본문 바로가기
  • Home

A review on the hypothesis that Poong-jang(豊璋) and Gyo-gi(翹岐) are same person

  • The Review of Korean History
  • 2020, (140), pp.5-44
  • DOI : 10.31218/TRKH.2020.12.140.5
  • Publisher : The Historical Society Of Korea
  • Research Area : Humanities > History
  • Received : November 10, 2020
  • Accepted : November 26, 2020
  • Published : December 30, 2020

Park Jooseon 1

1서울대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

Nishimoto Masahiro(西本昌弘)’s hypothesis that Poong-jang(豊璋) and Gyo-gi(翹岐) are same person has been widely accepted in Japanese academia, and some Korean scholars accepted it. To confirm its validity, several issues were reviewed. As a result, it can only be established if all arguments are valid;⑴AD631’s article on Poong-jang’s arrival to Wa had a date error ⑵Gyeong-bok(敬福)’s death article followed the error on Poong-jang’s visit date ⑶Poong-jang and Gyo-gi were King Uija(義慈王)’s son ⑷Seon-gwang(禪廣) = Buyeo Yong(扶餘勇) = Sae-sang(塞上) ⑸Poong-jang = Gyu-hae(糺解) = Gyo-gi ⑹Gyo-gi’s arrival to Wa was AD643 ⑺A news of political change in Baekje(百濟) was false, so Gyo-gi was a leader of formal envoy. However, criticism of each is persuasive, above issues are closely connected to each other, and if one collapses, it may collapse in a chain reaction. So the hypothesis is difficult to establish. In particular, Nishimoto presented multiple other same person theories, to prove ‘Poong-jang = Gyo-gi’, however if ‘Seon-gwang = Buyeo Yong’ is not convincing, it cannot even be introduced. But, traces of Seon-gwang and Buyeo Yong before and after the fall of Baekje indicated that they were different persons. Therefore, basis of it is extremely precarious. Examining Nishimoto’s other papers on Baekje-Wa relation together, it can be found that he recognized ‘Tax of Imna(任那調)’ and ‘Reconstructing Imna(任那復興)’ as the historical facts. Based on ‘Poong-jang = Gyo-gi’, he said when Baekje occupied the former Gaya region in AD642, Wa who has claimed dominium of Imna demanded the dispatch of a prince, then Baekje sent Poong-jang(= Gyo-gi), the son of King Uija, to Wa in AD643. Given this, it remains the impression he interpreted the above issues in line with his opinion. In short, 'Poong-jang = Gyo-gi’ has clear limits in the attitude and perspective of handling with historical materials. Although ‘Poong-jang = Gyo-gi’ is attractive, it is necessary to pay attention to the process from which this view was derived. In this paper, Poong-jang and Gyo-gi are understood as different persons, and Poong-jang was a formal envoy sent to Wa by his father King Uija in AD631, and Gyo-gi was a nephew of King Uija and expelled by political change in AD642.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.