The reliability of a source

I have been looking in detail at the old hand scrolls at the link below:

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=15253

The detail in them is excellent and the artists have tried to depict as much as they can. It would be easy to assume that they are totally accurate especially when looking at the very small details such as tosogu. As most of us know Sasano based a lot of his later theories on the hand scroll called The Tale of Great Minister Ban http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_Dainagon_Ekotoba which he uses as his main source of dating in Tosogu no Kigen. It makes for great reading however his writing and his aggressive dating of tsuba have been criticized because the reliability of his main source is said to be questionable.

So as a very open discussion topic, how reliable do you think these scrolls are?

Have a look through the scrolls at the above link. The web pages contain background notes, and points of interest have been highlighted and are discussed.

Below are a few images to whet the appetite!

Hi Henry,

I was often engaged in discussions and disagreements on matters of historical research as I was for 26+ years working in the History Department of a Museum.

I can speak on your question, but only in the abstract world of historical research methodology as I am not familiar with the periods of armour/dress/tosogu etc. and I have never read Sasano in any detaill.

1. The event depicted in the scrolls was in 866.

2. The scrolls were done in about 1180-90.

It is doubtful whether the scrolls would be totally accurate renderings of the apparel/armour etc of 866 (perhaps partially), thus, it is probable that the scrolls used the current arms/dress of 1180-90 to depict the event. In that context, the scrolls are probably accurate depictions of the armours etc of the late 12th century. This can be assessed by checking whether Sasano identifies any items in his works to the 9th century and uses the scrolls as a source.

If the references citing the scrolls in his work are to the 11th century then it confirms the scrolls depict the 11th century items.

4. If there are criticisms of the accuracy of the scrolls they must be PROVEN by the critic. If there are criticisms of Sasano's citations, they must be PROVEN by the critic. If this has not been done, then the criticisms are worthless.

I hope this helps.

Regards,

Nothing left to say after George's wrap up.

The scrolls are very detailed:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... youkou.jpg

http://myweb.rollins.edu/lboles/web%20p ... age093.jpg

AFAIR, Sasano was using scrolls as evidence that uchigatana with tsuba (as opposed to a tsubaless koshigatana) was used as early as in the Heian/Kamakura periods.

Many thanks George for your thoughts. I entirely agree with you. From what I understand, Sasano does regard the scrolls an impression of life in the 11th century not the 9th century.

I personally feel Sasano has a very valid point but I believe that people have dismissed his work and I have never fully understood why.

The other scrolls, The Tale of Heiji and The Scrolls of the Mongol Invasion seem to be slightly different as they depict Kamakura period incidents and both paintings seem to be contemporary to the incident they describe. I wonder if that gives them more credibility?

Hi Henry,

The other two scrolls would be reliable if it is firmly established that they are painted in the contemporary time of the incident.

Scholarly researched and sourced criticisms are reasonable and add to the sum total of knowledge and most importantly, they can be checked. Unfortunately, some are contradictory based on just "I feel..." or "I don't think..." etc etc. or are quoting some unsourced second hand "authority"..."according to so and so..." etc etc. they have no value because they are opinion only. I have no idea why such "vague" criticisms are made (or listened to).

In the case of Sasano sensei I am not familiar with his critics, but it still comes back to the PROOF the critics have given. If it is properly sourced then it must be given consideration, if not then just note it (and the critics name), but don't give either any undue authority.

The upholding of this "principle of proof" has even led to some heated clashes on this forum...so we are not immune from "critics"...but as is usual in well informed discussion, those who provide proof will prevail.

Regards,

Again George, many thanks. I completely agree with.

I have been trawling through the scrolls and I have noticed that the detail of the koshirae and tosogu is very good in many cases. There seems to be attempts to depict and differentiate between different types of koshirae and tsuba as well as tsuba shapes.

 

1. The event depicted in the scrolls was in 866.

 

2. The scrolls were done in about 1180-90.

It is doubtful whether the scrolls would be totally accurate renderings of the apparel/armour etc of 866 (perhaps partially), thus, it is probable that the scrolls used the current arms/dress of 1180-90 to depict the event.

George, I believe that in the case of the Mongol invasion scrolls they were painted shortly after the actual event, (if I am wrong pleas correct me), in that case I think the scrolls would be a fairly accurate snapshot of the weapons and armor etc. used during that time period..

Here is a quote about the Heiji scrolls.

http://www.bowdoin.edu/~ktravers/projects/heijiscroll/intro.html

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE HEIJI DISTURBANCE

 

The Heiji disturbance, which occurred late in 1159, represents a brief armed skirmish in the capital. The event itself was of relatively minor importance. Supporters of Go-Shirakawa, who possessed sovereign authority as a "retired emperor," vied for influence with the sovereign. One faction, composed of Fujiwara Shinzei and Taira Kiyomori, gained more influence over another group, led my Fujiwara Nobuyori and Minamoto Yoshitomo. Nobuyori and Yoshitomo advanced on the palace, captured the retired emperor, placed him in a cart and set fire to the palace. This scene is depicted here, and Nobuyori and Yoshitomo appear prominently as they attack and burn the palace, kill partisans of the Taira, and parade their decapitated heads.

 

Shinzei had attempted to hide, but was eventually captured and beheaded. Ultimately, the retired emperor Go-Shirakawa, and the reigning emperor, Rokujo, were able to escape by disguising themselves. Taira Kiyomori thereupon launched an attack on the plotters, Nobuyori was defeated, captured and later executed. Yoshitomo fled but was killed while taking a bath.

