Arthur G

On the Evolution of the Oroshi-Mabizashi I don't think it's necessary to reiterate what was said earlier on the Hitaigane-nari mabizashi, but briefly, I assert this is the starting point for the oroshi line of evolution. The shape becomes simplified next, with more gentle curves, such as seen on this Tosa example. The next stage is a bit complex to pinpoint. We see the shape over the eyes becoming simplified and in most cases more or less straight, and the cheek guards being extended greatly to provide more coverage to the face. The Masashige Okitenugui is a great example of this, and even retains the same nasal design from the hitaigane-nari mabizashi. However, it must be stated that there is peculiarity here. In this case, the mabizashi is no longer a separate component that has been rivetted on, but is an integral part of the front plate. Also of interest is this paricular Okitenugui. It's quite possible this is an earlier example. The mabizashi retains the curves that conform to the eyebrows of the wearer like the Hitaigane-nari. Unfortunately, the cheeks were cut off at some point, likely during the Edo period. The extended cheeks do however show up as a separate plate riveted to the bowl elsewhere. I'm of the opinion this example originally hailed from Tosa and was retrofitted at some point later in the Azuchi-Momoyama period. I am not positive however. Regardless, we can see it is closely related in form and function. A further Tosa example of this, but more elaborate in execution with the implementation of kirigane and uchidashi, is worth including here. In this vain of shape changes, we see something similar in Uesugi Kenshin's kindami "ko-zunari". We see something quite similar in proportion and shape to the okitenugui, with shorter cheek guards and simpler edge geometry, but wildly elaborate uchidashi work. Regardless, it follows the same overall trends in terms of shape changes.

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 6: Conclusions and Further Directions for Research The Kongo-ji example is, for the time being, likely the earliest surviving Ko-Tousei kabuto and the origin point of its design is likely with the armorers in Saika as evidenced by its construction compared with contemporary examples from the region as well as the linguistic aspects enumerated earlier. The shape of the bowl seems quite clearly influenced by the Akoda-nari, with its upwards sweep to the rear. Seeing as the original name for the Akoda-nari was Zunari, and that earlier writers viewed the "Saika-bachi" as a form of zunari, this is likely why the modern name for these helmets changed to zunari in the modern parlance. As this helmet design is most likely the origin point for Ko-tousei helmets, I would like to present a grouping of helmets briefly here. There is still a great deal of research needed, with many obstacles to overcome. I propose that there was an enclave of Yuasa armorers in Nara that likely spread East in either the 1550's or 1560's. First, let's view this proposed grouping. The Haruta "Modernized" Akoda-nari kabuto to the left is in essence presented here to compare and contrast. There is a strong tendency as I mentioned before to attribute nearly anything from this era that doesn't fit into mainstream typologies to the Haruta. But when we start to look closer at signed Haruta examples, and compare them with examples such as these other five helmets, we find many differences in terms of construction. Helmets No.2 and No.5 both likely hail from the Saika group in my typology, with No.3 and No.6 likely coming from the proposed Yuasa enclave in Nara. Helmet No.4 is an interesting example and worthy of discussion for a momonari specific thread. One thing that all six of these helmets have in common is the presence of a hitaigane-nari mabizashi. When we hone in on this one particular component, something interesting appears. We can see that helmets 2-6 are quite close in overall shape, proportion and workmanship. 2 and 5 are both nearly identical to one another, while 3,4 and 6 are clearly related. Both of these groupings seem to have a common ancestor. When compared with the Haruta example, No.1, the overall shape and execution are completely different, and in essence more imitative I would argue. To put it succinctly, I would argue that 2-5 all originated from the same set of patterns, whereas the Haruta example is clearly not. It is also worth noting that the Haruta example above is the only one that is signed. When we look at the overall shape and sensibilities of the above helmets, and not just the mabizashi, we see a common sensibility to helmets 2-5 as well. The only one that does not seem to rise up to the rear is helmet no.4. All of them have a rivetted hachitsuke-no-ita, whereas the Haruta example uses byo to attach to a koshimaki. Astonishingly, there is an early Ko-Momonari located in Southern Kyushu that appears in my opinion to be related to this Nara group, and I suspect it's the oldest surviving Ko-momonari in Kyushu. A Ko-Momonari in terms of construction uses four vertical plates, eliminating the need for a top section mounted to a ring. It also seems to still fall into the sheet size limitations I have noticed in Saika-bachi. I do not think this design is based on the cabasset as is usually posited, but rather is an entirely native design. And to be bold, I assert that it originates with a group in Nara that had expertise in working plate. I highly suspect that the Haruta were late comers to plate based designs, and that things like the "modernized" akoda-nari above and the shii-nomi-nari were their attempts at competing with Ko-tousei designs made in their region. The shape of the early Shii-nomi is in essence a momonari that has been constructed as a suji-bachi. The Haruta will feature again later when we come to the development of the Go-mai kabuto. I have more thoughts and opinions on this topic, and would be happy to do an in-depth analysis and discussion of these examples at the end of this thread if anyone is willing to delve into the topic. But for now, I do not want to veer so far off course that this thread has nothing to do with the original topic. Before delving into the wealth of surviving examples of early "san-mai-bari ko-zunari" from Tosa, I will do a brief section on the evolution of the oroshi mabizashi, and show a hypothetical series of developments and steps that led to the later "Hineno Zunari". It will be important to understand this evolution before discussing the Tosa examples.

