IanB

Thank you for your kind words, but in reality I hate these talking head episodes since you have no idea how your contribution will be used. During the filming you sit there spouting your banal answers to banal, but generally innocent questions, only to find your input has been artfully edited and re-arranged to suit the opinions of the producer. I did another last week to earn a bit of cash for the Royal Armouries Museum, twittering on about swords, bows and armour. I understand the final programme will be about 'Ninja', a subject I made clear to the film crew I steer well clear of. We shall see if I end up appearing to support the whole concept. At least I was not asked on this occasion to wander about in the darkened Royal Armouries' stores with a torch, 'searching' for an item', as I once was. That particular film crew got a tetchy when I pointed out that electric lighting had in fact reached as far as the 'North of England', that the Armouries had paid the electric bill and that we had a system that told us exactly where every object was either stored or on display. Even worse was a crew who were photographing our elephant armour. It had to be done after hours and I drew the short straw and ended up supervising them. It took about 1.5 hours just to set up lights, about another hour whilst the photographer took endless, apparently unsatisfactory Polaroids. By 8.00pm I told him he had another 15 minutes and then I was kicking them out - to which he wailed 'The problem is it just isn't saying elephant to me!' Ian Bottomley

See also Mitfords's 'Tales of Old Japan'. Algernon Mitford was one of the official witnesses to the seppuku of a Bizen samurai after an attack on the Europeans. He describes the ceremony and also devotes a chapter to the whole matter. Ian Bottomley

Fine by me. Ian

Dr. Fox, Many thanks for the images. What you have is a 16 plate suji bachi of very slight goshozan shape (slightly higher at the rear than the front). It is virtually impossible (for me at least) to identify the helmet's maker but I would hazard one of the many minor smiths associated with the Miochin group. The only feature that distinguishes it from the multitude of other helmets of this type is the shaping to the peak into lobes. The condition of the interior and what I can see of the koshimaki suggests it isn't very old - perhaps late 18th C at the most. The shikoro is conventional Hineno form and I note it has been inexpertly relaced and 'dirtied up' to make it look old (the clue to this is that the cross-knots should all run the same way). Sorry I can't tell you anything else but it is one of those helmets that has no really distinguishing characteristics that would allow a more definitive identification. It is however a competent helmet with its original shikoro that should clean up nicely. Ian Botttomley

Dr. Fox, The best angles are front, side, back and top without any crests if they are present. A close-up of the tehen kanamono is useful as are close-ups of any signature if one is visible. If there is the possibility of the helmet being old, an internal picture of the area around the tehen taken from the inside will show if the bowl has been assembled starting at the front or back which is an indication of date. Ian Bottomley

Dan, I'm afraid once a leather armour starts to go there is little you can do to restore it. It is a tragedy but that's life. Your biggest problem are the kikko areas of the dou which are horribly distorted. You might try compressing the plates between boards and applying gentle heat to relax the hide inside but be careful not to over do it. I have a leather armour that was badly stored in its box bending the shoulder straps out of position. Fortunately the lacquer is intact so I made a jig to force the straps back into position and left it for months - but to no effect. It is now on a special stand with a great big clock weight hanging inside the dou which has corrected the distortion. Perhaps in years from now it will have returned to where it should be. Ian Bottomley

Kevin, Peeling lacquer is a nightmare. The proper Japanese way to deal with it is to force new lacquer under it and clamp it down. The problem with that is, it dried around the edge and remains fluid inside for ever and a day. I use superglue. It is fluid enough to run underneath and you can then hold the flake down until it hardens. Take care not to get any on top of the lacquer. Ian Bottomley

Dear ?, What you have are the remnants of what was originally an interesting, if somewhat theatrical looking armour made of rawhide (nerigawa). It is, as has been said, a go-mai-do, the major plates almost certainly being made of several thickness's of rawhide, glued and sewn together before being heavily coated with lacquer. As long as the lacquer is intact such a construction is light and very effective, but as soon as it cracks, moisture invades, swells the hide flaking off more lacquer. The upper sections will also be of hide that acts as a foundation for hexagonal plates, covered with blue shobu gawa, a construction known as kikko. The hexagonal plates might be either of hide or iron. It is difficult to say from a frontal view but I am guessing the helmet is an eboshi nari, or court cap shaped - again of rawhide shaped in a wooden mould before assembling and lacquering. The same is true of the mask. X-rays of a similar hide mask in the Royal Armouries collection showed numerous holes in the leather, indicating how the hide had been hammered into the mould and nailed in place whilst drying. There is a misconception that armours like this were a cheap alternative to metal; they were in fact expensive and laborious to make, being favoured by older men because of their light weight. As for the age of your armour, I would suggest late 18th or early 19th century. It displays several features suggesting it was probably made in the province of Kaga. Typical of their productions are the curved sections under the arms, the red and green cross-knots and the incorporation of woolen cloth (rasha) traded from the Dutch. In this case the collar seems to be made from it. From the early 17th century the principle armourers working for the Maeda family in Kanazawa, Kaga were Haruta, but they were joined by Miochin and other groups in the late 18th century turning out vast numbers of armours for sale throughout the country. We do not really know much about the makers of leather armour, but the suspicion is that the Iwai may have been involved. Three Iwai families are listed by Dr. Orikasa as moving to Kaga, the Gengoro, the Denzo and the Kumakichi. Some members of these families left Kaga to become retainers of other clans. Perhaps the identification of the kamon might give a clue. Ian Bottomley.

