Tsuba casting molds ?

[Bugyotsuji]

Thanks for that, Geraint. Interesting. (He has not seen Tsuba examples he says.) 

 

Looking at the darker, finer material examples towards the end of his page I have just realized what one of my Netsuké is probably made from!  

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

 

So, where to start!  I had a fun experiment all planned out (and I am not a scientist or metallurgist!).  I figured the experiment would take 4 or 5 days to complete.

 

The hypothesis was that a sand-cast cast-iron tsuba could be abraded (using an actual sharpening stone) to appear as if it was “hand forged”. 

 

What I was going to use for this experiment was a sand-cast cast-iron bottle opener, and an actual stone sharpening stone (using water instead of oil as a lubricant – like the Japanese craftsman of old did). Then “flash rust” it and steel wool the rust off of the piece so that there might appear a dark patina on the cast iron.

 

So, I received the sand-cast cast-iron bottle opener today that I was going to abrade.  I quote the dealer’s description of the piece-

 

“Suzuki Morihisa Cast Iron Bottle Openers

$42.00

Since 1625, The Suzuki Morihisa Iron Studio has produced the finest iron products in Japan. It was designated a Japanese National Treasure in 1974.

They have created cast iron fittings, bells and teapots for Buddhist temples and royalty.

We are happy to carry a modern extension on their historical craft - bottle opener representations of the Chinese Zodiac. Each is solid and feels perfect in hand.

Sheep, Rooster and Monkey currently available.

All are exclusive to Made Solid in the USA”

 

Also, they go on to state-

“About Suzuki Morihisa Studios

Established in 1625, The Suzuki Morihisa Studio is now in it's 15th generation of family operation.

Known for traditional Nanbu Tekki iron work, the studio has created Buddhist altar fittings, temple bells and teapots for the highest levels of Japanese culture and society.

The Studio was designated a Japanese Cultural Treasure in 1974.

 

Made Solid is the exclusive US retailer of Suzuki Morihisa Studio work.”

 

Here is the link to the studio-

https://www.madesolidinla.com/home-1/suzuki-morihisa-cast-iron-bottle-openers?utm_medium=email&utm_source=customer_notification

 

Now, when I received the bottle opener I was amazed!  There was no need to abrade it to appear as if it was “hand forged” (although that option is still available!).  It was obvious (to me at least) that the piece could be easily abraded to make it appear “smoother” in texture (but it is smooth already!).  And I didn’t really want to “ruin” a 50 dollar (including shipping) artistic bottle opener (after I post this I am going to see if it works on a couple bottles of beer!).

 

So, what is my conclusion (remembering that this is all personal opinion!)?  I think that a sand-cast cast-iron tsuba could have easily been made.  Remembering that the only way to tell the difference between a sand-cast cast-iron tusba (that perhaps was hand finished and hand worked) and between a hand forged tsuba (that has not obviously been “folded”) is to subject them both to invasive or non-invasive metallurgical testing.  Otherwise, it is just a “guess”!

 

Also, I have included several pictures of the bottle opener.  Dimensions of the piece are 4 ¾ in long (about 120.7 mm), weight is 65 grams, thickness varies from about 4.25 mm at the bottom to about 4.48 mm at the top of the motif.

 

The adventure continues!

With respect,

Dan

 

[ChrisW]

Wonderful post! And that bottle opener is indeed a thing of beauty!

I had always thought there was a difference in how the metal 'sings' when struck? Doesn't a folded metal tsuba have a brighter, more harmonic sound; whereas cast iron has a duller thud to it? Or is that my imagination?

[Spartancrest]

Chris that was indeed an early "test" and it was reported in a few old English articles - but it does not work on sukashi pieces and from my experience it is far too subjective and you would need to compare a known tsuba of similar dimensions - you might be comparing apples with apples or tomato and capsicum! 

I tried the sound test on these two - The one with a rim was dull, the cut down was high pitch. [Apples with Nashi?] 

 

Dan how many bottles of beer have you got? And what happened to your last bottle opener - worn out? 

[1kinko]

OK, so now you’ll have to see if you can chisel it and do an inlay like Glen said would be so easy. Maybe try a file first?

[GRC]

Um, definitely contact the company first to find out whether they used regular cast iron or malleable cast iron before you try taking a chisel to it.

 

And by the way Darrel, it was every reference on malleable cast iron that I had read that says that it can be worked with hand tools. So "I" didn't say it, I merely passed the information along. I don't see any reason to distrust what was written by the metallurgists.

[GRC]

Not to drag this out any further, as the thread is already moving along, but I feel I should explain the rationale for my last few "heated" posts.

 

Much earlier in this thread, one of the posters was chided and mocked. I felt compelled to say something then, just as I felt compelled to say something now about the repeated attempts to discredit or mock others.

 

My last few posts were a response to what I was witnessing, and found distasteful and potentially hurtful to others (and I know through conversations with others, I was not the only one who saw them that way).

 

The posts were carefully scripted to use some of these same strategies and tactics in such a way as to “mirror” them back to the sender. In that way, I was hoping to show that the same destructive tactics could be used against anyone.

 

Normally, I would not choose to do that in any form of academic discussion, and I sincerely hope to never see the need to do so again.

 

In terms of this being “my theory”, that is an interesting perspective, but one that I do not share.

 

My approach is to always be open to new sources of researched information and will gladly pivot my thinking as soon as new evidence arises. Having “perfectly respectful criticisms of specific points” is an essential tool to the refinement of any theory, however it is only helpful when being “respectful” is the norm, rather than the exception.

