The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Sixteenth Century Japan (Chūkokatchū

Seisakuben) by Sakakibara Kōzan; T. Wakameda; H. Russell Robinson

Review by: Schuyler Cammann
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1965), pp. 222-224
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/598000 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 17:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 222 Journal of the American Oriental Society 85.2(1965)
arity with surviving examples, although he seems
to have personally seen many of the latter.
On the whole, his text is a dull and dreary list-
ing of the principal parts of old Japanese helmets
and suits of armor, going back to ancient times,
with much attention to the technical nomencla-
ture, and profuse antiquarian and philological
comments on the terms. Furthermore, the rather
awkward and stilted style of the translation,
though it may be quite faithful to the style of
the original work, does not make for easy reading.
No non-specialist is likely to get very far into this
book. On the other hand, it is not likely to satisfy
the experts, either, for it contains no characters
(kcanji), except for a few shown in the brief Japa-
nese inscriptions accompanying the color plates,
and the latter are limited to the very specialized
topic of armor lacings.
For any expert on Japanese armor who knows
the language-and no one can be an expert on
this subject, in any real sense, without knowing
Japanese-the absence of characters is a serious
drawback, because of the great number of similar-
sounding syllables which could only be clarified
by seeing the original words. For such a person,
this book will seem almost useless, unless he is
lucky enough to possess a copy of the original
volume for comparison and reference.
On the other hand, the illustrations in this
translation are very fine indeed, and they will be
extremely helpful to anyone who is interested in
Oriental arms and armor. Particularly enlighten-
ing are the twenty-two sketches in plates 31 to 38,
showing a warrior dressing himself, from the skin
out, as this shows details of the pieces of armor
and their mode of attachment in a far more satis-
factory way than could have been done by mere
verbal description. The splendidly clear modern
photographs of examples in various Western mu-
The Manufacture of Armour and Helmets in Six-
teenth Century Japan (Chilkokatchii Seisa-
kcuben). By SAKAKIBARA K6ZAN. Translated
by T. WAKAMEDA. Revised by A. J. Koop
and HOGITAR6 INADA. Revised and edited by
H. RUSSELL ROBINSON. Pp. 11-132, 35 plates
(two in color), profuse text figures. Rutland,
Vt. CHARLES E. TUTTLE, 1963. $20.00.
This volume is a translation of a Japanese
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:30 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
seums, as well as in some of the shrine collections
of Japan, both complement and supplement the
sketches, most of which seem to have been taken
from woodblock prints in the original volume.
Apart from its potential value for students and
collectors, this book also has a certain historical
interest, because it had a considerable influence
on the people of its time. We learn from an
excellent Foreword by Mr. Robinson, of the
Armouries in the Tower of London, who has made
a life-long study of Japanese armor, that Arai
Hakuseki probably wrote the Honchd Gunkiko for
the men of his class (fellow samurai) simply to
tell them something about the background of their
military equipment, since knowledge of such
things had tended to ebb away during the peace
that prevailed under the rule of the Tokugawa
shoguns. It is doubtful that he ever had any
desire to inspire a revival of early armor, as he
must have realized that this would be completely
useless since the introduction of firearms (brought
in by the Portuguese, in 1542). However, the
publication of his book had exactly that effect,
and after 1750 most of the wealthy samurai had
made for them suits of showy but impractical
armor in the old styles described in the Honcho
Gunkik5. Furthermore, the book inspired an in-
terest in old books and paintings regarding
Japan's military past, and thus helped to revive
a latent military spirit, which might otherwise
have remained dormant.
The translation concludes with an extensive
glossary, containing rather full definitions of the
technical terms mentioned in the text, and an
unusually complete index to make the book more
useful for reference.
SCHUYLER CAMMANN
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
book on armor, which was first published in 1800.
Its original title means "Treatise on the Manu-
facturing of Arms and Armor in the Middle
Ages." But it is important for the reader to re-
member that the term "Middle Ages" and the
corresponding adjective "Medieval " are used here
in a very special sense. For, in this book, the
periods for the development of Japanese armor
are given as follows: Antiquity, up to 1532;
Middle Ages, 1532-1614; Modern times, 1614 to
