IanB

Peter, It is now dark here so I will try and photograph the sword tomorrow. As for the MOP, it came from an abolone shell that had been used as an ash tray picked up at a market or somewhere. Just wrapped it in a cloth and bashed it with a hammer. I did need to sieve out the bits though. Ian

Heidar, Many years ago when communication with Japan was very difficult and the chance of getting urushi was zero, I did a scabbard that still fools people. I first painted the basic wood matt black, then applied a couple of coats of transparent fibre-glass resin. I then sprinkled another coat whilst wet with pieces of crushed abalone shell and finally applied a couple more coats to cover them. When it was all rubbed down with wet and dry paper used wet, it was finally polished with metal polish. The transparent resin coats give the finish a depth which looks pretty near real urushi and the Mother or Pearl flecks make it look reasonable authentic - at least I've never bothered to change it. Ian Bottomley

Adrian, XRF has been used for donkey's years in the analysis of antique metal objects. Until recently, the Royal Armouries Museum had an antiquated machine and used it on a regular basis. It works by bombarding the sample with high energy X-rays which cause the atoms in the sample to emit lower energy x-rays at characteristic frequencies. Unfortunately, the one at RA was only able to detect metallic elements, as the lighter elements emit only very low energy radiation that couldn't be detected. This meant that the carbon level, a significant component of most ferrous objects, could only be detected by subtraction from 100%. It is possible that by now the newer machines can measure elements of such low atomic number as carbon. Obviously, it is only the surface atoms that are detected, not the composition within the body of the material. However, I remember mercury being detected on the surface of some armour that showed it had been fire gilded, and that lead was detected on the background of some etching of another armour. We finally decided that the later had been gilded using gold leaf stuck on with goldsize which uses lead as a 'drying' agent. I would also remind you that some 7 or 8 years ago one of the big US universities was doing radio-carbon dating on steel that had been smelted using charcoal. This involved dissolving away the iron atoms leaving the carbon which was dated in the usual way. It did not of course work for steels smelted with fossil fuels. The big drawback was contamination of the sample with fossil carbon from materials such as oil. I believe that Yoshindo Yoshihara supplied some bits of sword tangs that were used to calibrate the technique. Since then I have heard nothing more of this work. Ian Bottomley

Yitzy, Rather interestingly there are shots of the Sword Store in the Royal Armouries at Leeds in this video. I wonder where they obtained the footage. Ian Bottomley

Gentlemen, I really don't know why the Japanese authorities are creating such a fuss when the solution to the whole problem is so simple, and would only take a day or so to implement. First put the swords in a packing case and ship them to me - I would even pay the cost of shipping. Why don't people in authority come up with such complicated solutions that cause so much stress when the obvious answer would avert the negative effects on the many and give at least one pleasure? Ian Bottomley

Uwe, Basically the problem is that early bowls are not very deep. When you modify them for reuse, and particularly when they are fitted with a lining the line of the koshimaki and top edge of the shikoro would be up around your ears (remember old bowls had no lining, just leather glued to the inner surface - This was why an eboshi was worn, the excess being pulled out through the tehen). Hence a much wider koshimaki is added. This means that the continuation to the column of rivets would end abruptly way above the shikoro. Hence you put two rows in to keep the rivet spacing looking reasonable. You will see with this example, the lowest rivet is still some distance from where the top edge of the shikoro would be positioned. Ian

John, You don't surprise me. The people the Museum now employed ther revel in their ignorance and regard any display of knowledge as 'elitist'. However, the new picture shows an interesting Chinese lamellar armour collected is Szechuan where lamellar persisted longer. It is entirely of lacquered rawhide and has been relaced many times (some scales have decorated border patterns that are now used in the body of the coat). Alongside are brigandine type Chinese armours, one of which retains a small panel of lamellar on the leg defence. Ian

