could be separated such as siege engines and castle defence weapons. Individual weapons were divided into polearms, short weapons, shooting weapons and protective equipment. Silla also used polearms such as dagger axes, halberd, lances, spears, pikes and battle hooks in Samguksagi. In addition, this study supposes that hastas and scythes were used in that period by archaeological data. Some of lances were used for cavalry rush attack: Pikes, battle hooks and scythes were footman's weapon for against cavalry. Short weapons were divided into swords, knifes, battle axes, broadaxes. This study assumes that the swords in Samguksagi included knifes. Battle axes had two functions which were treated as tools and weapons. Broadaxe was a symbol of authority. Protective equipments have armors and shields. Silla verbalized crack units to armor warriors or armor soldiers. Furthermore, Silla had bards and armor horses. Through this fact, we can assume heavy armored cavalries. Shields are not verified in the record, but this study showed that they were frequently used at actual warfare. Bows and crossbows, sling were frequently used in the ancient war. Silla constructed weapon system based on these weapons, and Silla conducted conquest war. Silla was constituted Saseoldang to treat specialized to siege weapon. For instance ballista, assault ladders, battering rams and catapults. This study assumes that Saseoldang conducts manufacturing and educating rather than exclusively responsible siege warfare. In the 7th century, Silla developed newest weapons, such as Cheonbono and Manno. It was driving force in the unification war of Three kingdoms and Silla-Tang war that Silla's vigorous weapon development and weapon system construction.

Nae-eui-sung(內議省), Gwang-pyung-sung(廣評省), and Nae-bong-sung(內奉省) consisted of government offices for prim ministers before organization of Naesa-munha-sung(內史門下省) and Sangsu-sung(尙書省). Nae-eui-sung played roles of counselling and criticising for political issues and writing Royal edicts, and so on. Due to the organization of Nae-eui-sung, we could realize that the government of Koryo pursued to achieve the ideas for Confucian politics. When was the government office started in Koryo? There is no direct evidence to indicate the time to be established. Yet, there is a record that Koryo established Three-ministries, Six-departments which approximately imitated the political system of the Tang Dynasty after transfer of the Capital to Kaekyung. Even if some controversies have existed, I would like to accept the record positively. Therefore, I think that the time of the establishment of Nae-eui-sung might have been when the Capital was removed from Chunlwon to Kaekyung. Even though the government office was established late, the minister of Nae-eui-sung, Nae-eui-ryung, played a role as a prime minister with Gwang-pyng Si-jung and Nae-bong-ryung. The rank of the ministry might be the second among Three-Ministries during the reign of the King Taejo. However, the position of the ministry climbed to the top instead of the Gwang-pyung-sung during the King Gwangjong’s reign due to the king's policies to oppress local strongmen. Under the circumstances, the Nae-eui-ryung functioned as an honorary official rank for the crown prince, as well as the top rank for subjects. It was thought that the position of the ministry became higher during King Gwangjong's reign than King Taejo's. In addition, even lower positioned officials such as Nae-eui-sung-ji-sa-in were found more than ever. The position of the government office was maintained even after King Kyongjong’s accession to the throne. Yet, King Kyongjong organized a new government official named Jip-jung Nae-sa-ryung(執政 內史令), so the power of Nae-eui-sung was influenced by the new official post. It is hard to know how Nae-eui- sung was changed because of the limited historical records. Even so, we can find that Nae-eui-ryung was appointed as ever. At last, the ministry was disappeared when King Sungjong adopted the model of the Tang Dynasty as the political system. Influenced by the model, Koryo finally established Naesa -munha-sung and Sangsu-sung.

