IanB

Dow, This helmet looks to be post Edo. Shots of the interior of the shikoro will confirm it. Ian Bottomley

Justin, No, NO, NO!! You used exactly the correct terms for a hinawaju since the English terms that could be applied are not precise enough or are obscure. I mentioned serpentine deliberately since not that many people would have come across it and 'cock' or 'hammer' are only appropriate for flint and percussion guns respectively. Keep up the good works and master Japanese. How many opportunities I missed to learn through not mastering the grammar I shudder to think. Ian Bottomley

Oh how heartily I agree with Ron. European languages, and English in particular, are rich in sword, armour and gun terminology, some of which are familiar to and understood by almost all. Where such terms exist - why not use them? There are however are many instances where there is no English equivalent, or no exact parallel. There are no European words whatsoever that describe such things as hamon or yakiba, nor for the multitude of descriptive terms that describe the nuances of hada or yakiba and in these instance there is no recourse but to use Japanese. I can but applaud Justin for learning Japanese and using Japanese terms for the parts of a matchlock. Most Europeans would be mystified by terms such as 'serpentine' or 'pan' - perhaps concluding that cooking snakes is involved somewhere. I am one of those types for whom foreign language do not come easy. I can and do remember a multitude of Japanese words but using them in a sentence - aggh!!. Like Ron I suspect a few do throw out complex and sometimes very obscure terms just to impress. Good luck to them, but it only makes their writings incomprehensible and reduces the number of people who read them. Ian Bottomley

Ron, I would add that the pan cover, a bit of brass sheet with a bent up tab, is totally wrong. I might suggest this has been cobbled up from a bust Sakai stock which often have the little bird cut-outs under the stock. Ian Bottomley

Peter, The tanto illustrated was bought by me for the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds where it is now on display. It had been described in an art magazine during the 1930's and as you say exhibited in Oxford in 1968 where I first saw it. The blade appears to have been made from a German hanger or sabre dated 1623 or 1625, the inscription being partially obliterated by polishing. The maker was from a well-known Feisser family working in Solingen at that date, but the individual is unidentified as his initial is again almost lost and might be either P or F. The original blade has been cut down to leave the forte and fullers with their inscriptions, re-shaped and given a traditional yakiba and polish. It is now mounted in a saya covered with 'Dutch leather' and a kozuka with a fretted iron namban panel. I interpreted the kamon as one used by the Matsura family of Hirado where the Dutch has a factory before being moved to Dejima in 1640. The museum on Hirado fairly recently found a namban armour made up from elements of two Dutch pikemen's armours that can be dated to about the same age as the blade. Although it is pure speculation, it is possible that the original European sword and the armours formed part of a gift from the Dutch to the Matsura on leaving the island to move to Dejima. Ian Bottomley

Having seen photos taken by its new owner, it is evident that it is not from a pauldron but from a breastplate and cut from up near the arm holes. Apparently the plates are near 5mm thick and the central core only 1mm thick and brass looking. In other words the two outer plates are brazed together and the fukurin added to hide the join. As for what it is - how about a nagamaki? Ian Bottomley

Now that this tsuba has been sold, I feel free to comment further. The plates on the faces of this tsuba have been cut from an etched and gilded European armour. The etched bands with their infill of scrolling foliage are absolutely typical of Italian armour made during the 16th century. One of the interesting details is the secondary decoration of small motifs bordering the bands. Because the major decoration within the bands tends to be rather stereotyped, one of my colleagues at the Royal Armouries used these minor elements of decoration, which can vary from fleur-de-lis to variously shaped leaves, to identify the detached components of several armours in Malta. I have been puzzling just where on such an armour the plates originally were. Judging by the intersections of the bands, I suspect they may have been part of a pauldron. As for the size of the tsuba in comparison to the nakago ana, could I suggest the tsuba was for some form of staff weapon? Congratulation to the buyer - they have acquired a rarity. Ian Bottomley

Ron, Your tenacity in solving this puzzle, not to mention your skill in reconstructing this fascinating mechanism from so little, does you great credit. I have nothing but admiration for both you and Munetoshi. Having given the matter a bit of thought, I guess this pistol was intended for use on horseback - a situation you don't really have a free left hand to open the pan since you need that for the reins. Whilst writing this, I have remembered the illustration in Zobyo Monogatari that shows a tethered horse with a pair of saddle holsters containing pistols. Since the book was originally published about the time this pistol was made I wonder if Munetoshi's invention was more widespread than we think. Ian Bottomley

All, This was pointed out to me by a colleague. I'm not sure of the age of the tsuba per se, but the surface plates are 16th century. Ian Bottomley http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/111370317565? ... 1423.l2649

