Ford Hallam

well it is at least a genuine Ford Hallam design, created fro Paul Martin's dojo some years ago.

Hi Glen The weather here is 'English', grey and drippy...but thankfully not too cold today. I appreciate your appreciation of some of the salient points I made. For that thank you. As you and Dan have both pointed out Brinkley was indeed referring to the 15th and 16th century. This is on page 265 in fact, and reading the context of this interjection he makes at this point it's clear he's speaking about works by makers like Nobuie, Myochin and Kanie. With these type of guard, being quite solid for the most part and having a particularly rustic aesthetic about them, we can now imagine why Europeans might have thought them cast, especially when contrasted with tea kettles of similar ages. He does go on to address the then contemporary problem of cast pieces as follows, on page 266 "There is, however, an explanation of the cast iron theory advanced by European writers. Many of the guards sold to foreign collectors in recent times (circa 1915, the publication date of the book) have been of cast iron, made expressly for the unweary curio-hunter. From these a deceptive inference has been drawn as to the nature of the genuine old work." But to be honest my posting of Brinkley's quote as a 'smoking gun' was done more in jest than anything else. I honestly don't think my general position on the issue of Edo cast tsuba needs Brinkley's support and surely no-one would think me that lax as to rely on one random quote given how much verbiage I'm capable of generating!? Glen, I'm intrigued as to the patently false claims you say I made in the thread I linked back to. I can't find a post where I wrote what you say I did regarding tatara etc.? It seems irrelevant to me anyway, given that we know cast iron kettles were cast way back then. That's not an error I think I'd make so egregiously I may at some point pointed out that tatara produce a product that was never fully liquid and that a bloom was the usual output, not liquid cast-able iron. But if you would point out my "patently false" claims I will address them as soon as I'm able so that I don't mislead anyone further. But now to the more important issue; Firstly I don't support any particular position in respect to the Edo period casting of tsuba. To characterise my position thus is a strawman argument. All I have argued is that so far no convincing evidence has been presented to support the claim that Iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period. I don't even really need to use any specific historical or metallurgical expertise to make that criticism, I am merely pointing out the disjointed and unsubstantiated aspects all being bundled together in an attempt to create a convincing narrative, but is ultimately a house of cards. No great academic rigour required. I have on occasion drawn attention to various obvious technical and maybe even historical/sociological aspects of the discussion but again, I don't believe these constitute claims of any dogmatic sort but were more a matter of pointing out what seemed to me to be obvious problems with some of the ideas being suggested of perhaps on occasion I've corrected a clearly inaccurate metalwork technique idea or metallurgical misunderstanding. Now to the claim regarding Edo cast iron tsuba; I want to link to this site for reference to the definitions I will refer to in the following. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36589 To clarify the present situation as I see it with regard to the notion that iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period I would make the following observations by simply quoting directly from the academic site I linked to above. I don't believe these points are controversial and they are pretty much universally accepted and worked with. Our present body of literature does not catalogue a body of tsuba described as cast iron work, Edo period. Nor are there any reference to manufacturing centres or where these items might have fitted in the overall scheme of things. So we can reasonably say the whole notion is not part of mainstream academic thinking in the tosogu world at the present moment, the status quo. So it is for the proponents of the Edo casting theory to present convincing evidence for their new idea. This is what has now been attempted. The Edo casting theory is being posited as perfectly acceptable and reasonable and that it is for the critics to prove wrong. As I don't bear the burden of proof I don't need to prove a negative proposition. If I were to respond by attempting to 'prove a negative' then I would suggest all I need do is point out the lack of evidence for the argument that iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period. "...an evidence of absence argument" And that's all there really is to it. And it's all I've ever maintained. Present coherent real world evidence and we've got a working theory, if not it's just a muddled Dan Brown saga.

