Tsuba casting molds ?

[Dan tsuba]

Hi all!

 

Thank you, Glen, for your assessment of the tsuba that I posted.  Much appreciated.

Well, it looks (for now) that you and I are the only ones that are researching this cast iron tusba question.  And that is fine by me!

 

So, as an addition to your in-depth analysis of the tsuba, can the tsuba be further classified as a Namban type tsuba?  I make this determination based on the prevalent “seigaiha diaper” design found on the tsuba (as described in Dr. Lissenden’s thesis paper page 76-78).  I am fairly certain that many individuals (including me and you!) have also read his thesis paper, maybe even several times!  I include the below link for those that haven’t read this “great read” on Namban tsuba” and may be interested in reading it (he discusses a lot about casting possibilities of Namban tsuba ).

 

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4129/1/4129_1648.pdf

 

Whether that makes this tsuba of Chinese or Japanese origin is unknown.  But if it is a Namban type then I can reference some of Dr. Lissenden’s thesis paper (and if it is not a Namban type – then these references can still be used for a Namban tsuba).  On page 137 of the above referenced thesis, it states “The examination -with a light and with powerful magnification- of a corpus of Namban tsuba leads one to the surprising conclusion that a very high proportion of them are the result of a casting process.”  Dr. Lissenden goes on to state (on the bottom of page 137 and the top of page 138) “……, the subsequent examination by the author of his own collection, comprising a wide range of qualities within assorted groups of tsuba, also indicated a surprisingly high proportion of moulded tsuba therein”. 

 

Now in all fairness, I cannot find in the thesis where it specifically states, “cast iron” (it only states “moulded tsuba”).  Maybe I missed that part!  But on page IX he refers to “Namban iron”, and (starting on page 5) of his thesis he refers to “foreign iron”.  So, I think at the least, that “moulded foreign iron” can be inferred, but I could be wrong.  But what is fairly certain that Dr. Lissenden’s collection of tsuba (“examination by the author of his own collection” – as stated above) contained iron tsuba.  But again, I am not sure.  Although some of the pictures of Namban type tsuba contained on pages 154 to 169 appear to be made from iron.

 

What is very interesting is that he states further (top of page 138) “It is therefore suggested that the high incidence of moulded tsuba in the Namban group should, perhaps, rather be considered to be an indication for the similar examination of other groups of tsuba as a comparative study.”

 

Also he goes on to state that “Such a study would be strictly non-invasive, but one of its limitations would be the need for it to be carried out on museum artefacts of a recognized high quality in order to obviate the accusation that any pieces found to be cast were, a priori, of an inferior quality.”

 

That possibility of a non-invasive type of tsuba study has been presented in this thread.  And Dr. Lissenden submitted his thesis in 2002 !!  Quite the forward-thinking individual, especially since the non-invasive technique discussed previously in this thread was probably developed several years after publication of his thesis.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

The anchor tsuba is definitely not Nanban, and it is definitely Japanese.

The "diaper" here is just waves. I believe that what Lissenden was referring to is the "wave-like diaper pattern" found on many (but not all) of the decorated seppa-dai of the Nanban style tsuba.

Here's a few examples:

 

McElhinney is probably the person who has done the most research into the origins and classification of the different styles and types of Japanese Nanban and Asian Export guards.

He describes Lissenden's Nanban classifications as a "good start" but has added so much more depth and clarification. I see that Mandarin Mansion, as well as Haynes & Long at shibuiswords have been posting quote and articles from him.

 

Here's a cast Nanban tsuba that just recently sold for 32,600yen in Japan. I have other images that are exact copies of this tsuba pattern so there is no doubt that it is cast iron.

These are copies of tsuba produced by the Yagami school that started in the late 18th century.

This one looks like it has enough patina to be from sometime in the 1800s. But again, we just don't know exactly when, and with Nanban tsuba, we can't always be certain from where (within Japan or from outside Japan). This one is certainly made specifically for the Japanese market, and likely made in Japan.

 

 

From Lissenden, "cast-iron" tsuba and iron tsuba that are "moulded" are interchangeable.

