Seven-Branched Sword - Interpretation of The Inscription

Interpretation of The Inscription

2nd Letter on the first side, and when the sword was made: The first four letters are generally decoded as "4th year of Taiwa (the Chinese era of the Jin Dynasty)", but since the second letter is ambiguous. Taiwa 4 corresponds to year 369 CE. Kim Sok Hyong, a North Korean scholar proposed a theory that the character refers to a local era name of Baekje, the theory is challenged since no other archaeological discovery reveals the existence of Baekje's unique era name. Hong Sung-Hwa, a scholar of Korea University, says "十(一)月十六日(the sixteenth day of the eleventh month)" is in 408, because if the 6th, November is 日干支(日干支 is a day by the sexagenary cycle) of 丙午 in 408, the year is the 4 years by King Jun-ji(腆支王) in Baek-je. So we can estimate that Baek-je has era name autonomously(Goguryeo and Silla had their era name). In 409, Wei's envoy visited Baek-je, and King Jun-ji extended hospitality to him, so that sword was formed by 408.

Middle of the first side: The letters show the sword was made of steel and can repel the enemy. The following letters are the most controversial part of the inscription. Kim notes that the sword uses the term "候王" translated as "enfeoffed lord," and claimed Wa king was subservient to the Baekje ruler. The majority of the Japanese scholars do not agree with Kim's theory. They point out the meaning of the term "候王" was varied in the different periods. After the Han Dynasty, the term was used fluently and always just as an honorific.

End of the first side: Although four of the five last letters are undecodable, the last letter indicates that the previous letters were either the name of author or a prayer phrase such as "永年大吉祥"(Have Great Fortunes Forever"). In both cases, the phrase should generally indicate the end of inscription, and not synchronized with the fact that inscription is continued to the other side. There is also a theory that the second side is written by different person, or at different time.

11th and 13th letter on the second side, and who presented the sword: 11th to 13th letters seem to be decodable to "王世子"(Crown Prince of King), and some scholars regard that it was presented from the Crown Prince of Baekje, eventually ascended as King Geungusu. However, as it includes ambiguous letters, it is not entirely clear who of Baekje presented the sword.

17th letter on the second side: The letter is regarded to be either "音"(Sound) or "晉"(Jin Dynasty). Former decoding indicates that phrase "奇生聖音" has a Buddhism or Taoism nuance, that presenter has "lived under august(holy) sounds". Other scholars indicates that the phrase means "born coincidentally on august (holy) Jin Dynasty".

18th to 22nd letter on the second side, and the presentee: The phrase, "爲倭王旨造", is translated in various ways through different interpretations of the 22nd letter "旨".

• "旨" as a personal name: Regarding the letter as a personal name. Thus translates the phrase as following. "For Shi, the King of Wa, made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "order": Translates "for the order of King of Wa, made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "deliberately": Translates "for King of Wa, deliberately made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "first": Interpreting the letter as abbreviation of "嘗". Translates "for the first time, made (the sword) for King of Wa".

Taking it a personal name leads to the Baekje-centric idea that Baekje's presenter boldly writes the name of the King of Wa, and thus regards him lower. By Taking it "order" leads to the Japan-centric idea that Baekje presented the sword because the King of Wa ordered him to do so. Therefore, the interpretation tendㄴ to be controversial. Ueda Masaaki (quoted by Saeki, 1977) is rather an exception among Japanese historians because he “has maintained that the Seven-branched sword was ‘bestowed’ on the Wa ruler by the king of Baekche.” Ueda “based his interpretation on the argument that the term ‘koo’ appearing in the inscription denotes a ruler in vassalage to the Paekche king and that the inscription is written in the commanding tone of a superior addressing an inferior, exemplified by the sentence reading ‘Hand down to posterity." However, Saeki (1977) argues that one can not interpret the inscription to mean either “to bestow” the sword on the King in vassalage or “to respectfully present” to the emperor, as many Japanese scholars have maintained since the Meiji period. Saeki seems to be inclined to take Hirano’s argument that the inscription simply indicates the fact there was a respectful and sincere relationship between the rulers of Baekche and Wa.

Yet another theory claimed by Kōsaku Hamada of Kyushu University theorizes that the original seven-branched sword was created by Eastern Jin in 369 (泰和四年) for a vassal lord with the first inscription. In 372, King Geunchogo of Baekje sent an embassy to arrive at the court of Eastern Jin in 372, and then a Jin envoy was sent to the Paekche court, granting the title of “General Stabilizing the East and Governor of Le-lang" (鎭東將軍). The sword was given to the king around this time. The king of Baekje ordered the creation of a replica of the sword with the second inscription and sent it to Wa for an alliance as peers under Eastern Jin. Thus no vassalage relationships are involved between Baekje and Wa. He claims that this explains the commanding tone of the first inscription and the respect paid to Jin (owes his life to august Jin) in the second inscription.

While the inscription of the sword is controversial and is used by many nationalists to support their own agendas, the sword does prove, at the very least, that there were very close ties between the Baekje and the Wa, and the opening of the friendship relations between two countries probably date to the year 372.

In connection with the date of making, Hong Sung-Hwa, a scholar of Korea University, says in 396-409, Baek-je came under attack by Goguryeo, so Baek-je needed to alliance Wei, King Jun-ji of Baek-je gave King of Wei the sword.