John, There is indeed a 'Mongol' armour in Leeds of which more anon. The armour you illustrate is in fact from the Sind in India made up from at least two part armours. As for the Mongol armour, it was actually collected in Tibet and is of iron lamellae laced with leather thongs. It is displayed mounted with a horse armour that was also collected in Tibet (by the Younghusband expedition). It is displayed as a 'Mongol' figure because the theme of the Oriental gallery is the 'mounted archer'. There is some evidence that much of the armour found in Tibet, including this armour, may well have been made by the Mongols. The horse armour consists of panels of lamellar armour surrounded by wide leather panels that are clearly additions, as is the shaffron and the crinet which are not iron but made of squares of a silvery alloy fastened onto a leather base - a totally different construction. The additions are Tibetan but the lamellar panels, like the man's armour, may be reused Mongol armour (See: An Approach to the study of arms and armour from Tibet; by Don LaRocca - Royal Armouries Yearbook, Vol4 1999, p.113). In the Mongol Scroll by Takezaki, the lamellar armours are sometimes shown being worn by mounted Mongols and having handled the one in the Royal Armouries, I can see why. It is so heavy and very limp it is very difficult to hold onto - it is like trying to handle a mattress if you know what I mean. Sadly, the helmet of the armour is missing and one from Bhutan was added for the display. As a golden rule, lamellar armour starts in classical antiquity, moves eastwards into Persia and surrounding areas, then on into Central Asia but only to the north of the Himalayas. Finally it reaches China and Japan. The Chinese eventually drop it and end up making armours which are really brigadine (small plates riveted onto leather or cloth). Only in Japan does it continue until 19th C. A small amount of lamellar was found in Scandinavia brought from Constantinople by the Vikings but didn't persist there. Mail, again from classical antiquity moves eastwards and westwards, displacing lamellar in the Middle East. Some is supplemented by columns of plates and in this form it enters India, being introduced by the Mamalukes and Turks in the 16th C. In Europe it becomes the predominant armour until plate is introduced. Areas like Bhutan adopt mail from India and from there it spreads into central Asia displacing lamellar. The final throw of mail in India is during the 19th C. when it finally lost the embedded plates and was made of thin weak links sewn onto cloth. Interestingly, much mail from the Arab nations is in fact European, sold by arms dealers when it went out of fashion in Europe. The final ignonominy were some mail armours worn in places the Sudan during the 19th C. - they were made in Birmingham from small key-ring type links and were so highly tempered they shattered when hit by a bullet and caused horrendous wounds. Ian B

John, Very tiny point. Mail wasn't used by the Chinese although they knew of it and illustrated it in books on military technology. Japanese mail seems to have been an independent invention having no similarity to any other (except the fragment of Etruscan mail that looks a bit similar in Musée de l'Armée - but I don't think the Japanese ever met the Etruscans). Having said that I am inclined agree with you. It was fighting style that changed the sword not the Mongol's armour. Ian

Grey, Point taken, but if that were the case why didn't the Japanese adopt a similar armour. Instead they stuck to their traditional lamellar construction until well into the Muromachi era. If you find an armour technique that defeats a current weapon, you adopt it if your technology is capable of doing so. I wrote the above slightly tongue in cheek . I have a feeling that this idea of Mongol armour mashing Japanese blades was really thought up to account for the fact that blades changed after this period and a reason was being sought. I suspect it was partially because much more fighting was done on foot after the invasions and the old horseman's blades were not suitable. Ian Bottomley

All, It is frequently said, as here, that Mongol armour showed up weaknesses in Japanese swords. What was it about Mongol armour that did the damage? The most frequently used illustration taken from the Mongol Scroll by Takezaki Suenaga shows the Mongols wearing long coats, some of which are shown marked as if quilted. These are thought to be layers of leather. However, many of the coats have skirts that are shown as billowing out and were clearly neither heavy nor stiff. In other places the Mongols wear a species of lamellar armour that is very similar to those worn in Tibet until the early 20th century. Japanese swords had apparently been used against the Japanese o-yoroi for a couple of centuries without these defects showing up. An average o-yoroi of the Heian and Kamakura periods was made mainly from scales made of nerigawa, with iron scales concentrated over vital areas and always with the iron scales alternated with leather ones. Nerigawa is a heck of a lot stiffer than the Mongol armours appear to be. So I ask the question again - what was it about Mongol armour that damaged The swords? Any ideas? Ian Bottomley

Lindus, A very fine helmet that I would love to own. Kamakura hachi are not something you exactly trip over every day. I note Sasama Sensei's comments about the two rows of rivets on the replacement koshimaki and the reason for them. Very Interesting. Ian Bottomley

