User talk:Tenmei/Chōkyō 長享 1487

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Chōkyō 長享 1487

Contents

anetode╦╩

--Deleted Archive Page-- I found the following, but I don't understand what happened. At this point, all I want is to review the deleted material. Then I'd be interested in doing whatever is necessary so that the archived pages are safe from bots.

Notice: You are re-creating a page that was deleted.
You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. Information is available on what to do if a page you created is deleted. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience:
  • 17:37, 11 September 2007 Anetode (Talk | contribs) deleted "Usertalk:Ooperhoofd/Chōkyō 長享 1487" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD r2), was a redirect to the Talk:, User: or User talk: space. using TW)

I clicked on TW -- don't know what it is, don't care ... but if this edit summary is saying that I'd done something other than save to archive in an unremarkable way, there is some sort of error. --Ooperhoofd 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I now understand part of what I myself could have done differently. Maybe this is one of those small (but important) lessons which are best learned the hard way. --Ooperhoofd 23:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
SA REPONSE==>>
Your archive exists, it was just posted to the wrong namespace. Compare Usertalk:Ooperhoofd/Chōkyō 長享 1487 to User talk:Ooperhoofd/Chōkyō 長享 1487, note the space in [[User talk:]]. This deletion was not performed by a bot and it did not eliminate any content. In the future, please make sure to save archives/projects to your userspace, at User:Ooperhoofd or User talk:Ooperhoofd. Sorry for the confusion, and happy editing ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive History

A review of the revision history for Kujō Yoritsune reveals that Kuuzo added a "needs references" tag to this page in mid-May, but added nothing further since that time. If the following is not sufficiently self-explanatory, I can probably recall what I thought I was doing; and if this were somehow to be construed as disruptive, I would attend closely. Ooperhoofd 15:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 15 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,351 bytes (adding Kogen gannen -- 康元元年)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,337 bytes (adding link -- fr:Kujō Yoritsune)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,315 bytes (removing needs references banner -- no longer relevant)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,345 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,294 bytes (→Further reading)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,027 bytes (→Notes)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,026 bytes (→Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +8,016 bytes (Events of Yoritsune's bakufu-- "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,320 bytes (adding subheading -- "Events of Yoritsune's bakufu)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +7,283 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran" & from "Jinno Shotoki")
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,692 bytes
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,691 bytes
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd +4,693 bytes (adding from "Nihon Odai Ichiran")
  • 14 August 2007 Tadakuni +4,030 bytes (Further reading)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,677 bytes)
  • 14 August 2007 Ooperhoofd (Talk | contribs) (3,602 bytes)
  • 17 July 2007 Bendono +3,021 bytes (Remove unnecessary pipe (En'ō))
  • 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +3,031 bytes
  • 13 June 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,920 bytes (adding "Eras of Yoritsune's 'bakufu'" names)
  • 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,475 bytes (→Further reading)
  • 30 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +2,471 bytes (References -- Notes & Further reading)
  • 29 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,584 bytes (arguable improvement in succession box?)
  • 25 May 2007 Ooperhoofd +1,541 bytes (Kujō Yoritsune in Succession Box)
  • 14 May 2007 Kuuzo +1,560 bytes (lacks sources)

Nengo

You've recently made some changes to the Japanese nengō pages, and added some new pages, such as:
Saimei (era)/Saimei (period) ... changed 20 Aug 07
Tenji (era)/Tenji (period) ... changed 19 Aug 07
Kōbun (era)/Kōbun (period) ... changed 20 Aug 07
Temmu (era)/Temmu (period) ... changed 20 Aug 07
Jitō (era)/Jitō (period) ... changed 20 Aug 07
Mommu (era)Mommu (period) ... changed 20 Aug 07

None of these are nengō. They refer to the imperial reigns, but they are not nengō. (That's why times that make references to the emperors that ruled during this period are properly written as, for example, 斉明天皇３年, not 斉明３年.) Nengō were abolished during these times.

The Nengō should be:

  • Taika: 645.6.19–650.2.15
  • Hakuchi: 650.2.15–654.10.?
  • GAP
  • Shuchō: 686.7.20–686.9.?
  • GAP
  • Taihō: 701.3.21–704.5.10 ...

