2000 year old sword

[WillFalstaff]

For reference.

From “The Art of the Japanese Sword”, by Kapps and Yoshihara.

 

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Kofun Jidai (c. 250–538) swords showing Hamon and clear signs of forging:

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Oh, so that is how this forum goes!  The individual himself cannot back up his opinions with research.  So, others “come to his rescue”.  Maybe he will get more “likes”!  Give me a break!  The “good old boys” syndrome!

[1kinko]

Nope, it’s the knowledge syndrome. 
Brian- please grant Dan his wish. Enough- none are so blind as those who won’t see.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Throwing a childish tantrum isn't the correct path if you're trying to create a wide discourse of knowledge and information.

[Dan tsuba]

Darrel - Who are you?  You want to bug me with your platitudes?  Good job!  How many threads do you have that have attained 10.9k views!  Let’s compare!  

 

And then we have “throwing a childish tantrum” from John.  Again, a total “put down” from a “Grand Master”.  What is up with you guys?  Your constant “put downs” and “Mr. know it all attitudes” is something that can be relied upon.

 

If you all spent more time researching stuff instead of "belittling" members, maybe the forum can "move forward"!

 

 

[1kinko]

Sorry Dan, I’m here to learn and share what I know, not for the “likes” or to merely create controversy. When you can read the original modern and ancient Japanese and know the different terms for iron/steel/cast iron/etc/etc and the precision of the English translations/transliterations, then your research may match what has been written and evaluated over the past 200 years. I encourage you to present your research for peer review. 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Dan, you seem to be the only one concerned about "likes", "views" and titles. You may as well be jealous about stained underpants, given enough time everyone will have them.

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Darrel,

 

You are a kind and an honorable individual.  I apologize for any disagrement.  I guess I just got a little "bugged" over some of the posts.  Hey, stuff happens!

 

With respect,

Dan

[Dan tsuba]

Oh, and then there is a reply from John!

Mr. "Grand Master" do you know what "KMA" means!  Figure it out!

[robinalexander]

3 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

Oh, so that is how this forum goes!  The individual himself cannot back up his opinions with research.  So, others “come to his rescue”.  Maybe he will get more “likes”!  Give me a break!  The “good old boys” syndrome!

Dan this is exactly what a "Forum" is and does.  As far as other coming to someone's "rescue" again it's a forum.  Members can agree, disagree or agree to disagree.  To be 'rescued' by someone else's comments seems to be pretty subjective to me.  It's often going to be the case in Forum situation that many members overwhelmingly disagree with a particular post or viewpoint and, not surprisingly this can also work the other way.

 

I am sure many people enjoy getting 'likes' its human nature and people generally liked to be liked.  It just makes you feel good.

 

However, I don't really believe members actively seek out 'likes' or use them as some sort of measure of popularity, knowledge or even success. Although it seems the same cannot be said for those who quote the number of views on a thread.  But it can't be denied, 10.9k views is very impressive.

[ROKUJURO]

I think, the number of views in a thread isn't an indication of quality or interest. You would have to look into these comments to know if they were made on the basis of consent or disagreement (or protest). If someone writes complete bull***t and the community - as a measure to stop wrong information being spread which would be in opposition to what this forum aims at - there will of course be a lot of contradiction!

To the address of Dan: In fact you don't do any research. You gather passages from texts and present them with your personal interpretation. You use citations out of context to support your opinion, but in fact you lack the very basic knowledge and understanding of many subjects you are dealing with. You post a crude hypothesis - far away of what is known and agreed upon by experts - and are happy to create a turmoil. Everyone is wrong who disagrres, but as a forum community we have a responsibility towards the (newer) members and towards the actual state of knowledge and science.

I can easily accept that I don't know everything that is known even in my fields of interest and work. That is why I am here: to learn.

I don't have a problem with a newbie posting simple questions or even wrong information here, and I will always be happy to help with what little I know. But I find it stubborn and not very intelligent to run against a brick wall....

[Dan tsuba]

My friend Jean,

 

O.K, I yield.  You win!  You get the most “likes”, “hearts” (love), and “thumbs up” (thanks) for belittling a member.  You must feel very proud!  Good job!

 

Now, can we just “move on” and try to keep things civil?  I will give it my best effort, how about you?

 

Dan

[ROKUJURO]

Dan,

this is sad. You seem to believe that this is a personal matter or a popularity competition? No, it's about facts, and I like and respect you as much as any other member. My problem is that I cannot stand it when clear evidence is not "seen".

So we can leave it at that if you like.

 

[Ford Hallam]

For what it's worth, and at the risk of being labelled one of the 'good old boys', I must add my support and agreement with everything that Jean has written in this thread.

 

It really is a frustrating exercise to have to try and make sense of some of the jumbled and incomplete expressions of the metallurgical facts as posted here. 