Thomas, We see hundreds of these locks in the UK. They were invariably fitted to guns with twist barrels that wore badly, or as I said the stock split in the wrist so they were scrapped. People kept the locks because many were superbly made. I have a pair somewhere with the interiors beautifully finished and polished. I just can't bring myself to chuck them because they were so well done. Good luck with re-using yours. You might consider a large bore pistol - quite a few were made using back action locks by people like Boss or Lang. Ian

Thomas, I see no reason why you think your lock is Russian. It is a standard right hand, back action lock from a percussion shotgun. Birmingham (the real one not Alabama ) turned them out in thousands. I've never liked them, particularly on a double gun, because so much wood needed to be cut out of the wrist they almost invariably cracked at that point. Despite this they were very popular in their day. Ian Bottomley

All, Here in the UK we must be the only country in which a Japanese sword is defined in law (actually it refers to a 'samurai sword' but that is nit-picking). True, it is a definition arrived at by an Member of Parliament who didn't know a Japanese sword from a bucket, but it was accepted and is enshrined in our legislation. According to that worthy, a 'samurai sword' is a sword that is 'single edged, curved, over 30" long with a handle'. So dear members, all your talk of sabres, cutlasses, cavalry swords and so forth has no meaning whatsoever here in the UK - all of these weapons are 'samurai swords' because the law says they are. Ian Bottomley

All, What an interesting thread. Two factors spring to mind that have not been mentioned yet I feel have a bearing on the fascination shown by so many towards the Japanese sword. Neither has anything to do with 'art' per se, but does I think influence our views. The first is the simple fact that so many swords are signed by their maker. The study of Japanese swords and their appreciation is, in my opinion, enhanced by the fact that we can figuratively speaking, 'put a face' to a blade. It is only in the field of Japanese blades that scholars have been able to compile relatively complete biographies and inter-relationships between smiths that stretch back almost 1000 years. This in my view adds a dimension which is not really possible for most other fields of arms study, excepting perhaps for items from late 18th and 19th century. Viking or medieval swords are fascinating and can in many cases be regarded as artistic, but at best we might have a name and nothing more. Knowing Ulthbert or someone made a blade is interesting but 'who he'? The second factor is perhaps even more tenuous and that is the abundance of Japanese swords, even those from the distant past when compared to swords of other cultures. Having worked in a major European museum I have often smiled to myself when my colleagues waxed lyrical over a rough lump of iron that is the pommel of a medieval sword. In reality, many were little more than simple blacksmith's work, but because of their rarity were elevated to an artistic status way above the level they really justified. Such items as swords from the English civil war generally have chiselled guards that are crude to the point of banality, in Japanese terms, yet are considered 'artistic' by enthusiasts of such things. Indeed much is in the eye of the beholder. Ian Bottomley

Piers, Kunitomo was a major centre for gun production well before the Edo period, as indeed was Sakai. From what I can discover, the Sakai makers were considered superior, some Kunitomo guns being referred to as udon ju because the barrels flexed on being shot. Many of these guns would be unsigned, being part of munition orders. Various Han around the country also had their own gun makers as well as centres for powder production. If I have interpreted things correctly, it was the gun makers from around the country who were rounded up so that the Tokugawa could control gun production - concentrated at Kunitomo and at Sakai. I too suspect that many guns are Edo period productions, in fact I have a Sakai one that is rather over decorated, but many were I suspect refurbished Momoyama guns. There must have been vast numbers of good servicable but very plain guns around in the Edo period. Ian Bottomley

Pat, Piers, The reply from Dr. Copeland / Tanaka San needs a touch of clarification. Kunitomo may have been used as a name in the days when commoners were not allowed one, but in the context of the inscription it is a place. It was later re-named Nagahama and is at the north eastern end of lake Biwa. It is true that the Tokugawa took control over the gunmakers in 1607, insisting that guns and powder could only be made in Nagahama and that the Teppo Bugyo, in Edo, issue licenses before any order was filled (see Perrin, 'Giving up the Gun' p.47 / 58 &62). In effect this meant that all gunmakers had to move to Kunitomo to continue their work (except for those in Sakai apparently since the Tokugawa already controlled Osaka and its environs). By 1609 some gunmakers were leaving since the Tokugawa were not ordering guns. They were rounded up again, moved back to Kunitomo / Nagahama and Ieyasu ordered they be given a small annual fee whether they made guns or not. Eventually many gave up gun making and turned to other trades - exactly what the Tokugawa wanted. Ian Bottomley

