IanB

This is a very interesting helmet on several scores, the fact that it is signed on the front plate for one - most being signed on the backplate. Similarly the presence of the extra plates are again unusual yet were added for a definite reason. Unlike swordsmiths, the makers of armour are only now beginning to be studied and an awful lot were never recorded for the simple fact that the largely Buddhist population regarded them as unclean because they handled skins and leather. An additional complication is that the Myochin, a major group many of whom used names starting with Mune.... They produced a genealogy claiming everybody and their brother as members, a goodly number of whom never existed. Despite this they state quite clearly that before Seki ga Hara they were the makers of horse bit and were called Masuda. I agree with Uwe that a date of around the late Muromachi would seem about right, recognising that the very first signatures do not appear until an armourer called Yoshimichi began to sign his work during the 16th century. Traditionally he has been regarded as working around the earlier decades of that century but I have an 8 plate helmet by him that is clearly a response to the increased use of guns - his earlier work being the more usual 32 and 62 plate helmets. I had mine checked by a metallurgist and the plates are definitely much harder on the outside suggesting they are steel faced iron. The general belief is that after the introduction of guns in 1543 they began to be used in numbers whereas in reality it was almost towards the end of the century that guns became significant. So to Mark's helmet. Is it by a Myochin smith? It could be, but the probable date is rather too early in my opinion. Sasama's Shin Katchushi Meikan isn't much help quoting mainly from the Myochin genealogy. The shape is rather tall and slightly pointed for it to be from the Yoshimichi tradition and it could well be the work of an un-recorded armourer. My first thoughts on the plates - which surround the tehen were there because the helmet had taken a bashing and the rivets had sprung a bit. However, if that were the case the plates would have been riveted to each helmet plate. - they are probably nothing more that re-enforces to make the helmet more robust. Whatever, a nice and very interesting helmet. Ian Bottomley

Paul, I'm glad you added that. I am always concerned about quoting too much from Sasama's book in case of copyright transgressions. Ian Bottomley

Nic, Sasama in Shin Katchushi Meikan states that Munetsugu worked in the late Muromachi, Momoyama and early Edo period living in Nara and in Saiga. He was supposed to be the son of Katsuyoshi and moved from Nara to Edo in 1626 where he was employed by the bakufu.“ This entry refers to the early Edo-period Munetsugu but there were supposed to be several generations. Ian Bottomley.

This is a very speculative area that as has been said probably owes more to Hollywood than actuality. I remember seeing a little shop in Tokyo with a display of so-called ninja weapons in the window that looked like someone knocked them up in a shed. No doubt some samurai were skilled at throwing knives / missiles, but I wonder how many bothered. We have all seen kusari gama - the sickle / chain combinations that were obviously knocked up from an agricultural tool, but in the Watanabe Museum in Tottori they had one made for a member of the Ikeda family - beautifully lacquered and polished with a slip-on saya. So, never say never, but bits of 5mm square iron bar with points on -Hmmm. Ian Bottomley

Reads Myochin Ki Munekata - Two such smiths are listed by Sasama in Shin Katchushi meikan. The second sounds most likely as he was reputed to be skilled in embossing and there is a known somen (complete mask) by him. He is thought to be late Edo period. The other is early Edo period living in Hirosaki who was the son of a swordsmith called Jirobei and became armourer of Tsugaru Etchu no Kami. There follows a lot of confusing quotations about his lineage which is probably all concocted. Ian Bottomley

Jussi, Being the National Museum of Arms and Armour it is a strict rule that nothing in the collection is handled with the bare hands. While I was a curator I used cotton out of preference. Long before to the collection became a museum it had been the responsibility of the army for centuries and you can guess the treatment many of the objects were subjected too. Nothing will bring them back to their original state, but there is no excuse to make them even worse. Ian Bottomley

I agree about the use of latex gloves fro handling blades, but I always feel it is better to handle koshirae and especially the bindings in cotton.I noticed that since I have left, a couple of swords now have broken bindings which were intact. I suspect that it is because the latex 'grips' the silk and puts too much strain on it. Ian Bottomley

Fabrics printed with patterns to resemble e-gawa were common in the Meiji period when the production of the rapeseed oil tanned white deerskin which were used to make real e-gawa became unobtainable. I suspect the ukebari was fitted or repaired at that period. Ian Bottomley