If you could please remove the new pages and all references that you have made to these "eras", it would be much appreciated, as there is now a great deal of inconsistency (and error) that has been introduced.

Thanks. Bueller 007 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please amplify the reasons for your deletions in the context of the discussion at Talk:Japanese era name/Jitō (era)? These non-standard additions were not contributed thoughtlessly, nor without prior discussion. Yours may be the more persuasive argument, of course; but it would be easier to evaluate if you explained a bit further. My tentative inclination would be to consider restoring these anolmalies, but with a better notice to anyone else, like yourself, who would then think more carefully about reviewing the talk page before a too precipitous edit? Alternately, it may well be that any perceived benefit is plainly outweighed by the further information you can be able to provide about these pre-Taihō years. Ooperhoofd 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Transferred from Talk:Japanese era name
Jitō (period)?
I've just created the article for the era of Shuchō. The list here, along with the information presented at ja:朱鳥 seem to indicate that the era spanned roughly 16 years, being followed by Taihō. However, my "Japan Encyclopedia" by Louis Frederic indicates that it instead lasted less than a year, being followed by the Jitō era which was in turn followed by Taihō. What's up here? LordAmeth 18:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
fr:Utilisateur:Sixsous from the French Wikipedia introduced me to an online nengō conversion website which is maintained as part of the Japanese studies program at the German University of Tübingen at http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm.
This "Nengōcalc" software proposes plausible subdivisions within the otherwise undifferentiated 38-year time-span of Hakuchi:
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi (era) ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
alternate era/period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
alternate era/period chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
This suggests a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? Ooperhoofd 19:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I notice that the German Wikipedia includes the following additions to its list of pre-Taika nengō:
  • 660 v. Chr. 神武 Jimmu (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 581 v. Chr. 綏靖 Suizei (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 549 v. Chr. 安寧 Annei (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 510 v. Chr. 懿徳 Itoku (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 475 v. Chr. 孝昭 Kōshō (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 392 v. Chr. 孝安 Kōan (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 290 v. Chr. 孝霊 Kōrei (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 214 v. Chr. 孝元 Kōgen (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 157 v. Chr. 開化 Kaika (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 97 v. Chr. 崇神 Sujin (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 29 v. Chr. 垂仁 Suinin (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 71 景行 Keikō (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 131 成務 Seimu (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 192 仲哀 Chūai (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 270 応神 Ōjin (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 313 仁徳 Nintoku (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 400 履中 Richū (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 406 反正 Hanzei (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 411 允恭 Ingyō (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 453 安康 Ankō (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 456 雄略 Yūryaku (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 480 清寧 Seinei (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 485 顕宗 Kenzō (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 488 仁賢 Ninken (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 498 武烈 Buretsu (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 507 継体 Keitai (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 531 安閑 Ankan (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 536 宣化 Senka (era/reign) ... emperor's reign (proximal)
  • 540 欽明 Kinmei (era)?/Kinmei (period)? ... emperor's reign, 539-571+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
  • 572 敏達 Bidatsu (era)?/Bidatsu (period) ... emperor's reign, 572-585+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
  • 585 用明 Yōmei (era)?/Yōmei (period? ... emperor's reign, 585-587+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
  • 587 崇峻 Sushun (era)?/Sushun (period)? ... emperor's reign, 587-592+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Zöllner source
  • 593 推古 Suiko (era)?/Suiko (period)? ... emperor's reign, 593-628+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
  • 629 舒明 Jomei (era)?/Jomei (period)? ... emperor's reign, 629-641+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
  • 642 皇極 Kōgyoku (era)?/Kōgyoku (period)? ... emperor's reign, 642-645+ added 31 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
I wonder if there a plausible reason for seeking consensus about incorporating these additional options within the ambit of Japanese era names? At this point, I'm not personally eager to delve too much into pre-Jomei history; but the question implied by the German Wikipedia seems relevant nevertheless. Ooperhoofd 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
In this context, maybe it's a good idea to mention a question about something missing in the 38-year span of years which the English Wikipedia now identifies as being with the Hakuchi era?
  • 645 大化 Taika 6-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi 37-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 686 朱鳥 Shuchō 16-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
  • 701 大宝 Taihō 4-year duration (congruent in de-, en-, es-, fr-, ja-, nl-Wikipedia pages)
My curiosity has a context in Brown and Ishida's translation of Gukanshō:
"These era names fell in the Temmu reign: (1) Suzaku, which was one year long [672]. (It began in mizunoe-saru.) (2) Hakuhō, which was 13 years long [673-686]. (It began in Mizunoe-saru, the year Suzaku began. Did both begin in the same year?) And (3) Suchō, which was eight years long [686-694]. (One year of this era fell within the Temmu reign.)" -- Brown, Gukanshō, at p. 269.
At this point, my guess would be that the English Wikipedia would be best served by incorporating both the suggested additions from (a) the University of Tübingen's web site and (b) the current iteration of the German Wikipedia, but I think we can safely leave aside any other similar concerns for another day, perhaps in 2008? Ooperhoofd 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow. You've really done a lot of work with this. Please, go ahead and make whatever changes you think appropriate. LordAmeth 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION: If anyone checks here, I did add the Tübingen-proposed eras today in the context of this exchange with User:LordAmeth. Also, I did remove the piping from every era name which would remain otherwise unchanged. These are quite enough changes for one day. Better to let this settle for a while, thus giving more people a change to comment or to suggest alternatives. In my view, any questions of further (pre-Taika) additions are best left for another day -- perhaps in September. Ooperhoofd 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Consulting the Japanese Wikipedia, we discover anomolies at the end of the 7th century -- that is to say (1) between the Hakuchi era and the Shuchō era, and also (2) between the Shuchō era and the Taihō era.
  • 開始年_________________________________
    • (西暦)__元号名___読み_______年数___改元事由
    • 645年____大化___たいか_______ 6___Taika (era)
    • 650年____白雉___はくち_______ 5___Hakuchi (era)
    • 654年____廃止___
    • 686年____朱鳥___しゅちょう____ 1___Shuchō
    • 686年____廃止___
    • 701年____大宝___たいほう______ 4___Taihō (era)
I wonder if this small tidbit of information might have some utility? Ooperhoofd 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't know what information you expected me to add here, Ooperhoofd. The Japanese Wikipedia has the information exactly right.
   * Taika: 645.6.19–650.2.15
   * Hakuchi: 650.2.15–654.10.?
   * GAP
   * Shuchō: 686.7.20–686.9.?
   * GAP
   * Taihō: 701.3.21–704.5.10

