Talk:Hōryū-ji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hōryū-ji is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Japan To-do: edit purge Improve to Featured status Japan Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics Japanese strategic planning for the Pacific (1905-1940) List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Organization of the Imperial Japanese Central China Army Organization of the Imperial Japanese North China Army Sangaria Shaken Takefuji Vote: Talk:Dokdo#Rename vote Watch this list — Edit this list

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

---

This article had been created by "copy&paste" not "move". Will some Sysops please join(concat) this Horyu-ji's history to another "Horyuji temple"'s? Wandering perfect fool 22:01, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Expansion 2 This is not a Paekche article 3 Neutrality? 4 Hata Kawakatsu 5 Updates and rephrasing on the way 6 Edit note "Fire controversy" 7 References for this talk page

[edit] Expansion

I was surprised to find this article so short. With the right attention and effort, this could become a much longer article, with complex descriptions of the origins/history of the temple, the architecture of its buildings, and some examples (or links to articles on) of its art. I regret that I have not the time, sources, nor expertise to contribute much myself, but I just thought it might be pointed out. LordAmeth 03:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a Paekche article

Hasn't Paekche learned this sort of architechture from China? Hōryū-ji temple is an example of Buddhist temples common in east Asia in those days. It only sounds like boasting; the effort of the Japanese people must be respected. I believe "The Japanese have taught how to make cars or semiconductors." is inappropriate for a Korean economic article because of the same reason.

Paekche artisans, craftsmen, and monks supplied the technical expertise to create the building

I can' t accept this because of its weak sources.

1. The technical sophistication is generally attributed to Baekje's influence, which sent to Japan a number of skilled craftsmen, monks, and designers that assisted the Yamato Court. [2]

This sentence is not enough claim that Paekche architects have built Hōryū-ji. Besides, Paekche has falled (660) before Hōryū-ji was rebuilt in the end of the 7C to the beginning of the 8C. It is true that the first Buddhist temple Hōkō-ji(Asuka-dera, end of 6C to the beginning of the 7C) was built by Paekche's craftsmen (Nihonshoki, 588) Hōkō-ji, however Hōryū-ji is a 100 years later; it would be natural that the Japanese people have learned to built temples by themselves (consider the economic development and R&D of Japan in the recent 60 years), how is it proved the Japanese never contributed in building Hōryū-ji? To me it sounds like a biased claim; "The Japanese must not have possessed the ability ", however the Japanese are not the kind of people who would learn nothing for a century.

2. The layout and function of the buildings are also similar to those of Baekje [3]

The layout of the Pagoda and Golden hall are different from temples of Paekche; Hōryū-ji is not a symmetric layout, Golden hall at the east, Pagoda at the west, on the other hand Paekche temples have placed Pagoda at the south, Golden hall at the north, symmetrically. Hōryū-ji type layout

3. The sculptures of Paekje are also found now in the Horyuji Temple in’ Nara, Japan.[4]

Finally the Kudara(Paekche) Kannon sculpture is generally said to be made in Japan because it is made from a native camphor tree and no expamples of Paekche sculpture using the same kind of wood exists. Kudara(Paekche) Kannon is only a nickname based on a story in the Edo period which claims it was made in India and came from Paekche.No.95 The Kudara Kannon, How to enjoy the masterpieces of Japanese Art, Tanaka HidemichiNobu Sho 16:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

To make this article better, it should include all information available, agree or diagree? "Horyu-ji temple is an example of Buddhist temple common in east Asia in those days". I don't understand your point. Does that mean Paekche architechts don't matter that they built it? The fact that paekche architechts built it is important because the native people of the archipelago didn't. It's an example of transmission of culture and technology and its a part of the history of Horyu ji. Just because the ultimate source of technology is from the area now known as modern day China does not mitigate the fact that

Korean expertise was also involved.

It is like you are arguing that parts of American Architechture should give credit to Ancient Greeks but should omit the Romans because they weren't the ultimate source of the architechture.

Wikipedia wants verifiable information. If you search "horyu ji" and "paekche" you will find several sites that can verify this information. If you have a problem, you should find counter arguments and cite them. At least then both sides of the story can be told instead of just deleting things..

There is evidence of Paekche's craftsmen building Horyu ji. I cited some sources. If you would like to make the argument that it was solely a product of the native population on the archipelago, again please cite. If youre assertion of the layout of the Pagoda and Golden Hall are different, again please cite. and Again, if you think the kudara kannon sculpture is based on your edo theory, please cite. information like that helps the horyu ji article, and does not hurt it. additionally, the mere fact that no "examples of paekche sculpture using the same kind wood exist", I don't understand how that means that that is conclusive proof of no actual link to paekche. http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/TeacherResources/SILK%20Road/html/sillajapan.htm you can see a maitreya buddha from korea and japan, one is made of wood, the other bronze. different materials doesn't suggest much but the similiarities of style do.

