IanB

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

All, There are points about this sword that deserve quite a lot of consideration. Starting with the saya, notice how wide the pocket for the kogatana is. Clearly it has been made to take a very wide kogatana, but I doubt it is the present one with its same covered kozuka and what looks like iron fuchi / gashira. I suspect the present kozuka is someone's latter attempt not knowing what the original was like. Since the kojiri is lacquered in situ, we can deduce that it, and the narrow silver bands were part of the original design concept. Notice also that the gap in the rim of the tsuba has been made to fit an extra wide kogatana, as has the angled cut-away of the fuchi. Again this suggests these elements were specifically made for the sword and whatever strange kogatana it originally had. The brass blade was probably made at the same time as the odd kozuka. The fuchi / gashira as has been noted are very namban and interesting but again not that unusual. However, look and again note that the novel way the kashira is pinned through the tsuka. Now we come to the menuki. They do look too large for the hilt and may well have been applied later. Firstly they look to be by the same hand and look to be of Japanese workmanship. The tachi on the ura side is not too strange but I cannot recall seeing one with a dragon kashira - ho-o birds yes. What interests me is the one on the omote side. Who has ever seen a Japanese armour mounted in this way in Japan? What seems to be depicted is an armour displayed on a European stand. In fact it looks almost exactly the same as the armours as they were displayed in the Real Armeria in Spain in the 19th century, photographs of which survive despite the fire which all but destroyed the armours in the 1840's. In other words it seems to be depicting an armour in a Western collection. Finally look at the tsuba, again fairly conventional except that it is covered in foil that looks to have been riveted in place through the seppa dai. Again rather odd. All in all a very unusual koshirae that raises interesting questions about the sources of its design. Ian Bottomley

I once owned a very fancy tanto, good horimono on both sides of an unsigned blade, solid silver mounts, an elaborately lacquered saya and with the tsuka maki of white deerskin over solid gold, signed menuki. Not in my opinion a hamanono piece, it was more restrained and tasteful than the description would lead you to believe. Getting to the point, the kozuka was fitted with a brass blade like this one. Ian Bottomley

Brian and Eric, Although we have never met, I feel I know you both and count you amongst my friends. Now in my early 70's I still remember the day in my early teens when the world of Japanese arms and armour entered my conciousness. Living where I did and still do, in the north of England, there followed many years of isolation from anyone with a similar interest, relieved only when the local library obtained a copy of 'The Arts of the Japanese Sword' by Robinson. How different things would have been had the internet and discussion groups like this, and the armour forum, existed then. Because of your generosity and the time you two gentlemen put in, not to mention all the other knowledgeable contributors to these forums, the information I so desperately sought as a youngster is now available to anyone. I cannot begin to express how much I and so many others owe you both, but I think you know that. Ian Bottomley

Alex, You are asking the impossible. Such objects have no price - their value however is a different matter and depends upon such things as: Its quality - which is high. Its rarity - there are not many armours of this quality available to buy. Its condition - which looks good. The number of people who want to own the armour and what they are prepared to pay. We cannot say buy it or do not buy it - that is your decision. Ian Bottomley

Henk-Jan, I think we can rule out 'farmers' or other individuals by the simple fact they are all so similar in construction. These weapons, whatever they are, were made in considerable numbers as if they were ordered from a supplier. I also find it interesting that the vast majority are short - either using wakizashi blades or cut down katana blades. Ian Bottomley

All, I think this image summarises the characteristics of these weapons (I hesitate to use the word sword). The tsuka made from a bit of old saya, mounts made up from sheet iron, the binding done with strips of coarse cloth folded to make a tape and any old bit of something, but usually washers, to act as menuki. Note how the 'fuchi' is just a strip of iron bent around and brazed shut. The one part that always seems to be a genuine sword fitting, as opposed to having been cheaply assembled from scrap, is the tsuba. Whilst typing this it occurred to me that the 'washers' might be old roves from dismantled boats - they generally have the area around the hole distorted as if they have been reclaimed from some other use. Were Japanese boats clinker built? Ian Bottomley

John, It could well be that, but look at the looted sword tied to the guy's spear that is clearly a conventional binding and all of the many illustrations in the books show the same spiral wrapping on the swords of the common soldiers. Has anyone ever seen a photo or drawing of such a koshirae being used in the Boshin war? I haven't. I have seen a similar wrapping described as Shonai Han, but they were for the samurai of the Han, not the common soldiers. As for age, why should they have survived from the Momoyama? If they were stored in castles for use in the event of trouble, they would have been refurbished from time to time. I know there are some koshirae from the Momoyama, but how many of those have been re-wrapped over the last 400 years? Ian Bottomley

