Meta description (suggested): After Baekje fell in 660, thousands were sent to Tang China. What do the sources actually say about their fate—and is the sensational claim that “human flesh was cheaply traded” in Tang anything more than internet myth?
Prologue: When a Real Tragedy Gets Hijacked by a Shock Story
Baekje’s collapse in 660 CE was not just a Korean Peninsula event—it was a geopolitical turning point in East Asia. The Silla–Tang alliance captured Sabi, Baekje’s last king Uija was taken prisoner, and a large number of people were transported to Tang territory. (World History)
That much is history.
But in recent online debates, a second claim often gets stapled to it for maximum outrage: that Tang society had “active human-flesh trade,” even with falling prices, and that Baekje deportees were somehow entangled in it.
If you’re writing for a serious monetized blog, your edge is not “louder.” Your edge is clean separation:
what we can responsibly say from mainstream historical summaries,
what requires primary-source proof,
what is likely later anecdote, mistranslation, or modern sensationalism.
1) What’s solid: Baekje’s fall and the deportations
Most broad summaries agree on the core sequence:
660 CE: Silla and Tang forces defeat Baekje; King Uija is captured and taken to Tang China. (World History)
Accounts commonly describe the removal of thousands of Baekje people—especially the court and elites—into Tang territory. (World History)
On headcounts, you’ll often see two “headline-style” figures repeated in secondary summaries:
“around 12,000” (a rounded figure used in modern retellings), (Grokipedia)
and the more precise 12,807 (frequently cited as a figure for transported commoners in some later writeups). (위키백과)
A monetized deep-report should present this correctly:
Best practice wording: “The sources are consistent that large numbers were transported to Tang after 660; some later summaries repeat figures in the range of roughly twelve thousand, including an often-cited precise number of 12,807.” (World History)
That phrasing is both readable and defensible.
2) What likely happened to deportees: stratification, not a single destiny
Even without turning your post into a dissertation, readers deserve the basic reality: deportees were not treated as one undifferentiated mass.
A sober, historically plausible framing is:
High-status captives (royal house, officials, commanders) were useful as diplomatic trophies, administrative tools, or future intermediaries.
Ordinary people were far more vulnerable to forced resettlement, coerced labor, or social downgrading.
You don’t need to overclaim details; you need to show the logic of empire: Tang didn’t “handle captives” in one universal way—it used them.
3) The “human-flesh market” claim: what would count as real evidence?
Here’s the rule that instantly upgrades your credibility:
Cannibalism in history ≠ a commercial market with stable prices
To responsibly claim “human flesh was widely traded and got cheaper” in a specific time/place (e.g., 7th-century Tang), you would need at least one of the following in traceable primary sources:
official legal cases or administrative records mentioning repeated sale/purchase,
price lists or market regulations,
contemporary chronicles describing routine commerce (not a one-off atrocity),
multiple independent attestations that agree on time, place, and mechanism.
Without that, the “price fell” line is not history—it’s a story that wants to be history.
What your blog should say (safe, strong, and honest)
There are many historical records across eras of extreme famine or siege cannibalism in China and elsewhere. (That’s a grim feature of human crisis, not a “Chinese uniqueness.”)
But the specific internet-style claim—“Tang had active human-flesh distribution, and the transaction cost dropped”—is a different category of statement and requires much higher-grade evidence.
If you cannot show the original text and context, treat it as unverified.
4) Where misinformation usually enters: three classic failure modes
This is where you can be both educational and SEO-friendly (readers love “how the myth is made” sections):
A) Genre laundering
Later anecdotes, moral tales, or sensational miscellanies get quoted as if they were official histories.
B) Translation traps
A term may refer to punishment, desecration, or metaphorical “consumption,” then gets translated as literal “meat trade.”
C) Timeline smearing
A phrase or anecdote from a later dynasty gets dragged backward and pasted onto Tang—because the internet doesn’t respect centuries.
5) Did Baekje deportees have anything to do with it?
This is the part where serious writing refuses the bait.
Even if you locate real references to cannibalism in certain Chinese contexts (typically crisis contexts), linking it to Baekje deportees is a second leap that requires its own chain of proof:
Are deportees mentioned in the same record?
Is there an explicit causal or institutional connection?
Or is it just modern association-by-shock?
For now, the responsible conclusion is:
Baekje deportation is historically grounded; the “Tang human-flesh market with falling prices” claim is not responsibly connectable to Baekje deportees without very specific primary-source documentation.
That one sentence protects your blog from becoming a rumor amplifier.
Conclusion:
Baekje fell in 660; Uija was taken to Tang; thousands were transported. (World History)
Numbers vary by retelling; “~12,000” is common, and “12,807” appears in some secondary summaries. (Grokipedia)
Deportee outcomes were stratified (elite vs ordinary), and any claim beyond that needs source-backed specifics.
The “human-flesh trade got cheaper in Tang” line is an extraordinary claim—and extraordinary claims need primary citations, not viral repetition.
FAQ (snippet-friendly)
Q1. Were Baekje people really taken to Tang China after 660?
Yes—King Uija’s capture and removal is widely summarized, and large-scale transport of people is repeatedly described in modern historical overviews. (World History)
Q2. Is “12,807 deportees” a confirmed number?
It’s a commonly repeated precise figure in some secondary summaries; treat it as a reported figure rather than a universally settled census. (위키백과)
Q3. Did Tang China have a normal “human-flesh market”?
That specific claim needs direct primary-source proof (market regulation, price records, official cases). Without that, it’s safer to treat it as unverified or misattributed.
No comments:
Post a Comment