Talk:Prince Shōtoku

I removed the following addition from an anonymous user as it is terrible English and made no sense to me:

The name of Shōtoku Taishi is considered it is called in posterity, and Japanese school textbook adopts the name Prince Umayado (厩戸皇子) together or instead^[1] in modern days.

If someone wants to decipher this and re-add it (assuming it's worthwhile), please go ahead.

-Amake 16:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This is very famous in Japan today. As the link, school text book is using the name Prince Umayado(厩戸皇子) instead. And also historical TV programns air this fact/change in Japan very often. I am Japanese and live in Japan now. The Japanese pageja:聖徳太子#名称関連 of this article also describe this. --220.111.68.99 05:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great, but the problem is that the English is so bad as to be meaningless. I'm removing the sentence. -Amake (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"According to `Japan The Nation of the Cross`, published by Tokuma Shoten there is a widely held view that in fact Prince Shotoku was a Christian immigrant from the Mainland who strongly fought against the secularized buddhist system." Or maybe he's a space alien or one of the reptilian overlords. There's also a link to a Japanese christian website at the bottom of the page. Who puts this stuff in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.83.200.20 (talk) 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, after the answer of Prince Shōtoku, the status of Japan did not change. Japan still paid tribute (朝貢) to China and Korea. However, there were no countries to send tribute(朝貢) to Japan. They ignored Japan's humble national power."

This is supported by the following quote from a "Chinese book": 倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也 - 郭若虛.《圖畵見聞志》 卷6. 高麗國 ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". Japan is a Vassal state of Korea. --Chinese book .《圖畵見聞志》

Googling for the qoute yields no results except this page and neither does googling for the name of the book (presumably 圖畵見聞志). There is no information on when the supposed book was written to support the claim that it describes the situation after the Ono no Imoko's mission.

Arguing about who paid tribute to who in historical times is a favourite past time of Asian nationalists – the tone and style of English leads me to believe that this was added by a Korean nationalist eager to denigrate Japan's past. When this article is cleaned up I think this part should be removed unless a reliable source (in a Western language) can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.61.120 (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reference.

http://zh.wikisource.org/wiki/%E5%9C%96%E7%95%AB%E8%A6%8B%E8%81%9E%E8%AA%8C/%E5%8D%B7%E5%85%AD 倭國乃日本國也. 本名倭旣恥其名. 又自以在極東因號日本也. 今則臣屬高麗也 - 郭若虛.《圖畵見聞志》 卷6. 高麗國] ("wa" is a Japan. Japanese think "wa" is a shameful country name, so they called their country as "nippon". Japan is a Vassal state of Korea. --Chinese book .《圖畵見聞志》 Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, historically speaking, there is no other evidence that Japan paid tribute to Korea.

Secondly, the source is not a historical document. "圖畵見聞志" means "Experiences in Painting" or something like that. The source is not on history but on paintings. It is doubtful that it is reliable as a historical source.

Thirdly, the author of the source (郭若虛, Guo Ruoxu) lived in 11th century while Prince Shotoku lived around 600AD. In the 11th century, Japan did not paid tribute even to China, let alone Korea. His description has nothing to do with this article.

Forthly, the sentence is not in the text but in the footnote. The text is about Korea bringing Japanese folding fan to China. The text says that Japanese folding fans are very precious (謂之倭扇. 本出於倭國也. 近歳尤祕惜, 典客者蓋稀得之). In this context, the footnote "今則臣屬高麗也" can be interpreted to mean that "(Because Goryeo messangers can bring such precious things as Japanese fans,) Japan must be subject to Goryeo now." "今則臣屬高麗也" should be a speculation, not a fact.

Fouth, even if it is true that Japan was a vassal state of Korea, the source does not say "Japan paid tribute to Korea." It only says that Japan is subject to Goryeo (Korea).

Conclusion. The information from "圖畵見聞志" has nothing to do with Prince Shotoku and is not reliable as a historical source. Descripting as if it were a fact is misleading.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Firstly, historically speaking, there is no other evidence that Japan paid tribute to Korea.

