Fresh out of the woodwork Nihonto ?

[Ford Hallam]

Just thinking further about the practice of taking heads on the battle field (I have absolutly no interest in WWII atrocities and abberations myself :? )

 

As Piers has pointed out this practice of head taking was almost inevitably practised on already slain foes. This being the case it might be somewhat troublesome to arrange a corpse for a neat decapitation under such battle field conditions, especially using a regular sword. A short, recurved blade would allow for a far more controllable and efficient job to be performed. The other objection that might be raised would be the contamination of the sword by being defiled by a dead body. Dead bodies being considered "unclean" in Shinto theology. One might assume this issue, as it relates to actual battle, is ameliorated by the fact that the opponent isn't actually dead in the instant the blade delivers the fatal blow. A bit pedantic perhaps but that's theology for you . So it may be considered quite reasonable that blades just for use on corpses were in use.

 

How then might we rationalise their relative scarcity now though? Swords have always been considered repositories for Kami and various other benevolent or malevolent energies. As such there is a strong feeling in Japan, even today, that blades are not simply inanimate objects and folk tales abound of "cursed" or "possessed" blades inflicting harm on their unwitting keepers or simply being bad luck to have around. In this atmosphere it would be surprising that a blade made with the express purpose of beheading dead warriors would be all that welcome an addition to any household. In addition, we should note that the blade used by a kaishakunin to terminate an act of seppuku is also thereafter considered to be defiled. This is why it is inevitably a blade that belongs to the victim and not the kaishakunin's own blade. One would also ask what happens to the actual tanto or wakizashi that the principle used. We rarely, if ever, see blades with that unfortunate history. Certainly, this fact is not usually advertised.

 

Anyway, this is all merely some rumination on the matter on my part but if nothing else it may provide a little more nuanced understanding of the broader issue. I've been suffering with severe flu for the last 2 weeks so perhaps I've have had too much time to ruminate of late

 

As an interesting add-on I would mention a moment in the film Gohatto where respects are being paid to a fallen comrade by members of the Shinsengumi. What caught my eye was that fact that the tsuka of the one sword that was visible in the scene was covered with a tube of white paper. When I asked of my teacher what this signified he explained that it was because the samurai did not want to risk contaminating their swords while performing funeral rites.

[IanB]

Ford, At the risk of boring people to death it is well known I have been researching the armours sent to Europe during the 16th and 17thC as diplomatic gifts. Initially it was generally thought, and I saw no reason to disagree, that they were specially made for the purpose. Because the two sent to King James I (and IV) were made by Iwai Yoseamon of Nara it led to the assumption that he was Tokugawa Ieyasu's personal armourer. However, the more I looked it became evident that those armours with heraldry I could identify had in fact belonged to those the Tokugawa had defeated. Thus it seems that it was considered prudent to give away your enemies' armours, presumably because their kami was associated with them - and what could be better than to give them to people who would take them to the opposite side of the world.

Ian Bottomley

[Ford Hallam]

Hello Ian,

 

I tend to actually consciously apply that strategy myself; boring people to death....it's very effective in a debate

 

I had a little further input on the "kubi-kiri" question from Greg Irvine of the V&A.

He offered this web-site

 

[IanB]

Ford, Whatever that thing illustrated on the web site is, it ain't a Japanese weapon. The shaft reminds me of the shafts on several Chinese staff weapons we have in the Royal Armouries. Even those look as if they were made for the tourists, having the most wibbly - wobbly blades you have ever come across. When you compare them to real Chinese staff weapons there is no comparison.

Ian

[Brian]

Hello Ian,

 

I tend to actually consciously apply that strategy myself; boring people to death....it's very effective in a debate

 

I had a little further input on the "kubi-kiri" question from Greg Irvine of the V&A.

He offered this web-site

 

Ford,

I am happy to hear that Greg Irvine is such a disciple of the Final Fantasy computer game, but perhaps he should stick to slightly more realistic fantasy weapons :x

 

Brian

[leo]

Hi, all!

 

I closely followed this interesting discussion during which I learned a few things!

Taking heads on the battlefield was obviously common practice. What seems clear to me now: A samurai did not hack away at a slain opponent with one of his precious battle swords.

This was probably done by a footsoldier(commoner) and he must have used whatever shortsword he carried into battle. This could not have been a special purpose blade of nata design.

