Another iron wasp tsuba . Choshu Hagi ju Tomo??michi??

[rematron]

@Ford Hallam, thank you for the explanation of the motif.  I love information like that.  It brings a whole other life to the piece.  

 

I'm still curious, though, as to how virtually identical tsuba were made by hand and yet they are not considered master pieces of the craft considering the talent it would take to do that.  It's as if the whole thing were traced but it's iron.  Did they use carbon paper rubbing and constant comparisons to a master piece?  And the artist just copied that master to the most minute detail?  

 

And why?  Colin made a great point about the lack of need for mass replicated "real thing" tsuba.  Did the artist just do it for the challenge?  I'm sure you would charge a lot to be commissioned for an exact replica of a tsuba in hand.  

 

Please forgive my ignorance.  Just trying to understand.  

 

Best regards,

Jeremy

[Ford Hallam]

In response to Dan's valiant defence I must comment the following.

 

That Mr Huish asks about cast iron tsuba is not evidence of the fact of cast iron tsuba at all. Reading his other queries it is very obvious the poor man knew practically nothing at all about the subject. A point his actual letter makes abundant clear and is the whole point of his enquiry. Further, when he writes; 

 

Quote

“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 pro- ducts 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.” 

 

Here our Mr Huish is simply echoing a fairly dull and uninformed view that is easily overturned by even a cursory study of the better and best work of the later periods of tosogu production. Never mind the cultural arrogance inherent in insisting on a hierarchical judgement of an alien culture's art!

As for his comment on working in hard wrought iron being shirked, again the observations of a man with absolutely no first hand understanding of the medium he seems confident to pontificate on. Wrought iron is a great deal easier to carve and inlay than buggering around with cast iron, of that I can assure anyone 

 

Quote

so that many of the pieces made between 1840 — 1870 could never have been used for the purposes for which they were professedly intended

Given his previous, very basic, questions on the broader subject of tosogu one wonders where his new found authority comes from .  One year he's apparently completely in the dark the next he's seemingly able to define Edo period work from a very specific time frame, 1840 - 1870, and is pretty confidant he knows what their professed purpose was! Remarkable! 

 

 

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Jeremy

 

Glad you appreciate the motif context, it always adds a nice element of meaning doesn't it?

 

Copying earlier work or standard models was a central aspect of all craft apprenticeships. The fastidiousness of Japanese work is of course one of its defining characteristics, and even more remarkable in relation to he way things are manufactured in our modern world. Japanese artists used number of clever ways to accurately transfer designs from copy/design books to metal so that the close similarity of the mei in the two tsuba examples we see here is not all that remarkable at all. If you were to carefully trace a sample mei from a written example on fine Japanese paper you'd then have a pretty close copy. To transfer that as a guide to the metal you can wipe a little grease on the back of the paper and dust the metal surface with a fine powder, like baby powder. Then if you carefully position the paper and accurately trace the characters using a suitable stylus you will find the mei revealed perfectly clearly in the dusted surface when you lift the paper away. You'd then carefully scribe the mei with a scriber to fix it in place, and then properly chisel it secure in the knowledge that it is all accurately laid out and in the same proportions as the studio exemplar model.

 

And while the two tsuba look superficially very much alike, as you pointed out, there are any number of gentle variations, all perfectly normal and to be expected. 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello Ford,

 

You stated “That Mr Huish asks about cast iron tsuba is not evidence of the fact of cast iron tsuba at all. Reading his other queries it is very obvious the poor man knew practically nothing at all about the subject. A point his actual letter makes abundant clear and is the whole point of his enquiry.” And you also stated other things about Mr. Huish.

 

I see you had doubts about some items written by Huish.  I mean you are comparing your knowledge of tsuba in 2023 with the best information Huish had at the time about tsuba in 1889.  The man was trying to do the best he could with the knowledge and information he had at that time.

