Tsuba casting molds ?

[Dan tsuba]

So, thanks all again for posting some great information and resources.  I am sure learning a lot, and it took me some time to get through the last reference.

The last reference mentioned was the one that dealt with how different tsuba metals were inlaid, crafted, and had patina applied (starting at page 291)— That website is shown below :

 

https://archive.org/details/arsorientalisar111979univ/page/n1/mode/2up?q=tsuba

 

It is a very well researched and a great “read”.  I even found out on pages 315 and p. 325 that I have tusba (although they are “low end” types) that have the same design and inlay work as described in the text, so that was a neat thing!

 

Now, they seem to have only chosen 5 tsuba for their purposes (and it is explained on page 292 how and why they chose them).  Although there is mention throughout the text of “malleable metal” and “wrought iron” (a plus for those who believe Edo period tsuba were not made from cast iron!); but as explained on page 293 and p.299 only 2 out of the 5 tsuba were made from iron (and they were not cast!).

 

Although I don’t think that 2 tsuba is a fair enough representation of iron tsuba to discern if Edo period tsuba were ever made from cast iron.

Even though the reference referred to above is an insightful paper about tsuba inlay work (and other areas), I don’t believe it can be used as a basis to verify if tsuba were not ever made from cast iron.

 

I know, I know!!  Most of you are saying “what will it take to convince this guy that Edo period original tsuba (not fakes) were not made from cast iron?”  Do we have to find an Edo period tsuba craftsman, bring him back to life and have him tell Dan that “there is no way Edo period original tsuba were made from cast iron!”

 

Maybe!

 

Ha, ha, ha, etc., just trying to add a bit of fun to an otherwise very educational, intense, and complicated subject!

 

I am still searching the internet for any possible clues or written records by Edo period tsuba craftsman, or anything that can be added to this thread to prove or disprove the making of cast iron tsuba.

 

With respect,

Dan

 

With respect,

Dan

[Dan tsuba]

I know in my quest to find information on Edo period cast iron tsuba that I can present the reader with many pictures and examples of tsuba that are listed as Edo, are listed by reputable dealers, and appear to be made from cast iron.

 

However, presently that is not my research goal.  I am now endeavoring to find legitimate records or historical notes that give some insights into the possibility of Edo period cast tsuba.

 

This is not an “easy” thing to do, but I have tried.  So far, I have gleaned some insights.  A couple of months ago a friend gave me a book entitled “Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society, London (which is stated on the cover).  Inside the book is stated as “Transactions and Proceedings of The Japan Society, London, Volume III The Third and Fourth Sessions 1893-5”.  Then it states publishing information which is:  London, 1897.  Published for the Society by Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Limited Paternoster House, Charing Cross Road, W.C..  He stated he bought this reprint of the original on the internet.  He also said that there are several sites that sell it.  I found that it is also available for the public domain in PDF format, but I couldn’t get those exact pages I listed below to download.  I find that it is a valuable resource for many different subjects about Japan.

 

One subject they touch upon is that of tsuba. So, on page 83 (starting from the front of the book, because if you start from the back of the book you will end up on the wrong page because this book contains a couple of individually paged and numbered volumes) in the bottom paragraph it states “The tsuba………are of greatest interest to the metallurgist.”  Also, it goes on to state “………...skilfully dealt with by Professor Church in the introduction to the catalogue of the late exhibition at the Burlington Club”. 

 

So, let’s hold onto that thought about “Professor Church”.

 

 

Now on the bottom of P.91 and going to the top of P.92 it states “The Hamano school was founded by Hamano Shozui, a pupil of Ju Toshinaga, and who died in 1769.  ………. He worked both in iron and bronze, and as in the case of Toshinaga, there is sometimes a strange contrast between his work in the two metals, one of his iron tsubas in my collection having a very singular surface, like a fragment of cast iron (Plate X. I), while his bronze is often highly finished.” 

 

So, I have included that picture stated in the above text on the bottom of this posting.  The picture that is referred to is the first tsuba on the bottom of the picture.

 

Now, let’s move on to Professor Church.  His name was Arthur Herbert Church (1834-1915) and he was evidently a very knowledgeable collector of tsuba.  Refer to the website below to see his collection –(scroll through the areas located on the left side of the site to view the different schools represented in his collection).

http://jameelcentre.ashmolean.org/collection/7/10237/10338

 

Now when I went to the above website and put in a search for cast iron tsuba I got this. -

http://jameelcentre.ashmolean.org/collection/8/object/21614

The results of that search are shown below :

 

?

