Peter Bleed

Last year Mark wore a penis-seath and jump boots as i recall, at least on Sunday Peter

Comments by Ron Watson in another thread got me thinking – as so many things do - about the nature of Shinto swords. In the discussion of Sengoku era firearms, Ron pointed out that the likely reason there are so few guns that survive from the Sengoku era is because they were used – as used up! – during Hideyoshi’s invasion of Korea. This useful insight got me wondering about why the Shinto phase of sword history happened. Sword collectors do have to explain Shinto developments. The question is why did Japanese smiths produce all of those swords at a time when there was essentially no serious battling. Yes, yes, I know that smith like Ujifusa, Kunikane, Shigekuni Kunihiro et at were rooted in the Sengoku era and couldn’t have known that peace was breaking out all. But why were so many really good swords produced up through Kanbun times? There are two usual approaches to answering that question. 1) Swords became status symbols held by the warrior class who ruled the police state that was Tokugawa Japan. OR 2) There was at this time something like an aesthetic revolution – supported by peace and prosperity – that supported a burst of innovation and excellence – in swords and a whole lot of other things. Is it possible that serious losses in Korea – following the costly events of the 16th century at home - diminished the national armory to a level that there was a broadly felt need to simply “rearm” ? Peter

Dear Friends, Thank you for your responses and useful insights. In addition to shoveling our sidewalks - twice! - I did some 'back of the envelope' calculations about what a sengoku-jidai battle might look like archeologically. In fact there are some really interesting new analyses of conflict sites of this age worldwide. I really expect that systematic study of sengoku era sites will offer the next burst of new ideas and discussion in Japanese arms and armor. To do the archeology of these sites we will need to present - and refined - expectations about what the conflicts actually involved. Some exciting discussions are going on about Nagashino specifically. The way that matchlocks were used there and the number of firearms that were deployed are being discussed in concrete terms. It seems certain to some researchers that Oda had something like 1000 to 3000 gunners at the fight, altho the traditional number was lower than that. Oda's gunners fought from fixed positions and used rotating volley fire. The fight lasted several hours. I bought my copy of Sugawa's Matchlock book before the translation was available so I am limited to the Japanese edition. It is a fine collectors' book. But the dating of the guns and equipment Sugawa shows seems pretty vague. Most of the equipment he shows - and certainly all of his operational pictures - date from the Edo period. Still, his data seems to me to indicate that individual gunners carried their own kits of gun, fuse, cartridges, and priming flask. The cartridge boxes and bandoleers he shows make it look like a gunners' kit would include 20 or so rounds. Still, Nagashino was a 'balls to the wall' event. I just can't believe that Oda wouldn't have provided extra ammo. So,... let's say each gunner might have shot 50 rounds over the course of the fight. I can find nothing on the regularity of the guns used by Sengoku forces. So Let's go with Ian's 5 momme as the "average" caliber. A 5 momme ball weighs .6626 oz so a gunner firing 50 rounds would leave just over 2 pounds (call it a kilo) of lead. And by that logic, the battle should be reflected by 1 to 3 tons of lead distributed across a front 100 meters deep and less than a klick long. I didn't get any pictures taken, but the snow is continuing. Mebbe tomorrow. Peter

Dear Friends, These are terrific responses. Thank you all. The Great Plains are being blanketed with a thick coat of very wet snow at the moment. A perfect day for studying these posts and getting out what sources I have in my library. Maybe I'll take pictures as well. Please let me return to this discussion in a bit. Peter

Dear Friends, Over the years I have acquired some Japanese matchlocks and a few basic books on them. I like the guns and they look nice on the wall, but until recently I have not tried to explore them in depth. Currently, I am curious about the USE of matchlocks during the later Sengoku jidai. Can anyone on the forum point me to information on the pre-Edo use of guns. Specifically I am curious about variables like 1) the rates of fire that were standard for matchlock use, 2) the amount of ammunition carried by gunners, and 3) information on the operational management of ammunition among matchlock troops. Specifically, i am curious about how ammunition was operationally managed. I feel myself buying a bunch a books!! Peter

