King Kwang-Gae-To's Stele

EAST ASIAN HISTORY: A KOREAN PERSPECTIVE Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5. 14. 1

IC-7.S-A.-0514

King Kwang-gae-to’s Stele

YAMATO SOLIDEIRS IN THE KOREAN PENINSULA

Wontack Hong Professor, Seoul University

THE SEVEN-BRANCHED SWORD The Seven-branched Sword, that is preserved at the Isono-kami Shrine, is believed to be the sword that is spoken of in Nihongi as having been sent by the Paekche court to the Jingū’s court in 372.1 Nihongi portrays Prince Homuda as a son of Jingū Regent and the heir apparent to the throne at that time. According to the Nihongi record for the year 366, the Paekche court had dispatched scouts to a Kaya state in 364 to gather information about the passages to the Japanese islands. The movement of the Paekche people to the Japanese islands 奈良縣天理市石上神宮七支刀 must have occurred not long after 366. According to the Nihongi record on the extensive pen/insular military activities in 399-70 involving the Yamato soldiers, Paekche generals, King Keun Chogo and the Crown Prince Keun Kusu, Prince Homuda [the founder of the Yamato kingdom] and his followers seem to have departed the Korean peninsula sometime during 369-70. The sword seems to have been bestowed upon Homuda who was undertaking the conquest of the Japanese islands, apparently as a symbolic gesture of well-wishing for his 1 神功皇后攝政五十二年秋九 endeavor and solidarity with his new kingdom. The inscription on the Seven-branched Sword says that the sword was 月丁卯朔丙子久氐等...則獻 manufactured in May 369, and the Nihongi record says that the 七枝刀一口 (NI: 359) sword was delivered to Homuda on September 10th, 372, most

2 THE SEVEN-BRANCHED SWORD Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5. 14.

likely soon after he had landed on the Japanese islands. Taking 2 石上神宮七支刀銘文 account of the fact that so many people from the Korean 泰□四年□月十六日丙午正陽造 peninsula had already gone across the sea to settle down in the 百練鐵七支刀生辟百兵宜供供 Japanese islands, an official evidence to testify visually the 侯王 □□□□作先世以來未有 mandate of the Paekche court bestowed upon Homuda as the 此刀百慈王世□奇生聖音故 ruler of the new kingdom was presumably expected to enhance 爲倭王旨造傳示後世 the cooperation of the old settlers and facilitate the conquest. See Hong (1994: 251-4). King Keun Cho-go died in 375. The full translation of the inscription on the sword 3 Ueda Masaaki (quoted by Saeki, th th may be read as follow: “On May 16 , the 4 year of Tae-hwa 1977) is rather an exception [369], the day of Byung-O at noon, this seven-branched sword among Japanese historians was manufactured with hundred-times-wrought iron. As this because he “has maintained that sword has a magical power to rout the enemy, it is sent the Seven-branched Sword was [bestowed] to the king of a vassal state. Manufactured by ‘bestowed’ on the Wa ruler by the □□□□ . Never has there been such a sword. The Crown king of Paekche.” Ueda “based his Prince of Paekche, who owes his life to the august King, had interpretation on the argument this sword made for the king of Yamato [or the king of vassal that the term ‘koo’ [howang] 2 state]. Hope that it be transmitted and shown to posterity.” appearing in the inscription is Naturally, most Japanese scholars have tried to turn written in the commanding tone the inscription around and cast Paekche as the “vassal state” by of a superior addressing an reading the inscription “respectively presenting the sword to inferior, exemplified by the the Emperor by the Paekche King.” 3 sentence reading ‘Hand down [this The Paekche court at first seems to have treated Homuda as the king of a vassal state, as was inscribed on the sword] to [your] posterity.’” Seven-branched Sword. King Chinsa (385-392), a son of Keun 4 應神三年是歲百濟辰斯王 Kusu, in particular, seems to have treated Homuda as inferior 立之失禮於貴國天皇故遣...嘖 to himself. According to Nihongi, Homuda dispatched four 讓其无禮狀由是百濟國殺辰斯 generals to Paekche and severely reprimanded Chinsa in 392 王以謝之 for such unwarranted treatment, which perhaps came to be (NI: 365) inscribed in the Kwang-gae-to’s epitaph as “Wa coming in the 5 應神八年百濟人來朝… year 391.”4 Homuda also reproved severely the new king Asin 百濟記云阿花王立无禮於貴國 (392-405), a grandson of Keun Kusu, in 397 (or in 396) for 故奪我…侵…東韓之地 (NI: 367) such an attitude. 5 I speculate that Homuda, the founder of the