Aori-shaped tsuba with tea ceremony cauldron and poem

Associated place

Japan (place of creation)

Date

19th century (1801 - 1900)

Material and technique

obverse and reverse: iron, with gold; tang-hole plugged with soft metal, probably copper, and partly gilded obverse: with cast iron and shibuichi; central silver ground, with punched ishime decoration

Dimensions

6.5 x 5.6 cm (height x width)

Material index

iron, 

gold, 

shibuichi, 

shibuichi, 

silver,

more

Technique index

forged, 

cast, 

punched, 

punched, 

plugged,

more

Object type index

tsuba

No. of items

1

Credit line

Bequeathed by Sir Arthur H. Church, 1915.

Accession no.

EAX.11077

 

Well, that’s it for what I could come up with for Edo cast iron tsuba that seems to be from credible sources. 

 

This has been fun and extremely educational.  But I am know going to “let it go” and maybe there is someone out there willing to “take up the torch”!

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[GRC]

Well that's certainly a very interesting example.

Nice bit of digging there Dan 

 

Here's a clearly cast iron tsuba, NBTHK attributed to Yagyu, complete with the telltale raised circular "scars" on the seppa-dai, where I suspect the iron was poured into the mould. There's also a lot of "webbing" remnants in the kogai-hitsu-ana and elsewhere. Maybe it was made from a sand casting with two halves?

I accidentally came across this example when I was looking for examples of this particular motif, but then noticed it was cast.

The translation comes from MauroP in an NMB post where Dale assigned everyone some "Homework".

 

 

 

 

[GRC]

OK, one last bit of important historical information from: https://tetsunomichi.gr.jp/lang-en/history-development-tatara/tatara-history/ 

 

"The introduction of western iron manufacture began in 1857 with the Ōhashi blast furnace in Kamaishi, Iwate Prefecture, and by 1894, iron production by western methods overtook that of tatara. At this time, tatara bellows and blacksmiths were utilizing automation and switching to brick furnaces."

 

This only gives a 12 year window before the end of the Edo period and the beginning of the Meiji period in 1869, for the potential for cast iron tsuba to be made using malleable cast iron that was produced in Japan.

So at best, it is possible that it happened at the very end of the Edo period, and almost certainly during the Meiji period and onwards.

 

Anything earlier would have to have been done using imported malleable cast iron. I'm not sure how feasible or economically viable that would have been, even if it resulted in bulk production of tsuba.
 

Regarding the "Yagyu-style" HOSHINAMAKO (dried sea cucumber) design above, Haynes points out that that the Yagyu smiths produced tsuba until the end of the Edo period, and that from about 1750 onward, Yagyu-style tsuba were being produced from by independent smiths who were "working in the style of" or deliberately producing imitations of the Yagyu tsuba. 

(www.shibuiswords.com/yagyuhaynes.htm) 

So the papered HOSHINAMAKO still falls in this "end of Edo"/Meiji window when malleable cast iron would be more readily available.

 

Regarding the Church collection tsuba: the stated window of time is the entire 19th century, so still overlaps into the late Edo/Meiji period. 

 

The quote about the Hamano tsuba is still intriguing, but taken at face value, someone is looking at the Hamano tsuba's surface uniformity and commenting on how it resembles the uniformity of cast iron. On some level you could potentially view this statement as a version of "how well made the plate was" given that it was so uniform in appearance? 

 

If I happen to cross paths with more examples of papered Cast iron tsuba, I will certainly take the time to post them. And I hope others will continue to do so too.  Clearly, they do exist.

Unless some new information comes to light, I'm feeling pretty "comfortable" with the very late Edo/Meiji window. The introduction of the Western-style blast furnace in 1857 is the key piece of info for me.

It's been fun 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Glen (and others),

Thank you so much for your excellent posts!  I know nothing about metallurgy or the process of making cast iron.  I do agree with Glen that this thread “has been fun”.  Not only fun, but (for me) extremely educational, intense, and complicated.  And I guess I am not entirely “ready to let it go”!

 

I also agree with him on his suggestion that if anybody finds examples of any papered tsuba that they think are cast iron, that they should take the time to post them. I don't have enough expierience with tsuba to discern a well-made cast iron tsuba from a regular iron plate tsuba.  However, I know for certain that there are others that have that experience, and your thouhts and insights would be very helpful and much appreciated. 

 

I don’t want to belabor the point but want to include the below information as possible “food for thought”:

In one of my previous posts to this thread I referred to this website- I include only parts of the wiki site entry-
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous_metallurgy

 

“The earliest iron artifacts made from bloomeries in China date to end of the 9th century BC.^[40] Cast iron was used in ancient China for warfare, agriculture and architecture.^[9] Around 500 BC, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu achieved a temperature of 1130 °C. At this temperature, iron combines with 4.3% carbon and melts. The liquid iron can be cast into molds, a method far less laborious than individually forging each piece of iron from a bloom.

Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days. In China, these iron working methods spread northward, and by 300 BC, iron was the material of choice throughout China for most tools and weapons.^[9] A mass grave in Hebei province, dated to the early 3rd century BC, contains several soldiers buried with their weapons and other equipment. The artifacts recovered from this grave are variously made of wrought iron, cast iron, malleabilized cast iron, and quench-hardened steel, with only a few, probably ornamental, bronze weapons.”

 

“By the 11th century, there was a large amount of deforestation in China due to the iron industry's demands for charcoal.^[49] By this time however, the Chinese had learned to use bituminous coke to replace charcoal, and with this switch in resources many acres of prime timberland in China were spared.”

 

I have referenced Chinese metallurgy methods because I find it very believable that Japan could have learned some of their metal working techniques from China.

 

I also found another wiki site that deals with the Japanese tatara. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Japanese_iron-working_techniques

I also only include parts of that wiki site entry-

“The traditional Japanese furnace, known as a tatara, was a hybrid type of furnace. It incorporated bellows, like the European blast furnace, but was constructed of clay; these furnaces would be destroyed after the first use.^[1] According to existing archeological records, the first tataras were built during the middle part of the sixth century A.D.^[2] Due to the large scale of the tatara, as compared to its European, Indian and Chinese counterparts, the temperature at a given point would vary based on the height in the furnace. Therefore, different types of iron could be found at different heights inside the furnace, ranging from wrought iron at the top of the tatara (furthest from the heat, lowest temperature), to cast iron towards the middle, and finally steel towards the bottom (with varying degrees of carbon content.)^[3] Importantly, tataras did not exceed 1500 C, so they did not completely melt the iron.”

(also)

“The metal-workers clearly had an understanding of the differences between the various types of iron found in the tatara, and they separated out and selected different portions of the “bloom” accordingly.”

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

So, there I was on the internet thinking about purchasing another Nanban type tsuba.  Minding my own business.  Then I happened to “bump into” the below listed web link and a papered Nanban type tsuba that may be cast iron just kind of “jumped out” at me!!  I needed to post it so that others could check it out and help me discern if it could be cast iron.  If you scroll down on the link, it will show the NBTHK papers.  I don’t know how to copy the pictures to post them – so I apologize for that).  Thanks for the assist!  With respect, Dan

 

https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-tsuba-for-samurai-sword-with-nbthk-hozon-certificate-t-332/

 

[Dan tsuba]

So, I had to take pictures of the website referred to in my above post (in case it ever disappears!) and that's the only way I know of how to post these pictures of a possible cast iron Nanban tsuba (with papers).

[GRC]

Hi Dan,

I have a hard time distinguishing cast from hand worked with tsuba that have a little more "weathering" like this one.

And as Lissenden points out, some Nanban tsuba make it tougher to see that it was initially cast because there was so much hand-work done to finish it off afterward. 

[Spartancrest]

Dan some clearer images for you.

If people have a sharp eye they may pick up the date. [Jun 21th - shouldn't that be Jun 21st?  (picky, picky) ]

 

[roger dundas]

Glen commented above how he has a hard time distinguishing (some- eg weathered)) cast tsuba -with non-cast tsuba that are hand worked/chiseled .

For me it is impossible which is a bit unsettling.

Roger j

[GRC]

lol Roger, I'm with you on that one. 

"I have a hard time..." was a euphemism for "I really can't be sure at all" with the weathered ones 

[ROKUJURO]

Gentlemen,

without wanting to discuss the subject of early (= EDO JIDAI) cast iron TSUBA, I would like to mention that there are some incorrect contents in the text cited by Dan:
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrous_metallurgy

 

....“Around 500 BC, metalworkers in the southern state of Wu achieved a temperature of 1130 °C. At this temperature, iron combines with 4.3% carbon and melts. The liquid iron can be cast into molds, a method far less laborious than individually forging each piece of iron from a bloom.....

Cast iron is rather brittle and unsuitable for striking implements. It can, however, be decarburized to steel or wrought iron by heating it in air for several days....."

My comment: The cited temperature of 1.130°C is too low to produce iron in a small-scale bloomery furnace. The metallurgical literature dealing with this subject says 1.250°C are necessary, and that is also my personal experience when making iron in a Celtic bloomery furnace.

Furthermore, it is not correct that iron combines with carbon at 1.130°C to form cast iron, it is just the other way round: In the direct-reduction process, there are often 'hot spots' in the furnace (TATARA as well as European) near the blower vents where the temperatures can rise up to the melting point of iron. So, only when melted (= liquified) iron was already present as result of the reduction processs, it would have been able to take on a lot of carbon (indeed up to 5% in modern production) when it came into contact with the charcoal. Carbon migration in steel depends on the temperature.