Cont. In all three helmets, we see the same basic construction. The bowl is first formed with a ring made of three plates, with the front half being made of one large plate. There is a hachitsuke-no-ita in the form of a kasa-jikoro. I posit that the Kongo-ji example is the oldest of the three, with the "Masashige" okitenugui being the latest, likely made sometime in the 1560's. The Tokin-nari in this case is not much different from the Kongo-ji example. We still have a hitaigane-nari mabizashi present but now including simple uchidashi for added strength, and the tsu-no-moto is now a more conventional narabi tsu-no-moto. There are four hibiki-no-ana present, now accompanied by shiten-no-byo. The karutazane sections have now been replaced with a second lame of mono-ita, making it now a nimai kasa-jikoro. There are also now fukigaeshi present, bearing a five petalled flower motif. The "Masashige" Okitenugui now shows an integrated mabizashi design with extended cheek guards. It has uchidashi implemented in the front like the Mori example, but this is far more prominent and is combined with kirigane eyebrows riveted with large zabyo. These zabyo are strongly reminiscent of some earlier designs from previous centuries. The Shiten-no-byo and hibiki-no ana are once again present. The seams are now covered with kirigane as well. The shikoro is missing its second lame, but has 9 pairs of holes for sugake odoshi, indicating this most likely had a ni-mai kasa-jikoro. The most apparent difference between all three is the composition of the top section. With the Kongo-ji, we see three plates; the tokin-nari bears six with uchidashi work implemented; the okitenugui is composed of two plates, with prominent za-byo and an opening at the rear. In essence, the top of these helmets is an interchangeable design. The base helmet is the same in all three, with nearly identical geometry. All three can be made with minimal modification to the same paper patterns. In my current prototype of the Kongo-ji kabuto, I simply reused the patterns from parts of the okitenugui as a starting point and made small changes. There is a peculiarity to the shape of all three that is not shared by other manufacturing groups, and it is the upwards swoop to the rear. When we look at other contemporary helmets made using this three plate ring, such as those made in Tosa or the okitenugui made by the Haruta, they do not share this feature. The Kishuu Haruta seem to revive it in Early Edo in a few examples, but it is still less common. I believe this is the key to understanding why these were conflated with "Zunari", which at the time was the name for the Akoda-nari. When I discovered this conflation, I looked long and hard at the two designs trying to find a commonality. Could it be the egg shaped profile to the bottom of the bowl? Some aspect of the top of the helmet? The fact that these were the next development of helmets after the Akoda-nari? None of these sufficed; then I realized there was indeed a commonality. Look closely at this Akoda-nari, and look at how the light hits the side about halfway up: Next, view the rear of this example again, looking at how the light reflects from the curve: In essence, we see the same curve and overall shape exhibited in the three ko-tousei helmets above as we see in the "Akoda-nari", following the shape of the skull as it raises upwards towards the rear. I posit that the group responsible for the above three ko-tousei kabuto is in fact the Saika group in their earliest discernible works, and that this particular shape sweeping upwards to the rear is one of the most crucial identifying markers of their work. We see it carried on even in later designs in one form or another, and I can cover this topic later if anyone would like me to do so. All three are the earliest iterations of their respective named forms, are consistent in many crucial respects, and fit the time and place. The Kongo-ji helmet is not far from Northern Kishuu and likely came from a time when there was a great deal of warfare involving various parties in the Kansai region such as the Miyoshi. The Mori example might seem geographically out of place, but not so politically. The Mori worked in close coordination with the Saika navy during the Hongan-ji War, with each respectively making up roughly half of the naval contingent on the Hongan-ji side. Finally, the "Masashige" Okitenugui is quite interesting. Its provenance is quite confusing, currently being in the hands of a private collector. It is featured in an Edo Period painting of Kusunoki Masashige, and bears a fake signature inside ascribing ownership of it to him. It has also been modified at least twice in its lifetime, but more likely three times. It is worth noting that none of these three helmets is signed, other than the false signature mentioned. In Part 6 I will discuss another grouping of helmets from this era and region that I believe originated with a non-Haruta enclave residing in Nara. I would like to preface this section by saying that there is a dangerous trend of over-attributing the Haruta to nearly any helmet that doesn't fit the current mainstream typologies. I will compare and contrast a particular signed Haruta helmet from the time with this next hypothetical grouping, as well as this "Saika" grouping, and show a number of technical differences, as well as the likelihood that the Haruta were quite late to the game when it comes to Tousei designs. However, they will make a great deal of contributions some decades later, and when it comes to the evolution of oroshi mabizashi and the Go-mai kabuto, they will feature quite prominently. We must keep in mind that the Haruta were by no means the only armorers in Nara, let alone Kansai, and while their contributions to armor evolution are substantial, they by no means have a monopoly on the developments in this region and time period. Finally after part 6, I will start a new section delving into Tosa helmets, as they are on a technical level the closest helmets to the original Saika-bachi designs. I believe they are the earliest regional deviation and innovation of the Tousei kabuto outside of the Kansai region.

