Peter Bleed

Holy crap! I've struck out from Friday on this one. I am spending the day packing up my sword library in preparation for a move to be closer to our granddaughters. I opened the initial message as a break and took a quick hip shot that was wide of the mark. - TWICE. OMG. Then I thought I would help by seeing what Francis Allen and the Banzai guys had to say about Enfield carbines, But I think I packed that (terrific) volume a couple of days ago. Peter get a copy of it, I am sure that your will find it useful (even if I ain't) Steve, can you change my name on the earlier messages? Peter PS. And BTW, do you have any idea what a sword library weighs?

"Number 5613 Hiroshima-ken" This looks like a Meiji ers gun registration number Peter

Thanks to you all for these interesting responses. As I wrote this post, I felt rather like Izanagi from the Kojiki dancing in front of a cave trying to get the real power to come out. AND IT WORKED! Thank you!. I also realize that the end of the teppo era was pretty interesting. Maybe I have a new collecting theme. I will try to get an image and better information about the shootin' iron. Did I say thanks? Peter

I looked at a rather neat pair of matchlock pistols today. One had been converted to percussion ignition - the barrel had been shortened from the breech with a nipple added at like 1:00. The hibasami (match holder) had been weighed so that it could be the 'hammer". And it seems that the internal spring had been significantly enhanced so that the new "hammer" could pop the cap. There was ample pitting around the nipple suggesting 1) that the gun had been shot a fair amount, and 2) that gun cleaning had not been part of gunnery training! Beyond all that, a well placed wood screw - with a slotted head - had been place on the base, behind the trigger. I did not remove this screw , but I assume that this was done when the lock spring was changed. And my question is "When did machine and wood screws appear in Japan?" I know that breech plugs were threaded in since the beginning. And I have looked thru Iwata-san's "The Cultural History of Fasteners and Guns". but found no useful information. It seems to me that bolts and slotted screws were NOT part of teppo technology. Were they an element of the mid 19th century? Or have I simply not seem enough hinawa-ju? Peter

Well, it looks like the NMB has worked once again. I will reach out to Justin. In fact, however, that may take a while. We are in the midst of relocating and just had our "estate" sale yesterday. I sold essentially no Nippon-to related gear, but still be had a passel o'crap to offer and I'm tired. A guy can accumulate a lot of other stuff while scouting for Nippon-to. Peter

Dear Friends, I have a rather nice kabuto that begs to have its shikoro re-laced. The elements - ita?- are all there but unattached from one one other. Is there anyone on out side of this pond who does this work? Alternatively, is this something a person can undertake himself? Peter

WOW! Peter

Our discussions always end up addressing the "art vs historical artifact" divide that is a basic feature of sword collecting. Kirikomi present clear evidence that these things were weapons - - even if they were fabulously crafted and beautiful. Whichever side your are on, there are some sword cuts that are going to be more acceptable than other. I think, for example, that a koto might be forgiven a sword cut, while one in a shinto would be suspicious. And in that regard, I wonder how future collectors will treat the damage we see from time to time on WWII era gunto. Will that ever come to have cache to Japanese collectors. Or will it always remain certain evidence that the sword has been destroyed? Peter

Very interesting. I'll need far more than I have in front of me to read this, but off hand it seems to have been a presentation piece made by a Seki smith name Yoshimasa in 1937. Neat. I look forward to the full story! P

My point was that the date was written in Japanese but with the AD date like "one nine four five". I have never seen that before. !945 - or should I say Showa 20 - must have been a pretty complex time for the Japanese. Peter

Hmmm November 1945

I was challenged by the sayagaki. I got the "zaimei" but kept trying to see the "tada" character as a complex rendering of "mitsu" And, of course, I was wrong. This saya gaki seems like a banker certifying that your account contains a "three dollar bill." Peter

yoshimitsu

Leo, Thank you for posting images of this interesting gun. On first scan it does, indeed, look "Japanese" but I have to agree with Ian that it is "not quite" Japanese. To begin with, the work is not quite good enough for Japanese work. There are some Chinese type elements on the gun. These might be known to Japanese craftsmen, but overall they look to my eye more like "Chinoiserie", that is embellishments that were added to look "Oriental". That work could have been done in several parts of the world after the 1860s. Ian's suggestion that it may be SE Asia is certainly fair. But the butt stock - rather narrow and cylindrical - reminds me of "Persian" long guns. The stock brand might be a kanji, but I sure can't read it. My bet it that this gun had a rather complex history in "The East". If it was produced "for" the Japanese market I doubt that it was produced in Japan. Peter