This alloy now (= cast iron) has a low melting point which can be as low as 1.200°C or even less, depending on its composition.

Decarburizing this cast iron now - that description is correct - requires indeed several days of heating up the cast iron items. The important additional information in this respect is that it needs about 1.000°C for up to five days, depending on the dimensions (= wall thickness) of the items.

But even after oxidizing excess carbon to carbon dioxide in the cast iron, malleable cast iron does not have the same ductile properties as wrought iron.

 I have referenced Chinese metallurgy methods because I find it very believable that Japan could have learned some of their metal working techniques from China.
That is of course true and there is a lot of evidence for it.  

 

I also found another wiki site that deals with the Japanese tatara. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Japanese_iron-working_techniques

“The traditional Japanese furnace, known as a tatara, was a hybrid type of furnace. It incorporated bellows, like the European blast furnace, but was constructed of clay; these furnaces would be destroyed after the first use.[1] According to existing archeological records, the first TATARA were built during the middle part of the sixth century A.D.[2] Due to the large scale of the tatara, as compared to its European, Indian and Chinese counterparts, the temperature at a given point would vary based on the height in the furnace. Therefore, different types of iron could be found at different heights inside the furnace, ranging from wrought iron at the top of the tatara (furthest from the heat, lowest temperature), to cast iron towards the middle, and finally steel towards the bottom (with varying degrees of carbon content.)[3] Importantly, TATARA did not exceed 1500 C, so they did not completely melt the iron.”

The sizes of TATARA and European furnaces can only be compared when you look at similar stages of technical development. The Celts were the first in Europe to produce iron about 800 B.C. Their methods did not change much and lasted until the end of the Middle Ages  (about 1500 C.E.). Only then blast furnaces came up, at first in small dimensions.
We know that large Iron Age bloomery furnaces (made from clay) were run by a team, producing more than 100 kg of iron in one go in furnaces up to three meters of height. We also know that in the Japanese KOTO era most smiths produced their own iron and steel for their sword production. We have to consider that a TATARA which could be run by three or four members of a forge might yield a raw output of up to 70 - 80 kg of iron and steel in two to three days. More than 200 kg of SATETSU (black iron sand) and ca. 250 kg of charcoal would have been necessary for that.

This output of metal is not - as wrongly described - found in different heights inside the furnaces. The region of the highest temperature in a bloomery furnace is near the vents or a little above. That is the reduction zone where the chemical process takes place - it is not a melting process!

We find most of the low carbon steel (= iron) in the middle of the reduction zone. Cast iron requires higher temperature and will be found near the vents, while steel (= 'high carbon iron') is often mixed with the iron or close to it.

In the end, when you break open the furnace/TATARA, you will find that there is no real order of steel alloys, and you will have to cut the whole KERA (= bloom) to small pieces and examine every single piece. 

Concerning the last phrase of the text above, the melting of iron starts at a temp. of 1.538°C. There is no way of 'not completely melted iron' in a bloomery furnace as this would have produced cast iron which, as we know, is not usable in a forge.

 

These text contents have obviously been 'simplified' by non-expert authors who did not understand the processes involved. This is misleading. 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

First, thank you Rokujuro for your excellent post and a breakdown of the misleading statements found in the wikipedia sites!!  Much appreciated.  I was wondering, Rokujuro, is there any way that you could add that information to the wikipedia sites so that others are not “misled”?

 

Now, what is of interest, I have found 4 former threads on the NMB site that deals with some kind of cast iron questions.

 

And I believe there are more threads on the subject on NMB-(the 4 threads are listed below)-

 

NMB thread of 2010---

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/5697-what-do-you-make-of-this/

NMB thread of 2012-

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/9339-beware-of-torigoes-temper/

and the other is –

 

from a NMB 2014 thread-

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/15302-casting-vs-carving/

 

And the last is the NMB thread– from 2016- (I find the 2^nd, 3^rd, and 4^th posts on this thread very interesting)

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/18598-cast-sword-fittings-by-markus-sesko/

 

Three of these threads were started 5 years (first thread listed), 3 years (second thread listed), and 1 year (third thread listed) before the discovery of the Nara site tsuba mold finds (in 2015).

 

 

And in previous posts to this (current thread) there was mention of metallurgical examination of iron tsuba.  However, as stated in one of my posts, that examination was only conducted on 2 tsuba (and they were discerned not to be made from cast iron).

