Talk:Dangun

Astronomy
The bear and tiger and woman sounds like Ursa and Leo and Virgo with exception that Leo is regarded as the Monkey and the tiger is Aquarius. (Not that confusion has not caused ancients to redraw new different pictures out of any connect-the-dot stars. The woman could also be Venus in Leo, or Venus in the Tiger stars Aquarius.98.144.71.174 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Untitled
Hwanung (환웅; 桓雄), an illegitimate son of Hwanin (환인; 桓因; Indra),


 * Indra? That's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?  There is no evidence to suggest that Hinduism ever had any influence over Korea, especially as the ancestors of modern Koreans likely came from the Altai, on the other side of the Himalayas...  If the person who put her name there can cite a credible source, I will put the link back into the article.  --Sewing 23:03, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Quote from Samguk Yusa
 * &#26132;&#26377;&#26707;&#22240;(&#35586;&#24093;&#37323;&#20063;)&#24246;&#23376;&#26707;&#38596;&#12290;

What does 帝釋 mean? It's an abbreviation for 帝釋天 and means Indra. Hinduism did influence Korea through Buddhism. Remember the author Iryeon was a Buddhist monk. I don't know when the plot of the myth appeared, but its details were clearly affected by Buddhism. --Nanshu 01:15, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected. But perhaps there should be a bit more explanation in the article; I was kind of lost when I first read the article... :P   --Sewing 01:51, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Tightened up the article, took out spurious Japanese references, and citations, added webography on citations of the myth on the net, and refined the article to focus on Dangun/Tangun as a myth with symbolic value to the Korean people. Still searching for public domain photographs of the creation myth to add. Any suggestions?

anyone want to take up a vote for deletion of the Founding myth of Korea article? it's just a duplicate of a section of this article, adds nothing more, other countries don't seem to have analogous entries. Appleby 16:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If anything, this article needs to be directed to the Founding myth article, as the mythical nature of the Dangun concept absolutely must be emphasized in light of a tremendous tendency for Korean wikipedians to push the South/North Korean revisionist historiographies. There is no archaeological evidence at all to substantiate the Dangun myth. This article seems to make a really dubious move to to just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.170.172 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the only history revsionism that's going around in East Asia is from China (interesting tibit, the Chinese insist Dangun is "Chinese", right up there with their Yan and Yellow Emperor.). Dangun *is* the legendary founder of the first Korean kingdom, dating way before written history to oral tradtion. Hence the existence of Gojoseon bridges the gap between the mythology and history. Hope that helped. 67.160.34.132 (talk) 18:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all glad that your views are not expressed on the proper article, 67.160.34.132. You made me burst out laughing with those comments: 'Dangun *is* the legendary founder of the first Korean kingdom' and 'Hence the existence of Gojoseon bridges the gap between the mythology and history' and especially 'Hope that helped' ^^ 130.216.218.74 (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Dangungyo and Christianity
"After Japan's unconditional surrender and Korean liberation, Dangungyo was revived, but lacked mass appeal with the Allied attempts to encourage Christianity in Korea as a bulwark against communism." This is a bit of a nit, but I question the validity of this comment. I have seen little if any evidence that Christianity was pushed or aggressively promoted by the Allies following liberation. Koreantoast 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would agree that that is a very dubious statement that cries out for a reference. -- Visviva 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the time period of this statement is wrong. On the other hand, the statement on the whole is right, as long as you move the time period to when Korea was occupied by U.S. backed dictators, namely Syngman Rhee. Anarkial 16:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dangun and Tae Kwon Do
Should it be noted that the yellow belt form in ITF Tae Kwon Do is named in honor of Dan Gun?

The tree?
According to the Samguk Yusa, the tree under which Hwa-woong appeared after descending from heaven and the tree under which the bear-woman prayed for a husband and child was a sandalwood. What other source indicates it was a betula tree? I am aware that there are perhaps dozens of different versions and interpretations of the myth, but I'm curious from where this particular point can be cited. --Bentonia School (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

About the story
There is no source. There is no story like that in the history book. The story was told by Japanese dominators to shorten the Korean history and to negate Hwan(한,韓), Baidal(배달,倍達), and Dangun Josen(단군조선,檀君朝鮮)

According to Handangogi(한단고기,桓檀古記), Dangun was a way to say King in Korean like Emperior. There were 47 Danguns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodoriho (talk • contribs) 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

About Jizi
Isn't this should be Kija? Kija of Gojoseon? Since we have Wiman of Gojoseon, why not have Kija of Gojoseon. --Korsentry 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

Question for anyone knowledgeable about Dangun annals
From the article text:
 * "Emperor Dangun's rule is usually calculated to begin in 2333 BC, based on the description of the Dongguk Tonggam (1485) contemporary to the 40th year of the reign of the legendary Chinese Emperor Yao. Other sources vary somewhat, but also put it during Yao's reign (traditional dates: 2357 BC-2256 BC). Samguk Yusa states Dangun ascended to the throne in the 50th year of Yao's reign, while Sejong Sillok says the first year and Dongguk Tonggam says the 25th year."

