Talk:Asuka period

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[edit] Mass blanking not appropriate

Kamosuke -- As stated over at Talk:Kofun era#Mass blanking not appropriate, I reiterate here: Please do not unilaterally remove chunks of content from a page, unless that chunk is obvious vandalism. I just reverted your recent blanking of a substantial portion of this page. Please do not do this again without first getting concensus here on the Talk page. You have already been asked not to do this on 18 April over at Talk:Yamato period#Recent mass deletions. Continued blanking will be viewed as vandalism. Thank you, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful example how sometimes happens here in Wikipedia :) see Astronomer and Amateur. This reminds me what could happen when someone keeps an opinionated opinion (about whatever, be it possibly about interaction between Koreans and Japanese over a millennium ago) Shilkanni 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Koreans' hypothesis and its mistake　

The " cradle" of Japanese civilization came from Korea. If Korea didn't exist. Japan would not exist either. Even though some lower rank Japanese deny the historical reality but they need to accept the historical reality. China really in my honest opinion never transmitted " Continent Culture" to Japanese Island. It was Koreans. Korean genes, Korean swords, Korean tomb, Korean agriculture, Korean King ( Current Emperor of Japan is Korean descent), Korean Temples in Nara, Asuka Culture etc. Korean blood runs deep in Japan. Thats true history. Because Japanese write Chinese character it doesn't mean that China transmitted those culture to Japan. It was Koreans. Just accept the reality.

[1]

Korean missionaries actively developed the Buddhist tradition in Japan for 150 years after its introduction. Baekje monks trained and proseletyized Japanese converts and provided the distinctive Baekje version of the Norther Wei style Buddhist art. Monks from the Three Kingdoms of Korea were welcome guests in Japan, and some were called to tutor the crown princes of royal families. Japanese converts also began to travel to Baekje and China for further Buddhist studies.

Korean missionaries actively developed the Buddhist tradition in Japan for 150 years after its introduction.

：What is the reason why missionary's name is not being written?　Simply, It is because there is no record of the active South Korean missionary. The meaning of 150 years is also indefinite.

Baekje monks trained and proseletyized Japanese converts and provided the distinctive Baekje version of the Norther Wei style Buddhist art.

：ChineseKuratsukuri Tori spread Northern Wei style.Baekje is not related at all.

Monks from the Three Kingdoms of Korea were welcome guests in Japan, and some were called to tutor the crown princes of royal families.

：There is no name of a missionary. That is, they were not important persons.

Japanese converts also began to travel to Baekje and China for further Buddhist studies.

：There is no record. Can the source be submitted?

Read the cited sources, available in forms of google books and such. Deiaemeth 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamosuke's edit

Hi:

  1. Can you explain how the things that you label "Korean" theories are solely Korean? If you would look at the sources provided than you can see that most of the authors are westeners.
  2. Thanks for citing your sources but your subjective interpretation of ancient sources isn't enough. You have to provide a source that analyzes the ancient source, preferably in English.
  3. Please stop deleting, wholesale, everything that doesn't fit in your point of view. Your edits have been going on for a couple of weeks and while I appreciate your effort to improve the article, your obvious attempts to negate views that don't fit your point of view is not appreciated.
  4. Finally, the views you espouse seem to be in the absolute minority. I can understand your desire to incorporate them into the article but your desire to expunge all references not fitting your point of view is not acceptable because those views actually have serious, academic support.

