Talk:Nara period

History

172.199.54.24 seems to lack basic knowledge of Japanese history. Search 遣隋使 and 遣唐使 in Google. --Nanshu

The rise of the military class is not appropriate in the description of the Nara Period. I will move this topic to the Heian period.Trek011 01:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Korean influence

218.48.35.155 is talking about modern Korean fantasies, not what historical sources say.

while Silla argued that Japan had received significant Korean influence and was therefore subject to Silla's superiority.

Can you back up this segment with Samguk Sagi, Shokunihongi or other sources? --Nanshu 07:09, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Korean Edit Problem

Please explain the reason to add this episode. I do not think that I have the same value as the Fujiwara clan by this episode.

Kamosuke: Deleting cited information is vandalism. You need consensus to delete information which has a good citation.

The act of adding worthless information is vandalism. You should explain the reason to add this information. Please explain the history value of this information.

how is describing the sources of legal, administrative, tax structures of japan in the nara period worthless to the nara period article? Appleby 04:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The article to which you are hoping for the addition is this.

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. Further, idea of local administrative districts and the tribute tax are based on Korean models.

Please explain the reason to add this to the article at the Nara Nara period. Even member Ohtomo Yakamochi who edited Manyoshu doesn't appear in this article.

Reliability of Cited Source

Eight of the nineteen members of the committee drafting the Taihō Code were from Korean immigrant families residing in Japan. There were no Chinese.

Compilers of Taiho code includes Satsu Kokaku(薩弘恪). This person was a native Chinese who also assigned to Koe no Hakase (音博士:Phonetic Doctor), and was in charge of teaching Chinese as a speaking language. At least, "There were no Chinese" is obviously wrong. Also, viewing all the members' clans referring Shinsen Shojiroku, there are couple of members whose ancestors were claimed to be Chinese, among six immigrant clans' Taiho compilers(see Talk on Kofun Period).

Even the system by which farmers divided arable land into uniform parcels (jōri sei) used the Korean foot (koma jaku) as its basic unit of measurement.

In ancient Japan Jōri unit, one unit is a square of 360 jakus. Current remaining Jōri unit farms in Nara consist of squares of 109 meters, so one jaku is approximately 30cm under metric systems. Although there are multiple units of measurement at this age, 30cm is rather close to Chinese unit Kara(i.e. Tang) Jaku(29.6cm) than Koma Jaku(35.6cm). Although there are arguments that Koma Jaku might be used somewhere in Jōri unit farms of this age, they are not archeologically evident and generally rejected. Moreover, Jōri units are generally popularized at mid-Nara period (in earlier period, it was technically difficult to measure with enough accuracy), while Koma Jaku was abolished early in Nara period.

To me, this source seems scarcely reliable, with two errors in just one page (although the source itself was just cited info from other sources). Maybe we need to search for the better ones. Above all, the chapter itself is a duplication of Asuka period, with most informations more relevant to Asuka, I think this chapter is not necessary in Nara period article.

Mahal Aly 13:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved that section to Taiho Code. I will edit it there to remove "there were no Chinese". Let's continue the debate there Tensaibuta 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1) 1,182 listed 163 ( China) 240 were from the Korean peninsula. ( New World Encyclopedia)

2) Korean roots of ' Genji' written by William Wetherall from Japan Times Online.

Heiankyo, which Kanmu built a few years after is mother death was heavily populated by clans with Korean roots. " Shinsen Shojiroku", a peerage compiled in 815 shortly after Kanmu death, lists 1,182 imperial and other clans of which 326 ( 28 percent) were of non indigenous mostly Korean origin, over half of the immigrant clans resided in Heinkyo, now Kyoto. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nation1Master (talk • contribs) 12:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Project Assessment

I'm surprised this wasn't project assessed already. I'm giving it B-class for length and detail. And I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised to see how stable it's been lately. But as soon as we start to see edit wars again over whether or not Korea/Baekje was involved and to what extent, I'm removing it and putting an attention tag up. LordAmeth 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

End of the Nara Period

I’m surprised to get disagreement about when the Nara Period ends from someone who is Japanese, of all people. Although there are some references that cite 794 as the end of the Nara Period, the “official” view in Japan is that it ends in 784. Nagaoka-kyo isn’t even located in Nara, it is near Kyoto, so obviously when the capital was moved to Nagaoka-kyo in 784, this marked the end of the “Nara” Period.

First, since this is English Wikipedia, a few English references:

• Encyclopedia Britannica

• Japan National Tourist Organization

• Japan-101

But more importantly, here are some Japanese sources, that are more authoritative:

• Here is a quote from Nihonshi Kenyku, a high school history study guide book published by Yamakawa Shuppansha: “のちに山背国の長岡京・平安京に遷るまで平城京を都とした時代を奈良時代という。”

• Here is a link to the dictionary entry for Nara Period in the Daijirin (widely respected Japanese dictionary):

Daijirin

• Here is a link to the Independent Administrative Insitution National Research Institute for Cultural Properties, Nara, which says at the end of the second paragraph “そして長岡京に都が移る784年までのあいだ、奈良の地が都として栄えたのです。この時期を奈良時代といいます。”-Jefu 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Historical periodization can be difficult to understand. There are historians who debate when the 1960s began and ended! See for example the statement "Likewise it is possible to claim, as the historian Arthur Marwick has, that 'the 1960s' began in the late 1950s and ended in the early 1970s" in Periodization. Fg2 05:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I know. And there are debates about whether the Asuka Period began in 538, when Buddhism was officially introduced, or 592 when Empress Suiko acceded to the throne and actually set up the capital at the Toyura Palace in Asuka. The problem here is that, while most sources I have seen cite the Nara Period as ending in 784, they also say that Heian began in 794, which leaves a gap.-Jefu 06:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you please add reference to the article? And please don't mark edits minor when such edits affects the meaning of an article per Help:Minor edit. As to my reversion, I thought the reason given in the edit summary "The move of the capital from Nara to Nagaokakyo is considered the start of the Heian Period" is incorrect and it seems it is. Britannica, Japan-101 and Daijirin agree the start of Heian period is 794. My assumption that the end of Nara period and the start of the Heian period are the same year is apparently wrong, though. --Kusunose 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Since Nagaoka-kyo is in Kyoto and initiated the move to the Kyoto region, I thought the move to Nagaoka-kyo in 784 was also considered the start of the Heian Period, but apparently it isn't. I think the occasional references you see to Nara Period extending to 794 is to avoid having a gap.