Question: Does the Dongguk Tonggam say Dangun's rule began in the 40th year of Emperor Yao, or in the 25th year? Both answers may be found in the paragraph above, which thus seems to be contradictory. Unfortunately I cannot read Korean or find any good translation of any annals in English, but would be very interested to find some. Thanks in advance, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

So because WikiPedia Yao (Yu) places 100-year Yu as 2333-2233bc versus this 2357-2257bc, there are 8 options, two for year 1, two for year 25, two for year 40, and two for year 50. The 2333bc is year 1 (versus year 1 as 2357bc); year 25 as 2309bc (versus year 25 as 2333bc); year 40 as 2294bc (versus year 40 as 2318bc); and year 50 as 2284bc (versus year 50 as 2308bc). Note matching years. And I will refrain in making enemies (by my choosing to keep silent on it) on how many of these years are Septuagint and Masoretic Genesis.98.144.71.174 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Academic consensus

 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."
 * "The continuing popularity of Tan'gun studies (Yun I-hum et al. 1994) clearly reflects the progressively ultra-nationalistic trend in Korean historical and archaeological scholarship today."


 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."
 * "Consequently, Korean studies that address topics such as the emergence of ancient Korean civilization, statehood, religion, and identity are inexplicable without reference to a complex jumble of contradictory narratives filled with Tan'gun fiction, competing dynastic myths, and hypothetical invasions of tribes, as well as unaccountable archaeological data. This state of confusion has rendered it virtually impossible to distinguish fact from fiction in studies on ancient Korea."


 * "An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."
 * "An extreme manifestation of nationalism and the family cult was the revival of interest in Tangun, the mythical founder of the first Korean state... Most textbooks and professional historians, however, treat him as a myth."


 * "Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."
 * "Although Kija may have truly existed as a historical figure, Tangun is more problematical."


 * "Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."
 * "Most [Korean historians] treat the [Tangun] myth as a later creation."


 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."
 * "The Tangun myth became more popular with groups that wanted Korea to be independent; the Kija myth was more useful to those who wanted to show that Korea had a strong affinity to China."


 * "If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--219.111.109.7 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "If a choice is to be made between them, one is faced with the fact that the Tangun, with his supernatural origin, is more clearly a mythological figure than Kija."--219.111.109.7 (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: the above message was originally posted by me here. The anom user (who uses many different IPs) has reposted my message on several talk pages, all without attribution. I have absolutely no connection with the user. -Zanhe (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Dangun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160223111433/http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~burns/cult951/tangun.html to http://www.sogang.ac.kr/~burns/cult951/tangun.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dangun. 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/20120207020040/http://www.clickasia.co.kr/about/m2.htm to http://www.clickasia.co.kr/about/m2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

First paragraph is gibberish
"Dan'gun (Hangul/ Hanja: 단군; 檀君; [tan.ɡun]) or Dan'gun Wanggeom (Hangul/ Hanja: 단군왕검; 檀君王儉 [tan.ɡun waŋ.ɡʌm]) was known according to ancient Korean mythology - the absolute ancestor of the Korean people and legendary founder of Gojoseon (Hangul: 고조선; Hanja: 古朝鮮 - meaning "Older Joseon") - the first ever Korean kingdom, around present-day Liaoning, Manchuria, and the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, which explains the development of the Korean language from the Tungusic-speaking people of the region in ancient times bordering geographically from Mongolian, Russian, Manchurian and Chinese due to ancestry." This doesn't make much sense. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to a version which does make sense. DuncanHill (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dangun. 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/20110903043622/http://www.academicmartialarts.co.uk/pages/information/korea/mythology/samguk_yusa/the_story_of_dan_gun/ to http://www.academicmartialarts.co.uk/pages/information/korea/mythology/samguk_yusa/the_story_of_dan_gun/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080225011644/http://www.chan-ok.fr/ to http://www.chan-ok.fr/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

strange
There is no mention of Dangun in the wei book，This is very strange，Very curious

"God-king"?
Is he really considered a god-king? Every source I see just refers to him as the first human or having a supernatural origin, but none I can find claim he is a literal god. toobigtokale (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)