Morning Dan absolutely am I comparing my current understanding wit that of Mr Huish back in 1888. But it was you who thought it valid to use his questioning about cast iron tsuba to support your thesis who presented him. My point is his comment isn't proof of anything, his other achievements aside. As for Prof. Gowland, yes, of course I'm familiar with him and his work. Intimately so and for almost as long as I've been a goldsmith; ie: over 40 years. I actually have in my possession a copy of every paper he wrote on the subject of Japanese metalworking technology. He's proven to be a very reliable observer and reassuringly precise and considered in his writing. His hugely detailed publication on Japanese casting technology in particular is a masterpiece of reporting. And no, I have absolutely no objections to almost anything he wrote. However, your interpretation is< I'm afraid, potentially fatally flawed. When Gowland writes, like many of his expert peers, he is very precise in what he says. If he says something as a point of fact it is not wise to then jump to the unwarranted conclusion that what he didn't address is therefore the obvious corollary. He writes that the bast makers worked in wrought iron. He did not say therefore that lesser makers used casting. This is entirely your supposition and is not a safe one. Given Gowland's relatively high status in Japan and the access afforded to him to the finer aspects of metalcraft I wouldn't expect him to concern himself with rubbish at all, especially with so much remarkable material to work with at hand. He report on what he is certain of from personal experience, and wisely makes no comment on an aspect that he does not address anywhere else, ie; cast iron tsuba. Does this mean there were no cast iron tsuba, no...it merely means Gowland did not make any comment on that possibility. I will respond, to end my involvement in this discussion with a link to a summation of my opinions on the matter here; And take the liberty of post my own 'smoking gun' quote, this time from an authority who's time in Japan was exceptional and who's observations and reporting might be taken as reasonably reliable and authentic, from the source and of the time, so to speak. Capt. Francis Brinkley arrived in Japan in 1867 (nine years before the Hei-to edict banning the public wearing of swords and the final stage in the abolition of the warrior class!) and remained there until his death in 1912. Worth noting that Brinkley was married to the daughter of a Mito clan samurai, so I imagine he had access to authentic Bushi culture in a way probably unavailable to many or most new comers to Japan. This from Brinkley's "A History of the Japanese people" (1915)(vol 7, p 256) Identifying a piece as being of cast iron isn't particularly difficult in hand, this is not the issue at hand. The real task would be to find a confirmed Edo period piece that is clearly of cast iron. The historical placement of the piece itself must first be demonstrated reliably, and only then can the matter of its method of manufacture be examined. To identify a piece as cast and only thereafter insist that it is from the Edo period runs contrary to what we can reliably demonstrate and seems illogical to me given the darth of information to support the whole notion of cast iron tsuba anyway.

Hi Jeremy Glad you appreciate the motif context, it always adds a nice element of meaning doesn't it? Copying earlier work or standard models was a central aspect of all craft apprenticeships. The fastidiousness of Japanese work is of course one of its defining characteristics, and even more remarkable in relation to he way things are manufactured in our modern world. Japanese artists used number of clever ways to accurately transfer designs from copy/design books to metal so that the close similarity of the mei in the two tsuba examples we see here is not all that remarkable at all. If you were to carefully trace a sample mei from a written example on fine Japanese paper you'd then have a pretty close copy. To transfer that as a guide to the metal you can wipe a little grease on the back of the paper and dust the metal surface with a fine powder, like baby powder. Then if you carefully position the paper and accurately trace the characters using a suitable stylus you will find the mei revealed perfectly clearly in the dusted surface when you lift the paper away. You'd then carefully scribe the mei with a scriber to fix it in place, and then properly chisel it secure in the knowledge that it is all accurately laid out and in the same proportions as the studio exemplar model. And while the two tsuba look superficially very much alike, as you pointed out, there are any number of gentle variations, all perfectly normal and to be expected.

In response to Dan's valiant defence I must comment the following. That Mr Huish asks about cast iron tsuba is not evidence of the fact of cast iron tsuba at all. Reading his other queries it is very obvious the poor man knew practically nothing at all about the subject. A point his actual letter makes abundant clear and is the whole point of his enquiry. Further, when he writes; Here our Mr Huish is simply echoing a fairly dull and uninformed view that is easily overturned by even a cursory study of the better and best work of the later periods of tosogu production. Never mind the cultural arrogance inherent in insisting on a hierarchical judgement of an alien culture's art! As for his comment on working in hard wrought iron being shirked, again the observations of a man with absolutely no first hand understanding of the medium he seems confident to pontificate on. Wrought iron is a great deal easier to carve and inlay than buggering around with cast iron, of that I can assure anyone Given his previous, very basic, questions on the broader subject of tosogu one wonders where his new found authority comes from . One year he's apparently completely in the dark the next he's seemingly able to define Edo period work from a very specific time frame, 1840 - 1870, and is pretty confidant he knows what their professed purpose was! Remarkable!

