See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/347999696

Japanese arms and armour and their differences from European

contemporaries

Conference Paper · December 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 1,119

1 author:

Alan Williams
The Wallace Collection, London
65 PUBLICATIONS   389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Alan Williams on 30 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Japanese arms and armour and their differences from European
contemporaries.
Alan Williams

Conservation Department, The Wallace Collection, London.

Abstract:
In Europe, by the late 14th century the production of relatively large blooms of steel made possible the
development of the suit of steel plate armour, and the production of all-steel swords.
Steel swords were being made in Japan by the Kofun period and techniques for making them of great hardness
were established by the 12th century CE, if not earlier, when Japanese swords were exported to China.
By contrast Japanese armour seems to have been largely made out of iron or unhardened steel. This paper
presents the results of metallography on eight Japanese helmets from both the Muromachi and Edo periods and
some other examples of Edo period armour, as well as a Chinese helmet. Even high-quality armour does not seem
to have employed anything like the metallurgy that would have been found in contemporary swords. Possible
reasons for this anomaly are discussed.

Keywords: Japanese armour, swords, metallography.

In Medieval Europe, shortage of steel frequently
meant that swords were made up of steel edges on
iron bodies. Armour was made up of interlinked
rings or small plates of bloomery iron/low-carbon
steel. By the late 14th century the production of
relatively large blooms of steel made possible the
development of the suit of steel plate armour 1), and
the production of all-steel swords 2).
In the Indo-Persian sphere the best swords were
made of crucible steel with a pattern resembling
watered silk (wootz or so-called “Damascus steel”),
and some elements of armour were made of the
same material.
Although the number of analyses published is
relatively small, it seems that steel swords were
being made in Japan by the Kofun period 3) but
techniques for producing great hardness were
established at least by the time of the Sung dynasty,
in the 12th century, when Japanese swords were
famous in China 4) 5). Kitada has described a Kofun
period sword with an unhardened steel blade. He
has also analysed a Muromachi period sword (with
the signature Nobukuni Yoshikane) whose
microhardness reached 660- 707 VPH at edge while
falling to 100 – 120 VPH in the core, over a
distance of 10 to 20mm; the hard edge being slightly
deeper nearer to the hilt 6). The same author also
describes an earlier Japanese sword made in the
Kamakura period, (named Kanenaga) with steel
edge and sides with an iron core, and the edge
quenched to 630 VPH 7).
Japanese swords after the Kofun period were
generally made to be as hard as possible. A steel
edge would be quenched to give a hardness in the
region of 700 – 900 VPH, while the body would not
be hardened, either by differential quenching, or by
having a much lower carbon content. Other
metallurgists have been sufficiently impressed by
the hardnesses achieved to publish the results of
their tests.
O’Neill reported a (possibly 16th century) sword as
having a hardened steel edge of 724 VPH while the
iron core was only 154 VPH 8).
Cyril Stanley Smith recorded hardness profiles on
sections of three swords 9):
(i) 18th century (unsigned)- around 800 VPH in a
depth of 4mm from the edge, then falling rapidly to
around 200 VPH for the remaining 24 mm.
(ii) 16th /17th century (unsigned) – around 800 VPH
near the edge, falling steadily to around 200 VPH at
the back.
(iii) ca.1940 (signed Sawata Kanemitsu) - around
900 VPH in a depth of 4mm from the edge, then
falling rapidly to around 400 VPH for the remaining
24 mm.
Armour
Quite different priorities seem to have held sway in
the making of armour, and even fewer examples
seem to have been analysed.
At an earlier BUMA V, I gave some preliminary
results on my hardness testing of armour in the
Kasuga Taisha Museum, Nara. Four examples of
15th /16th century armour had surface hardness
between 137 and 322 VPH. In other words, none of
them were hardened steel. Six examples from a

Fig.1 BMjapanese
Fig.2 BM7254m1
private collection in Kamakura showed similar
hardness (between 139 and 322 VPH) and finally a
one-piece breastplate (modelled upon European
imports) of the early 17th century in the Yasukune
Shrine Museum, Tokyo; no.4/212, this was of 218
VPH (range 180 – 270).
Fig.3 MagdalJap2
Five helmets (four from the 16th century) in the
Victoria & Albert Museum, London, as well as an
Edo period armour from the Manchester Museum,
were also examined by this author; all were made
simply of iron. 10) It might have been argued that
these were not helmets of high quality, but since
then other examples of better quality have been
studied, and it seems that although steel was
sometimes employed, it was not the high-carbon
steel used in swords, and nor was it hardened.
Metallographic examination of Japanese helmets
British Museum, London
Helmet OA 7254.
This is exhibited with a cuirass of the Momoyama
period . 11)
A sample was taken from the inside edge of a
plate and had a microstructure of ferrite and coarse
pearlite. Their arrangement suggested a
Widmanstätten structure, in which the pearlite had
been subsequently partly broken down into a mass
of carbides by reheating. This is a low-carbon steel
(perhaps 0.3%C) which has spent a good deal of
time at a high temperature before being air-cooled.
This is somewhat surprising in view of the simple
shape of the helmet plates, but it is possible that they
were reshaped from other items. It must be