Ed, I'm having trouble trying to use a new usb camera. leave it with me. Ian

Where it is now I do not know, but a former ToKen member had a wakizashi that had the saya heavily sprinkled with pink abalone. Clearly the artist broke off specific parts of the shell to obtain the colour they wanted. You see plenty of green and blues, but that was the only pink one I have seen. Speaking of green a dealer in the UK has / had a daisho with the saya covered with pieces of malachite. I have one done with egg shell which again isn't common. Ian Bottomley

Uwe, I once was a similar object but made of kusari tied to the back of an armour. It contained a miniature Buddhist figure as a charm. Ian Bottomley

Eric and I often crossed swords over matters of copyright, yet bonded closely over other more personal matters. He was certainly one of life's genuine characters with what must have been one of the largest image databases in the world. You name it and Eric would pull out images of it. AS others have said, a face to face meeting was a delight. Gosh, I will miss him. Ian Bottomley

Bernard, What you have is a zunari kabuto of the type invented by Hineno Hironari during the late Sengoku Jidai when metal production improved and they could produce large enough pieces of iron. The shaped edges to the plates in the shikoro show that part at least was made in Kaga. There is a lot of misconceptions about Kaga. At the start of the Edo period the Maeda family who held the fief were by far the most wealthy with an income of about 1,500,000 koku per year ( a lord was classed as a daimyo if they had an income of 10,000 koku so it gives you the idea). As a result they had a large number of retainers and their processions on the daimyo gyoretsu were the stuff of legend - sometimes around 3,000 people and regularly 2,000. However, as the Edo period progressed, they had a series of misfortunes, burning down Kanezawa castle seven times, one of which burnt most of the town as well. They also alienated the farmers who sulked for 70 years, all of which saw their income fall to the extent that to keep going they put their lower ranking soldiers to work making armour just to be able to feed them. By the end of the Edo period they were in such dire straights they were excused the gyoretsu altogether. Dating your helmet is near impossible but you could safely say it is Edo period. The ornaments are not mon just chrysanthemum shaped bits to fill the holes which probably held real mon. Ian Bottomley

Yup, Zobyo Monogatari - its a late edition with the black and white illustrations. BTW. hate to have to say this but the Campari has gone to the back of the cupboard and I am now on Apero. Ian

Malcolm, I think there is, or was, a copy in the Royal Armouries' library. There were a lot of such old Japanese books but they disappeared when H. Russell-Robinson died (long before my time there). I think they were his own personal copies and his wife pulled them out. I ended up finding the two volume work on 'The Lives of common soldiers' that had been his which I bought in a shop in Nottingham of all places. Ian

The attached article was written to assist members of NMB who would like to try and translate the inscriptions on their swords for themselves. There will be errors and omissions that I hope members will correct and fill. Ian Bottomley Signatures.doc

Yes it is a gunbai uchiwa and almost identical to one on the site quoted. Quite a few early ones are iron, allowing them to be used either as a weapon or, if you were quick enough, to deflect arrows. Having said that, Hideyoshi carried one made of silk gauze that would have had trouble stopping a persistent mosquito. They were also used by the umpires of sumo matches and may well have been of a more or less set pattern for that purpose. Ian Bottomley

The situation in the UK during the 60's was just the opposite. With the end of WWII still raw in peoples minds, as well as the cheap imports of toys during the 30's, anything Japanese was viewed as so much 'rubbish'. At arms fairs, nihon to were usually piled on dealer's tables along with the bayonets. Former colleagues tell tales of tea-chests of armour selling in the London salerooms for shillings. In fact one of the principle auctioneers at the time was heard to describe Japanese armour as 'a beribboned mess'. Living in the far North, a drive around a dozen or so antique shops would usually turn up 2 or 3 swords, invariably priced at 30/- (£1.50) for katana and tachi (always described as executioners swords) and £1 for shorter swords or 'harakirri knives'. I remember clearing out the bottom end of my collection, selling 30 swords and a naginata for £30 to a dealer and making a profit. Ian Bottomley

Luc , I whole heartily agree. Ian

Brian, This started out as a very interesting post that brought out a lot of interesting information, and you are right in saying it has now, sadly, degenerated into something of battleground. I admit I am as guilty as anyone of getting on my high-horse and because of that I now feel it is time to shut up. The NMB has been a source of information and inspiration for so many over the years and I sincerely hope it continues to be so. Ian Bottomley