Kevin, That is a very nice dragon maedate you have. It has come off something rather good. On the other helmet, have a look at the kamon on the fukigayeshi - looks like active verdigris. I would try and clean them to stop it spreading. A little vegetable oil wiped on and off again should stop it getting worse and will do no damage to the lacquer underneath. Ian Bottomley

Kevin, The mask has been without a doubt been re-laced - all the top strands of the cross-knots should go the same way. Two other things worry me. Firstly the rather rough finish. It is quite normal to finish the inside of the tare plates in black lacquer, but it should be smooth and well finished not rough like this. Textured finishes on the outside are common enough, but there is something about this that looks a bit odd despite the cracking by the right ear. Far more worrying to me is the lack of holes for a tie. Menpo were held onto the face by the helmet cord and usually provided with hooks and pegs for this purpose. This has neither, but that doesn't worry me too much. However, the mask almost invariably has a length of braid that held it on temporarily before the helmet cord was tied. This went through one or two holes in the upper edge near the ears, and definitely not through the holes in the ear. This doesn't have any which I find odd. Ian Bottomley

I cannot but agree with Dr. Fox. The knowledge base of the members of this Board are second to none in the English speaking world and I must applaud the way so many are willing to share their knowledge with others. Sadly there are times when I'm sure the moderators must feel like they are dealing with a bunch of petulant children or trying to plait fog. Many of the replies to questions are and cannot be other than opinions and it is inevitable that others will disagree and quite proper that they express their alternative views. Between experienced members and collectors, such interactions are expected and proper, but should at least be polite. What is unacceptable is for any query to elicit steams of what in some cases can only be described as invective. We all started from a zero base and if we are honest have all make mistakes or bought something that in hindsight we should not have. To a beginner who posts a query, or shows what to them is a treasure, anything but a polite response is totally unacceptable. How many potential members to this board we have lost I do not know but more than a few I would guess. I know the internet tends to lower peoples inhibitions and encourages outspokenness, but let us at the very least keep this Board civil. Ian Bottomley

Chris, The fact that the rivet heads on the outside of your hachi are not carefully concealed by countersinking suggests it was originally lacquered. A lot of helmets that come onto the market have been stripped because the lacquer was damaged. On the whole the colour isn't bad. If you have any crusty patches of rust, wet them with a mix of boiled linseed oil and white spirits and scrape them with a chisel shaped piece of bone to get off the encrustation. Once the surface is smooth, oil it with boiled linseed oil, wipe off all that will come off and leave it. In about a week it will be dry and should buff up to a soft gloss. You asked about who made your hachi and when. Without a signature it is impossible to say, so many workshops made helmets like this for middle ranking samurai. The fact yours is numbered 15 indicates it was one of a batch of at least that many being made at the same time (or a batch of similar helmets being fitted with shikoro). As for when, I would have said Edo period. Ian Bottomley

Todd, Do not attach any importance to the maedate - they were always rather ephemeral and few armours retain the crests used by their original owners. Look upon it as a bonus since so many armours have lost their crests entirely. As has been said, the number inside the dou of your armour is probably just for identification or 'stock control'. I was going to say that a very good way of deciding whether the parts of an armour belong together or not is to look at the variegated braid that normally borders each item - then I noticed yours doesn't have any. Take Eric's advice and look at the cloth, braid and the lacquering as well, but make allowances for it having perhaps stood with one side facing a window or some other factor that might have caused fading or change of colour. Ian Bottomley

One thing I didn't add to my previous email is that fact that relations between China and Japan during the Momoyama were strained to put it mildly. This was why the Portuguese managed to make big profits shipping brocades and raw silk from their base in Macao to kyushu. The one source that the Japanese did have for Chinese 'sword guards' during this period was the Korean invasions. There are plenty of Japanese armours that incorporate Korean and Chinese helmet bowls in their construction so why wouldn't a Japanese vet bring back a Chinese sword guard as a trophy, wearing it to show he had fought in those campaigns? Notice how the 'seppa dai' of the tsuba has raised decoration - not very sensible if you are going use seppa. Notice also how the decorative lumps have been almost cut away by the present nakago ana. I would suggest this tsuba started life on a Chinese sword, which often have neither seppa nor habaki. It has then had the rim added in Japan and the nakago ana re-cut to fit a Japanese blade with a wider tang. Ian Bottomley