Yamato kingdom, and Keun Kusu, the Crown Prince and later Nihongi quotes the Paekche King of Paekche, belonged to the same generation, possibly Shinsen which states that King with some age difference, and hence Homuda could not stand Kaero sent his younger brother such unwarranted attitude of young Paekche kings of the later Konji to the Yamato court to wait generation. upon the Heavenly King Paekche had managed to maintain the upper hand [Yūryaku] and “to confirm the THE SIN-MYO RECORD OF KING KWANG-GAE-TO’S STELE Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5.14. 3 friendship of big brother King.” militarily against Koguryeo until September 390 (when King Chinsa let General Jin Kamo capture a Koguryeo castle and 雄略五年夏四月百濟加須利君 200 prisoners), but the appearance of King Kwang-gae-to the 蓋鹵王也百濟新撰云辛丑年 Great (391-413) in Koguryeo completely reversed Paekche’s 蓋鹵王遣弟昆支君向大倭侍天王 fortunes in the battlefield.6 King Asin belatedly recognized the 以脩兄王之好也 (NI: 471) urgent necessity, for the very survival of Paekche, of the help from the new Yamato kingdom still fresh in its conqueror’s 6 三國史記百濟本紀第三辰斯 vigor. King Asin decided to send his crown prince Chonji to 王六年九月王命達率眞嘉謨 the Yamato court in 397 in order to transform the 伐高句麗拔都坤城虜得二百人 unnecessarily created ill will between the two courts into an active alliance.7 The inscription of Kwang-gae-to’s stele 7 應神八年是以遣王子直支 suggests that the efforts by Asin and Chonji were apparently 于天朝以脩先王之好也(NI: 367) successful. The Koguryeo army led by King Kwang-gae-to devastated Paekche in 392 and 396, but later saw as valiant 8 廣開土王碑文百殘新羅舊 warriors the Yamato soldiers fighting alongside of the Paekche 是屬民由來朝貢而倭以辛卯年 soldiers in 400 and also in 404. 來渡海破百殘任羅加羅以爲臣民以六年丙申王躬率水 KING KWANG-GAE-TO’S EPITAPH: CORRECT TRANSLATION 軍討伐殘國… 而殘主困逼獻出 The story that Japan had a unified and powerful state 男女生口一千人細布千匹跪王 as early as the third or fourth century, possessed a colony called 自誓從今以後永爲奴客太王 Mima-na on the southern peninsula, and controlled Paekche 恩赦始迷之愆錄其後順之誠 and Silla used to be based on the anachronistic and incoherent 於是得五十八城村七百將殘 bits and pieces of episodes and fantasies recorded in Kojiki 主弟幷大臣十人旋師還都 and Nihongi. There are, of course, no records which suggest any such possibility in any Korean or Chinese chronicles. The King Kwang-gae-to’s stele Nonetheless, the Japanese made a discovery in 1882 which was erected by his son, King could be viewed as an objective support for their claim. It is a Chang-su (413-91), in 414 in single line in the inscription on the epitaph of King Kwang- commemoration of his gae-to, a copy of which was brought to Japan by Sakao predecessor. Kagenobu, an army officer and intelligence agent of the Japanese General Staff Office. This is the famous Sin-myo (391) 9 In Sin-myo record, there are Record. Japanese historians interpret the line of inscription in three missing letters between the the following fashion: “Since the year of Sin-myo, Wa came and word “Paekche” and the letter crossed over the sea, and conquered Paekche, Imna and Silla, “ra(la).” Indeed it is a real curiosity and thereby made them [Wa’s] subject.” This translation that most Japanese scholars could constitutes the so-called unshakable “evidence” in support of simply fill up the missing three the dogma of almost every Japanese historian working on this letters following Paekche to make period that the Yamato kingdom had already existed in the them read “Imna, Silla.” First of fourth century as a unified and powerful state, and furthermore all, no one can ever deny that the had militarily controlled (or even colonized) South Korea. 8