 

He was also obviously a very learned man.  I have included a short bio below and some of his works on Japan-

 

Marcus Bourne Huish (25 November 1843 – 4 May 1921) was an English^[1] barrister, writer and art dealer.^[2]

Bourne was the editor of The Art Journal from 1881 to 1892^[3] and was the first Managing Director of the Fine Art Society.^[2] He was a Japanophile and was given the honour of Chevalier of the Order of the Sacred Treasure.^[4] He was the Honorary Librarian of the Japan Society of the UK.^[2]

(above from-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Bourne_Huish-)

 

Some books written about Japan by Huish (or edited by him)-

“Japan and its Art

Marcus B.Huish

Published by Fine Art Society, 1893”

“Japan and its Art.

Huish, Marcus B. (Editor of 'The Art Journal').:

Published by The Fine Art Society, 1889”

“Japan and its art

Huish, Marcus Bourne

Published by B.T. Batsford, 1912”

(probably different edited editions for the varying years)

 

“Artistic Japan: A Monthly Illustrated Journal of Arts & Industries Volume One

Bing, S.; Huish, Marcus B. [Editor]

Published by Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, Limited, 1888”

 

“Fifty years of new Japan: (Kaikoku gojūnen shi) / comp. by Count Shigénobu Okuma... English version edited by Marcus B. Huish.

Ōkuma, Shigenobu, 1838-1922, Date:1909”

 

Now, in another thread-(posting date Nov 25, 2022) I also qouted something about cast iron tsuba-

 

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/38416-tsuba-casting-molds/page/8/

 

I quoted William Gowland (1842-1922).  Here is his bio-

 

“William Gowland FRAI (16 December 1842 – 9 June 1922) was an English mining engineer who carried out archaeological work at Stonehenge and in Japan. He has been called the "Father of Japanese Archaeology".^[1]

Biography[edit]

Gowland was born in Sunderland, County Durham, in northern England. He attended the Royal College of Chemistry and Royal School of Mines at South Kensington, specialising in metallurgy, and worked as a chemist and as a metallurgist at the Broughton Copper Company from 1870 to 1872. However, in 1872, at the age of 30, he was recruited by the Meiji government of the Empire of Japan as a foreign engineering advisor at the Osaka Zōheikyoku, the forerunner of the Japan Mint.”

(taken from-

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

 

Are you going to have a problem with what he stated also (in 1914-1915)?  Which was probably based on his stay in Japan from 1872 to 1888.

 

Things change.  Technology changes.  Opinions change.  Research techniques change.  Again, I state the only way to tell if a tsuba is made out of cast iron is to take a hammer to it, or have it metallurgically non-invasive (or even invasively) tested!  Otherwise everything else is just an individual's "best guess".

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

Morning Dan

 

absolutely am I comparing my current understanding wit that of Mr Huish back in 1888. But it was you who thought it valid to use his questioning about cast iron tsuba to support your thesis who presented him. My point is his comment isn't proof of anything, his other achievements aside. 

 

As for Prof. Gowland, yes, of course I'm familiar with him and his work. Intimately so and for almost as long as I've been a goldsmith; ie: over 40 years. I actually have in my possession a copy of every paper he wrote on the subject of Japanese metalworking technology. He's proven to be a very reliable observer and reassuringly precise and considered in his writing. His hugely detailed publication on Japanese casting technology in particular is a masterpiece of reporting.

 

And no, I have absolutely no objections to almost anything he wrote. However, your interpretation is< I'm afraid, potentially fatally flawed.

 

When Gowland writes, like many of his expert peers, he is very precise in what he says. If he says something as a point of fact it is not wise to then jump to the unwarranted conclusion that what he didn't address is therefore the obvious corollary. He writes that the bast makers worked in wrought iron. He did not say therefore that lesser makers used casting. This is entirely your supposition and is not a safe one. Given Gowland's relatively high status in Japan and the access afforded to him to the finer aspects of metalcraft I wouldn't expect him to concern himself with rubbish at all, especially with so much remarkable material to work with at hand. He report on what he is certain of from personal experience, and wisely makes no comment on an aspect that he does not address anywhere else, ie; cast iron tsuba. Does this mean there were no cast iron tsuba, no...it merely means Gowland did not make any comment on that possibility. 