I suppose it might be worth considering what Colin's tsuba actually depicts too. The biwa, or loquat, was symbolic of wealth due to the golden colour of the ripe fruit. We find it in Chinese symbolism too, as one of the elements in the auspicious motif themes. A bird or insect eating the fruit hints at the vulnerability of accumulated wealth to the uncertainties of life and nature. As the warrior class were expected to be utterly unconcerned with 'filthy lucre' this piece was probably never intended for the warrior elite but rather the merchant class.

I think the real problem I have had with this whole speculation about Edo period cast iron tsuba is perfectly demonstrated in this thread. What was initially presented as some harmless speculative open minded 'research' is now, apparently, taken as a given by some advocates of this idea. A handful of comments here opine quite confidently that the original tsuba in the thread is a cast Edo piece. This despite the fact that the very notion of Edo period tsuba being cast is just a fantasy exercise without any substantive evidence to support it. The irony and insult here is made even worse by the glaring fact that Colin's tsuba is perfectly legitimate and not cast at all!

and to simply say that this is a likely cast piece and somehow suggesting it adds to the growing non-evidence of Edo cast tsuba is just nonsense. This is a perfectly regular and genuine hand made Choshu piece. https://collections.mfa.org/objects/11358

and yet another one, with the same mei. also perfectly genuine piece imo. https://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/m1063930591/

Hi Brian I think I've been pretty clear on the issue of Edo period cast ferrous tsuba . There is to date absolutely no evidence that cast iron tsuba were produced in the Edo period. All the theorising in the world hasn't changed that fact. And the theorising isn't helped by the fact that the various implausible explanations for possible methodologies of casting tsuba in iron etc. demonstrate a very clear lack of understanding of the actual technical challenges this hypothetical production poses. I would add also that I really don't think any of this fantasy Edo period cast iron tsuba is well supported by mediocre images of unknown provenance off the internet. We have available over 100 years of remarkable publications illustrating literally thousands of genuine tsuba yet on-line theorising is focussed for the most part on irrelevant absolute bottom of the barrel dross to try and 'prove' various vague points.. If the tsuba you're buying are cheaper than the typical reference book then perhaps your data set is less than reliable or even relevant. For anyone who'd like to take a closer look at Edo period iron these two films we produced earlier this year might be of interest. As for Colin's tsuba in the OP, I see absolutely nothing to suggest it isn't a perfectly genuine hand wrought and carved late Edo period tsuba. The surface texture is completely normal and is not in anyway reminiscent of a cast iron surface. As I describe in the films above, pre-industrial iron and steel in Japan was never fully molten or liquid during its manufacture. This results in a very characteristic internal structure and one that can quite easily be revealed on the surface of the metal by fairly simple processes. It does in fact have a grainy appearance, so if that's your criteria for judging a piece as cast you're barking up the wrong tree I'm afraid. Also, tsuba-ko were absolute masters of applying an almost infinite array of surface textures, many of the best being very difficult to identify as being actually applied, they are so natural looking.

I'd have to agree with the assessment that is is probably an older piece, perhaps even just pre-Edo. As Jean points out I too thing the flaw is merely an area of delamination, nothing to be overly concerned about imo. Looking at the size, a little small for a Kamakura bori style piece, and the way the design at the bottom appears to have been 'nipped ff' on the corners, I'd suggest it's been cut down. Kamakura bori guards tend to be more round and/or 'grand' in the the way they fill space. This present shape is much more reminiscent of Edo period style so my feeling is that it's an older piece later modified to suit a later fashion/ The kozuka hitsu looks like an older shape, to my eyes anyway, possibly added after manufacture but still quite early I think.

