Newsletter

The Imna Nihon-fu controversy has recently been gaining attention from different spheres of society beyond academia, including the media, politicians, and civic societies. This seems to have been triggered by discussions increasingly taking place over Northeast Asian history. Besides serving as a nucleus of academic disputes about ancient Korea-Japan relations, the controversy is also being used to infuse distorted perceptions and prejudices about Koreans and Korean history.

Various aspects of the Imna Nihon-fu controversy have so far been reviewed and resulted in theories that either confirm or negate the existence of an ancient Japanese territory called Imna, or Mimana in Japanese. There have also been recent attempts to establish connections between the controversy and the keyhole-shaped burial grounds at the basin of Yeongsan River. Although scholars tend to consider theories about the controversy as antiquated, there are details that still need to be untangled.

The point of origin to behind the Imna Nihon-fu controversy is not modern Japanese historiography, but Nihon shoki (日本書紀), an ancient Japanese text compiled in 720. Understanding how the ancient Korean kingdom Gaya was viewed by the Japanese ruling class appearing in old Japanese historical records is an important matter. Various theories about the Imna Nihon-fu have been spun off arguments that solely rely on reconstructions of historical sources, but they have been unable to quell persisting disputes over Imna Nihon-fu.

Grounds to Occupy Korea Through Modern Japanese Historical Studies

 

Modern Japan's research on Korean history was conducted as a national initiative to historically justify

Japan's invasion and occupation of Korea. Ancient Korea was studied upon an understanding that it used to be an uncivilized state and tributary of Japan. However, before theories were suggested about the Imna Nihon-fu, modern Japan initially focused on Empress Jingū's alleged conquest of Korea. That is why the Imna Nihon-fu tends to be recognized as a part of Empress Jingū's alleged conquest of Korea.

Nihon shoki records Japan's subjugation of Korea through a two-part story. One part consists of Empress Jingū conquering the kingdoms of Silla, Koguryo, and Baekje, and installing an imperial domain called miyake (內官家). The other part is about how Empress Jingū defeated and subdued the Gaya confederacy, upon which Baekje pledged its allegiance to Japan. This two-part fabrication places Japan's conquest of the Korean kingdom Silla at the forefront, which leads to its domination of Koguryo, Baekje, and Gaya. This fake legend was later propagandized as common knowledge through textbooks, currency, stamps, and prints.

Based on the above historical records, the most obvious manifestation of the Imna Nihon-fu argument made by modern Japanese historical research is a special edition on Joseon issued in 1911 by Rekishi chiri (歷史地理), a periodical published by the Japanese Historical and Geographical Society. The following is a quote from that special edition's preface.

 

*The ten million or so White-clad People have joined the Empire's realm. Peace in the East has now become forever secured and the Empire's future safety is guaranteed. This is a splendid feat that took a millennium to achieve and is surely a cause for the Empire's people to celebrate. The purpose of publishing this special edition on Joseon is to reveal a great chapter of our national history and provide an account of the basic facts behind this triumph.

 

Issued right after Japan's annexation of Korea, this special edition was put together to display historical evidence that justifies Japanese rule over Korea. The idea that Japan and Korea share the same origin is featured in various angles under 22 different topics, all supporting the claim that Japan had ruled and subjugated Korea since antiquity. Consider the following portrayal of the "Imna Nihon-fu's destiny."

 

*The piece about Empress Jingū's conquest of Korea is tremendously gratifying. The subjugation of Silla is an undeniable fact. As a result of conquering seven Gaya polities, Japan was able to secure a vassal on the Korean peninsula and install in each polity a command post run by a dispatched official. Although Japan did not enforce its own calendar upon its vassal state as did China, it was feared by the three kingdoms of Korea for it was a country of valor. Under the present annexation, the Korean emperor is not the king of Joseon, but a king from the Yi royal family who does not take part in either army mobilization or financial or diplomatic affairs, all of which is the concern of the Government-General of Joseon. This is similar to dispatching an official (宰臣) to an outpost at Imna in order to rule, but there is a great difference in terms of authority.

 

Such descriptions about the Imna Nihon-fu emerged as soon as Korea became an annex of Japan, essentially showing the stance Japanese academics officially took at the time. The Imna Nihon-fu argument published in Rekishi chiri's special edition on Joseon was intended to profess the historical glory of subjugating Korea, a state that used to be a subject of Japan ages ago. Below is a description about the Imna Nihon-fu that appeared in the book "National History" used by the Japanese Emperor Shōwa to learn about his own country's history when he was the Crown Prince.