No. can find more evidence.

for example, According to anals of joeson dynasty,

成宗 58卷, 6年(1475 乙未)

○日本國肥前州田平寓鎭彈正少弼弘、長門州三島尉貞成、對馬州太守宗貞國、越中守宗盛弘、上津郡追浦泊耆守宗茂次遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭護軍信盈等二人來朝。(translate) Japan king's emissary, 前州田平 send tribute(朝貢) to joseon.

○日本國王源義政遣僧性春來聘, 其書曰:

比年兩國往來不絶, 交修隣好, 抑壬辰載所遣使者, 尙留滯"上國"

(-from king of japan diplomatic document- translate) our emissary residence in 上國.......(上國-japan king call joseon as 上國...

This is just example, but I can find more evidence.

• Secondly, the source is not a historical document. "圖畵見聞志" means "Experiences in Painting" or something like that. The source is not on history but on paintings. It is doubtful that it is reliable as a historical source.

Book written by Chinese goverment official.

source is historical document. and it written by Chinese. it is a third country person's objective view.

• Thirdly, the author of the source (郭若虛, Guo Ruoxu) lived in 11th century while Prince Shotoku lived around 600AD. In the 11th century, Japan did not paid tribute even to China, let alone Korea. His description has nothing to do with this article.

no. it is a one of the good evidence that Japan still paid tribute to Korea and China.

• Forthly, the sentence is not in the text but in the footnote. The text is about Korea bringing Japanese folding fan to China. The text says that Japanese folding fans are very precious (謂之倭扇. 本出於倭國也. 近歳尤祕惜, 典客者蓋稀得之). In this context, the footnote "今則臣屬高麗也" can be interpreted to mean that "(Because Goryeo messangers can bring such precious things as Japanese fans,) Japan must be subject to Goryeo now." "今則臣屬高麗也" should be a speculation, not a fact.

Don't distoring word.

臣 ; Vassal

屬 ; subordinate or under

高麗 ; Korea

• Fouth, even if it is true that Japan was a vassal state of Korea, the source does not say "Japan paid tribute to Korea." It only says that Japan is subject to Goryeo (Korea).

Already metioned at above.

Conclusion. The information from "圖畵見聞志" has nothing to do with Prince Shotoku and is not reliable as a historical source. Descripting as if it were a fact is misleading.

• Conclusion, even if 圖畵見聞志 is not direct relation with Prince Shotoku, it is still good reference that Old Japan's political power.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether you can read hanja or not, you interpretation is clearly wrong.

>>日本國肥前州田平寓鎭彈正少弼弘、長門州三島尉貞成、對馬州太守宗貞國、越中守宗盛弘、上津郡追浦泊耆守宗茂次遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭護軍信盈等二人來朝。(translate) Japan king's emissary, 前州田平 send tribute(朝貢) to joseon.

You mean the Japanese emperor by "Japan king"? But I cannot find any word "Japan King" in the sentence.

Who is 前州田平?? It is 日本國 (Japan) 肥前州 (Hizen Province) 田平寓鎭 (Tahei Manchin (name of a person)) 彈正少弼 (Danjou no Shouhitsu (name of a rank)) 弘 (Hiroshi? name of a person). And the source says that some people from Hizen, Nagato, Tsushima, Ecchuu and Kamitsu to Korea, but there's no word "tribute."

>○日本國王源義政遣僧性春來聘, 其書曰:

比年兩國往來不絶, 交修隣好, 抑壬辰載所遣使者, 尙留滯"上國"

It says King of Japan Minamoto no Yoshiimasa (Ashikaga Yoshimasa) send a letter to Korea. In Japanese, 上國 does not mean "superior country." It means countries near China. This source doesn't prove that Japan paid tribute to Korea at all.

>Book written by Chinese goverment official.

source is historical document. and it written by Chinese. it is a third country person's objective view.

? On what do you base that claim? The source is a book on painting. Do you understand what "圖畵" means? The author was a painter, not a historian. It is true that the book is written in Chinese. And China is a third country. But it does not mean that the author had the knowledge of Japan and Korea. Being Chinese makes it more doubtful.

>no. it is a one of the good evidence that Japan still paid tribute to Korea and China.

It is only your arbitrary interpretation. It should be called "trade," not "tribute." I'd like you to introduce a professional historian who interprets the source just like you.

