嘗て私は七支刀銘文を検討し、七支刀は道教・道家思想に傾倒する百済の 太子奇が３６９年に倭王旨の為に儀器として作ったものであるとした(「百 済史料としての七支刀銘文」2000年)。現在でもこの理解に変更はないが、 本稿では、七支刀に関するその後の議論を参照して、銘文について改めて考 えたことを以下の通り述べた。 第一に、(表)22字目と(裏)8字目の釈文をそれぞれ「帯」と「刃」に改め た。 第二に、作刀日「十一月十六日」の意味するところについて、冬至日の可 能性を示唆した前説を撤回したうえで、「十六日」が満月の日にあたること を指摘した。漢代の尚方で月食の時に刀剣を作ったことが後世まで伝えられ ており、刀剣と月との関連が意識されていたことがうかがえる。七支刀の作 刀日が月食であったことは確認できないが、月食も満月の時に起きる現象で あるから、満月の作刀に何らかの意味があると推測することは許されるであ ろう。七支刀を「十一月十六日」すなわち仲冬・冬至月の満月の日に作るこ とで、陽気再生を象徴したものと理解した。 第三に、(表)の吉祥句「宜供供矦王」について、「供供」を「恭恭」の仮 借とする佐伯有清説を批判する議論に疑問を呈し、佐伯説を改めて支持し た。「供供(恭恭)」は「うやうやしく慎み深い」と解釈できる。太子奇は倭 王に対する牽制の意を込めて、当時広く用いられていた吉祥句「宜矦王」に 「供供」の二字を加えたのであろう。太子奇の胸中には倭王に対する期待と 同時に深い警戒の念があったのではないかと推測した。

In the past, I have already examined the inscriptions of sevenbranched sword(七支刀), and argued that the seven-branched sword was made by taught by Baekje's Prince Ki in 369 as a gift of the courtesy for the king of Japan zhǐ. There is no change in this understanding even now, but in this paper, we study discussions of the inscriptions and the sword after my previous study and stated as follows. Firstly, I changed the 22th letter and the 8th letter to "band(帶)" and "blade(刃)" respectively. Secondly, in terms of the date meaning when it is made "November 16th", I pointed out that "the sixteenth day" would be the day of the full moon, instead of suggesting that it can be the date of the winter solstice day in my previous study. That people make a sword at the time of the lunar eclipse in the Han dynasty can be connected to a relationship between a sword and the moon. It has yet been confirmed that the seven sword was made at the time of a lunar eclipse, but since the lunar eclipse is a phenomenon occurring at the full moon, it can be plausible to surmise that there is a relationship between the fact that the sword was made at the time of the full moon and the sword. I understood that the seven sword was symbolized "cheerful regeneration" by making it on the full moon day of "November 16th", that is, Winter / Winter Solstice. Thirdly, I question the argument that criticizes Saeki Yukinori, which is a temporary debt of "Kyouto" with respect to the Lucky phrase "Yusuke queen", and once again supported the Saeki theory did. It can be interpreted that "Son (Kyoto)" is "disgustingly modest". Taiko Odori may have added two words of "Konno" to the Lucky phrase "Wing of King" that was widely used at that time, with the intention of checking against Wao. It was speculated that there was deep vigilance at the same time as expectation for Wa Wang in Prince Ki's chest.

The Seven-Branched Sword[Chiljido, 七支刀] was made in Baekje which was a kingdom founded in 18 BC in South Korea. The original sword has been conserved in the Isonokami Shrine[石上神宮] in Nara Prefecture. While there is a consensus that the appearance of the sword is basically similar to a shape of a tree, it is still controversial which types of a tree or plants the sword's unique shape was originated from. In particular, few literature has discussed the feature like the sword that three branch-like protrusions extending on each side of the sword's main body. This article focuses on a rice plant, named Dao(䆃), which has the peculiar shape with six leaves, Myung-hyeep[蓂莢], and six ears of the rice. The Myung-hyeep is known as a plant for counting a date or a month, and thus, six leaves of the Myung-hyeep refers to a year. The stem of it erected resembles the sword. The stems symbolizes a year or a pillar of the cosmos which connects the sky and the ground. If the Baekje sent the sword which was intended to symbolize the Myung-hyeep, it can be meant to bestow it to Japan. It is the Ilgyungreuksu [일경육수,一莖六穗] that a rice plant has six grains in a stem, called Dao. Its specific shape has yet known, but if it has three ears of each side of a stem like a letter 豐(feng) in a tile roof, it can be a similar shape with the Seven-Branched Sword. Given the shape of the Myung-hyeep symbolizing a calendar and that of the the Ilgyungreuksu like a ear of a rice, it is highly plausible that the sword can be used as a tool to display the authority of the king of Baekje for a ritual related to the sky or farming. In this article, we contrast the existing views of the period the sword was made, emphasizing on the seven-Branched Sword in Zinguki(「神功紀」) and Gilsangu(吉祥句) known as Byung-o(丙午) in May(五月) in Nonhyun(論衡). That is, according to ganji[干支] system in Japan, in case of that a specific date is engraved in a sword like Byung-o(丙午) in May 16th in the 4th year of Taewha[泰和], it is concurrent with a real date counted by the contemporary calendar. Especially, even though the date of Byung-o(丙午) existed in May in 369, no ancient books mentioned other dates the sword was made. Thus, when it is assumed the Byung-o(丙午) was in May in 369, the sword had been made in 362, or pressumed in November, the period can be suggested as in 408. Bakje took the Byung-o(丙午) in May(五月) in Nonhyun(論衡), but used 'full moon', Zhèngyáng(正陽), instead of 'middle of a day', Rìzhōng (日中), to show authority of the king of Baekje, indicating a gold dragon or meaning a phrase '南面受朝' that a king accepts a greeting of his Majesty's lieges sitting toward South. As the inscription, "Never before has there been such a blade", the Seven-Branched Sword expresses fully the creative and innovative culture of Baekje.