Peter, Although not definitive proof, note how the technique and design of namban tsuba resembles ironwork from the Himalayan regions and associated parts of China. I attach two examples from pen-cases and a view of a saddle front. The latter example is in gilded copper but they also occur in iron, generally in layers to build up a 3D effect. Some also have some elements of the design gilded. Ian Bottomley

This has been a fascinating journey that started with a cast tsuba that has led to me accepting that many were not made that way. I still have reservations about saws, which takes me back to drills, chisels, scrapers and possibly files as being the primary tools. I've made a couple of iron tsuba myself, using piercing saws, and that was bad enough - now I must see what I can achieve with chisels and drills. I have watched many of Ford's videos and marvel at what can be done with these simple tools in the hands of a master. Wagner's work is exhaustive if not exhausting, but do give us pointers as to how iron working in Japan developed. Ian

Brilliant! Thank you Peter for the image of the tsuba. At last proof that this tsuba was produced from a forged plate. We now have an answer and I climb down and bow my head to that one. I must now start trying to cut holes in iron with a drill and chisel. On the subject of decarburisation of cast iron see 'Iron and Steel in Ancient China' by Donald B. Wagner, section 7.3.4. where he describes the technique of heating the object in a sealed vesssel with fire scale at various temperatures between 723 and 910 C. In that range there is no oxidation of the metal surface, just the gradual loss of carbon which diffuses out. He quotes an example of an artefact from a tomb of around 110 B.C. made of cast white cast iron that was subsequently decarburised at about 950 C. Sectioning showed that the carbon loss had penetrated to some 2mm from the surface and he calculates the process took 2.4 days. Hence a tsuba 4mm thick would be largely decarburised in 2 - 3 days of heating. Feasible if done in batches. As for wear on the edges of tsuba, the image below is of one of my tsuba, 3.88mm thick. Note how the loop ends on the upper right and right are paper thin. Was this sloppy work by the maker or wear from the owner's sleeve? Ian Bottomley

Jean, You make a very good point there. However, when it was shown that some renaissance artists almost certainly used a camera obscura, I don't think it dropped the price that much. Ian B

Jean, No, it is a serious attempt to get to the bottom of the matter. Understanding how something has been made is fundamental in our appreciation of it. We can all appreciate the artistry of the tsuba maker, and by diligent study recognise the evolution of their designs, but unless we know how they produced them we only have part of the story. Whenever the matter of cast tsuba is raised the stock response is a pitying shake of the head and the reply 'no they weren't' - but nobody produces any evidence to negate the idea. I know it is difficult to prove a negative but it really seems that the idea has become an accepted 'fact' that mustn't be challenged. We all know the 'nail that sticks up proverb' - well hit me on the head with some evidence. I know some tsuba plates show de-lamination in the plane of the plate, but has anyone seen a sukashi tsuba with them? If they have it would prove the plate had been forged and then cut out. I also know that some chysanthemum tsuba are built up from forged seppa dai and rim joined by separate 'spokes' but these are not typical. So come on you tsuba collectors, look carefully at your treasures and find me an iron sukashi tsuba with forging striations in the rim running in the plane of the plate and stop me ranting. Ian Bottomley

Brian, I am curious as to what the evidence is that shows the cut-outs of an Akasaka or other sukashi tsuba was done with a saw. I will acknowledge that the cuts of Ito sukashi were done with some form of saw, probably one with a soft metal blade and an abrasive. However, the cuts in these tsuba are usually of limited length, a couple of inches at the most, but not the several feet of outline that many sukashi tsuba have. Remember also that if a saw is used, the width of the blade had to be less than the largest hole that can be drilled in the space to be sawn out. Also the wider the blade the larger the radius of the curves that can be cut. There is no doubt that with modern piercing saw blades, making a sukashi tsuba is tedious but not difficult. It would also be possible by chain-drilling around the shapes to be removed and chiselling through the bits left between the holes, but producing all the holes with a spear drill would be a major task. To my knowledge there is no image of a tsuba maker that shows saws or sawing. Similarly, as far as I know, no such Edo period saw or blade survives. Maybe Ford can answer this, but is there any Edo period writings that describe the process of sawing metal? In favour of casting is the fact that it would be the most economic method of making these tsuba. There is also the fact that there are a heck of a lot of cast tsuba out there and not all are modern. I had one which I gave away recently that was obviously cast but had gold inlay on it. I also quoted my observation on an Umetada tsuba. From these fact alone, we know that casting tsuba was done. We also know that tea kettles were cast and de-carburised so that the surface became malleable and could be chiselled. There is also the famous quote about putting tsuba in a mortar and bashing them with the pestle - choosing the tsuba that didn't break. Now, the mortar being referred to is a rice mortar, made of a section of tree trunk. Bashing an iron tsuba with a wooden pestle in a wooden mortar might bend it but not break it. It would however break a cast tsuba that has not been properly de-carburised. Ian