The stuff from tuebingen refers to years in which the emperor changed, but the system was abandoned during that time, so the era names didn't get updated. So things like "Saimei" aren't Japanese eras. For example, to refer to the first year of Empress Saimei's rule (655 CE), I believe that strictly speaking you are supposed to say "斉明天皇元年" ("the first year of Empress Saimei's rule") instead of just "斉明元年" ("the first year of Saimei") as you would if it were a nengo, although it can be abbreviated to that form (or used that way by the ignorant).

All the Japanese nengo are found in Japanese dictionaries. The ones that have been added are nowhere in there. They are emperors and empresses, not eras. (Remember that the two were not the same until Meiji came on the scene.)

Some lists of nengo here: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%83%E5%8F%B7%E4%B8%80%E8%A6%A7_(%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC) http://homepage1.nifty.com/gyouseinet/history/gengouichiran.htm http://www.sakai11.jp/rr_gengouitiran.htm http://www.kumamotokokufu-h.ed.jp/kumamoto/bungaku/nengoui.html http://www1.odn.ne.jp/haru/data-list/gengo.html

None of them mention any of the "eras" you are trying to add.

This is the kind of list that you are trying to create: http://homepage1.nifty.com/gyouseinet/history/nengouichiran.htm http://www.technogallery.com/rekishi/ichiran/nengo.htm

But again, notice that in the two links directly above, whenever there's not a *true era name* available, they've listed things in terms of ***emperor names***. i.e., 神武天皇元年, 欽明天皇元年, not 神武元年, 欽明元年, etc. That's because "Jimmu" and "Kimmei" are *not* eras. It just means "first year of emperor so-and-so's rule."

Stick with the way Japanese wiki and Japanese dictionaries have it. List the *true era names*, not the *imperial reigns*. Bueller 007 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Examples of Homonyms

The eras of Japan encompass 16 emamples of homonymns. It becomes a problem of finding the best way of differentiating amongst them. A number of attempts have been made, but that doesn't necessarily mean the end of our problems. I you have a useful idea, good -- the future of this Widipedia is yours. Be BOLD in proposing a better way to handle this small problem.