1799. "Middle Ages" here, then, refers to a
 Reviews of Books
specific period between 1532 and 1611, otherwise
known as "The Age of Battles." During those
eighty years Japan had seen the development of a
new and intense form of warfare. The warriors
now had to fight largely on foot, against musket
balls as well as arrows, and the changed condi-
tions led the armorers to devise new and different
styles of armor and helmets, in which every effort
was bent toward increasing the practical strength
of the equipment, while decoration was discarded
as non-essential.
This was a fundamental change in attitude.
For, up to then, while the armor-makers had
striven to achieve strength and practical utility in
their products, they had always retained a feeling
for form and color, and their patrons too had
appreciated the aesthetic qualities in finely made
armor laced with cords of vivid hues. In fact
this was characteristic of the best Japanese spirit,
always conscious of the interrelation of the prac-
tical and the beautiful. The new trend of the
Age of Battles is epitomized in the relatively plain
suits of armor, with many of the old details
trimmed away, laced together with cords of a
sombre blue, retaining little that would catch the
eye. It was a time single-mindedly devoted to
warfare, in the view of the original author, and he
heartily approved of that spirit.
The Age of Battles had finally drawn to an end
when the first Tokugawa shogun had defeated the
other feudal lords and welded together the nation
under a single rule, establishing a period of peace
that lasted almost unbroken until the Opening of
Japan by Admiral Perry in 1854. In this period
of rest from warfare, the old military attitudes
began to fade through disuse, and old martial
traditions tended to be forgotten. Then, after
more than a century had passed, Arai Hakuseki
wrote his famous book on Japan's ancient armor,
the Honch5-GunkciW,a salient portion of which
is presented in the book discussed in the preced-
ing review. Writing as an antiquarian, he pre-
sented this primarily to try to revive the memory
of the older traditions, from the period before
1532, and it had a very profound effect in re-
awakening interest in Japanese military equip-
ment.
The author of this present book respected the
work of Arai Hakuseki, calling it "certainly an
excellent guide for later generations in the col-
lection of the arms and accoutrements of antiq-
This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:30 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
223
uity, diffusing as it did knowledge of these for
the first time in the modern age. However, he
deplored some of the effects that resulted from
its publication. For example, he complained that
the majority of armorers in 18th century Japan
had grown to neglect the "medieval" models
which had proved so effective in the Age of Bat-
tles, and that in their attention to the ancient
styles, those of the " Middle Ages " had practically
dropped from general knowledge. It was bad
enough, he felt, that people had forgotten the
practical advantages of the 16th century armor,
but he deplored the current practice of taking
examples of armor from that period of high de-
velopment and " restoring " them in an earlier
style, often adding superfluous archaic features
that the original makers had discarded as being
impractical, irrelevant, or useless for serious fight-
ing under the new conditions.
It was primarily to correct these abuses, as he
considered them, to revive memories of the high
achievements of the armorers in the Age of Bat-
tles, and to restate the basic principles of their
work, that Sakakibara Kozan, encouraged and
aided by his friend Arai Kyfisai Katsumasa,
undertook to write this book. In fact, it could
rightfully be said that it was written in order to
curb the deleterious effects of the previous work,
the HonchU GunkikW.
The author repeatedly expresses his contempt
for what he considered the decadent, over-literary,
excessively antiquarian spirit of his time. In a
typical passage he states, " The soldier of the Age
of Battles was a stranger to the art of literature
and he turned his attention solely to that of war.
He had no feeling for elegance and artistic
beauty; convenience and utility was for him the
first consideration. As far as he was concerned,
old customs had passed into the limbo of ob-
livion." Again, he says, "The practical mind of
the Middle Ages aimed at a standard of business-
like utility in all parts of the armor. . . . It is
greatly to be regretted that the present age of
peace regards armor in the light of an ornamental
toy rather than of a thing for serious use, and
thus thoughtlessly follows the models of the earlier
ages."
Sakakibara's own practicality is everywhere ap-
parent. For instance, in advising how to select a
helmet, he suggests, "Choose a helmet without
crooked parts to ensure it against breaking. . ..
 224 Journal of the American,OrientalSociety 85.2(1965)

