IanB

Eric, Having two side sockets throws a different complexion on things. I can't say I have ever seen a sashimono with two flags hanging from the pole, although I don't see why not. I've seen plenty of double feather shaped flags worn by messengers but they are arranged in a V shape from the socket on the back. I have just had a scan through the 'War Lords' volume of the Gekkan series No 118 and on page 185 is a device carried by the Konishi clan in which two side arms have round black balls hanging from them. These are on opposite sides of a central pole with a third ball on top - so not quite like yours but a possibility. Ian

Eric, Yes, I'm sure these are harness parts. I suspect the cord tassels are to attach to the four rings on the saddle on special-event days when one needed to show off one's wealth. Notice how all four are abraded at the top where they were tied in place. On the complete harness set you show, the cords tied in a similar way are attached to the aori gawa and actually hang from them. I suspect your set was used to avoid having to tie the fancy knots each time. The furry beastie with the lacquered tube stuck up its whatsit is as Piers said to fit atop a pole to carry a hata sashimono, the side tube holding the rod to which the top edge of the flag attaches. What a super thing!! I have three gilded ornaments that look similar but have no side tube. I have always assumed they replaced the flag although they are a bit on the small side. The screen showing the battle of Nagakute, and the Osaka Summer campaign screen, both have samurai wearing gilded objects rather than flags attached to their backplates. Mine could be just finials that went on top of the pole with the side sticks for a flag lower down (if that makes sense?). Ian Bottomley

Edward, By all means send more images. If Ogawa San says 18th century then I bow to his far better judgement. He has seen many more armours than I have. Ian Bottomley

Edward, You have attached images that only give glimpses of the several pieces but here goes: DSC00057 shows a red lacquered helmet, of which more later, and the front of a dou which would seem to belong together. The dou is known as a dangaye dou, one that has the part covering the torso constructed in two layers, sugake laced iyozane (wide scales with spaced lacing) above and kebiki laced kozane (small scales with all over lacing) down to the waist. Both parts look to be false scales as far as I can tell, that is made from solid plates modelled with lacquer to look like scales, hence they would be kirritsuke iyozane and kirritsuke kozane. The finish on the dou is byakuden nuri done by applying a transparent lacquer over gold lacquer. The gessan, the parts hanging from below the dou proper, will almost certainly be kirritsuke kozane and they seem a perfect match for the shikoro (neck guard) of the helmet. The six plate helmet is a bit strange but delightful. I love the ring attached towards the base at the back and the lacquered dragon. I cannot say I have ever seen another of that shape, but that is not surprising - it is a kawari kabuto ('unusual helmet'). Without seeing it in the flesh I would say it is Momoyama period. The 'helmet' in image DSC00056 is not a real helmet but a fire helmet worn by the military when fire fighting. It would originally have had a cape attached that covered the face except the eyes. The dou in that picture is again kirritsuke iyozane but this time laced in a rather rare way that uses three lengths of lace instead of pairs (mitsu suji gaki). This looks to be 18th / 19th century. Finally the last image shows the shoulder guards of the second dou, laced in the same way, what may be the sleeves and an odd shinguard. Ian Bottomley

Chris et al, This is certainly a strange one. When I first saw the images I also thought it was rather crude, but on further reflection revised my impression slightly. It is very far from being brilliantly executed, but the signature is no worse than some and Fudo Myo-o could be worse. I assume the latter has been added as a talisman offering protection to the user of the sword. Do I detect the kanji DOU as in 'way' beneath the grid like symbol on the ura? The hanabishi, especially on the omote, remind me of the nobori used by the Takeda clan and of course the same symbol stands in isolation on the ura at the top. Altogether, it suggests to me there might be an esoteric meaning to these strange symbols, possibly linked in some way to the Takeda. Ian Bottomley

Piers, David, Far from being 'BS' there has always been a trade in recycled armour parts. The notion that all buke were able to afford to commission an armour is also totally erroneous. Many lower ranking samurai were so desperately poor they had to be satisfied with what they could afford or had inherited. I remember commenting to a friend in Tokyo about a jingasa I had just bought at a flea market that it was a cheap one for a low ranking samurai. His comment was no, a low ranking samurai couldn't afford a jingasa. Very large numbers of armours have recycled parts in them, particularly helmet bowls but other parts as well. In most cases these will in the best case have been re-lacquered and re-laced to match, or just the latter if that is all the customer could afford. One of the armours sent to King James I is made up from just such a disparate collection, laced to match. If you read Sakakibara Kozan he states that it is not advisable to re-use kote since the metal is rather thin and that those parts had better be newly made. This implies it was quite normal to buy up second-hand bits annd assemble them into an armour. I would also mention the armour owned by Kuroda Nagamasa that has a helmet given to him by Fukushima Masanori that doesn't match the rest of the armour in any way, but he wore them together at Seki ga hara and at Osaka Castle. My dear of buddy W. Galeno had a delightful armour that had had the kamon on the fukigayeshi over-painted with another. A clear indication the armour had changed hands or at least the helmet had. Ian Bottomley