Fig.4 magdalen
observed that this would have made very poor
armour. The microhardness (Vickers, 100g) varies
from 128 to 157 VPH.
Magdalen College, Oxford.
A Japanese armour belonging to Magdalen College,
is now exhibited in the Ashmolean Museum,
Oxford; L.I. 358001.
Prince Chichibu was the younger brother of
Hirohito, and entered Magdalen College in 1926, but
unfortunately had to leave after only a term because
his father had died and his brother became Emperor.
On his return to Japan, he introduced the sport of
squash to that country; while as a leaving present, he
gave a suit of armour to Magdalen College. The
helmet is a 62-plate example which was, according
to inscriptions, made by Hiranari of Kozuke in
1560. 12) A sample was removed from the lower
corner of one plate, near the front, adjacent to the
Fig.5 763helmet
Fig.6 781helmet
Fig.7 784b BWcopy
(empty) rivet hole. The microstructure consists of
ferrite and pearlite in varying proportions, with a
large corrosion crack. The carbon content varies
from around 0.1% to 0.5%C. But no attempt has
been made to harden the helmet.
The microhardness varies from 193 to 272; on
average 243 VPH
Five Japanese helmets from the H.R. Robinson
Collection.
No.763 A 62- plate kabuto with gold dragons on
peak. A sample was taken from rim band at site of
existing crack, on left side. The microstructure is of
ferrite and slag only.
No. 781 A 60- plate kabuto. A sample was taken
from lower corner of plate on right side. The
microstructure is of ferrite and slag only.
No.784 A 64- plate hoshi bachi. A sample was
taken from side plate on right side. The
microstructure is of ferrite and some rather divorced
pearlite (around 0.3%C) and slag. Microhardness
range 99 – 153 VPH.
 Fig.8 JB784m2
No.782 A 62- plate hoshi bachi of tenkokuzan
form. Mid-16th century. 13)
Weight 1.36 kg. Thickness of plates 1 -1.2mm
A sample was taken from side plate at edge of
punched hole. The microstructure is of ferrite and
slag only.
Fig.9 782Helmetrev
No.783 A “Bullet proof” zunari bachi, made of 5
plates and a peak. Weight 2.11 kg with a dent at the
side 22mm in diameter and 3mm deep. Thickness
3mm at side; 3 to 3.5 mm overall. A sample was
taken from crack at side of rim plate on right side.
The microstructure is of ferrite and slag only.
These helmets have also been examined by Neutron
Diffraction 14) in order to try and develop a non-
invasive, technique to supplement the reliable, but
invasive one of metallography (see also Fig.14).
Other specimens of Japanese armour
One example of a Japanese armour plate (perhaps of
the 18th century) made up of layers of steel and iron
forge-welded together has been examined by Starley
and Bottomley 15). The use of such composite
plates was described by Sakakibara Kōzan as being
carried out in the 16th century for the best armour 16)
but the steel was still not hardened by quenching.
Fig.10 783Helmet
Edo period armour is almost universally iron.
This dō with a kawari kabuto
(from a Private Collection in Scandinavia) is
representative of many others.
Late Edo period; name Iyozane Nuinode Samples
were taken from
(i) breastplate left hand side edge
(ii) breastplate right hand side edge
(iii) backplate right hand side edge
(iv) backplate left hand side edge; all 4 samples had
microstructures of ferrite & slag only.
These are reminiscent of Chinese armour and
swords, albeit of very different periods. A recent
paper described the analysis of six Chinese swords,
mostly dating from the Han dynasty, from the
British Museum. 17) Four of the Han swords had
similar compositions. All had largely ferrite-pearlite
microstructures, including the medieval sword,
except for one which showed the presence of a little
bainite, suggesting an accelerated cooling. The
study of Chinese swords, and the reasons for their
being so different from those of Japan, is a topic
requiring much further study.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
A Chinese helmet of the Ming dynasty (1368 - 1644)
probably first half of the 15th century. 1997.18
A sample was taken from inside the bowl. The
microstructure was ferrite and slag only.
Discussion
Possible Reasons for this difference: the Edo
period armour all consists of iron, which is less