 

Here's his main quote that pushes Japanese iron casting well back into the 1800s:

"However, for many hundreds of years the carburisation of grey cast iron, enabling its conversion into malleable cast iron, (ref 230) had been well known and such a process was described in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg as being familiar to Chinese and Japanese metalworkers. (ref 231) While unsuited to the mass production of larger articles because of the amount of time the process demands, decarburisation would have been easily applied to the production of a limited number of smaller articles such as moulded tsuba."

"The moulding of artefacts such as tsuba was thus a readily attainable process long before the popularity of the Namban group of tsuba became established. Conversely, the degree of commercialisation of the iron-producing process by this time leads one to presume that the tsuba makers would have obtained their iron from industrial manufacturers in ingot form. This would probably have already been decarburised commercially by a 'fining' process in order to convert the cast iron into its malleable cast iron form — a form well capable of being wrought into tsuba."

 

It's this section on page 123  that originally lead me down the path of focusing on malleable cast iron, and trying to sort out the details of when and how this malleable cast iron would have been readily available to tsuba-makers.

 

I wish he had elaborated on the "commecialisation" aspect of iron production in Japan or had provided some sources for that statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

.....Here's his main quote that pushes Japanese iron casting well back into the 1800s:

"However, for many hundreds of years the carburisation of grey cast iron, enabling its conversion into malleable cast iron, (ref 230) had been well known and such a process was described in 1734 by Emanuel Swedenborg as being familiar to Chinese and Japanese metalworkers......"

That is wrong. He should have written de-carburization.

[GRC]

Thanks jean, it would make more sense if he had said "decarburization" both times, rather than alternating with opposing terms. 

Probably a typo that both he and his thesis supervisors missed.

But as written, it definitely confuses things.

  

[Dan tsuba]

Hello!

 

Thank you, Glen, for the post.  I quote some information that you stated:

 

 “These are copies of tsuba produced by the Yagami school that started in the late 18th century.

This one looks like it has enough patina to be from sometime in the 1800s. But again, we just don't know exactly when, and with Nanban tsuba, we can't always be certain from where (within Japan or from outside Japan). This one is certainly made specifically for the Japanese market, and likely made in Japan.”

 

Also,  “Here's his main quote that pushes Japanese iron casting well back into the 1800s:”

 

So, it seems possible then that cast iron tsuba could have been made in the earlier part of the 1800’s (1800 to 1840)????

 

And Jean, thanks again for your vast knowledge of metal working and your correction of the process.

 

I also found something interesting relating to the possible study of cast (iron) tsuba –

 

“I then discuss, in general, the APPLICATION OF CASTING METHODS TO TSUBA — this is a subject that is almost a taboo for scholars of tsuba in general……”

 A quote from the Dr. Lissenden’s thesis (p.ix) written in 2002.

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

[GRC]

"possible" is always a tricky word though...

With regards to an unknown, just about anything is "possible" in the broad sense of the term, but the hard part is turning it into "plausible", with the ultimate goal being "certain".

Without more definitive quotes or documentation to push the date back even earlier, it seems like the idea is still only in the "broadly possible" category.

 

Some things to consider in pushing the date back even further:

Who would be the target market for these?

And, if you push the date back even further by many decades, then you'd expect to see a LOT more of these older looking cast examples.

 

You'd also need to show where the necessary cast-iron came from and that it was readily available.

I think that's where that "commercialization of the steel-producing process" statement by Lissenden needs more exploration and clarification.

 

And, all of this "pushing the date back further" is based on the assumption, albeit a reasonable one, that "if they could do it, they would it".

 

Just some thoughts to consider...

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hi!

 

Glen your points are very well stated, thanks!!  And thank you for those "thoughts to consider".  

 

The research continues!!  Onward!!

 

With respect,

Dan

[Dan tsuba]

Hi all!

 

Just interesting to see a possibly cast iron namban type tsuba mounted on a blade.  It was listed as Edo period, no NBTHK papers.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Definitely  you can see a clear "seem" running along the midline of the mimi.

And it certainly appears to have enough age to be from sometime in the 1800's.

