Shogun8

Simon, Do you have any pics of the actual kabuto? John

From the lead-up to the event, images I've seen and feedback I've heard, the event certainly seemed to have been well-planned and run and professionally executed. Having planned the Japanese Armor Society's own symposium in the Netherlands just a few months ago and being a professional in the field, I know first-hand what it takes to put together events such as these, and it sure ain't easy, requiring much more work, time and money than anyone realizes. These events that are targeted to our specific audiences - be it nihonto or katchu - deserve to be supported by interested parties such as the members of this forum and the various clubs that exist throughout the vicinity in which the event(s) is being held. It's discouraging for the stakeholders - sponsors, exhibitors, and attendees alike - when the attendance does not meet expectations and it certainly makes it harder to promote and sell the event for future renditions. I myself have attended 2 symposiums in Florence, one in Leeds and the recent one which took us to the Netherlands; Berlin; Belgium and Paris, despite the high cost of coming from Canada. If we are to see other events like this continue to take place, we have to make the commitment in time and resources as they allow.

I know how much goes into the planning of these events, so it's too bad that the attendance wasn't as expected or hoped for. One would have thought that with the centrality of the location and the existence of such an efficient intra-European rail system and cheap flights, that there would have been more of an effort made by nihonto and katchu-philes to attend.

Kudos to all those involved!

Woulda, shoulda, coulda...Although I knew there were some quality dealers in attendance, I decided not to go because there was absolutely nothing on armour scheduled for the formal curriculum. I know that Luc attended, so perhaps there might be an opportunity for collaboration with the Japanese Armor Society for future editions. Actually, the timing was bad. I'm in Europe at the end of the month and will extend that trip to catch our first JAS study meeting to take place in Brussels, with a focus on koboshi kabuto.

There's presently a copy for sale on Yahoo at JPY55,000.

Damn, there's more armour than was publicized...

The idea of generations of the same maker (or perhaps makers of the same name is a better phrase) - especially as it pertains to Ietada - is indeed very confusing. Giuseppe Piva has written a very good article on the concept of "Ie": http://www.giuseppepiva.com/en/news/ie-system-different-approach-signatures-Japanese-art

Uwe, I'm reading Takemura-san's article on Yukinoshita dou, and I see that Date Masamune twice gave a gift of armour to an Asai Bitchû no Kami who is listed as a messenger of the Kasai family...

Nice kabuto, Nick! I've been trying to access your website but can't - under renovation?

The maedate looks modern to me, Greg. John

Very helpful, Ian - thank you!

Ian, For the denser ones amongst us, can you further explain the connection between the Asai and the Unkai that I think you're making based on the above? Is it because of the "mitsu" (i.e. Katsumitsu > Mitsunao)? If so, would a connection like this be made through marriage, or a lord or head of a workshop "bestowing" the name, or something else? John

Anthony, I'm not sure where the doubts about the defensive capabilities of 62 ken kabuto (suji or koboshi) are coming from. I have heard comments and theories that the higher number of rivets/perforations weaken the structure, but I'm not sure if this is in reference to "ordinary" 62 ken kabuto (i.e. not Yoshi-ryu or Saotome which had taka-niku). I agree that since the 62 ken kabuto came to define the Japanese helmet, it must have been more than adequate in battle. But, to your point, I'm not sure if any tests have been conducted to compare these with zunari for example. One thing we do not see is tameshi on 62 ken kabuto (at least, I haven't seen any - tameshi vs. battle damage).

Gilles, I forgot to post a picture of the area I mention above (tsuke mabezashi made in one piece with the front plate and straight top edge of front plate), which I now do here: Also, going back to your original question about the shikoro on your kabuto, it only seems to have a very slight curvature on the lowermost lame and in some of the pictures it looks almost straight. If it is straight then it would not be classified as a hineno jikoro. The shikoro on the Asai kabuto is of the hineno variety as can be clearly seen in the second picture.

Would have loved to hear your presentation, Jan and that is a very interesting - and surprising - point you make about the study/point made by Dr. Carl Friday. Can you develop your last two sentences? The period you mention is about the time presumably when the akoda was falling out of favour for its supposed lack of defensive capabilities. If there were no casualties caused by the matchlock, why then would the akoda be perceived as being inferior?

A school of thought. Trolls and schoolyard bullies need not apply.

I actually don't know if there is a definitive answer based on the current information, which is the point I was trying to make. Putting two and two together from Takemura-san's article: 1. There are no known signed/dated examples of Western kabuto (i.e. zunari, momonari, eboshi and toppai) from the Muromachi period. 2. There ARE signed/dated examples of Eastern kabuto (kabuto made with tate-hagi (triangular plates) made by Joshu; Yoshi-ryu) that date to the Muromachi (albeit late) period. 3. Akoda nari were by and large a product of the Western region. 4. The akoda fell out of favour because they were deemed lacking in their protective qualities, but still, top daimyo wore these kabuto well into the Momoyama period. However, the concerns about the akoda, saw the rise of the zunari, momonari, toppai and eboshi in the west. 5. Since at this time, 62 ken kabuto were already being produced in the eastern regions (and were worn by many of the top warlords like Date Masamune, Takeda Shingen and Uesugi Kenshin), they continued to be produced because they were at the forefront of technology at the time. 6. Thus, the division between suji kabuto (tate-hagi) and kawari kabuto (non tate-hagi like zunari, momonari, toppai and eboshi) was not necessarily one of time period (the assumption made above), but was perhaps more one of regional preference, exposure and technology. 7. According to Takemura-san, it wasn't until the Battle of Odawara in 1590 that there was an exposure and/or cross-pollination of the types of helmets between east and west, which saw each side wearing the other's technology. I think it's time for recess...

Anthony, Based on the latest studies and discussions, the earliest zunari, momonari and toppai seem to date from the late Muromachi, as do the earliest 62 ken kabuto. There is a school of thought that the 62 ken may even have pre-dated these kabuto with larger plates. If not, and even if they were developed contemporaneously, I think the differences in approach/philosophy may be a regional thing - Kanto (eastern) region vs. western. According to our Japanese friends, the earliest known signed and dated works came from the Joshu (circa 1561), who were from the Kanto region. The Yoshi-ryu of course, were also from the Kanto region. Some date Yoshimichi's works to as early as 1535, but many question this dating as being spurious.

Now that I look at Gilles' pictures more closely, there are some quite noticeable differences: Gilles' kabuto has a more typical mabezashi that is separate from the front plate, while the Asai kabuto has the mabezashi and front plate in one piece. The Asai kabuto also has a very straight top edge for the front plate, while the one on Gilles' seems to dip down.

Or, is it the other way around, Uwe? I have found no reference to Asai Tomoyuki, only for Hirata Kaneyuki. Another interesting note - if I remember correctly, it is said in the Chappelear that there are only one or two makers who made zunari with tsuke mabezashi.

Hi Gilles, I owned the brother of this kabuto, except mine was signed by Asai Tomoyuki. I did quite a bit of research on my kabuto and found the references that you've found in the Chappelear. I also know that there is another example in a European collection but I'm not sure if it's signed and by whom. The kabuto is actually extremely robust and well-made and has several small details which indicate quality to me, such as the cut corners of the front plate and the tsuke mabezashi/front plate in one piece. To answer your question about the shikoro, what makes it a hineno-jikoro is the fact that it is close-fitting (i.e. drops down from the more vertical koshimaki) and it curves to fit around the shoulder. Other shikoro like o-manju are straight edge and flare out from the kabuto itself due to the koshimaki being more horizontal (with varying degrees based on type).

Thanks much, Michael!

Love zunari, in all their variety and permutations!