Jump to content

My First Kabuto (Zunari)


javier

Recommended Posts

Hi A few days ago I bought my first Kabuto this humble Zunari Kabuto. My understanding is that this is a Hineno type since the central plate is under the visor.

 

My begginer guess and "please consider that this is just a guess" is that this piece belongs to the Edo period, but I would like to hear from more experienced members of the forum, any additional explanation will be highly regarded.

 

 

I am aware that this is not a high quality kabuto but I really like it! And I would like to learn as much as I can from this piece of history.

 

 

I have been reeding a very interesting old post called "The Zunari Kabuto (Zu nari bachi 頭形鉢) that was initiated by Dave in 2013 in the old forum -Nihon-No-Katchu Samurai Forum- that brought very interesting discussions and information from several collectors and pictures of different Zunari Kabutos.

 

I read from the post that there was a specific book but in Japanese language, I was wondering if there is additional information about Zunari aviable in english language since I am eager to learn more abouth this kabuto type.

 

Javier.-

post-2505-0-58007800-1526923345_thumb.png

post-2505-0-06599100-1526923364_thumb.png

post-2505-0-03462900-1526923395_thumb.png

post-2505-0-90183200-1526923409_thumb.png

post-2505-0-33194900-1526923419_thumb.png

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Javier, Not all zunari kabuto were cheap. During the Sengoku Jdai they were one of the styles of helmet to have - there are two armours in Shizuoka with zunari made for Tokugawa Ieyasu and plenty of other high ranking people at the time owned them. These helmets, together with momonari kabuto and a few other types like saiga kabuto were considered best against bullets since there were fewer riveted joints. Imagine a 62 plate suji kabuto being hit, especially on the side. There are so many joints, with the rivets so close to the edge of the plates, they would tear like paper. I have an eight plate helmet by Yoshimichi (Gitsu). He used to make 32 and 62 plate helmet bowls, but changed to 8 plates towards the end of the 16th C. because the plates can be made thicker and there are fewer joints to fail.

Ian Bottomley

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Zunari, Javier! It’s such a classic style of kabuto.

Ian; do we know if Yoshimichi stopped making 32 and 62 plate kabuto all together after he started to forge the 8-plate kabuto? It’s interesting if there are no extant Yoshimichi 32 or 62 ken kabuto made after he began working his 8-plate kabuto.

The reason for that seems quite obvious.

Jan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Thank you all for your comments and for sharing your knowledge !

 

 

The Zunari has some inscriptions in the Shikoro -pictures attached-

 

 

I will appreciate if someone from the forum can please give me a hand with the explanation of those inscriptions and if possible a translation.

 

 

Javier

post-2505-0-67821800-1527037940_thumb.png

post-2505-0-43499900-1527037948_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Javier,  They look like military unit markings - these were common when large numbers of helmets would be stored in a castle.

 

Uwe, I agree it would be a great thread but unfortunately Yoshimichi only ever signed with the two characters of his name.  

Ian B

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


There's not much to say about yoshimitsu apart from the fact that he designed an overcomplicated helmet that was not fit for battle, he then dropped the design and made more robust and functional types. The reason Gitsu are rare is that they didn't work, no good for anything. Saotome adopted the concept of his design for their Kabuto that were produced during a time of peace.

Now steering back towards the actual thread Javier has a great example of a true samurai kabuto. The thing about zunari is that most of them are different in some way, which is marvellous considering that they were produced en-masse. Zunari are affordable to most and often overlooked by snobby collectors. I would say to any nihonto collector that if they were going to make their first purchase to buy a zunari.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's not much to say about yoshimitsu apart from the fact that he designed an overcomplicated helmet that was not fit for battle, he then dropped the design and made more robust and functional types. The reason Gitsu are rare is that they didn't work, no good for anything.

 

:laughing:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK,  let us have a go at the inscription. The trouble with these shumei inscriptions is that they seem to have written them with their finger and bits of the red lacquer drops off - however I can see here:
 

 

 

first kanji is like 上 but with side stroke on the left.

I cannot find anything like this                 二 十 Ni Ju - twelve 番 ban - a guard or watch.四 shi - four  ?

 

So in effect it states that the helmet is for use by ? of the twelfth guard, fourth ?

 

That is all I can get.

 

Ian Bottomley 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fine kabuto to start a collection.  Well done Javier!

These zunari were revolutionary at their time.  They also were an inspiration for 500 years of personal protection.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

Nice zunari! I agree that it is an overlockef type of kabuto, well worth to study.

I will be off topic now so I will take some flak for it, and it may be a question for a different post, however..

I see the discussion regarding the 62 Ken kabuto being inferior to the earlier, zunari, momonari or toppai.

My problem with this is the timing. We know now, from studies made by Jan, that the expansion of matchlocks was rather slow in the beginning, armies munstering a lot less of them than previously believed. We know that 62 Ken started to develop in the mid of 1500. In the second half of that century guns started to come along, the Korea invasion as one example.

So, why would one want to think; wow a new dangerous weapon is spreading, let’s make a new style of kabuto, that will be complicated and time consuming to build, especially if we fill it with small rivets. And best of all it won’t work and break on an impact from a bullet!

I fail to see the logic in that, is it my time line that is wrong?

Anthony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see the discussion regarding the 62 Ken kabuto being inferior to the earlier, zunari, momonari or toppai.

My problem with this is the timing. We know now, from studies made by Jan, that the expansion of matchlocks was rather slow in the beginning, armies munstering a lot less of them than previously believed. We know that 62 Ken started to develop in the mid of 1500. In the second half of that century guns started to come along, the Korea invasion as one example.