4 PAEKCHE USING THE YAMATO SOLDIERS Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5. 14.

According to Hatada (1979): “Prewar [Japanese] Sin-myo Record (391) was inserted history textbooks were based on the records of the Nihon to justify the invasion of Paekche, shoki and said that Japan had controlled ancient Korea, not Silla, by King Kwang-gaw-to whereas postwar texts were based on the King Kwang-gae-to in 396. The following inscriptions stele inscription, but still accepted Japan’s control of Korea. clearly state that Koguryeo and Thus the basis for the view that Japan had controlled Korea Silla maintained a friendly moved from an unreliable ancient chronicle to the reliable stele relationship, that Koguryeo never inscription. Though the history texts written after the surrender invaded Silla but rather helped it were vastly different from their prewar counterparts, in this one to repulse Wa troops, and hence respect there was no change, and King Kwang-gae-to’s stele Silla did not have to be implicated was the basis of the argument.” in the official excuse for the According to Ledyard (1975), Paekche “came under invasion carried out in 396. heavy and continuous battering from their Koguryeo cousins in Indeed, a later line of the the north, and were quite severely in trouble during the 390’s inscription for the year 400 and 400’s. Help from their brothers in Japan may have been the specifically records that King only thing that saved them – in any case, this is what I think it Kwang-gae-to annihilated the Wa means on the Kwang-gae-to’s Stone when it says that the Wa troops by chasing them all the way came across the sea and fought in Korea.” Hence, one may to the Imna, Kara area and understand the statement that “Wa conquered Paekche, Imna thereby rescued Silla. Reading it as and Kara and made them their subjects” as reflecting the “Im-na, Ka-ra” instead of “Im-na, feeling of contempt that Koguryeo must have held for Sil-la” is therefore more consistent Paekche’s dependence on Wa troops.9 That is, Koguryeo must with the fact that Koguryeo did have been angered by Paekche’s frequent reliance Wa soldiers, not fight against Silla at that time. and therefore could have decided to inscribe on the We can also observe the monument, with contempt, that Paekche, together with Imna expression “Imna, Kara” in the and Kara, were conquered by Wa and became its subjects. orthodox Chronicles of Chinese Of course there are alternative ways to interpret the Dynasties, such as the record of Sin-myo Record. For instance, Cho (1984: 35-64) interpret it in Song-shu on the five kings of Wa. the following fashion: “Paekche and Silla were formerly [Koguryeo’s] subjects. They have been paying tributes. The Wa 10 廣開土王碑文九年己亥百 came in the year Sin-myo (391). [The King kwang-geo-to] 殘違誓與倭和通王巡下平穰 crossed over the sea and destroyed Paekche, [Imna and Ka]ra 而新羅遣使白王云倭人滿其國 to make them his subjects.” According to Cho, the “sea” in the 境潰破城池以奴客爲民歸王 inscription must refer to the Yellow Sea along the western 請命太王恩慈稱其忠誠特遣 coastline of the Korean peninsula, given that it was the most 使還告以密計十年庚子敎遣 convenient expeditionary route to the southwestern and 步騎五萬往救新羅從男居城 southern parts from the northwestern coast. 至新羅城倭滿其中官軍方至 Indeed, the inscription immediately following the 倭賊退自倭背急追至任那加羅 Sinmyo (391) record reads: “King himself led a naval force in 從拔城城卽歸服安羅人戌兵 the sixth year, Byung-shin (396), and smashed Paekche.” It 拔新羅城□城倭寇大潰城內十 YAMATO SOLDIERS FIGHTING ON THE SIDE OF PAEKCHE Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5. 14. 5