Piers, In Europe long barrels were considered essential in the early days of firearms, not to increase accuracy but to ensure all of the powder charge had ignited before the projectile left the barrel. I am sitting here looking at a flintlock smoothbore of reasonable quality that has a barrel that is about 5 foot long (1.5m). Since it is stamped with Birmingham proof marks, and that proof house didn't open until 1815 it is a fair bet that it was made as a trade gun of some form and the makers appreciated that the recipients would not have access to quality powder. Ian Bottomley

Uwe, Thank you for that comment and I fully respect your right to disagree with the conclusion I reached in this matter, (and by the way there is nothing whatsoever honorable about my conclusion). Dave Thatcher has written what he believes to be true, but I am afraid I must disillusion him. For 25 years I was a college lecturer before I became a museum curator and that experience has taught me that in reality I actually know very little. What I have learned however is not to leap in with what you believe, but to check that what you believe has validity and give details of how you checked your belief. When Mark put up the images of his helmet I had no more idea who Ieyoshi was than my dog. So, I dug around in Shin Katchushi Meikan before discovering the information I found. Unfortunately Sasama states that this other 8 plate helmet exists but does not say where it is or anything else about it. I have no idea if what he says is correct and have no way of verifying what he says, but I accept he knows a hell of a lot more than I do so I accept what he says as being correct. That is why I stated that his text was the source of the information I quoted in my answer. Unfortunately the contrary views expressed were in the main just that, bald statements such as 'It is XXX' The contrary view was that the helmet was Haruta based on the shape and something about the koshimaki, a perfectly reasonable opinion, but not evidenced in any way, and I still do not know what is special about the koshimaki. I am happy to be proved wrong on this and since you do not share my opinion, I would be interested for the reasoning behind your opinion. And yes, I would love to share a German wine with you again. Ian B.

Uwe, Thank you for your comments. There is no dispute that the Met's zunari bachi was made by a Yamato Ietsugu who lived in Owari. Clearly he is indicating he was an armourer who originated from Yamato but who was working in Owari when he made the helmet. Remember that those who were not of Bushi rank were forbidden a family name and often used their place of origin instead as Ietsugu has done. The same was true in Europe in the middle ages when low ranking people who did not have surnames, prefixed their given name by either an occupation or a place name. Hence the large number of people today called Smith, Fletcher, Archer, Carter etc and indeed my own name that refers to my ancestor living in a lower field somewhere. However, we are not dealing with a zunari made by a Yamato Ietsugu, but an 8 plate tameshi goshozan helmet made by someone called Ieyoshi. Yes, the shape may be similar to helmets made by the Haruta but nowhere in the evidence of the probable maker of this helmet quoted by Sasama, nor in the signature in the helmet itself is any reference to the Haruta. That the Haruta were involved is simply opinion based entirely on the helmet's shape; a conclusion that is totally subjective. The person who signed the helmet is claiming he is of Fujiwara descent and states that he has an honorary title of Yamato (no) kami. As I have shown, the province mentioned in an honorary title has nothing to do with where the recipient of the title actually lived. In fact Sasama states that Ieyoshi worked in Edo. I have also made the point that honorary titles used by armourers are uncommon although in fairness you did find one. So all that we know is that the maker of Mark's helmet was called Ieyoshi, he claimed descent from the Fujiwara and he had a fancy title saying he was 'Lord of Yamato'. I fully accept that Sasama's Shin Katchushi Meikan is very far from being a complete list of armour makers for the simple reason that armourers were regarded as unclean and that educated people avoided them. Interestingly their social ranking went up during the Sengoku Jidai when the daimyo were desperate for armour and then went down again during the Edo period. There are probably thousand of armour makers who are not listed by Sasama, but but we cannot know who these armourers were and what they were called so we have to live with that. However, in this case Sasama does refer to an Ieyoshi, who did use the same kanji as on this helmet and is described as being the maker of a helmet in collaboration with the swordsmith Kinmichi. He describes that helmet as being of 8 plates, of russet iron with shinodare and having no shiten no byo or hibiki no ana. He also states that Kinmichi was the person tasked with giving out honorary titles. Mark's helmet is of 8 plates and has no shiten no byo or hibiki no ana, but admittedly in its present form, no shinodare. Since the Ieyoshi listed in Sasama made 8 plate helmets, and is recorded as working with the person handing out titles. I would suggest at the very least there is a very high probability that the Ieyoshi descibed by Sasama is the person who made the helmet. To dispute the information quoted by Sasama, who is a respected authority, and the evidence of the signature in this helmet, entirely on the supposed similarity between the shape of this helmet to those made by the Haruta is more than difficult to justify. Ian Bottomley Whilst writing this John has added images of two helmets by Haruta Ietsugu. You will note they both have mabezashi that are different from this helmet, neither are of 8 plates and neither are similar in shape to Mark's helmet. I would suggest that Haruta Ietsugu has nothing to to do with the helmet in question whatsoever.

