Talk:Magatama

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diamond Magatama is part of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Gemstones, Jewelry, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · refresh)

This article is controversial and has merge template (with Gogok- origin cannot be agreed upon.

SauliH 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
This article is supported by WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, Culture and Society subpage.
WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry To-do:
This article is part of the Mythology taskforce of WikiProject Japan, which aims to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of Japanese mythology. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the taskforce page, where you can join the taskforce and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

This article is not accurate. Magatama in Japan can be found at the number of prehistoric sites beyond Yayoi and Kohun period, as far as 5,000 years ago into Jomon period.

Magatama are the comma shaped jewels of the Kofun period which were generally made of Jadeite(Jade) which is only produced around Itoi River in Nothern Central Japan (and a part of Myanmar). Magatama is also made of other materials such as cristals, glass, and Nephrite (cheap Jade), and the evidences show that Magatama in Korea were all imported from Japan in the later period.

The discovery of magatama at the sites of rituals and festivals as well as many isolated discoveries leads us to believe that these objects were not thought of as mere ornaments but rather as a spirit possessing tool.

If that is the case, you should edit this information into the article and cite references. Blank deleting of information looks much like vandalism and will likely be automatically reverted by editors. I recommend that if you wish to assist with the article, you should get an account, then add the above information with references. We're all about making the articles as accurate as possible here, but there are certain rules that we must follow here as well in order to ensure said articles are accurate.--Mitsukai 05:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kokkok vs. Magatama

If this is the same person who I addressed before, you need to stop editing the article to fit a Korean POV. This article is not about a Korean item, but something in Japanese culture. If you feel strongly about it, create a Kokkok article and address the issues there, but do not vandalized this article any further. If you persist, further steps will be taken.--み使い Mitsukai 04:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

All that information above? I see that you have an account but I don't see any citations whatsoever except for a cite on jadeite that someone else put in. To quote a wise person, "I recommend that if you wish to assist with the article" you should use "information with references." I agree that we are here to make the information as you accurate and verifiable as possible and without citations I don't think this article is as reliable as it can be. Tortfeasor 08:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Kusonose: Where is the site that magatama is from the Jomon period? You deleted the "citations needed" without adding any cites! Thanks for the help. 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the reference. It does not say magatama was from Jomon; it just says early jadeite object was. So another sources; the Tokyo National Museum has 'earrings and magatama jade of the Jomon period' [1], 'fired clay magatama beads' from 'later Jomon Japan' [2].　--Kusunose 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey all: Thanks for the citation Mitsukai. I redid the Kokkok page with credible English citations. I found several reputable sources that contradicted the Origins section of this article. Kokkok have been found in Korea in Prehistoric, Neolithic, and Bronze Age areas, which directly contradicts this page's assertion that kokkok are found only in 5th and sixth century Korea. Also, kokkok are made from other materials besides jade, so I'm not sure how exactly the assertion that jade is produced mainly in Japan and Burma is relevant because there are other kinds made from nephrite and stone, espcially since the definition on both pages is that they are curved beads and there is no mention that it has to be made out of jade. Anyways, just want to make sure the articles are accurate and would like to know your thoughts and feelings. Thanks. Tortfeasor 05:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I read the page you cited [3] but it mentions about coil grass beads [4]. They are not called Magatama (勾玉) in Japan (maybe they are Kudatama(管玉)). I guess Magatama and Kokkok are different in definition although I do not know how do you define Kokkok. --Corruptresearcher 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the response. I'm not sure what part you read Corruptresearcher but there is a part that mentions magatama specifically, it's the 14th footnote on the first you link you posted above. Although the definitions I am working with are simply comma-shaped beads without any indication of what materials they were made. But my point is that in the Origins section of this article that "It appeared from the Jomon period in Japan, while the 5th or 6th century in Korea" which is not accurate if you look at both the Britanica Encyclopedia article and the Metropolitan Museum of Art pdf cited in Kokkok. If the definition of magatama/kokkok is comma-shaped beads than those types of beads have been discovered before the 5th and 6th centuries in Korea. Further, "current belief" I don't think is a fair statement. It's one theory but there is an alternate theory as well which may have more currency with the majority archaeological community. Even the Keally quote says "most archaeologists" believe that comma-shaped beads are not a native Japanese product. Further "No site of jadeite production other than Japan and nothern Burma has been found in the Asian continent" may be irrelevant because comma-shaped beads are made from materials other than jadeite and there is no requirement that they must be jadeite. Thanks for the response! Tortfeasor 07:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read [5] again. The note 14 is referred here but the auther is talking about coil shaped one, not comma shaped one. The word Magatama and Comma-shaped is mentioned only once in this book respectively and the auther seems not studying about the comma-shaped beads but rather mentioning general beads. I did not find the expression which directly mention about Kokkok before 5 or 6 century in your reference. Would you pleaes show me it directly? --Corruptresearcher 10:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The two citations that contradict the 5th or 6th Century only reference are: Britannica: [6]. Metropolitan Museum of Art (Use Control + F to search for term "Kogok" or "comma-shaped": [7]
Further, the footnote 14 may or may not be about coiled glass beads. It could be the author's comments about another author's contention that magatama are Japanese in origin and not talking about coiled beads. Additionally, the fact that this author is writing a book about Asian beads would suggest that he is familiar with the term "magatama" are and therefore it is not a mistake he used that word. I agree it could be ambiguous so I won't really bother arguing it one way or another. But my point is that I don't think magatama origins is as clear cut as this article suggests, again see Keally quote in this article.
Also, what do you think about my other points? Thanks for the response. Tortfeasor 21:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone else care to respond? Would appreciate feedback. Tortfeasor 00:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Working on it. ^_^--み使い Mitsukai 00:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey all: I am going to correct the mistakes and ambigous assertions in the Origins sections, such as removing the erroneous statement that comma shaped beads are only found in Korea in circa fifth and sixth century CE.
"This is because Korean kokkok is found mainly in the southern part, near Japan." --> I don't understand how this statement is proof one way or another of a Japanese origin. Many artifacts found primarily only in southern Korea originated in Korea and then went to Japan.
"No site of jadeite production other than Japan and nothern Burma has been found in the Asian continent, including neighboring China, Manchuria, and Siberia." --> The problem with this statement is that the definition of magatama does not say it must be exclusively made from jadeite. Also, the Brittanica article says jadeite comma-shaped beads have been found in Korea.
"Additionally, kokkok are indistinguishable from their Japanese contemporaries, a fact which suggests that magatama were exported from Japan during this period." --> Again, I am confused by how this is proof, one way or another, that comma-shaped beads are of Japanese origin. How is this proof, one way or another.
Thanks for your feedback and responses!
Tortfeasor 06:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but is this the Jewel of Affection that allows the charisma or charm enchancement in AD&D? Masssiveego 07:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