 

There are better ways to introduce a counter point, or offer up another avenue to consider, that will actually generate discussion, rather than to shut it down. Many contributors to this thread have done exactly that and it’s been a wonderful discussion that offers up opportunities to research new areas and continue to learn.

 

I am looking forward to seeing whatever evidence turns up from either position in this discussion, so that we can hopefully get to some sort of agreeable conclusion.

[ROKUJURO]

12 hours ago, ChrisW said:

....I had always thought there was a difference in how the metal 'sings' when struck? Doesn't a folded metal tsuba have a brighter, more harmonic sound; whereas cast iron has a duller thud to it? Or is that my imagination?

It is more the form and mass distribution of a metal object that makes the sound. Exceptions are of course metals like lead that will not give a sound at all. But to give an example, temple bells are cast, a Japaneses anvil without horns will not ring while a European one with two horns can be really loud. 

[ChrisW]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

It is more the form and mass distribution of a metal object that makes the sound. Exceptions are of course metals like lead that will not give a sound at all. But to give an example, temple bells are cast, a Japaneses anvil without horns will not ring while a European one with two horns can be really loud. 

 

Thanks for the explanation Jean. That does make sense.

[1kinko]

Glenn-

I didn’t see any specification to malleable cast iron in your post where you suggested that carving and inlay would have been less labor intensive than doing the same in steel. Were tea kettles made from malleable cast iron? 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all (and I am still playing the video Dale sent – “oh no, not you again”- he has a great sense of humor, and it is appreciated as this thread can sometimes become “heated”.  And I don’t mean in a “cast iron" furnace way!)

 

Anyway, I have read on this thread where now there appears to be a discussion on “cast iron tsuba carving”.  And that is great!  Please continue so that I may learn more about this great hobby!

 

But Darrel stated in one of his posts shortly after my post of the “bottle opener” -

 

“OK, so now you’ll have to see if you can chisel it and do an inlay like Glen said would be so easy. Maybe try a file first?”

 

I (personally) have no doubt that cast iron tsuba could have been chiseled and possibly inlaid. Hey, but that is just me!

 

Anyway, what I think is more relevant is that the motif in cast iron tsuba (if not cast with the piece) was cut (which must be easier than chiseling) to add their design.  This would keep the entire tsuba flat, with no outstanding concave or convex areas in the design (and in some examples the mimi could have been filed somewhat round).

 

I have included some pictures of what I have described above. Remember, I am not saying that these are cast iron tsuba.  I just wish to describe “the flat” appearance of a “cut motif” tsuba (that may have been done with cast iron tsuba to save time and effort).

 

Onward!

With respect,

Dan

[Spartancrest]

On 11/19/2022 at 10:49 AM, ChrisW said:

I had always thought there was a difference in how the metal 'sings' when struck? Doesn't a folded metal tsuba have a brighter, more harmonic sound; whereas cast iron has a duller thud to it? Or is that my imagination?

Just getting back to the 'singing'  of good iron.

 

This quote from Marcus B. Huish 1889.

 

"The decoration of the sword furniture showed symptoms of decline early in the present century. 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 [19th] 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 11/2 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 quote was added way back near the beginning of this thread and you might have missed it.

[Spartancrest]

If I might add this quote from Louis Gonse 1891

"When one strikes one of Umetada's sword guards, holding it at the end of the finger, it sounds like a crystal bell. I will here remark that fine iron sword guards are distinguished by the purity of their sound. The more ancient a guard is, the more clear and high is its sound. This quality of sound results from the perfect state of homogeneity and density of the metal, resulting from continued hammering before the work of chasing began." 

I would hasten to say all the other restrictions will still apply regardless of how ancient the tsuba - many will not ring due to thickness, shape or piercings.

[ROKUJURO]

5 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

....."When one strikes one of Umetada's sword guards, holding it at the end of the finger, it sounds like a crystal bell. I will here remark that fine iron sword guards are distinguished by the purity of their sound. The more ancient a guard is, the more clear and high is its sound. This quality of sound results from the perfect state of homogeneity and density of the metal, resulting from continued hammering before the work of chasing began." .......

This is nonsense in more than one field. Ford has dealt with these sound effects here on the forum.

Iron has always a density of 7,85 and you cannot change this by hammering. Steel - as well as other iron alloys - has a similar density with minor changes in the second decimal place. You cannot see or feel the density.

There are many TSUBA descriptions where "dense iron" is mentioned. This is probably more related to optical appearance like a 'closed surface' or something in that range.

[Spartancrest]

You are quite correct Jean, this is another of those long held 'myths' - I hope my addendum made that clear in my last post. I was just searching for the sources for Chris, where the idea came from may well have been dreamt up by a meiji era Japanese marketer who 'sold' the story to his gaijin customers.

[GRC]

On 11/19/2022 at 11:23 AM, 1kinko said:

I didn’t see any specification to malleable cast iron in your post where you suggested that carving and inlay would have been less labor intensive than doing the same in steel.

Hi Darrel, I never intended to suggest that at all, my apologies if it came across that way.

That part of the work would almost certainly be equally laborious for both of those types of alloys (steel vs cast-iron).

 

My point was that by casting, you'd be able to skip all of these steps:

-forging your own plate,

-scribing a pattern on the plate to outline the pattern to be cut,

-drilling the plate

-straight chiseling to create a basic straight-walled outline (resulting in a roughly vertical sukashi wall)

-rough chiseling the remaining flat surfaces to try to carve it into a more 3D shape (including doing some of the detail work like carving in the scales of a dragon for example)

 

Then you are basically at the same point for both cast and forged sukashi tsuba for putting in the finishing details like cleaning up some of the detail work, or adding nunome, or maybe a simple inlay like a dragon eye.