Thanks. Tortfeasor 06:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Please let me question about "Ruling class".
Definition of "Ruling Class (Old Ver)" before Korean Edit.　
Many of clans and local chieftains consisting Yamato polity claimed its taproot to imperial family or other tribal Gods(Kami). The archeological evidence of such clans is found in inscription of the ancient iron sword discovered in Inariyama Kofun of Saitama, on which the bearer recorded the names of his ancestors to claim its origin to Ōbiko(大彦) who was recorded in Nihongi as a son of Emperor Kōgen. On the other hand, there are also considerable number of clans having origins in Korea or China. According to Nihongi, the oldest record of Korean imigrant is Amenohiboko(天日槍), a legendary prince of Silla who settled to Japan at the era of Emperor Suinin, perhaps around 3rd or 4th century. Ironically, Amenohiboko is described in Nihongi as a maternal ancestor of Empress Jingū whose controversial legend says that she conquered Silla.
Among many Korean imigrants settled continuously from 4th century, some oldcomers seem to set their origins to imperial family or some major clans. Soga no Machi(蘇我満智), the ancestor of Soga clan, is believed by some scholars to be equivalent of Baekje noble Moku Manchi(木満致). Korean imigrants even include their royal family. King_Muryeong_of_Baekje was born in Japan in 462, and left a son settled there. The naturalized prince established Wa clan(和氏). This clan's women Takano Niigasa became the second wife of Emperor Kōnin and gave birth to Emperor Kammu in 737.
At 5th century, Kazuraki clan(葛城氏), descending from the legendary grandson of Emperor Kogen, was the most prominent power in the court and intermarried with imperial family. After Kazuraki faded in late 5th century, Otomo clan(大伴氏) temporarily took its place. When Emperor Buretsu died with no apparent heir, it was Otomo no Kanamura who recommended Emperor Keitai, a very distant imperial relative resided in Koshi district(current Fukui Prefecture), to be a new monarch. However, Kanamura was fired due to failures on diplomatic pilicies, and the court was eventually controlled by Mononobe clan (物部氏) and Soga clan(蘇我氏) at the beginning of Asuka Period.
This article has been deleted by the Korean. And, Koreans divided the article of "Torai-Jin" and created the article of "Rulling Class".
Definition of "Ruling Class (Korean Ver)" before Korean Edit.　
Many important figures in Emperor Ojin's reign were immigrants from the mainland. These immigrants received noble titles from the rulers of the Yamato, and were valued as experts, especially on iron-working, horseriding and writing.
According to the record of Shinsen-shōjiroku (新撰姓氏録), an aristocratic list of names that Yamato Imperial Court officially compiled in 815, one-third of the noble families on the list had their origins in China or Korea: 163 of the 1182 listed were from China, 154 from different parts of Korea (104 form Baekje, 41 from Goguryeo, 9 from Silla). [3].
An example of a typical descendant clan is the Yamatonoaya clan (東漢氏), which is descended from Emperor Ling of Han. This clan's leader was Achi-no-Omi (阿智使主). He introduced Chinese culture to Japan. According to the Nihongi, during Emperor Kimmei's reign the Hata clan (秦氏), descendants of Qin Shi Huang, introduced sericulture. The Kawachino-Fumi clan (西文氏), descendants of Gaozu of Han, introduced Chinese writing to the Yamato court. (Source By Shinsen-shōjiroku) [citation needed].
In Emperor Kimmei's reign, according to the Nihongi, a Korean was in charge of taxes levied on shipments. The introduction of Chinese writing to Yamato was one Baekje's most important gifts to the court. [4]
Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. There were Chinese immigrants who were also in integral part in crafting Japan's first laws. Eight of the 19 members of the committee drafting the Taiho Code were from Korean immigrant families while none were from China proper. Furthermore, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.
1.　Emperor Oujin is assumed to be one of Five kings of Wa. He is a person of the fifth century. Emperor Kimmei is a person of the ninth century.
The Korean is losing sight of the classification of the history to emphasize "Influence of Korea".
2.　Sentences that do not exist in history Record of Japan is being written for a fact by the Korean.
"according to the Nihongi, a Korean was in charge of taxes levied on shipments. The introduction of Chinese writing to Yamato was one Baekje's most important gifts to the court."
according to the Nihongi...
It is not Kinmei emperor's age that the Chinese character was introduced to Japan. It is Oujin emperor's age.
十五年秋八月壬戌朔丁卯　百濟王遣阿直岐　阿直岐亦能讀經典　即太子菟道稚郎子師焉　於是天皇問阿直岐曰、「如勝汝博士亦有耶。」對曰、「有王仁者、是秀也。」十六年春二月　王仁來之　則太子菟道稚郎子師之　習諸典籍於王仁　莫不通達 [1]
according to the Nihongi... "Chinese teacher of Crown Prince was invited from Baekje. " And, "most important gifts to the court."　This description is not in Nihoshoki.
"a Korean was in charge of taxes levied on shipments."　This article was not found. Please teach the Korean's name.
3 Insistence that contradicts history record.
"Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. "
according to The Shoku Nihongi in June 16, 700 (4th year of Mommu)
勅淨大參刑部親王。直廣壹藤原朝臣不比等。直大貳粟田朝臣眞人。直廣參下毛野朝臣古麻呂。直廣肆伊岐連博得。直廣肆伊余部連馬養。勤大壹薩弘恪。勤廣參土部宿祢甥。勤大肆坂合部宿祢唐。務大壹白猪史骨。追大壹黄文連備。田邊史百枝。道君首名。狹井宿祢尺麻呂。追大壹鍜造大角。進大壹額田部連林。進大貳田邊史首名。山口伊美伎大麻呂。直廣肆調伊美伎老人等。撰定律令。賜祿各有差。[2]
There is no Korean in this.
The member of the committee doesn't have the Korean.
4　Description mistaken in order to emphasize "South Korean distinguished services"
In general, China enacted the system of Rituryo.
Generally, it is explained that Taiho Rituryo customized Rituryo of Tang Dynasty. South Korea also copied the Ritsrei system of Tang Dynasty. Therefore, Rituryou of South Korea and Japan is common.
Rituryou of Korea was made in the age of Kim-ChunChu(金春秋).　It was the same age as the prototype "飛鳥浄御原令 (Auka-kiyomigahara-rei)" of Rituryou.
My proposal
1　"Rulling Class(Korean Version)" is deleted from Asuka period, Yamato period, and Kofun period.
2　"Rulling Class(Old Version)" is revived to Yamato period and Kofun period.


