Tsuba casting molds ?

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all - (and yes, and I am playing the music video that Dale posted “oh no, not you again”!!).

 

Anyway, enough with the humor and onto the subject at hand-

 

First off, I would like to very much thank all the forum members that continue to show an interest in this thread of “Tsuba casting molds?”.  And I would also like to thank all the members that have contributed (and continue to contribute) their valuable research, thoughts, insights, and information to this thread.

 

Onward!!

 

So, as stated in my previous post “13th generation iron casting family in Iwate, Japan using traditional techniques...” Upon further research I found it is now a 16^th generation family of iron casters going back to 1625.  That information can be found at the link listed below (which in itself is a very interesting “read”)-

 

https://www.architonic.com/en/story/25portraits-Japan-stories-suzuki-morihisa-studio/7001664

 

Now, I know from trying to find research relating to this thread over the last several months that there is very little (almost none!) historical evidence written about “cast iron” tsuba possibly being produced in the Edo period.

 

Maybe the “16th generation iron casting family” has some “family written” old historical documents on the subject. Or, at least, some knowledge of it that was passed down by “oral tradition”? Not that I am going to fly to Japan and interview the family! But it would be an interesting way to find out if more (or any) historical information about the possibility of “cast iron” tsuba being produced in the Edo period is still in existence.

 

That may finally conclude this very interesting thread.  Either way: “If cast iron tsuba were produced during the Edo period” or “if cast iron tsuba were not produced during the Edo period” I consider this thread to have been (and still is!) fun!

 

Although, personally (and just my opinion), it would not surprise me one bit if those people of Japanese descent who collect tsuba in Japan (and thus have easier access to possible cast iron tsuba documentation and cast iron artisans) already know the answer about “cast iron” tsuba being made in the Edo period (and have probably known the answer for some time!).

 

Just more “food for thought”.  Thank you all!

 

With respect,

Dan

[ROKUJURO]

1 hour ago, Dan tsuba said:

..... there is very little (almost none!) historical evidence written about “cast iron” tsuba possibly being produced in the Edo period.....

Dan,

do you have a suspicion what that might mean?

[Dan tsuba]

Jean, 

 

Throughout about the 10 months that this thread has appeared on the forum you have been a great and valuable help.  

 

Your insights, thoughts and opinions are of excellent value; and they are much appreciated! 

 

You always seem to “challenge” me. That is much appreciated, since it forces this “old man” to continue his research. In so doing I am constantly learning. Thank you! 

 

Now, in your most recent post you again “challenged” me with your below statement which refers to a quote from my previous post-- 

“.... there is very little (almost none!) historical evidence written about “cast iron” tsuba possibly being produced in the Edo period..... 

Dan, 
 
do you have a suspicion what that might mean?” 

 

 

A very legitimate and valid question, Jean. Thank you. But I am sending that question back to you Jean, 

 “do you have a suspicion what that might mean?” 

 

As you notice I used the term “oral tradition” in my last post. That is defined as- “a community's cultural and historical traditions passed down by word of mouth or example from one generation to another without written instruction.” That definition is found here -  

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/oral-tradition 

 

Now, Jean, I make reference to the following- 

Below is from this link- 

 

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

 

“Japan was very unified by the Tokugawa regime (1600–1867); and the Neo-Confucian academy, the Yushima Seidō in Edo was the chief educational institution of the state. Its administrative head was called Daigaku-no-kami as head of the Tokugawa training school for shogunate bureaucrats.  

When the Tokugawa period began, few common people in Japan could read or write.”  

 

And more information was continued on that site, that I did not consider relevant to the issue. 

 

Also, I would like to refer you to this “hierarchal” scale on the “Edo” period (notice where “artisans” fall on the lower end of the scale). Which was found at this website- 

 

 

https://factsanddetails.com/Japan/cat16/sub107/item502.html  

 

 

 

 
 

So, my conclusion is that there are very few (or none at all) written records of early Edo period cast iron tsuba casters because those artisans did not know how to read or write (as verified by the above research). If anything, they would have communicated their methods by “oral tradition. That is why I stated “oral tradition” in my last post!

 

Anyway, my friend, the adventure continues!! 