Hakudo can in fact appear quite silvery depending on how it might be treated when polished and it's final treatment. Sometimes a simple heating is enough to allow the tin content to migrate to the surface resulting in an enriched finish of tin, thus more silvery. Alternatively, in some circumstances the copper in the surface skin can oxidise more readily than the tin and then be selectively be lost through cleaning or pickling in a mild acid. Again the result is a tin enriched surface. Hope that helps Ford

For what it's worth, and at the risk of being labelled one of the 'good old boys', I must add my support and agreement with everything that Jean has written in this thread. It really is a frustrating exercise to have to try and make sense of some of the jumbled and incomplete expressions of the metallurgical facts as posted here. The broader subject of early metallurgy is vast and is constantly developing and being refined. But certain aspects of the science and technologies involved are by now pretty well established and accepted as the basis of this area of investigation among professionals. We would all do well to familiarise ourselves with these fundamentals and to properly learn where we really are at in terms of understanding. A single discovery, paper or article published by an institute does not constitute a dramatic break-though or reappraisal of established understanding! It takes a number of such papers or artefacts, all reaching the same or similar conclusions, to then be peer reviewed and perhaps then eventually incorporated into the wider picture. Citing bits and pieces of random articles found on the internet is hardly exhaustive or reliable in terms of establishing the present state of knowledge on the subject. Another important point to bear in mind is that all too frequently academia is not a pure project. In this particular case I would suggest that politics, or nationalism, plays a part. So I tend to view such dramatic 'new' discoveries with a good deal of hesitation. I wait to see how things will work out. It'll take a lot more really hard work reading, understanding and putting into context the actually published data and theories on the subjects than cherry picking scraps off the internet. If anyone is honestly interested and committed to learning about the subject of archeo-metallurgy I'll be happy to post a fairly comprehensive list of the foundational works in English that are presently considered most reliable and that I've found invaluable in building my own understanding of the origins of metalworking.

Not a very common theme on tosogu I think but it's depicted on this Fuchi kashira set I restored some time ago. Just for comparison;

The textured ground is a variation of 'chidori ishime'. These are created by using a Y shaped punch. If used relatively sparingly it makes a very clear 'bird (chidori) foot print in sand' sort of pattern. Alternatively if used very thoroughly, reworking the already textured ground, a 'crinkled leather' sort of effect like this is created. If I was going to fake a Jochiku piece I'd apply a chiri-men ground as that's actually the texture most associated with his work. Chiri-men is a crêpe silk weave that has a linear texture. This is probably the most famous genuine Murakami Jochiku. Incidentally my student and friend Marcus Chambers made an utsushi study of this tsuba under my direction over a 4 week one to one session. Marcus was awarded a gold prize for his diligence, so we really did study Jochiku's methods very carefully indeed. Jochiku is noted for his use of subtle and novel ground textures and the inclusion of non-metallic inalys like mother of pearl, coral and certain gemstones like malachite. He was also, it seems, a liberal sort of man. He had two daughters both of whom are recorded tsuba-shi. They signed Jotetsu and Josui.

That's 9cm! I don't know who this author is but if he's positing this notion I'm already taking his thoughts with a big pinch of salt There was at least one Tokugawa regulation concerning tosogu and koshirae, that being the formal requirements when wearing swords mounted in Kamishimo-zashi or Ban-zashi fashion for formal court attendance. In these cases shakudo plate, either polished or nanako, was specified. At various times sumptuary laws banned the use of solid gold or silver tsuba as being wasteful of precious metals much needed for commerce. Hmmm, so a vast number of Owari, Kanayama and other venerable sukashi schools made poor design choices, as did Musashi Miyamoto What were they thinking? His last comment seems superfluous too, it's very rare for any tsuba to be wider than its height. A case of overly confidant 'armchair expertise' perhaps?

he he, it's not trying very hard though , especially as Soten type work very rarely features fukurin.

Hi Dan I have to agree with Dale's suggestion that it might be more Owari. Personally speaking I wouldn't have inclined to Akasaka at all. My first impression was late Kanayama (up until the 18th cent) though. It lacks the classic Kanayama 'lumpiness' but generally it might fit, certainly the seppa-dai fits. There's even a slight suggestion of aspects of Umetada work here to my eyes too. Having said that I think it's really important to take into account that both Akasaka and Owari school work was hugely popular and therefore frequently emulated. Placing a work definitively with a school is very speculative without a mei or some pretty solid material evidence I think, simply because copying of successful work and designs is relatively simple.