Reason
Old Version is based on the record of the history of Japan. And, an important episode has been concisely brought together.
To insist on "Influence of South Korea on Japan", the Korea version contains a lot of descriptions that contradict the history record. And, information on true Rulling Class has been deleted by the episode of decorated Korea.
I am waiting for your answer.
PS. I do not deny the source of westeners. The source of westeners customized by the South Korean is denied.　--Kamosuke 18:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

again, the solutions to these problems is with reputable english sources. please undo the "customization" by accurately quoting from the existing references, or introducing other reputable english sources. your personal citations to ancient foreign-language texts are inappropriate for wikipedia. i'm not defending the existing language, as i didn't cite the sources or write the article myself. i am objecting to your destructive edits and lack of proper references. thanks. Appleby 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To Korean
Your speech is not needed. Can the mistake of my proposal be pointed out?
I regret that the level of the editorial matter with Japan has fallen by South Korean's childish nationalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kamosuke (talk • contribs) 18:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC).
カモスケさん、これら記事の現状に対して疑問を抱いているとは承知しますが、人格を攻撃し悪口を言うのは役に立たないのではないでしょうか。ちゃんとした参考文献を提供するというApplebyの請求は「childish nationalism」ではあるまいし、ましてどんな「nationalism」にもなりません。むしろ、話題に関わらず適切な参考文献を提供するのは学問的な討論の欠かせない一部です。それを鑑みて、カモスケさんの主張のほうが無理のように見えますが。適切な参考文献を提供すれば、といっても古代文献の翻訳だけではなくその文献を（しかも英語で）解説する文章も含めて提供さえすれば、こちらこそ我々は納得するはずです。
Kamosuke, I understand that you have issues with these various articles as they currently stand. However, resorting to ad hominem name-calling is not productive. Appleby's request that you include proper references is not childish nationalism, nor is it nationalism of any other sort -- providing proper citations is an integral part of any academic debate, regardless of subject matter. With that in mind, it is your insistence instead that looks more unreasonable. If you would only provide appropriate refecences, and at that I mean not just translations of ancient texts but also sources that comment on those texts (in English), I am sure that the rest of us would be satisfied. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that the act of verifying the evidence is academic. (裏付け)
He used it. ｢according to Nihonshoki｣ However, the description is not "Nihonshoki".
"Believe my source though it doesn't exist in an original history record." I cannot agree to his insistence.
I will be able to cooperate in him if he points out a concrete name. However, he never offers concrete information.
Could you demand from you to Appleby?
For instance,　"Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. "　
Please teach the member's name.
And, Which a Korean version or an old version does the article on "Ruling Class" evaluate to you? --Kamosuke 09:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
オーケー、これがもう少し具体的で分かりやすい議論点となりました。一点ごとにお返事します。
I think that the act of verifying the evidence is academic. (裏付け)
賛成。証拠を確認し証明する（つまり裏付ける）のは学問的な討論にとっていいです。
He used it. ｢according to Nihonshoki｣ However, the description is not [in] "Nihonshoki".
"Believe my source though it doesn't exist in an the original history record." I cannot agree to his insistence.
I will be able to cooperate in with him if he points out a concrete name. However, he never offers concrete information.
For instance,　"Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. "　
Please teach tell [us] the member's name.
注）数段落上に書いてあるのは「Nihongi」ですが、「Nihongi」＝「Nihonshoki」。
この疑問が分かると思います。そして、カモスケさんの請求を以下束ねて明記します。
And, Which a Korean version or an old version does the article on "Ruling Class" evaluate to you?
しかし、カモスケさんのこの最後の文はどうにも分かりません。日本語で書いていただけますでしょうか。
ところで、きっぱりと記事を編集するよりもこういう風に「Talk」のページで事前に議論点を持ち出すのはまことにありがとうございます。できれば編集の紛争は避けたいですから。