Brian, Despite it being the season of goodwill to all, I think it would be fun to take on the role of a mischievous woodland sprite and give the tsuba buffs a frisson of disquiet during the festivities. I have always taken the view that tsuba of this kind, that is basically most of those described as sukashi, were initially cast and then de-carburised by heating in iron oxide before being worked up. In answer to the shrieks of protest, I do accept that some were laboriously hacked out of a solid plate but I suspect not many. As for the so-called 'bones' which are often quoted as evidence that casting wasn't involved, the casting and subsequent processing would invariably create hard and soft regions that would wear at different rates, particularly where the tsuba rubbed against the clothing, and produce the effect. It would be interesting to see if the 'bones' effect is most often found on the inside edge of wakizashi tsuba, which would rub on the clothing much the time, as opposed to the outer edge or to katana tsuba which were generally worn rather more forward in the obi and less subject to rubbing. The idea that an average tsuba maker would start with a solid plate and create such a complex design as this tsuba using drills, files and chisels just doesn't make sense - he had to make things for a price that gave him a living. Yes, there were great artists steeped in tradition who could gain the patronage of a rich daimyo enabling them to drill, chisel and file away for months or years. Without such financial security a tsuba maker using these techniques would collapse emaciated over their work bench. How many samurai could afford to pay for weeks or months of work on a tsuba as well as buying a blade, and paying for the other mounts - despite the supply being somewhat accumulative, not many I suspect. There was a sukashi Umetada tsuba pictured on NMB recently of uma blossoms. I have now seen three of these, all identical, one of which is in the Royal Armouries' collection. A microscope showed where tiny air bubbles had adhered in some of the crevices of the wax pattern used to make the mould. It is a beautiful tsuba with a rich brown patination, but there is no doubt it initially started life as a casting. Ian Bottomley

Brian, Definitely cast, and I would suggest, complete with signature. Notice how the basic plate has been produced with the faces of all the figures missing. This is very obvious on the rear view at the four 'o clock position where the figure is holding a gunbai. He has neither head nor hand but there are the flattened areas to which soft metal pieces could be attached by soldering for subsequent carving to provide the missing anatomy. Ian Bottomley

All, Somewhat off-thread, but relevant I think, is a tachi koshirae I bought at Christies what was supposed to be a 19th century copy of a Muromachi era ensemble. Since it was for was for display to show what a military tachi looked like, the fact that it was a copy and had no blade was irrelevant. Although it was catalogued and bought as a copy I have a feeling it just might be real. What I found interesting is that the hilt is bound with variegated braid in what is called katate maki style and has the menuki completely covered forming intriguing bumps on either side. Out of curiosity I had it X-rayed and found to my surprise one side is the common shoulderguard and riding whip motif, the other a helmet and sai hai. The X-ray also showed the gilding on both - in other words they were absolutely standard menuki. Perhaps the creator of the mount simply used a pair of menuki that was to hand, although he could have just as well used a couple of pieces of wood for all it mattered. Ian Bottomley

Miha, I did a bit of reading up on jingasa a while ago and found to my amazement how recent the majority of them are. During the Sengoku Jidai, ashigaru were equipped with armours that normally included a steeply conical jingasa of iron or rawhide, being cheaper and easier to produce than a more regular helmet. No doubt these continued to be produced for a while during the early Edo period, but demand for them would lessen as peace became established - armour is accumulative and old material could be re-lacquered and re-furbished for the lower ranking troops. The next phase arose out of the need for some form of headgear to wear during the long marches of the daimyo gyoretsu. Initially the ordinary hats of reeds were worn, the almost flat lacquered jingasa being adopted around the middle of the Edo period. Apart from the various lacquer finishes, these are very standardised in shape as you would expect; being in effect parts of uniforms. What are now called bajo jingasa, shaped like a bowler hat with the front of the brim turned up were officially adopted during the late Edo period for wear by higher ranking samurai, particularly when riding, many having eyelets fitted under th ebrim for a cloth hood. The colour of the interior being supposed to indicate rank, being red, red flecked with gold or gold in ascending order. I assume all the multitude of fancy shaped jingasa and those made of iron rather than lacquered paper and cloth date from the very late Edo period. A lacquered iron jingasa would be a sensible thing to wear when travelling around during these turbulent times, despite it being somewhat heavy. Ian Bottomley

The beastie on the kurigata is indeed an oni, the whole representing a roof tile. Ian Bottomley