Hello Vitaly I see no evidence of casting, all the inner walls are perfectly neatly finished up by filing, the rim/mimi is particularly nicely finished and traces of gilding can still be seen. If you examine the surfaces of the carvings you will see that, apart from areas of legitimate corrosion/verdigris, the metal has bee well formed, polished and crisply defined. The seppa-dai planes are actually decently flat and show no signs of shrinkage nor rounding of the edges, which would be indicative of a casting. One side does however exhibit surface corrosion, most likely caused by a galvanic interaction between the tsuba and a seppa, being of differing alloy composition. The tsuba is most likely not pure copper while the seppa probably were, this makes for a battery sort of set up in corrosion terms. The strong green verdigris in evidence also suggests that sort of suitably corrosive environment. To be clear, this is NOT a lost treasure but it is a perfectly genuine middling example of a Hikone/Soten style guard. It's obviously seen better days and wouldn't be worth restoring from a commercial point of view but please don't use this as an example of what a cheap cast fake might look like. As you appear new to tosogu you may find one of my YouTube film series' of use and interest. Tosogu Insights is a 'up close and personal. examination of various interesting and fine pieces of tosogu. You'll find them here This one we filmed some time ago deals with a pretty decent Soten example in iron. If you care to browse the rest of my channel you'll find over 150 films covering all aspects of classical Japanese metalwork. Welcome to the field and good luck regards Ford

It was in fact me who proposed the hand bone interpretation of this particular design, yes. I posted my argument with images on this forum, so if anyone is interested to look it up I think I make my case pretty clear there. The bigger point I was making was that just because some old Japanese bloke decided what a deign was about 120 years ago, without any reference to the original artists thoughts, we don'tneed to mindlessly accept that. We're perfectly capable of thinking things through ourselves, especially if one is of a creative bent. Another egregious error, I believe, in interpreting designs id the so called Higo chrysanthemum, as illustrated in Sasano. Anyone who ever cooked with lotus root will immediately recognise that the tsuba is merely an exactly copy of a cross section of said root. But I think Dale has posed a bigger question with the tsuba he's posted. Is it actually a tsuba? For one the nakago-ana is positioned way too high for it to be properly mounted. And to be blunt it looks like it was made in a back street welder shop by some dodgy car repair cowboy, only a mother could love something as ugly

To start I'd suggest first making a very accurate and finely finished, and hardened preferably, stake that is the exact shape of the inside of the form you require. However you proceed this tool will be essential. If you were very experienced with a hammer and the technique of raising you might even be able to simply use wood but a steel form is far more helpful and exact. I then suggest trying to understand what happens when a skilled silversmith hammers a flat sheet up into a bowl form. What I mean is how successive rows of closely touching hammer blows can squeeze the metal in. This is essentially what you need to do on the tight corners. Once you grasp this process then the way forward is quite simple. Thicker, rather than thinner, material will be easier to squeeze in as there is something substantial for the metal itself to be pushed back into to allow it to contract. This 'squeezing in' process is called shibori in Japanese btw.

Just passing by and thought I could add my 5 yen's worth Hakudo is indeed a high tin alloy, typically 20 to 23% tin. In it's usual cast alloy form it's incredibly hard and brittle so unlikely to be used in tosogu making, especially menuki which are worked up from flat sheet.