日本語
青い文字の「Ruling Class」の記事と赤い文字の「Ruling Class」の記事は、どちらが良い記事だと思いますか？
私は韓国人の編集を「気持ち悪い」と感じています。あなたの感想を聞かせてください。--Kamosuke 10:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Japanese [Kamosuke responding to my request for a re-statement]
Of the blue "Ruling Class" text and red "Ruling Class" text above, which do you think is better?
I find the Koreans' edits distasteful. I would like to hear your thoughts. --Kamosuke 10:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


Okay, this is a bit more specific and makes it easier to understand the points of contention. I'll respond to each of your points.
I think that the act of verifying the evidence is academic. (裏付け)
I agree. Checking and verifying evidence (i.e. backing things up) is good for academic discussion.
He used it. [the phrase] ｢according to Nihonshoki｣. However, the description is not [in] "Nihonshoki".
"Believe my source though it doesn't exist in an the original history record." I cannot agree to his insistence.
I will be able to cooperate in with him if he points out a concrete name. However, he never offers concrete information.
For instance,　"Korean influence on Japanese laws is also attributed to the fact that Korean immigrants were on committees that drew up law codes. "　
Please teach tell [us] the member's name.
Note: The text several paragraphs above uses the term Nihongi rather than Nihonshoki, but these are two names for the same thing.
I think I understand your issue here. I'll bring together your requests and state them more clearly below.
And, Which a Korean version or an old version does the article on "Ruling Class" evaluate to you?
However, I really don't understand your last sentence. Could I possibly get you to write it again in Japanese?
Incidentally, I very much appreciate that you're bringing up your points on the Talk page like this instead of jumping in and reworking the article. I prefer to avoid edit disputes where possible. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kamosuke's concerns

So, to rephrase (at least some of) Kamosuke's concerns:

  • Some statements in the article have been sourced to the Nihonshoki / Nihongi. However, it appears as if these statements might not actually be backed up by the content of the Nihonshoki text. These statements would therefore need re-sourcing, reworking, or deleting.
  • In greater detail here on the Talk page, as part of sorting out the issues, Kamosuke was hoping someone (Appleby is named, but I think anyone with the info could reply) would provide specific names listed in ancient sources to back up these statements.