九盡拒隨倭... 殘倭遣逃 … subsequently records the acquisition of 58 Paekche castles, but 昔新羅寐錦未有身來論事 □□ never records that Paekche was conquered. In any case, the □□廣開土境好太王□□□□ 寐 only way for the Koguryeo to attack Paekche with its naval 錦□家僕勾請□□□朝貢 force was to sail the Yellow Sea. If the Koguryeo force crossed the Yellow Sea in 396, there is no reason why they should not 廣開土王碑文十四年甲辰而 have crossed the Yellow Sea before. 倭不軌侵入帶方界和通殘兵 The epitaph as well as Nihongi record the frequent □石城 □連船□□□ 王躬率□ participation of Yamato troops on the side of Paekche in 討從平穰□□□鋒相遇王幢要 battles against Koguryeo and Silla, just like the frequent 截盪刺倭寇潰敗斬煞無數 participation of the Black-Water Mohe soldiers on the side of Koguryeo.10 11 欽明五年百濟遣…曰夫建任那之國…請將士而助任那之國 FROM OLD TIMES, THE PAEKCHE HAVE RECEIVED 將士之粮我當須運將士之數 BOWS AND HORSES FROM THE YAMATO COURT AND 未限若干 (NII: 79-83) DEFENDED THEMSELVES AGAINST ENEMIES According to Nihongi, the Paekche practice of using 欽明五年聖明王謂之曰..新羅 Yamato soldiers in intramural armed conflicts continued well 安羅兩國之境有大江水要害之 into the sixth century. Nihongi records the statement made by 地也吾欲據此修繕六城謹請 King Seong-myung of Paekche in 544 who intended to request 天皇三千兵士每城充以五百… from Kimmei “an army with which to succor the Land of 所請兵士吾給衣粮 (NII: 83-91) Imna” and also 3,000 troops to construct six fortresses along the frontier between Silla and a Kaya state. Nihongi records 欽明八年百濟遣…等乞救軍 that Paekche sent envoys to Yamato “to ask for auxiliaries” in (NII: 95-97) 547, and “three hundred and seventy men were sent to Paekche to assist in constructing a fortress at Toki-sin” in 548. Nihongi 欽明九年遣三百七十人於百濟 records that, in 553, “Uchi no Omi was sent on a mission to 助築城於得爾辛 (NII: 97-99) Paekche with a present of two good horses, two traveling barges, fifty bows, fifty sets of arrows, and an Imperial 11 欽明十四年百濟遣…等乞 message, saying, ‘As to the troops asked for by the King, his 軍兵六月遣內臣闕名使於 wishes shall be complied with.’ ” 百濟仍賜良馬二匹同船二隻 In 553, King Seong-myung sent a memorial to 弓五十張箭五十具勅云所請 Kimmei, saying that “the lands beyond the sea are very scarce 軍者隨王所須… 又復海表諸國 of bows and horses. From old times until now, they have 甚乏弓馬自古迄今受之天皇 received them from the Emperor, and have therewith defended 以御强敵伏願天慈多貺弓馬 themselves against their powerful enemies. I humbly pray the (NII: 103-7) Celestial bounty to bestow on us a large supply of bows and horses.” In 554, “Paekche sent …to communicate with Uchi no 欽明十五年百濟遣中部木刕 Omi… ‘We have just heard that thou, by command of the 施德…等於筑紫諮內臣… 等曰 August Emperor, hast arrived in Tsukushi in charge of the …方聞奉可畏天皇之詔來詣 troops bestowed on us by him. Nothing could compare much

6 THE PAEKCHE PRACTICE OF USING YAMATO SOLDIERS Vol. 2. No. 6. 2005. 5. 14.

more with our joy when we heard this. The campaign of this 筑紫看送賜軍聞之歡喜無 year is a much more dangerous one than the last; and we beg 能比者此年之役甚危於前願 that the force granted to us may not be allowed to be later than 遣賜軍使逮正月於是內臣 … the first month.’ Hereupon Uchi no Omi answered … 答報曰卽令遣助軍數一千馬 ‘Accordingly there is being sent an auxiliary force numbering 一百匹船四十隻 (NII: 109) 1,000 men, 100 horses, and 40 ships …” 11