Open-box: I'm not going to put back the "[citation needed]" in this article but your citations don't really back up the assertion that "Some think that magatama originated in Japan before spreading to the Asian continent through Korea." And since the Keally quote says the majority of archaeologists believe that comma-shaped beads originated in Korea and was transmitted to Japan, the "some" in that sentence must mean the minority of archaeologists or should at least be defined.

All that the Britannica article says is that comma-shaped beads have been found in Neolithic sites in Japan. It doesn't assert, one way or another, where the beads originated and the path of their transmission. Perhaps you could infer support for the sentence but Britannica doesn't make that judgment explicitly and since the Metropolitan Museum of Art attests that comma-shaped beads have been found in Korea at Neolithic dated sites, perhaps basing ones claim on a weak inference might not be helpful to ones argument. Similarly, your other citation simply says that clay magatama have been found at the carbon date of 5,000 B.P. No mention of origin or path of transmission.

I would, personally, feel better if you cited a credible, English source that backed up the claim explicitly and thus would make the article better but that is only my hope. Thanks! Tortfeasor 22:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Ok, its quite clear that the Gogok and Magatama articles have nearly the some information and are the Japan and Koren-centric forks of each other. There is no need to two articles to discuss the the same topic. The articles need to be merged, and the nationalistic difference worked out, as the duplication is redundant. pschemp | talk 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from talk:Gogok)

Pschemp: First, thanks for the picture of the gogok necklace. I would have probably agreed with you that this was a fork when my edits in magatama were deleted because the information was "Korean" and I was asked to make a gogok article. However, I now think that it would be okay if the two articles stand seperate. Scholarly sources use both "magatama" and "gogok" as evidenced by all the citations and I think that that is a very strong evidence that both terms are different and distinguishable. Additionally, the word magatama has a stronger meaning than just "comma-shaped beads" (which is what the presumably merged title of the new article would be) because of the importance of imperial regalia, etc. Let me know what you think. Tortfeasor 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why one article can't address what are basically regional differences in the exact same object. Scholarly articles are written from national points of view too, but really, other than the significance in the two cultures, the information in these two articles is the same, in some cases word for word. They never should have been split in the first place, splitting is not the answer to arguments over their origin. Neither should the sourced information have been removed from magatama to begin with. Just because the British and the Americians use different words for fried potatoes slices, (chips vs crisps) doesn't mean we need two separate articles about it, though people on either side may be passionate in defending their particular regional term and even do scholarly research about it. They are the same object, and need to be in the same article, especially since the origin can't be pinned down to either culture, and writing from just one view results in two POV articles rather than one NPOV article. pschemp | talk 17:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(copied from talk:gogok) Thanks for the response. I think it may be word for word just because the same editors worked on both pages but I guess that is beside the point. "Espcially since the origin can't be pinned down to either culture" shouldn't be the main reason why we should merge. If Keally, hardly a pro-Korean guy, states that the majority of the archaeological community believes that comma-shaped beads originated in Korea and since there haven't been other sources proferred in the last 2 or 3 months, it doesn't seem that the origin is as controversial as some would hope/like it to be. Question: would you merge it into Magatama or Comma-shaped beads or Gogok? I'm still on the fence but I think your argument is persuasive. Tortfeasor 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm, if the origin isn't controversial, that means the Magatama *are* Gogok and thus the same object. There doesn't seem to be any physical difference in the two objects either. As far as I can tell one is not more comma shaped than the other and the term applied to it only depends on where it was found. If there was some huge difference in the object, rather than just cultural significance, I'd be more inclined to keep them separate.
That being said, yes indeed, putting them at one name or the other may start the next Japanese/Korean war, but again I use the Crisp example. It redirects to Potato chip, the American term and the article mentions the British term first thing, but a decision was made, and while I'm quite sure not everyone in Britain is happy about that, a war wasn't started and a compromise was agreed on. This is what redirects are for. I don't really care which place it goes, in fact I'd be happy to hear reasons for either. This would be a decision that would need to be worked out, and might be painful, but I'm sure the editors here are mature enough to come to a decision.pschemp | talk 18:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