Dear Friend, This is a neat sword. I would have liked an overall view, but... Is it a "handachi"? Well, gee. Basically, a handachi is a tachi with a kurikata so that it can be worn like a katana. . I also think that it would be - ahhh - wrong to class a shoto as a handachi. In the cannons of bakumatsu taste, I doubt that this would not be called a "handachi." Oh, and by the way, i really like the tsuka! Peter

Don't buy this sword. How's that for clarity? Peter

I have greatly enjoyed this post. Thank you, Ford! Peter

Eric, Many issues in this topic and some interesting items. To deal with only one issue, I strongly suspect that the "hooked times" are lathe chisels used for making bowls. Peter

John Well, gee! Does this show Japanese (!) influence? In my opinion, the answer is "NO". There is Japanese influence - indeed there is Japanese ARMOR that was collected - in Siberia and the high arctic. Read Bogoras's volume on the Chukchi. He shows some armor that is certainly Japanese. But I think this is an example of older style of armor that was widely distributed in East Asian. It goes from what is today south China - eg the Lolo armor - up thru Siberian and to the Beringian New World. There is Ainu armor that looks like this armor, but it has to be much older than what we might think of as "Japanese armor." In that light, I think it is better to suggest that Japanese armor shows influence from this older style. So, did you buy this armor over the weekend? Peter

I have never spent much of Sunday at Tampa. This year, tho, I could fly home on Monday. Is Sunday worth hanging around for? Peter

Dear Friends, The list worked! Thank you all. After what seemed like a slow start, the forum came up with interesting - hell, excellent - information. My suggestion that this was a pilot's sword was naive - but consistent with the "usual" explanation for short gunto. It does seem - ahhh - inconsistent with a pilot's gear. Would it go over or under the chute? I was aware of the o-dachi worn over the shoulder, but that antique usage seemed to be an accommodation to very long swords. Ed, your reference to Fig 91 in Fuller and Gregory II is spot on. Especially in light of the fact that this sword certainly came out of China. To give a bit more detail about this sword, it is signed Omi no kami TADATSUGU (but not likely to pass shinsa, IMHO). The tsuka is plane, without menuki, but functionally solid. The tsuba is a sturdy old sukashi iron guard. The blade appears to have been polished carefully, but by someone who was not a togi. This was a cutter. It looks like a real weapon. I think it is a great example of a blade that was made for use in the time before the shin-gunto koshirae was either established or commonly available. And that would be consistent with use in China. The fact that Fig 91 shows these swords being worn by guys who might be looting a shop does not enhance its martial purity. But it certainly reflects a part of sword history. Peter

Dear Friends, Yesterday I had the privilege and honor of seeing a group of swords that have been in storage – safe storage – since 1946. I described this experience on the forum yesterday. There is no question that these swords are original, that they came from southern China/Taiwan, and that they are “as found”. There is no post-War/Gun Show modification. This is Japanese military gear. Included in the group was a sword I would like to ask this august list about. It might be a “Pilot’s sword”. It is a signed shinto wakizashi in bukezukuri mounts with a nice leather boot. The blade measures about 20”. The tsuka was solidly wrapped without menuki. What I think is worth presenting to this forum is the fact that this sword was fitted not with a hanger that could attach it to a belt, but with nicely made “sling.” It appears that this sword was somehow made to be hung from the user’s shoulder. I have never seen a rig like this and I wonder if anyone else might have. Peter

