Where were the yari?

[IanB]

Gentlemen, Here is a small teaser to which I do not know the answer:

A simple thrusting spear is very effective, simple, cheap to make and easy to use. Its main disadvantage is that if the oppenent gets nearer to the wielder than the point, it becomes a fairly useless stick. This disadvantage could be said to be true of all staff weapons in practice. In Europe, the simple spear developed into a wide variety of staff weapons such as partizans, halberds, bills and so on, but all of these retained a spiked or pointed end to allow them to be used like the simple spear. In Heian period Japan, the simple spear hardly seems to occur. Yes I know about kikuchi yari but look at the paintings of battles and just about the only staff weapon you see is the naginata. You also see odd-ball items like kumade, but spears just don't appear. Even as late as the early Muromachi, the nagamaki was added to the repertoire but it is still essentially a cutting weapon like the naginata. It wasn't until the late Muromachi that the Japanese suddenly awoke to the effectivness of the simple yari. All of a sudden they seem to proliferate, being made in all sizes from the simple had spears of about 6' to what are virtually pikes around 18'.

Have I missed the blindingly obvious here?

Ian Bottomley

[estcrh]

Ian, I have read about the "hoko yari'' which is supposed to be based on a Chinese spear, from the little I can find it was used more for guarding fortifications and gates then in battle. Examples from the nara period are said to exist. Here is what I think is an example of a hoko yari which had a hollow tang, which from a book published early in the 1900s describes one type as having an 8 inch wavy blade much like a malay kris, with a sickle shaped horn projecting from one or both sides of the blade #1. It seems that the use of yari increased at the same time the tachi started to loose favor and the uchigatana gained in popularity, which hqppened during the Muromachi Period. From what I have read changes in battlefield tactics from mounted combat to combat on foot might have led to the increased use of uchigatana #2. Its possible that this change in tactics may have also led to the increased use of the yari.

 

 

#1 Japan and China: Japan, its history, arts, and literature (Google eBook) Frank Brinkley

T. C. & E. C. Jack, 1903 - http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA156& ... utput=text

 

 

 

#2 Samurai: The Weapons and Spirit of the Japanese Warrior Clive Sinclaire

Globe Pequot, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?id=IQ3FAZ ... ana&f=true

 

[IanB]

Eric, The spear-head you illustrate is Chinese. There is a whole bunch of these in the Armouries collection with others that are even wackier.

Ian

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

In Heian period Japan, the simple spear hardly seems to occur. ...omissis...Even as late as the early Muromachi, the nagamaki was added to the repertoire but it is still essentially a cutting weapon like the naginata. It wasn't until the late Muromachi that the Japanese suddenly awoke to the effectivness of the simple yari.

 

Ian, my 2 cents.

Yari is a much simpler weapon to use (mind, I'm NOT saying to master) than a bow or even

than a sword. Hence it needs no professional to be used in an effective way. Or should we say in combat it pays more than a sword and a bow when conscripts are needed ?

 

Japanese started with mass formations of conscripts and spears, the chinese way.

Switching from the chinese model of mass-fighting to a small professional force of (mainly) mounted archers relegated the spear to a marginal role and doomed the hand shield to disapperar forever in the Japanese arsenal. Back than the bow was considered a better investment, being the sword the weapon of excellence (and the only available) mainly when Samurai got in close combat, either mounted or dismounted, shield being replaced by improvements in the armor. I think this was due to the problems to carry/use both a bow and a spear on horseback. Naginata were a good option for footsoldiers to fight against horsemen cause no close formation was involved.

Later when the mass (and close) formations begun popular again the changes in tactics lead to the return of the spear, both for professional soldiers and Ashigaru, and the mounted archers begun a minority, as well as Naginata that requires space around to be used effectively, space no more available with the new close formations. Kikuchi-Yari is so renowned also cause it's *presumed* the battle of Hakone or the battle of Chikugo River (according to which one you prefer to link the Kikuchi) started this trend that possibly reached the apex with Shizugatake.

 

Of course, we should remember that everything is relative and changes didn't occur

in one day.

 

My opinion is that the changes occured not only for military reasons but at least partially also for social ones. Can't elaborate better as I'm at work. Interested in your opinion about this

and get in touch a better way this evening (italian time).

[cabowen]

Perhaps not all yari were made of steel.......