 

Again though, Nanban-style tsuba are less reliable sources for this quest, because the country of origin can't always be certain: Japan, China, all over South-East Asia ("Monsoon-Asia"), and the Dutch East India Company was even having them produced as far West as Sri-Lanka. 

[GRC]

Coincidentally, here's the same one in better condition, complete with gold highlights (up for auction right now):

 

Same seem along the mimi.

I also post this one because it has that "waxy-look" to the surface finish that I mentioned earlier.

 

There are also a bunch of Japanese-style tsuba with different motifs that have this same "look", but are not in the Nanban-style.

I suspect that they could have all been produced by the same source, or at the very least, with the same casting technique.  

 

[GRC]

I found some quotes that identify the "target market" for cast-iron tsuba prior to the Meiji period (ie. late Edo period)  

 

I was looking at some more Nanban info and noted that authors associated many of these (but not all) with "SHIIREMONO" (shi-ire-mono).

Here's a previous thread about it on the NMB:

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/11499-shiiremono/

Quick summary:

Shiiremono are essentially "mass produced" and generally regarded as lesser quality. However, there was also a full range of quality and prices of shiiremono of all types (not just Nanban-style tsuba).

Lissenden pointed out that bulk production of cast-iron tsuba would certainly fit this type of production. He also noted that the labour intensive "undercutting" openwork of the karakusa-style Nanban tsuba would have benefited greatly from an initial rough casting of the tsuba, followed by hand finishing. 

I came across two quotes from reliable sources (Haynes and Gunsaulus) that push the date of shiiremono production back into the Edo period and even as far back as the 1700s.

 

 

HAYNES quote from SOSHIN in the NMB thread above:

"Here is a definition taken from the glossary of Tsuba An Anesthetic Study by Haynes and Torigoye.

SHIIREMONO: "ready-made article." When applied to tsuba this term refers to ready-made or mass production work of the late Edo age, but may also be applied to mass production pieces of earlier ages. Much SHIIREMONO was made to be sold to foreigners."

 

GUNSAULUS quote from Japanese Sword Mounts  in the Field Museum of Natural History - Chicago

"With the warring epochs definitely closed under the early Tokugawa shoguns, the end of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries witnessed the culmination of the indulgent and luxurious life of the members of the military class. Tales are told of daimyo who, having lost much of their political power, sought satisfaction in the fields of art and poetry, and who, on account of their leisure worshipped richness and adornment to the extent of painting themselves after the fashion of women and matching their decorated swords with the magnificent costumes which were commonly worn in their court ceremonies. Merchants likewise became more prosperous, and many of them took to wearing swords along with their writing outfits (yatate) thrust through their belts. Due to these developments, the metal-workers outvied one another to produce sword-fittings of extreme beauty and elegance, and likewise, in order to satisfy the demands of the lower classes, artisans, copying the artists, turned out replicas and shiiremono in great number."

 

So in times of escalating decadence, the lower classes of merchants (who were only allowed to wear one sword) and samurai (who were obligated to wear two swords) would be the target market for less costly copies of some of the finer works being produced for the more affluent.

The quote points out the fact that tsubako were busy outdoing each other to make the next great tsuba, but someone still had to supply tsuba for the masses.

 

So how does all this relate to cast-iron tsuba?

Although there is no specific mention of "cast-iron" in either of these quotes, they both provide the "need" and the "market" for less expensive, mass produced tsuba in the late Edo period, prior to the Meiji period.

And that fits with the late Edo time frame in Dale's most recent quote of cast-iron tsuba going back to at least the 1840s, as well as some of his other quotes stating that the mass copying of tsuba was well under way before the Meiji period.  

[GRC]

Here's a cast-iron tsuba with a design that your average samurai or merchant might not be able to afford an original of.

But it sure would look nice on a sword (especially without the assistance of "digital zoom" to nitpick at the details).

Back in the day, you'd probably never be close enough to notice it was cast... and if you were, you'd probably be more concerned about losing a limb 

(images reposted with permission )

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, some quotes from Glen’s fine research-

 

“Shiiremono are essentially "mass produced" and generally regarded as lesser quality. However, there was also a full range of quality and prices of shiiremono of all types (not just Nanban-style tsuba).”