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 5 Here I would like to discuss features and similarities between the kongo-ji kabuto and other contemporary designs to help illustrate how the design spreads and evolves over the next ~50 years of history. Firstly, I am of the opinion these designs begin to show up sometime around 1550. I have seen some convincing arguments that point to a period slightly earlier by up to two decades, but I myself am not currently convinced of this. We see no artwork that would confirm this, nor an impetus for the development. Artifacts that would indicate this rely entirely on supposition for dating. However, I am entirely open to this possibility provided solid evidence and context for the development. What I find absolutely absurd however is the idea that these designs go back to the Onin War; I have an apprehension to even address it. However I will keep it brief. It's based on nothing but supposition, and once again the desperate need to hold onto an image that has no basis outside of pop-history. The arguments I have always seen for it end each time with those making the claim that we see it in the artwork. This is always followed by a grainy, low definition photo showing some kind of kabuto that is black and has a brim lacking a shikoro. Upon further inspection of this artwork with a high quality image of what is actually there, it becomes quite apparent that this is not a "zunari" kabuto. We can clearly see the suji illustrated on this example, and fortunately we have a great example of exactly what this is. It is even dated, with the inscription "Eiroku 9", placing it in 1566. To give something to the people making the aforementioned arguments, I will say this. I do think it is likely this design is what led to the later riveted hachitsuke-no-ita design that will show up in the Saika-bachi much later, and would indeed be quite an innovation for the late 15th century. But by no means does this constitute a modern "zunari" kabuto as they would conceive it. Now, let's look at two contemporary helmet designs that are based on this initial Saika-bachi that likely originate from the same workshop/smith. In order here, we have the Kongo-ji kabuto, a Tokin-nari from the Mori Family Collection, and the "Masashige" Okitenugui.

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 4 The shikoro on this helmet is particularly noteworthy. Not only is the hachi a wild departure from earlier designs in terms of construction, but the shikoro is as well. In essence, the hachitsuke-no-ita is an ichi-mai mono-ita kasa-jikoro. A related concept to this is the tsuba-ita seen on some later designs. In terms of form and function, it is not much different than this "akoda" which utilizes an ichi-mai kasa-jikoro made up of iyozane. However, this shikoro made up of sane is attached to the hachi using wari-byo. The hachitsuke-no-ita of the Kongo-ji is folded up at the edge at a nearly 90 degree angle and thoroughly riveted to the base of the bowl. This negates the need for a koshimaki while at the same time adding much needed rigidity to the base of the bowl. Attached to this is a karutazane mitsuwari-jikoro split into three even sections each consisting of four columns. The lateral sections each consist of three rows, with the rear section consisting of four, likely to add better coverage to what would be a gap at the base of the neck in dou designs from this era. It's also worth noting that there are no fukigaeshi present. It's most likely they were omitted from this example so as not to hamper use of a bow, or possibly just for the sake of simplicity. The ukebari of this helmet is simple, using a single sheet of fusube-gawa. The interiors of the karutazane sections are lined with what appears to be only a single layer of hemp, lightly dyed with indigo. While the shinobo-no-o is missing, the kan are still present. We can see they are made of copper, and are attached through the use of copper wari-byo that pierce through a hole in the hachitsuke-no-ita. There is very little in terms of decoration in the base helmet bowl, with nearly every aspect of it being solely utilitarian. It is worth noting that there are four hibiki-no-ana present, but they are not accompanied by shiten-no-byo. Of great importance to note is the shape of the front of the top plate here. It is a tri-lobed shape that is uncannily reminiscent of things such as the yamagata shape seen in the Kanmuri-ita of the Sendan-no-ita on O-yoroi for example. The nasal bears this same shape. Finally, the maedate. This is in the shape of a Kongo-ken, or a vajra hilted sword, and is a potent symbol of Fudo-myo. This motif is common in the era, but not in this particular execution. It is made of one very large sheet, likely either gilded copper or possibly houkin. This motif will come up in later designs in this thread, particularly in regards to the ko-tousei kabuto produced in Tosa. Its attachment method is quite strange, and possibly unique. It uses a single long tsu-no-moto, the base of which is attached with two split pins through the mabizashi. This could imply either a unique design created by an unconventional smithing group, or even a later addition. A final note on this helmet is that there is no indication that it was created as a temple offering from its outset. It is rather crude and utilitarian, with the side plates of the top being uneven and not fully dished out. The top plate itself is also not evenly dished, with the left side dipping far lower than the right. Upon close inspection of the ukebari, there is a considerable degree of wear and soiling. The fabric lining around the lateral kan seems to have been forcibly torn. It is quite possible this was taken on a battlefield from a slain opponent. In Part 5, I will cross compare with a number of related examples, in particular the "Masashige" Okitenugui, and a very curious helmet in the Mori Family Collection. I will focus in particular on the unique shape shared by all three helmets: The upwards swoop to the rear. As mundane as it may appear at first glance, this is a crucial element to understanding this grouping. I also believe it is the key to understanding why the Akoda-nari and the Saika-bachi were both referred to together as Zunari. In Part 6, I will conclude with a proposed grouping of helmets produced in the Kansai region that are separate from the Haruta, but all related in having an origin with the Yuasa group.