So, why would one want to think; wow a new dangerous weapon is spreading, let’s make a new style of kabuto, that will be complicated and time consuming to build, especially if we fill it with small rivets. And best of all it won’t work and break on an impact from a bullet!

I fail to see the logic in that, is it my time line that is wrong?

Anthony

 

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

So, the question remain unanswered. I also read the exellent article regarding the development of the eastern vs the western kabutos, but why would anyone go through the cumbersom process to manufacture a 62 Ken koboshi instead of a zunari if they were inferior regarding protection? The bottom line is, are the complicated koboshi or suji inferior regarding protection? If no, well problem solved, they have their nish, good protection and a good show off for the rich. If yes, why did they exist? I believe warriors are pragmatic. If it doesn’t work, discard it..

 

Anthony

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

School of Thought means nothing other than a subjective opinion, Anthony is talking about a timeline and its relevance to construction from the new ballistic weaponry that sent shockwaves up the country. This for me is of interest. 

Agreed there is evidence to support that the manufacture and spread of teppo were rather slow. However, tosei kabuto can only be dated based on archaeological finds or where armour has been kept in one place untouched, otherwise its speculation. I cant do speculation.

What we do know is that Kabuto underwent a radical change with new groups emerging, Zunari, Toppai, Eboshi and Momonari became the norm, all of which were robust, easy to make and in some cases more expensive than the multi-plate suji. 

If I was asked, "What is your favourite zunari from the Muromachi jidai" I would not be able to provide an answer, the reason being I have no evidence to provide an answer. 

The only value to this would be to put together a construction timeline based on armour that had been time locked. If there are the resources or documentation for this in Japan then we need it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

So, the question remain unanswered. I also read the exellent article regarding the development of the eastern vs the western kabutos, but why would anyone go through the cumbersom process to manufacture a 62 Ken koboshi instead of a zunari if they were inferior regarding protection? The bottom line is, are the complicated koboshi or suji inferior regarding protection? If no, well problem solved, they have their nish, good protection and a good show off for the rich. If yes, why did they exist? I believe warriors are pragmatic. If it doesn’t work, discard it..

 

Anthony

 

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...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you know I too am a member of MEMBER OF 一般社団法人 日本甲冑武具研究保存会 Japan

Please don't mistake my comments as aggressive or awkward. My feelings are that comments based on subjection can be dangerous as others will not delve into what has been said to satisfy the validity of the statement.  

I have the photos and the script from Takemura San which I think is excellent with the chronological order, and that he references items from museums and shrines. My point is all academical study should be supported by this type of research. When we as katchuphiles make a comment it must be able to be defended. Exploring the development and implementation of tosei kabuto in line with the introduction and growth of the teppo is an exciting prospect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is turning into a very interesting topic with several valid points.

As has already been stated, the development of the teppo goes hand in hand with contemporary developments within the field of Japanese armour.

As I showed during my presentation in Berlin, before 1562, Dr Carl Friday didn’t manage to find a single reported injury/death caused by a teppo. This is of course not saying that no one got hit by a matchlock-ball before that, but it def points in one direction, which is, before the end of the 1560s the teppo wasn’t such an important weapon that some scholars claim it was.

So with the above in mind, I think it’s fairly safe to say that armour constructed pro 1565-1570 had to been developed with focus on stopping a matchlock-ball. Hence, new style of armour made before the above mentioned years, was constructed for some other reasons.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is turning into a very interesting topic with several valid points.

As has already been stated, the development of the teppo goes hand in hand with contemporary developments within the field of Japanese armour.

As I showed during my presentation in Berlin, before 1562, Dr Carl Friday didn’t manage to find a single reported injury/death caused by a teppo. This is of course not saying that no one got hit by a matchlock-ball before that, but it def points in one direction, which is, before the end of the 1560s the teppo wasn’t such an important weapon that some scholars claim it was.

So with the above in mind, I think it’s fairly safe to say that armour constructed pro 1565-1570 had to been developed with focus on stopping a matchlock-ball. Hence, new style of armour made before the above mentioned years, was constructed for some other reasons.

 

Jan

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

If one can assume that all these new modells developing in the end of Muromachi and during Momoyama was an adoptation to the new treat. My original question was about the 62 Ken, suji or koboshi, which we not put in the timeline where other modells developed, is inferior regarding protection. In my logic they added something positive in order to be so popular. And I don’t believe it was only glamour. Some believe they will break on the inpact of a musket ball, others not.

Maybe I load up one of my big babies and blast one of those Saotomes and then we get a scientific answer.

 

AdV

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dr. Carl Friday found over 1400 recorded battle injuries between 1500-1600 where a date and a reason for the injury/death was recorded.

During the period 1500-1562 there were 0 reports about injury/death by way of firearm. The bow was the deadliest weapon during this period. During 1563-1600 we see that the firearm takes center stage. And I’m fairly certain that the majority of those injuries/death was caused between 1565-1590. After 1590 the wars were pretty much over and Sekigahara is not included in this study.

So again, new armour-technology initiated after the middle of 1560s was most likely designed due to the teppo’s advance over Japan.

The Akoda-nari is said to have been rejected due to its weak construction. But is there any reliable records to support this or is this a modern theory? Holding a true Muromachi Akoda-nari in your hands def support that impression, but again, can we find records that support this ”feeling”?

Again, a very interesting topic involving several fields of study.

 

Jan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...