(from talk:gogok) i would have to agree that the articles should be merged, for logically satisfying encyclopedic organization. they really do refer to the same object, in slightly different cultural contexts. i share tortfeasor's fears of an ugly edit war, however, as evidenced in certain other articles that have recently brought out the ugliest of partisanship, vandalism, sockpuppeteering, etc.

i like your potato chip/crisp example, & tentatively, i would consider naming the merged article magatama (since it is apparently more common) but mentioning gogok first in the text (apparently earlier origin). the critical thing would be for a nonpartisan editor like you, pschemp, to try to keep the discussion on track. Appleby 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. PSchemp, could you clarify? Do you want, for example, a magatama page with gogok redirecting to magatama? Or do you think that the two should be merged under an innocuous title, such as Comma-shaped beads (which they are also commonly refered to) with subarticles on magatama and gogok. If we merge, I would prefer a neutral name.
Also, I see that you understand the political ramifications of such a move/merge. I can hardly say that we Korean and Japanese interested editors are as mature as our British and American interested colleagues and blood would be on your hand  :-)
If its okay, I would like to see what other editors opinions are but for right now I would be leaning towards a merge under a neutral name: Comma-shaped beads. Tortfeasor 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gogok"

Comma-shaped Beads is lame. Keep it as Magatama, and have a See Also Gogok link. The same for the other site. Comma-shapped beads is also a english name for a Japanese or Korean phenomenon, making it English bias. Strictly speaking, since the English watchers of anime have probably heard it dubbed as magatama, that would probably weigh in favor of a redirect to Magatama with some adding info on the distinction between the two on the Magatama site. Bulmabriefs144 15:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we have two articles about the same thing, one stating it's of Korean origin, one stating it's of Japanese origin. This is pretty darn confusing. I think the articles must be merged, under the title Magatama (simply for reason of western-world cultural penetration, as this IS an ENGLISH wikipedia). However, the Korean word, Gogok, should be mentioned first thing, and both POVs described on origins, citing sources for each. We also need a moderator / editor with an unsatiable thirst for the blood of nationalist vandals. Wilderns 29 November 2006


Korean TV MBC aired Magatama program a while ago that's why Koreans are sticking with this issue. But the program was found big distortion recently. Details here.--Hskf4 10:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Gogok

This merge request and the corresponding discussion is quite old. I am reproposing it to get the current consensus. As an outsider I think it would be best to have one article that mentions both names in the first sentence. One article can highlight both the similarities and differences between the two things. It is hard for separate articles to compare topics. As a native English speaker, not of Japanese or Korean descent, I think the best place for the merged article is Magatama just due to the google test (~600 vs ~10k on [Magatama|Godok] beads -wikipedia). I hope to generate discussion, but if I don't hear any objection, I'll merge them in a few days. -- Selket Talk 06:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Selket: My problem with merging is that "magatama" and "gogok" is the fact that they might both be terms of art. They are almost always italicized in books, meaning it isn't an accepted English word. For example, a Japanese Maitreya sculpture might be called Miroku in an art folio but that is simply a transliteration of the Japanese word for Maitreya and, I think, hardly a reason to give it precedence, etc.
If there is to be a merge there needs to be some problems that need to be fixed. The magatama article's main problem is there has been continual anonymous vandalism claiming magatama is Japanese in origin when there has been no external English credible citation provided. The current Keally statement citation states unambiguously that the majority consensus is that the beads originate in Korea and the one question Keally brings up, the fact that these beads are not found in Korean Neolithic sites is not true, as shown by the Brittanica citation.
I would keep the two articles seperate just because it would probably be the most stable that way. Or, alternatively, change the article to "comma-shaped beads" with redirects to both other terms of art. What do you think? I appreciate your opinion and if there is consensus to merge, let me know how I can help. Tortfeasor 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Mostly I want resolution, and I want the merge request out of the queue. Anonymous vandalism is not a reason to make editorial decision (akin to negotiating with terrorists). However, if there is a consensus to keep them seperate, we should clean them up so that they function as two separate articles that reference each other as necessary and are minimally redundant. -- Selket Talk 05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)