Muromachi Period Dates Confusion

[Tcat]

Dear All,

 

It has come to my attention that there seems to be widespread disagreement regarding the dates for various Japanese historical periods. Take for example, the Muromachi period.

One history text book gives it as starting between 1336-1338.

 

http://histories.cambridge.org/extract? ... 223546A006

 

Then there's Encyclopaedia Britannica, which gives 1338-1573:

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... chi-period

 

Japan Guide, which gives it as 1333-1573

 

http://www.Japan-guide.com/e/e2134.html

 

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, which gives it as 1392-1573

 

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/muro/hd_muro.htm

 

Art and Archaeology, which gives 1392-1573

 

http://www.art-and-archaeology.com/time ... machi.html

 

The Web Museum in Paris, which gives it as 1338-1573

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/tl/Japan/muromachi.html

 

The University of Idaho, which gives 1392-1573

 

http://www.caa.uidaho.edu/arch499/nonwe ... period.htm

 

And the Asia Society, in America, which gives 1392-1568

 

http://www.asiasocietymuseum.org/region ... apterID=39

 

And Wikipedia gives 1337-1573

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muromachi_period

 

Though the majority seem to think that the period ends in 1573, not all do, and there are many dates given for the start.

 

Can someone please tell me the correct dates for the Muromachi (and/or all) period(s)?

[Baka Gaijin]

Good morning Alex

 

"Can someone please tell me the correct dates for the Muromachi (and/or all) period(s)?"

 

The simple answer to that is no......

 

So many academics over the hundred and fifty or so years have written their magnum opus from a particular viewpoint or agenda, hence the historic rubble of dates falling over each other.

 

To quote Diane Skoss of Koryu Books:

 

"Some historians date the Muromachi period also known as the Ashikaga period from 1333 to 1568; others divide this era into several shorter periods, while sword collectors usually divide it into two parts with the Nanbokuchō running from 1333 - 1392 and the Muromachi from 1392 - 1573."

 

She further advises the dating in The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords, which runs:

 

Yamato 645 - 710 A.D.

 

Nara 710 -794

 

Heian 794 - 1185

 

Kamakura 1185 - 1333

 

Nanbokuchō 1333 - 1392

 

Muromachi 1392 - 1573

 

Azuchi - Momoyama 1573 - 1600

 

Edo 1600 - 1867

 

Meiji 1868 - 1912

 

Hope this helps

 

Cheers

 

PS here is a link to Diane and Meik Skoss's site:

 

http://www.koryu.com/

[Toryu2020]

Keep in mind, when it comes to dating the discipline or focus of the author (reference) has a lot to do with it.

 

Historians are primarily interested in politics, so the changes in regime or government structure or power center are the events that mark changes in era.

 

For archaeologists it may be the tools or pottery of the dominant culture. Weapons can fall into this.

 

For Art histories it is the materials, styles, techniques, fads and fashions that may be key.

 

For Anthropologists it is the changes in culture not necessarily tied to politics.

 

So all of the above dates could be correct, and for sword nuts like us all of the criteria above could meet in one singular event like the Meiji Restoration or our dating could be unique to our study making no sense to people outside our discipline.

 

If you really think about this and examine why sword books give the dates they do, you'll have a better understanding of the study and better be able to explain it to others who may see the timelines in sword books as flawed...

 

This is how I think about it anyway, ( after being beat up by an Anthropologist)

-t

[Baka Gaijin]

Hi Tom

 

"after being beat up by an Anthropologist"

 

I'd pay good money to see footage of that on You Tube.... Could go viral....

 

Excellent and well considered points BTW.

 

Cheers

[Eric H]

The simple answer to that is no.

Eric

[Tcat]

Eric H, source?

[Eric H]

Eric H, source?

 

I cannot recall it, someday I have made this list for my own usage, as you can see there is little difference compared to other lists, but this is of less importance I think.

 

Erich

[Jussi Ekholm]

I tend to think 1392-1573 for Muromachi, and as Connoisseur's book was amongst my first nihonto books it mainly comes from there. I think Oei which began 1394 is the first era for Muromachi as Genchu and Meitoku are overlapping the periods. And Genki which ends in 1573 is considered to be the last era of Muromachi.

 

However there are slight differences give or take a year in different nihonto books.

 

For example, Kanzan Sato has 1333-91 for Nambokucho, 1392-1572 for Muromachi. Yamanaka has 1334-1393 for Nambokucho and 1394-1466 for Muromachi and 1467-1595 for Sengoku.

 

Few notes worth mentioning, Nambokucho is the 60 year period of competing courts (North / South). In sword collecting the Bunroku era is usually considered to be the last Koto era, ending 1595. And Keicho starting 1596 is considered to be the first Shinto era. While Edo period itself usually is mentioned to start 1600.

 

Kenmu Restoration might be affecting the varying dates for the start of Nambokucho (or if you include it as a part of Muromachi), Because the Southern Court, the loser, is considered the legitimate one, its time reckoning is the one used by historians. Both courts had slightly different time reckonings.