 

The broader subject of early metallurgy is vast and is constantly developing and being refined. But certain aspects of the science and technologies involved are by now pretty well established and accepted as the basis of this area of investigation among professionals. We would all do well to familiarise ourselves with these fundamentals and to properly learn where we really are at in terms of understanding.

 

A single discovery, paper or article published by an institute does not constitute a dramatic break-though or reappraisal of established understanding! It takes a number of such papers or artefacts, all reaching the same or similar conclusions, to then be peer reviewed and perhaps then eventually incorporated into the wider picture. Citing bits and pieces of random articles found on the internet is hardly exhaustive or reliable in terms of establishing the present state of knowledge on the subject.

 

Another important point to bear in mind is that all too frequently academia is not a pure project. In this particular case I would suggest that politics, or nationalism, plays a part. So I tend to view such dramatic 'new' discoveries with a good deal of hesitation. I wait to see how things will work out.

 

It'll take a lot more really hard work reading, understanding and putting into context the actually published data and theories on the subjects than cherry picking scraps off the internet.

 

If anyone is honestly interested and committed to learning about the subject of archeo-metallurgy I'll be happy to post a fairly comprehensive list of the foundational works in English that are presently considered most reliable and that I've found invaluable in building my own understanding of the origins of metalworking.

 

 

[Larason2]

I am honestly interested and committed to learning about archaeo-metallurgy!

[John C]

4 hours ago, Larason2 said:

learning about archaeo-metallurgy!

What's interesting about the category is that it is a combination of both social sciences and physical sciences. In terms of archeology, a social science, we infer certain things based on commonalities within discoveries. We can only examine an ancient society through the interpretation of artifacts. Metallurgy, in contrast, is a physical science whereby artifacts can be examined under a microscope in "real time" with known properties and chemical reactions.  

John C.  

[b.hennick]

So, Brian.  I respectfully request that you “lock me out” of the forum.

 

Hey Dan: I enjoyed the threads that you started and contribute to. Brian does not need to lock you out. You can stay or leave. I for one would be happier if you stayed. I too know about the old blade that was polished and found to have hada and hamon. I too do not remember where I learned that. As a retired science teacher, I too like to see references that back up presented work.

[Baba Yaga]

"You use citations out of context to support your opinion, but in fact you lack the very basic knowledge and understanding of many subjects you are dealing with. You post a crude hypothesis - far away of what is known and agreed upon by experts - and are happy to create a turmoil."

 

I don't understand why people participate in a put down of contrary group think observation. Didn't everyone learn from all the main stream C19 BS? Progression is about contrary of thought. If you don't like someone, put them on ignore. I have! BTW, why does 2 active accounts come up under a the same person I put on ignore??? 

[Brian]

Group think. Yeah. One person rebelling against mainstream thought does not a proper contrary argument make. When you have a group of scholars maintaining the same theories, then maybe you can start crying foul.
Btw, send me the 2 account details of what you observed?

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, it was stated:

“Group think. Yeah. One person rebelling against mainstream thought does not a proper contrary argument make. When you have a group of scholars maintaining the same theories, then maybe you can start crying foul.”

 

Again, I believe someone is “belittling” another member!

 

Also, “One person rebelling against mainstream thought...”.   Isn’t that how the starting of most "mainstream thought" change is initiated?

 

And then it is stated “When you have a group of scholars…”

 

The below is from weblink- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar

 

“A scholar is a person who is a researcher or has expertise in an academic discipline. A scholar can also be an academic, who works as a professor, teacher, or researcher at a university. An academic usually holds an advanced degree or a terminal degree, such as a master's degree or a doctorate (PhD). Independent scholars and public intellectuals work outside of the academy yet may publish in academic journals and participate in scholarly public discussion.”

 

So, maybe the forum should be limited to “scholars only”.  Ha, ha, ha, ha, etc!

 

Dan, A.A., B.S., M.P.A (degrees conferred will be shown upon request!)

 

[John C]

51 minutes ago, Brian said:

When you have a group of scholars maintaining the same theories, then maybe you can start crying foul.

I assume you mean unproven theories? There are many theories in different fields of study that are proven and cited by scholars routinely.  That isn't so much group-think as stating what has been accepted to be true.

John C. 

[Baba Yaga]

21 hours ago, Brian said:

Group think. Yeah. One person rebelling against mainstream thought does not a proper contrary argument make. When you have a group of scholars maintaining the same theories, then maybe you can start crying foul.

 

Start with an easy one and most resent, "The World is Flat". Then we can progress into bleeding people, taking hot baths with infected people and not ever being able to reach the moon. Many people still believe the world is flat and the moon landing was rigged.  Group think "Scholars" have been wrong as many times as being right.  You can look up the talking heads quoting "Global Warming" and New York flooding up to the Statue of Liberty's elbow,,,,Neil degrasse tyson.   Science facts are changed by debate crying fowl. 