Luc, Perhaps you would like to elaborate on what a zunari kabuto in the Metropolitan Museum, formerly owned by Bashford Dean, that is signed by an Ietsugu who states quite clearly that he worked in Owari 尾張 (it is actually written as 尾州住 ) has got to do with an 8 plate helmet owned by Mark that is signed by an Ieyoshi. Nowhere on the helmet owned by Mark does Ieyoshi say he lived in Yamato province, he simply states he was granted the honorary title of Yamato (no) Kami. A glance through a list of swordsmiths, who were granted honorary titles far more often than armourers, shows that they did not live in the province referred to in the honorary title but elsewhere. As examples consider 'Izumo (no) kami Fujiwara Kanesada' who worked in Mino province, 'Yamashiro (no) Kami Fujiwara Kunihiro' who worked in Echizen and I could go on for pages. Ian Bottomley

We seem to be getting into a mass of confusion with Haruta Ietsugu being dragged into the picture based on the supposed shape, the use of the kanji Ie.. and something to do with the koshimaki (?) I think at this point it is worth summarising what we really know. 1. We have an eight plate helmet of goshozan shape whose external appearance and apparent number of plates has been modified using lacquer at a later date. Attributions based on the present shape make the assumption that the lacquerer, whilst adding suji, has preserved the essential shape of the original. 2. The helmet is tameshi with five bullet dents internally at the front, sides and back. 3 The helmet bears the signature: 大和 (no) 守　藤原　家義 Yamato (no) kami Fujiwara Ieyoshi. The kanji Ie 家 was rarely used by the Haruta. Sasama in 'Shin Katchushi Meikan' lists only 3 out of 42 Haruta armourers using that kanji. One, an Iehisa never signed Haruta but was claimed by them, Another Iehisa only made tsuba and for whom no armour parts are known and thirdly an Ietsugu who worked in Harima and later Bizen who changed his name to Hayata and stopped making armour and began to make tsuba. It is accepted that Sasama's work is far from comprehensive - armourers, because the handled skins and leather were regarded as being of very low social status and hence not recorded in the same detail as swordsmiths, but it is the best source we have at the moment. In the same source, i.e. Shin Katchushi Meikan, Sasama does list a Fujiwara Ieyoshi 藤原家義, the same signature as in the helmet, whose real name was Shimizu (or Kiyomizu) Chubei 清水忠左衛 who lived in the mid Edo period who made a surviving helmet with Iga no kami Kinmichi. It is not known whether Shimizu Chubei was a professional armourer or not. 4. Iga no kami Kinmichi was the swordsmith tasked with allocating honorary titles to other smiths. Honorary titles awarded to armourers are uncommon although other examples do exist. The armourer who made this helmet has the title Yamato (no) kami .. 5. Haruta armourers tended to use a concave peak on their suji kabuto This helmet does not have a concave peak but one that is flat in section held in place by soft metal rivets. Summarising: We have an eight plate tameshi helmet, modified by later lacquering to look like a 62 suji bachi of goshozan form. It is signed by a Fujiwara Ieyoshi with the honorary title of Yamato no kami. Notice that there is no mention of Haruta. There is no recorded Haruta Ieyoshi using these kanji, and Ie, is a kanji that was very rarely used by the Haruta. However, there is a known helmet maker who signed Fujiwara Ieyoshi using the same kanji who worked with the swordsmith Kinmichi who was responsible for awarding honorary titles. Enough said. Ian Bottomley. All my careful editing has gone to pot - like me.