 

With respect, 

Dan 

[ROKUJURO]

Dan,

I sincerely think that your "crusade" for EDO JIDAI cast iron TSUBA is at its end. 

The fact that a certain technique was available does not mean that it was applied on a wider scale. It was perhaps technically possible to cast iron TSUBA but why should the craftsmen have done it?

1) Casting was done in single (lost) molds. There was no die casting to increase the production output, and for a quality copy the mold had to be destroyed afterwards. The mold material was a mixture of fine sand and clay, and it had to be prepared pre-casting for the process.

2) The raw cast item was not useful in its technical properties as a TSUBA. If there were cast iron TSUBA meant to be used by the SAMURAI, they would have to be treated for more toughness, possibly by the tempering method. This would have reduced the risk of breaking in battle, but it would still not attain the properties of forged TSUBA. Remember: tempered water kettles (not 'tea' kettles) were tougher than standard cast ones, but could be broken anyway!

3) A raw cast iron item requires a lot of work to make it functional. Casting seams are a part of it, surfaces another. Recesses and sharrp crevisses could not be reproduced, so the choice of motives was limited. A lot of work is required to make a cast iron item look acceptable. And there were no grinding wheels and steel brushes for faster work in those times!

4) I doubt that the aesthetics of cast iron TSUBA would have satisfied most SAMURAI who were known for their sense of quality and beauty

5) There were many TSUBA workshops and craftsmen/artists in EDO JIDAI who made their living with the manufacture of TSUBA. Simple items could be forged easily and in a short span of time, so what could they possibly win with a casting method that required a lot of charcoal for the higher temperatures, equally a lot of cleaning and refining work, with a relatively small output in numbers, and without making a comparable amount of money?    

These are my objections to the subject of a widespread manufacture of cast iron TSUBA in the EDO period that were meant for use with the SAMURAI.

But you can convince me of the contrary if you find representative numbers of cast iron TSUBA (papered) datable to the EDO JIDAI.

 

[Spartancrest]

I have to chip in here - tsuba did not have to be unbreakable and a hell of a lot were far from it. Copper, Shakudo, Shibuichi, Ivory, Horn, Makie, wood, leather and even stone tsuba were all in use and for a great length of time. Couple this with those swords that did not even have tsuba and surely this should tell you it matters not what a tsuba is made from, because they are not a defensive part of the sword. The argument that cast tsuba would never be used by samurai because they would break under the blow of an opponents blade is a non-argument, else all those other materials would also be "rejects" of true samurai, which would certainly put a big dent in collectable guards!

Facts not opinions please.

[Brian]

@Ford Hallam I wonder if you can be persuaded to once again join this topic and give your views?

 

[ROKUJURO]

5 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

.....it matters not what a tsuba is made from, because they are not a defensive part of the sword.....

In my understanding this is an assumption, not a fact.

[Dan tsuba]

 

 

“Tsuba- 

The tsuba (鍔, or 鐔) is usually a round (or occasionally squarish) guard at the end of the grip of bladed Japanese weapons, like the katana and its variations, tachi, wakizashi, tantō, naginata etc. They contribute to the balance of the weapon and to the protection of the hand. The tsuba was mostly meant to be used to prevent the hand from sliding onto the blade during thrusts as opposed to protecting from an opponent's blade.” 

 

The above was found at this website- 

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

So, Jean-  

There you go again, making me do more research!! Thank you!! 

 

Onward!

 

With respect,

Dan

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

[Spartancrest]

"In my understanding this is an assumption, not a fact."

 

As is the "assumption " that they are for defence - - Stalemate - - again! 

 

[roger dundas]

Excellent- the topic is still bubbling along pleasantly with maybe a little way to go yet.

Just observing and learning.

Roger j 

[Dan tsuba]

Roger,

 

You are too kind!  Your input into the progression of this "amazing" (in my opinion) thread is much appreciated!!  Yes, my friend, you are correct. There is still "maybe a little way to go yet".  We will see what happens!

 

With respect,

Dan

[ROKUJURO]

2 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

"In my understanding this is an assumption, not a fact."

As is the "assumption " that they are for defence - - Stalemate - - again! 

Dale,

I did not make an assumption.