Jean, I am so grateful for your offer but at the moment I do not know how things are going to work out. I have been promised copies of the catalogue but again I thank you. Ian

Lindis, Nice job. I'm glad it all worked out well. Interesting that the tumbler didn't have a pivot through the bridle. The only other gun I have seen like that is a massive Dutch holster pistol c. 1680 - 1700 I have. Here the maker just put a plain bridle flat against the tumbler to stop it tipping under the pressure of the mainspring. Must be horrendous friction between the two but the lock works so - Hey why worry. Ian

Thierry, My profuse apologies. It was you who posted the catalogue not Jean. Ian

Jean, Thank you for the first glimpse of the catalogue. I hope the exhibition goes well. I was involved in writing a section on horse equipment for the catalogue - an interesting exercise since nobody seems to have written much on the subject in English. Whether I will be able to make the trip to Paris I do not know at this stage. Ian Bottomley

All, We are confusing two types of wheel here. The original tsuba depicts not a waterwheel, but a wheel from a bullock cart, possibly having been driven into a river to swell the wood and tighten the joints (shades of Constable's 'Haywain'). A Japanese waterwheel to provide motive power has jar or bucket shapes on the ends of the spokes as depicted in the example shown by Henry. A complete waterwheel was the kamon of the Doi family. Why the cart wheel is depicted as being distorted has me puzzled. Perhaps it is shown this way to represent its reflection in the flowing water, but you would have expected it to be inverted if that were the case. Since it was also used as a kamon, perhaps there is a more subtle meaning. Whatever the reason, it seems to be consistently shown in this way as on the example posted by Derek. Ian Bottomley

Lindus, A European gunmaker would form the pin as part of the bar and drill the lockplate to take it. (in actual fact, a European would make the pin a part of the spring itself, obviating the need for the bar). You might try drilling out the bar and inserting a new pin but it may have been hardened. It wouldn't need to be screwed in if the hole you drill is reasonably deep, a tapered pin bashed in and filed to fit the lockplate hole would do the job. Less desirable would be to make a new bar out of a bit of mild steel. Is the stub of the old pin in a blind hole in the lockplate? If it is you will probably have to drill it out. If the hole goes straight through, just tap it out with a punch. Ian

Roy, As Piers remarks, there is or rather was a gunmaker at the Royal Armouries. He is retired now but still works from home and would regard this as a simple task. I shall be seeing him next week and can put you in touch if need be. However. having done a fair bit of gun restoration work myself, let me offer a couple of suggestions: I am assuming the hammer and the tumbler are rotating freely. I note there appears to be no second pivot on the tumbler passing through the bridle (the plate screwed to the lockplate in front of the tumbler) unless it is there and is running in a blind hole in the inner face of the bridle. The tail of the bridle also supports the pivot for the sear, the long bit that locks the hammer and tumbler in the cocked position and isn't moving properly. There could be four reasons why the sear isn't working: 1. the sear spring is broken or is soft and isn't pressing down hard enough to move the sear. This is unlikely from what I can see. 2. The sear pivot screw has been overtightened causing the bridle to pinch the sear against the lockplate. 3. There is rust or dirt on the sear pivot screw or between the sear and bridle that is preventing free rotation. 4. The sear is being prevented from moving freely when assembled in the gun because its tail is not engaging with the trigger correctly. If the problem occurs with the lock out of the gun we can eliminate 4. (When assembling, make sure the trigger is pushed forward so the sear tail sits on the step of the trigger and isn't trapped against it. Matchlock triggers are hung in the stock so that they push the sear backwards. With this lock the sear tail has to be pushed upwards so they have made a trigger with a step in it.) My guess is it is problem 2 or 3. Try slackening the sear pivot screw slightly and see if the latter moves any easier. If it doesn't, you will need to take the screw out and the sear off to give it all a good clean with fine wire wool (which won't scratch the metalwork) and reassemble with a touch of oil. Ian Bottomley