Also-

“Although there is no specific mention of "cast-iron" in either of these quotes, they both provide the "need" and the "market" for less expensive, mass produced tsuba in the late Edo period, prior to the Meiji period.

And that fits with the late Edo time frame in Dale's most recent quote of cast-iron tsuba going back to at least the 1840s…..”

 

So, in looking at listings of Edo period swords for sale it seems fairly easy to find what appears to be a cast iron tsuba mounted on the blade (and I have included pictures – but again I am not certain that the tsuba is cast iron – but it looks to be).  Can I infer from this that many people wore a sword with this type of tsuba?  This type of tsuba may have been easy to come by, inexpensive, yet somewhat artistic and more utilitarian.

 

The below pictured sword with tsuba was listed as Edo period.  No NBTHK papers.

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[Geraint]

49 minutes ago, Dan tsuba said:

Can I infer from this that many people wore a sword with this type of tsuba?

Dear Dan, no you can't.  What is much more likely is that someone took a fairly low level koshire with a nice tsuba, swiped the tsuba to sell separately and stuck this one onto the koshirae.  It's not beyond the bounds of possibility that whoever buys this sword will swap out the tsuba again for something better and the offending cast Namban goes back into the bits box and so on.  This happens all the time.

 

All the best.

 

[GRC]

Geraint is spot on. 

 

I'd like to add some additional context:

Collectors and dealers have been mixing and matching the components of koshirae from the get-go, to suit their own aesthetic ideals and market trends. 

It would be extremely rare to find a blade in all its original mounts.

Add to that, the fact that the samurai themselves had several sets of fittings for each blade, and would swap them out to suit a particular mood or occasion.

So who is to say for sure which set of fittings was the "original" for a specific blade?

Unless of course it was a specially commissioned set of fittings and there's some kind of documentation to back it up.

 

And btw, that particular tsuba you showed is available is such huge quantities that there is at least one or more available for sale at all times from a variety of sources.

I've now seen so many that I'm starting to think that it could be the most produced cast-iron tsuba pattern in existence...

 

[Dan tsuba]

Thank you, Geraint and Glen.

 

I now realize that many tsuba were swapped out, or mixed and matched!!  And that samurai had more than one set of tsuba.  Now this is kind of “off subject” to this thread but I have included the link so that you can check out the sword.  It appears to my “untrained eyes” (untrained is the key word!!) that the koshirae have been with that sword for quite a while.  No big deal either way.

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/353862933835?hash=item5263dfdd4b:g:Yg4AAOSwWKVh5jgq

 

The tsuba (again to my untrained eyes) does appear to be cast iron.

 

With respect,

Dan

[Spartancrest]

Just to pipe in on the likelihood of that last tsuba being cast - there is no doubt about it.

That particular design is perhaps the most common cast namban ever produced. [Not the most common cast tsuba - that honor goes to another dragon - produced over the last 70 years - https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/363337087054 ] There are some shockers out there with voids, over-runs and seams - a style to be viewed with very much caution.

https://www.etsy.com/au/listing/758579575/antique-nanban-tsuba

 

This one is of superior make, the seppa-dai is different but still little let downs.

 

One here very poor, with voids.

 

As you can see - common - they all tend to have the same 'Yamagata' - hitsu-ana shape.

 

This one is the real clincher - how it avoided the re-melt bin I will never know! It is currently listed at a discount at only $80 - expensive scrap metal price if you ask me!

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hi all!

 

So, personally, I think I have pretty much exhausted all the resources I could find on anything to do with cast iron tsuba.  I am now down to finding possible examples of NBTHK papered tsuba that could appear to be made from cast iron.  I understand that the only way to actually determine if tsuba are made from cast iron is to subject them to a modern technological non-invasive metallurgical analysis procedure.  But lacking the money to buy this tsuba, let alone having the analysis done, I am asking for your opinions and thoughts on this tsuba. 