You'd also have to remove the "web remnants" in the cast tsuba, but those will be quite thin and much easier to remove compared to removing the full thickness from a solid forged plate.

So, a massive time savings, and savings in charcoal resources since you only have to do a "single heat" to melt the cast-iron and pour it, vs the "multiple heats" required for the hand forging of your plate into whatever shape you are aiming for. If a smith was making their own tamagahane, then add in a lot more labor and many more heats. 

 

On 11/19/2022 at 11:23 AM, 1kinko said:

Were tea kettles made from malleable cast iron? 

I've actually been looking into Japanese sources to find out, in an attempt to narrow that down. That's a critical piece of information to support or refute that idea. So for now that's, that's just a suggestion that was originally offered up in Lissenden's dissertation.

I've been trying to explore that idea to see if I could find out more about it and whether or not it was a possibility. I just got a Japanese source from 1936 on the specific topic of malleable cast-iron that I need to get translated. I'm hoping that it is a historical summary of its use in Japan and will shed some light on when its use began.

 

I just read a translated, peer-reviewed Japanese anthropology article about the history of Japanese cast-iron kettle, bell and bowl production (by Shinya Isogawa), that during the pre-Edo and early Edo periods, the rare examples of signed pieces showed that the mei was cut into the mold before casting, and these items were more brittle. So, we can assume those ones were not malleable cast-iron.

Unfortunately though, this doesn't help us with the period in question: mid to late Edo.

Regardless, I think the use of malleable cast-iron is now much less relevant for our current endeavour. I think the availability/use of malleable cast iron is most relevant to the nanban tsuba specifically, which often have lots of nunome and finer details compared to a straight-walled sukashi.

And even then, may not be necessary... I suppose you could just file in the cross-hatching for nunome, rather than chisel in the cross-hatching. So it may not be a necessity at all.

 

Why I think malleable cast iron is now less relevant:

 

Earlier, I was thinking that the softness of malleable cast iron would make it perfectly functional for use in battle, and allow it to serve the "defensive" aspect in its long list of functions.

 

The irrelevance of the defensive aspect "clicked" for me when I read the comment by Joly, that stated shiiremono were being produced in large quantities during the 18th and 19th centuries, and were being "made for the masses", and served a "decorative" function.

 

Given the mid to late Edo time period, and the fact that these were not intended for use by the samurai, there was absolutely no expectation that these would ever be required for use in any kind of battle. Even the samurai were not seeing any battles during this time period, so the defensive aspect of any tsuba made in that time period would be almost entirely irrelevant.

The only exception being, when people were gearing up for the Satsuma rebellion and the perceived fear of some sort of impending European invasion once Japan opened its borders once more. But this was just at the very end of the Edo period.

[GRC]

Some other points of interest about casting from Isogawa's anthropology article:

 

The article outlined that the foundrymen were using widely available, distributed cast-iron ingots, so all they had to do was do a quick melt at a relatively low temperature, and would have poured this into multiple pre-made sand molds.

 

Cast iron goods were commonplace during the Edo period, and foundrymen were supplying all sorts of small sized consumer goods in large quantities.

They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.

 

As an aside, although not a scholarly source, this site on traditional Japanese kettle production states that sand molds could be reused multiple times until their quality deteriorated, whereas high end pieces were made in single use molds made of sand or clay.

 https://japanobjects.com/features/tetsubin/#how

 

Back to Isogawa:

He also pointed out the rarity of finding extant molds in in the archeological dig sites and that in many cases, the structure of the molds had to be inferred from the details in the cast-iron objects themselves. 

 

He also concluded that the rarity of extant examples of older cast-iron products strongly suggested that older items would have been "cannibalized" and remelted to make new items once they were damaged through use, transport, or fire damage.

So looking at it from a reverse perspective, we can perhaps infer that newer items will have had a greater chance of surviving, and older items will be harder to come by.

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all, (I present the below information only as a support for the “cannibalized metal” theory, and not to distract from this thread or “impress” anyone with what I collect!)

 

So, Glen in one of his latest posts stated-

 

“He also concluded that the rarity of extant examples of older cast-iron products strongly suggested that older items would have been "cannibalized" and remelted to make new items once they were damaged through use, transport, or fire damage.

So, looking at it from a reverse perspective, we can perhaps infer that newer items will have had a greater chance of surviving, and older items will be harder to come by.”

 

Now, that “cannibalized” use of metal has been done over centuries.  I am referring to something else I collect.  I collect antique “kukris” (oldest from about 1840), the fighting weapon of the “Gurkha” of Nepal.  

 

“The oldest kukri known to exist is the one on display at the National Museum in Kathmandu which belonged to Drabya Shah, the King of Gorkha in 1627 AD. It is, however, certain that the origins of the knife stretch further back, way back to 2500 years."

 

And also-

 

“Although the oldest known surviving example (currently) of a kukri is in a museum at Kathmandu in Nepal.  It has been approximately dated as having been made in 1559.  Although that kukri survived because it was owned by a king of the Gorkha people.  Unlike the Japanese swords of old which were handed down from generation to generation; the kukris that may have been owned by the common Gorkha before that period could be lost to history through being buried with their deceased owners (which is a religious custom in Nepal) or having been reheated and reforged time after time.”

 

(The above is a quote from my own article on kukri that I have been working on for over a year!)

 

But below is some further research-

 

“While kukri-like weapons have been carved in temple reliefs and are occasionally seen in ancient art throughout northern India, it is critical to remember that modern Nepal is a very ethnically and linguistically diverse place.  Most of these groups did not use the kukri as a tool or weapon prior to the end of the 18th century.”

