Talk:Tokyo National Museum

Latest comment: 5 years ago by LlywelynII in topic Artwork

1

edit

I see there is a PoV of the great antiquity of the Jomon period spreading through Wikipedia. This is contrary to the judgment of the Tokyo National Museum itself. Septentrionalis 19:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

For a general description of Jomon and its periods, please see [1]. For quotes, "The earliest pottery, the linear applique type, was dated by radiocarbon methods taken on samples of carbonized material at 12500 +- 350 bp" (Prehistoric Japan, Keiji Imamura). "The earliest known pottery comes from Japan, and is dated to about 10,500 BC. China and Indo-China follow shortly afterwards" ("Past Worlds" The Times Atlas of Archeology. p. 100). For the legends on the 10.000-8.000 BCE pottery, I took the photograph myself in the Tokyo National Museum (1st floor Heiseikan), and the legend attached to the artifact is indeed 10.000-8.000 BCE Initial Jomon. The few items shown on the Tokyo National Museum webpage represent a minuscule portion of their actual collection. You can find a description of a similar item at [2] in [3]. This is quite generally known and undisputed stuff. PHG 00:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Your first source contains the statement: [Incipient Jomon] which is dated from about 10,500 B.C. to 8,000 B.C. has left us only pottery fragments. Since the vessel pictured is not a fragment, this seems odd. If it is a reconstruction, this should be indicated.
You appear to misunderstand the usage of the {{Accuracy}} tag. It is not a claim that the page is wrong, but that the page (whether or not it is right) is disputed. It should not be removed except by consensus; preferably reached by persuading the disputers, but also obtainable by inviting third opinions or a survey. Since you have not yet persuaded me, removal is improper. Please continue. Septentrionalis 19:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Hi Pmanderson. Claiming that Jomon only starts in 4,000 BCE and modifiying the dates of a photograph of an archeological object because you are not "convinced" is quite outrageous. I suggest you do you own homework before taking such positions. Some more pages: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] with photographs [9]. You will find photographs of Incipient Jomon full-fledged potteries in Imamura "Prehistoric Japan" ISBN 0824818539, either bean-applique, linear-applique or cord-marked. PHG 22:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Sources for future article expansion

edit

It takes jstor &c. access but there's more in Tseng's article, particularly on the bureaucratic turf war between the Education and Home Ministries in the early 1870s that ended with the Home Ministry's victory and the establishment of this particular museum. — LlywelynII 12:56, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Artwork

edit

The galleries on this page currently focus overmuch on repetitive Buddhas and broken ceramics. We should illustrate the objective highlights of the collection, such as they can be objectively determined, and leave the rest to people who don't mind combing through the Wikicommons categories. The Great Wave off Kanagawa, e.g., besides being obviously better known and having its own page, has a thorough and elaborate separate page with an expansive #Influence subsection. I do hesitate to add it to this page, though, since seeing it here is enough to get some tourists to go see the museum on its own and it's not currently displayed, presumably to force more people to go to the new separate one-room Hokusai Museum out by Ryogoku. — LlywelynII 04:09, 1 September 2019 (UTC)Reply