This study concerns the inconsistency between the icon and the name of the Standing Stone Bodhisattva Statue of Gwanchoksa Temple that had long been called ‘Eunjinmireuk(Maitreya of Eunjin)’ despite its iconographic features of Avalokiteśhvara. In the past, as to the icon-name discussions of the statue, one group of experts regarded ‘Eunjinmireuk’, a name with long history, as an error based on the icon, whereas others attempted to provide explanations in connection with the exceptional icon of the stone statue of Bodhisattva at Gamsansa Temple with the aim to support of the relevance of the name. In this study, the mechanism behind the inconsistencies was examined based on the fact that the name of the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple provided in the historical records may be a nominal designation used in reference to the statue at the time, rather than a reflection of the iconographic facts, and that such inconsistencies between the icon and the name are not rare among Buddha statues. The results were as follows. First, in order to provide support that the inconsistency between the icon and the name of the statue is worth analyzing, the creator and intent behind the creation of the statue and its position in the pattern history were examined. The results showed that the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple was not created by a powerful clan in the Sijin region (present-day Nonsan) and does not display the regional pattern. Rather, it was speculated that it was created with an intent to fulfill a political objective, which was localization of the post-Baekje region, through discursive practices of geomantic topography regarding buddhist temples and pagodas designed and positioned to supplement the energy of the surrounding region. In the aspect of pattern history, the folk and indigenous elements were distinguished, with the peculiar pattern in the early Goryeo Dynasty was set forth as an indigenous element, thereby positioning the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple at the pinnacle of the indigenous branch originating from Gaetaesa Temple. Next, in order to analyze the inconsistency between the icon and the name of the stone statue, the inconsistencies found in other stone statues of Buddha were divided into two types. They were then analyzed in relation to the inconsistency found in the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple. One possibility is that all stone statues of the Buddha were called Mireuk, regardless of their respective icons, and it was speculated that the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple came to be called ‘Mireuk’ based on this mechanism. As Ko Yu-seop and Lee Neung-hwa mentioned, “all stone statues of Buddha are called Mireuk” based on the earnest wishes. Another possibility is related to relevance of the stone statue of Bodhisattva at Gamsansa Temple. The name of the stone statue at Gwanchoksa Temple was not changed due to an external factor later on, but it was speculated that statues of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva were originally called Mireuk, for unknown reasons. However, even if the name Mireuk was initially imprinted for the icons of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, this does not make the objectified differences of icons themselves meaningless in art history. Determining the name and icon of stone statues of Buddha, which comprise a part of Buddhist sculpture history, is an important process. However, there are tendencies for normative judgments, suggesting that there should be a one-to-one correspondence between the icon and the name, and this in effect eliminate inconsistences as abnormal. In response to this, there is a need to acknowledge such inconsistencies as an occurrence of the past, not an error, and to examine the inconsistencies among desire, name and icon in a flexible and tolerant manner. This is when it will be possible to see the earnest wishes that brought forth such inconsistency. In a sense, an inconsistency could be viewed as the traces of the earnest wishes of the people that were engraved. For this reason, it is possible to see the efforts spurred by the people in the past to breathe life into their desires in the iconographic imagination that has been passed on and the given materials.

The purpose of this study is to clarify the nature of the original sources of the third volume of Samguksaki(三國史記) Jikgwanji(職官志). The third volume of Jikgwanji have several topics. This study only treated military organization part. The military organization part also contains four different articles which are Siwibu(Royal Guard), military officers, military forces, Decoration material for officers and forces. Article of Siwibu has almost same contents and description style with the first and second volume. So the original sources may be the same too. The Contents of article of military officers are information about military officers such as assigned number for each force, governmental rank and history. Article of military forces contains information of 23 military forces such as organization, history and color of Geum which is decoration material for forces. These articles looks like have different style of description compare to first and second volume’s. But the contents are similar and also there are some common form of description appears. So the original sources of these articles have similar nature with the first and second volume’s. And These articles have main original source and additional ones. Main sources would be Gyeok(格), which were essentially royal orders refined into a form of legal clauses about military officer and forces. Additional sources provide information about history and Geum. The last article of miliatry organization part would be the additional source.