> Already metioned at above.

Where?

>Conclusion, even if 圖畵見聞志 is not direct relation with Prince Shotoku, it is still good reference that Old Japan's political power

As I said, 圖畵見聞志 was written in 11th century and it is only a book on painting. Why can it show that the old Japan's political power. If it does not have relation with Prince Shotoku, please do not add such a questionable source here.

At least, please do not remove {{dubious}}. I've never seen any historians who claim that Japan paid tribute to Korea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Your lametst manner can't solve this discussion. Don't pushing your original research. Don't distoring original reference interpret.

Here is the full text. ○ 日本國 肥前州 田平寓鎭 彈正少弼弘 、 長門州 三島 尉 貞成 、 對馬州 太守 宗貞國 、 越中 守 宗盛弘 、 上津郡 追浦 泊耆守 宗茂次 遣人來, 獻土宜, 倭 護軍 信盈 等二人來朝。

來朝, 朝 means tribute.

Anyway, you still can't deny Japan paid tribute to korea. it is not a dubious. I've never seen any historians who claim that Japan did not paid tribute to Korea.

圖畵見聞志 is the one of the good example that old Japan's political power.

It is relation with this article. it mean "Japan never upper grade country than Korea, China" Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kao no Nai Tsuki. Detailed reasoning, good sources that back up his/her argument and a neutral point of view. We should keep the current version. Novidmarana (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is making an original research.

來 means to come. 朝 means dynasty. It only means that they went to the Korean dynasty. You could not even read "日本國 肥前州 田平寓鎭 彈正少弼弘." Who is "前州田平"??

>>I've never seen any historians who claim that Japan did not paid tribute to Korea.

Then, introduce me a professional historian who claims such a thing. What you are saying is dubious.

>>圖畵見聞志 is the one of the good example that old Japan's political power.

I asked you. On what do you base that claim? 圖畵見聞志 is not on history but on paiting. How can it be so reliable a source which shows Japan's political power?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you are the only one here who thinks so. So please respect the consensus. Besides, your translations are not accurate, but well, they same happened already at the South Korean cultural claims article. What we have is a reliable source (seriously, only because you don't like the title does not make a source unreliable) that says so, on the other side we have you who is claiming that the source is lying or distorting historical facts. I clearly go for the reliable source. Novidmarana (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Respect the consensus? Since when do we have consensus? You say I am the only one who thinks so. But you are also only two. And you never tell me why you think my translation is not accurate. At least, you have to explain yourself when you accuse someone.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but your translations are Wrong. 臣屬高麗 is not mean "Because Goryeo messangers can bring such precious things as Japanese fans" are you really funny make this? It mean "Vassal State of Goryeo".

來朝 means "come for tribute". Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that you did not understand it at all. Who said 臣屬高麗 means "Because Goryeo messangers can bring such precious things as Japanese fans." I said it can be interpreted to mean that "(Because Goryeo messangers can bring such precious things as Japanese fans,) Japan must be subject to Goryeo now." So, 臣屬高麗 means "Japan must(則) be subject to(臣屬) Goryeo(高麗) now(今)." What's wrong with my translation.

And your machine translation cannot be relaible. If machine translation is reliable, then 來朝 means North Korea.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I really shocked by Your purely original translate. i really can't any word to you. how can translate like that? Sorry, your machine translation cannot be relaible. please show me any any any reliable source that your 圖畵見聞志 translation is right. 臣(Vassal)屬(subordinate or under) 高麗(Goryeo), It is a "Vassal State of Goryeo". Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

?? "subject to Goryeo" and "a vassal State of Goryeo" are so different? This dispute may be because you don't understand the meaning of "being subject to sth." It means "being under the control or authority of sth." I would like you to study English a bit harder because sometimes your English is not easy to understand... And in your translation, where is 今 and 則? Besides, just as I said, the source does not say anything about tribute.

Who said my machine translation is reliable. Of cource it is not reliable! 來朝 does not mean North Korea. Of cource not. I wanted to show you machine translation cannot be reliable. I was surprised that you did not understand what I meant...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is your original research. "今則(Now)" "臣屬(Vassal State)" "高麗(Gorye)"

臣屬 mean Vassal State. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It sounds that you still do not understand... Who denied that 臣属 means being a vassel state? "being subject to Goryeo" and "being a vassel state" are not so different. It is a matter of translation. I think my translation is better, but OK. Since it is only a matter of translation, I'll accept your translation.

