Editing Balhae (section)

==Name==
Balhae was founded in 698 by [[Dae Joyeong]] (Da Zuorong) under the name {{lang|zh|{{linktext|震}}}} (진, '''Jin'''), read as ''tsyinH'' in [[Middle Chinese]].<ref>Baxter & Sagart; p. 20.</ref> The kingdom's name was transcribed as {{lang|zh|{{linktext|振}}}} in [[Chinese characters|Chinese]],<ref>{{cite web |title=「渤海と古代の日本」 |trans-title=Bohai and Ancient Japan |url=http://www.nihonkaigaku.org/library/lecture/i110211-houkoku.pdf |website=2010 年度第 6 回日本海学講座 |publisher=酒寄 雅志}}</ref> with the same [[Middle Chinese]] reading as {{lang|zh|{{linktext|震}}}}.<ref name=bs>{{citation
  | title = Old Chinese: A New Reconstruction |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=K6Q-BAAAQBAJ
  | given1 = William H. | surname1 = Baxter
  | given2 = Laurent | surname2 = Sagart
  | publisher = Oxford University Press | isbn = 978-0-19-994537-5
  | year = 2014
  | postscript = .
  | pages=181
  }}</ref>

In 713, the [[Tang dynasty]] bestowed the ruler of Jin with the noble title "Prince of [[Commandery (China)|Commandery]] of [[Bohai Commandery|Bohai]] (Balhae)" (渤海郡王).{{r |OldTangBook2019 |page=§5.1 ¶3 |quote=睿宗先天二年，遣郎將崔訢往冊拜祚榮爲左驍衛員外大將軍、渤海郡王}} In 762, the Tang formally elevated Balhae to the status of a kingdom.<ref name="Dillon2016"/><ref name="Kim2012"/>{{r |OldTangBook2019 |page= §5.1 ¶11 |quote=寶應元年，進封國王}} The kingdom's territories did not overlap with the Bohai Commandery. According to Jin Yufu, the Tang referred to the state as [[Mohe people|Mohe]] (Malgal, name of the ethnic group) until 713, and "Balhae" was possibly used as a different transcription of the same name.<ref>金毓黻. 东北通史（再版）. 社会科学战线杂志社 (1981). pp. 253–264.</ref> According to the ''[[New Book of Tang]]'', the state was called Mohe before it received investiture from China and assumed the name Bohai.{{sfn|Kim|2015|p=8}} Linguists [[Karl Heinrich Menges]] and [[Roy Andrew Miller]] raised another theory, suggesting that the name Balhae had an underlying native name which was cognate to [[Manchu language|Manchu]] ''butha'' ("hunting").<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Janhunen |first1=Juha |title=Liao: A Manchurian hydronym and its ethnohistorical context |journal=Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia |date=2008 |volume=13 |page=94 |url=http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.ojs-nameId-49b94d03-b5da-3b30-b733-c85e11ddfcc0-year-2008-volume-13-issue-1-article-1073/c/1073-1069.pdf}}</ref>

The transcriptions '''Bohai'''{{sfn|Crossley|1997|p=18}} (Chinese [[pinyin]] romanization), '''Po-hai'''{{sfn|Crossley|2016|p=12}} (Chinese [[Wade–Giles]] romanization), and '''Parhae'''<ref name="oriens">{{cite web |title=Archeological Studies of Bohai in Russia |url=http://www.oriens-extremus.de/inhalt/pdf/47/OE47-13.pdf |date=2008 |ref=Vol. 47 pp. 302-312}}</ref> (Korean [[McCune–Reischauer]] romanization) are also used in modern academia. Most Western-language scholarship have opted for Bohai except in the field of Korean studies; however, some scholars have chosen the Korean romanization to avoid a "Chinese" narrative spread by the usage of ''pinyin'' romanization.{{sfn|Sloane|2014|p=366}} According to [[Pamela Kyle Crossley]], neither Chinese or Korean transliterations can be correct. She chose to use modern Chinese transliteration "to indicate that the only referent we have is Chinese characters".{{sfn|Crossley|2016|p=12}} Jesse D. Sloane chose to use "Parhae" because it was not covered in depth in the state-mandated curriculum of China, but used Chinese romanization for all other terms related to Balhae that appeared in Chinese sources first. Neither Crossley or Sloane meant to depict Balhae as essentially Chinese but used Chinese romanization out of convenience and to acknowledge the transnational origins of Balhae discourse.{{sfn|Sloane|2014a|p=4}}{{sfn|Crossley|2016|p=12}}