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I get what you mean, but iron spears were quiet common even in the late Kofun,

being not so much precious material involved (literally hundreds buried together for ritual reasons, go figure how many were used effectively). We could suppose that expendible spears were melted down in the centuries, but such an almost total lack of remains (and evidences in painted scrolls and accounts that are supposed to be quiet precise when talking of ancient times) for the period we're talking about suggests differently. If they were effective (for period and tactics) as pointed bamboo shafts, what could have forced them to not put a steel point on them ?

This doesn't mean such bamboo spears weren't used. I think they simply were of little consequence especially for the training the useres had, their number and motivation.

 

Edit to add : an interesting exception was rised once elsewhere about the depicting of lesser

soldiers in ancient scrolls, i.e. only the middle and high class ones depicted while lesser ones (the ones that supposedly carried spears) were intentionally left out.

But if a weapon is effective (again for period and tactics) it is effective for everybody, not

only for Ashigaru, and we know that anything effective was adopted as soon as it showed to

be so, no matter about its nature.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I have read about the "hoko yari'' which is supposed to be based on a Chinese spear, from the little I can find it was used more for guarding fortifications and gates then in battle. Examples from the nara period are said to exist.

 

Hoko. Somebody even has seen them, studied them and took pictures of.

 

which from a book published early in the 1900s describes one type as having an 8 inch wavy blade much like a malay kris, with a sickle shaped horn projecting from one or both sides of the blade

 

It is possible the source mixed (messed?) up something, even if different types of Hoko exists (none with chains attached).

 

 

Anyway, it's hard to believe no spears at all were present in the period of this topic. Spear is also used for hunt. Would be safe to say that they were few and far between and not well suited for

the period's tactics, hence not adopted by high and medium ranks fighters, leaving no traces of their existance in history but survived the oblivion and were resumed when times begun favourable

again. Not so for the shield, that was no more a suitable item cause the two-handed swordfighting Japanese developed in their history.

[estcrh]

 

Hoko. Somebody even has seen them, studied them and took pictures of.

 

 

 

It is possible the source mixed (messed?) up something, even if different types of Hoko exists (none with chains attached).

 

Carlo, the pictures you posted..are those Japanese? The source I quoted was from the early 1900s and with no picture or further info who can tell how accurate the description is, and its possible that Chinese weapons being used in Japan were mistaken for Japanese weapons also...many possibilities. In The new generation of Japanese swordsmiths By Tamio Tsuchiko, Kenji Mishina, there is this statement ...."Hoko:The hoko is a spear thought to be the forerunner of the yari. Bronze hoko first appeared in ancient times and there are extant iron hoko from the Nara period (710-794) " Again no pictures of other information. http://books.google.com/books?id=BWy3gx ... ari&f=true

[Mark Green]

Hi Gang,

 

Great topic.

I feel fairly confedent that yari were used throughout Samurai history.

There are many scrolls showing their use during the 14th c.

I feel that during the early period, the professional Samurai, were worriors of the horse, and bow. Along with a trusty sword, and tanto, the bow was the weapon of choice for the upper class worriors. Their skill at riding and shooting were paramount.

However, even in these times, I feel sure there were retainers using an assortment of pole weapons. Many being yari. According to the Knutsen's, there are quite a few scrolls to defend this.

In the wars of the Nanbokucho period, the yari was used a great deal. Further into the Muromachi period, the yari quickly became the Queen of the battlefield. Many, very skilled, upper class Samurai, found that the yari was a most effective battlefield weapon. And remained the Queen until the modern gun was intorduced.

Carlo, I think you are right on, about the non use of shields. Most Samurai weapons being 2 handed, and the fact that it is very hard to shoot a bow, holding a shield. Instead, the Sode, were developed. These were the shields of a Samurai. Conveniently built into their armor. Defending quite well vs. oncoming arrows, while you shoot.

The troops made great use of large movable pavise shields however. Great cover for your archers, and good defence vs. cav. troops. Archers, could drop their bows, and pick up a 9-15 ft yari, and reap havoc on any kind of attack.

 

Ian, Most polearms, and yari, had butt-spikes. When your opponent gets inside your blade point, your butt-spike can do good service. Or, your polearm can be used very effectively as a leverage device to throw your opponent to the ground.

Mark G

[Baka Gaijin]

Good morning all,

 

Ian wrote:

"Yes I know about kikuchi yari but look at the paintings of battles and just about the only staff weapon you see is the naginata. "

 

Here's a screwball theory:-

 

In the Western tradition, all Art was religious prior to Dirk Bouts "Money Lenders" in the mid 1400's, the secular world existed, but convention was that it was not depicted.