 

I chose this tsuba for a couple of reasons.  On close inspection of the photograph, I noticed possible metal debris and “uncleaned cuts” between the bird figures (a possible indication that this tsuba could have been cast).  If the design was cut out of forged metal, I would expect much more “clean” cuts and filing.  Next, not only is the tsuba papered but the school of tsuba makers is described.  And upon researching the school, I found that this school is described as having survived until the middle of the 19^th century (so maybe this school tried its hand at cast iron – which would agree with previous posts of cast iron tsuba possibly starting to be made as early as 1840 – or even earlier).

 

Also, I am not discussing (at this time) how it was cast or if it was even possible to cast something like this in about 1840 (maybe that is another topic to bring up later).  I am just interested in what others think about this particular tsuba.

 

“Title: Akasaka-style, The Flock of Wild Goose

Certificate: NTHK

Title: Akasaka-style, The Flock of Wild Goose

Signature: NO SIGNED

Age: late Edo period (1781-1867)

Material: Iron

Description

 An Iron Tsuba circle shape with Kozuka & Kougai holes

 The big flock of wild goose is engraved by openwork. The wild goose is a migratory bird that represents fall. According to the certificate, its creator is Tadatoki Akasaka. It is said this school was named Akasaka school because they moved to Edo (Tokyo Pref.) from Kyoto and lived in the Akasaka area after the Edo government was established.

 This Tsuba is recognized by NTHK Certificate.”

From--

https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-tsuba-for-samurai-sword-t-109/

 

Also,

“Akasaka schools of Yedo and Kiōto (17th-19th century)

Early in the 17th century, tradition says, a dealer of Kiōto, named Kariganeya Hikobei, practised the designing of openwork iron guards in a new and refined style and had them made by a group of skilled craftsmen. From among these men he selected one Shōgunal capital, and settled with him at Kurokawa-dani in the Akasaka [Japanese text] district. Shōzayemon took the name of Tadamasa and continued his work on Kariganeya’s designs, dying in 1657. His son (or younger brother) Shōyemon, who succeeded him, calling himself Tadamasa II and adopting Akasaka as a surname, died in 1677 and was in turn succeeded by his son Masatora (d. 1707), by Masatora’s son Tadamune, and thence by four generations all called Tadatoki, the last living on into the middle of the 19th century. The first Tadatoki seems to have removed to Kiōto with his father’s pupil Tadashige and there to have founded a western branch of the school. Besides these a number of pupils, all called Tada-…, are recorded.”

 

From-

http://jameelcentre.ashmolean.org/collection/7/10237/10356

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[GRC]

Dan, I think this one would certainly qualify as a shiiremono copy of an earlier Tadatoki piece form the Akasaka school (no idea which generation though).

 

Regarding this tsuba:

-It's definitely not up to the same standard as the typical papered Akasaka.

-All of the surface edges of the birds are roughly textured and don't appear to be chiseled.

-The mimi and seppa-dai all appear to have the same "porous" look to the them, pretty much everywhere.

-There's even a bunch of "voids" in the vertical walls outlining the birds (once you increase the brightness of the image)

so definitely cast-iron.

 

    

 

As for hand-work:

-The smooth insides of the hitsu, as well as the flat outer surface and rounded edges of the mimi must have been filed.

-Also, I suspect there may have been thin "webs" that formed in the pockets where the sukashi should be. If you look closely, they appear to have been "drilled" out by hand afterward, because there's a series of little circular outlines to these "web" remnants. But it doesn't look like these were drilled through from one surface to the other... just through a thinner "web layer" in between the birds.

 

So according to the NTHK and description, this is a late Edo cast-iron tsuba.  

[GRC]

Coincidentally, I recently saw a Daigoro school "bundles of branches" tsuba that had very similar shakudo sekigane inserts at the top and bottom of the nakago-ana and sides of the seppa-dai.

Interestingly, the seller even clearly described it as "junk", yet it still sold for around 32,000 yen!!! 

This Daigoro one had a lot more hand-work done to flatten out all the insides of the "sukashi".