In this article, I reaffirmed that “November 16 Byung-o(丙午)" on the seven-branched sword(七支刀) is not one of (吉祥句) that is irrelevant to a date, from an analysis of (漢三國西晉紀年鏡銘集釋) which interprets comprehensively the collection of mirrors(紀年鏡) in Han, Samkuk, and Seojin period. Especially we should pay attention to cases such that all dates are displayed on the seven-branched sword. Among them, the cases the Kanji(干支) and the date do not match were as follows : '"First year of Gyungnyung September 9 Byung-o(丙午)", "22nd year of Gyunan October 10 Byung-o(丙午)", "24th year of Gyunan May 30 Byung-o(丙 午)", "First year of Juko May 20 Gap-ja(甲子)." It seems that Byung-o (丙午) is connected to an auspicious day such that September 9th implies the date the sunlight is the most strong, 10 is the perfect number, and 20 and 30 which are a multiply of 5. On the other hand, among the cases the Kanji(干支) of Byung-o(丙 午) and the date match were as follows : "7th Year of Hipyung January 25 Byung-o(丙午)", "4th Year of Gwanghwa January 13 Byung-o(丙午)", "5th year of Hwangmu May 7 Byung-o(丙午)", "5th year of Gahwa May 5 Byung-o(丙午)", "Second year of Gyungnyung January 27 Byung-o(丙午)." Although a multiply of 5 or 7 which implies a lucky number is uses as May 5th, we can observe that 13th or 27th corresponds to the actual calendar rather than meanig the lucky number. Also there is no case that 11 or 16 is used as Byung-o(丙午) such as 'November' or 'the 16th day'. Furthermore, in the case of "22nd year of Gyunan October 10th Byung-o(丙午)", it used 'October 10th Byung-o(丙午)' even though ‘October 16th in 217’ was correspond to the Kanji(干支) of Byung-o (丙午). It means that the 16th was not regarded as the good day, so it is 日干支different from the actual calendar. Thus, the case of the “November 16th Byung-o(丙午)" on the seven-branched sword(七支刀) was not used as 吉祥句. In this context, the year of production of the seven-branched sword (七支刀) was confirmed on the 16th of November, 4th year of Junji(腆 支), 408 corresponding to the regime of 銘文checking whether November 16th is related to the period of the Kanji(干支) of Byung-o (丙午).

In recent years, transnationalism (supranationalism) humanities has been paid attention in the field of East Asian discourse, which goes beyond the boundaries of regional, national, and geographical areas to study and studies history, philosophy, literature, society, culture, and political phenomena. Transnationalism seeks to look at various phenomena from a more objective viewpoint, not from the perspective of any particular nation state. This paper starts from this context and examines narrowly not only aspects of Korean modern thought but broadly East Asian modern history. In other words, this article attempts to identify a perspective that transcends the border between the nation and ethnic group in modern history of East Asia. When we can find it, the actual image of East Asian modern history will be rediscovered. Thus, this essay was designed to explore the possibilities of nationalism and transnationalism in Korean modernism from the viewpoint of modern history of East Asia, that is, the ideological historical viewpoint of the East Asian Three Countries (Korea, China, and Japan). In this regard, this paper analyzes the supernationalist discourses and ideas of Korean modern intellectuals, and intellectuals of East Asian modern intellectuals (especially China and Japan). For this discussion, this essay compares probes the modern thought of China and Japan - the theory of Chinese harmony, and the theory of middle classes - a comparative study with modern thought of Korea. Since the mid-1980s, cross-border globalization has been sweeping everywhere and is continuing today. Transnationalism is a synonym for globalization, and the transnational phenomenon is constantly maintained in all areas of the world. The scholarship of modern Asia in East Asia was also a signal to announce the prelude of Transnational Thoughts. It was the ideological arena of East Asian modernity that coexisted with the transnationalist thinking that tried to compromise and harmonize with the aggressive acceptance and of nationalistic thought against the tendency which crossed the border.

Japanese cities emerged in the ancient times, given that the royal palace (宮都), and palace and capital (宮·京) found at the sites. In addition, the changes in palace and capital show that the immovable ancient royal palace Heiankyo (平安京) was the final point of ancient cities as well as a remote starting point of the premodern city of Kyoto. In Fushimi Momoyama (伏見桃山) in the south of Kyoto, the tombs of Emperor Kanmu (桓武) and Emperor Meiji (明治) are located in almost the same region. This clearly indicates that Kyoto was the beginning of ancient Heiankyo and the last of premodern Kyoto as well as the city that opened modern times. Lastly, it is assumed that the changes from ancient Heiankyo to Kyoto under the reign of Hideyoshi, and from premodern Kyoto to Kyoto after Meiji period were monumental recognition in the Japanese history, along with the changes of the ancient monarch of Japan, Emperor, from the movable ruler to the immovable ruler.