Wednesday, March 16, 2011

The Joint AAS-ICAS Conference in Honolulu

To celebrate its 70th anniversary, the Association for Asian Studies (AAS) is holding a special joint conference with the International Convention of Asia Scholars (ICAS) in Honolulu, March 31–April 3, 2011 at the Hawai'i Convention Center, and Samurai Archives correspondents will be present, keeping you updated on all of the history, theory, and academic goodness.  Keep an eye on this blog for detailed summaries of each days events, and for a real time streaming feed of groundbreaking information direct from the floor of the conference, follow @samuraiarchives and @toranosukev via Twitter, and set up a search for #AASConference, which we'll use to tag the tweets.  We should also be recording some audio for the forthcoming podcast that will cover the conference.

Here are some highlights I am looking forward to:



Session 72: Monks of the Five Mountains & Shogunal Patronage of Zen in the Making of Muromachi Culture
In particular, Koji Ito's presentation on the Muromachi Shogun's use of monks in diplomacy looks promising.

Session 192: Negotiating One's Place in Japan's Long Sixteenth Century
This session is at the top of my list of must-see at the conference, and being the most Samurai-centric, I intend to take copious notes.  In particular I am looking forward to Luke Roberts presentation entitled 'Warrior Conflicts With Their Daimyo in Early Seventeenth Century Japan' - Dr. Roberts is the author of Mercantilism in a Japanese Domain: The Merchant Origins of Economic Nationalism in 18th-Century Tosa, and numerous interesting articles focused on Tosa province, so I assume this will involve the transition from Chosokabe to Yamanouchi leadership in Tosa province.  David Eason's presentation entitled 'This Land is My Land: Masuda Motonaga and the Politics of Territorial Redistribution in Choshu Domain', dealing with the Mori clan, also looks interesting.


Session 321: Before and After the Banquet: Culinary Discourse in Japan (1500-1900)
 This just seems generally interesting, and with presentations with titles like'Admonitions Regarding Food: Some Glimpses into the Pleasures and Dangers of Eating in Edo Period Japan' by Michael Kinski, I think it should be entertaining.


Session 541: Elite Patronage and Viewership of Japanese Art in the Age of the Toyotomi-Tokugawa Transition - sponsored by Japan Art History Forum
Toyotomi and Tokugawa in the title are enough to get me in the door, but the presentations involving caligraphy, folding screens, and other works of art look to be interesting. Not sure what will actually be there, but I assume at the very least there should be some juicy handouts.

Session 560: From Horseriders to Buddhist Devotees: China, Korea, and Japan at the Intersection of Visual Culture in the 5th-7th Centuries
Ancient Japan is still pretty mysterious to me, even after a lengthy Kofun podcast discussion that has yet to hit the airwaves (podwaves?), but it is definitely fascinating, so I'm definitely looking forward to this.


Session 614: History, Literature, and Religion: Toward a New Paradigm for Kokugaku
Kokugaku is pretty much a mystery to me, but I have seen a lecture by presenter Mark Mcnally before on a similar subject, and even though it was admittedly over my head, I did find it interesting, so I'm looking forward to his presentation 'Classifying Kokugaku: Nativism and Edo Japan', although I don't expect to make much sense of it in the long run.

Session 659: Nagasaki in the Eighteenth Century: Commercial and Institutional Change From Inside and Out
Having gone to college in Nagasaki, it was my first and most accessible introduction to Japanese history, with historical spots all over the place, including Glover Gardens and other interesting spots, so a presentation based on events in the city I used to live in should be interesting.
Those are the ones I'm most looking forward to, but with what looks like well over 100 sessions in 4 days, I'm sure some of the other ones will also be fascinating.  A few others that have caught my eye:

Religion Goes Pop: Manga and Religion in Post-1995 Japan
The Development of a Tradition: Nara Period Eminent Monks in Context
Who Counted Kin, and How: Warrior Groups,, State Regimes, and Social Boundaries in Central, East, and South Asia, c.1200-1850
New Military Technologies and Their Impact in the Indian Ocean Realm c. 1000-1600

All in all, a very full 4 days, which I will enjoy thoroughly since I'll be taking time off work to attend.  Keep an eye on the blog and the aforementioned twitter accounts for updates! 