 

This kind of sekigane is not common at all so it's possible that both tsuba were made by the same producer and this could be one of their identifying characteristics.

There's even some similarity in the hitsu shapes themselves.

 

Again, not the type of tsuba a lower level samurai or merchant could afford an original of, so it seems to be another solid candidate for a late Edo period, cast-iron, shiiremono tsuba. 

And, it "fooled" today's collectors who have digital zoom capability, so back in the day, it would certainly look like an original when mounted on a sword and viewed from a distance.

 

 

[GRC]

Well here's an interesting example that I haven't seen before:

It's a completely utilitarian cast-iron tsuba, and not a copy of some fancy high end tsuba.

So, one would have to assume this was not made to sell to foreigners, and was intended for domestic use.

I erased the seller's fingers from the bottom right of the image. 

 

[Spartancrest]

 

                                                                       

[Dan tsuba]

Hello again,

 

As I said before, I am endeavoring to find possible cast iron tsuba that are papered.  I believe that doing this adds some extra validity to this thread.  And it is also fun and keeps me busy!

 

So, I have included a picture of my latest “find”.  It appears to be cast iron with an added metal mimi .  But then again it could have been very rusted, pitted and cleaned.  I don’t know.  So, once again (as always!) I am asking for opinions and thoughts.

 

From the following website -

https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-Japanese-tsuba-with-nbthk-certificatet-12/

 

And excerpts:

“Title: Heianjo-style, Small Holls

Signature: NO SIGNED

Age: Edo period

Material: Iron”

“Description”

 “An Iron Tsuba circle shape with Kozuka & Kougai holes

 Its rim is covered with the sheet metal; therefore, it is a bit thick. This type of edge decoration is called “Hukurin” in Japanese.

 Heianjo-style was established in Yamashiro (Kyoto Pref.). It is mainly made of iron with brass inlay. Its design was simply family crest or arabesque patterns in the beginning. However, after that, they made different shapes of Tsuba and started using gold, silver, or copper for inlaying.

 This Tsuba is recognized by The Society for Preservation of Japanese Art Swords, which is known as NBTHK.”

 

“Authentication Paper：NBTHK Hozon Certificate”

 “NBTHK, also known as Nihon Bijutsu Touken Hozon Kyokai (the Society for the Preservation of the Japan Art Sword), is one of the oldest Japanese sword appraising organizations in modern-day Japan. They authenticated the Tsuba on Aug 27th in the first year of Reiwa (2019). They appraised it as Hozon Tousougu, the Tsuba worth preserving for Japanese society.”

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[GRC]

Relying on images alone, can make the identification of cast-iron very difficult. But I can see why you might single this one out.

Even though this one is "Heianjo-style", there's a whole group of Heianjo plates that have purposefully rough-textured surfaces that were worked by hand (and possibly some sort of chemical treatment as well to create all the pitting and "flaked"-look... just a hypothesis). So this one should not be counted as "cast-iron". They are recognized as being proper forged plates.

 

btw, the added ring on a mimi is a "fukurin" not a "hukurin"... could just be one of those pronunciation/translation issues of going from Japanese to English..

[GRC]

BTW, I looked into some more analysis techniques, specifically the potential for using the CARBON DATING (which is invasive) and found a published journal article on it:

Dating Iron by the Carbon-14 Method, by Van der Merwe and Stuiver  

 

Quick summary:

 

One major limitation is getting a large enough sample to get enough Carbon to do the analysis.

Cast iron is typically around 2% Carbon, and if it was softened afterwards through decarburization, then it would have even less.

The ideal sample size for cast iron is about 100g, so that's pretty much the whole tsuba on most cases!

 

The fuel that is burned is the only source of Carbon that gets mixed in with the iron to become  cast-iron.

So another major limitation is the source of the fuel that was used to produce the cast iron.

If it was made with charcoal made from burnt fresh wood, then you can date it properly.

But,

If it was made from fossil-fuel coal, then it can't be Carbon-dated because it's too old. The upper limit of Carbon dating is around 50,000 years, and fossil fuels are millions of years old... simply a no-go. 

 

Fossil-fuel coal use began in the early 18th century in Europe and spread from there.