 

Nihonto? The obscurity and "myths" cry fowl. Sorry about the rebuttal, but logic is logical.   

 

BTW I'm not the person who downgraded you. 

[OceanoNox]

On 3/18/2023 at 3:07 AM, John C said:

I assume you mean unproven theories? There are many theories in different fields of study that are proven and cited by scholars routinely.  That isn't so much group-think as stating what has been accepted to be true.

Exactly. Also, theories (or mechanisms to explain phenomena) are regularly re-examined and re-analyzed, as experimental methods and tools improve. If theories keep being proven right by people all around the world, especially seeing the competition between researchers to be the first to publish the next breakthrough, it's not group think, it's just true.

 

On 3/18/2023 at 2:13 AM, Brian said:

One person rebelling against mainstream thought does not a proper contrary argument make.

If the data is valid, it does. Just as some theories keep being validated, sometimes the experimental methods are not suitable and the results wrong (it happened for many papers in my field that were proven wrong once other experimental methods became available).

 

[Dan tsuba]

More archaeometallurgy information on 2000 year old cast iron artifacts-

 

The information was found at -

 

https://archaeology.jp/remains/nakao/

 

It is an article written by the “Japanese Archaeological Association” in (probably) about June of 2022.

 

It deals with a 2000-year-old burial mound found in Japan and some of the items found therein.

 

The article deals with the finding of a cast iron axe head made from a two piece mold (among other artifacts made from forged iron).  Again, please refer to the original article shown above.

 

So, my conclusion from the article is that cast iron items were probably regularly being imported from China to Japan about 2000 years ago.  And those ancient items would be difficult to find now because most of them have probably been “reabsorbed” into the earth over time!

 

Also, what seems obvious, is that the Chinese had the technology to make cast iron tools (and it is thought that they also could have made cast iron weapons).  Whether that technology was ever transferred or used by Japanese metal workers is still something yet to be determined.

 

The adventure continues!

 

With respect,

Dan

[Ynot]

Hi Dan, 

 

I read somewhere the Japanese prefered to copy chinese axheads with their own steel but also make it look as it was a cast piece.

But I cant remember where I read it. So I guess at least one axe was imported from China to Japan.

 

 

Tony

[Dan tsuba]

More interesting archaeometallurgy information (at least I think so!)–

 

Here is something interesting.  How about cast iron and wrought iron being used together in a “co-fusion” process to make a sword!  Maybe that will answer some questions about the 2000-year-old sword (cast iron?) mentioned In this thread?

 

Here are two research papers, from China, discussing the ancient “co-fusion” process of varying metals.

 

Of course, it is of interest to me because it is known that Japan learned much of their metal technology from China

.

An interesting research paper on the subject of co-fusion is found here (with also many interesting pictures of the cast iron fused with the wrought iron).  Published in November2020.

 

“In-situ observation of ancient co-fusion steelmaking process based on HT-CLSM”

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-76326-5

 

Also, another paper published in September 2020, by the same authors as the article cited above (including  pictures of how they "layered" the different metals before forging and the "hada" on the finished sword).

 

“Replication Experiments and Microstructural Evolution of the Ancient Co-Fusion Steelmaking Process”

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345194373_Replication_Experiments_and_Microstructural_Evolution_of_the_Ancient_Co-Fusion_Steelmaking_Process

 

These papers are really technical, and my conclusions are probably incorrect!  But what I derive from the research papers listed above is that cast iron and wrought iron were “co-fused” to make a sword.

 

Whether this was done in ancient times to make swords more quickly (as in times of war), is undeterminable by me.  Did the Japanese war lords purchase swords from China to outfit their armies?  Did the Japanese themselves bring over the technology from China to make their own co-fused swords?  When did this technique of “co-fusion” come to an end and why?

 

The adventure continues,

Dan

 

 

[Baba Yaga]

On 3/19/2023 at 6:41 AM, OceanoNox said:

Exactly. Also, theories (or mechanisms to explain phenomena) are regularly re-examined and re-analyzed, as experimental methods and tools improve. If theories keep being proven right by people all around the world, especially seeing the competition between researchers to be the first to publish the next breakthrough, it's not group think, it's just true.

 

If the data is valid, it does. Just as some theories keep being validated, sometimes the experimental methods are not suitable and the results wrong (it happened for many papers in my field that were proven wrong once other experimental methods became available).

 

 

Extremely interesting paper. Either way countries tend to cleave towards politics and religion over facts and new science.  

[Dan tsuba]

Well, this thread has been another interesting journey!