 

Further if we draw (no pun) our attention to the theories of perspective prior to the Renaissance, lesser characters in the narrative were drawn much smaller, even though they were on the same plane as the greater characters.

 

In the Islamic tradition, certainly from the 7th Century, typically though not entirely, the depiction of the human figure was forbidden. Thus what we know of Islamic culture as evidenced in its Art and Artifacts is either geometric or calligraphic.

 

Now if we turn our attention to Japan, the later Heian period (Fujiwara) and its Art, Kyoto nobility developed a society devoted to elegant aesthetic pursuits. So secure and beautiful was their world that they could not conceive of Paradise as being much different.

 

Thus the Art depicted ideals which became conventions, the Naginata was an elite weapon, a spear was not.

 

Heroes were the subject matter, the lower orders were irrelevant and thus not depicted in Art until much later.

 

Cheers

 

Malcolm

[IanB]

Gentlemen, I thought this would stir up some excellent replies and it has.

Carlo, The two socketed heads with hooks are from the Shosoin in Nara and are based on Chinese originals. These latter come with either one, two, three or four hooks around the socket and were still being made in China into the 19th century.

Mark, I take your point about lesser mortals not being depicted in art. However, the scroll depicting the burning of Sanjo Palace does show some retainers and yes, they carry naginata. There is also the point of survival to consider. There are a considerable number of naginata blades preserved as votive offerings in Shrines but I cannot think of any yari.

I am sure that yari were used - they would have been useful, but I am still not convinced they were used in any numbers until the Mid Muromachi .

Ian

[Ian]

Good morning Gents,

 

It is my understanding that many socket Yari were made for fire fighting purposes, it was only later sold as pole arms!

 

Any thoughts?

 

Ian C

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

There are many scrolls showing their use during the 14th c.

 

If you've seen them, likely you've seen more than most of the academics out there.

 

According to the Knutsen's, there are quite a few scrolls to defend this.

Nope. He states (and depitcs) that Yari were *misrepresented as Naginata* and the pics he publish are what *he* feels misrepresentation of Yari. Even Knutsen report sure evidences of the yari

being used by lesser soldiers only *after* 1330. My guess is that we are discussing the gap between XII to mid XIV century.

Please remember that any source must be cross-referenced with others cause the human nature. Everybody makes mistakes. For example Knutsen has always been a strong supporter of the

"Horserider Theory" and is totally wrong about his assumptions (mind, the most common back then) about the reasons of the fault of the two Mongol invasions that he reports to sustain his theory

about the presence of yari thoughout the period in topic. Also, his explanation on why the Samurai could have noted the effectiveness of Mongol's spears but *not* the effectiveness of

mongol's organized mass formations is weak to say the least.

 

In the wars of the Nanbokucho period, the yari was used a great deal.

 

Nanbokucho is out of the period we're considering,however I would *greatly* appreciate the quote, title and author of any source that states such a *massive* use of yari in Nanbokucho.

It was on it's way, but still pretty early.

 

Here's a screwball theory:-

 

Excellent, Malcom, but historical sources are not only painted scrolls.

 

Carlo, The two socketed heads with hooks are from the Shosoin in Nara and are based on Chinese originals.

 

Indeed. Hoko with such a beautiful Masame that some of them are considered at the level of the best Yamato blades of the gold period.

 

There is also the point of survival to consider. There are a considerable number of naginata blades preserved as votive offerings in Shrines but I cannot think of any yari.

I am sure that yari were used - they would have been useful, but I am still not convinced they were used in any numbers until the Mid Muromachi .

Ian

 

This reflects my opinion as well. In other discussions Yari wasn't considered wiped out in the period we're focusing on, but the stigma was about how much it was used.

The point of lesser people not depicted in the scrolls or reported in the chronicles cause their social status IMHO doesn't entirely work even if social reasons *are* to be supposed

as having plaied a role, but a different one, i.e. the elitary and ritualized nature of fighting in the early period considered.