Adrian, Sakakibara Kozan in Chukokatchu Seisakuben, when talking about steel / iron combination for armour plates, states 'Disused hoes and spades afford the best inner iron for for plates. Any steel remaining at the edge of the implement is stripped off and the part that remains, being very flexible, must be folded and forged for its new purpose.' In the same text is a reference to old saws being used for shikoro of helmets. There is also reference to Namban hyotan hagane imported by the Dutch as well as hin tetsu, jo tetsu and kei tetsu - all being good for swords but not native to Japan. Finally, when talking about the steel facing for plates he states that the steel from the yakiba of swords is mixed with the spade iron in the ratio of 1:2. he also comments that Nara swords are never cut down (?) but then are not of a quality fit for making into armour. Ian Bottomley

Initially rifling seems to have started as straight grooves cut into the barrel to reduce the effects of fouling. These grooves were, as Ron says, later cut spirally in imitation of crossbow bolts that have the fletchings fitted at an angle to make them spin. All of this experimentation going on in Germany gave rise to the difficult problem that tasked the clergy for years, as to whether bullets that spun prevented demons sitting astride them and diverting them from their path, or, was it the spinning bullet that the demons preferred, guiding them to do their dreadful work. Whether the Japanese ever saw rifled guns before the 19th century is open to considerable doubt. They did however encounter guns other than the bog standard muskets. Toyotomi was given a gift that included armour, pistols and a gold tent by the Governor of Goa in 1590, whilst 5 brace of flintlock pistols and their holsters were given to the shogun by the VOC in 1634 (I think that was the date). These would have been of the latest designs and luxurious. Captain John Saris gave Matsura Hoin a gold decorated gun, described as 'double locked' in 1613, thinking he was the 'King of Japan'. He also gave Tokugawa Ieyasu a similar gun when they met at Sumpu. Sadly Saris's diary does not give a shred of other information about the guns and I have failed to find any trace of them in any of the Toshogu shines. Whether any of these luxury diplomatic gift guns were rifled I doubt. German wheel locks for hunting were the main type of gun that were rifled at this date and as far as I know it was the 1640's before rifled pistols appeared - Prince Rupert demonstrated one by shooting a weathervane in the civil war. Ian Bottomley

Thierry, I am so grateful for your efforts in taking all those pictures. Thank you. I was annoyed I could not attend the opening. I noted a good number of old friends and favourites in the exhibition -particularly the famous tengu armour, formally in Arashiyama Museum in Kyoto. I note it has been given a new set of feathers in its sashimono - the old ones were very bedraggled. Ian Bottomley

Ford, Whatever that thing illustrated on the web site is, it ain't a Japanese weapon. The shaft reminds me of the shafts on several Chinese staff weapons we have in the Royal Armouries. Even those look as if they were made for the tourists, having the most wibbly - wobbly blades you have ever come across. When you compare them to real Chinese staff weapons there is no comparison. Ian

Peter, Thank you for your kind comments. I will now reveal another dark secret that was even earlier than the one above. Back in the 1960's I acquired a tachi with a gold lacquered saya. For some reason, the lacquer undercoats had decomposed and the gold layers were loose on the wood - in fact they could be slid off and were probably a very cheap job to sell to the tourists. I think the under layers were largely made of a kind of dried clay mixed with paste or something. Anyway, the fittings and hilt were rather good (can't remember what the blade was it was so long ago). So I was faced with the same problem as with the sword I sent pictures of. What I did was paint the wood black and then coated it with glue and sprinkled it all over with crushed red wall brick sieved to 30 mesh. It then looked as if it had been covered in bread crumbs. I put on 3 or 4 coats of black paint letting each dry for several days and then allowing the last coat about a month to really harden. When rubbed down, some brick particles were cut in half, others dropped out leaving a surface that was beautifully textured and looked exactly like those textured reddish lacquer finishes one sees. That one even fooled the Japanese. Ian

Ford, At the risk of boring people to death it is well known I have been researching the armours sent to Europe during the 16th and 17thC as diplomatic gifts. Initially it was generally thought, and I saw no reason to disagree, that they were specially made for the purpose. Because the two sent to King James I (and IV) were made by Iwai Yoseamon of Nara it led to the assumption that he was Tokugawa Ieyasu's personal armourer. However, the more I looked it became evident that those armours with heraldry I could identify had in fact belonged to those the Tokugawa had defeated. Thus it seems that it was considered prudent to give away your enemies' armours, presumably because their kami was associated with them - and what could be better than to give them to people who would take them to the opposite side of the world. Ian Bottomley

Peter, As promised, here are a couple of shots of the scabbard. What I didn't say was that it was not the original scabbard that was re-done, but was made out of the wooden lining from a gunto that was covered with leather. It was in two halves anyway so I simply cleaned it out and did a bit of re-shaping to fit, then glued it up. Ian

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