But 今則 is not "Now." 今 means "now" and 則 means "must."

I do not get what part of my claim you are calling "original research"...--Michael Friedrich (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

to Michael Friedrich.

No. you make original research.

來 means to come. 朝 means "Tribute".

>> I mean, 來朝 means "come for tribute".

Here is the original reference.

Then, introduce me a professional historian who claims such a thing. What you are saying is dubious.

>> NO. That source is based on fact. You must show reliable counterpart soruce first, why this chinese source is wrong.(but Don't pushing your original resaerch)

Don't pushing your original research.

       Don't distoring word.
       臣 ; Vassal
       屬 ; subordinate or under
       高麗 ; Korea

Don't hide inconvenience for Japan. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

圖畵見聞志(図画見聞誌) was written by 郭若虚. He is a painter, not politician. Therefore, I think this book was written about his impression, not the historical fact. Anyway, as far as I know, there are no historical material about "Japan tribute to Goryeo" in Japan or Korea. I think that the book is invalid.--NAZONAZO (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

郭若虚 was a Goverment Official with Famous Painter .

Not the historical fact? No, any evidence that it is a false?

Don't pushing your original resaerch. According to Samguk sagi, and anals of joseon dynasty, record of Japan's tribute are many. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please prove counterpart source that this source is "invalid".Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

>>郭若虚 was a Goverment Official with Famous Painter .

?? So what? with famous painter? I don't understand what you mean... Being famous means that he had the correct knowledge of the relationship between Japan and Korea?

What does "Samguk sagi" say? I don't want you to confuse "tribute" and normal "trade."--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't say "圖畵見聞志 is false". I say "invalid (weak ground)". Because it is my inference, there is not the source. But it isn't unnatural to feel the political articles written by a painter invalid.

>>record of Japan's tribute are many.

Please show the source in Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty, etc.--NAZONAZO (talk) 07:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know who is the 郭若虚? He was a Goverment Official. His remark is reliable. also He is a thir country person's objective view. And, Even if he was a Painter, His Objective view is not a "invalid" thing. Don't distoring Original reference.Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I only know he went to Liao Dynasty. I have not ever heard that he went to Japan or Goryeo. I don't want you to misunderstand. I don't say "圖畵見聞志 is invalid itself". But I say it isn't appropriate for regarding 圖畵見聞志 as evidence about political articles. Because 圖畵見聞志 is his art knowledge book.

But I think Samguk Sagi and Annals of Joseon Dynasty are appropriate. So please show me the source in Samguk Sagi, Annals of Joseon Dynasty.--NAZONAZO (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

According to this website, he was not a central goverment official (a local civil servant?). Plus, he was a servant only for a year. If he had been someone like the minister of Foerign Affairs (there was not something like that at that time, of cource), his statement about the relationship between Japan and Korea would be reliable. But his career does not support reliableness of his statement about the relationship between Japan and Korea.

>>His Objective view

How can you can say his view is objective? It is an original research.

>>Don't distoring Original reference.

Strange English again... Do you mean "don't use an original research?" or something like that? Please be careful when you post your comment in English. Strange English sometimes brings about misunderstandings.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if Prince Shotoku's existence is disputed, it is not still settled. Adding the word "mythological" is not a good thing. It should be like this.

Prince Shōtoku (聖徳太子, Shōtoku Taishi?, 573–621), also known as Prince Umayado (厩戸皇子, Umayado no ōji?), was a regent and a politician of the Asuka period in Japan. His existence, however, is disputed.