(Above from-

https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2012/11/05/identifying-and-collecting-the-nepalese-military-kukri/

 

Also-

“……… museum samples practically do not differ from those made now. Earlier samples were not preserved due to the low-quality metal used in them.”

(Above from-

https://ezoteriker.ru/en/nepalskii-mech-nazvanie-nepalskii-nozh-kukri-mify-i/

 

So, perhaps with cast iron tsuba (as with kukri) there may be no early examples because the metal was “cannibalized” for re-use or they just “rusted away” because of the low quality of metal used.

 

Just another thought for consideration.

 

The adventure continues!

With respect,

Dan

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

Glen

 

With reference to the paper by Shinya Isogawa, you didn't say specifically which paper but as there is only one of his research papers available on-line in English, I'm assuming it's this one?

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

There seems to be no mention of Edo period casting in this paper nor are the following points you say are derived from the paper in evidence.

Quote

 

Some other points of interest about casting from Isogawa's anthropology article:

 

The article outlined that the foundrymen were using widely available, distributed cast-iron ingots, so all they had to do was do a quick melt at a relatively low temperature, and would have poured this into multiple pre-made sand molds.

 

Cast iron goods were commonplace during the Edo period, and foundrymen were supplying all sorts of small sized consumer goods in large quantities.

They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.

 

 

Is there perhaps another version you've found that does offer these suggestions? I only ask because if they are supported by archeological evidence I'd suggest that while not quite 'the smoking gun' it comes pretty close. 

 

I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature" .  Typically 1200 degrees C is needed to do the job, this is really at about the limits of a bellows fed charcoal fire. The Chinese, of course were producing vast quantities of cast iron more than 2500 years earlier but this utilised blast furnaces, was a huge  government run industrial operation involving around 3000 men, according to existing official documents. The point being that casting iron is not a quick nor simple process. 

 

The "widely available, distributed cast-iron ingots" you cite we in all likelihood import from the mainland. This trade is well documented in pre-Edo times. This aspect and the broader issue of casting technology is amply covered in Prof. Gina Barnes'  superb 'Archaeology of East Asia'. Prof. Barnes has been kind enough to assist me and guide my own research.

 

And simply filing a cast surface to apply nunome-zogan will simply not work. 

 

Ford

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

 

So, Ford brought up some excellent points in his last post regarding the reference titled “Casting Sites of Bronze Bell and Iron Kettle in Ancient and Medieval Japan” paper written by Shinya Isogawa in 2014 (that paper was referenced to in one of my earlier posts – but here is the website where it can be found at

 

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

 

Ford’s first point (and it is well taken) is that “There seems to be no mention of Edo period casting in this paper” I find that to be correct (although I may have missed that because I need new glasses!). 

 

The only reference I could find stated “Kettles in Medieval Japan (12–16 century)”.  So, the 16^th century are the years in the 1500’s.  So that pre-dates the Edo period by about 100 years.  Now I know from research that there is a kettle maker in Japan who is a 16^th generation kettle maker, and they started producing cast iron kettles in 1625. That information can be found here-

 

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

 

On to the next point.  Ford states that there is no mention of what was referred to as “The article outlined that the foundrymen were using widely available, distributed cast-iron ingots”. 

 

Well, what I did find in the article is that “Thus division of production has considerably developed in medieval period, and metal material was circulated all over Japan as item for sale, and using this metal, casting craftsman made a production of kettles.”

So, unless the tradesmen that were selling this “metal material” were just pieces of cast iron in loose form, I don’t think it is impossible to imagine that they were sold as “ingots”.

 

The next point is the quote “and would have poured this into multiple pre-made sand molds.”

 

 What I did find in the article was “It melted a large-quantity of metal at a time and furnished many molds of kettles with molten metal one after another.”

 

That statement is found at the end of this paragraph “In order to melt metal material, cast iron is charged with charcoal into melting furnace and is burned with sending air. Molten metal is poured into sprue by ladle. In case of large-sized object, casting craftsman let molten metal flow through gutter (shallow channel for molten metal) into sprue. Melting furnace clearly resembles Japanese traditional melting furnace (Koshikiro). Its shape is cylinder, and it has 60–70 cm inner diameter, and is about 1.5 m in height. And it has one tuyer (mouth for blast) through the middle of its body. Inner diameter of tuyer is about 20 cm. This melting furnace has the almost same shape and structure with the melting furnace for Buddhist bell. It melted a large-quantity of metal at a time and furnished many molds of kettles with molten metal one after another.”

 

And the next bit of contested research from Ford.  “Cast iron goods were commonplace during the Edo period, and foundrymen were supplying all sorts of small sized consumer goods in large quantities.

They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.” 

 

Now the statement I found in the article states -

“In ancient period, cast iron kettles were rare objects. In Japan, production of the oldest cast iron object was made in the end of 7 century. It is a large-sized Hagama for particular use. And in 9–10 century, in ancient smelting factories of Tohoku, Kanto, Hokuriku, Kinki district, cast iron objects were made. In those days, most of kettles for cooking were made from clay, and these casting kettles could not supply a demand for cooking vessel on the whole, and were in circulation as particularly luxury utensils among a small number of people. In 12 century, production and supply of cast iron kettle increased to high level, and then iron kettles became to be daily necessaries for people.”

 

Now the 12^th century (or the 1100’s) is way before the Edo period. 

 

And the final point from Ford- 

“I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature" .  Typically 1200 degrees C is needed to do the job, this is really at about the limits of a bellows fed charcoal fire.”