 

After the Heiji disturbance, Taira Kiyomori gained influence as a trusted advisor to Go-Shirakawa, and ultimately a high ranking noble. He perished in 1181. One of Yoshitomo's sons, Minamoto Yoritomo, was spared in 1160 and exiled, and he later led a revolt which resulted in the death of Taira Kiyomori's relatives in 1185. Even though Go-Shirakawa remained retired emperor until 1192, the victory of Yoritomo came to be thought of as being epochal, for it represents the establishment of a warrior government, the Kamakura bakufu, in Eastern Japan.

 

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SCROLLS

 

The Heiji scrolls date from the thirteenth century. They can be documented as being viewed by courtiers in the fifteenth century, and represents a masterpiece of "Yamato" painting. The quality of the scrolls, and the accuracy of the images is unsurpassed. This scroll is particularly valuable in that it provides an early thirteenth-century depiction of Japanese warriors. The scene appearing here, which shows the burning of the Sanjo palace, is the property of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Two other scenes of the scrolls, depicting the death of Shinzei, and in fragmentary form, Taira Kiyomori's later attack still survive in Japan.

Thanks Eric for your input.

Concerning the Heiji Scrolls, these lines are of particular interest to me.

The quality of the scrolls, and the accuracy of the images is unsurpassed. This scroll is particularly valuable in that it provides an early thirteenth-century depiction of Japanese warriors.

Concerning the Mongol Scrolls. This is on the man who commissioned them.

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

If you study them carefully, the Japanese are done in great detail. The details on the Mongols is not as elaborate and I love the way their faces are (inaccurately) depicted!

Yes, there is a lot to be said in favour of contemporary documents. While scholars can argue over dating and content etc, often the clue to accuracy and date are in the "everyday" objects depicted. This is something that is "unconscious"" to not only the artist of the time, by which I mean that, to him, these are just everyday objects he would see the soldiers and his society using...that is, he does not have to "research" them...they are "current".

Often this detail is the key, as you have stated Henry. By this I mean that in the scrolls you are studying (the two later scrolls), there is the "confidence" that the scenes and dress depicted is "unconscious" to the original artist, and as such are therefore accurate to the event and the time of painting...we can learn a lot from this.

The parallel in the Western world is the Bayeux Tapestry. This was sewn by a group of noblewomen in 1170. It is about 70 metres long and depicts King William the Conqueror's campaign in England in 1066 (it was actually sewn in England - not Bayeux in France). It too is an "unconscious" portrait of everyday items and events. Not only is it accurate in the weapons, armours, tactics and events of that invasion, it is accurate in how the event unfolded and in many minor points not mentioned in written histories....I expect your scrolls are very similar and should be respected as such.

Thanks for an interesting topic.

regards,

Hi,

This was sewn by a group of noblewomen in 1170.

The tapestry was sewn around 1070. It was commissioned by Bishop Odon of Bayeux (half-brother of William) and adorned the nave of the new cathedral of Bayeux in 1077.

Good morning all,

The tapestry was sewn around 1070. It was commissioned by Bishop Odon of Bayeux (half-brother of William) and adorned the nave of the new cathedral of Bayeux in 1077.

Just a brief academic point regarding the name Odon in Jacques' posting.

Odon was variously known as Eudes de Pins and Odo de Pins, He was was 23rd Grand master of the Knights Hospitaler (1294 - 1296), his dates do not match with the Bayeux Tapestry period.

However, Odo was Earl of Kent, Bishop of Bayeux, son of Herleva and Herluin de Conteville and thus half brother to William.

As he is humorously captioned in the Tapestry "Hic Odo Eps Episcopus Baculum Tenens Confortat Puerens" (Here Odo the Bishop, holding a club, strengthens the Boys...)

He died at Palermo in early 1097 en route for the Holy Land, it is said, following a debauched and dissolute life.

It is interesting to note that there is also some lively dispute amidst textile academics regarding the exact date, and origin of the original Tapestry.

Cheers

Well Henry, even the Bayeux Tapestry is the subject of academic disagreement.

This makes me nervous as two of my ancestors may be on it...these ancestors' names appear on the Dives Roll, the names of the 449 men who embarked with William from Dives harbour to invade England in 1066.

It was written between 1066-1087 and dedicated in Dives Church by William himself in (I think) 1087 (listed by PH McKerlie 'Hist. of of the Lands and their Owners in Galloway' 1906 Vol 1. pp.252-261).

Their names are De Spencer and Giffard and they also appear on the Battle Abbey Roll, Hastings (Nat. Lib. Scot. Auchinleck Manuscript f.105vb:78).. Both these names, with de Bruce, later appear as the new nobility in Scotland .

I have "heard" that the Battle Abbey monks would "add" a name in later centuries "for a donation"...but have never "heard" of this with the Dives Roll. It "is considered" that when the names appear on both rolls, they are in no doubt ... maybe our French scholars can comment if this is in dispute also?

Regards,

Edit to add: McKerlie quoted M. de Lisle, Director of the Soc. des Antiquaires de Normandie, who published the list in Bulletin de la Soc. des Antiq. des Normandie.tom. 2. Avril 1862 pp273-9.....this is a French publication so may be of interest to our French members.

Well Henry, even the Bayeux Tapestry is the subject of academic disagreement.

Hi George. That seems to be so. It is Jacques who is disagreeing thought .... :D

Wow, I just re-read Jacques' post...Jacques is correct...it WAS sewn around 1070...I made a typo.

(but now the info about Bishop Odo seems to be "incorrect"...will this never end haha).

Regards,

Hi,

Sorry, it's only in French.

http://www.tapisserie-bayeux.fr/index.php?id=390