Yemaek (æ¿Âè²Â) were a people of Koreans who resided in ancient Manchuria. Whether they were: homogenous; heterogenous of Ye æ¿ and Maek è²Â; or whether Yemaek were a branch of Maek remains debated. However, the most accepted model is that they were ethnolinguistically identical but remained socially and politically disparate identities. The first Yemaek state to appear were æÂÂé®® Old Chosà Ân that fell in 108 BC. They were renamed Old Chosà Ân after Joseon were later founded in 1392 AD: ostensibly as a successor state to Old Chosà Ân. Yemaek together with Han é acted as the foundations for the formation of the Korean national identity. Of the three kingdoms who succeeded in forming centralised bureaucracy, é«Âå¥麠(Koguryà Â) had the strongest connection with Yemaek whereas æ°羠(Silla) had stronger Han identity and ç¾濠(Baekje) were considered something in-between. Thus, the study of Yemaek is inevitably centralised around Koguryà Â.
It remains controversial whether Koguryà  were: Ye; Maek; Yemaek; a branch of Yemaek; or Ye whose exonym were Maek due to sparse indigenous sources. However, it does appear Koguryà  had been an accumulation of many peoples such as Daesu Maek (大水è²Â), Sosu Maek (å°Âæ°´è²Â) and purportedly Yang Maek (æ¢Âè²Â). Furthermore, people who resided in the river basin of Amnok River began to be referred to as Maek somewhere near Anno Domini and it's hypothesised they amalgamated with Ye whom migrated from Puyà Â. They further accelerated their expansion by further conquering nearby tribes, thus forming a unified Yemaek identity under one sovereign.
The earliest attestations for Yemaek appear in the 3rd century AD Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that é«Âå¥麠(Koguryà Â) bordered æ¿Âè² Yemaek and æÂÂé®® (Joseon) to the south. However, it's also recorded in the early 5th century AD Book of East Han China that æ¿ Ye, è² Maek, å (Wa) and é Han disparately provided tribute when East Han secured their borders after raids from è²Â人 Maek people.' Although the Records of the Chinese Three Kingdoms were published earlier, the Book of East Han China are records of earlier history. Hence, it's been hypothesised Yemaek could've originally been heterogenous peoples of Ye and Maek.
Whereas, the earliest definitive attestations for Yemaek as a homogenous identity appear later in the Book of East Han China wherein it's recorded the eastern borders became quiet after Yemaek were subdued. The current scholarly consensus asserts this must be a denomination towards Koguryà  for it's one of the last sentences in the chapter coined in their name. This assertion concludes Koguryà  were a unification of Yemaek by the fifth century AD.
The first historiographical attempt to analyse Yemaek were conducted by Jà Âng Yak-yong in his æÂÂé¦çÂÂÃ¥ÂÂè 'study of the territories of my nation' (1811) that è² Maek were the name of the people and æ¿ Ye were the name of the place. Thus, æ¿Âè² Yemaek were one of the ä¹Âè² 'nine peoples of Maek.' This seems to reflect the Sinocentric model of the ä¹Â夷 (Nine Barbarians of the East). The East Barbarians were a motif that's recurrent in both the Records of the Chinese Three Kingdoms and the Book of East Han China. Both designate Japanese peoples, Korean peoples and æ¹婠(Yilou) as East Barbarians. Yilou are an interesting inclusion since their contemporaries were aware Yilou were unintelligible with 夫餠(Puyà Â) whom Yilou bordered to the south. Therefore, current scholarly consensus assumes Yilou were Jurchen people.
The East Barbarians were also idiomatically dubbed the Nine Barbarians. However, this seems to be an exaggerated numeral to imply there existed many peoples. Current scholarly consensus asserts this description later influenced the Nine-story wooden tower of Hwang-nyong temple (erected in the capital of Silla) which commemorated the unification of the Korean peninsula whereby each floor designated a people Silla subdued ie. ä¹Âé 'nine Han. Ergo, Jà Âng-Yakyong's hypothesis vis-à-vis the origins of Yemaek proves there existed scholarly opinion in 19th century Joseon that Koreans could trace their origins to Yemaek.