[Ford Hallam]

Brian, you're a very naughty man 

 

It seems my friend Jean has made a good job of holding up the practical side of the discussion, and I've previously written a shed load on the subject here too but some dead horses apparently won't stay dead

 

For me the matter is relatively straightforward. I try to consider such possibilities as cast iron tsuba in as scientific way as possible. By which I mean I will examine the evidence. I'm not interested in possibilities, possible is not probable. As I taught my sons, It's possible there's an elephant in the backyard right now....but it's highly unlikely. Is there any compelling evidence that elephants even recently visited the yard?

 

It seems to me that the the problem starts with 'tsuba' that are clearly produced by casting. Multiples even, which suggest a method of economical reproduction. These cast pieces are, almost without exception, pretty poor examples of the tsuba makers art. To be blunt I can't see why anyone would want one other than as a coaster or paperweight....my desk would not be so besmirched though . Here I'm in mind of our dearly missed friend Guido, he'd be appalled. So these things were cheap in a market of much finer wares, even the most simple handmade pieces. So who would buy them in a culture that valued craftsmanship and where one's status and culture was on show in what you wore and displayed... a world were tosugu were a fine art? Only the culturally ignorant (of Japanese artistic culture) , uneducated in Japanese value systems, beguiled by superficial trinkets and with money to spare would give these products more than a cursors glance, imo. 

 

So we have, as exhibit one, poorly cast copies of tsuba. But with no context, no certain way to establish when or where they were made. I've been studying tosogu for about 45 years now, and have a hefty library of the earlier tsuba collectors catalogues. These cast pieces seem to be conspicuous by their absence. It seems to me their appearance is relatively recent. Or old school collectors and scholars simply rejected them as the dross they are, regardless of age.

 

Those who would argue for the possibility of Edo period manufacture have a mammoth task. Whether they were cast in the Edo period or not is not a simple yes or no, equal probability equation. In the absence of convincing or compelling evidence any theory is merely empty speculation. All the theorising in the world does not in any way advance the truth of an idea without some 'real world' verification. A line of text, a cast tsuba on a sword registered in a temple somewhere...a paragraph in the soken kisho or the Ci Yuan.

 

Endless discussions on aspects of metalwork, Japanese iron casting blended with partial and irrelevant notions of modern lost wax casting and mould making, by theorists with no practical or relevant experience with which to even evaluate or critique their own imaginary technological histories reminds me of the old 'reductio ad absurdum'; "how many angles can dance on the head of a pin" . Dr Lissenden's explanation of a possible Edo casting procedure is unconvincing and far too simplistic so as a defence of the notion that is was possible it remains a fanciful idea at best.

 

If we are to entertain this sort of speculative thinking we might just as convincingly 'demonstrate' that telephones could have been made in Edo period Japan too.

 

I'll end by sharing this, sent to me by Greg Irvine, recently retired Senior curator at the V&A, so a serious scholar,

 

The Samurai, as a class, were dissolved in 1867

The 'printing telegraph', the first fax, was invented in 1843

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865

so

There was a 20 year window in which a Samurai could have faxed Abraham Lincoln.

 

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

Just as a Parthian shot; it'd be refreshing to see some references to proper history and technical books rather than the usual unverified internet fluff that is the usual fodder.

[Ford Hallam]

and another thing 

 

The so called Nara moulds are, to my understanding at least, not remnants of casting moulds at all. A casting mould requires at least two interlocking halves AND runners, which are vents to allow the internal air, suddenly superheated (and expanding) by the introduction of very hot molten metal, to escape. What we see there are pretty common workshop relics, impressions made with clay of finished pieces as records. The finished piece is placed on a board, dusted with fine charcoal powder so that the clay will easily come away when dry, and left to harden. 

 

As for casting copper, no one did it! Copper can readily absorb 100% of its own volume when molten so that casting it into a closed mould or even ingot mould invariably produces an item with severe porosity (fine pin-holes in the body of the metal) and often completely friable and unusable. This is presumably why the Japanese developed their method of Yudowake, casting copper into water, as detailed in the Kodo-zuroku (1801). But even this process delivers ingots with porosity on the upper surface under the best of conditions. I've cast dozens of such ingots, but they all had to be thoroughly forged down to make a usable plate.