 

The type of furnace used for cast iron was described in one of the paragraphs above. So, whatever the temperature needed to melt cast iron, we know that it was done, and they had the furnace to do it.

 

Now in the article the author refers to an “annual report” noted below-

 

“From 2000 on, the annual report, Data book on Casting site Study has been published, and it contains not only data of annual meeting, but also recent achievements on study of casting sites, and discussion of the last year and so on.”

 

Now, wouldn’t that be something interesting to study!  I have searched the internet but couldn’t find anything about it.

 

Wow, that research was super fun and kept me busy!  I may have missed something along the way.  Like I stated above “I need new glasses”!  Now, it is time for me to use that Japanese cast iron bottle opener I bought (described in one of my previous posts) and see if it opens a bottle of beer!

 

Anyway, the adventure continues!

With respect,

Dan

 

[GRC]

This is the article I was referencing:

古代・中世の鋳鉄鋳物  五十川 伸矢

I believe this is the journal:

国立歴史民俗博物館研究報告　第46集　（1992）

 

The microsoft translation for those comes up as:

Cast iron castings in ancient and medieval times. Shinya Isogawa

Bulletin of the National Museum of Japanese History Vol. 46 (1992)

 

It is 79 pages, written in Japanese, with a single page of English writing on the last page.

I had to copy everything from the pdf to a word document, then translate it one page at a time using Microsoft's translate function. When I tried doing more text than that, the translation kept getting cut off for some reason... definitely tedious.

[GRC]

Here are just a few of the relevant translated quotes from that paper:

 

"Establishment of medieval casting production

Medieval casting workshops in the 12th century, pot A appeared in addition to the feather pot in the western Japan, and pot C appeared in the eastern Japan. The results of the survey of the casting ruins have revealed the place of production, and it has become possible to confirm the existence of many self-sustaining casting groups that produced medieval pot kettles Japan generally. In addition, unlike the ancient times, where casting production was carried out in a form that was parasitic in workshops related to ironmaking and refining, casting workshops based on mold making, melting process, and casting process have become common. This is characterized by the fact that it takes a form of production on the premise that cast metal will be distributed as a commodity, and this was used in the Middle Ages"

 

"From the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period The decline of earthen cooking utensils Regarding the prevalence of cast iron castings in different regions, the relationship with earthen cookers must be discussed. Although the disappearance of earthen cookers became prominent in the middle of the 16th century in Western Japan. This is nothing more than an indication of the spread of cast iron castings and pots. Yaso-kai missionary Le (12) A passage in chapter 6 of Iss Frois' Comparison of Japanese and European Cultures Japan How People Eat and Drink, says, "We use ceramic pots and bowls when we cook our meals, and Japan people use cast-iron pots and bowls." From this 58 cast iron castings in ancient and medieval times, it can be inferred that in the western Japan where he carried out his missionary work, the spread of boiling tools made of cast iron castings was remarkable. Behind this was an explosive rise in casting production. In addition, during this period, there was a nationwide popularity of pot B, and the word "hot pot" came to refer to pot B. It can be presumed that in the Edo period, even in the eastern Japan, pot C declined, and a change occurred in which Nabe B took over it." 

 

"unlike bronze castings, cast iron castings repeat the cycle of recovering damaged material and regenerating them as ingots many times, so conclusions must be drawn by considering the analysis values from both the production area of the raw material and the distribution area that is premised on the recovery of the ingot."

[GRC]

By the way, I realize now, that I erred when I originally stated the source of the article.

 

After I stumbled across the article using searches with Japanese kanji, I tried looking up the author using English, and the only thing that came up was that 2014 article that Ford provided.

I wrongly assumed they were the same because they were by the same author and dealt with a similar subject.

 

My apologies for the confusion, and that it led people to a different article. 

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

Seems like an awful lot of writing her just to 'prove' what we already accept; that cast iron tea kettles were being made in Japan from quite early times.

 

What I find unsatisfactory is how various pertinent questions are being passed over and instead copious 'data' presented, which seems to me merely to distract from the real problem issues.

 

Quote

Cast iron goods were commonplace during the Edo period, and foundrymen were supplying all sorts of small sized consumer goods in large quantities.

This statement is not supported by any evidence yet.

 

Dan's summation of Shinya Isogawa's paper seems to be that in the 7th century cast tea kettles were rare, by the 12th century more common and then apparently this leads to the remarkable claim that" They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.”

 

We now know that this statement does not occur in the quoted texts, in any version or interpretation, yet this was the claim made to support the idea that cast iron objects of all sorts were commonplace. I would suggest that if it requires such a degree of tenuous thinking and 'invention' to create this sort of evidence then the whole thesis is already dead in the water.

 

Quote

The article outlined that the foundrymen were using widely available, distributed cast-iron ingots, so all they had to do was do a quick melt at a relatively low temperature, and would have poured this into multiple pre-made sand molds.

I responded to Glens statement by pointing out ;

"I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature" .  Typically 1200 degrees C is needed to do the job, this is really at about the limits of a bellows fed charcoal fire. The Chinese, of course were producing vast quantities of cast iron more than 2500 years earlier but this utilised blast furnaces, was a huge  government run industrial operation involving around 3000 men, according to existing official documents. The point being that casting iron is not a quick nor simple process. "

 

I wrote this because the way Glen presented the matter is could be inferred that casting iron is simple and only requires a 'relatively low temperature'. This is, as I described, far from the truth. Yet instead of acknowledging this significant misunderstanding of a central technical point in the technology we're discussing Glen treats us to a couple of paragraphs of writing that completely diverts from the fact that he's making statements as though fact when he is unclear regarding the technical issues involved.

