Talk:Taika (era)

Taika (era) succession box
The succession box at the bottom of this page potentially links to a nengō which does not, at this time, have any counterpart in other Wikipedias. This is a link to a non-congruent page; but in due course, there will be further edits.


 * 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 link to a a pre-Taika era -- to Kōgyoku (era) /Kōgyoku (period) ...?


 * The software also proposes 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
 * 655 斉明 Saimei (era) /Saimei (period) ... empress' reign, 655-661+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 662 天智 Tenji (era) /Tenji (period) ... emperor's reign, 661-672+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 672 弘文 Kōbun (era) /Kōbun (period) ... emperor's reign, 672+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 673 天武 Temmu (era) /Temmu (period) ... emperor's reign, 672-686+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 686 朱鳥 Shuchō ... Duration not consistent with Japanese Wikipedia; and
 * alternate era chronology is proposed for use + added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 687 持統 Jitō (era) /Jitō (period) ... empress' reign, 686-697+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen/Tsuchihashi source
 * 697 文武 Mommu (era) /Mommu (period) ... emperor's reign, 697-707+ added 29 Jul 07, Tübingen source
 * 701 大宝 Taihō (era)


 * 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 23:33, 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-Taika era names. For more information, see Talk:Japanese era name.


 * My intention here in Talk:Taika (era) 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 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)