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 3 First we need to discuss the basic construction of the bowl. The main structure of the bowl is a ring made of three plates. The front half of this ring is made up of a single large plate that terminates roughly half way around the diameter of the bowl. This plate is slightly larger than a muna-ita plate, and is notably similar shape. Here are my rough patterns used for the Kongo-ji Helmet at the top, and the "Masashige" Okitenugui below it. The seam height is the same on both helmets. In essence, the "Masashige" okitenugui is the same pattern, but made far more dynamic and refined and including an integral mabizashi. It's clear that the okitenugui in this case is derived from the former. The next stage of the ring is the rear, made up of two shorter but much taller plates. Utilizing two plates to achieve this rather than a single plate implies that the smiths responsible for these helmets were limited in the size of their metal stock they were utilizing, but that is a topic for a bit later. Forming this ring is the first step to constructing a Saika-bachi. I have seen many people making various forms of Okitenugui and the like, but they nearly always begin with the top plates. This creates many problems. The strength of this design comes from the joining of the top to this ring construction. When the top is made first, it becomes nearly impossible to create the proper join. This forces one of two solutions. Solution 1 is to bend the top of the ring at a harsh angle and force it on using the rivets. This creates an unstable and weak design. Visually it is easy to spot this incorrect method of manufacture because it always creates a large overhang of the top plate with a gap between the edge and the ring. Solution 2 is to cut tabs into the top of the ring so the tabs can slide underneath one another. While fine visually for armor not intended to be functional but rather for costume, it makes for a very weak structure at the most crucial point. Once the ring has been formed, the next stage is to start forming the top. In the case of this Kongo-ji kabuto, you begin with the top band, then fill in the side plates. This whole component is riveted together and shaped to fit the edges of the ring, then riveted to the ring. In the case of the "Masashige" okitenugui, the top band plate is simply deleted from the design, and the back of the top component is left open at the rear. It is worth noting that the top band is made from a sheet that is the same width as the front plate, with the major difference being that the front has a scoop cut from the top to create a forward tilt to the helmet in conjunction with the increasing height of the rear plates. Sasama Yoshihiko's illustration here sums it up quite simply: Let's look at other features on this particular example. The mabizashi firstly is of great interest. This is a hitaigane-nari mabizashi. For those unfamiliar, the hitaigane is an armored headband that became popular in preceding centuries and eventually replaced the earlier happuri. It could also be worn underneath a kabuto for added protection just as the happuri once was. I am currently reproducing both a hitaigane and a hitaigane-nari mabizashi at the same time, and interestingly the hitaigane is far larger than the mabizashi, which is not something I had expected. For a surviving example of this type of hitaigane, here is the best that I am aware of. The nasal appears to be a gyoyo (apricot leaf) motif, which will be important for later. Here is the current iteration on the prototype I was making of this helmet. I have decided to end the prototype phase and begin the final form, so please forgive the photos of it in a crude state. Utilizing an earlier forehead protector design in place of a more conventional contemporary mabizashi design from the era is a very interesting choice on behalf of this smith, and it would lead to an entirely new line of evolution with the oroshi mabizashi. This will be a particular technical element that I will cover to the best of my ability over the course of this thread. To summarize the shape and construction of this mabizashi, simply put, it's a hitaigane with the overall length and height reduced considerably, a more drastic angle to the cheeks thus reducing material present, and a simplified and shortened nasal.

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 2

Case Study 1: Kongo-ji Saika-bachi Part 1 Kongo-ji is a very old Kogi Shingon temple located in former Kawachi province, and now resides on the outskirts of Osaka City. There is a wonderful collection of armor there that is sorely overlooked by many, but unfortunately it's a bit difficult getting ahold of info on what is there. Thankfully, there is a well photographed and documented example of a very old helmet fitting the shape of a Saika-bachi as illustrated in aforementioned texts. By current modern definitions, it is described as a San-Mai-Bari Ko-zunari. It is likely the oldest publicly known "Ko-zunari". I have seen an example in a private collection that could possibly predate it, but much more study is required before I can confidently say anything about it. Let's begin first with photos.

Yuasa We begin our journey in a town south of Wakayama City. Wakayama is an obscure place to most to begin with, and a town like Yuasa even more so. However, it is at the heart of my current theories on the origin of Tousei-gusoku. In the beginning my focus was entirely on the armorers of Saika and the Haruta in Nara, with the origin of the Saika armorers being nothing but a quaint footnote. It wasn't until I made contact with someone from Yuasa that I realized the importance and extent of this origin point, and how far back the history of this armoring group actually went. In collector circles, it is well-known now that the armorers from Yuasa and Southern Kishuu produced o-tateage suneate and Kumano-uchi hoate implementing kirigane in their designs. In fact they were the main producer of o-tateage suneate in the entire country. What is not well known I think is that their repertoire was not limited to this, nor were they a group born of the Muromachi period. This aforementioned contact shared this with me. The translation is rough, but I'd rather leave it in their words than try and refine it. I apologize if my information currently on Yuasa is limited, as I'm in the process of getting more hands on research done through officials within the city. But, this should suffice for the purposes of this thread. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Kacchuu of Yuasa" During the Yuasa clan( Originally from Fujiwara) strongly positioned at the time of Bushi above all from Kinokawa area down to Hidaka area, people praised Kacchuu as they were the symbol of Bushi's souls. Although Yoroi and Kabuto for the usage of protection tools of wars , they were kept in Yoroibitsu importantly or displayed to be recognized as the soul of Bushi. About the Kacchuu, it was written in Iseeteikunoorai (published in Nanbokucho era) "The most impressed Kacchuu were made in Kinokuni Yuasa and Rakuyo( Kyoto)," as well as" The final beautiness, the strengthen and the work of craftsmen's heart were not allowed to follow by the others." It is not clear when they had started to make but assumptively when Yuasa clan had created the biggest Bushi-dan in Kishuu in Kamakura ara, Bugu ( tools of Bushi) were required and ordered the most and later on they were introduced to all over Japan. The location of the craftsmaking was assumingly "Kajiya machi" neighborhood which is still named the same in Yuasa town. The end of the Middle ages, Saika clan tried to fight against the battle which purpose was conquering Kishuu by Nobunaga Oda and Hideyoshi Toyotomi. " Saika kabuto" were used for the war and its shapes were very unique and were extremely strong, which gun's bullets even couldn't go through. It has been informed they were actually crafted in Yuasa town. Even though there is no clear evidence how long it lasted, at least for a certain period of time the "Yuasa kacchuu" was the most well honored in the nation. In "Kiikuni Meisho Zue" published in Edo period "Yuasa kacchuu" was introduced as they were popularly produced." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is most notable about them being the main producers of O-tateage suneate is the fact that by the Muromachi period this was the only substantial form of plate based armor being produced in Japan. The only things comparable are things like munaita on dou or the smaller plates used in kabuto construction, with the overwhelming majority of armor mass being made up of kozane. Yuasa was quite the powerhouse in its heyday. It seems to have risen to prominence in the Late Heian Period and grew in influence politically through the Kamakura period. The Yuasa clan however became divided during the Nambokucho War and went into a steady decline, with its last hoorah being in 1447 with the fall of Yuasa Castle to the Hatakeyama. The Hatakeyama had a strong hold over Kishuu, with this in turn falling into decline as a result of the Onin War (1467-1477). From here on they had only a nominal hold over the area, with many places declaring themselves, in essence, proto-republics. Saika and Negoro-ji are the two most prominent. Sometime later, likely in the early 16th century, armorers from Yuasa began migrating, first North to Saika, then towards Nara. Later, I will demonstrate the likelihood that an enclave next moved to Odawara, and likely expanded as far North as Muramatsu. In the past, I have heard that the impetus for their migration was that the O-tateage suneate was falling out of fashion in favor of the Shino-suneate. However, it seems more likely to me now that the real cause for this was socio-economic factors. With the decline of samurai power in Kishuu and the rise in a wealthy republic to the North, the incentive to move elsewhere must have been overwhelming. The absolutely massive shipping assets of Saika and a trade network that extended not only from Sendai to Satsuma, but also internationally, would also give local craftsmen a unique ability to spread their wares as well as obtain quality materials. It would also expose them to a variety of things from foreign nations. With a strong reputation in armor quality, a centuries old tradition, and a near monopoly on the ability to produce mono-ita plate, we have a group that has all the necessary prerequisites to produce early Tousei armor. All we need now is an outside stimulus to spur this on, and I believe we see this with the introduction of firearms into Kishuu in 1544. I suspect this is why the Saika-bachi was not only first conceived, but why it is most likely the first of the tousei armor designs.