While digging though old files I just found this caption I wrote up some years ago to accompany the print. For what it's worth... The original was designed by Kitao Kōsuisai (Shigemasa) and is named Sankō ni-ju-hachi Kishō. The artists shown are, from top centre and going clockwise Yokoya Sōmin (1670 ~ 1733) Tsu Jimpo (1721 ~ 1762) Nomura Tomoyoshi Ozaki Naomasa , with spectacles (d.1782) Ichinomiya Nagatsune (1722 ~ 1786) Tsuchiya Yasuchika I , examining a kozuka and also wearing spectacles (1670 ~ 1744) Yoshioka Buzen (no Suke Shigehiro) (d.1753) Hamano Masayuki, pointing discreetly at a banana peel. (1696~1769) Hamano Noriyuki ((d.1787) Then, in the green Haori and resting his chin on his hand is, Iwamoto Ryōkwan (teacher of the more famous Konkwan) to the right of him and speaking over the shoulder of the man in front is , Furukawa Genchin The older gentleman at bottom far right is, Umetada Naritsugu (1678~1752) next to him, and holding his haori-himo in his hands is, Hosono Sōzaemon (Masamori) (c.1700) In the yellow haori with green number 'two's" is, Nara Masanaga slightly behind him, holding a fan (?) and in the bottom centre is, Ishiyama Mototada (1669~1734) just behind Mototada and to his left is, Nara Sōyō (Toshiharu) In front of Sōyō, in a striped haori and wearing a head scarf is, Nara Toshimitsu Behind him and leaning slightly backwards is Nara Tsuneshige. Behind Tsuneshige we have Goto Seijō, in a green kimono. Above Nara Tsuneshige and Goto Seijō,, holding an opened fan is Mito Michinaga (d. 1768) Next up is, Murakami Jōchiku, the name plate only reads Jōchiku but I never forget a face. Incidentally two of his daughters were tsuba-shi also, Jōsui and Jōtetsu. Behind Jōchiku and wearing a yellow haori is Ōmori Terumasa (1705~1772) To the left and just above Terumasa we have Inagawa Naokatsu (1719~1761) To the right of Naokatsu and looking off to his right is Yanagawa Naomasa (1692~1757) Above him and facing us directly is Yokoya Sōyo II (third Yokoya master) (d.1779) Behind him, and sporting two swords, is Sugiura Joi (1700~1761) Behind him, and with what looks to be a Tachi, is, Hashinobe Masasada and lastly but certainly not least, the grand old master, Nara Toshinaga (1670~1733)

Thank you, Jeremy, it's really heartening to hear that the effort we've put into the films and sharing the craft is so well appreciated. Good luck and power to your elbow on your journey.

Seems like an awful lot of writing her just to 'prove' what we already accept; that cast iron tea kettles were being made in Japan from quite early times. What I find unsatisfactory is how various pertinent questions are being passed over and instead copious 'data' presented, which seems to me merely to distract from the real problem issues. This statement is not supported by any evidence yet. Dan's summation of Shinya Isogawa's paper seems to be that in the 7th century cast tea kettles were rare, by the 12th century more common and then apparently this leads to the remarkable claim that" They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.” We now know that this statement does not occur in the quoted texts, in any version or interpretation, yet this was the claim made to support the idea that cast iron objects of all sorts were commonplace. I would suggest that if it requires such a degree of tenuous thinking and 'invention' to create this sort of evidence then the whole thesis is already dead in the water. I responded to Glens statement by pointing out ; "I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature" . Typically 1200 degrees C is needed to do the job, this is really at about the limits of a bellows fed charcoal fire. The Chinese, of course were producing vast quantities of cast iron more than 2500 years earlier but this utilised blast furnaces, was a huge government run industrial operation involving around 3000 men, according to existing official documents. The point being that casting iron is not a quick nor simple process. " I wrote this because the way Glen presented the matter is could be inferred that casting iron is simple and only requires a 'relatively low temperature'. This is, as I described, far from the truth. Yet instead of acknowledging this significant misunderstanding of a central technical point in the technology we're discussing Glen treats us to a couple of paragraphs of writing that completely diverts from the fact that he's making statements as though fact when he is unclear regarding the technical issues involved. So to sum up, despite some 'creative accounting' we are still not presented with any evidence that the homes of Edo period Japan were overflowing with cheap cast iron goods, or that beyond the well documented tea kettles etc. there was any other sort of significant market in cast iron goods. The claims of internet sellers with unverifiable 'histories' aside a few more points; Sand casting, this is frequently mentioned in this discussion in the Japanese context. But can it actually be shown that the process similar to that we know today was actually in use in pre-modern Japan? None of the various texts I have, either Edo period or early Western researchers, Gowland, Brinkly, Pumpelly, Rein et al, makes any mention of this process. I think that perhaps this is a mistranslation from Japanese where the process is very much that which is based on length and multi-staged clay mould construction. While cast iron is relatively cheap today I would suggest that the amount of energy, time, manpower and fuel required to first make the actual cast iron and then subsequent mould making, remelting of the material, casting and clean up work would not in the Edo period necessarily produce a cheap item at all. Anyway, nuff said.