I hope this helps clarify the issues. If I've missed something, Kamosuke, do let me know. Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Eiríkr, thanks for your infinite patience and superhuman magnanimity. however, i'm still not sure i understand kamosuke's points. if i'm reading his comments correctly, the sentence he says is incorrectly attributed to nihongi is not actually attributed to nihongi, but to the linked citation. from a cursory glance, it seems that the specific sentence in this article fairly, even conservatively, reflects what the cited sources say. maybe you can help him clarify his question a bit more? i'm certainly not one to personally study and analyze ancient japanese texts, but is he questioning the credibility of the authors of the cited sources? are the existing sentences contradicted by other equally or more reliable sources? thanks. Appleby 16:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Eirikr, like you said earlier, sometimes one cannot read the source simply at face value because that standard would lead to ridiculous results. You have to look at the issue from the whole context, surrounding historical evidence, textual analysis, DNA studies, language studies, and other ancient sources. Here is some more sources for the assertions made in this article.
1) Cambridge History of Japan:
A) Archaeological evidence from the Fujinoki tomb suggests that the person burried there, "like the Soga, was made up largely of immigrants with close cultural ties to Korea." Any horse related materials were imports from Korea because the native Japanese of the day would not know what the "meaning" of the artifacts "nor how to make such fittings." [3].
B) The establishment of an urban civilization that was "definitely Korean in character" based on this evidence:
a) Imported grave goods
b) The "Korean style" of the three great temples of the Asuka period
c) The "continental" origins of Asuka period treasures at the Horyu-ji Temple collection.
d) The prominence of "Korean priests" of 1384 clerics (815 priests, 569 nuns) serving in the 46 temple compounds by 624 CE
e) And the dominance of the Soga clan and its strong Korean connection (also sourced in Japan's Name Culture [4].
B) The rank system adopted by Japan in 603 CE, although based on the Chinese Wei, was most directly influenced by "Koguryeo (Goguryeo) and Paekche(Baekje)." [5].
C) Korean immigrant: Kuratsukuri no Obitotori who cast a bronze Buddha at Asuka-dera [6].
D) The "conclusion that Yamato's relations with the Korean kingdoms had become more active in the last half of the fourth century":
a) Archaeological sites that show that there was a "continuous flow of materials, techniques, and immigrants from the Korean peninsula into Japan." [7].
E) There is "little doubt that the Japanese court was determined" to "make extensive use of Korean experts for an accelerated and wide-ranging program of modernization." [8].
a) Tenji's order to adopt continental methods was finished in 671 CE, the same time many former Paekche officials were awarded high ranks for services rendered in special fields of knowledge. [9].
F) Disovering the Arts of Japan: "Early Japanese temple compounds were based on Korean Paekche temples of the sixth and seventh centuries." [10].
G) Korea: A Religious History states that monks sent to Japan include Hyep'yon (Keiben in Japan), Hyeja (Keiji in Japan) was the tutor of Prince Shotoku. [11].
H) Gateway to Japan: Tori Busshi "was of Korean descent." [12].
I) A History of Writing in Japan: The Nihon Shoki states that King of Paekche sent Atiki, who taught about horse culture. Also, it menions a Wani of Paekche who tutored the crown prince. [13].
J) The New York Times: Japanese National Treasure No. 1, a famous contemplative Maitreya, was "almost certainly carved in Korea and sent to Japan. [14].
Tortfeasor 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The account to log it in is necessary for the source.
Please present material to which general is open to the public.
And, please present your insistence one by one.
For instance, "The Asuka art is not Chinese Northern Wei style. It is an art of Korea. "　--Kamosuke 10:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenzuishi related paragraph on Soga/Shotoku chapter

I found the later half of this chapter dealing with imperial embassies(Kenzuishi) a bit confusing, so let me have some modification as follows.

--From Here--
Numerous official missions of envoys, priests, and students were sent to China in the seventh century. Some remained twenty years or more; many of those who returned became prominent reformers. Sending such scholars for learning Chinese political systems was a significal differences with envoys in Kofun period (Five kings of Wa), which kings sent envoys for titles approving their domains.
Another difference with Five kings of 5th century was the title Yamato state of Asuka period claimed to China. In a move greatly resented by the Chinese, Shotoku sought equality with the Chinese emperor by sending official correspondence addressed "From the Son of Heaven in the Land of the Rising Sun to the Son of Heaven of the Land of the Setting Sun." Some would argue that Shotoku's bold step set a precedent: Japan never again accepted a subordinate status in its relations with China. However, the historical record contains other relevant facts which dispute the claim (see Sinocentrism). As a result, Japan at this period was a state which received no title from Chinese dynaties while they did send tributes (有貢無封). It means from Chinese point of view that the class of Japan was demoted from previous centuries in which the kings received titles. On the other hand, Japan loosened political relationships with China and consequently established extraordinaly relationships similar to teacher-to-pupil.[15]
--To Here--

Mahal Aly 14:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the Written Sources section

I feel this long section (with the references) should rather be in the Nihongi and/or Kojiki articles, eventually discussed and edited there rather than here. Mentionning the Kojiki somewhere here is however a good idea. As the section has been deleted/reverted once, let's talk about what should be done before taking bold steps... Tensaibuta 07:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to Kofun period article, as the chapter was referred more to older period. Informations on three Baekje histories were moved to Nihonshoki in order to expand the article.
Mahal Aly 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Public Sources

This is getting ridiculous. I cannot believe we are having an edit war over such a thing. Well, I hope you don't mind me stepping in, but I am an Admin, and even if I weren't, I think it's time that someone makes another attempt to resolve this editwar.

(1) Just because a source isn't available to the general public, that does not mean that it is any less valid a source. In fact, since most academic journals are hard to come by, I would argue that some of the most valid sources are the hardest to come by. (2) While GoogleBooks (or whichever other online services) may not have the full text of certain books, it does not mean that the actual physical book itself, in the public library or wherever, is not "accessible to the public."