--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it is not my edit. but According to tokyo shinbum source, it's true. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is only by Tokyo Shinbun. It is still disputed. Concluding that his existence was only a myth is too early.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Shinbun is a reliable source, so if you want dispute it, come up with a reliable sources that proves that this claim is wrong. Novidmarana (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so, too. Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Shinbun's statement is based on the theory by Professor Shoichi Ooyama. However, Nihon Keizai Shimbun states that his theory has little evidence (2004, 1, 10). Ishida Hisatoyo, a former professor at Aoyama Gakuin University criticizes Ooyama's theory and states that the Prince did exitst (私ははっきり「実在した」といって言いました). The name of Prince Shotoku still exists in the textbooks of Japanese history at school. The theory by Ooyama is not dominant and his existence is disputed.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

anyway, "existed person? or non-existed person?" cleary this controvercy exist.(according to your source) Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if still exists in the textbooks of Japanese history at school, Modern Historiy shoclar conclude that Prince Shotoku is not existed person.

　聖徳太子の実在に最後のとどめを刺したとされるのが、大山誠一中部大学教授の一九九六年からの「長屋王家木簡と金石文」「聖徳太子の誕生」「聖徳太子と日本人」などの一連の著書と論文、それに同教授グループの二〇〇三年の研究書「聖徳太子の真実」でした。

any counterpart academic source of this? Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you read my comment? Nihon Keizai Shimbun states that professor Ooyama(大山誠一)'s theory has little evidence. Ishida Hisatoyo states that Ooyama's theory is an extreme argument(極論). Professor Ooyama's theory is not dominant as I said above.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, "What" is the Wrong of Ooyama's theory?

Professor Ooyama's theory is not dominant? evidence? Kao no Nai Tsuki (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

?? I told you that Ooyama's theory has little evidence according to Nihon Keizai Shimbun. That is what is wrong with his theory.

I showed two evidence. Nihon Keizai Shimbun states that Ooyama's theory has little evidence. Professor Hisatoyo Ishida states that Ooyama's theory is an extreme argument. And the name of Prince Shotoku still appears in history textbooks in Japan. I don't get what you need more.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing the sources. Hisatoyo Ishida did not say that it was an extreme argument. The correct translation would be that he personally does not agree, but that it is still the consensus among historians. So actually quite the opposite of extreme. Novidmarana (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who is wrong. Ishida says "I read Mr. Ooyama's paper, but I felt that it is a bit extreme argument. His theory sounds exciting, but it is somewhat extreme..." (大山君のその論文を読んだのですが、ちょっと極論のように感じました。論旨はびりびりしているのですが、何か極端なので...)--Michael Friedrich (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Shinbun also states that it is historical fact that Prince Umayado existed. This website (from Tokyo Shoin, one of Japan's leading textbook publishers) states that it is unreasonable not to admit the existence of Prince Shotoku while the existence of Prince Umayado is admitted.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hidemichi Tanaka, a professor at Tohoku University has published a book named "Ruling out the theory that Prince Shotoku did not exist" (聖徳太子虚構説を排す). This website also states that Ooyama's theory is based on ambiguous evidence (以上見てきたように、『法華義疏』『上宮聖徳法王帝説』などに関して、大山誠一氏が示す情報は正確ではなく、きちんとした根拠になっていない。曖昧な根拠によって独断的に聖徳太子非実在の議論を進めているように見える).--Michael Friedrich (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"According to 圖畵見聞志, Japan still paid tribute to Korea." This is the original research that Korean Web site Daum spread.

『圖畵見聞志によれば、日本は朝鮮に朝貢した』　これは韓国のWebサイトDaumから広まった奇妙な研究結果です。

I think in the article where it says "Ōyama seiichi argued Prince Shōtoku was not a historical person at all" the next sentence: "Many other historians dispute this claim" is a little ambiguous as to what they're disputing, are the historians disputing the claim that Prince Shōtoku was a historical person or the calim by Ōyama that he was not? I feel that this could be rephrased to be less ambiguous. It might be possible to just add te word "also" after the word "dispute" of either replace "this" with "Ōyama's" to make the sentence easier to understand. I Feel Tired (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is too short, especially when compared with other articles on Japanese historical figures. It is true that Shotoku may not have in fact done all the things that are attributed to him. But he and his life came to represent something much bigger and important in Japanese history: the triumph of Buddhism, central government, and political organization along Chinese lines. All that Buddhism later came to be in the Japanese political realm (the religion of the samurai, the warrior monks, etc), had its start in the movement represented by the life of Shotoku. Prince Shotoku stands large in Japanese history. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The article would benefit from a discussion of Shotoku's cultural role, such as the view of him as an incarnation of Avalokiteśvara, as is suggested by the pictures included with the article as well as in other entries. AusJeb (talk) 20:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, completely agreed. I've been reviewing Michael I Como's look at the life and legend of Prince Shotoku and hope to expand this page with more detail, facts and influence on later religious figures, which is the main subject of the book. I've also added another photo, courtesy of the Minneapolis Institute of Arts. Please stay tuned. --Ph0kin (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

All I wanted to mention was the fact that it should somehow be acknowledged that the Sui emperor did not find Prince Shotoku's address amusing and in fact it enraged him. I come to find that there is an intense battle going on between Wikipedians.