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Mongol Buffoonery: History Channel's Ancient Discoveries

One of our favorite sports is watching The History Channel's attempts at presenting programming dealing with pre-modern Japanese history. The quality of the shows tends to range from brutal (see 'Musashi') to laughable (see 'Ancient Astronauts'). Still, we feel compelled to watch-it's like watching a train wreck occur in slow motion. Even though you know things will end badly, you can't tear yourself away.

Such was the case in February 28th's broadcast of "Ancient Discoveries: Ancient Super Navies". One of the segments of the show dealt with Kublai Khan's invasions of Japan (along with his Korean and Chinese allies) in 1274 and 1281. While we stumbled across the program in the midst of airing, it showed that it was every bit the sloppy, cobbled together mess we've come to expect from History Channel. It established its credibility right off the bat by stating that Kublai Khan invaded Japan in 1274 in order to stop Japanese pirate invasions of the Asian mainland. While Khan's motivations for invading Japan are complex and a subject of some debate (usually centering on 'manifest destiny', reports of staggering Japanese wealth, or the most likely, the desire to keep Japan from aiding Khan's enemies in the Southern Song Dynasty), stopping pirate raids was not among them. This sounds like information imparted by a Korean historian (who for all the rancor shown towards Hideyoshi's invasions of Korea some 300 years later seem to forget their own invasion of Japan here)-it's a popular theory in Korea that they convinced Khan to attack Japan in revenge for the pirate raids of the mid-13th century. There's no evidence to back it up-not to mention the last pirate raid against Korea took place in 1265, some 10 years before the first invasion, hardly giving Khan a reason for aggression.

The show is using severely outdated sources for its presentation. They use the wildly exaggerated claims of 100, 000 troops for the Mongol forces and of course credit the failure of both invasions not to the tenacity of the Japanese defenders (particularly in 1281) but to the typhoons that wreaked havoc upon the Mongol fleets. Thomas Conlan, along with many Japanese historians, have convincingly demonstrated that the typhoons just 'put the exclamation point' on the Mongol defeats-the Japanese had already stopped their foes.

The History Channel even fails basic math. The origins of the word 'kamikaze' are examined (the 'divine wind' that 'stopped' the 1281 invasion), and it's stated that 500 years later the Japanese used it as their rallying cry when mounting suicide attacks against the American fleet in WWII. Actually, 500 years would put things at 1781, and unless they hope to tie this in with an 'Ancient Astronaut' theory, way, way off. Then just to show they can go the other way, while staging a demonstration of the 'zhen tian lei' (Mongol 'thunder crash bombs'), they claim that it has been 'over a thousand years' since one was detonated. Even making the dubious assumption that 1281 was the last instance of these bombs being used, that would put things at 2281-some 270 years in the future.

And while the reenactment/demonstration of the 'thunder crash bombs' is the high point of the segment, they manage to botch it as well. For starters, they make an elliptical shaped bomb rather than the round ones depicted in the Suenaga scrolls and the ones found by archaeologists. This completely changes the ballistic nature of the resulting explosion, invalidating their results. And they claim that the charge would have a '100% kill ratio within 20 feet'-oh, please. It would surely do lethal damage at random points within that perimeter, but there would be many spots not covered in the spread as well. They finish off things by stating that had the 'kamikaze' not hit, these bombs would have completely incinerated the Japanese fleet. WHAT Japanese fleet? The Japanese had a low number of small fishing boats they had commandeered from local fisherman they used to conduct raids on the Mongols, but absolutely NOTHING in the way of an organized fleet.

Finally, they roll out the Moko Shurai Ekotoba scrolls of Takezaki Suenaga as if they've been tightly guarded secrets that the History Channel has just managed to uncover at the Hakozaki Shrine. Of course, these scrolls have been a well-known Japanese national treasure for hundreds of years (with the original being held by the Imperial Household Agency) and were hand copied hundreds of times through the centuries (with the Hakozaki copy being one of these). They use the scrolls to demonstrate that the 'thunder crash bombs' were used during the battles, even though Conlan has also shown that these bombs were added to the scrolls decades after they were first drawn. Although archeological evidence has verified the existence (and presumably the usage) of the bombs among the remnants of the Mongol fleet, the scrolls originally had no evidence of them (and were later added to bring them into line with written accounts).