The capital of ç¾濠(Baekje) was called çÂÂæ´¥ (Gom-naru). It could be translated in English as 'bear-port' and another name for it was "Koma-naru". It ostensibly has its origins in a bear sow who kidnapped a local fisherman: when the fisherman fled, she drowned herself in the river. Scholars believe its etymology can be traced to the Yemaek word "kue:ma:" whose descendants are also the Japanese words 祠(kami) 'god' and é«Â麠(Koma). Hence, it's been hypothesised Koguryà  worshipped bear totems. It's been additionally attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that Ye worshipped tiger totems. Ergo, scholars have connected this with the Dangun myth that Ye with tiger totems and Maek with bear totems amalgamated into Gojoseon.
The earliest accounts of the Dangun myth appear in the 13th century AD Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms that a bear and tiger, who were living together in a cave, constantly prayed to æ¡Âé (Hwanung) to become people. Hwanung whereupon offered divine mugwort and garlic, foretelling that eating these for a hundred days without seeing the sun would turn them into people. The bear became a woman in 37 days but the tiger failed to do so after breaking restraint. When çÂÂ女 (Ung-nyà Â) 'bear-woman' prayed under a tree to conceive, Hwanung thereupon briefly became mortal to marry her. Ung-nyà  thereafter conceived a son and æªÂÃ¥ÂÂçÂÂå (Dangun Waógà Âm) were his name. Old Choson is considered the first Korean nation and its founding is attributed to Dangun. Thus, Dangun is considered the founding father of the Korean nation and his myth has been exhaustively studied to analyse the origins of Korean identity.
Current scholarly consensus asserts the Bronze Age began with the advent of Min-munà Âi 'patternless' pottery, dolmen, cist, lute-shaped bronze daggers, ç´°å½¢é å (Sehyà Âng doógà Âm) 'thin-shaped bronze daggers' and bronze mirrors. The artefacts of lute-shaped bronze daggers especially provide valuable intelligence vis-à-vis the origin and distribution of Bronze Age cultures. Moreover, it's accounted in the Memorabilia of the Three Kingdoms that the latter half of Dangun Chosà Ân were called Giza Chosà Ân. This is purportedly a reference towards Giza, a wise old man of the late Shang dynasty, accounted in the Bamboo Annals, Book of Documents and the Analects. However, no connection between Giza and Korea could be found in such texts. Hence, it's been hypothesised their relevance were a later invention. Nevertheless, the legendary kingdom of Giza were accounted to exist 12th century-2nd century BC and this coincides with the advent of Iron Age swords and iron farming tools in the 7th-6th century via Yemaek who'd concurrently initiated aquaculture. Thus, modern revisionist scholars have coined this period æ¿Âè²ÂæÂÂé®® (Yemaek Chosà Ân) and it's been hypothesised they were developing as pristine states. Modern studies have additionally traced the origins of lute-shaped bronze daggers to bronze daggers of the Fëdorovo culture. Ergo, it's now understood indigenous agriculture fused with imported pastoralism via bronze daggers to amalgamate into agropastoral practices that defined the nature of Yemaek Chosà Ân civilisation.
It's attested in the first century BC Book of Han China that Wiman invaded Old Chosà Ân and took the throne. However, Kim Sà Âk-hyà Âng provides a more nuanced process. Kim argues Wiman required a lot of time to consolidate power in the west. Thus, he couldn't have seized power immediately after seeking asylum in Old Chosà Ân. Therefore, it weren't till 180 BC that he claimed legitimacy of power and overthrew King Jun. This hypothesis inevitably falls to the conclusion wherein there existed two Old Chosà Ân kingdoms 194-180 BC. Kim hypothesised Wiman Chosà Ân seized the river basins of Daling River and Liao River; whereas Yemaek Chosà Ân settled in the northwest of the original Chosà Ân area. Yun Nae-hyà Ân however in lieu provides an alternative proposition: Wiman Chosà Ân settled in the east coast of the Luan River impertinent to the original centre of power for Old Chosà Ân.
The origins for Koguryà  are provided in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms wherein they were founded in the river basin of 大水 (Daesu) 'big water' ie. Amnok River. Another state is chronicled founded by a split branch of Koguryà  in the river basin of å°Âæ°´ (Sosu) 'small water' ie. Doóga River. Hence, they were called å°Âæ°´è² (Sosu Maek). This is the earliest attested identification of Koguryà  as Maek. Moreover, æ¢Âè² (Yang Maek) are attested in the 12th century History of the Three Kingdoms that they were subdued by King Yuri in the 33rd year of his reign whilst on their way to attack East Han. Since the contemporary capital of the colony lied in the coast of the Hun river, it's been hypothesised Yang Maek referred to Maek who lived in the river basin of æ¢Âæ°´ (Yangsu) ie. Taizi River situated between the Amnok and Hun river. However, it's also been hypothesised Yangsu simply refers to Sosu and thus the same people. Considering Cao Wei were defeated near Yang Maek by King Dongchà Ân and again by King Jungchà Ân it's evident they served an existential role for Maek sovereignty.
It's further attested in the History of the Three Kingdoms that è²Âå (Maek guk) 'land of Maek aided Yuri Isagà Âm in the 17th year of his reign when his northern borders were invaded and provided tribute in the 19th year. Although it's attested æÂÂå· (Sakju) - modern day Chunchà Ân - were the lands of Maek guk, modern revisionist scholars argue this were a surmise of Silla when they annexed Sakju from Koguryà Â: that Sakju were the origins of Maek. It's argued this myth simply persisted into Goryà  whence the History of the Three Kingdoms were published.
King à ¬ija were the last king of Baekje. He had a son called Puyà  Yung whose epitaph remains examinable. It's attested that he were extraordinary since his early years with exceptional beauty; his confidence overwhelmed the Three Han and his reputation spread across both Maek. Furthermore, the second sentence of his epitaph begins with stating that he's the descendant of Habaek, a mythical god whose daughter Lady Yuhwa gave birth to Go Ju-mong: the founding father of Koguryà Â. Thus, it can be deduced the monarchs of Baekje traced their lineage to the kings of Koguryà  and this is what the epitaph inferred by 'both Maek.'
æ¿ Ye were attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms to border Koguryà  to the north on the coast of the Great Sea. However, they were retroactively denominated 'East Ye' by modern historians in order to discern them from the hypothetical Ye who made up Yemaek, though the two are virtually indiscernible in contemporary records. It's attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that Ye had no supreme king and elders had claimed for generations they were the same people as Koguryà Â. Of the city-states of Ye, ä¸ÂèÂÂç©¢å (Bulne Ye guk) were the most powerful and lasted the longest. Moreover, a grave were excavated in the Nangnang area in 1958 wherein a silver seal carved as "夫çµÂç©¢åÂÂ" (Bujà  Ye gun) were discovered. These names conclusively prove Ye could be also transcribed in Hanja as ç©¢.
It's attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that Yà Âk Gye-gyà Âng were an official in Gojoseon whose suggestions were ignored by King Ugà Â. Angered, he migrated to è¾°é (Jin Han) with his subjects and this resulted in 2,000 new homes. It's additionally attested later in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that the elderly of Jin Han had passed down for generations, "we were refugees who fled to éÂÂå (Han guk) 'land of Han to avoid the turmoil of Qin. 馬é (Ma Han) thereupon divided their eastern land and gave it to us." Moreover, unlike Ma Han, there exist an exponential increase in Wiman Chosà Ân artefacts in Jin Han areas. Jin Han were a loose confederacy of smaller city-states who - along with Ma Han and å¼Âé (Byon Han) otherwise å¼Âè¾° (Byà Ânjin) - amalgamated into the Three Han, otherwise Han guk. Of the city-states of Ma Han, Baekje became the most powerful by the 3rd century and successfully unified Ma Han by the 4th century. Meanwhile, although Daegaya were the most powerful of the Byà Ân Han city-states, they nevertheless failed to successfully unify Byà Ân Han. They were eventually annexed via Silla after successfully unifiying Jin Han.