 

*Our country protected Gaya by installing an administrative outpost and sending a delegate to govern, and as our country's power and authority became known across the Korean peninsula, other states nearby came to ask for protection. The political entity that ruled such states was called Imna Nihon-fu, which was based in Gaya. … Baekje to the west of Gaya also wished to become protected by our country as a subject. This was approved by the emperor and an official was sent over to Baekje to become involved in its state affairs.

 

The aforementioned book is loaded with political intent for gloriously portraying the history of the royal family that maintained an unbroken lineage (萬世一系) and for serving as the royal family's textbook on history directly after Japan's annexation of Korea. Installing a government-general in Joseon and having it headed by someone appointed by the Japanese emperor evokes the depiction of Japan's earlier rule over Gaya long ago, conjuring a scene that features both incidents despite the temporal and spatial difference between the two. Thus, ruling Korea today becomes a reenactment of Japan's ancient conquest.

In "Introduction to National History" published in 1943 to be used as a reference to study for the higher civil service examination, the book describes that "the Imna Nihon-fu was installed at Imna. Our country's power increased significantly on the Korean peninsula so that from our base at Imna, we were able to suppress Silla and expand our control over Baekje as well as Koguryo." About Japan's annexation of Korea, the book indicates that "our country withdrew the Imna Nihon-fu during the rule of Emperor Kinmei and a long time has passed since our vassal Baekje collapsed during the rule of Emperor Tenji. The entire Korean peninsula has now been restored to its original form as territory that belongs to the emperor." The forced annexation of Korea is therefore acknowledged as an occasion that restored the Korean peninsula's identity and the Imna Nihon-fu is recognized as a Japanese institution that ruled Gaya. The fact that the Japanese Ministry of Education was responsible for publishing reference books for exams to hire high-ranking government officials indicates that such books were used as a means to implant historical views revolving around the Japanese empire and thereby impose a justification for Japan's annexation of Korea.

The argument for the Imna Nihon-fu launched by modern Japanese historical research became systematized through Mimana kōbōshi, or the History of Imna's Rise and Fall, authored by Suematsu Yasukazu (末松保和) and published in 1949. Most textbooks as well as introductory or advanced books about history published thereafter in Japan have understood the history of Japan's ancient relations with Korea through Suematsu Yasukazu's argument. The reason the Imna Nihon-fu was less discussed among Japanese scholars up until the 1970s is because they used to genuinely accept "Japan's rule of Imna" as an established fact.

 

New Theories and the Terminus ad quem

After Korea's liberation from Japan, North Korean scholars presented an entirely new argument regarding the Imna Nihon-fu called the "divided country" theory. Mainly proposed by Kim Seok-hyeong, this theory suggested that some people who began emigrating from the Korean peninsula to the Japanese archipelago since the third century B.C. established a small "derivative" country related to a state on the Korean peninsula. This country eventually became incorporated by the Yamato government after the fifth century. The Imna Nihon-fu is therefore an institution the Yamato government installed to control the "divided country" that originated from the Korean peninsula. The theory itself is meaningful for systematically summarizing the history of relations between ancient Japan and Korea through an analysis of not only relevant literature, but also myths and archaeological findings. However, place names and events related to Gaya described in Nihon shoki are still useful for recreating the history of Gaya and the matter of the Imna Nihon-fu should rather be understood from the viewpoint of developments between ancient Japan and Korea that took place in Gaya.

Later on, yet another theory was suggested by Japanese scholars. The Yamato government did install the Imna Nihon-fu to administratively manage the counties and prefectures of Imna after using it as a base to take over the Korean peninsula, but regardless of the Yamato government, Imna had been controlled by local gentry referred to as Japanese people. As discussions about the ancient histories of Korea and Japan grew vibrant, they gave rise to arguments that focused on diplomatic institutions or delegations. In Samguk sagi's miscellaneous section called Jikgwanji (職官志), Silla waejeon (新羅倭典) is described as a diplomatic institution that primarily handled affairs with Japan, and this inspired an argument that deemed Imna Nihon-fu as such a diplomatic institution with similar functions. That argument has been meaningful for squarely negating the theory that the Imna Nihon-fu had been installed by Japan's Yamato government to serve as a base in ruling the southern part of the Korean peninsula and for heavily considering the Gaya confederacy's individual identity projected into the Imna Nihon-fu's organization and operation.

In Korea, huge support was initially gained for the theory that the Baekje mentioned in Nihon shoki was responsible for founding the Imna Nihon-fu during its advance into Gaya. Then, after analyzing the dispatch of government officials to Imna Nihon-fu and reasoning from mainly Ara Gaya and to a larger extent the Gaya confederacy's attempts to preserve its independence or trading capacities, another theory was subsequently proposed. This theory suggested that the Imna Nihon-fu had focused on making diplomatic efforts to engage in exchanges with neighboring countries in order to contribute to the Gaya confederacy's national interests. Studies conducted thereafter have mostly been based on the aforementioned rationale.

 

Theories of Imna Nihon-fu Stirring Again

Among descriptions in Nihon shoki about the sixth year of the Keitai-ki (繼體紀), there is mention of Japan bestowing four Imna prefectures upon Baekje. That premises that such prefectures had originally been Japanese territory. Details such as this are introduced as if they are actual facts in some Japanese history textbooks or introductory volumes on history. Japanese scholars believe those four Imna prefectures had been located in today's Jeolla province. Archaeological findings in recent years have received much attention for confirming that keyhole-shaped burial grounds (前方後圓墳) externally similar to those found across the Japanese archipelago did exist all around the Jeolla province, mainly at the basin of Yeongsan River. That is why their connection to Japan has constantly been brought up. What is problematic is that the alleged location of the four Imna prefectures in Suematsu's argument overlap considerably with the area where the keyhole-shaped burial grounds have been found in the Jeolla province, which has allowed some to consider that as evidence supporting descriptions found in Nihon shoki.

Lately, there has also been an argument identifying the name Muhan (慕韓) appearing in the section about foreign countries in Song shi (宋史), or the History of Song, as a polity that actually existed at the basin of Yeongsan River in the fifth century. That sort of identification would be considering Muhan to have been a polity separate from the larger Mahan confederacy that appears in descriptions of the third century in Sanguozhi. The argument further claims that the Wa and the southern dynasties Nanchao had shared a common understanding as to the boundary between Muhan and Mahan, and that the demand kings of Wa used to make toward the Song dynasty for the right to military control over Baekje, Silla, Gara, Imna, Muhan, and Jinhan had been a national desire to conquer and rule.

Yet, the idea that a polity named Muhan had existed in the Yeongsan River basin remains a mere delusion. There has been no evidence whatsoever to support that what used to be Mahan prior to the third century was later referred to as Muhan by the fifth century. The keyhole-shaped external similarity is more likely a cultural influence that materialized out of exchange with Wa. Therefore, Japanese attempts to understand the keyhole-shaped burial grounds at the Yeongsan River basin within a political context should be met with caution.

 

Future Challenges

Theories about Imna Nihon-fu theory are fantasies created out of Nihon shoki. They consist of groundless tales that couldn't have actually taken place in international relations at the time and embody loosely fabricated details that contradict with arguments of Japan having ruled the Korean peninsula. Imna Nihon-fu is not mentioned in any other ancient historical record compiled after Nihon shoki and it was merely acknowledged as "an envoy that conveys the Emperor's message" in the medieval record Shaku Nihongi (釋日本紀). The fact that, even after Korea's annexation, modern Japanese historians suggested that Imna Nihon-fu's nature may have been closer to a resident-general rather than a government-general hints at their struggle in trying to gain a systematic understanding of historical records.

Despite being full of errors fatal to studying ancient Korea-Japan relations, those very errors are what makes Nihon shoki that much more helpful for the purpose of reconstructing and critically examining historical records to trace Korean history. Systematic research on the history of Gaya has made it difficult for Imna Nihon-fu theories to maintain their grounds for legitimacy, yet there are issues about such theories that still need to be resolved. More systematic and comprehensive analysis and research needs to be done on how each kingdom on the Korean peninsula was recognized within the world of Nihon shoki, on the background how Imna Nihon-fu theories were created, on the history of ancient Japanese clans, and on the ideals ancient Japanese kingdoms were pursuing while historical records were being compiled.