Other episodes of interest to followers of J-history: Ancient Secret Agents covers ninja and Ancient Special Forces spotlights the horro (the 'arrow catchers' worn on the back of elite samurai battlefield messengers). We're sure we'll run across them at some point-we can hardly wait.

Monday, January 24, 2011

A Translation from the Shinchokoki - The Battle of San no Yama-Akatsuka

Here is my translation of the battle of San no Yama-Akatsuka, as related in the Shinchokoki, a record of the Oda clan from 1544 to the death of Oda Nobunaga. It was written by Ôta Gyûichi, a vassal of Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The Shinchôkôki is considered a reliable historical account of the events described, and has yet to be translated into English, although excerpts appear in various scholarly works.

The Battle of San no Yama-Akatsuka

Oda Nobunaga
In the fourth month, 17th day of 1552, Oda Kazusa no suke Nobunaga was 19 years old (by contemporary Japanese reckoning). The lord of Narumi castle was Yamaguchi Samanosuke Noritsugu, and his son was Kurôjirô (Noriyoshi), who was 20 years old.

They were both watched carefully by lord Oda Bingo no kami Nobuhide, and after his death, they immediately attempted a rebellion, invading Owari with Suruga forces. It was an unpardonable act. Yamaguchi Kurôjirô was left guarding Narumi castle. Yamaguchi Samanosuke had a strategic fortress built at Kasadera, and deployed Kazurayama Nagayoshi, Okabe Gorbei Motonobu, Miura Samanosuke Yoshinari, Iinô Buzen no kami, and Asai Koshirô. Yamaguchi Samanosuke went to Nakamura, building a fortress in preparation for a seige.

Lord Oda Kozuke no suke Nobunaga was nineteen years old, with an army of 800. He passed through the village of Nakane on the way to Konarumi, and placed his troops on San no Yama. The 20 year old Yamaguchi Kurôjirô was approximately 15 Chô (1.6 Kilometers) to the East of San no Yama. He departed for Akatsuka, which was approximately 15 or 16 Chô (1.6 to 1.7 Kilometers) to the North of Narumi castle, with 1,500 troops. The vanguard was made up mainly of Ashigaru, led by Shimizu Matajûrô, Tsuge Sôjûrô, Nakamura Yohachirô, Ogiwara Sukejûrô, Narita Yoroku, Narita Sukeshirô, Shibayama Jintarô, Nakajima Matajirô, Sobue Kyûsuke, Yokoe Magohachi, and Arakawa Matazô, and closed in on Akatsuka.
Seeing the situation from San no Yama, Kozuke no suke Nobunaga immediately dispatched troops to Akatsuka. The ashigaru vanguard included Arakawa Yojûrô, Arakawa Wakiemon, Hachiya Hannya no suke, Hasegawa Aisuke, Naitô Shôsuke, Aoyama Tôroku, Toda Sôjirô, and Katô Sukenojô.

When the armies were approximately five or six ken (9-11 meters) apart, the powerful archers on both sides fired arrows. Arakawa Yojûrô was struck deep beneath the visor of his helmet and fell from his horse, dying instantly.  Enemy soldiers immediately grabbed his legs, others grabbed his scabbard, and began to drag him. Yojûrô’s allies grabbed his head and upper body to keep the enemy from taking his body. Yojûrô’s ornamented daito was approximately 1.8 meters long, and the scabbard width measured about 15-18 centimeters. The enemy pulled on the ornamented scabbard, while Yojûrô’s allies pulled the sword, his head and upper body, and pulled his body free of the enemy.

The melee lasted from approximately 10am to noon, with neither side able to get the upper hand. Yamaguchi forces killed that day included Ogiwara Sukejûrô, Nakajima Matajirô, Sobue Kyûsuke, Yokoe Magohachi, and Mizukoshi Sukejûrô.

Because the armies were so close together, no one was able to take the heads of the people they had killed.