 

So, after this thread (“2000-year-old sword”), the “7.5 footlong (ancient) iron sword!” thread, “Blade construction and purchase price” thread and the “Tsuba casting molds?” thread, what have I learned?

 

Let me summarize:

 

I think the term “cast iron” is a misnomer.  As far as making a sword, cast iron does not necessarily have to be “cast” in its molten state using sand or clay molds.

 

Cast iron is a high carbon content containing metal.  If it was melted into its molten state and made into a sword using sand or clay molds, that sword was most likely used only for ceremonial purposes.

 

Cast iron by itself is not malleable; it cannot be forged, hammered, and shaped into a sword without shattering. Although in one of the threads it was mentioned that it could possibly be annealed, decarburized, reheated, and possibly forged into a sword.  But that is an area “down the road” for further debate.

 

But, through the process of co-fusion cast iron metal can be fused with wrought iron metal.  When the combination metals are heated to the proper temperature, then it can be hammered and forged into a sword.

 

Now, it has been mentioned on this thread (and I summarize here) that cast iron (a high carbon content metal) is a byproduct of the lower carbon content (wrought iron) metal produced in a furnace.  It was also further mentioned that the smiths usually threw this (cast iron) high carbon content metal away (because it was of no use).

 

Well, it seems obvious from the previous papers mentioned in this thread that the Chinese used all the metals produced in the furnace to forge a sword by the co-fusion of the different carbon content metals.  That would seem to be a time saving, cost saving, and more efficient method of forging a sword by using all the metals that the furnace produced.

 

This would explain the finding of cast iron metal in some ancient swords found in Japan.  Again, whether those swords were made in China or if the technology was passed onto the Japanese sword smiths is something yet to be determined.

 

And for whatever reason; whether the technique of co-fusion was lost over time (as stated in an article that I cannot recall where I found it), or it was determined to be a less effective way of forging a sword is also another area yet to be determined.

 

Here is a new thought from the examination of the subject matter mentioned above (and the subject matter mentioned in this thread)-

 

What if the process of co-fusion was not really lost at all.  Could it be that the Japanese smiths brought the process up to the next (and final ultimate) level?  Perhaps the co-fusion process (using cast iron and wrought iron) for making swords began in ancient China and culminated in its ultimate perfection when that technology reached Japan (where they co-fused a higher carbon content wrought iron and steel)?

 

(from-  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_swordsmithing#:~:text=Three%20types%20of%20steel%20are,of%20the%20blade%20(kawagane).

 

“Forging

The steel bloom, or kera, that is produced in the tatara contains steel that varies greatly in carbon content, ranging from wrought iron to pig iron. Three types of steel are chosen for the blade; a very low carbon steel called hocho-tetsu is used for the core of the blade (shingane). The high carbon steel (tamahagane), and the remelted pig iron (cast iron or nabe-gane),[11] are combined to form the outer skin of the blade (kawagane).[12][13][14] Only about 1/3 of the kera produces steel that is suitable for sword production.[15]”

 

Next listed is a website that describes how the smith forges (co-fusion) the hard and soft steels together to make the Japanese sword (I found it an interesting short read!).

 

https://www.swordsoftheeast.com/forgingasamuraisword.aspx

 

Also, another paper previously listed in a thread is of interest.  It has cut views of swords, and graphs of carbon content-

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350407198_Microstructure_Distribution_of_Japanese_Sword_Cross_Sections_Analyzed_by_the_Diffractometer_TAKUMI_at_J-PARC

 

Now, I am not saying that all or any of my conclusions are correct.  But I am giving it my best try here! Just some interesting stuff that I have thought about!

 

The adventure continues,

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all,

 

So, for those still interested in archaeometallurgy I was “stumbling” around the internet and found some interesting stuff.  A book titled-

 

“Archaeology and History of Toraijin Human, technological, and cultural flow from the Korean Peninsula to the Japanese Archipelago c. 800 BC–AD 600

Song-nai Rhee, C. Melvin Aikens, with Gina L. Barnes”

 

The book states how iron technology came directly from Korea into Japan (among other things!).  It has some pictures and diagrams of ancient swords and also talks about cast iron and forged iron.  It also states about the large Korean population of the ancient Japanese city of Nara (that is maybe why that 7.5-foot-long iron sword was found in Nara (referring to this thread-

 

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/44142-75-footlong-ancient-iron-sword/

 

The book was published in 2022 with 30 pages of references!  You can go to the index and look up “iron technology and iron tools in ancient Korea”.  Then you can also look up “Nara”. The book has 228 pages.

 

The PDF of the book is found here-

 

https://www.archaeopress.com/Archaeopress/download/9781789699661

 

It is a long read but contains some very great information and research.  Like I stated above, you can just go to the index and find what you are looking for.

 

The adventure continues,

 

With respect,

Dan