 

 I will respond, to end my involvement in this discussion with a link to a summation of my opinions on the matter here;

And take the liberty of post my own 'smoking gun' quote, this time from an authority who's time in Japan was exceptional and who's observations and reporting might be taken as reasonably reliable and authentic, from the source and of the time, so to speak.

Capt. Francis Brinkley arrived in Japan in 1867 (nine years before the Hei-to edict banning the public wearing of swords and the final stage in the abolition of the warrior class!) and remained there until his death in 1912. Worth noting that Brinkley was married to the daughter of a Mito clan samurai, so I imagine he had access to authentic Bushi culture in a way probably unavailable to many or most new comers to Japan.

 

This from Brinkley's "A History of the Japanese people" (1915)(vol 7, p 256)

 

Quote

"It maybe well here to dismiss, once for all, a theory sometimes advanced by writers in Europe that many of the elaborate guards of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were of cast iron.

That cast-iron guards had no existence cannot be affirmed ; they may sometimes have been made for weapons of the most inferior description. But the Japanese themselves deny that cast iron was ever regarded as a suitable material for a sword-guard, its liability to fracture being a fatal objection. The connoisseur, and every samurai was something of a connoisseur in matters concerning his sword, attached more importance to the tempering of the metal than to the fashion of the ornamental chiselling, and in every record of great armourers skill in forging iron heads the list of their achievements. ..."

 

 

 

Identifying a piece as being of cast iron isn't particularly difficult in hand, this is not the issue at hand. The real task would be to find a confirmed Edo period piece that is clearly of cast iron. The historical placement of the piece itself must first be demonstrated reliably, and only then can the matter of its method of manufacture be examined. To identify a piece as cast and only thereafter insist that it is from the Edo period runs contrary to what we can reliably demonstrate and seems illogical to me given the darth of information to support the whole notion of cast iron tsuba anyway.

[roger dundas]

Does the risk of fracture of a cast iron tsuba bring into question the understanding that the sole(?) reason for a tsuba was to prevent the sword wielder's hands from slipping up onto the blade's cutting edge ?

It would appear that a tsuba served two purposes, the second being to shield the hands from a cutting blow from an opponent's blade although apparently very few tsuba show blade cuts.

I enjoy it that there are still so many contentious issues in this field, many still being teased out and discussed by our deeply knowledgeable members.

Thank you Ford et al.

Roger j

[Brian]

We know it was not primarily a defense, but consider that no Samurai would use a tsuba that broke when he dropped his sword or it fell onto the floor. Fragile tsuba would simply not have been acceptable.

[ROKUJURO]

Good comment Roger!

There is a fraction who believe in the opinion of some early authors without really thinking about it.

A TSUBA is certainly not meant to parry blows from an opponent's blade as we know it from European medieval swords. But looking at the SAMURAI's fencing techniques, there are very few thrusting techniques with KATANA which would command a "hand-stop" on the TSUKA. 

Parrying with a Japanese sword is done with the sides of the blade, blocking could be done with the MUNE. Deflecting the opponent's sword is a basic techique. Nevertheless, the enemy's blade may slide down your own and is ideally stopped by the TSUBA before reaching your rosy little fingers. That is the moment when your TSUBA may receive a KIRI-KOMI; I have seen a number of them, remarkably mostly on iron TSUBA.

May I remind that special thrusting weapons like TANTO usually have small or (in the case of AIKUCHI) no TSUBA, and it seems they worked as intended.....And finally there are some early sword types with no TSUBA as well.

My opinion after studying the subject carefully is that TSUBA served several purposes - in later times also decorative ones. But the defensive character seems most important to me, hence a certain basic quality in terms of toughness was necessary, especially in times of frequent wars, that is before the EDO JIDAI.

[Spartancrest]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

Fragile tsuba would simply not have been acceptable.

 

4 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

a certain basic quality in terms of toughness was necessary

 

Yet there are leather tsuba, makie tsuba, ivory and even stone tsuba. All with signs of being mounted - I think we constantly forget that the Edo period was predominantly peaceful and very few actual battles were undertaken. What also distorts things is tsuba made of perishable material do just that - perish - and that is one reason they are few and far between now, but there were times when leather tsuba in particular dominated.