Kozuke no suke Nobunaga lost thirty cavalry.

Arakawa Matazô was captured alive by the Oda forces.
Akagawa Heishichi of the Oda forces was captured by the enemy.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Chosokabe Motochika: The Little Princess's first battle - A Translation

Here is a quick and easy translation of the events surrounding the first battle of the Sengoku Daimyo Chosokabe Motochika, from Jinbutsu Tanbou - Nihon no Rekishi #5 Sengoku no Busho, Tokyo, Japan, 1982, for your enjoyment:


Chosokabe Motochika
Chosokabe Motochika was born in Tenbun 7 (1538), in the middle of the Sengoku period. At this time in his home province of Tosa, there were many small clans defending their territories, and there were continual battles. Motochika’s father Kunichika was based in Okô castle, and was part of one of these "small clans", however he was an exceptional strategist, and during Motochika’s childhood, Kunichika defeated neighboring small clans one after the other.

He gradually expanded his holdings in the center of Tosa province. In Eiroku 3 (1560) Kunichika made a surprise attack on Nagahama castle held by a rival clan, the Motoyama. When word reached Motoyama Shigetoki, he was greatly angered and gathered 2,500 troops from Asakura castle in order to take Nagahama back. Kunichika left Okô castle to intercept Shigetoki’s army with 1,000 men. This was Motochika’s first battle. He was 23 years old. This was a very late first battle for a son of a Sengoku warrior, however there was a reason for this.

Motochika was born with a pale complexion and a meek face, and had a quiet, reserved demeanor. Because of this, his father’s rough warrior vassals referred derisively to him as "the little princess". Kunichika also felt that Motochika was an effeminate child, and so waited to bring him to the battlefield. When Motochika left Okô castle on the way to the battle, he asked his vassal Jinzenji Bungo for tips on how to use a spear and how to lead an army. Motochika joined Kunichika’s army with 20 mounted men.

At Nagahama, both armies collided. A long and bloody battle ensued. Finally, both armies pulled back momentarily to regroup. At this time Kunichika remembered his son’s participation, asking about his location on the battlefield, but was unable to find him until a vassal pointed him out in the forest shade about 200 meters from the left wing of the army formation. Motochika was gathered there with his 20 horsemen. It appeared that they had not even fought yet. Kunichika was recorded as referring to them as "lazy fools".

At this time, Motochika’s isolated group was noticed by a force of 100 mounted Motoyama warriors. With a battle cry, the 100 Motoyama warriors charged. It did not appear that Motochika’s small force would stand a chance against them. However, Motochika’s battle cry was heard across the battlefield, "Attack! Attack!" Motochika spurred his horse, charging out ahead of the rest of his small force into the oncoming rush of horsemen, wielding his spear with great skill and speed, fighting with the ferocity of a wild lion. The 20 men with him were encouraged, and fought a hard and bloody battle. Kunichika stood in his stirrups, yelling for attack. The Chosokabe army responded by surging forward. The Chosokabe army, strengthened by the surprising effort in battle of the "little princess", was unstoppable. The Motoyama troops were completely crushed, fleeing back as far as the main encampment.  The pursuers swept away everything in their path, easily crushing the headquarters. Motoyama Shigetoki fled to Urado castle, barely escaping with his life, and presumably Chosokabe Motochika was never called a "little princess" again.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Defenders, Victims, Avengers: Turnbull's "Samurai Women"

While the female warrior is a staple of chanbara films, manga, and anime, there's very little in the way of books that examine the role of women in Japanese warrior society (particularly in English). The ever prolific Stephen Turnbull has addressed this shortage with his newest effort "Samurai Women 1184-1877" (which despite the title actually covers the period from 170 to 1877). Whether in their capacity as castle defenders, victims of warfare, or avengers pursuing a vendetta, Turnbull examines the impact that women had upon the violent world of the samurai.

We'll go over the book's shortcomings first since we'd like to end on a positive note. Simply using the term ‘samurai’ with ‘women’ casts Turnbull in a bad light-it seems he’s unaware that the Japanese use ‘samurai’ as a gender specific term that can only be applied to males (those who want the details can read about it here). Onnamusha, buke women, and other terms would be more appropriate here. While I would have to reread the book to be 100% positive, I believe Turnbull never explains that 'Gozen' is not a proper name but rather just another word for 'woman' or 'lady'. This might puzzle some readers who will come away thinking that virtually all the female warriors of yore shared the same given name!