Nomenclature and Etymology Part 5 - Conclusion There are many other texts and illustrations I have encountered here and there, but most seem derived from the Buyo Benryaku. Rather than hammer repeatedly with ideas taken from the same source to try and prove my point, I have instead tried to show a more diverse range of illustrations and definitions here from the time. Even then, we can see a clear pattern. Going forward, I will elaborate further on old and modern terminology as I present case examples and analyses of the stages of development of these kabuto. I will explain the original terminology, and why I think the modern terminology is deeply flawed in most cases. I am of the opinion that a return to older terminology in regards to Japanese armor is a direction the community needs to take going forward. The original conceptualization of Japanese armor is, in my opinion, crucial to understanding it. Without it, the study falls prey to the whims of those with influence and personal agendas, and moving forward with deeper research becomes nearly impossible so as not to step on toes. Doing this however requires people to let go of an image they might cling to. The study of samurai history in general is deeply tainted with pop-history, media consumption, and worse, orientalism. People first encounter these things as their entry point into the study, but many refuse to let go; in the end, it was that initial thing they consumed that they loved, not the history itself. In the following posts, I will present many controversial ideas that will go against the grain of the vast majority of people interested in this field. But, I will attempt to present things as objectively as possible, focusing on a technical analysis of the pieces alongside the linguistic aspects covered in this initial Nomenclature and Etymology section. Seeing as I'm currently working on reproducing this particular line of helmets and prototyping them from the ground up, I will also share some insights from this perspective. I will show patterns where relevant, comparison of geometry in parts, etc. Rather than seeing collections photographed for dramatic effect, I hope to instead show these as a sum of their parts. Understanding these from their inception will help to demystify them while also exposing connections between armorers and designs that may not be as apparent in the finished products that have been passed down to the modern era. The next post will be discussing the helmet preserved at Kongo-ji and my theories as to its origin and date. Until then, I hope this Nomenclature and Etymology section serves as a good primer for the rest of this thread, and that the texts themselves lead others to their own discoveries.

Nomenclature and Etymology Part 4 So when do we see these particular hachi referred to exclusively as Zunari Kabuto? The earliest case I am aware of is in the Kousei-Roku (甲製録), authored by Myouchin Munesuke. I have had some trouble with this particular document. I have found a couple of copies in archives, but no full digitization. The dates on them are from the early 19th century, with the oldest one I have found so far being dated 1828. Myouchin Munesuke's life is also somewhat confusing as I am seeing multiple birth dates. The one thing that seems agreed upon is his year of death, 1735. If anyone is aware of an older, or the original copy, of the Kousei Roku, I would love to see it. So far, it's an elusive text for me. I do have a relevant page from one of the copies here however. This is the earliest, and currently only, example of the "Hineno Zunari" being exclusively referred to as a zunari. If this is the foundation of the modern nomenclature, then I think this should raise concerns with any scholars here. Not only is it an outlier, but there are many issues with the document itself it would seem. Of course I am open to any new evidence or information in regards to this particular document. It's also notable for the fact that it refers to the Saika-bachi now as something unrelated to this design entirely, instead focussing on things such as kirigane, zabyo, etc. as being features. Unfortunately, I do not have a digitized document in this case, but I will post a couple of archive catalogue lists for anyone interested in pursuing leads. 1. https://iss.ndl.go.j...000001-I065169104-00 2. https://jpsearch.go.jp/item/cobas-138856

Nomenclature and Etymology Part 3 Next we have the Bugu-Kinmou-Zu'i (武具訓蒙圖彚) from 1684. Another fascinating book with a lot of content I strongly urge people to comb through. In it, we see an early illustration of what is referred to in the mainstream as the Hineno Zunari. However, it is called neither Hineno nor Zunari in this entry. It is simply dubbed a "Go-mai Kabuto", or five plate helmet. This is close to the term used currently for the later "kozunari" design which the "Hineno" evolved from, the Go-mai-bari Kozunari. This illustration however is quite clearly of the later Edo design. We also have the earliest case that I am aware of of the use of the term "Akoda" to describe the dynamic suji-bachi we are all familiar with. However, the majority of documents I have seen from this era refer to it as the zunari. So, does the Bugu-Kinmou-Zu'i contain anything by the name of zunari? And if so, does it look anything like either of the prior helmets? There is in fact a zunari in here; in fact there are many kawari kabuto in here containing the name, all using this helmet as the base: Admittedly I was quite baffled by this illustration, and somewhat hesitant to make this post today because of it. But by luck, a friend uploaded some photos from the Murakami collection this afternoon. One of the helmets in there is a close match: Link to the Bugu-Kinmo- Zu-i: https://archive.wul..../ke05_00636_0001.pdf