 

As long as the wars were more a conglomerate of individual fights between ranked horse archers supported by their retainers, the yari wasn't effective enough to be carried by both of these

fighters, because Bow and Naginata fit better the situation. Yari being not effective enough wasn't mastered by ranked samurai and lesser retainers, hence left out from the historical sources (both pictorial and written, thing that diminishes the excellent theory of Malcom) that survived until today. Lack of surviving examples support the scarcity of their use NOT the total absence. I usually states "absence of evidence doesn't necessarely mean evidence of absence". With the changes in strategies more and more soldiers were needed. Close formations doomed the Naginata to a lesser role, massive ranks required an asier and cheaper weapon. Yari was the ideal solution. But here we've surpassed the 1330.

[Mark Green]

It is likely correct that very few yari were used in the Heian period. With the Samurai bravado of that period, yari were likely looked upon as a cheaters weapon. Not worthy of killing another upper class warrior. Archery duels seemed to be the most heroic way an up and coming Samurai could make a name for himself. While there did seem to be quite a few Naginata/nagamaki depicted and used. These are just a yari, that can cut better. And are much better when fighting vs a sword, then a longer yari would be in small unit engagements. Plus they are great for chopping off heads

In the old scrolls, you see very few Samurai without a bow. It would be very hard to carry a bow, and a yari. Not that any young warrior of the period would want to be seen using a yari.

This attitude seems to have lasted through the Kamakura period. At least, until well after the Mongol invasions, where I'm sure the Samurai got a few lessons in spear use.

As more 'retainers', entered the fight, so did the yari. As Carlo said, it gave you the most bang for the buck, with less skilled users.

But I do agree, That in the Heian, and through most of the kamakura periods, very few yari were used. It was just not a heroic enough weapon. Rightly so.

Mark G

[John A Stuart]

The fact of the matter, I am lead to believe is that pole-arms were not used by mounted warriors. There is evidence to believe that it did rarely occur, but, must be considered the exception. Battles of the 13th and 14th century were still of the melee type. This means there were no co-ordinated ranks of heichi forming rows upon rows of polearms, yari or naginata, to prevent cavalry attacks. The use of the bow and arrow still predominated the battlefield ie. at the Battle of Kumegawa the forces of Go-Daigo were surrounded by the Hojo forces, where the cavalry, actually horse mounted archers, not shock troops, picked off the opposing forces. The polearm had not been used to advantage because the cavalry did not engage. That was ever the style of combat. Yari being used at this time seem to be mostly tanto inserted into bamboo poles and thus easily available when needed. (Kasuga gongen kenki e, 1334). The naginata would be most prevalent as a pole arm, more effective to take down horses for one thing, and rarely yari or even masakari. (see Ujinori Akamatsu). The use of pole arms against horses, I believe was their primary function, even the Odachi was unsharpened for most of it's length (hamaguri, sharp at the monouchi) to break the legs of horses. Could it be that the castle building and siege warfare of the late 15th and 16th century made pole arms a neccessity for the increased numbers of heichi required for seige? I think so. The change of tactics forced change of weaponry. John

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Interesting feedbacks, and I would add something to mole a little.

 

The fact that yari were rarely used but that the Samurai were well aware of their (eventual) use and existance in any given period and that the use (or lack of it) in different periods was

intentional and (IMHO) related to changes in tactics is illustarted by the emergence of the Jumonji Yari and by the disappearing of the crossbow in Japan.

 

Given that the links with continental China, in one way or another, were always maintained and that continental weaponry often influenced the japaneses we have these two interesting

examples :

 

Jumonji Yari, which appearance in Japan occurred *a lot* after her appearance on the continent, only when tactics required it.

 

Crossbow, that totally disappeared *from the battlefield* after the "pacification" of the Tohoku and was never resurrected as fighting weapon.

Somebody suggests that crossbows were considered "cheating weapons" by the Samurai because they allowed even a poor peasant to shoot at an high rank Bushi, dooming them to oblivion.

My bet is that the difficulty of the production of such crossbows was at the basis of its disappearance. The ratio complexity/efficacy must have plaied a role and, nothwithstanding Japanese could

have produced it an easier way later in their history, absence of favourable environment and tactics maintained them into the realm of oddities.

 

 

Hereafter Han dynasty chinese Jumonji called Sha in the two different types available, dismountable with steel blade and bronze arms type and full bronze type :

 

 

 

Japanese war crossbow (Ian can show an example used for game).

 

[IanB]

Carlo, As far as I can discover there are only 4 known Japanese crossbows: 2 in the Tokugawa Art Museum, one in the Metropolitan Museum, New York (ex Cameron Stone collection) and one in the Royal Armouries in the UK. The RA one has Tokugawa kamon and has the 'bow' made from baleen. It still has 3 small bolts / arrows that are carried in a special quiver built into the stock.