 

Now, if this subject of Edo period cast iron tsuba is to be resolved, may I

suggest the following (and I would like to inform the reader that I have no vested interest in the outcome one way or the other – I just find it a fascinating subject for exploration)-

 

I suggest gathering at least 20 tsuba from different "reputable" dealers (I consider that number of tusba a relatively fair sampling - although others may think that fewer or more would be better).  In the dealers listings of these tsuba they would be listed as Edo period and would appear that they could be made from cast iron (perhaps including a few Nanban types).  Then have a metallurgist cut (or maybe it can be done by chemical or other less invasive means?) and analyze each tsuba.  If a "cast iron" tsuba is found, then the examination can stop at that point.  The conclusion that can be drawn is that if there is one cast iron tsuba, there are probably many others "out there".  If no cast iron tsuba are found in the sampling of those 20 tsuba (or more or less), then there is an extremely high probability that Edo period and earlier tsuba were not made from cast iron.

 

Unfortunately, there is really no solid definitive historical written proof (that I can find) that states that cast iron tsuba were “not” being made in the Edo period (I refer the reader to my earlier post that includes reference to the Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society, London 1893-5, and to the reference of the Professor A.H. Church collection).  I believe that the above-mentioned scientific way of discerning the metal used in Edo (and possibly earlier) tsuba would be the only way to finally “bring to a close” the “cast iron” tsuba debate.

 

The expense for this test, and the results, could be offset by the individual if the research obtained was used for that person's masters or doctoral thesis project (as was Dr. Lissenden's paper on “The Namban Group of Japanese Sword Guards: A Reappraisal” used for his thesis project for his Master of Arts degree in East Asian Studies, in 2002).

 

I do apologize to the readers of my posts on this thread for being a relatively new beginner to this vast and complicated subject of tsuba.  I am certain that the below Zen quote is applicable to my naïve state of mind on this subject-

 

 

“If your mind is empty, it is always ready for anything, it is open to everything. In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few.”

― Shunryu Suzuki

 

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

[1kinko]

There are a number of closely related non-destructive methods of elemental analysis of metals and alloys, but the basic method is XRF or EDX. So, if you have a large enough sample size you could describe the elemental components of different tsuba. Some years ago I did this for Marcus Chambers and someone did this for Ford at V and A. Normally this is quite expensive although the analysis takes little time and the calculations are done with internal software. But you might find someone who has access to an instrument that shares your interest. The steel industry does this routinely. The data could be separated into like groups statistically. Perhaps a good chemistry/metallurgy BS thesis subject.

[ROKUJURO]

I have a proof of a cast iron pre-EDO KO-KACHUSHI TSUBA 



I bought it in 1977 in KYOTO in a cutlery shop for YEN 500
 

[Dan tsuba]

So, thank you Rokujuro (Jean) for posting the picture of the cast iron tsuba with the statement “I have a proof of a cast iron pre-EDO KO-KACHUSHI TSUBA”.

 

I don’t know.  So, from what I can discern it looks like some tsuba were made from cast iron (if there is one “out there” I can only assume that there must be more).  Also, perhaps over the years (or hundreds of years?) the tsuba craftsman learned how to “up their game” in casting methods and got much better at it.

 

With respect,

Dan

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

So, could you all please just disregard the last 2 posts to this thread.  The one post of the picture that stated, “I have a proof of a cast iron pre-EDO KO-KACHUSHI TSUBA”  and my reply to that post.  I now realize that the picture that was posted probably is not an actual pre-Edo tsuba and was just a diversion by someone trying to be “funny” or diverting an otherwise serious conversation and forum thread.  Like I stated before in one of my previous posts “I am a relatively new beginner” (so it is very easy to mislead me if someone wanted to!).  I hope that this thread continues to produce a “lively” debate on the “cast iron tsuba” subject.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Back to making this thread more "collegial"....

Here's a published, peer-reviewed article about some non-invasive techniques for analysing these objects:

 

Neutron computed laminography on ancient metal artefacts 

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2015/ay/c4ay02014f

 

[ROKUJURO]

19 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

...... I now realize that the picture that was posted probably is not an actual pre-Edo tsuba and was just a diversion by someone trying to be “funny” or diverting an otherwise serious conversation and forum thread. .....

Dan,

I have tried to support and add to this thread with technical information in several posts. But when I realized that the conversation was not at all serious and scientifical, not considering rational evidence that I presented, I thought it was a good idea to show a tourist souvenir in the shape of a TSUBA to get rid of some rigid ideology that you presented. I added a smiley to make clear that this post was not to be taken too serious. Maybe you missed that.

You think you are able to identify some TSUBA as cast, and you think you can relate them to the EDO period. You have the fixed idea that there must have been an EDO period production of cast iron TSUBA, not considering that the original model might have been (very likely) used to make a mold for casting in much later times. 

A cast iron TSUBA that you identify now as an EDO design item is not necessarily that old, and to my knowledge there is no real evidence for this production technique in those times. The term 'malleable iron' came up as theory to make cast iron TSUBA theoretically usable on swords. I tried to explain how difficult and laborious the process would be, and that making a (single use!) mold, casting, tempering, and finishing a cast iron TSUBA is probably more work than forging one. It simply makes no sense. 