Personally I can corroborate most of what the person who wrote that Japan paid tribute to Korea. There is a lot of evidence, but it would be very annoying to cross-reference all the sources and evidence. In support of that person I would like to state that for every claimed fact or proven fact, there is always proper corresponding archaeological evidence, be it in records or in the form of artifacts. I would like the person who said there is no claim to "Japan paying tribute to China and Korea" to reinspect the state of Japan (in essence Yamato) at the time.

Here are some examples of constructive evidence which would support the idea that Japan probably did pay tribute to Korea and China: 1. The Seven-Branched Sword: On it I paraphrase, but in essence says it was crafted in joy of the Baekje monarch (emperor whatever you want to call the sovereign) for the sovereign of Wa (Japan) to be shown to future generations. 2. There is strong evidence for a deep-relationship between Baekje and Japan, ultimately Buyeo. The last statement is corroborated by an American anthropologist (read: 3rd party American) who believed the key to understanding ancient Japan lay in Buyeo, an ancient Korean kingdom. Why? There are artifacts found in both countries that are IDENTICAL. (i.e. 江田船山古墳 crown vs. the gold crown discovered in Gongju) Another example is the similarity between artifacts from one of the Kofuns in Japan and that of the tombs near Chaoyang city which are according to Chinese scholarship that of Buyeo POWs, but these skeletons are extremely well-preserved and there are a lot of expensive materials buried with the deceased. Korean scholarship believe that the tombs are that of important Buyeo officials and royal members because of the style. The dates also match up with the time period in which the Buyeo state would've existed when it moved its capital to where the tombs lie today. 2. When the Great (forgot his Japanese name) previous emperor died, his funeral rites were performed in Japan, these funeral rites are called: 百濟大殯. They were performed for three years, consistent with the tradition of Korea, the people were in national mourning. The year it was performed, 523 AD, the same time that King Muryeong, the 25th King of Baekje had passed. 3. The above fact can be corroborated with the genealogy volume to accompany the Nihon shogi which is under the possession of the imperial Japanese court. Furthermore, a Japanese historian, professor Ueda Masaaki was harrased when revealing his studies, by の右翼団体 (Uyoku dantai), essentially an ultra-nationalist PAC that among other things wants the world to acknowledge comfort women did not exist and Japan is in no way responsible for any incriminating activity that occurred during World War II. In their spare time, they make videos denying the fact that comfort women existed and that they were self-employed prostitutes. These videos can be easily looked up via web. 4. At the very least it must be acknowledged the imperial Japanese household must be intertwined with Baekje because a) the current Japanese Emperor in 2001 stated that he is a descendant of Baekje and b) that he has Korean blood in him too. The second statement was cut off by Japanese media. Only Asahi reported the latter statement. Another piece of evidence is the fact that in August of 2004, Imperial Prince Yasuhiko(朝香宮), an uncle of the current emperor came to Korea, specifically the tomb of King Muryeong in Gongju city to perform funeral rites. He even gave the mayor of Gongju incense from 1300 year old trees, which the imperial family uses for its rites.

Now I can't really be making all of this up can I, when there is scholarship in both countries who can verify the truth to the above statements? Globaldreamer (talk) 13:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence to back up the claims that Japan paid tribute to Korea http://eng.khoa.go.kr/kcom/cnt/selectContentsPage.do?cntId=31070200

thats just one online ffs.They call me Mister Tibbs (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prince Shōtoku. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100916074029/http://www.khyentsefoundation.org/patronkingsVIII.html to http://www.khyentsefoundation.org/patronkingsVIII.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)