Finally, what was the point of deleting the last link if it made the information more verifable?

I will fix the article hope you understand what im taking about (71.56.119.151)

i can't read sources in japanese.. it is encouraged that you provide sources that are verifable as per wikipedia english.

also, you misunderstand my position. if the paekche helped build the first horyu ji. and then it was rebuilt by the japanese, it still is based on the original baekche design.

your second point, i find it ironic that you cite a source that you earlier claimed was weak.. which is it?

finally, again, just b/c there is no example of paekche sculpture in a specific tree does not mean anything if the statute itself has discernable styles of korean art.

[edit] Neutrality?

Come on guys. Whether or not the article validates significant sections referring to Korea (Paekche) is not an issue of neutrality. It's an issue of.. what the focus of the article is, and whether or not this information on Korean architecture is valuable (useful, relevant) enough. LordAmeth 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, LordAmeth. I am just trying to show a theory on its construction.. I hope it came off as just that. Any suggestions on how to make this article better? thanks, 71.56.97.26

I`m with Lord Ameth come on this is a storm in a tea cup and erodes the meaning of the neutrality warning mark. If the mark is overused then it may eventually hold little meaning for anyone because every article has one on it 01:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

In the text book Arts and Culture(ISBN 0-13-189915-5), Janetta Rebold Benton and Robert DiYanni detail how Chinese culture profoundly influenced early the Japanese culture.

The main contributor to this article states that the Paecke were Chinese in culture; they migrated to the Korean peninsula. It is a fact that Buddhism did come to Japan from the Chinese mainland. The Horyuji in Nara Prefecture was constructed as a Buddhist temple, shortly after Buddhist expression came to Japan. How did Buddhist expression come to Japan?

[edit] Hata Kawakatsu

I've heard and read many times that it was designed by Hata Kawakatsu, so I'm not sure why it isn't on the page, is it not confirmed? Kansaikiwi 04:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updates and rephrasing on the way

I am carrying out some edits on this article including additional findings throuhg the most recent excavations and studies for the last 10 years or so. Some rephrasing are also being applied. Some citations are not anymore retrievable on the net; whenever this is the case, and the existing text has some contradiction to the common understandings, I will relocate some text to this talk page. --OhMyDeer 12:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• removed It is a testament of the respect of the prince that a rival family, the Soga, permitted the reconstruction of a temple for a rival and powerless family.^[1]

I was not able to verify what "nuance" the cited material had by saying the Soga "permitted" the reconstruction, but by Soga no Umako being wiped in the Taika Reform in 645, and the reconstruction achieved over decades, roughly 670-710, the sentence is likely not an indispensable one. --OhMyDeer 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• removed: Because the temple builders wanted to honor both statues equally, the kondo and pagoda were set next to each other creating a unique arrangement.^[2]

The latter half of the sentence is already described in the first sentence of the paragraph, while the first part is, a pretty unique interpretation --- there are many that cites the reason of such layout is unknown. --OhMyDeer 14:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit note "Fire controversy"

• updated Fire controversy: Although, the majority consensus view is that the current temple is a reconstruction from the fire of 670, there is still a debate as to whether the fire actually occurred. Proponents of the theory that there was no fire point out the absence of proof of a fire based on soil samples of the temple complex, the fact that the temple measurements were based on the Goguryeo shaku instead of the Tang shaku, and the archaic style of the temple that is incongruent with architectural styles of the early eighth century.^[2][3] Proponents of the fire theory point out that the Nihon Shoki states that there was a massive fire in 670 in which not a single building was left standing; the biography of Prince Shotoku states that there was a temple fire in 610.^[2][3] The excavations that uncovered the older temple site is accepted as conclusive proof that there was an original temple that burned down and that the current temple was a reconstruction.^[2]

The section above is updated and renamed "Reconstruction controversy." In fact the main controversy was over whether the temple was a reconstruction or not, and the proponents of reconstruction theory were the supporters of the fire incident as well. While the reconstruction is accepted, there are still some doubts as to if there was a fire really or not, as "there was no fire point out the absence of proof of a fire based on soil samples of the temple complex". --OhMyDeer 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References for this talk page

1. ^
2. ^ ^{a b c d} Robert Treat Paine (1981). The Art and Architecture of Japan , p300. Yale University Press. Retrieved on 2007-04-03.
3. ^ ^{a b} edited by Kai-wing Chow, Kevin M. Doak, Poshek Fu (2001). Constructing nationhood in modern East Asia. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, 404.  Not retrievable as of April 3rd, 2007 through the URL originally cited URL.[1]