Ian

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

My pic is from Suenaga. Even if some (many?) items depicted there are supposed to have been lost in WWII, I think this crossbow has to be still around in Japan.

I've never attempted to trace it down so far.

 

EDIT : W.W.Farris, while largely discussing their use in early Japan, states no example of Japanese early crossbows survives ("Heavenly Warriors", page 114, published 1995) but cites Mishima Jiicombo Kofun Gun pp 22-24 and Iwate-ken Kitakami-shi Saraki cho Hatten Iseki Kinkyu Chosa Hookoku p. 14 as mentioning a wooden artifact found at Hattenho. However, he've already slipped a couple times on swords so my guess is that he might have skipped this one. Or that it no longer exists.

[estcrh]

Japanese crossbow, age unknown. The Japanese knew about cross bows, from china and you would suspect that they saw examples of European cross bows. It would not have been any harder to produce cross bows then any other weapon. There most have been some reason that they did not use these at least more then they did.

[Baka Gaijin]

Evening all,

 

Screwball theory part 2.

 

Here's an ethnographic Sabot to throw into the gears....

 

As a human grouping evolves, does it evolve with a primal urge to thrust straight at a quarry as evidenced in the indigenous peoples of Australia and Southern Africa, where spear-like weapons occur in advance of slashing weapons.

 

Thus, does it suggest that the evolution into slashing weapons relates to the rate which the technology evolves in tandem with the society? (Access to primitive metallurgy and blacksmithing techniques etc)

 

Passing down the non metallurgical path, does this final evolution as shown in the indigenous peoples of the Pacific rim where conflict was largely ritualised and resolved by symbolic battles involving staffs of authority or one champion against another champion interaction and resolution in order to preclude a mass conflict.

 

Back to Japan now and what is the evidence of thrusting weapons in the Haniwa figures of the Kofun era?

 

Already the metallurgic die has been cast, so to speak.

 

Did the realisation of the futility of continued conflict only manifest itself in the supremacy of the Tokugawa Bakufu?

 

Cheers

 

Malcolm

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Did the realisation of the futility of continued conflict only manifest itself in the supremacy of the Tokugawa Bakufu?

 

My opinion is that contiuous conflicts were no more in the Edojidai cause the Tokugawa strict control over weapons and wealth, not because people was enlightened about their futility.

 

Back to Japan now and what is the evidence of thrusting weapons in the Haniwa figures of the Kofun era?

Already the metallurgic die has been cast, so to speak.

 

Mmm...Honestly, I can't remember to have seen bows depicted in Haniwa, only quivers (I can be wrong). This makes me wonder how much the construction of these statues affected the items that the author could have put into their hands. My guess is that (too much) protruding objects couldn't have been modeled back then. BTW also early Naginata are never depicted, AFAIK.

 

But it's interesting (yet again Malcom ). Haniwa help us a lot in understanding other archeological weapons, but again "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The fact that many spears were buried in the tombs these Haniwa were guarding make me quiet confident the spears weren't left out of models because of a supposed lesser nature.

Could be this one show an early Daisho, Chokuto and O-Tosu that later begun Tachi and Tanto to the final Katana and Wakizashi ? How many of them were equipped this way ?

Just high ranks or everybody ? Only comparing it with other archeological material we can get answers. Alone it's not a definitive evidence (thanks to Jo for the outstanding pic).

 

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Carlo, As far as I can discover there are only 4 known Japanese crossbows

 

Japanese crossbow, age unknown.

 

Ian, add this one to the list.

[estcrh]

Since Japanese cross bows are so rare I'm glad I saved this picture. Obviously not ancient but it is still unusual, maybe based on a European version?

 

[John A Stuart]

Why wouldn't the crossbow be used in Japan? I think the yumi was a much quicker weapon to load and fire. I believe the French learned a similar lesson at Crecy and Poitiers with the English bowmen overwhelming the French forces who had as their bowmen, Genoese crossbowmen. At least I think it was the Genoese. Remember the two finger salute still in use? The crossbow pictured is a really light one. There were crossbows that had steel bows and needed to be cranked. The Romans had them, even huge ones called arbalests. Not really suited for lightning and thunder offence. John

[Jean]

If I remember well, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in "the white Company", the suite of "Sir Nigel" (during Black Prince era) has two heroes comparing/testing on the field the merit of crossbow against bow. Bows are quicker to load and shoot than crossbows undoubtedly, they can shoot farther too.