This is why I maintain these are swords issued to ashigaru. Look carefully at the swords in the image. Ian Bottomey

Jeremy, The first of your armours has a dou made in Kaga, as shown by the shaped edges to the plates. Since it is notionally held together by cross-knots it would be called a hishinui dou. Production in Kaga started in the Edo period at first by the Haruta family who were joined in the early 1800's by the Myochin. It looks late Edo. I note it had an etchu zunari kabuto - so-called because it was a style advocated by Hosokawa Sansai who was Lord of Etchu, rather than being made in that province. I'm afraid I can only glimpse other parts. The second armour is a tatami dou with a chochin kabuto, both 'folding armour'. Again Edo period and probably again 18th or 19th century. Ian Bottomley

Paul, I absolutely agree with you that to understand the technology and identify the features of masterpiece swords demands that you should look at such blades and that such study will ultimately lead to an understanding of these blades. I am certain that nobody, myself included, would dispute that blades such as these are magnificent objects and eminently desirable, but that was not the point I was trying to make. The theme of this thread is about collecting Japanese swords, which I understand to mean far more than blades made by the great masters. I would also add that in my view the topic encompasses so much more than just blades. I have no problem whatsoever with someone who wishes to study blades made by the great and the good, nor indeed someone who studies only factory made blades of the Showa period. However, I still maintain the view that confining study to 'art swords' does little to advance our knowledge about the sword as a whole. Pick up almost any book on swords, other than the trivial, and it will describe in minute detail the features to be seen in a blade made by 'such and such' as well as giving details of his biography and his relationships if known. Studying these writings and identifying the features described will indeed aid in recognising such a blade. Having acquired that ability has certainly increased one's personal knowledge about the blade and its maker, but has it added anything to the knowledge about the Japanese sword? In my view the gaps in our knowledge, which are many and diverse, will not be filled by studying only a very small sub-set of the vast range of swords made and used in Japan, be they art swords or junk. There is a place for looking at everything. Ian Bottomley

All, An interesting thread that raises a serious philosophical question. I have no experience of sword societies in Japan, other than meeting members as individuals, but I have of an armour society and the overall impression was one of stultification. What was evident is perfectly summed up by the old proverb 'The nail that sticks up gets hammered down'. Imagine a collection of some 480 or so armours (at the Watanabe Museum in Tottori). I asked a prominent member rather naively if he had been, only to be told 'No, there is only one good piece there'. The reason for his reply was that Dr. Sasama had been and only photographed one helmet. In reality the place is stuffed with the most interesting items you would be hard pressed to see anywhere else. At a meeting whose theme was nodowa, what to me was the most absorbing item was almost totally ignored because it was Edo period. Does this sort of attitude lead to a greater understanding of the subject? Not in my opinion. When it comes to swords, does gazing at a sword made by a famous smith, whose work has been written about by scholars since times immoral further our understanding of the Japanese sword? Again I would say no. Pick up almost any book on swords or armour and you see the same old items illustrated time and time again. You don't acquire knowledge of European painting by only looking at Rembrant's work, nor of Western literature by reading only Melville. Acquiring the humblest of swords can often lead to discoveries that do further our knowledge. I remember buying a junk hilt for the menuki only to find a lead weight in a cavity in the region of the kashira. Who knew that was done - very few I suspect. If your intent is in furthering knowledge of the Japanese sword or armour, the lacuna are lower in the quality chain. Ian Bottomley

Giles, I'm afraid I cannot add anything much to what has been said except that the shikoro is a good fit and that the kuwagata dai looks to be very nice quality - shakudo mounts on armour are not that common. Ko-boshi bachi seem to have started in the 16th century, perhaps a bit later than the high sided suji bachi. My old friend Dr. Orikasa states that one was worn by Aoki Kazushige at the battle of Anegawa in 1570, and that one signed 'Joshu ju Yasushige' exists dated to 1572. These dates give us an idea of when they were introduced. Just why they were made and became fairly popular is a matter of contention. The mass of rivets added considerably to the weight, and this one has nothing like as many as some. Last weekend I handled a 62 plate helmet with 33 rivets per column and an extra row down the centre of the front plate. As has been said, yours has very exaggerated rivets and you wonder how they were supported to peen over the rivet inside. The smith must have had a number of rivet-sets to accommodate the different sizes of rivet. I like the fact they were called 'daikon oroshi' or radish graters by the vulgar. We know the Saotome, Haruta and Neo shools made them, as well as individuals such as Nagamichi. I don't think they made yours - it is a bit of an odd-ball. I know there is an image of a helmet somewhere with even longer rivets, but off-hand I cannot find it. Ian Bottomley