Dear Friends, Allow me to describe an adventure I had today. It was not a first for me, but I sadly suspect that it may be a “last.” I was visited this morning by a fellow who wanted some information about his father’s swords. His Dad was with Merrill’s Marauders (!). He went in thru Burma and Kunming in 1942 and left from Taiwan in 1946. The swords he brought home were “up in the attic” since that time so I was the first person to look at them in detail in 65 years. Now, in the 60s and 70s groups of stuff like this were rather common, but there simply can’t be very many left now. The group included a couple of nice koto katana – one 31” long – as well as a couple of ken in shirasaya (What were they doing in Shanghai or Taiwan?). There was a nice clean shin-gunto with a mumei Seki blade and a company grade tassel – a sword carried by some paper-pusher in Formosa, I suspect. And an oddly mounted “pilot’s sword” that I plan to show on the gunto page. Oh, . . and a couple of real low-end things including one of those strange daito that looks like a crude Chinese copy of a gunto. What ARE those things? A couple of observations struck me as we studied these swords. First, this is how most Nippon-to came to the States. This was not a random group of swords. They were culled and sorted by a fellow who had a good eye and was making decisions about what he wanted to keep. This veteran made good decisions. He must have had access to clean swords and he liked unusual stuff. Two ken tanto. . in Taiwan! Second, it was clear that swords take care of themselves pretty well. These blades were a bit dusty, but the blades cleaned up remarkably well. Most of them would be “shinsa ready” after 65 years in the attic. The nakago, on the other hand, came out pretty tough looking. Getting the tsukas off was a bit challenging. And when they came free, the tangs were really quite crusty, red, and dirty. I judged one koto uchi-katana to be mumei until a bit of rubbing revealed a niji-mei – how embarrassing. At first glance, that sword could have been a Shinto or Shin-shinto due to the red rust on the tang. On the other hand. one of the ken – dated Bunka ju ni, 1815- initially looked remarkably old - - until we dusted it off. Clearly the ‘age’ collectors expect on ‘old swords’ was built up over long periods of just sitting there in a tsuka. Compared to the length of time some Kamakura and Namboku-cho blades rested out in a kura or in a daimyo’s arsenal, the 65 years that these blades spend up in this veteran’s attic may not have been too remarkable. Sword collecting sure is fun! Peter

Dear Friends, This has been an informative discussion. I am impressed by the depth of information and opinion that was demonstrated. Thank you all and I specifically commend Adrian for assertively presenting his point of view in the face of sharp retort. My grasp of the gokaden stops well short of assessing the vigor of Yamashiro chikei or the rustic flamboyance of early Soshu blades. Two things seems pretty clear to me: 1) the roots of these technological traditions are somewhat uncertain, and 2) thinking and scholarship on their history reflects a bias toward the Kinai. In this situation, the possible contribution of northern traditions to Japanese sword making has been underplayed. Through the Heian period, Tohoku was the scene of serious combat that involved folks who were NOT aligned with the Kinai court. There absolutely were major iron-working traditions in that region. But the institutions that served to preserve very early swords in the west and central portions of Japan – noble families and major temple complexes – were not well established in this region even after it entered the Kyoto cultural sphere. It is easy for me to see what early blades in this region would be rare. I am not sure that Adrian is correct in specific detail. But I think he broadened our horizons. Peter

This looks cast to me, but I would like to know more about being in Sakahalin after the War. Please tell us more about that. Peter

Adrian, WOW! I am blown away by your paper. I will studying more deeply, but you have very perceptively opened a major discussion in Japanese sword history. I have spent most of my life involved - marginally - in the archeology of Tohoku. Has luck had it, my handle was on Stone Age materials, but it has always seemed to me that the historic materials, and iron techology specifically, needs attention. You make a good point that warabite-to are essentially a northern phenomenon. There was always a dynamic iron making industry up north. That is where warfare was before the Kamakura era. And on and one. This aspect of sword history has been largely ingnored. But you bring it into focus. Thank you! As an aside, let me say that the tragedy of the the tsunami may impact this discussion. There is in Tohoku now, serious discussion of moving communities on to higher terraces. These moves will require archaeological assessment of previously unexplored areas. One has to wonder if/when Heian era smelting facilities will be found! Again, THANK YOU for originla and creative thinking. Where will this be published? Peter