[ububob]

Crecy was the coming of age of the English longbow and its use was the precursor to modern artilliery or so I was taught in military science and tactics 101 many, many years ago.

[IanB]

Eric, I should have known you would come up with another crossbow. The Chinese varieties were well known in Japan and appear in dictionaries under the names 'oyumi' or 'teppo yumi'. Those preserved in Nagoya belonged to Tokugawa Mitsutomo (1625 - 1700), whilst the Metropolitan Museum's one has a partial signature '... Kunitaka'. One of the Nagoya ones has an alternative string and a half barrel that can be fitted to convert it into a pellet-bow. (See my article in the Royal Armouries Yearbook, Vol 3. 1998).

Those I have seen suggest they may have been made either: to carry in a norimon, like a Rimankyu, or to have next to one's bed ready loaded. The RA one once had a spring to hold the bolt in place when cocked which would make sense if it was meant to be carried around cocked and loaded. Another possibility is that they were just used as an amusing toy to shoot indoors. The bow of the RA one cannot have been powerful, being made of layers of baleen like the leafspring of a car, and wouldn't have had much of a range. As for speed of loading, I'm sure you could cock it just by pulling the string back with one hand.

In Europe, crossbows were initially fitted with simple wooden bows but the friction of the string on the tiller limited their power. They were superceeded by a composite bow made of horn / sinew / wood and ultimately steel. Some of the latter have draw weights of up to 2000lbs but they needed a correspondingly heavy bolt so their performance wasn't as exciting as you would think. They were also slow to span since you needed a mechanical device to draw such a monster. The reason why they were popular in Europe was that you didn't need the years of practice a longbow demanded. We know the Japanese didn't inherit the oriental composite bow tradition (almost certainly from the lack of supplies of sinew / horn) and this is maybe why the crossbow wasn't more widely used.

Ian

[Bugyotsuji]

Carlo, can you provide a closer shot of the writing on the picture of the 'Japanese war crossbow'? It seems to say that this bow was excavated from a Kofun tomb in Pyongyang in Korea, but my eyesight is not good enough to read the fuzzy letters. If I am wrong, forgive me.

 

The other day when the subject of hagire etc in yari came up, and, would this be a bad thing in a spear, I asked a close friend for his opinion. He said that Yari have yaki-ire, because yari were whirled around and used for slashing. So, even when yari succeeded naginata on the battlefield, did old habits die hard?

 

Also, reading this thread (forgive me, but I have been ill recently and I've only just caught up) it struck me that there may be some truth in the idea that straight yari were used by peasants for warding off or surrounding and capturing hostile wild animals. Perhaps there was a cleanliness/purity prohibition bound up in this. One blade for animals, requiring no art, and one for war, requiring great skill. Did a breakdown in the old codes lead to indiscriminate use of previously forbidden weaponry on the field? Did function finally prevail over convention?

 

PS There's quite a good discussion on the history of Yari here, with the Japanese section from 1/3 of the way down the page. They say that Hoko is the old word and Yari took over from hoko. There is also a reference to the earliest depiction of a Yari in a painting in Kamakura times.

 

http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%A7%8D

 

I'll be seeing some sword related people this weekend, so I'll float Ian's question there.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Carlo, can you provide a closer shot of the writing on the picture of the 'Japanese war crossbow'? It seems to say that this bow was excavated from a Kofun tomb in Pyongyang in Korea, but my eyesight is not good enough to read the fuzzy letters. If I am wrong, forgive me.

 

Hi Piers. Guess you're right. Never checked that (hardly even near to your skill in Japanese) and forgot that when Suenaga wrote the book ( october 1941) Korea was considered Japan and some itimes were collected there as well.

This also explains its "disappearing" in later Japanese sources. Farris is right in stating no Japanese early examples survives, nothwithstanding the literature on them. I'd better believe him .

This time it's me that have slipped. New score : Farris / Tacchini 1-2

Anyway guess it should give the idea on how they were.

 

We know the Japanese didn't inherit the oriental composite bow tradition (almost certainly from the lack of supplies of sinew / horn) and this is maybe why the crossbow wasn't more widely used.

 

Exactly the same explanation of Farris. Only difference is the reason of avoiding sinew/horn for religious matters rather than lack of supply.

[John A Stuart]

I have 石弓, as a crossbow. John