Talk:Shuchō

message: The speedy deletion tag was added just as the article was created, before I was even given much opportunity to add to it. Admittedly, I do not have a hell of a lot to be said about this period; still, it is one of a series in the nengō (imperial eras) of Japanese history, and is essential for completion of that series. I shall endeavor to add what I can to shore up the article's content. LordAmeth 18:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

message: The time span of this era is incorrect. Nearly all sources list it as a single year in duration: 686. After 686, the next nengō is Taihō beginning in 701.
References:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
*Japanese Wikipedia article
Bendono 15:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that in the Japanese Wikipedia article, and in a number of other sources besides; the problem is that if Shucho only lasted one year, and Taiho did not begin until 701, what was the imperial era name (the nengo) for the intervening 15 years? Please see the discussion on Talk:Japanese era name, as User:Ooperhoofd is currently in the process of trying to reconcile the differing sources on the chronology. LordAmeth 15:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple: there was no nengō. The nengō article already deals with this:Although the regular practice of proclaiming successive nengō was interrupted in the late seventh century, it was re-adopted in 701 during the reign of Emperor Mommu (697-707). Since that Taihō era (701-704), era names have been used continuously up through the present day. It's late here, so I'll try to look at the discussion sometime tomorrow. Bendono 15:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, then. Simple enough. LordAmeth 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time span 

message: The succession box at the bottom of this page links to nengō which do not, at this time, have any counterpart in other Wikipedias.  These become links to non-congruent pages; 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 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 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Shuchō'' succession box

message: There is an on-going discussion about re-visiting the largely settled issues arising from the subject of pre-Taihō era names.  For more information, see Talk:Japanese era name. Ooperhoofd 15:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: pre''-Taihō'' era names

message: According to  NengoCalc, the first day of the first month of the first year of Shuchō (朱鳥一年一月一日) was Tuesday, January 30, 686.  In other words, the following dates are inconsistent with NengoCalc because they pre-date January 30th:  
* Shuchō 1 (January 10, 686): Earthquake.<:ref name="h193">Hioki, Eigō. (2007). Dai Ikkan: -1000, Vol. 1 (Shin Kokushi Dainenhyō), p. 193.</ref>
* Shuchō 1 (January 14, 686): Imperial palace at Naniwa burned.<:ref name="h193"/>
* Shuchō 1 (June 10, 686) Sickness of Emperor Temmu is foretold. Blamed on curse of Kusanagi sword and hence returned to Atsuta Shrine in Owari Province.<:ref name="h194">Hioki, p. 194</ref>
* Shuchō 1 (July 20, 686): The nengō (era name) changed to Shuchō.<:ref name="h194"/>/
This small problem can be resolved in due course. --Tenmei (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added those and have just reviewed the reference. January 30, 686 is the correct date for the start of this era. However, the other dates should not be interpreted as the Julian calendar. Also, they belong to he previous nengō. Thus, the first one should be interpreted as "first month, tenth day of Tenmu (15)" and the final one would be "seventh month, twentieth day of Tenmu (15)". These are in error due to confusion of being the same Julian year 686. Sorry for the error; I will replace them with other data. Bendono (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious dates