From that time forward, both processes were used, sometimes even being mixed together to get specific products.

This makes dating 18th and 19th century cast iron objects much more difficult because you won't know what the fuel source was for a particular object before you grind it all up and put it through the Carbon-14 testing.

 

So if testing is done, it definitely has to be of the non-invasive type.

Just thought I'd share that info if anyone was wondering about the possibility of using Carbon-dating techniques on tsuba  

[Dan tsuba]

Hi!

 

Thanks, Glen, for your evaluation of the tsuba.  I looked at many more pictures of Heianjo-style since you let me know that “there's a whole group of Heianjo plates that have purposefully rough-textured surfaces that were worked by hand (and possibly some sort of chemical treatment as well to create all the pitting and "flaked"-look... just a hypothesis). So this one should not be counted as "cast-iron". They are recognized as being proper forged plates.”

 

What I saw was as you stated.  There are vary many of the Heianjo group that have a rough texture to them.  But from what I can tell (just by looking at pictures) is that although they have a rough textured plate, the kozuka hitsu ana and kogai hitsu ana are pretty much smooth, clean, and appear to have been “worked”.

 

On the “Heianjo style” tsuba in my previous post, the kozuka hitsu ana defiantly appears to have a “lumpy” type surface inside of it.  Also, the Nakago ana appears to have an unfinished look to it.  That is what I observed (but hey I wear glasses, so my eyesight is not that great)!  But as you stated in your post (and thanks for researching that area) we can’t rely on carbon dating to find out how old tsuba are, so I will just have to wait until someone finds a cheap way to do non-invasive testing to determine the metal used.  And since that may take several years to develop (and I may not even “be around” anymore to see that done!!) I will just move forward with checking out pictures of papered possible cast iron tsuba and seeing what turns up!

 

The research continues!  Onward!

 

With respect,

Dan

[MauroP]

I think unlikely the occurrence of iron casted tsuba in Edo times, but their production should be as early as the early Meiji period. Here below a surely casted tsuba from the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, collected by the Reverend Julian Tenison-Woods in 1886 (unless a faulty record from the museum).

[ROKUJURO]

12 hours ago, GRC said:

.....btw, the added ring on a mimi is a "fukurin" not a "hukurin"... could just be one of those pronunciation/translation issues of going from Japanese to English..

Indeed, the Japanese 'FU' is differently pronounced compared with English; it is more like 'HU'.

[Dan tsuba]

Thank you, Mauro, for your picture of the cast iron tsuba (well at least it looks cast to me!).  In the post you stated that “collected by the Reverend Julian Tenison-Woods in 1886 (unless a faulty record from the museum).”  So, I checked the internet and found that Reverend Tenison-Woods died in 1889.

 

My question is was that particular cast tsuba made and collected in 1886?  Or could that tsuba have been made several years before (possibly in the Edo period) and then the Reverend collected it??

 

The only statement I could find related to something else the Reverend collected, is shown below:

“Small scale model Japanese buildings (9), ceramic, collected by the Reverend Julian Tenison-Woods, Japan, 1886”.

 

So, could the tsuba have been made before 1886 and then collected? 

 

With respect,

Dan

[Spartancrest]

https://collection.maas.museum/object/199136

 

From Wikipedia

"In 1883, Tenison-Woods was invited by his friend and governor of Singapore, Sir Frederick Weld, to undertake a scientific tour in the Straits Settlements. Tenison-Woods also travelled extensively in Java, the adjacent islands and the Philippines, and provided the British government with a valuable confidential report on the coal resources of the East. He also travelled to China and Japan, returning to Sydney in 1886."

 

He donated an eclectic collection of small Japanese and other Asian artifacts most with the same time provenance, but only the one tsuba. https://collection.maas.museum/search?q=Reverend Julian Tenison-Woods

 

So it would appear Rev. Woods acquired the guard in Japan itself probably as a souvenir perhaps? He died at the relatively young age of 56.

 

So we are stuck again by not knowing just how old the tsuba was when he picked it up - but we know it was made prior to 1886.