I, too, see noting that looks typical of Ainu swords here. As a rather low quality late Edo period short sword I suppose this sword might have found its way to the Ainu trade, but it does not appear to have been embellished by the Ainu or to their tastes. Peter

Thank you, All!. These are truly some stimulating insights. The basic question I was mulling was about how the Japanese used firearms. Combat between massed units of troops dogmatically trained in team-based volley fire, and supported by with well organized supply trains, could probably do pretty well with matchlocks. Likewise, defense of fixed castles might also do all right with matchlockery. Those points means IMHO that military leaders in Japan saw little reason to change - even as it is clear that they were aware of - and monitoring gun evolution. Peter

Here is a gun that presents problematical insights about Japanese firearms development. It is nice example of a 10 momme zutsu. What I find remarkable is the signature. The barrel is signed - - rather proudly it seems ,Mannen Gennen, hachigatsu Annaka-han Taihosho Kunitomo Hisashige saku and Koko(?) Shimamura Hirasuke saku Which I take to mean "Crafted by metal worker Hirsuke Shimamure (under the the direction of) The cannon maker of the Annaka domain, Kunitomo Hasashige in august of 1860. By 1860 there were lots of "modern" guns in Japan. Annaka was a Tokugawa domain, so one has to ask, "What in the world were these guys thinking?" What was the strategic value of heavy wall guns at this point? Peter

I know we are not supposed to discuss swords that are being actively offered by dealers and auction outlets, so I won't. Still, let's consider an abstract situation we all might see from time to time. We discover a very reasonably priced sword with a very interesting signature of a smith that would fit in your collection. And it even has a "old" paper. The workmanship seems okay. And the signature might look okay stylistically - the 'penmanship" seems all right. But the dealer is a bit hedgy about guaranteeing the package. And The condition of the sword suggests that for a long time nobody has been willing to give the sword a new polish. Are there too many red flags in this picture? Peter

At the risk or seriously annoying this community, I want to revisit the topic of firearms use during the Edo period. My goal is to present some thoughts I have recently had as a result of a couple of recent acquisitions. This is a hobby, friends, and I happen to have gotten lucky recently in the arena of hinawa-ju. Anybody points me in the direction of some nice Sendai Shinto, and I will drop this topic like a hot rock! So, . . . a common treatment of Edo period firearms is 1) that the Japanese stayed with “old” technology, 2) out of general rejection of foreign way, and 3) special samurai rejection of guns in favor of sword. All of which 4) was enforced by strong anti-gun policies of the military dictatorship. Finding new evidence and insights that might bear on this topic is tough. But let me try. Was matchlock technology all that bad? Western gunsels just assume that whatever was goin’ on in Europe was the “state of the art”, the “cutting edge” and therefore better than whatever precede it. In fact flintlock technology was NOT very good. It was as weather dependent as matchlock technology. A high failure rate was a normal part of Western military operation. And a whole lot of folks stayed with matchlocks well into the mid 19th century. In south, central, and northern Asia matchlocks survived and were viewed as serious armaments. We need to consider the possibility that matchlocks worked just fine for whatever the Japanese were doing with them. Was there much firearms use throughout the Edo period? We know that there were lots of guns made during the Edo period. They were being carried, but were they being used? There truly was very little civil strife in Japan during the Edo period. There are manuals that document firearms training. I am impressed at how few Muromachi era guns are known to exist. There were tens of thousands of gun in Japan in1600, but we sure don’t see them today. We see lots of swords from those times. But where are the bangers? Where are the koto guns (yes, yes, I know that is confusing categories, but..)? One has to wonder if gunnery training, drills, and other maneuvers wore those old firearms out? Maybe they didn’t give up those guns, they just wore ‘em out! Did the samurai class rejected foreign ideas and especially guns because they preferred swords? All those Namban tsuba indicate that Samurai were willing to consider foreign stuff. And when civil strife was developing during the late Edo period there was great interest in acquiring modern firearms. Military academies created at that time had firing ranges. And there are a fair number of photographs of Bakumatsu samurai proudly packing heat. Concealed carry was NOT on their agenda! I think the bottom line – if there is one – is that we need to do a lot more research on Edo period gun usage Thank you, Peter