Fig.11 co
surprising if it was never intended to be other than
decorative. However, the earlier armour was
functional, but has still not been hardened.
Even high-quality armour does not seem to have
employed anything like the metallurgy that would to
be found in contemporary swords. Possible reasons
for this anomaly include the fact that sword makers
and armourers were separate groups of craftsmen.
This was also the case in Europe, but there, the two
generally seem to have followed similar
technological paths. If armourers had had access to
the costly and scarce high-carbon steel available to
sword makers, then they could scarcely have
avoided discovering its potential for enormous
hardness. The relationship between the operators of
the furnaces and the swordsmiths is a question for
others to determine. Tanimura 18) said that “it is
presumed that, in ancient times, before the Tatara
Fig.12
Fig.13 188718m1
furnace was fully developed, swordsmiths
themselves made metallic iron from iron-rich sand.”
Even when they employed steel however, it appears
that armourers did not harden it by quenching. If
their priority was not a sharp edge, then perhaps
toughness was thought to be a more useful property.
Whether toughness was, in fact, best obtained by air-
cooling the steel is another question, but perhaps
maximum self-protection was never likely to be the
highest priority for the samurai customer.
There are two further factors in the design of
armour which could be important. Recent research
has demonstrated that helmets were made of
multiple plates in such a way that a blade striking
the head would hit two plates separated by an air
gap. This research was carried out by a team
employing neutron tomography 19. It is to be hoped
that the successful development of such neutron
 Fig.14
techniques (which are entirely non-invasive) will
enable more analyses of Japanese armour to be
carried out.
This is a multiple-plate type of hachi (Japanese
helmet bowl) with raised ribs on every plate and
connection rivets hidden into the internal structure.
It is possible that this air gap acted as a “crumple
zone” as in modern automobile safety design. The
wearer was still afforded protection but at a light
weight, thus preserving his mobility.
A completely different problem was posed by the
advent of firearms. The armour of Tokugawa Ieyasu
preserved at the Toshōgu shrine, Nikkō,
demonstrates a different approach. It employs a
European breastplate and helmet adapted by
Japanese armourers. While this particular
breastplate has not been analysed, there is an almost
identical breastplate, with decoration of incised lines,
in the Hofjagd- und Rűstkammer in Vienna
(A.1180). This has been found to be a low-carbon
Fig15 Nikko2
steel, or rather, iron. 20) It seems to have been
believed more effective to have a large sloping plate,
even if made of indifferent metal, instead of
numerous small lamellae laced together.

Armour of Tokugawa Ieyasu

Breastplate of Netherlands origin, late 16th century,
preserved in Vienna (A.1180).

References
1) A.Williams: The Knight and the Blast Furnace,
Brill, Leiden (2003) 53-67.
2) A.Williams: The Sword and the Crucible, Brill,
Leiden (2012) 230-239.
3) M. Kitada: Metallurgy and Civilisation:Eurasia
and Beyond, Archetype, London (2009) 129-133.
4) V.Harris and N. Ogasawara, Swords of the
Samurai, British Museum, London (1990) 10.
5) H.L.Joly and I.Hogitaro, The Sword and Samé,
Holland Press, London (1913, reprinted 1962) 2.
6) Kitada Masahiro. Muromachi ki nihon tō no
bihoso kōzō - nihon tō no zairyō ka gakuteki
kenkyu “Scientific Research (in the) Materials of the
Japanese sword.” Uchida, Tokyo (2008)
7) Kitada Masahiro. Zairyō kagaku kara miru
bijutsu kōgei to bunka zai no bi. “The beauty of arts Fig.16
 and crafts seen from [the viewpoint of] materials
science.” Uchida, Tokyo (2009) 80-83.
8) H. O’Neill, “Metallurgical features in welded
steels” Transactions of the Institute of Welding, 9
(1946) 3-9.
9) C.S.Smith, A metallographic examination of
some Japanese sword blades, La tecnica di
fabbricazione delle lame di acciaio presso gli
antichi. Documenti e Contributi per la storia della
Metallurgia - Quaderno I del Centro per la Storia
della Metallurgia, AIM, Milan, (1957), 42-68.
10) A.Williams, The metallurgy of some Japanese
armour, Proceedings of BUMA-V , Gyeongju,
Korea (2002) 85-92.
11) L.Smith, V.Harris and T.Clark, Japanese art
masterpieces in the British Museum, London (1990)
94-95.
12) D.Roberts, Hidden Magdalen, Oxford (2008)
150.
13) H.R.Robinson, The manufacture of armour and
helmets in 16th century Japan, Holland Press,
London (1963) plate XI,f.
14) A. Williams with A. Federigo, F.Grazzi,
A.Scherillo, F.Civita, & M.Zoppi Journal of
Analytical Atomic Spectrometry, 28 (2013) 908-915.
15) D.Starley and I.Bottomley, Japanese armour
plate, published online by the Royal Armouries,
Leeds, no. AM.1939.
16) Robinson, op.cit.(1963) 24 .
17) M.L.Wayman and C. Michaelson, Early
Chinese ferrous swords from the British Museum
collections, in “Metals and Mines” ed. S.LaNiece,
D.Hook, P.Craddock. Archetype, London ( 2007)
226-232.
18) Tanimura, op.cit.66.
19) A. Williams with F. Salvemini, F. Grazzi, A.
Fedrigo, F. Civita, A. Scherillo,
P. Vontobel, S. Hartmann, E. Lehmann and M.
Zoppi, Revealing the secrets of composite helmets
of ancient Japanese tradition, European Physical
Journal Plus (2013) 128: 87 (published online 2013).
20) A.Williams, with D.Edge & A.G.Atkins) “Bullet
dents – ‘proof marks’ or battle damage ?” Gladius,
26 (Madrid, 2006) 203.

Postscript: An English translation of the book

referred to in footnote #7 has just been published by
Kitada with analyses of three further swords,
including a Muromachi period sword by Tsuguhiro.
The hardness of its edge was 683-709 VPH, the core
137-269 VPH; and the outer sides 118 and 136 VPH.

View publication stats