This question has bled out of discussion on another forum where none of us
are really experts on the topic.

Both sources appear quite credible but neither fully reference their claims
http://www.myArmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html
Has the line "Japanese armour never was made of wood (except in the case of some of the earliest cuirasses)"
Whereas the following is adamant that it never happened:
http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html

So who's correct and where's the source of the discrepancy? I have a good library close at hand. Thanks in advance.

Well I am not an expert in that subject, but I have read both articles several times, and they are actually in agreement as sengokudaimyo talks about how armor from the Heian period and earlier have mostly decomposed.

You already know my viewpoint but you'd have more success here: http://www.toraba.com/forum/

Well, both sources are right. The first does mean, that there are indeed some very early cuirasses in Japan, that were made from lacquered and painted wood, although only a few fragments of them remain.

The second source, sengokudaimyo is also credible. Anthony J. Bryant, the author of this site, can be regarded as an expert for japanese armour construction. He actually means that samurai armour never was made of wood to clarify some myths that are showing up in modern literature like James Clavell´s novel Shogun, were armour made of bamboo is mentioned. (Maybe influenced by the knowledge of japanese sport armour for Kendo, which was actually made of bamboo strips.) But it is a novel, and has several historical inaccuracies. Mr. Bryant is talking about the armour of Heian to early Edo-period with a special focus on the armour of the sengoku jidai.
But in his Osprey title on the early samurai he also shows one of the wooden predecessors of japanese armour, so he is well aware of it´s existance.

Hi Gabriel,

I was actually adressing to Chris as this is a subject which is debated in another forum. I did not knew myself until very recently that wood was used in japanese armor, although that would not surprise me that much considering the dates. But I think the argument was that since it existed at some point it could have been used after this, which, apart from aesthetics purposes, curiosities and sparring protection, I find unlikely. The other possibilty is that the only army who used this protection was so totally oblitarated that no traces are left of them ;)....

I have seen armour made during the time of the Tokugawa Shogunate that was laquered wood, but this was merely costume; warfare was largely a thing of the past. I have been told (and we all know how iffy that can be!) that it was mostly worn by older gentlemen.

Thank you Max (and others!), that was helpful.

FWIW I had originally interpreted our own article to mean something along the lines of "isolated examples in early history can be found, if one is annoying enough to go looking for them." ;) I have found that it is very often the case that if you state some absolute rule of history, there will be an example, however extremely unusual, to break it.

I can easily believe that no "samurai" armor has been made of wood. Of course, then we'd have to define "samurai." ;) Anyway I am more of a nihonto enthusiast myself and find this discussion interesting for my own edification on katchu.

Cheers,
-GLL

I suspect that a lot of this rumor is spread by those who glimpse an old kendo suit with the bamboo slats exposed on the inside.

Many are the karatekas who think that their kicking was developed to break the samurai's wooden armor. :eek:

Funny. I recently heard that some scholars have cast doubt upon the utility of the wooden armor--the most popular theory in this camp seems to be that the wooden cuirass was a civilian/ceremonial imitation of metal or leather combat armor, much in the same way that quilted coats in China and India were ceremonial versions of battlefield brigandine. Let me poke a few people first and I'll try to get back later with some answers about this theory.