This paper examined the relationship between Korean eunuch Go Ryong-bo(高龍普) and the Minister of Huizhengyuan(徽政院使) Tümender(禿滿迭兒), who prominently acted in the each two nations during the late Goryeo Dynasty and late Yuan Empire. Previous studies did not raise any particular doubts about relationship between eunuch Go Ryong-bo and Minister of Huizhengyuan Tümender. Indeed, they are not the same person and we do not know Go Ryong-bo’s Mongolian name. Existing suggestion is no more than an assumption that is not backed up by distinct sources. Of course, in the History of Yuan Dynasty(『元史』), there is one part that recorded Gao Long-bu(高龍卜) as the Minister of Huizhengyuan, but its credibility is not high. In addition, it cannot be asserted that Go Ryong-bo and Tümender are actually the same person even by this record. Therefore, this paper investigated Go Ryong-bo’s career first in order to re-examine the relationship between Go Ryong-bo and Tümender. In fact, there are not many records about Go Ryong-bo except that he performed special political acts in both countries of the Yuan Empire and the Goryeo Dynasty. Fortunately, there is a biography of Go Ryong-bo in the History of Goryeo Dynasty(『高麗史』); however, there is no detailed account about even his birth or the background that made him enter to the Yuan Empire. Although he is found here and there in various names in the materials other than the History of Goryeo Dynasty, there are many difficulties in restoring his career in detail. In addition, the record that the Mongolian name of Go Ryong-bo was Tümender does not apparently exist in these materials, and even the record that makes assertions that Go Ryong-bo and Tümender are the same person has never been found. Therefore, I paid attention to another person. I am thinking that Dokmandar(禿滿達) appearing in the Gajeongjip(『稼亭集』) is more likely to be the same person as Tümender. The record by Lee Gok(李穀), the author of the Gajeongjip, was written at the request of Dokmandar, who received benefit as a high-ranking official until the fifth year of Zhizheng(至正)(1345) after he entered the Yuan Empire in 1300, to build a shrine for his dead parents. Dokmandar served in various government posts in the Yuan Empire, and Lee Gok obstinately called him Prince of Huizheng(徽政公), which means the Minister of Huizhengyuan, and it is thought that Dokmandar’s representative public post can be safely said to be the Minister of Huizhengyuan. In addition, there are records that indicate the high possibility of Dokmandar’s being a eunuch, of which content is consistent with the Unofficial History of Emperor Gengshen(『庚申外史』) that described Tümender as a Goryeo eunuch. The record that Dokmandar made it his mission to recommend benevolent and talented persons when he served as the Minister of Huizhengyuan can be regarded as the passage that is reminiscent of Tümender who recommended Empress Ki as a court lady. On the other hand, whether Dokmandar recorded in the Goryeo materials and Tümender appeared in the History of Yuan Dynasty are really the different expressions for the same name can be a problem. By confirming that the pronunciations of ‘da’ and ‘r’ are expressed all at once for ‘達(dar)’ in the Korean language differently from the Chinese language while investigating other examples of ‘達’ utilized in writing Mongolian names, it was asserted that Dokmandar and Tümender were the different representations of the same name. Similar examples are highly likely to be found if comparisons between the Goryeo’s materials and Chinese materials are continuously performed. In order to look into the specific history of the relationship between the Yuan Empire and the Goryeo Dynasty, it is thought that the processes of tracking different representation methods for the same person found in both of the two countries’ materials and comparatively analyzing them are absolutely necessary. In particular, a lot of examples of representing the same person in different Chinese characters or different persons with the same name are found in the materials during the Yuan Empire. Therefore, it is not easy to discriminate the names of the persons involved in the relationship between the Yuan Empire and the Goryeo Dynasty at all. As an essay for the detailed studies that will be conducted in the future, this paper intended to first determine who Tümender was in order to reveal that he was completely a different person from Go Ryong-bo.

Giving his instruction to Naong(懶翁), Gyeonghan(景閑), Jacho(自超) and Jicheon(智泉), Jigong(指空) came to have enormous influence on Korean Buddhism in late Goryeo and early Joseon. But the description of Indian Buddhism related with Jigong has some problem in that it is wholly depended on Jigong’s testimony. In this study, the aspects on Nālandā(那蘭陁寺) among Jigong’s statements about Indian Buddhism are critically reviewed on the basis of general Indian Buddhist history. Up to now, it has been thought that Indian Buddhist history was terminated when Vikramaśīla Temple was destroyed by Islam army in 1203. But, though Jigong was born in the late of 13th century, he asserted he had left his house and studied at Nālandā. Therefore, it is required to present a rational solution for it. In relation with the problem, this paper clarifies that Nālandā Jigong told about was not Nālandā with the complete function but that of residual power when judged with his birth date. This can be indirectly verified with following facts:First, when Jigong left his house in Nālandā, he just received Ogye(五戒, śīla) for lay believers. Second, in Nālandā, he studied Buddhism on the basis of Gyeong(經) rather than Nonjeon(論典). Third, the Buddhist level of Nālandā was lower than that of Sri Lanka. Finally, this study deals with the process that Jigong’s emphasis on Nālandā resulted the full-scale reconstruction of Hoeamsa by Naong in Goryeo. Through the emphasis on Nālandā, Jigong came to secure his prominent position effectively, expecting the past glory of Nālandā to be realized in Goryeo of strong Buddhism.