 

So to sum up, despite some 'creative accounting' we are still not presented with any evidence that the homes of Edo period Japan were overflowing with cheap cast iron goods, or that beyond the well documented tea kettles etc. there was any other sort of significant market in cast iron goods. The claims of internet sellers with unverifiable 'histories' aside 

 

a few more points;

 

Sand casting, this is frequently mentioned in this discussion in the Japanese context. But can it actually be shown that the process similar to that we know today was actually in use in pre-modern Japan? None of the various texts I have, either Edo period or early Western researchers, Gowland, Brinkly, Pumpelly, Rein et al, makes any mention of this process. I think that perhaps this is a mistranslation from Japanese where the process is very much that which is based on length and multi-staged clay mould construction. 

 

 While cast iron is relatively cheap today I would suggest that the amount of energy, time, manpower and fuel required to first make the actual cast iron and then subsequent mould making, remelting of the material, casting and clean up work would not in the Edo period necessarily produce a cheap item at all.

 

Anyway, nuff said. 

 

 

 

 

 

[OceanoNox]

2 hours ago, Ford Hallam said:

Sand casting, this is frequently mentioned in this discussion in the Japanese context. But can it actually be shown that the process similar to that we know today was actually in use in pre-modern Japan? None of the various texts I have, either Edo period or early Western researchers, Gowland, Brinkly, Pumpelly, Rein et al, makes any mention of this process. I think that perhaps this is a mistranslation from Japanese where the process is very much that which is based on length and multi-staged clay mould construction.

I do not know much about the evolution of casting technology, but I can quote my tea ceremony teacher, who complained that newer kama for tea ceremony were extremely heavy, due to them being thick, while antique kama were thinner and easier to carry even full of water.
There are artisans (in Ashiya at least) trying to obtain 2mm-thick kama (like the antiques) but as far as I understood, they had issues with the flow of molten iron and they did not manage it. Thus there is a possibility of lost knowledge.

[GRC]

In not addressing some earlier points:

Some us do have a day job, so I personally don't have an infinite amount of time to address each point in one go. I'll do my best to get there in due time.

No need to be so judgmental as to suppose that myself or anyone else on the "Edo cast-iron side" is attempting to skirt an issue that is being presented... I think everyone trying to explore that possibility is doing their best to dig up information to address each point.

These things take time to research from a variety of sources, so they aren't as easy to put into writing as quickly as an objection. 

 

So let's address one point now:

5 hours ago, Ford Hallam said:

 They even pointed out that a certain point in the Edo period, household ceramic bowls had been largely replaced by cast iron bowls.”

 

We now know that this statement does not occur in the quoted texts, in any version or interpretation,

 

I don't know how else to interpret this phrasing from Shinya Isogawa, which was backed up by the statement of observation by a Jesuit missionary:

9 hours ago, GRC said:

Regarding the prevalence of cast iron castings in different regions, the relationship with earthen cookers must be discussed. Although the disappearance of earthen cookers became prominent in the middle of the 16th century in Western Japan. This is nothing more than an indication of the spread of cast iron castings and pots.

 

Isogawa's statement, specifically referred to the mid-16th Century. 

The missionary's writings (by Luis Frois), were done during the Momoyama period, specifically from 1578-1593. 

So technically, that is still pre-Edo.

The title of this section of writing is:

9 hours ago, GRC said:

From the Middle Ages to the Early Modern Period

In the author's writings, he refers to the Edo period as the "modern period".

 

You could clearly make the case that ceramic bowls were largely replaced by cast-iron bowls just prior to the Edo period's beginning. So we can chalk that one up to me conflating the section title's reference to "modern times" as "Edo period and I blended the two together.

 

However, do you really think that the Japanese suddenly switched back to the use ceramics and stopped producing/consuming cast-iron goods in mass quantities at the beginning of the Edo period?
 

Additionally, this does not negate the phrasing by the author that is written as a statement of fact. From this, it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to state that the Japanese were clearly producing and consuming cast-iron goods for household use since the mid-1600s. Bowls are a common everyday household item, are they not?

 

Feel free to share an alternate interpretation of the author's statements.

 

 

More on some of Ford's other interpretations later... 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

As much as I have tried, I just can’t seem to stay away from this thread!  There is so much research that can be done and is yet to be found (at least by me!).

 

I happened upon the following research today.  It is a great article written in Japan and translated to English in 2004 and includes some pictures. It is a good read and also deals with 3 different types of casting molds (which I will refer to later in this post).

 

But for now, listed below is the title of the work and where it can be found.  The part of the article I selected deals with metalwork in different periods of Japanese history.  Of particular interest is the Muromachi and Edo periods statements.

 

https://www.nihon-kogeikai.com/TEBIKI-E/4.html

 

“Handbook for the Appreciation of Japanese Traditional Crafts”

2004

 

“Different periods in history have seen the production of different kinds of metalwork in response to the demands of the times, with skills being handed down from one era to the next. During the Yayoi period (300 BC－AD 300) copper was used in the making of swords, mirror and dotaku (bell-shaped ritual objects). During the Tumulus period (258-646) items of personal adornment were used as burial goods. The Nara period (710-794) saw metalworking techniques employed in the production of Buddhist sculptures and ritual implements. Swords and armour were a particular feature of the Kamakura period (1185-1336), while cast iron tea ceremony kettles were produced in large numbers during the Muromachi period (1336-1573). In the Edo period (1615-1868) all kinds of metalwork items were made, including temple bells, garden lanterns and everyday utensils for use by the masses.”