 

There are quite a few such films on YT now, it seems I birthed a monster 

[Brian]

Sorry Ford, I had to do it. :-) But I know you will be well aware why I dragged you into this. It's always great to hear from both sides and in particular yours. I had a good chuckle at the thought of some samurai faxing Lincoln

It's very telling when there are no real texts discussing the casting of iron tsuba, since they did like to put pen to paper, so to speak. Looking forward to the (polite) rebuttals.

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all, 

I think I recall a post to a thread on the NMB forum (cannot remember which thread it was or if I read it somewhere else) where someone described Ford Hallem “as considered the West’s leading expert on tsuba” (or words to that effect).  Now, that is a great honor! 

 

I believe if this entire thread is read from beginning to end, it will clearly be seen that many contributors have verified their research by stating references where they located the information.  They are not stating opinions, but rather statements backed by (sometimes) painstaking research. 

 

It is also my belief that many of those contributors are “university educated” individuals (as I am).  Their research methodology was learned over several years of formal education. 

 

Now, as stated above, Ford Hallem may have been described “as considered the West’s leading expert on tsuba”.  Again, that is a great honor. And congratulations, Ford! 

 

But “who is considered the East’s leading expert on tsuba”? Or more specifically “who is considered East Asia’s leading expert on tsuba? And why haven’t we heard from him?  

 

Now, Ford, in one of his latest posts to the thread stated a very humorous fact- 

 

“I'll end by sharing this, sent to me by Greg Irvine, recently retired Senior curator at the V&A, so a serious scholar, 

The Samurai, as a class, were dissolved in 1867 

The 'printing telegraph', the first fax, was invented in 1843 

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865 

so 

There was a 20 year window in which a Samurai could have faxed Abraham Lincoln.” 

 

That is indeed very funny! And although the information is from a “serious scholar” I believe it is flawed. That is because there were no direct telegraph lines installed between the United States and Japan until 1901. 

 

“The Commercial Pacific Cable Company   

Founded in 1901, the company provided the first direct telegraph route from America to the Philippines, China, and Japan.  Prior to this, messages had to travel across the Atlantic to the Far East via Capetown and the Indian Ocean, or via London to Russia, then across the Russian landline to Vladivostock, then by submarine cable to Japan and the Philippines.” 

Found at the below website- 
https://atlantic-cable.com/CableCos/ComPacCable/index.htm 

Now, in the paragraph stated above there is mention of a “land line”. A “land line” is defined as a telephone. The telephone was not invented until 1876. So, although the “serious scholar” statement is funny, it is incorrect! 

 

Anyway-  

 

Gentleman, we are not trying to discover a cure for cancer here!    

 

Tsuba collecting is extremely educational, interesting, and sometimes exciting.  But most of all it is “fun”!  

 

I have found that, oftentimes, people take themselves much too seriously.  

 

When tsuba collecting stops being fun for me, then that will signal the time for me to “exit” the hobby!  

 

This forum is a fine place to ask questions and share ideas and thoughts.  In several of the threads a “lively discourse” of varying opinions often takes place.  However, I believe there is still much “out there” to be discovered and learned about tsuba.  

I am reminded of a quote from a famous Zen master in his book-  

 

“Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind: Informal Talks on Zen Meditation and Practice”  

by Shunryu Suzuki  

 

“In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities; in the expert’s mind there are few…. In the beginner’s mind there is no thought, ‘I have attained something.’ All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. We can really learn something.” ~ Shunryu Suzuki  

 

Also, I would like to repeat something I previously stated on a post to this thread-  

 

“I never underestimate the innate quality of man’s ingenuity.  To do so would be a mistake.”  

 

If this thread is read in its entirety I am personally convinced (from all the excellent research presented in the thread) that cast iron tusba were produced during the Edo period (even maybe as early as the 1600’s). But that is just my thought on the subject!  

As for the multitude of other tsuba collectors out there, they will have their own opinions.  

 

Thank you all very much! 

  

With respect,  

Dan

[roger dundas]

Well, how fortunate are we to be reading (or for some being involved} in this discourse.

I just want to say this regarding my own interest in the topic : My collection of tsuba consists of a fair share of so-so iron pieces. Having put these forward for comment here over the past few years, sometimes someone would comment- 'I think it might have been cast'.