This article examines the queen’s Placenta Chamber (Taesil) in the early Choseon period. Jangtae convention that has been passed down since the Silla period started to establish Pacenta Chamber for the king and his crown prince in the later Goryeo period. In the Joseon period, a Placenta Chamber was established not only for the king, but for his children as well. In addition, another procedure called “Gabong” had to be underwent for the king who was on the throne and a baby Placenta Chamber was magnificently built with stone monuments. However, some exceptional examples that even the queen’s Placenta Chamber that had underwent the procedure of “Gabong” in the early Joseon period can be found. These examples include the Queen Soheon who was the wife of King Sejong, and the queen Yun, Seongjong's royal concubine who had been expelled from the palace. The Queen Soheon was born in Yangju, Gyeonggido. The baby placenta that was buried here was moved to Yeongjusi for the process of ‘Gabong’ and it was known as the Placenta Chamber of the King Choongryeol during the Japanese colonial era. However, it was demonstrated to be untrue based on bibliographic data. In the case of the Queen Jeonghee, it was demonstrated that the Queen Jeonghee was born when Yoongyeon was appointed as Hongcheonhyeongam, and that the baby placenta was buried in Gongjaksan. Also, it was seen that as Sejo himself did not let his baby placenta chamber to go under “Gabong” process and instead, he ordered only the tombstone to be built, he left the baby placenta chamber of the Queen Jeonghee as it is. As for the location of the Placenta Chamber, when the name of the place and the geographical features are taken into account, the small mountaintop on the west side of Deokjicheon across today's Sutasa was seen as Taebongsan. The Placenta Chamber of queen Yun who had been expelled seemed to have been moved to the present location for “Gabong” after she became the queen. This Placenta Chamber was moved to Seosamneungyeok by Lee Wangjik during the Japanese colonial era. Also, this Placenta Chamber was mistaken as the Placenta Chamber of the Queen Soheon in the late Joseon period and Yongmunsa has been receiving a favor of being exempted of miscellaneous services due to this Placenta Chamber. The queen's Placenta Chamber in the early Joseon period was examined as above. The present article attempted to investigate the facts concerning the Placenta Chamber based on bibliographic as well as relic data. Nevertheless, the study was unable to discover the ideological background for explaining why the Placenta Chamber of the queens of King Sejong and King Seongjong were the only ones that underwent the process of ‘Gabong’ and why it cannot be observed in other periods. Such questions remain for further investigation for future studies on the Placenta Chamber.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the change process of the successor naming procedure in the late of Joseon Dynasty. And to this end, the cases that successor naming has been established after birth parents and raising parents passed away were analyzed. According to 『Gyeonggukdaejeon』 「Iphu (successor naming)」 Article, both parents were defined as the parties of successor naming and the consent of both parents was required for the formation of successor naming. This premises the survival of both parents at the time of successor naming. After the 16th century, however, the cases were shown that successor naming was allowed despite the failure to prove the successor naming consent of both parents because one or both parents died. Such trend has constantly led to the first half of 17th～18th century so the legislative system to typically name a successor even if one parent died was established in the mid-18th century. There are three types that successor naming was established after birth parents and raising parents passed away. The first is the case that birth parents died but raising parents were alive and second is the case that birth parents were alive but raising parents died and the third is the case that both birth parents and raising parents died. Their frequency is shown in the order of the first, second, third and the proportion of the first and second is high in the 17th century and the proportion of the 18th century is relatively high. But it is found out that a successor to be named was raised before successor naming was established in some cases. This fact shows that there is a temporal gap between institutional successor naming and actual successor naming. And this fact premises that both parents have already agreed to successor naming. Therefore, it was adequate to demonstrate the fact that both parents agreed even after birth parents and raising parents died. That is, by using this fact actively, the family could obtain permission for successor naming from the government.

Historical geography research was carried out actively during the latter half of the Joseon dynasty and that research provided a basis for continuation to modern history studies. However, that research was not succeeded to this day in its entirety. An explanation as to when and how their research was excluded from the scope of discussion is required. In this paper, we intended to get an explanation through analyzing the studies from the end of the Joseon dynasty to the Japanese occupation era. The comparison between the historical geography research during the latter half of the Joseon dynasty and that of Japanese researchers during the Japanese occupation period do not show significant difference in their research methodology or method of logical expansion. However, the researches of Japanese scholars were distributed through research societies and journals and cited and reproduced by the name of modern research methods. During this course, the researches of historical geography researchers during the latter half of the Joseon dynasty were gradually excluded. On the other hand, while there were a series of researches with the goal of ‘legitimate succession’ of the historical studies of the latter half of the Joseon dynasty since the end of that dynasty, related efforts were no more materialized and popularized anymore afterwards. The efforts of raising issues and restoration for this provide the implications for connection with issues of world history while not losing the unique characteristics in the globalization trend of today.