The French Wikipedia is handling the homonyms in a unique way, but the English Wikipedia is handling this same issue in a different way. I personally don't really like the French option, but it is clear and it is consistent. Unfortunately, I have no ideas about how to handle this in any better way. In this context, does it make any sense to propose re-visiting any of the decisions which have already been made in the context of our English-language Wikipedia? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Eishō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Jōgen, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS

Jōō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Kōan, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Kōji, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS

Kōwa, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS

Shōwa, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Tenshō, 2 homonyms

REDIRECTS ...?

Chronology of 16 homonym pairs

  • 976_ 貞元 |Jōgen (976 - 978)
  • 1046 永承 |Eishō (1046 - 1053)
  • 1099 康和 |Kōwa (1099 - 1104)
  • 1131 天承 |Tenshō (1131 - 1132)
  • 1142 康治 |Kōji (1142 - 1144)
  • 1207 承元 |Jōgen (1207 - 1211)
  • 1222 貞応 |Jōō (1222 - 1224)
  • 1278 弘安 |Kōan (1278 - 1288)
  • 1312 正和 |Shōwa (1312 - 1317)
  • 1361 康安 |Kōan (1361 - 1362)
  • 1504 永正 |Eishō (1504 - 1521)
  • 1555 弘治 |Kōji (1555 - 1558)
  • 1573 天正 |Tenshō (1573 - 1592)
  • 1652 承応 |Jōō (1652 - 1655)
  • 1926 昭和 |Shōwa (1926 - 1989)-- Emperor Shōwa

I guess the question becomes: What should be done? Ooperhoofd 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current system of disambiguating by period (e.g. Heian, Kamakura, Muromachi, etc.) seems just fine to me - none of the homonym pairs land within the same time period. Though, the French model does look a bit cleaner in the sense that it describes directly the years involved. I suppose that anyone looking for one or the other of a given homonym pair would know which period it's in - otherwise, if they are *that* unfamiliar with Japanese history, why would they be looking for it? ... Either system is fine with me, as long as we're consistent about it. It shouldn't really pose a big problem - we just need to decide upon a set standard form and then apply it. Thanks again for all your work. LordAmeth 00:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Personally, I have no preferences -- but it is a fact that our rational choice was not immediately obvious to the French. As yet, other non-English Wikipedias have not reached even tentative decisions about this kind of comparatively trivial issue. In those undefined contexts, this section of en:Talk:Japanese era name becomes practical and useful model, because it documents a process used by those interested in expressing a view. Equally important, we do something today to ensure that the current conventions of our English-language Wikipedia will continue to be open questions which may be re-visited in the future. Ooperhoofd 02:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree with LordAmeth. They should just be differentiated using eras. But we should also keep in mind that era names are primarily going to be used by people who already understand enough Japanese to be able to differentiate them anyway, since they are primarily used in Japanese texts to begin with. I think most western historians will just use western years, and if they do use Japanese eras, the context in which they are used will make it clear when it is (i.e. nobody is going to rely on the era name alone without specifying what year they are talking about in western years). Therefore, this is really only a naming problem in Wikipedia, not a practical problem. And for that purpose, I think it is fine to adopt LordAmeth's suggestion, but perhaps useful to also create redirects too other systems as well.-Jefu 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nengō (copied from User talk:Ooperhoofd)

You've recently made some changes to the Japanese nengō pages, and added some new pages, such as:
Saimei (era)
Tenji (era)
Kōbun (era)
Temmu (era)
Jitō (era)
Mommu (era)

None of these are nengō. They refer to the imperial reigns, but they are not nengō. (That's why times that make references to the emperors that ruled during this period are properly written as, for example, 斉明天皇３年, not 斉明３年.) Nengō were abolished during these times.

The Nengō should be:

  • Taika: 645.6.19–650.2.15
  • Hakuchi: 650.2.15–654.10.?
  • GAP
  • Shuchō: 686.7.20–686.9.?
  • GAP
  • Taihō: 701.3.21–704.5.10

...