Now I found that always unsettling because just what exactly were the tell tale signs?

I'm still a little, possibly 'a big bit' unsure. I read what Ford says and well done Brian for encouraging him and well done Ford for taking the time.

Roger j

[ROKUJURO]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:59 PM, Dan tsuba said:

“Tsuba- 

The tsuba (鍔, or 鐔) is usually a round (or occasionally squarish) guard at the end of the grip of bladed Japanese weapons, like the katana and its variations, tachi, wakizashi, tantō, naginata etc. They contribute to the balance of the weapon and to the protection of the hand. The tsuba was mostly meant to be used to prevent the hand from sliding onto the blade during thrusts as opposed to protecting from an opponent's blade.” ....

Dan,

who is that expert to "know" about the purpose of a TSUBA? As usual in this field, it is all too easy to repeat what someone (mostly Westerners) had written in the past. 

Or asking the other way round: How many thrusting techniques were taught in IAI JUTSU or KATANA fencing?  And would a KATANA be a good and suitable weapon for such a technique? Please compare with bladed weapons of other cultures and eras!

Instead, a TANTO is made for thrusting; I think you will agree. So why are some TANTO equipped with small HAMIDASHI TSUBA, and other types like AIKUCHI don't even have a TSUBA (and no TSUKA-ITO) "to prevent the SAMURAI's hand from sliding onto the blade".

As you say, food for thoughts......

I'd like to add that I am not opposing the idea that a TSUBA may help to keep the hand from sliding forward, but I tend to think it had severall purposes - not black or white!  

[Ford Hallam]

Dan

 

I have to take exception with your suggestion that collecting is firstly about fun, specifically in this context. The real issue here is the pushing for acceptance of an unverifiable theory that cast iron tsuba were made, according to your suggestion, as early as the 1600's even.

The problem is then that unknowing or unscrupulous sellers can take advantage of this area of vagueness and pass off fakes as somehow being legitimate Edo period artefacts. 

 

It's amusing that you took such pains to demonstrate so clearly that my "joke' about a samurai faxing Lincoln was impossible because according to one website you found there was no suitable cable available at the time. Yet in defence of you own thesis you're happy to posit all sort of alternative explanations to fill the gaps in your required evidence trail to support the casting of iron tsuba in Edo Japan. What if I claim that the unrecorded cable my 'theory' requires was actually a secret project operated by the Satsuma clan, in defiance of the Shogunate's laws, so that they could learn about the outside world. When the black ships arrived they realised that they couldn't trust intermediaries so they pushed ahead with their cable laying efforts, first to the Ryukyu's, then Hawaii. The goal was of course the trade delegation there, from whence a reliable communication route might be established with the US government more directly. All treasonous so naturally kept top secret with no incriminating evidence or records being kept. It's possible...gotta keep an open mind 

 

As for being considered 'a leading expert' or whatever, not my claim so please don't be so rude as to try and demean what I have achieved, it's a strawman argument at best. And if you're looking for a comparable specialist in the craft/technology of tosogu in Japan let me know when you find them please. Spoiler alert, you may be in for a disappointing let down.

 

Anyway, everyone can believe what they like and spend their money on whatever they wish also.

 

I would suggest, though, that a few hours perusing the numerous late 19th century and early 20th century published catalogues, huge tomes most of them, with thousands of pieces recorded in photographs, many surprisingly good images too, as well as any pile of pre 2000 auction catalogues searching for obvious cast iron tsuba might well be like searching for a needle in a haystack! If anyone is in the Dartmouth area anytime feel free to contact me in my studio at 17 Foss street and I'll give you free access to about 6 feet of such material to search through. I've not seen anything in the slightest way convincing yet, and my trained craftsman's eyes have been intimate with these sources for more than 30 years. Your milage may vary, as they say 

 

Actually there is one more quite relevant point to make;

 

Throughout this thread various images of tsuba, some papered even, have been presented and various details in the surface highlighted as being 'evidence' of casting technology. The problem I have with this approach is that firstly it is based on a second hand 'imagined' idea of what tell tale marks might be left after casting work. Has anyone here, or anywhere for that matter, actually recreated a ferrous tsuba by the means suggested and can we see what the results actually look like. Obviously this is a hypothetical question, we have no clue what the supposed Edo period process of iron tsuba casting would produce. All we have is a patchwork of ideas cobbled together from various contemporary craft and jewellery sources. In contrast to that area of assessment who in this discussion actually knows have iron tsuba were made by hand? I don't just mean the basics, but the actual nitty gritty of taking forged plate to final carved and patinated form. What are the tell tale signs and details that those processes leave and how do our modern working methods differ from the Edo period? what do they look like? and how do they differ from these other imagined Edo period cast iron tsuba?

 

Just as one very simple example of the dangers of uninformed supposition...

Dr Lissenden saw clear evidence of a cast seam in the interstices of his scrolling Namban tsuba. I saw evidence of drilled holes and chiselling from each side leaving a little 'lip' where each chiselled surface met roughly in the middle. Why did I see that? Because I've done it myself and I easily recognised the same traces of workmanship. But if you don't fully appreciate that tsuba were not cut out with a saw blade but drilled and chiselled as routine then that possible interpretation is unavailable to you and you're forced to base your conclusion only on your limited understanding.  Beginners mind is often woefully devoid of useful or relevant data in many situations. My consultant doctors would get short shrift from me if they went all 'Zen beginners mind' with me 

 

 

 

Anyway, once again I've written too much but its apparently all grist to the mill 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tensho]

I keep hearing that cast tsuba are "modern" copies. When exactly are people speculating these were made? 

[zanilu]

Having made some casting in my time, part of school training, I do at list know how devilish is iron in casting thin walls and small details.

 

I could have not expressed my feeling about cast iron tsuba better than Ford.

 

Regards

Luca

[Spartancrest]

Matt E. It depends what you call modern, there is direct evidence from 19th century collections still held in Museums [with plenty of provenance] that cast iron guards were made prior to the 1880s. If only the West had started collecting tsuba earlier, all this debate about edo-cast iron tsuba would have been mute. What we lack is the provenance.

[Tensho]

Thanks Dale. This is what I was trying to understand.  I have owned 2 swords "captured" during WWII in civilian mounts with cast iron Tsuba that matched the theme of the rest of the fittings. My guess is they were around late edo period, but the talk on here makes it sound like these castings are post WWII. 

[GRC]

Wow... been busy with work and haven't been on the forum except for a few quick glances...

It seems like there was one recent misstep in this thread about a legit Higo tsuba, then this quagmire rears its ugly head. 

 

Unfortunately, I feel compelled to point out that the only dead horse here, is the idea that there were no cast iron tsuba produced during the Edo period.

The burden of proof is now placed squarely in the hands of those who wish to believe that cast iron tsuba were only produced after the Edo period. 

 

The "post-Edo group" has multiple points of researched statements & facts that would have to be disproved before even beginning to advance their case again.

 

The most important points coming from Sesko and Haynes, who are both two of the leading Western tsuba scholars.

Both of them independently researched and published statements that cast iron tsuba were being produced by kettle makers during the Edo period.

And, in Sesko's example, he referred to a documented case of a tsubako who had apprenticed under a kettle maker who also made tsuba.

So, the idea that cast iron kettle makers were also producing cast iron tsuba in the Edo period is a statement of fact corroborated by two tsuba scholars.

 

If anyone has any hope of adhering to the notion that cast iron tsuba were not made during the Edo period, then they MUST disprove those documented and published statements.

Anything less is merely a rhetorical attempt to persuade others.    

[Iekatsu]

While I agree with Ford's comments and general sentiment regarding cast iron Tsuba, casting fittings in bronze and possibly brass is something that we have period evidence for.
 

On 11/9/2022 at 11:55 PM, Ford Hallam said:

The so called Nara moulds are, to my understanding at least, not remnants of casting moulds at all. A casting mould requires at least two interlocking halves AND runners, which are vents to allow the internal air, suddenly superheated (and expanding) by the introduction of very hot molten metal, to escape. What we see there are pretty common workshop relics, impressions made with clay of finished pieces as records. The finished piece is placed on a board, dusted with fine charcoal powder so that the clay will easily come away when dry, and left to harden. 

This statement is incorrect and does not reflect the findings from the dig report and analysis. The site not only included molds, but also furnaces, crucibles and failed casts, but again this has no bearing on the discussion of cast iron fittings.

[Brian]

Well, the crux of this matter is cast IRON.
Casting other metals is an entirely different matter.

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

 

As an interesting addition to the post by Thomas about the findings from ancient Japanese casting sites (and parts of the below article deal with cast iron kettle making) I would like to add the following information:

 

“4.2. Kettles in Ancient Japan (7–11 century)

 

The oldest production of cast iron object in Japan was pursued at casting factory of the north region of Kawaharadera Temple of Asuka, Nara Prefecture, in the end of 7 century. This is a large-sized Hagama, and was casted in the casting pit. In those days the bathroom for priests was annexed to Buddhist temples, and iron Hagama for boiling water were prepared there. This Hagama is not a kettle which is used as a cooking vessel, but a particular religious tool, and it was maybe made by the special technology which was imported from foreign country along with popularity of Buddhism in Nara period.

 

From many smelting sites which were located on gently sloping hill of Souma (Fukushima Prefecture), Kashiwazaki (Niigata Prefecture), Imizu (Toyama Prefecture), Kanto Plain, and Konan (Shiga Prefecture), many molds of kettles of 9–10 century were excavated. Recently in Kawatodai site (Ibaraki Prefecture), a large-sized site of casting factory in Kanto district was discovered, and a great many molds of kettles were excavated.21)

 

Common point in kettle casting sites of 9–10 century is that cast iron production was pursued in the smelting factory or in the surrounding area. From excavated molds, products are Nabe and Hagama, and they have three legs under their bottom. They need not be put on kitchen range, but independently used. They belong to small-sized object, and so casting pit for large-sized objects has never found. Although these casting sites of cast iron kettle broadly spread from Tohoku to Kinki, there is no regional difference of form of vessel. Precisely examining these ancient molds of cast iron, core print by which fix mold and core is not clear. This is a different from medieval mold of kettle. As ancient casting sites are located considerably in north-east Japan, ancient casting production was influenced by Bohai or Liao which ruled north east district of China, Y. Kojima thinks.22) But it was influenced by Korean casting production.23)” 

 

And there is more interesting information to be found in the article.

 

The above information was found at the below listed website-

 

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/isijinternational/54/5/54_1123/_html/-char/ja

 

The paper appears to have been written in Japan in 2014.  Although it states nothing about tsuba, I find it a very interesting read about cast iron production in Japan and decided to “pass it on” to others.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Interesting info there Dan.

 

I wish the author had expanded this passage, so it was more clear...

I'm really not too sure what is meant by the series of terms used in the first sentence, or how that makes it different from medieval casting. 

3 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

Precisely examining these ancient molds of cast iron, core print by which fix mold and core is not clear. This is a different from medieval mold of kettle.

 

[GRC]

Scholarly quote #3 about cast-iron tsuba being made in the Edo period,

written by Henri Joly, in the J.C. Hackshaw Collection, 1910.

 

The passage is taken from his brief write up of the Kaneiye tsuba section:

 

"The first Kaneiye worked in the middle of the Sixteenth Century, but much of the work so signed was done in the latter part of the Seventeenth Century and in the Eighteenth. Since then some reproductions have been made by casting and the number of spurious Kaneiye made in Aizu and elsewhere is past count."

 

This reads like a statement of fact that is a "given".

(or at least it was a "given" in Henri Joly's view)

 

As written, cast-iron copies of Kaneiye tsuba were being made since sometime in the 18th century.

 

This reference is just specific to Kaneiye copies made of cast-iron, not to ALL cast-iron tsuba production.

So, the production of cast-iron tsuba in general, can be assumed to date to at least sometime in the 1700s.

 

Interestingly, this also coincides with Hayne's approximate dating of his cast-iron tsuba which he stated was made by a kettle maker in the mid-1700s. 

 

Also of note, is that both Haynes' and Joly's approximate date attributions fit nicely with the construction of the more "industrial" type Tatara furnaces in the very late 1600s, which would have increased the availability of cast-iron and malleable cast-iron (which was not brittle and could easily be worked by hand afterward).