I suggested to ask Ford Hallam for his opinion on this subject. He has expanded on this quite a while ago on NMB. He is THE expert on TSUBA in the Western world!  If you prefer not to believe my words, he is certainly more competent in these historical and artistical fields while I feel able to explain technical contexts in metallurgy (I should add that I am an active bladesmith and experimental archaeologist).

So in case you want to set up a serious discussion on the topic of "cast iron TSUBA of the EDO period", it would be necessary to find certified TSUBA that ARE cast - not only photos of TSUBA that look a bit like cast!

And then you should be able to produce bulletproof evidence of EDO period iron casting technique PLUS the tempering process executed on TSUBA. Only producing theories will not lead to more knowledge in this field and thus not help any serious collector.  

To the subject of KIRIKOMI on TSUBA: I have seen quite a number of them, and certainly some more blades with the same damage. If you dive into Japanese fencing techniques, there is of course no mention of blocking an opponent's blade with the TSUBA, but the possibility to have the opponent's blade slide down your blade, resulting in a rather 'soft' contact with your TSUBA, is well known from practice. So there is no discussion of soft metal TSUBA not being useful on blades, and even a solid cast iron TSUBA might withstand  a blow. But there remains a technical risk with these, and that was to be avoided in times when your life depended on the perfect function of your sword.

I sincerely hope that my comment will be of help in coming to a serious discussion of features on TSUBA and blades.


 

[GRC]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

added a smiley to make clear that this post was not to be taken too serious.

The smiley face was present, but with the disconnect of a "texting format" rather than in-person communication, it came across as a bit harsh and out of place in this thread.

No one had previously introduced any form of "ridicule" of another until that point.

 

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

You think you are able to identify some TSUBA as cast, and you think you can relate them to the EDO period.

In Dan's own words, he's relatively new at this, and is still learning to identify cast from not. 

At least he's trying to learn, and I feel we should support anyone who is trying to learn rather than poke fun at their missteps along the way. 

 

But definitely, with ANY cast iron tsuba, the hardest part is assigning a date to it.

Jean, I completely agree with you on the point that we cannot make the assumption that cast piece is form the Edo period simply because it looks old.

 

However, I suspect that "looking a bit like cast" is all we're ever going to find in a papered tsuba, assuming that these would have been hand worked afterward to give them some degree of refinement.

And the more aged/weathered the tsuba, the more blurry the "hand-finished and cast plate" vs "hand-worked and forged plate" becomes.

Being restricted to looking at images of tsuba has some serious limitations. 

I think Dan's idea of a proper analysis, preferably non-destructive , is the best way to put this seemingly eternal debate to rest.

 

 

Otherwise, there is simply a series of assumptions on both sides of the debate and people seem to be digging trenches around those assumptions and defending them to the end.

 

First example:

Lissenden outlined a whole process of possible mold production vs Jean's view that it would simply be too much work.  

Two differing opinions, simple as that.

 

Second example:

The view that cast iron tsuba would be too risky to use on a sword.

Again, a matter of opinion.

However this view would be rendered moot if the cast tsuba were softened after casting. 

 

 

Regardless, the debate cannot be settled by opinion.

However, it can drive discussion, lead to new questions, and additional research.

This thread has had that positive effect on many, so I hope it continues to do so.

 

By the way "the appeal to authority" is generally regarded as a fallacy and is not a reliable form of evidence.

For those who may not be familiar with the term or the idea, then here's a quick link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority 

[Dan tsuba]

Glen (thank you for your latest 2 posts) what a great article!  I have included a piece of it below, so others do not have to link up to the website.  Well, that is definitely a “plus” for the “forged iron (and not cast iron)” side of this discussion.  And that the analysis was done on a Namban type tsuba is also a “plus” for the “forged iron” side of this debate.  The research paper referred to was written in 2014 – “First published on 5th November 2014 “(a year before the Nara site tsuba casting molds were found), thanks for searching and finding it!!  Although (and I agree with you that this would be the best method of determination) I would still like to see this type of research done on a wider sampling of iron tsuba (as I stated in a previous post of mine– about 20 tsuba that appear to be cast iron).  But hey, I don’t have the cash to have that research conducted.  I would much rather spend my money on widening my tsuba collection!!

 

And to Jean,

Thank you, once again, for your post and your in-depth knowledge and research into this subject.