If you could please remove the new pages and all references that you have made to these "eras", it would be much appreciated, as there is now a great deal of inconsistency (and error) that has been introduced.

Thanks. Bueller 007 18:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please amplify the reasons for your deletions in the context of the discussion at Talk:Japanese era name/Jitō(era)?. These non-standard additions were not contributed thoughtlessly, nor without prior discussion. Yours may be the more persuasive argument, of course; but it would be easier to evaluate if you explained a bit further. My tentative inclination would be to consider restoring these anolmalies, but with a better notice to anyone else, like yourself, who would then think more carefully about reviewing the talk page before a too precipitous edit? Alternately, it may well be that any perceived benefit is plainly outweighed by the further information you can be able to provide about these pre-Taihō years. Ooperhoofd 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Exchange transferred from Talk:Suchō (era)
The speedy deletion tag was added just as the article was created, before I was even given much opportunity to add to it. Admittedly, I do not have a hell of a lot to be said about this period; still, it is one of a series in the nengō (imperial eras) of Japanese history, and is essential for completion of that series. I shall endeavor to add what I can to shore up the article's content. LordAmeth 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Further to what LordAmeth has already explained: There is an error in Japanese era names, which has been copied directly from the Japanese Wikipedia. Resolving that problem needs to be addressed simultaneously with the creation of this new article. Plausibly, Gukanshō, a 13th century text, will provide a way forward ... but in the meantime, the "fast delete" can be removed without further delay. I'm more than willing to take responsibility for this topic. Ooperhoofd 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Time span
The time span of this era is incorrect. Nearly all sources list it as a single year in duration: 686. After 686, the next nengō is Taihō beginning in 701.
References:
  • Hioki, Eigō (2007). Dai Ikkan: -1000, Shin Kokushi Dainenhyō (10 volumnes). Kokusho Kankōkai. ISBN 978-4-336-04826-4. 
  • Sakamoto, Tarō; Saburō Ienaga, Mitsusada Inoue, Susumu Ōno (1965). Nihon Shoki, Iwanami Nihon Koten Bungaku Jiten. Iwanami Shoten, 　474, 480 etc.. ISBN 4000600680. 
  • Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten Henshū Iinkai (1986). Nihon Koten Bungaku Daijiten. Iwanami Shoten. ISBN 4-00-080067-1. 
  • Nihon Kokugo Daijiten Dai Nihan Henshū Iinkai (2000-2002). Nihon Kokugo Daijiten (15 volumes). Shōgakkan. 
Bendono 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I saw that in the Japanese Wikipedia article, and in a number of other sources besides; the problem is that if Shucho only lasted one year, and Taiho did not begin until 701, what was the imperial era name (the nengo) for the intervening 15 years? Please see the discussion on Talk:Japanese era name, as User:Ooperhoofd is currently in the process of trying to reconcile the differing sources on the chronology. LordAmeth 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Simple: there was no nengō. The nengō article already deals with this:

Although the regular practice of proclaiming successive nengō was interrupted in the late seventh century, it was re-adopted in 701 during the reign of Emperor Mommu (697-707). Since that Taihō era (701-704), era names have been used continuously up through the present day.