Nomenclature and Etymology Part 2 My next find was sent by a good friend that is a book I highly recommend everyone look through. It is the Zukai-Heiki (図解兵器), written in 1708, and includes many things that will interest everyone here. However, for this particular discussion, there is one illustration that stands out. Once again, we have a "Saika-bachi". There are no other helmets in this book with a similar construction to this or what would constitute the zunari in the modern sense. When looking at Sakakibara Kozan's work from the early 1800's, he defers to the Buyo Benryaku's definitions of helmet shapes, including the Akoda as "Zunari" and the San-mai-bari as "Saika-bachi". We see this also with the Natori-ryu scroll on armor from the 1680's, once again going with the definitions used in the Buyo Benryaku. In the next section, I will cover the next form of Kabuto, the "Go-mai-bari", as well as a caveat to the above definitions in the Kousei-Roku. For anyone who would like to read through the Zukai-Heiki, here is the archive link: 1. Zukai-Heiki - https://webarchives.....jp/dlib/detail/2672

Nomenclature and Etymology Part 1 I first came across the novel concept of a Zunari being also referred to as a Saika-bachi when first reading the "Saika Book" a while back. In Part 3 of the book, focussing on Okitenugui, it opens with what is likely the oldest of the surviving "San-Mai-Bari" Kozunari located at Kongo-ji. This is the helmet I'm currently prototyping as seen in the "Show Off Your Work" thread. On the following page it shows an illustration of the same type of helmet from the Buyo Benryaku (武用辨略), 1684. The caption clearly reads "Saika-Bachi, which is a form of Zunari". The writer of this book elaborates on it further, but is a little disingenuous with what he writes. He continues the current mainstream terminology, but conveniently leaves out what the Buyo Benryaku defines a Zunari-Bachi as..... This is a Zunari according to the Buyo Benryaku: And quite clearly, this is what we refer to in the modern era as the Akoda-nari. The fact that the author would leave this out raises an eyebrow with me. I realized there was an extreme hesitance to divert from the mainstream modern terminology upon looking more closely at this example: This is taken from the Buki Nihyaku-zu (武器皕図), 1854, which was in essence a trading card game that one could cut out from the pages. This illustration shows two helmets, but the black one in the background is the one we are looking at. Clearly this must be illustrating a "Hineno" Zunari as the author insists, even though the caption is very clear with its definition of this helmet. It plainly states, once again, Saika-Bachi. However this time it elaborates further with the description of the shikoro, detailing it as a Hineno-jikoro. The illustration and caption are very clear with no ambiguity, yet the author states the original source must be wrong. This sent me on a hunt to see what other writers from the past thought. What I found was already in line with my thoughts and theories on the origin of Ko-tousei kabuto, but was far beyond even my wildest speculations. For anyone that would like to comb through the original Buyo Benryaku, here is the link: 1. Buyo Benryaku - https://kokusho.nijl...io/100060596/1?ln=ja

Introduction Partnered with the Pop-History image of the Okegawa-clad samurai is the "Hineno" zunari-bachi kabuto, and the two are nearly inseparable. The image of this particular helmet has become representative of the Sengoku-era, and nearly ubiquitous in media. But how far back does this design really go? And how did it evolve? Where did it come from? Further, when did we even start calling this a "zunari"? In this thread I will answer all of the above, and hopefully it will lay much of this to rest. When I have approached this topic with most in the community, it has usually been answered with shrugged shoulders and vagueries. I have never once received a satisfying answer from modern people on this topic; so instead, I went back to the original men of the era. Combing through old documents and viewing as many examples as I could find, a fairly clear chain of events and developments revealed itself. As with the Okegawa thread, I will start with nomenclature and refer heavily to original documents. From then on, I will proceed to show the evolution from the ground up. I'll be writing this one in installments so bare with me. I will not be answering comments or questions until it's finished. Much of this is my own thoughts on the topic, some of which are shared by others in the community, some of which are going to be quite controversial. This will be a bit more detailed than Part 1 was and go into many technical elements. Originally I had planned to save this all for a book, but I don't believe in hiding things behind a pay-wall. I care more about the truth being shared, and the community as a whole becoming something better than it is now.