 

As I personally have great intrest in Nambokucho era blades, at first I was puzzled as many non-swordrelated sources listed it just as a part of Muromachi, when in swordrelated information it's usually always listed as Nambokucho.

 

These are just beginners thoughts, and mainly related on swords and timeline in that sense. Hopefully this helps a bit.

[Justin Grant]

My understanding, and what is being taught at Indiana University is the following:

 

Jomon 10,000-300BC

Yayoi 300BC - 300AD

Kofun 300AD-645AD

Yamoto 500AD-600AD

Nara 710AD-794AD

Heian 794AD-1185AD

Kamakura 1185AD-1333AD

Kenmu Restoration (Go-Diago) 1334

Nambochuko 1334-1392

Muromachi 1392-1582

Momoyama 1582-1603

Tokugawa (Edo) 1603-1868

 

Your mileage may vary.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Historically speaking (not sword related) Nanbokucho era does not exist, it is part of Muromachi.

[Justin Grant]

Hi,

 

Historically speaking (not sword related) Nanbokucho era does not exist, it is part of Muromachi.

 

True, but it does reflect a major political issue during the time.

[kunitaro]

for sword nuts like us all of the criteria above could meet in one singular event like the Meiji Restoration or our dating could be unique to our study making no sense to people outside our discipline.

why sword books give the dates they do, you'll have a better understanding of the study and better be able to explain it to others who may see the timelines in sword books as flawed...

 

Tom san had nice explanation.

 

we are doing periodization for understanding sword,

The sword has changed

from Kamakura to Nanbokucho.

from Oei(1394) to Onin(1467) ....

 

However, We should not forget The GUN started around Tenbun 12 (1543) in Japan.

That makes big change whole structure of everything, and the sword as well.

 

This is the biggest point of Muromachi period.

 

And Japan went to Edo (Tokugawa) Period.

Very special time. and the sword as well..

[Peter Bleed]

Let me, an anthropologist, or at least an archeologist, join in this discussion.

It is clearly sincere and shows that lots of sword collectors are interested in the cultural, social, and historical contexts of these things we collect. That's great. Like many others who have expressed themselves, I took classes in Japanese history and discovered that 'authorities' don't seem to agree.

The reality is that the 'past' is pretty long and easier to talk about if we break it into subdivisions.

In typically Japanese fashion, "authorities" have decided what matters (where the capital was, who was in charges, or what kind of pottery was distinctive). These subdvisions of the past are arbitrary. They may be handy and they DO facilitate conversation. Sword collectors should know them because they help us read books on the Japanese past - - when swords were being made and used.

The greater reality, it seems to me, is that NONE of these subdivisions mean very much about swords. The fact that there was a destructive flood in Osafune in 1596 matters to sword production. In retrospect, it becomes a convenient point at which to separate koto and shinto. The fact that a big battle in 1603 settled some political scores, counts for nothing n the world of swords. Swordsmiths were not at Sekigahara. They kept working as they had been. And we love those early "Shinto" because smiths of that era did not know that peace had broken out. They were still making weapons, thank you! Kunikane shodai did not know that he was a Shinto smith.

At the other end of that oppressive police state called the Edo period, the Meiji Ishin seems to have meant nothing to swordsmiths. Think of all those Meiji 2 and 3 dated swords we see. They are not uncommon so the Meiji "Restoration" seems to have meant screw-all to swordsmiths. Now, when the new politcal leaders got around to outlawing wearing swords, that mattered! I am interested in buying swords dated - let's say Meiji 10-15. That is when the 14th Kunikane gave up and let himself become the adopted some of a fish merchant.

My point is this, swords are our hobby. We should view them in historical context. But we should also be able to look at them in their own context.

Peter

[Toryu2020]

Seems there is more than one angry anthropologist in the world!

 

All kidding aside Peter makes an excellent point - 1876 represents a date of more significant change to swordmakers and users than 1868 - we have to ask why so many writers start the Gendai era with the latter date and we should wonder if someday the former or some other date will come to be seen as the true starting point of the "current" sword-making era...

-t

[Eric H]

1868, the begin of Meiji era is well chosen because it marks a abrupt change from a „middle age“ civilisation to a „modern state“. Subsequently the privileges of the Samurai class were step by step abolished, the demand for swords fell, and as an example Saito Kiyondo retired in 1871 and became a hotelier.

 

Eric

[Bugyotsuji]

One can also look at the other end and consider the Azuchi-Momoyama period as being the Oda Nobunaga - Toyotomi Hideyoshi period, a time when Japan started to really draw together under a quick succession of strong leaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azuchi%E2% ... ama_period

 

If Momoyama was named after Hideyoshi's Momoyama castle built on the hill with Momo orchards growing there, then Momo, heart, Inome designs in artifacts and architecture come to symbolize that era, a gorgeous flourishing time after the dark ages of Muromachi...

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

True, but it does reflect a major political issue during the time.

 

 

Muromachi era began when Ashikaga Taka-Uji became Shogun. It ended with the abdication fo the last Ashikaga Shogun.