The careless errors that crop up on a regular basis in Turnbull’s other books waste no time in showing up in Samurai Women. For example, he devotes two lines in the main text to Hosokawa Gracia (possibly the best known ‘samurai woman’ in the west besides Tomoe Gozen). One is a picture caption, one is in the main text-and he gets them both wrong. The caption reads “Hosokawa Gracia is revered for the fidelity that she showed to her Christian faith in spite of the initial opposition from her husband, and later his disgrace and death”. As Hosokawa Tadaoki outlived Gracia by several decades, it appears Turnbull instead is thinking not of her husband but her father Akechi Mitsuhide (who of course was labeled as a traitor and disgraced for his attack on Oda Nobunaga and his subsequent death at the hands of peasants). The selection in the main text reads “This was Hosokawa Gracia, the staunchly Christian wife of Hosokawa Yusai”-but of course, her husband was Hosokawa Tadaoki with Yusai being his father. These are the types of errors that make one speculate if Turnbull actually proofreads his work or even has someone else glance over his manuscript for accuracy.

Turnbull’s tendency to be highly uncritical of his sources and accepting Edo period and earlier legends at face value is on full display as well. Nowhere is it mentioned that most Japanese historians consider celebrated female warrior Tomoe Gozen to have been nothing more than a legend. She appears in no contemporary documents, histories such as the Azuma Kagami, the records of the Wada family, or in the registers of the temples she was alleged to have joined late in life. He fails to mention that the Genpei Seisuki (the basis for the story of Tomoe becoming Wada Yoshimori’s concubine) is an ‘expanded version’ of the Heike Monogatari with many fictional elements added. Instead, it appears Tomoe was birthed in the Heike Monogatari through the efforts of pro-Minamoto/Hojo historians to discredit Kiso Yoshinaka. In many subtle ways the Heike chroniclers cast aspersions on his fitness to rule, ranging from referring to him as ‘Kiso’ rather than ‘Minamoto’ to always depicting him in the company of women (the story even has Kiso remarking that to die in the company of a woman would be dishonorable). Elizabeth Oyler has a fascinating examination of this in her book ‘Swords, Oaths, and Prophetic Visions’ for those who wish to learn more. Similarly, the story of Akechi Mitushide’s mother being killed by Hatano samurai after Oda Nobunaga breached their agreement with Mitsuhide is presented as fact. Instead, this appears to have no basis in reality and was first seen in an Edo period play as an attempt to explain Mitsuhide’s motivation for turning traitor. There are records of her surviving past 1574 (the supposed year of the incident) along with letters written to and by her. There’s more along these lines, but these examples should suffice.

It’s also odd that Turnbull neglects several of the more dramatic episodes involving ‘samurai women’. Although it’s mentioned that the ‘Satsuma rebels under Saigo Takamori had a few women in their ranks’ (during the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877), the many contemporary accounts of large groups of them fighting at the siege of Kumamoto castle are ignored (we would have been interested in reading more about this, since there seems to be a question about whose side they actually fought on). Tachibaba Ginchyo’s defiance of Kato Kiyomasa during the Sekigahara campaign while she was a nun is depicted, but Turnbull fails to mention that she was unique in Japanese history. Ginchyo was the only female daimyo lord in Japanese history, being installed in that position by her father who lacked a male heir (she lost this position to her husband Muneshige after their marriage-and Muneshige later divorced her. Talk about ingratitude!). Several short accounts of ‘female horsemen’ in the full version of the Taiheiki are not brought up. Another of Kiso Yoshinaka’s attendants who supposedly fought and died at the decisive battle of Kurikara, Aoi Gozen, isn’t examined. As noted earlier Hosokawa Gracia rates barely a mention. Even some recent archaeological discoveries that could have an important bearing on the role of women in combat are brought up only in passing (such as excavations at head mounds located near battlefields that contain approximately 33% female heads according to DNA testing). We would have liked to have seen much more done with the latter (even if only referencing a source), as this has the potential to redraw the parameters of the female warrior.