Ron, Yes this topic has been dealt with before, but it doesn't hurt to repeat things. UK law permits anyone to own 'antique' weapons (generally taken to mean over 100 years old) of any kind with the exception of some firearms for which ammunition is still available. There are other exceptions that need not worry us. Some years back there was a law passed prohibiting the owning, buying, selling, hiring and so on, 'samurai swords'. By the time various influential parties had stuck their oar in, the law became virtually meaningless except when the authorities want to use it. In practice, the recipient will be informed by customs that a prohibited weapon destined for them has been seized. All the recipient need do is provide documentary evidence from the seller , that it is antique and it will be released. It is no use the recipient declaring it antique, it must be from the seller. Occasionally there will then follow a load of nonsense about the rate of import duty the sword should attract, but a letter pointing out that since it was accepted as being antique and released for import, it should only attract the lower rate of duty will settle matters. I note others have replied but I will still post. Ian Bottomley

M, The VOC must have taken hundreds of swords out to SE Asia and the Far East, so no doubt many fell into the hands of the local population. Very few survive so what you own is a very rare and precious object although I suspect more are still aroud but unrecognised. The Royal Armouries collection contains a spear from Malaya or the Phillipines the blade of which has been made out of a sword blade like yours. It still retains the VOC mark and 'A' for Amsterdam. Another trick the VOC got up to was to acquire swords or knife blades of the type used in an area they traded in and have them copied by the hundreds in Europe, usually in Solingen in Germany. These then formed the perfect, desirable trade goods for that area. As Geraint pointed out, vast numbers of double edged straight blades were shipped to India bearing European markings thought to be Italian. The famous 'pata' or gauntlet swords of India all appear to have long European blades that were obviously specially made for that weapon. Whether the blades inspired the weapon or visa- versa is a matter of dispute. Ian Bottomley

M, Geraint, has hit this one absolutely spot on. I would just add the following: The VOC were established in Holland in 1603 to trade in the Far East, becoming very wealthy and powerful. Their ships sailed out of Amsterdam and other Dutch ports for bases in the East Indies, particularly Batavia. In the early 1600's they set up a trading base in Japan on the island of Hirado in competition with the Spanish / Portuguese based in Nagasaki. During the 1620's the Japanese began to have concerns about the Catholic Spanish / Portuguese but were concerned that if they banished them from Japan they would loose the inports of raw silk and brocades they shipped in from Macao in China. The problem was solved by building an artificial island in Nagasaki bay called Dejima and confining the Spanish / Portuguese traders to it. Thus they were banished from the sacred soil of Japan, but could still import the silks. By 1639 the Spanish / Portuguese were finally expelled completely after the Dutch had agreed to take over the importation of silk. By 1641 the Dutch were moved from Hirado and isolated on Dejima where they were generally forbidden from leaving except for the trips to Edo to give presents to the Shogun. One of the restrictions that was applied to the Dutch, the has a bearing to your sword, was that weapons were forbidden on Dejima. Each Dutch ship that arrived had to moor off-shore and was searched for weapons and religious matter that were confiscated before it could dock and unload its cargo. The weapons and such being returned when it sailed. Your sword is very unlikely therefore to have been acquired by that route and would certainly not have been a gift to a Japanese - that would have been absolutely forbidden. The blade is in fact a standard Dutch hanger issued by the VOC in Amsterdam for use by a sailor on one of their ships. It has been re-mounted somewhere in the Far East, possibly Indonesia with typical brass mounts from that area. When issued it would have had a black leather scabbard with brass chape at the bottom and a brass locket at the mouth. They were normally fitted with a brass guard, knuckle-bow and pommel. Since we know the sword was issued in 1756 and that Japan was a closed country at that date, there are only two possibilities as to how it came into the possession of the Japanese family. One was that many Japanese left Japan around 1600 and served as bodyguards and the like in SE Asia. Some of these families clung to their heritage for centuries - see the collection of pseudo-Japanese weapons in the Rijiks Museum in Amsterdam that belonged to such a family. If they returned to Japan after it was opened up, they could have brought such a sword back to Japan with them. The other possibility is that it was acquired by a Japanese who travelled to SE Asia after Japan was opened in the 19th century. Ian Bottomley

All I have a katana with a similar 'two colour' binding but in black and yellowish brown. I saw a wakizashi last year with the same colours, but the F / K were totally different and would make a daisho. About 30 years ago I saw a wakizashi that had been purchased in Scotland with a hilt done in red and green. I suspect these two-tone hilts may have been used by a particular Han(s). Ian Bottomley

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