 

The below is included to verify how the handbook was translated-

 

“AFTERWORD

In 2002 the Committee of the Japan Crafts Association (Nihon Kogeikai) decided to commission an English-language version of its previously published Nihon Dento Kogei Kansho no Tebiki (Handbook for the Appreciation of Japanese Traditional Crafts). This work has now been undertaken as part of the Association's 50th anniversary programme and has been made possible thanks to financial support from the Foundation for the Promotion of Japanese Traditional Crafts (Nihon Dento Kogei Shinko Kikin).

Translation into English was preceded by a review of the original Japanese text, simplification into plainer language, and modification according to the perceived needs of non-Japanese readers.

We would like to express our deepest gratitude to volunteers from the Japan Crafts Association for assisting with modifications to the text, and to D&Y Ltd. and its staff for undertaking the English translation. Their enthusiasm and cooperation have contributed enormously to the success of the project.”  

The Japan Crafts Association

September, 2003”

 

The “Afterword” continues, but I included the important stuff!

 

Now, the “Handbook” is a great quick read.  Another interesting part of it is how they talk about casting and how casting molds were made.  Now I am not sure if all these molds could be used for cast iron, but it is nonetheless interesting.  I have included a part of the article below-

 

“CHUKIN (Casting)

Chukin involves heating metal until it melts followed by pouring into a casting mould and subsequent cooling at room temperature.

Casting differs from other metalworking techniques in that forms are made by pouring molten metal into moulds that have been prepared from an original model made of a completely different material. It allows the creation of far more intricate and complex forms than can be made by other metalworking techniques.

Original models may be made of wax, plaster, clay or wood. Wax is particularly suitable for the making of intricate and freely modelled forms and has long been a favoured material. Nowadays metal and silicon are also used.”

 

“MAKING OF CASTING MOULDS

Casting moulds are classified into three types according to how they are made: komegata (sectioned mould), rogata (lost wax mould) and sogata (sogata mould).

 

Komegata = In komegata or sectioned moulding, the mane casting mould is made from a plaster mould that has itself been created from an original clay model. Once the outer mould has been made, an inner mould is prepared in such a way that the gap between the inner and outer moulds will result in the desired thickness of cast metal. The moulds are then hardened by firing to 700-800℃.

 

Rogata = In lost wax casting the mane casting mixture is compacted around an original model made of a special mixture of beeswax and resin. The mould is then hardened by firing to 700-800℃, in the course of which the wax melts and drains away, leaving a hollow space in the centre of the mould.

 

Sogata = A wooden profile template is rotated inside a bucket filled with mane casting mixture to create the outer mould. Once the mould has dried it is removed from the bucket and hardened by firing to

around 700℃.”

 

Anyway, I thought that the “Handbook” contained some very interesting information! 

 

The adventure (and research) continues!

 

With respect,

Dan

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, here is what I consider the “smoking gun” that cast iron tsuba were made during the Edo period of Japanese history (or before).

 

Here is something interesting.  I remember reading the below quote about 8 or 9 months ago but couldn't remember the reference.   Then as luck would have it, the paragraph was posted under another thread on this forum!

 

The below quote can be found in the “Transactions and proceedings of the Japan Society”, ... v.13 (1914-15), page 51 (of the text itself), 3^rd full paragraph on that page.  It is listed below for your reference-

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101064994922&view=1up&seq=48

 

(the title of the article is “Metals and Metal Working in Old Japan” – which is a great read if you have the time!).

 

"in some, the pierced cuts are so fine that they do not exceed 1/250th inch in width, and their sides are perfectly parallel. These were produced by a very laborious method of procedure. A minute hole was first drilled in the iron with a fine steel wire moistened with oil and powdered garnets or siliceous rock; the hole was then elongated into a slit by means of another fine steel wire used as a saw, also moistened with oil and the above powder. These cuts were further continued with flat wires, and were then reduced to the extreme degree of fineness required by hammering both sides of the metal until they were sufficiently closed. The sides of the cuts were kept parallel by rubbing them from time to time with flat wires of steel and grinding powder. Iron guards by the best craftsmen were never cast; they were always of wrought iron."

 

Now, the most important part of the above quote (as it refers to cast iron tsuba) is the last statement.  “Iron guards by the best craftsmen were never cast; they were always of wrought iron”

 

So, how do I interpret that statement?  Does it say that “Iron guards were never cast”, no it does not.

 

What I believe the author is stating is that “Iron guards were cast.  But they were cast not by the best tsuba craftsmen (they were cast by iron casting craftsmen, who are not tsuba craftsmen)”.  Also, “That the best tsuba were made out of wrought iron, and they were made by the best tsuba artisans and craftsmen”.

 

That’s what I conclude from the quote.  Now the next question is “was the author who wrote the article that the quote was taken from "reputable" and knew what he was talking about?”

 

The article was written by William Gowland (1842-1922).  There is a book written about him titled -

 

“William Gowland: “The Father of Japanese Archaeology” Illustrated Edition

by Victor Harris (Author), Kazuo Goto (Author)-2003”

 

There is a complete biography of him to be found here-

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

(it is a very interesting short read!).

 

Now, what is most interesting is that William Gowland started working in Japan in 1872 (which was only 4 years after the ending of the Edo period in Japan).  He stayed for 16 years.  He conducted many archaeological digs and findings (among his varied other interests).

 

So, yes, the man definitely knew what he was talking about in the above quote regarding “cast iron tsuba”.

Now the next question someone may ask is “were the cast iron tsuba he was talking about in the above quote made in the Edo period”?  Which is a good question!