To judge of the arrangement of the plates look
inside; the lacquering will conceal this from the
outside. If there is any gap between the plates
rust will ensue; to judge of this, tap it with your
fingers and a crackling sound will betray an ill-
made piece; do not, however, mistake the sound
given out by the tying-cord rings."
Then, after commenting on the current taste
for iron cuirasses decorated with figures in high
relief, he comments, "iRepousse'work is not to
be recommended. It has a way of retaining
arrows and spears instead of letting them glide
off harmlessly, and moreover may have been
beaten very thin in parts which, although not
perceptible to the eye, will be easily pierced by a
weapon. Works of this style are mere toys, meant
to tickle the fancy of art connoisseurs."
On the other hand, sometimes this urge to prac-
ticality seems carried to almost absurd lengths,
as when the armor-maker is cautioned as follows:
" The material for the actual binding (of the
small metal plates, kozane) is preferably taken
from the skin of wild dogs which do not eat salt.
Nearly all other kinds of leather contain salt and
are therefore liable to attract rust to the iron
kozane."
The successive chapters discuss the construc-
tion and manufacture of the helmet, face masks,
the throat protector, sleeve armor, the cuirass and
its tassets, shoulder guards, thigh guards, shin
guards, and finally the lacing of the plates. The
last chapter concludes with a very characteristic
remark, "Strength is here the prime considera-
tion, and it is wrong to regard the external ap-
pearance only. Armor is not a toy."
The text is followed by three appendices convey-
ing further information, a brief but useful bibliog-
raphy, and an excellent index.
This book is quite readable, in spite of all the
technical material which it presents, and it con-
tains a mine of information for the student or
collector. Unfortunately, the expert must again
protest the absence of characters (kcanji), and
some readers may be annoyed by the rather nu-
merous misprints. However, on the whole, it is
an exceedingly handsome, superbly illustrated, and
very useful volume, and in spite of its very high
price it deserves a place in any library devoted to
the culture of Old Japan.
SCHUYLER CAMMANN
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA

Istoriya Dzungarskoko Xanstva (History of the ings or faulty translations. For example (pp. 73-
Dzungar Empire). By I. Y. ZLATKIN. Pp. 74) he quotes a passage from Vladimirtsov's
482. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Institut Naro- Obscestvennyi Stroi Mongolov in which occur the
dov Azii. Moskva, 1964. terms unayan boyol "ancient, hereditary serf, or
vassal" and Rtele bo-yol"ordinary serf, or vassal."
This work relates in considerable detail the his- Vladimirtsov had accepted these readings on Bere-
tory of the Jungyar (Oyirad, Western Mongolia) zin's authority, but P. Pelliot and L. ilambis have
empire from its foundation around the middle of long since shown (Histoire des Campagnes de
the seventeenth century to its final incorporation Gengis Khan, Leiden, 1951, pp. 85-86) that there
into the Manchu empire by the Ch'ien-lung em- is only one expression: atagii bo-yol " ancient,
peror in 1757. The author also devotes consider- hereditary slave." 1 In support of some of his
able space to various aspects of Sino-Mongol rela- 1 In Rasid-ad-Din, Sbornik Letopisei I, 1 (tr. L. A.
tions during the Ming, the importance of trade in Xetagurov), pp. 93 and 107, we read ongu (boyol) and
Central Asian history, the development of Mongol a footnote of p. 93 refers to a note in vol. I, 2, p. 15,
clans, and other theories which, at least to this where ongu is compared to tu. itekii / Mo. Utegii " old,"
reviewer, seem hardly convincing. Mr. Z. attaches and is said, without proof, to be the same as unayan
(bo'yol); in a
far greater importance to Mongol chronicles as with unayan is note on p. 107 the same identification
repeated on the strength of Vladimirt-
historical documents than they deserve, and he sov's authority. On p. 15 of vol. I, 2, in the text we do
criticizes his predecessors for not doing likewise. not find ongu, but utegu (i. e. btegii) boyol, which is
But he is not always aware of the progress in tex- correct. E. R. Rygdylov's article " 0 Mongol'skom
tual criticism made in recent years, and at the termine ongu boyol " in Filologiya i Istoriya Mongol'skix
Narodoi,
same time he bases his theories on corrupt read- inaccuraciesMoscow, 1958, pp. 166-172, contains many
and solves nothing. I do not think, how-

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.154 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 17:32:30 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions