Talk:Seven-Branched Sword

Great start

What an excellent beginning for this article. Thanks, Tortfeasor! -- Visviva 06:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Note

Let me have some further information (sorry, I have no English sources, but these are based on Japanese version of the article) and introduction of arguments, which can be added to this article.

Transcription

First Side: 泰(和)四年十■月十六日丙午正陽造百錬■七支刀(出?)辟百兵(宜)供供(候王)■■■■(作 or 祥)

Second Side: 先世(以)来未有此刀百濟(王)世(子)奇生聖(音 or 晋)故為(倭)王(旨)造(伝示後)世

• Letters in parantheses are ambiguous. Italic letters are argued on decoding. Letters in black block are entirely undecodable.

Some Arguments on Decoding and Interpretation

2nd Letter on the first side, and when the sword was made: The first four letters are generally decoded as "4th year of Taiwa(the Chinese era)", but since the second letter is ambiguous, there is objection that it is a local era of Baekje. However, the idea is generally denied since no other archeological discovery reveals the existance of Baekje's unique era name. On the other hand, as Baekje generally uses sexagenary cycles to record date, that the date was recorded in Chinese era brought argument that the sword might be made in China.

11th and 13th letter on the second side, and who presented the sword: 11th to 13th letters seem to be decodable to "王世子"(Crown Prince of King), and some scholars regards that it was presented from the Crown Prince of Baekje, eventually ascended as King Geungusu. However, as it includes ambiguous letters, it is not entirely clear whether who of Baekje did present the sword.

End of the first side: although four of the five last letters are undecodable, the last letter indicates that the previous letters were either the name of author or a prayer phrase such as "永年大吉祥"(Have Great Fortunes Forever"). In both cases, the phrase should generally indicate the end of inscription, and not synchronized with the fact that inscription is continued to the other side. There is also a theory that the second side is written by different person, or at different time.

17th letter on the second side: The letter is regarded to be either "音"(Sound) or "晋"(Jin Dynasty). Former decoding indicates that phrase "奇生聖音" has some king of Buddhism or Taoism nuance, that presenter has "lived under august(holy) sounds". Latter decoding indicates that the phrase means "born coincidently on august(holy) Jin Dynasty".

18th to 22nd letter on the second side, and the presentee: The phrase, "為倭王旨造", are translated in various ways through different interpretation of the 22nd letter "旨".

• "旨" as a personal name: Regarding the letter as a personal name. Thus translates the phrase as following. "For Shi, the King of Wa, made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "order": Translates "for the order of King of Wa, made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "deliberately": Translates "for King of Wa, deliberately made (the sword)".
• "旨" as "first": Interpreting the letter as abbreviation of "嘗". Translates "for the first time, made (the sword) for King of Wa".

Taking it a personal name leads to the Baekje-centric idea that Baekje's presenter boldly writes the name of the King of Wa, and thus regards him lower. By Taking it "order" leads to the Japan-centric idea that Baekje presented the sword because the King of Wa ordered him to do so. Therefore, the interpretation tend to be controversial.

Mahal Aly 10:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mahal Aly: This is really great stuff. If you look at some of the citations in the actual article they touch over most of what you have written and so if you're worried about sources, they are already there. Good job. Tortfeasor 23:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim Sok-hyong (1915~1996. 11. 26.)

A scholar of History, in North Korea. He was born in Daegu, but he went to North Korea in 1946.

He refuted the 任那日本府 or 南鮮經營說(임나일본부, みまなにほんふ).

He insisted the Devied-Nation theory(分國說), Residents of Mahan, Jinhan, Byeonhan were passed down in the Japan Archipelago.

References

Page name

I propose this page to be moved to the Seven-Branched Sword because this is the English term used in the referenced books. --Kusunose 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, per Wikipedia:Use English. -- Visviva 01:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm there are 19 google results for "seven branched sword", vs. 252 for chiljido. Appleby 01:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC) and 690 for Shichishito. Appleby 01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Appleby: Maybe try hypenating it? (Seven-branched sword). Moving it is fine with me, I made this page b/c it was a red link. Tortfeasor 02:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I checked Google scholar and the results are 9 hits for "Seven-Branched Sword", 4 hits for "Shichishito" and zero for "chiljido". --Kusunose 02:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. hyphenation does not change google results. --Kusunose 02:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

then sounds good. i just haven't gotten into the habit of checking google scholar yet... Appleby 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the page. --Kusunose 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Another theory by Professor Kosaku Hamada of Kyushu University

Professor Kosaku Hamada of Kyushu University theorize that the original seven-branched sword was created by Eastern Jin in 369 (泰和四年) for a vassal lord with the first inscription. In 372, King Geunchogo of Baekje paid tribute to Eastern Jin first time and given the title 鎮東将軍領楽浪太守. The sword was given to the king around this time. The king of Baekje ordered the creation of a replica of the sword with the second inscription and sent it to Wa for an alliance as peers under Eastern Jin. Thus no vassalage relationships are involved between Baekje and Wa. This explains the commanding tone of the first inscription and the respect paid to Jin (owes his life to august Jin) in the second inscription. His paper is in Japanese. --Kusunose 03:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There are many attempts by Japanese historians to degrade the Korean role in the development of Japan by promoting China as its cultural source. (Wikimachine 23:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC))

I partly disagree. Although Hamada's theory is well academical (i.e. not as much political as Wikimachine says), maybe we need to introduce views of multiple scholars, not particlar one. Mahal Aly 15:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to replace the current text with this particular theory. I just want to mention it in the article as an alternative theory. I put it here because I'm not sure how to put it in the article in a well-organaized fashion. --Kusunose 06:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Kusonose: I was just rereading this talk page and saw your post from May about the Chinese origin theory. How credible is this professor, etc? Unfortunately, there aren't many English language sources on this topic so its hard to get a good read on what is mainstream and what isn't. My problem with the theory is, just from my general sense, that the use of Chinese era names is hardly ever proffered as evidence of Chinese origin, except in this case. Let me know what you think.

Hamada cites Yukihisa Yamao for this theory. He is a professor emeritus at Ritsumeikan University and wrote many books about ancient history in Japanese. I think it is credible as an alternative theory.

Hamada argues that no artifacts have ever found that indicates Bakeje's use of Chinese era names within their state. That is, this sword is rather an expection than a rule. I think the use of Chinese era names is a common feature throughout all East Asian cultures is bit over-generalization and weak argument in this case. --Kusunose 06:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This Baekje statue has, correct me if I'm wrong, a Chinese era name. <and>V_EPCODE1=10&requery=0 . Similarly, this Goguryeo statue does as well. <and>V_EPCODE1=10&requery=0 . The Gwanggaeto Stele employs Chinese era-names. Like other rulers in both Korea and Japan during this early period, Muryeong of Baekje received titles from the Chinese dynasties. (Not exactly the same, but along the same vein.) Both Goguryeo and Silla consciously adopted the use of Chinese era names. [1]. [2]. And the Goguryeo Anak Tomb No.3 tombs also incorporated Chinese titles and the Eastern Jin era name. My point is that, Hamada is probably wrong in saying that no artifacts have ever (been) found that indicate Baekje's use of Chinese era names. If I over generalized with the "common feature" statement, than I would clarify and say that it was commonly used during the Three Kingdoms period in Korea and would still argue that the simple use of a Chinese era name isn't a good reason, alone, to suggest an artifact came from China. Tortfeasor 07:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the Baekje statue, the title 'Gilt-bronze triad buddhist with inscription of cyclic year of Gyemi' suggests it's not Chinese era name but the name of sexagenary cycle '癸未'. I think Hamada's argument still stands. The point is that while Goguryeo and Silla did adopted the Chinese era name, there's no proof Baekje did. Thus 'commonly used during the Three Kingdoms period in Korea' is still bit overgeneralized, I think. --Kusunose 08:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The inscription of the Goguryeo statue is also the name of sexagenary cycle. --Kusunose 05:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