It snakes every which way with me too. That's part of how it goes. You just gotta listen to what the steel is telling you and hit it in the right spots 'til it fits. And the only way to get anywhere with it is just by doing it like you are. I'm only a couple years into this and I'm already starting to build up some intuition with it I think. It just becomes second nature.

To quote sensei, hit it until it fits!

Making some more headway on this guy

I wonder how much this guy spends on acids in a year....

This reminds me so much of the old Heian warabite-tou. That looks like it was a really fun project to do, but a lot of complicated problem solving! I can relate to the whole thought process involved with. Takes a lot of research.... I really want to see more of this mindset in the matchlock community. Say Piers, would you and other members of the Okayama Teppoutai be interested in attending the matchlock symposium in late September? I won't be able to attend myself, but two of my guys will be going over to represent my group at it. We're trying to get people together from as many parts of the matchlock community as possible.

If it's your own original work, go ahead and share some of your digital art if you want to!

Hahaha too kind as always Chris. And definitely will show step by step. That's actually what I want for this thread! I don't want someone coming in here and posting up something claiming it's theirs without being able to show how they did it from the ground up. First you start with a pattern. Rarely would I show this much of my patterns with notes to boot, but I went ahead and did it with this one. You can see more photos on my page of course. When I make a pattern they always require tweaking anyways. Next you start cutting stuff out. Sometimes you have to make some parts first and build patterns off them in the prototyping stage. That top plate for example, the pattern is cut ridicuously long right now. I'll cut it down to match the ring when it's formed. So once they're rough shaped, you start refining things. You cold harden the plates with thousands of tiny hammer blows on an anvil, trying not to warp the shape too too much as you do it. It's endless tedium and correction. Lots of people seem to just get the plates into rough shape without hammer hardening and leave it at that. Or you'll see plates forced together with rivets or welding, rather than being shaped together and held with minimum tension on the rivets. It's half art, half science. After this of course was the mabizashi. This thing took the better part of a week. The lines around the eyes are a tiny bit too exaggerated I think, and the overall shape and proportions could use some work, but, that is the purpose of a prototype afterall. I just went slow with it and gently. I have a few anvils and a bunch of random hammers. It's a matter of tinkering 'til I figure out how to get a shape. Lots of file cleanup. You can never own enough files... The inside should tell you a lot. One thing is these edges are more like a 45 degree angle than a 90 degree angle, but your brain thinks hard edge when you first look at it. You can see how the angle is somewhat shallow when you look from the inside. The main thing is to go slow and not over power things. It's a very physical job and requires you to be really aware of subtle things going on with your body, but people rarely realize this. It's more like a martial art than anything I think, as silly as that may sound to some. There are rhythms and techniques you pick up as you go. My tenouchi with the hammer is not that different from what I learned with swords back in the day. The best way to learn is to look at originals. I keep telling people, stop looking at decorations and surface level things. It's a trap that especially westerners fall into. Look at the base armor itself. Look at the geometry of the plates. I think every single collector should take up a hammer and try making something, even if the results are bad. It's too easy to think of these armors as random or arbitrary things thoughtlessly put together and just coming from the aether. Every single square inch of these has been worked over by hand and thoughtfully done. None of the designs are random. ALL of it is very, very intentional. Once you understand the thought process, it is easy to see how different groups are related to each other. You'll start seeing the same paper pattern used by two armorers in wildly different places that you never would have thought were connected to one another, but you can't come to any other conclusion as cold hard technical evidence is sitting there right in your lap. So I encourage everyone to give it a shot. Problem solve it, look at the original piece and try and do what they did. Never forget, it's armor. If it can't protect you, what's the point? Lots of fakes are not only non protective, but also poorly fit. This is something you can spot instantly once you've tried making something.

Oh it does, trust me. We figured out a lot looking at original examples for Chris' project here. In essence you change the size by changing the degree of taper! A lot of people aren't fully aware of this. When he took the last batch of photos there the camera was a bit close, which distorts it. There is more taper there than it appears. It's also apparent when laid out flat. To make one of these in essence the muna-ita and waki-ita are going to be dictated by body measurements; the plates below are going to be adjusted in angle to fit the wearer. If you set an original flat, you can actually figure out the angle/degree used to adjust it for the wearer. Think of the dou in essence as the outside perimeter of a large circle, with all of the edges of the gomai structure pointing inwards towards a central point. The angle can be found then at this central point measuring off two of the lines.

I'd like to see all of those! Those are some eccentric projects, that's right up my alley!

Just a show off your work thread. Projects you are working on, etc. One rule though: It has to be something you've made from scratch, from the ground up! No re-lacing, "restoration" work, modifying things already made, etc. I'd like to see some people in the community, regardless of their skill level or whether they're a professional or DIY-er, showing some of their work and what they're up to. Here's a humble helmet I'm prototyping right now.