Truly a wonderful guard. I've enjoyed the comments, but will add a "guess." It looks to me like Chinese disc that I suspect was thinned and then hybrid with local work. It may have truly reflected two facets of an important man's world. The beauty of this suggestion is that to test it, one would have to remove the brass! Tsuba like this reflect a very cosmopolitan phase of Japanese social history. They also must have been created and worn during a period of great affluence. This was a very pricey fixtures. I am glad to have seen it. thanks. Peter

Friends, I have just received a copy of a brand new publication on "Japanese Imported Arms of the Early Meiji Era." It is a tabulation produced by a number of folks active in Banzai. A quick first pass suggests that it is a substantive list of types and pieces of firearms that found their way to Japan in the 19th Century. Seems the Japanese were buying lots of bangers at that time, and if you're interested in them, this volume will be of use. My copy was a gift so I am not sure of the price, but it is published by Francis C. Allan 20 Courtney Place Palm Coast FL 32137-8126 the_allans_fcla@yahoo.com Peter

I seem to see at least a double signature on the ura. SUKEMORI on the left and SUKEKUNI to the right. And then below those signatures, might it say KUNIMICHI? Peter

Friends, A week ago this list addressed "problems at the NBTHK" It sounded serious and I seriously suggested that the steady hand of senior sword collectors would soon be bringing us sage assessments of what is going on at the NBTHK. Perhaps it is good news that nobody looks very worried . . about anything. Pass the sushi, please. But, please when I was coming up I learned to use a shirasaya bukuro to tie shoes on to my head. I mean, please, who wears a tie now? Peter

Friends, I do not wish to reopen a topic that was closed, . . . but I have just looked at the photos of folks at the Token Dai Ichi. I feel rather foolish in having suggested that the steady hand of senior sword collectors would soon be bringing us sage assessments of what is going on at the NBTHK. Perhaps it is good news that nobody looks very worried . . about anything. Pass the sushi, please. Peter

This is a sorry situation. I truly cannot imagine how it was allowed to come to this. Whatever the back story, I think WE need the NBTHK. We must hope for a positive resolution. It is my understanding that some serious North American voices are in Japan at the moment. I hope they can and will express support. They are also likely to be a source of information better than the newspapers. Peter

Fabulous, Fred. Thank you for sharing. Have you any history on the repurposed smallsword guard? When and how did it leave Japan? Any guesses on how big a nippon-to would have fit that guard after it was turned into a tsuba? Looks like it would have been pretty small. I'll say it again, Wow! Peter

What causes collecting fads? I’m sure there are lots of potential reactions to that question, but it seems to me that tsuba collecting has had a series of fads over the past several years. As a collector, I think it makes sense for us to be aware of what is hot. There is certainly nothing wrong with collecting what others also like. But it seems to me that popularity of some styles and schools can lead to “bubbles.” Nobody wants to buy into a bubble! Have there been fads – and price bubbles – in tsuba collecting? Let me cite a couple. In the 90’s tosho and kachushi tsuba – mebbe with a bit of mon-sukashi – were sought after and worth about twice or more than they command now. There was a time when an elegant iron disk was what collectors wanted. Now they are a commodity on eBay. After that, brass inlay tsuba – Heianjo-Onin – were in high demand. My sense is, however, that they are less popular now than they were a few years ago – and that prices have gone down. Namban tsuba seem to be pretty hot nowadays. I have to wonder if they are entering a “fad” phase. I full agree that high quality stuff transcends fad. Good Kanayama and Owari sukashi are always sought after. Some “types” are rare enough they can’t support a fad. We all know what a Kamakura tsuba looks like, but how many do we see? Fads can only happen in rather common categories. So what do you think? Are there fads? Why to they happen? And what should collectors do about them? Is now the time to buy Namban – or to sell? Peter