 

I present a part of the article of “Neutron computed laminography on ancient metal artefacts” below for review:

 

“The white beam laminography revealed a homogeneous body for the iron tsuba, probably filed starting from a single piece of iron (Fig. 4). As a matter of fact, starting from the Muromachi period, the sukashi technique evolved over time. The iron plate prepared as the ground metal was very uniformly forged and relatively soft in order to cut out the fine designs successfully but hard enough to avoid breakage during use. Any void or significant irregularity in the iron body would have made the shaping of continuous decorative lines impossible. Extra effort in the preparation of the plate would have been necessary, as observed in the inner volume of the samples which was free from any cracks, pores and inclusions.²³ Evidence of forge-welding was not identified in the design motifs involving plant and animal figures, apart from the gilded ring outlining the profile of the kozuka hitsu. While the inner brighter areas are reconstruction artefacts, the ones detected on the surface were probably due to the application of a patina or to the early formation of products of alteration.²⁴”

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[ROKUJURO]

Cited from the above:

"....The iron plate prepared as the ground metal was very uniformly forged and relatively soft in order to cut out the fine designs successfully but hard enough to avoid breakage during use...!

The problem is that scientists are specialists in their respective fields, but very often not in that of the items they are researching. Most SUKASHI TSUBA were not cut out, but sawed out with a very fine jigsaw and filed, especially later ones. And hardness does not prevent breakage, it increases the risk of it to happen. Toughness is needed so the material can bend, but will not break.

[Spartancrest]

More than a century of debate has moved us no closer to the answer. 

Taken from  "Japan and it's Art" by Marcus B. Huish  1889

 

   "The decoration of the sword furniture showed symptoms of decline early in the present century [19th]. Working in hard wrought iron was first of all shirked, and similar effects were endeavoured to be produced by castings; then the decoration ran riot and transgressed all limits, so that many of the pieces made between 1840-1870 could never have been used for the purposes for which they were professedly intended; such products are remarkable in a way, as showing the lengths to which elaboration may be carried, but they can never stand for a day beside the dignified workmanship of an earlier date. Imitations of sword guards are now being imported into the market. These are cast from old specimens, and can usually be detected by holding them at the point of one's finger and hitting them sharply with another piece of metal, when they will emit a dull sound only, whereas a fine old guard will ring like the best bell-metal. It is well to test all guards in this way, but it must be recollected that guards with much piercing will not ring, and that many of those made since the beginning of this century are of such malleable iron as not to stand the test.
    It is a question which has not yet been solved whether some of the old guards may not be castings, even some of those which are chased. The difference between wrought and cast iron is that the latter contains from 1 1/2 to 4 percent, of carbon, the former hardly any; but it is possible to anneal or toughen cast iron by a process known as 'Cementation' [Ed. In metallurgy: a process of altering a metal by heating it in contact with a powdered solid], that is, by a surface removal of carbon. Many of the guards are covered with oxide of iron, to which they owe much of their beauty."

 

This does push the casting dates back before 1840 so Edo or not?

 

What I did find strange is the 'ringing test' which is refuted almost immediately by himself so why even propagate it?  It is still cited by many as a true test of whether a guard is cast or not - yet it does not work in practice and is very subjective.

 

 

[GRC]

WOW! That's the best quote yet Dale! 

The proverbial "smoking gun" so to speak... 

 

1840 is certainly Edo period, although it only hits the last 27 years of a 264 year period  

Still, you could sure crank out a lot of tsuba in 27 years...

then throw in the production during the more industrialized Meiji period that started in 1867, with the first blast furnaces having been around for at least a decade already.

 

Let's assume mass production of tsuba either stalled or stopped after 1876 when the samurai were banned from carrying their daisho, and that mass quantities of older tsuba became available for literally "a dime a dozen" and by the barrel full. And those low prices lasted for decades afterwards.

 

Then add to that the production of more modern cast iron tsuba, let's say for the last 50 years. 

I'll stop at the 70s because we have seen multiple examples of very cheaply purchased, quality tsuba, from the 50s, 60s and 70s (like Jean's Ko-Katchushi tsuba for 500 yen).

 

So 1840-1876 seems to be the 37 year "window of opportunity" for many of the older cast iron tsuba to have been made.

Then there's the onslaught of modern made, higher precision "deception" tsuba in the last 50 years or so.

[GRC]

Oh, and yes Dale, the "rigning test" seems like a silly idea.

 

Even a good quality "hardenable" steel is still relatively soft until it is properly heated, and quenched.

Unhardened steel would sound "duller" than hardened steel.

 

At best, you could use it to help identify a particular school's work in a particular window of time, but only if you knew that they always hardened their steel tsuba.

 

[GRC]

Certainly this is getting a little off topic, but with regards to "cutting" sukashi:

 

Early sukashi, including works from Higo and Akasaka were cut with chisels.

Here's a quick visual of an early ji-sukashi where you can clearly see the stepped linear sections that make up the curved lines in this tsuba.