Hey, wait a minute, Steve. I was just going to announce that i am gonna be at K.C.- and looking froward to seeing you. The Great KC show is a pretty good Midwestern gun show. I have gone for years but things are not like they used to be. Meeting old friends is the special treat these days. I virtually never try to sell Japanese swords there, but there are mid-level slicks who use this as a sales venue so - ahhh - stuff can happen. I hope to see you! Peter P.S. Maybe you can teaching me how to use the NMB message system

Saying anything at this point seems like Folly! To begin with, Brian sets our sights on "pertinence", But, HEY, this community is devoted to Japanese swords! Obviously we are not afraid of being impertinent! And beyond that, Eric seems ready and able to stand behind Noel Perrin. I understand that there is no rancor behind his support, but the fact that lots of Japan scholars don't like Giving Up the Gun simply won't cut it for Eric. He wants substantive evidence and he is not afraid to talk about it. Truth to tell, I have always found Perrin's book rather thin and rather too interpretive of slim data, but I do not command the chapter and verse that Eric would need. And let’s remember that Eric has also assembled and wonderfully presented lots of useful images and information on Japanese weaponry - including stuff on teppo. He is the kind of guy we want to encourage. Among other things, Eric has cited the major available books on premodern Japanese guns. I - respectfully - suggest that Eric's list of citations may present a pertinent point. The reality is that we do NOT know very much about Edo period Japanese firearms! There may be a source to two that could be added to Eric's list. "The Cultural History of Fasteners and Guns" by Yukichi IWATA is one. This is basically a Japanese language volume with a few pages of English and enough pictures to be easy to understand. It presents Japanese guns in the context of world and East Asian technology. Such sources will not, however, change the basic reality that there is little assembled information about who was working with firearms in premodern Japan. What would it take to show that Edo period folks were interested in refining there firepower? First of all, I think we will have to shed the interpretive structure that both Perrin and his critics bring to this issue. Let’s find some data before we decide what it means. A few years ago, as a result of doing some research on Civil War era artillery, I learned of a Genroku era artillery range in Kanzaki-shi, Saga-ken. Saga-ken was interested in establishing a UNESCO World Heritage District composed of Edo period industrial facilities. And right in the middle of the blast furnaces, forges, and kilns that mark this industrial zone is the Iwata Daiba range. A map is attached. Obviously there were no cannons left at the site. And soil resistivity studied by Japanese archaeologists revealed neither gunnery gear nor anything else. The UNESCO nomination languished so our proposal to do systematic metal detection to determine what was being shot down range has gone nowhere. The mere existence of this range, however, is clear evidence that Japanese researchers were making, refining, and using emergent firearms technology. Peter 15台場屋敷跡 (2).pdf

Trust an Aussie to know about the "other surface" ( And how ARE my grandsons doing, Barry?, I hope you're voting for free college tuition. And have you been watching the West Melborne junior Lacrosse scores?) Thanks for clarifying the front and back. Whatever the case, i still think this could be could be "Chinese." All the best. Peter

I think this tsuba is certainly "Namban" and i would go so far to to suggest that it MIGHT be a Chinese fitting that was remounted in Japan. I'd like to see the other surface. is it flat or is there a bit of cupping? Peter

Yeah, I see that, but I am not sure how to correct it. If you google Antiguo tantō tanto Knife Ca. 1500 you'll get to the item P

Thank you all for the positive input! Thru the wonders of google, I discovered a sword very much like the 4 we are writing up. That discovery was recently offered on eBay. It is worth a look since it shows the Mr. Ittosai refitted a number of these cut down swords. Hey, the country was in chaos! http://www.ebay.com/rcm/v1/Antique-18th-Century-Japanese-Samurai-Sword-Tanto-Knife-Signed-/?itm=172250299532&_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1843 The eBay sword is almost pretty good. The nakago was rather nicely dressed and appears to have had a bit of color applied. Still, the blade is just too short . And the saya certainly has also been shortened. The point to be made is that these short blades reflect a phase of sword history. I think it is also fair to suggest that these short blades will only survive outside of Japan.They will not appeal to a serious collector anywhere, but were any of them to make it back to Japan I am sure that the fittings would all be stripped and the blade discarded - or put on eBay!. Peter P.S. The item was on Spanish eBay as Antiguo tantō tanto Knife Ca. 1500