I think you are being awfully harsh on someone who is citing his sources and doing all he can (and more than he should need to) to prove that the information he is posting comes from a reputable source. LordAmeth 11:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous IP vandalism

Please stop deleting cited information that is breaking the neutral point of view policy. If you have an issue with what is written please discuss it here. Tortfeasor 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it vandalism to hear the name of the priest in Korea?　You are sure also to understand in reality. There was no missionary of the Korean.
You cannot say Korean monk name. This action not logical is based on the nationalism of Korea.

[edit] Korean missionaries

Explain activity of the Korean missionaries.

Kamosuke: I have provided many sources. I have added details that you wanted, like specific names of Korean missionaries which I don't think is really that an important a detail but I tried to accomadate you. You are deleting information that has nothing to do with the names of Korean missionaries and now you're asking me to explaint their activity. Please just read the sources and stop deleting information just because the K word is being used. Tortfeasor 18:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Edger: You are doing only the personal attack. Please discuss the history.
For instance,
Who is their successor?
What is the name of the temple that they built?
...do you run away by the personal attack?

Kojiki and Nihonshoki don't refer to Korean missionaries and the link that is refered in the article don't refer to source neither. where Do I find about source ? I think there is no Korean historical books these day and I think Chinese historical books don't refer to such a things.I think it may be about folk stroy.It don't fit such a historical article.I will erase, if there is no source written in historical books.--Forestfarmer 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Kwalluk (J. Kanroku) was a Paekche monk from Korea who was a missionary in Yamato Japan and was mentioned in the Nihon Shoki as were the other people cited. [16]. Tortfeasor 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I see about 観勒.--Forestfarmer 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baekche ?

Minor, but under Events it says 'Baekche' in the first line. Should that be 'Baekje' like the rest? I see that there are other uses of 'Baekche' in other articles. Should there be a redirect for that spelling? Shenme 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 日本人ユーザーいますか？

弥生時代から飛鳥時代まで、ApplebyとKoreansがやりたい放題にやった後始末をしなければならないと思うんだけど、どこから手をつけていきましょうか？　いまのところIPユーザー --211.3.123.212 16:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

とりあえず朝鮮伝道師はどう考えても歴史書の記載でないんでデリの方向で。--Forestfarmer 18:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moving announce

by history of Japan,Introduction of Buddhism is less popular than any other event in history.I think It more eventful by history of art.Thus I move Introduction of Buddhism.--Forestfarmer 19:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. The introduction of Buddhism is one of the most pivotal events of Japanese history. Tortfeasor 19:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The formation of a country and establishment of the first constitution are more important than one of religious introduction in usual history.--Forestfarmer 20:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] where is source?

about opening of in Introduction of Buddhism section,where is source ? Iwould delete if there is no source.--Forestfarmer 21:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Korean monks & priests

I personally have no knowledge or sources on this matter, of how many monks and priests came over from Korea, or what their names were. But I find it extremely unlikely that these four named in the article were the only ones, or the only important ones. That is why I phrased it the way I did, "Some of the more well-known...". To write "Priests who came from Korean peninsula were..." implies that these are the only ones who came. This is completely about style and grammar, not about my asserting certain facts. Please do not revert my changes if what you write is going to be poor stylistically or grammatically. LordAmeth 14:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The priest in a Korean peninsula was sent to Japan for a short term. They have not emigrated in Japan.
To begin with, was there a priest in Korea?

[edit] Exchange with the Asian continent

Please make it to a simpler article.

[edit] Korea vs Korean peninsula

Please please please, if you are going to change "Korea" to "Korean peninsula", you must put "the Korean peninsula." This has been going on for a very long time, back and forth between the two terms, and inevitably the article (the) is lost. Personally, I prefer "Korea" to "Korean peninsula" anyway, but we really need to try to keep the article grammatically correct and stylistically organized while we argue over such petty things. Please. LordAmeth 15:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tori style

"Tori" (止利) was a be (部) name, akin to a guild, in the Nara & Heian periods, of sculptors devoted to the creation of Buddhist sculptures. I couldn't find anything on the Japanese Wikipedia, but JAANUS, as usual, was quite helpful[17]. Also, see our own article on Tori Busshi. Please, do with this what you will, in order to cleanup that section of the article and to resolve (hopefully) to some extent the questions of the origins of that statement - "Artistically, the term Tori style is often used to describe arts of the Asuka period..." LordAmeth 11:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Korea vs Korean peninsula (2)