Finally, in an effort to get the maximum drama from his subject, Turnbull engages in some rather baseless speculation both in the body of the text and in his interpretation of certain images. For example, he states that "the samurai woman as a fighting warrior, by contrast, appears to be virtually non-existent" and follows that by stating "they...allow us to regard the exploits of female warriors as the greatest untold story in samurai history". However, given that Turnbull is unable to find enough material to fill the approximately 32 pages of text in the book with the exploits of warrior women, it seems the 'female warrior' (at least on the open battlefield) must still be considered largely a myth. This is a theme Turnbull comes back to again and again, but he fails to provide evidence to back it up. For example, the best he can do for contemporary images of 'female warriors' are a woodblock from 'Hojo Godaiki' and 'Boki Ekotoba' (a picture scroll from 1351). The woodblock shows 'trophy heads' lined up after the Hojo capture of Fukane castle, and Turnbull claims several of the heads appear to be female. He doesn't identify which heads he has in mind, but the ones he might be thinking are female clearly have the hairstyles of male pages. Turnbull also states that a figure seen in the Boki Ekotoba scroll is likely a woman because "the features are very feminine with rouged cheeks and painted eyebrows, and by comparison the faces of all the other characters are coarse and masculine". Well, not really-all of the characters display rouged cheeks and painted looking eyebrows. The figure appears to be a youth or page (Turnbull does list this as being possible), with the only real facial differences being that he still has all his hair (not having yet taken vows) while the other monks have shaven heads.

Now let's move on to the book's strong points. Turnbull does a good job of providing background on the important roles that women played both in the political (both in marriage politics and working behind the scenes) and economic (by managing the estates and affairs of a samurai household) realms. These were women like Hojo Masako, Minamoto no Yoritomo's wife who was as feared and ruthless as any male leader of the time. Many of the early female Emperors are mentioned, including the mythical Empress Jingu (who may or may not have existed) who was said to have led an army that conquered Korea around the start of the third century AD. Another early female leader, Himiko (mentioned in a Chinese account in 297) is also examined.

By far the most impressive section of the book is where Turnbull examines the role women played in castle sieges. This is where virtually every reliable account of women participating in warfare comes from. Women were routinely left in charge of the defense of castles while their lords were away, and even took an active part in the action when their husbands were present. Turnbull has well-documented instances from Hangaku Gozen's defense of Torisaka Castle in 1201 to the woman of the Joshigun at the siege of Aizu-Wakamatsu Castle in 1868. While women generally performed support duties such as extinguishing fires, loading guns, making bullets, cooking food, caring for the wounded, and even preparing trophy heads for viewing, there are many accounts of them taking up arms and even sallying forth from the castle to confront the enemy. A common theme is that of a woman who would don her husband's armor to inspire the troops, in effect 'standing in' for the lord. Some of the accounts are comical and heartbreakingly tragic at the same time, such as occurred at Tsuneyama Castle in 1577. Led by Ueno Tsuruhime of the Mimura, a group of 34 women charged out of the castle and attempted to engage the besieging Mori troops in conflict. However, the Mori samurai refused to kill women and tenaciously avoided combat, frustrating the women who returned to the castle and committed mass suicide. A much different result was to be found at Aizu Wakamatsu in 1868. Nakano Takeko and a large group of women left the castle and charged into the lines of the new Imperial army. While the Imperialists instructed their men to take the women alive (likely more for some nefarious purpose than out of compassion), the women had no such compunction, slaughtering many of the Imperial troops before most of them were gunned down. There are many other excellent accounts such as at Imayama in 1570, Tsurusaki in 1586, Hondo in 1589-90, Omori in 1599 (where women operated a catapult), several actions during the Sekigahara campaign of 1600, and more. Perhaps our favorite account was of Yamamoto Yaeko, who was the daughter of an Aizu gunnery instructor and who replaced him when he was killed during the fighting in 1868. Brandishing a brand new Sharps repeating rifle, she not only fought with the men but also survived the battle, living to found Doshisha University in Kyoto. Perhaps Turnbull's greatest strength is his ability to bring to life the legends of long ago, and this is some of his best work in that area.