I don't mind adding a reference, but the only decent English one is Encyclopedia Brittanica, and I am usually loathe to use them because they are so horrible on the subject of Japanese history.-Jefu 06:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't too far from the mark about the start of the Heian Period either. My Nihonshi Kojien (very comprehensive 2,000+ page Japanese history dictionary) says this in the entry for Heian Jidai: "その始めは一般には桓武天皇による平安遷都の年、七九四年（延暦一三）とされるが、長岡遷都の七八四年、桓武即位の七八一年（天応元）とする主張もある。" So while it is commonly thought of as beginning in 794, there are also those who claim it started when the capital was moved to Nagaoka-kyo in 784 and those who claim it started when Emperor Kammu acceded to the throne in 781.-Jefu 14:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In a strict sense, the Nara Period ends in 784. However, in general practice it is common to extend it to 794 to avoid the gap, as noted above. Here is a quote from the Kōdansha encylopedia: 「奈良時代は、都が藤原京から平城京に遷された710年に始まり、784年の長岡京への遷都で終わる。しかし、奈良時代は通常、長岡京に都のあった10年間を含めて、710年から794年とされる」. While it is important to specify the end in 784, it should at least be mentioned that it is common to talk about the period throughout 794. Also note that ja:奈良時代 uses 710-794. Bendono 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would be careful about concluding that it is "general practice" from one source. What probably counts more than anything is what students learn in high school, because that is the official government sanctioned view, and as I mention above, a recent high school study text that I use notes that it ends in 784. So do the Kojien and the Daijirin (the two most comprehensive and widely used Japanese dictionaries), as well as my Japanese History Kojien (a 2,000 page dictionary exclusively about Japanese history). Even the entry for Nara Jidai in my 2,500 page unabridged "Great Japanese Dictionary", published by Kodansha no less, says it is until 784. The only sources I have seen that claim it lasts until 794 is the Japanese Wikipedia entry (which I'm tempted to change) and a number of other online sources, which are notoriously unreliable. I'm surrounded by a mountain of Japanese history texts and dictionaries and am unable to find a single reference claiming it lasts until 794. On the other hand, as I note above, my Japanese History Kojien notes that some historians extend Heian Jidai back to 784 to capture the Nagaoka-kyo period, which makes sense, since Nagaoka-kyo is in Kyoto and was the first step in the move of the capital from Nara to Kyoto.-Jefu 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

One other thing, I would be careful about asking Japanese who don't actually study history. As you probably know, Japanese students memorize tons of dates when the study history in high school using mnemonics, or "goro" (a great collection of these can be found at http://assist.ath.cx/home/56/history.htm). One of the most famous of these is "Nakuyo Uguisu, Heiankyo", with Na-Ku-Yo standing for 7-9-4. Therefore, everyone knows that Heiankyo starts in 794, so most people will probably simply assume that Nara must end in 794 without really knowing what historians actually consider to be the end of that period. High school students don't memorize the dates when periods end, of course. In fact, this is probably what leads to much of the confusion on the Internet and the references you see to 794 as being the end of the Nara period.-Jefu 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Etymology

Regarding the etymology of Nara:

• This cite is given as a reference. However, it does not say anything about Nara, so is irrelevant to the topic.
• The historical reference is a little deceptive. It selectively quotes one section, but ignores the immediate relevant section following it which shows historical evidence for other places with many Korean residents and concludes that one can not deny the claim of foreign etymology, but solid proof is still needed: 『和名抄』にみえる百済(くだら)(河内・摂津)、新羅(しらぎ)(陸奥)、高麗(こま)(山城・武蔵)、村主(すぐり)(伊勢)などの郷名については、『日本書紀』などから渡来系の人びとが多く居住していたことが裏付けられており、外来語に起因する地名を否定するものではないが、それを認めさせるには確かな根拠が必要であろう。 This section needs to be rewritten to reflect the reference or removed.
• The exact same Nihon Shoki passage is fully cited twice. I have six other copies of the text which could be cited, but all of them would be just as irrelevant. Should remove to one.

Regards, Bendono (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

One more: an editor keeps changing "modern theories" to "Korean theories". There are four modern non-Korean linguistic references given for this. Please explain change. Bendono (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to move Etymology section to Nara, Nara

The name Nara period was named after the place name Nara, so its etymology should be explained in Nara, Nara, not here. --Malachite Green (talk) 06:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Malachite Green (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Kyoto or Kyo?

The article says "By the late eleventh century, the city was popularly called Kyoto (capital city), the name it has had ever since." Was it indeed called Kyoto so early or just Kyo? Wakablogger (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Wakablogger, Although the text you ask about is in the article Nara period, I'd like to suggest repeating the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan to reach more people. Fg2 (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice, Fg2. I checked the Japanese page for Kyoto and found it agreed with this statement, so I withdraw my question. Wakablogger (talk) 06:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Asuka period

Why is the Asuka period (which preceded the Nara period) included in the box at the bottom, but mentioned nowhere in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2021 (UTC)