K: Thanks for pointing out my mistake. 2 out of the 3 kingdoms is still the majority and I believe that fewer Baekje artifacts have survived than the other kingdoms. I guess we'll have to figure out a neutral way of putting it. Thanks for the discussion. Tortfeasor 03:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We need better wording. For now, I would like to remove the last sentence per Wikipedia:Verifiablity. The refutaion of the theory is based on unproven, unsourced assumption: Baekje might have adopted Chinese era names and used for their artifacts. --Kusunose 05:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

As to the shamanism theory, I can't seem to find exactly the citation where I read the quote but the basic theory is that the Scytho-Siberian shamanism spread across Eurasia, from Turkey to Korea. That is why the tree motif, the Siberian World Tree, is so prominent in the Crown of Silla and crowns from Scythia and Afghanistan. During the time the sword was made, Buddhism would have been in its earliest phases and so the fact that the sword resembles a tree, the Scytho-Siberian connection of the Altaic people, and the significance of the number seven in shamanism all would suggest that there is a shamanistic tradition behind the sword. I thought it would be an interesting nugget of information. Tortfeasor 18:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for references. It seems interesting. I'll look into it. --Kusunose 06:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Just to clarify myself I just realized I was confusing the August Jin part with the Taiho era name. Would still prefer a better source but I can understand that might be hard.

One thing, if you could answer Kusonose, does the "enfeoffed" and commanding tone of the language on the sword a generally accepted position or is it legitimately questioned. Just thinking, b/c if Hamada's theory is a credible alternative, than it could be seen as support for the enfeoffed language, regardless of where the sword came from originally. Tortfeasor 02:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

In his paper, Hamada presented various interpretation proposed by many for the characters of the insciription. As for "侯王", however, he gives no other interpretaions and note that it's a reasonable interpretaion from the shape and context. --Kusunose 06:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Page name II

I came across this Britannica citation while doing some research and it refers to the sword as the "Seven-pronged Sword." [3]. Should we move the page to that name? Any input on an issue that's not very critical at the moment would be appreciated. Tortfeasor 16:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Video game similarity

If I'm not mistaken, there's a similar sword in the NES game "Demon Sword". It looks almost like the Seven Branched Sword when it is fully completed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.39.218 (talk) 20:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The online MMO Nexus: The Kingdom of the Winds, has a rare items called the "Sevenleaf sword" One of the most expensive items of the game despite being just a status symbol and uselss for fighting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.240.184 (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

change

Chinese origin to : Korean origin

Odst 00:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Wright spoilers

"A seven branched sword also appears in the third installment of the Phoenix Wright series as a major clue." I recently linked a friend of mine to this page while he was playing this particular game - this is a spoiler and should be removed. 90.212.51.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

its pretty obvious in the game that its a clue, unless your friend is clueless of course --88.106.28.247 (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

On display?

The article says that the original is not shown to the public. On the other hand, being a National Treasure it should be regularly displayed AFAIK. Which is correct? bamse (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

vassal state Japan.　There is not it in a original source of information.

First Side: 泰■四年十(一)月十六日丙午正陽造百錬(銕)七支刀(出)辟百兵宜供供候王■■■■ (作 or 祥)

Second Side: 先世以來未有此刀百濟王世(子)奇生聖音故爲倭王旨造傳示後世

There is not explanation of "vassal state". 60.39.39.91 (talk) 05:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Middle of the first side: The letters show the sword was made of steel and can repel the enemy. The following letters are the most controversial part of the inscription. Kim notes that the sword uses the term "候王" translated as "enfeoffed lord," and claimed Wa king was subservient to the Baekje ruler.[10] The majority of the Japanese scholars do not agree with Kim's theory. They point out the meaning of the term "候王" was varied in the different periods. After the Han Dynasty, the term was used fluently and always just as a honorific.

Wikipedia seems to adopt a Korean claim.　60.39.39.91 (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Video Games

The Playstation 3 version of Tales of Vesperia has a weapon called the Nanatsusaya, which is a reference to this artifact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.37.148 (talk) 04:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Seven-Branched Sword. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205053536/http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html to http://gias.snu.ac.kr/wthong/publication/paekche/eng/paekch_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030200803/http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-01-hamada_j.pdf to http://www.jkcf.or.jp/history/1/1-01-hamada_j.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:42, 18 September 2017 (UTC)