earticle

영어

The inscription on the monument of the Great King Kwanggaet'o(or ‘好太王: the King Hotai') was engraved as many as 730 years earlier than [The History of Three Kingdoms-Samguksagi] was recorded. It has such an important historical value that we could find a critical clue to understand the ancient relationship between Korea and Japan. So, since it has been excavated, Japanese people have tried to forge the interpretation to insist that the contents of the inscription prove that the Queen Shingong introduced in [The History of Japan-Ilbonsugi] conquered Shilla, and that the dominance of ancient Japan over Korea at the Imna Japanese county is a historical fact. Also, they tried to rationalize the theory of invasion by falsification, deletion, and modification of a rubbed copy. The following example is the interpretation known as the Japanese common view:
<百殘新羅舊是屬民由朝貢而倭以辛卯年來渡破百殘□□□斤羅以爲臣民: Paekje and Shilla had paid tributes as tributaries(屬民) since times. But Oae(倭) came over the sea to defeat Paekje and Shilla, and subjugated them to be subjects(臣民) in 391 A.D.>
It must be an interpretation intentionally forged by Japanese people, who are ignoring the essential elements such as: the idea of erecting the monument of the Great King Kwanggaet'o, the characteristics of sentence, the syntactic correspondence, the international environment in the historical context, and the strategic purposes of Koguryo. So, they are, merely, focussing on the power and activity of Japan in the connection with the version of Imna Japanese county.
I reached to a conclusion that: 1) There was a world order formed by the central power of Koguryo when the monument was erected. 2) Around 391 A.D., there was a confrontation structure between the allied power of Koguryo and Shilla, and that of Paekje, Kara, and Oae. 3) Because Paekje(百濟), Kara(加羅), and Oae(倭) broke the pact with Koguryo and resisted against her, Koguryo had to defeat them. 4) Oae was not so powerful to have the hegemony of the world, in the aspect of her military capability such as the number of soldiers, the system weapon, the marine transportation; and, also, she was no more than a mercenary of Paekje. So Oae cannot be the agent for the action, ‘Pa(破: conquer)' in the sentence of inscription. 5)Considering the circumstantial evidence, it is certain that the actual agent of the action, ‘Pa(破)' is Kogkuryo, so the word, ‘Wang(王: King)' must be put as the syntactical subject of the verb on the inscription. Also, considering the form of the inscription, the word, ‘Hae(海: Sea)' must have been forged.
Thus, I suggest that we should understand the inscription in a multi-dimensional perspective like this:
<百殘新羅舊是屬民由來(or 未)朝貢而倭以辛卯年來渡王破百殘倭寇加羅以爲臣民 ; Paekje and Shilla were originally tributaries and had paid tributes (to Koguryo). (…, they are not paying tribute.) However, in 391 A.D., Oae responded (to the request of Paekje to ally), and (because Paekje, Kara, Oae allied together and formed a confrontation situation against Koguryo,) the Great King Kwanggaet'o conquered Peakje, Oaeku, and Kara, and subjugated them to be subjects.> This interpretation is reasonable to explain the strategic purpose and philosophy of Koguryo. Moreover, in the view point that the inscription of 391 A.D. was the major premise that integrated the conquer record of the King Hotai(好太王), I assure that the true historical message of this inscription as thus. However, it is impossible to reach a more sophisticated conclusion until it is verified that the three missing words on the original rubbed copy was originally . We should leave it as a future work.