These were definitely cut by chisel.

 

More saw work was introduced in the Edo period to get some very fine sukashi lines.

 

Anyway, here's a fantastic article from Sesko, where he shows an example of an Akasaka or Higo sukashi tsuba that was incomplete, likely due to a chiseling error during its production, where you can see all the rough chisel marks:

https://tsubakansho.com/2019/04/20/unfinished-business/ 

[GRC]

By pure accident, I stumbled across two more NBTHK papered examples with "cast-iron" in the title of some past auction listings on Lot-Art. One Echizen and one Shoami.

Here's the screenshots of the titles, the only images available, and the descriptions:

 

 

 

The first one has that "soft, rounded look" to it everywhere.

It's also got "webbing" remnants near the 5 o'clock position, and a weird circular indent deformity at the 3 o'clock position of the mimi: some sort of bubble of gas that formed during casting maybe?

 

For the second one, I might have initially passed it off as having "surface pitting from corrosion".

But given the title, it would suggest that the "bubbly" indentations on the surface are the result of casting (trapped gases in the mold perhaps?).

If the seller is calling it "cast-iron", then how can I argue with that? I'm sure many of people will recognize the emblem on the image.

And just an added thought: if there's that much pitting on the surface, and it was caused by corrosion, then how are those very thin arcs still intact? They would have likely corroded enough to break clean through at some point.  

 

It is interesting to note however, that the accompanying descriptions in the listings just use the word "iron", when "cast-iron" was used in their titles.

So I can't say with absolute certainty that these were cast, but if it looks like a duck and it's called a duck... then it just might be a duck? 

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

Some great and informative posts!!!

 

Now, I am not saying that cast iron tsuba were produced before about 1840 (as the date of some cast iron tsuba “……. does push the casting dates back before 1840….” as found in Dale’s post above).  But it appears that the Japanese craftsman were very familiar with cast iron techniques for at least 800 years!  The below excerpt also “begs the question” why did a warlord have cast iron metal casters in his army?

 

“Yamagata cast iron - History

 

The origin of Yamagata cast iron is thought to date back to the late Heian period (794-1185) when the warlord Minamoto no Yoriyoshi was involved in a military campaign to suppress uprisings in the Yamagata region. Metal casters who were in his army entourage found that the sand in the Mamigasaki River (located in present day city of Yamagata) as well as the soil quality of the surrounding area was ideal for making casting molds. Some of these men stayed in the area, and about one hundred eighty years or so later, historical records state that between the years 1336 and 1392, cast iron artisans made metal fittings.

During the Edo period (1603-1868) the cast iron industry fully began to develop. Yoshiaki MOGAMI, the lord of Yamagata Castle, reorganized the castle town, and in order to develop commerce and industry, established two manufacturing towns on the north of the Mamigasaki River, thus laying the foundations for generations of metal casters. ‘

 

From – (the website is primarily used to describe cast iron kettles, but the above historical information is interesting).

https://kogeijapan.com/locale/en_US/yamagataimono/

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello everyone (again) !!

 

So, without purposely looking for a possible "cast iron" tsuba I happened to "bump into" this NBTHK papered one.  It may be cast iron.  The listng states that it is "Edo" period.  Thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Well,

On the CAST side of things:

-uniform colour everywhere (which is often some version of a uniform "grey" colour, but sometimes a "waxy-looking" black in some types of the more obvious cast tsuba).

-the mimi and seppa-dai are definitely dimpled with little sand-grain-like craters.

-there are some surface irregularities in the waves on the omote (front) side that has the majority of the anchor on it. And I mean the plate itself, underneath the fine wave lines. 

 

On the HAND-WORKED side of things:

-the inlayed "water droplets".

-there appears to be a few stray chisel marks (or maybe it's just damage?) on the ura (back) side's mimi at the 2 o'clock and 4 o'clock positions.

 

On the "ambiguous" side of things (for me):

-there appears to be some streaky "flow patterns" around the mimi on both faces of the tsuba, as well as all along the inner, sunken "step" the runs along the inside of the mimi.

*could be indicators of "poured fluid" or indicators of the layers of a "folded plate", but it seems too streaky to be the folded layers. Especially so for the inner, sunken "step" along the mimi.

If that was punched down with a punch, it would be a lot smoother than that, and a chisel would leave different looking marks as well. So, overall it looks more like it was poured fluid.

 

Overall, I'm leaning towards initially CAST, then hand finished.

 

I personally don't know if casting can produce such fine ridge lines.

And, just throwing out a guess about the overall process here:

Maybe the tsuba was cast, then inlayed with the water droplets, then the wave ridges were chiseled in by hand afterward?

The timing of when the wave ridges were produced is an unknown for me.

 

An interesting example Dan