 

Seeing how Gowland was in Japan starting in 1872 and stayed until 1888, then if he did not compare Edo period made cast iron tsuba to Edo period made wrought iron tsuba; that means he would have used (newer made) cast iron tusba made from 1868 (just after the Edo period) until 1888 (when he left Japan) to compare to Edo period made wrought iron tsuba.  Now, that sounds very unlikely.  Especially since the man was an archaeologist and that by definition is “a specialist in archaeology, the scientific study of prehistoric peoples and their cultures by analysis of their artifacts, inscriptions, monuments, etc.”

 

So, my belief is that this is the “smoking gun” statement that concludes that cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo period, and maybe even before the Edo period of Japanese history (although they were considered to be “a much lower quality and not the best tsuba out there”, and that fact has previously been discussed on various posts to this thread!).

 

Anyway, just some more fun research that took up a good part of my day (but hey, I am retired so that was great!).

 

The adventure continues!

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

OK, I finally had a bit of time to dig in to Ford’s list of comments and opinions. My apologies for the length of this post, but as I mentioned previously, it takes time and effort to go through a series of articles and put it all together.

 

Let’s address these points from Ford:

“the way Glen presented the matter is could be inferred that casting iron is simple and only requires a 'relatively low temperature'. This is, as I described, far from the truth.”

“he's making statements as though fact when he is unclear regarding the technical issues involved.”

“I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature". “

 

Look up any information on the temperature range of Tatara, and 1200 Celsius is well within that range… no great leap at all. Just about any tatara should be able to melt cast iron… plain and simple.

 

Here’s an excerpt from the abstract of a published Japanese article about the production of sword steel using small tatara:

“The steelmaking operations using a small "Tatara" furnace have been performed to investigate the effects of furnace size on the characteristics of "Kera" (steel bloom).”

“It is important for Tatara steelmaking operation to arrange the furnace size with which iron sand is reduced and carburized at temperatures around 1350 degrees C without being blown out.”

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262767375_Effect_of_Size_for_Small_Tatara_Steelmaking_Furnace

 

So, if 1350 C is the ideal temperature for making sword steel in a tatara, then reaching 1200 C to melt some cast iron would be a comparatively simple task.

 

Here is another published Japanese research paper, where even an improperly functioning tatara reached the 1200 C temperature.

たたら製鉄法に基づく向浜砂鉄の製錬と鋳造--創造工房実習より得られた二三の知見 | CiNii Research

 

In the publication from the Faculty of Engineering Sciences of Akita Univeristy, by Yoshinari Komatsu, Shoji Goto and Setsuo Aso, they were able to smelt their own cast iron from Japanese sandiron, using a small tatara. Using metallurgical analysis, they verified the product to be grey cast iron with a carbon content of 4.12%.

 

From the paper’s abstract:

“A small-sized "Tatara-buki" furnace was made for laboratory working. Iron sand was mined from Mukaihama beach in the city of Akita and applied to iron making based on the "Tatara-buki" process.”

 

They managed to reach temperatures of 1470 Kelvin (1197 degrees Celsius) in their tatara, DESPITE the fact that one of their air sources was misaligned, so they didn’t even have the proper air flow in their tatara. They reported that the improper airflow also led to slag buildup which exacerbated the issue, so their tatara’s temperature declined after reaching the initial ~1200 Celsius peak, but it was still enough for them to produce cast iron from their collected iron sand.

 

Here's the graph of their measured temperature values, using two different temperature sensors (the temperatures are expressed in units of “Kelvin”)

 

In their evaluation as to whether or not this type of activity would be valuable as an educational tool for use with materials science students at the university, the authors stated:

“it is easy to make iron and cast using materials that are readily available”

 

So, Ford’s statements of “I'd also add that melting cast iron is impossible "at a relatively low temperature".  Typically 1200 degrees C is needed to do the job, this is really at about the limits of a bellows fed charcoal fire” and “The point being that casting iron is not a quick nor simple process. ", are clearly NOT SUPPORTED by the Japanese who specialize in materials science and have actively researched traditional small sized tatara. These opinion-based assertions by Ford, again completely unsupported by any evidence or citations from Ford, are COMPLETELY FALSE.

 

More later with information about casting methods from Japanese sources (including the Yoshinari Komatsu paper cited above, and the longer Shinya Isogawa paper cited in recent posts).    

 

I see Dan already got started on it...

 

 

[GRC]

On the issue of “opinion-based” thinking.

 

As for my knowledge base, I will freely acknowledge that before getting into this thread, I knew virtually nothing about casting iron. Over the months of reading and researching the topic from both Western and Japanese sources, the more I learn, the more I realize how little Ford knows about this specific topic in relation to Edo period Japan.

 

One major issue, is that Ford appears to be stuck on the idea that only the small-sized tatara was available to the Japanese throughout the Edo period. These are often referred to as “field tatara” in the literature. His understanding of what these basic tatara were capable of is overly simplistic and deeply flawed, as pointed out in my previous post.

 

It is also clear that Ford seems unaware of the degree of “industrialization” that the Japanese employed in their steel and cast iron production capabilities as they switched to increasingly advanced, larger scale tatara with fixed buildings and whole communities of workers dedicated to running these facilities. There were many posts on this topic earlier in this thread.

 

I really don’t want to harp on it, but a similar bias was demonstrated recently in this thread, where he asserted that sukashi tsuba were exclusively chiseled and never sawn. This was also demonstrated to be a false statement in the resulting spin-off thread: One more thing- the use of saws in tsuba making? - Tosogu - Nihonto Message Board (militaria.co.za). It does seem to be presenting as a “pattern” of behavior.  However, I certainly could be wrong about linking these events… it’s just an observation. My apologies if I’m off base on this one, but this is how it comes across to me.