On the other hand I am pretty sure such "head knives" in various shapes, also in a modified nata design, were widely used in prisons and on execution grounds. My grandfather brought back such a blade from Japan around 1912. Unfortunately he died in WWII. According to my father, it was sold to him as a decapitating tool, but I have seen a picture and I am pretty sure this one was a gardening tool. Still, the many reports of these reverse blades being headknives must contain a grain of truth!!

 

What I was always wondering about: Was the practice of taking heads in battle an act of taking trophies or was it a kind of grisly afterbattle statistics to ascertain who was killed and who got away?

[John A Stuart]

A trophy and not unusual in many cultures. Beyond that, ultimate proof an enemy has been killed. John

[Ford Hallam]

The presentation of the heads a warrior had taken, to one's Lord/master, was a formal occasion and a form of accounting by which rewards/pay/spoils of war were allocated. It was just business, in a macabre way.

[runagmc]

The presentation of the heads a warrior had taken, to one's Lord/master, was a formal occasion and a form of accounting by which rewards/pay/spoils of war were allocated. It was just business, in a macabre way.

 

I wonder if this idea has been somewhat embellished apon in stories of war. It's hard to imagine every soldier carrying a load of heads to their Lord for payment after every battle. First of all, a head is a fairly big item, and you might need a wheel barrow if you had several kills. It seems like it would be easier to take the right ear from each kill(for example) or something like that. Taking heads would be alot of work and it certainly wouldn't be something they could do while the battle was still going on around them. They could try to sort out who killed who after the battle, but even that seems somewhat doubtfull to me. I'm sure there is some element of truth to the idea, but I wonder if it was really a normal thing that was done consistently. Mabey the idea came from soldiers taking the head of an important enemy, where they needed the whole head for proof they killed a certain high ranking individual. I don't know...

[drdata]

@ adam, indeed, from a recent posting here I believe:

 

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

 

Ears make sense, at least when far enough away that a head may spoil, not to mention good warriors being burdened with so many such items.

 

Regards

[Ken-Hawaii]

Adam, you don't think that some daimyo would stoop to cut & gather heads, would you? He had lots of vassals to handle those chores. Just think of them as "accountants" of a sort....

 

Ken

[runagmc]

Harry, interesting article. It makes my point that it would be alot easier to take ears and noses to present to the Lord for proof of your battle field accomplishments than severing and hauling around whole heads... but I guess both were done. Like the article says, it's funny how those little details tend to be left out of modern history books...

[DirkO]

We touched this topic some years ago when talking about the use of bashin and kankyuto:

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1444

 

Seeing bashin usually have inome cut out at the lower end of the handle, I imagine this could be used to string heads together, making the transport easier? Although this is just a bashin stab in the dark ...

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Adam

 

The practice of head taking and presentation to one's commanders is well documented and recounted in a number of historical documents and period accounts. The need to take the head really only applied to higher ranking warriors. The head of a common footsoldier was not going to earn any points. As for ears, well they simply would not have been adequate to identify the rank or identity of the slain foe. And that was very important in terms of the reward the victor would expect.

 

There are accounts of warriors getting into battle to claim just one head and then to withdraw, or even taking the head of a fallen warrior that they'd not personally dispatched. So it appears it was seen by some to be adequate to simply do the bare minimum and not to risk getting killed unnecessarily. For many warriors it was just a business and loyalties were apt to change as better prospects of advancement and reward presented themselves.

 

The practice derives from the early times, before the introduction of firearms and massed peasant conscripts armed with spears, but it does seem to have endured to some extent into the Momoyama period up until the unification of Japan in1603.

There's a fairly good summary of the changing nature of warfare in Early Japan on Wikipedia, here.

 

If you're interested to learn ore about Samurai warfare the books of the English historian, Stephen Turnbull, are a good start. Here's an on-line review of one of his books that acatually discusses some more complex aspects surrounding head taking.

[estcrh]

Two items associated with the collection of heads that were at one time were probably quite common but now almost impossible to find are the kubi oke (head bucket) and the kubi bukuro (head bag). George stone in his book mentions both items along with the kubikuri with pictures of a kubi bukuro and an unusual kubikuri..

http://books.google.com/books?id=J5Pgap ... oki&f=true

 

The Rock Hill Herald - Feb 18, 1921 has an article on the kubi oke http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 27,1712834

 

And here is a picture of a kubi oke that supposedly held Taira no Masakado's head for untill it was destroyed during ww2. http://english.tsukudo.jp/treasure-backet.html

 

 

This is the only other image of a kubi oke I know of.