There's also an intriguing 'battlefield' account of Sengoku period female warrior Tsuruhime of Omishima (no relation to the Tsuruhime mentioned above). Tsuruhime's exploits against the Ouchi around 1541 (both on land and on the sea) are perhaps the only reliable accounts in Japanese history of a woman participating in open field battle. Oddly enough, Tsuruhime wasn't even a member of the buke class-rather, she was a shrine maiden who proclaimed herself the avatar of Mishima Myojin. The high point of her career came when she boarded the flagship of Ouchi general Obara Nakatsukasa No Jo and cut him down. Turnbull includes an image of the altered armor that is attributed to Tsuruhime and that is still housed in the Oyamazumi Shrine.

Turnbull fills out his accounts by relating many of the atrocities suffered by women as victims of war, with some particularly grisly accounts of them being pierced through the hands, tied to ships, and used as human shields by the Mongols during their invasion of Japan in 1274. Threats of mass suicide were also commonly used by women against invaders-one wouldn't think that would be much of a deterrent, but the courage showed by the women sometimes impressed the invaders enough so that they would abandon their assault out of respect. He also brings up sanctioned Edo period vendettas-out of 100 recorded vendettas, 14 were carried out by women. One of these is examined in detail, showing how the two daughters of a farmer, Miyagino and Shinobu, killed the samurai who had murdered their father. While their story has been greatly embellished over the years ala the 47 Ronin, they used a naginata along with a chain and sickle to dispatch their foe. It's also interesting that the only instance during the Edo period where a 'retainer' took revenge for their 'lord' (besides the fabled Ronin) involved a lady-in-waiting who killed a woman that had forced her lady into suicide.

About half of the 64 page book is devoted to photos, reproductions of woodblock prints, portraits, and also some excellent plates by artist Giuseppe Rava. In our opinion, Rava's plates are among the best ones seen in Osprey's Japanese samurai history line-they're quite dynamic and don't 'glamorize' their subjects by making them look like schoolgirl teen idols. Turnbull's images are quite good, showing statues and museum pieces as well as woodblocks and scrolls. Unfortunately, there are errors and exaggerations here too. Turnbull identifies a photo of a woman playing a hand drum to accompany Oda Nobunaga's performance of 'Atsumori' before the battle of Okehazama as 'a servant girl' when in fact it's his wife Nohime. There are the spurious identifications mentioned in a prior paragraph. One of Rava's plates shows Hangaku Gozen charging out of Torisaka Castle on horseback slashing her way through a group of foot retainers, but the Azuma Kagami states that she remained inside the castle throughout the siege until felled by an enemy arrow. It sure looks great, though!

"Samurai Women", despite Turnbull's hyperbole, does little to change the model of Japanese female warriors that has developed over the years. In short, there's virtually no reliable evidence that women were professional soldiers or standing troops in a regular army. However, when it came time to defend the homelands in the form of castle sieges, they routinely became an active part of the defenses. While they usually joined servants and children in support services, there are many records of them taking a more direct role in the fighting-and by all accounts, acquitted themselves well in both roles. Women (both of the buke and commoner classes) also were involved in a large percentage of vendettas during the Edo period, proving that they didn't shy away from conflict when it was called for. Finally, during the closing days of the Tokugawa Shogunate, the shifting boundaries between classes and gender roles gave women the opportunity to become more active in many fields, including warfare. However, the new Meiji government reversed many of these gains and restricted their new conscript army to males.