I believe quite a number of the last edits have been changing "the Korean peninsula" to 'Korea' and back again, and again, etc. Could someone give me an idea which motives are which edits? Out of the last 24 edits by 12 editors, only one wasn't about this, so there seems to be a real problem here. Is this a case of viewing ancient history through the glasses of only modern controversies? Shenme 09:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just a ridiculous controversy that erupts every now and then, because Korea was technically several separate kingdoms at the time, and not a unified polity. However, although the use of "Korea" is technically an anachronism, it is quite common to use modern terms to refer to ancient territories out of convenience. The history of Japan, for example, doesn't become the history of something else just because you are discussing a time before the term "Japan" (or more properly, the Japanese term from which the English word "Japan" is derived) was coined, or before it consisted of exactly the same geographic territory it does today (which wasn't until the nineteenth century). People really need to find something better to do with their time. Referring to "Korea", "Japan", "China", etc. throughout all periods of history is quite acceptable...-Jefu 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be funny, if it weren't also embarrassing. Of the 31 edits since my last observation, 29 were simply reverting back and forth some more. At least the fix for [[es:Era Asuka]] seems to be in both versions now. Do you think this article qualifies for WP:LAME? Shenme 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Many kanji

I think that this article includes many kanji (Chinese character) than Edo period.

  • Necessity?
  • What kind of standard is it made if it reduces?

Please give your comments. Nightshadow28 18:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art in Asuka Period

From the art point of view, this period is generally further divided into two periods, the Asuka culture period (upto 645 or 646 Taika Reform) and Hakuho culture period. The tori style is of course one of the important elements of the Asuka culture period, but it is relative only to sculpture.

The lead-in at top and Art sections will be modified to elaborate on these two cultural periods, with citations found in due course.

To kick-start, here are some references to support the two cultural period divisions:

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0534640958&id=ZQu1kqNjLuwC&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&ots=DgckPDOAov&dq=Japan+Art+Hakuho+Asuka+culture&sig=_eWDMrvuviXbKNCLAdGvfc-9Kqg

http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN1740591623&id=3fqYGB4mxLgC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&ots=ZwNxr5YaIU&dq=Japan+Art+Hakuho+Asuka+culture&sig=7aw0qHCnkxU6YmfvFyOcUPH6TJo

--OhMyDeer 05:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup process

I will start clean up some of the body text too, starting from the lead intro; it appears to be redundant by mentioning twice the duration of the period, and the location. --OhMyDeer 09:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Further cleaning up will be done, first starting from citing intact text, sentences or paragraphes, or portions of them, from the FRD original so as to dinstinguish them from the rest, either already added text, or future additions. --OhMyDeer 04:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory

This part is groundless. Therefore, it deletes it.

The number of refugees and their significant cultural impact during this evolutionary period was downplayed during the occupation of Korea in the earlier part of the twentieth century for political reasons. Most Japanese historians now agree that, in addition to strong influences from China, immigration from Baekje also contributed major elements in the cultural flowering of the subsequent Nara period.

The knowledge of Baekje was important in the age in which Japan and China did not exchange it. However, when the exchange of Japan and China started, their knowledge became demode. Therefore, the refugee of Baekje was not able to contribute to the development of the Japanese culture. There is no political motivation at all. Moreover, a Japanese aristocrat monopolized the international student to China. Therefore, the Baekje evacuee was not able to mission a Chinese culture at the Nara period. Moreover, They are not participating in a Japanese original culture such as Manyoshu. --Princesunta (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Korea had just as much impact on Japan as China, and it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. LordAmeth (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Please indicate the errors concretely.
A Korean immigrant (Baekje refugee) rapidly lost power at the Nara period.
1. Korean people's knowledge was more dominant than the Japanese in the age without the diplomatic relation of China and Japan. However, when Imperial embassies to China started, the knowledge of Korea became demode. Imperial embassies to China was managed by the Fujiwara clan. Therefore, the refugee of Baekje was not able to obtain the latest knowledge.
2. A Japanese original culture began to grow up in the Asuka period. This culture was initiated by the Japanese, and developed at the Nara period. Man'yōshū was promoted by an old Japan powerful clan Ōtomo clan. A Baekje refugee was not able to participate in the growth of this culture.
3. The Baekje refugee rapidly lost the identity by the ruin of Baekje. They threw away the culture of Baekje, and temporized to the culture of Japan. Therefore, it is difficult to find an active Baekje refugee at the Nara era. --Princesunta (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)