It's late here, so I'll try to look at the discussion sometime tomorrow. Bendono 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, then. Simple enough. LordAmeth 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Shuchō (era) succession box
The succession box at the bottom of this page links to nengō which do not, at this time, have any counterpart in other Wikipedias. These become links to non-congruent pages; but in due course, there will be further edits.
Utilisateur:Sixsous from the French Wikipedia introduced me to an online nengō conversion website which is maintained as part of the Japanese studies program at the German University of Tübingen at http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/geschichte-japans/nengo_calc.htm ...
This "Nengōcalc" software proposes plausible subdivisions within the 38-year time-span of Hakuchi:
  • 650 白雉 Hakuchi ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
alternate era chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
alternate era chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
Bibliographic foundation for the Nengo_calc software:
  • Tsuchihashi, Paul Yachita. (1952). Japanese Chronological Tables from 601 to 1872 (邦暦西暦対照表). Tokyo: Sophia University Press.
  • Reinhard Zöllner, Reinhard. (2003). Japanische Zeitrechnung. München: Iudicium Verlag.
This now becomes a solicitation for further comments? suggestions? Ooperhoofd 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Pre-Taihō era names
There is an on-going discussion about re-visiting the largely settled issues arising from the subject of pre-Taihō era names. For more information, see Talk:Japanese era name. Ooperhoofd 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • My intention here in Talk:Shuchō is to help move things along by ensuring that further comments or questions are better informed by plausibly useful citations:
  • Varley's 1980 translation of Jinnō Shōtōki:
    • p. 138/"Many Chinese practices were adopted during Mommu's reign, from styles of palace construction to the colors of robes for bbth civil and military officials (bunbukan). Moreover, beginning in Mommu's fifth year, 701, the Chinese custom of era names was inaugurated. Thus, 701 became known as the first year of Taihō. Before this there had been the Taika and Hakuchi eras of Emperor Kōtaku, the Hakuhō era of Temperor Tenji, and the Shajaku and Shuchō eras of Emperor Temmu.Ø But it was not until Taihō that the custom was adopted permanently. It is therefore proper to regard Taihō as marking the true beginning of era names."
      • ØThe era names Hakuhō and Shujaku do not appear in Nihon Shoki. For a discussion of their listing in other sources, see Hirata Toshiharu, "Jinnō Shōtōki kōshō shichi-ron," in Hiraizumi Kiyoshi, ed., Kitabatake Chikafusa-Kō no Kenkyū, pp. 228-232.
    • p. 139/The god of Kasuga, the tutelary deity (uji no kami) of the Fujiwara, also provided special protection for the Hossō sect. (The kami of Kasuga was originally manifested in the for m of the deity Ame-no-Koyane; its shrine, first built at Hiraoka, Kawachi Province, was moved to Kasuga during the Jinga-Keiun era, 767-769--that is, after [Fujiwara-no] Fubito's time ...." [emphasis added]
  • Brown and Ishida's 1979 translation of Gukanshō:
    • p. 32/"It was during Mommu's reign (697-707) that era names were first used. Beginning with the Taihō era (701-704), era names have been used until the present day."ф
      • ф In his Imperial chronology, Jien says that era names were first instituted in the reign of Kōtoku (645-655), and he even provides details about era names after the reign of Temmu (671-686). However his statement here is rather close to the position taken by modern scholars.
    • p. 267/"Era names were instituted during this reign. The Taika era was five years long [645-649] and the Hakuchi five [650-654]."
    • p. 269/"These era names fell in the Temmu reign: (1) Suzaku, which was one year long [672]. (It began in mizunoe-saru.) (2) Hakuhō, which was 13 years long [673-686]. (It began in Mizunoe-saru, the year Suzaku began. Did both begin in the same year?) And (3) Suchō, which was eight years long [686-694]. (One year of this era fell within the Temmu reign.)"
    • p. 270/"The eras that fell in this reign [Jitō-tennō] were (1) the remaining seven years of Shuchō; and (2) Taika, which was four years long [695-698]. (The first year of this era was kinoto-hitsuji [695].)"
    • p. 271/"One year of the Taika era fell in this reign [Mommu-tennō]. The following three years had no era name. The Taihō era (which was instituted on the 21st day of the 3rd month of kanoto-ushi [701]) was three years long [701-704]. After this there was no break in the continuity of era names." [emphasis added]
  • Ponsonby-Fane, in Kyoto: the Old Capital of Japan, 794-1869, mentions a remotely relevant 18th century era anomoly:
    • p. 321/Hōreki 1 (宝暦元年; October 27, 1751): The new era of Hōreki (meaning "Valuable Calendar" or "Valuable Almanac") was said to have been created to mark the death of the retired Emperor Sakuramachi and the death of the former Shogun Tokugawa Yoshimune.
The previous era could be said to have ended and the new era is understood to have commenced in Kan'en 4, on the 27th day of the 10th month; however, this nengō was promulgated retroactively. The Keikō Kimon records that the calendar was amended by [Momozono-tennō's] Imperial command, and the era was re-named Hōreki on December 2, 1754, which then would have become 19th day of the 10th month of the 4th year of Hōreki. [emphasis added]
This now becomes a solicitation for further comments? suggestions? Ooperhoofd 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I've responded at [1] Bueller 007 06:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

References

What references did I remove, exactly? Bueller 007 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.