So, in the final analysis, is Turnbull's book worth a read? Yes, it is. Despite the grab bag of errors and speculation, the positives outweigh the negatives-and like many of Turnbull's books, it's regrettably the only work in English on the subject. Many of the accounts will be new to Western readers and his bibliography will give many new directions to explore. As always, Turnbull's selection of pictures is excellent and the color plates are among the best done for an Osprey 'samurai' book. And what the heck-it's less than $13. It's a small price to pay to learn about the women who defended their homes, were victimized by war, and who avenged the deaths of their families. While it isn't quite "the greatest untold story in samurai history", it certainly ranks with the more interesting ones-and merits further study.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Samurai and Death in Battle - A Translation

As another translation, I've picked out a section of a book called "日本の歴史・合戦のおもしろ話" (Japanese History - Interesting Tales of Battle). This translation deals with Samurai and death in battle. Everyone likes to think that Samurai were in love with the idea of death in battle and that they had no fear of death.  Japanese historian Owada Tetsuo gives a much more reasonable explanation, which I hope everyone finds enlightening.  This is the first of two sections I'll be translating.  Due to the vague nature of Japanese, I've added some slight exposition here and there to clarify, but otherwise it is a direct translation.

What were the warriors thinking on the battlefield? - Translated from:
Nihon no Rekishi - Kassen no Omoshirobanashi by Owada Tetsuo

In his house codes, the famous general Takeda Nobushige wrote, "In regards to battle, one must never fear death". These words illustrate that the Sengoku warriors stood shoulder to shoulder with death on the battlefield. However, if one reads between the lines, it also illustrates that these warriors, as well as their vassals, actually feared death, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary to put it directly into the house codes. In fact, if one looks at the various family records of the 100 years of the Sengoku period, it will become obvious that death on the battlefield was the rule rather than exception.

Socho, a renga poet who served Imagawa Ujichika in Suruga province wrote in the historical document Socho Shuki "Death in battle. That is to be Samurai."  Death in battle was a matter of course, and to thus fully prepare for it before setting out on campaign. The fear of death was probably the same for the Sengoku warrior as it is for the modern man, however there was one definite difference: The awareness or at least hope of utility or practical benefit in one’s death.

This benefit or utility in dying a heroic death on the battlefield is that it brings fame to one's name, and by practical extension, one's descendants, family, and clan. During the Sengoku period, there was an awareness that a shameful showing in battle could have had a catastrophic effect on one's family, and a glorious death would be preferable. Therefore, there was by no means some sort of death-wish spurred on by a “beauty of death” philosophy. It was purely a practical matter.

Of course, death was not the goal, it was to survive and bring fame and glory on oneself. However, war service is accompanied by danger - a chance for glory also brings the danger of death, and on the battlefield, the difference between life and death is paper-thin. But, on the battlefield is the only place where one can find the glory they are looking for, and the Sengoku warriors must have been aware of the inherent danger.

When it’s said that a warrior wants to bring glory to their name, or protect their name, the "name" in question doesn’t refer only to their own individual name, but to their family name and family honor, including their ancestors and descendants. Warriors in battle carried responsibility for not sullying their name with shameful actions.

One famous example took place in 1581 during the siege of Tottori castle. Kikkawa Tsuneie, under siege by Hashiba Hideyoshi, was forced to commit seppuku, and left a written will for his children. In reading his will, you can see that he believed that by slitting his belly he could not only save his soldiers, but bring honor to his family and clan.

Based on the above, it is obvious that "name" is the keyword in the Sengoku warrior's opinion on life and death. And also as stated above, there was a tendency to believe that the sons of a warrior who died a valorous death in battle would also share that same honor and valor displayed by their father.

Tokugawa Ieyasu
For example, in the 3rd month of the 10th year of Tensho there is an episode involving Tokugawa Ieyasu after the battle of Temmokuzan in the countryside where Takeda Katsuyori was finally destroyed. At that time, there were barely 20 or 30 mounted warriors left alive on the the opposing side, and among them, one warrior, Tsuchiya Masatsune, served as Katsuyori's kaishaku (seppuku assistant), and then promptly followed his lord in death. When Ieyasu heard this, he said "Does Tsuchiya Masatsune have any sons?", and when he found out that Tsuchiya did have a son, he sent men out to find him. The son was eventually found being hidden in a temple, and he was called to Sumpu castle to meet with Ieyasu. Ieyasu took in the child who was barely six years old, and made him his son Hidetada’s page.

In Ieyasu's view, the son of a man who fulfilled his duty so honorably, and gave his life for his lord, would be destined to become a great man himself, which is likely why he took the child on as a vassal. That the child was the son of a man who fought him in battle didn't matter. His conduct on the battlefield moved Ieyasu.