It's attested in the Chronicles of Japan that Baekje used çÂÂè³ (Bakjà Âk) as a pejorative for Koguryà Â. Furthermore, çÂÂç¬ (Koma-inu) is Japanese for 'Korean dog' wherein ç (Koma) is another transliteration for é«Â麠(Koma) ie. Koguryà Â. Ergo, due to their ostensible similarities, ç (Bak) has been argued to be another Hanja transliteration for è² (Maek). However, a counterargument has been claimed that if Baekje considered themselves Maek they would not use it in a pejorative such as è²Âè³ (Maekjà Âk) Maek marauder.' Ergo, ç cannot be a synonym for è²Â.
It's attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms the intelligence had been passed down for generations within East Barbarians that Koguryà  were a split branch of Puyà  and their traditions and language are alike. It's further attested in the Records of the Three Chinese Kingdoms that the language of Okjà  were generally identical to Koguryà Â, though there existed differences at times and the language, manners and traditions of Ye were also generally identical to Koguryà Â.
It's recorded the exonym for Korea were "Mukuri" and "Mug-lig" in Sanskrit and Tibetan, respectively. Paul Pelliot believed these names could be the origins of the obscure people "Muc" accounted by Guillaume de Rubrouck. "Muc" were introduced as people 'beyond' "Longa" and "Solanga" by Rubrouck: where "Longa" and "Solanga" themselves people 'beyond' "Tebet." It's been asserted by Christopher Atwood that the earliest attestations for "Solanga" appear in the Ystoria Mongalorum as "Solangi." It's argued that: "combining the sense of regnal status and geography, only Korea would seem to fit," whereupon vis-ÃÂ -vis Rubrouck's "Solanga," "the description of the envoy's clothing and hat are unmistakable that of Goryeo dynasty Korea, and the behavior of the envoy while speaking his message is exactly that of an official at a Confucian court." Ergo, Pelliot's hypothesis that "Muc" people (accounted by Rubrouck) are also Korean thus seems to be a reasonable conclusion and furthermore appear to be a transliteration of Maek. Therefore, it could be hypothesised Maek remained an exonym for Korea into the 13th century AD.
It's claimed the earliest attestations for Korea in occidental sources appear in the Theophylact Simocatta Historiae. Michael and Mary Whitby's translation attests: "Others of the Avars, who declined to humbler fortune because of their defeat, came to those who are called Mucri; this nation is the closest neighbour to the men of Taugast; it has great might in battle both because of its daily practice of drill and because of endurance of spirit in danger." Their footnote identifies "Mucri" as a nation in the Korean peninsula and " MÿàúÃÂï" (the original text in Greek) are further hypothesised to refer to Koguryà  since ð°Âð°Âð°Âð° ð° (Bökli) is attested to be Old Turkic for Koguryà Â. Due to how highly restrictive Old Turkic were in which consonant words could begin with, it's been reconstructed that the exonym for Koguryà  by Avar were pronounced "Mökli," thus "MÿàúÃÂï" in Greek.
It's recorded in the Gwaógaeto Emperor Stele that: "ç¥Âç 'the earliest king' and å Âç 'earlier kings' only had èÂÂæ° 'the subjects of old' from nigh and yonder guard and clean their tombs. I worry my subjects [too] will grow impoverished and exhausted. If someone were to protect my resting place after my death, you shall order only the é Han and ç©¢ Ye I've snatched in propria persona to prepare the burial duties of guarding and cleaning my tomb." This stele has been used to interpret the 天ä¸Â觠(chà Ânhagwan) 'worldview under the Sun' of Koguryà Â. Chà Ânhagwan is a Sinosphere ideology that there can exist one centre 'under the Sun.' Hence, it's been hypothesised Koguryà  considered Han and Ye within their sphere of influence and thus, they were the centre under the Sun of Yemaek and Han. Ergo, since Silla too argued for ä¸ÂéÂÂä¸Âçµ± 'union of the three Han after their unification, it's been argued the three kingdoms recognised a broadly shared ethnic identity.