 

https://www.tosoguya.com/nerikawa_tsuba.html

https://www.ebay.com/itm/295354559618

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/20110-jade-tsuba/

https://yakiba.com/tsuba-antler-crown/

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!  So am I off topic here?  Anyway I would like to respond to Ford's latest post-

 

Good morning, Ford!  Hope the weather is good where you are at!

 

You bring up several good points in your most recent post.

 

I also appreciate one of your statements in regards to Gowland- (I quote a statement that you wrote)-

 

“He report on what he is certain of from personal experience, and wisely makes no comment on an aspect that he does not address anywhere else, ie; cast iron tsuba. Does this mean there were no cast iron tsuba, no...it merely means Gowland did not make any comment on that possibility.”

 

Also, you stated in a quote from Brinkley-

 

“This from Brinkley's "A History of the Japanese people" (1915)(vol 7, p 256)"

  Quote

 

"It maybe well here to dismiss, once for all, a theory sometimes advanced by writers in Europe that many of the elaborate guards of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were of cast iron.

 

That cast-iron guards had no existence cannot be affirmed ; they may sometimes have been made for weapons of the most inferior description. But the Japanese themselves deny that cast iron was ever regarded as a suitable material for a sword-guard, its liability to fracture being a fatal objection. The connoisseur, and every samurai was something of a connoisseur in matters concerning his sword, attached more importance to the tempering of the metal than to the fashion of the ornamental chiselling, and in every record of great armourers skill in forging iron heads the list of their achievements. ..."

 

So here Brinkley is talking about the 15^th and 16^th centuries (1400’s to 1500’s).  But what is primarily being discussed in this and other threads is the possibility of cast iron tsuba in the Edo period (1603-1867 – 17^th through 19^th centuries).

 

Also, even Brinkley states “That cast-iron guards had no existence cannot be affirmed; they may sometimes have been made for weapons of the most inferior description.”

 

Anyway, some interesting stuff.  I feel the discourse is still open for discussion.

 

The adventure continues!

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

[1kinko]

Student: What is the secret to eternal happiness?

Sensei: To not argue with fools.

Student: I disagree!

Sensei: Yes, you are right! 

[Matsunoki]

Blimey, didn’t expect all this when I innocently posted my tsuba🙂

…………meantime if I can find the lid I’ll put it back on this can.

 

[rematron]

I've seen photos of shattered tsuba.  Those would be cast iron, correct?

[Brian]

There is a difference between cast iron tsuba made to sell to foreign suckers, and ones that were made to be mounted on swords that were carried.
I'm personally one that doesn't believe they were made for use, and were made to sell to gullible Westerners. Maybe 100 years ago, maybe 30 years ago...but still not genuine tsuba.
Others differ in their opinions, that's fine.

[rematron]

Thank you all for the responses to my own questions.  I deeply appreciate it.  I've gone back and begun to read all the threads on "cast iron tsuba" and I can see those comments being repeated here, so I sincerely apologize for adding to the cacophony. 

 

For the question of Edo period cast iron tsuba I can see now that what is needed is a cast iron tsuba verified to have been made in the Edo period.  Or an Edo period facility or workshop to be excavated that shows some sort of physical proof of the process. Without that, it's all speculation.  

 

While I find the intensity of Japanese artisans' ability and desire to make near perfect replicas of something they themselves or someone else has already made incredible, I do realize that this is my Western view of things polluting my objectivity.  I also realize that the process of getting to the point where you're pouring liquid iron is an intense endeavor in of itself and perhaps hand carving a perfect replica is easier than that whole ordeal.

 

My interest in the subject is mainly due to my desire to be able to distinguish fake tusba from real ones when shopping/collecting without depending on the expertise of others.  I know I still have a lot to learn.  Apparently overall "graininess" is not a good indicator (sorry @Matsunoki ).  I appreciate this forum and the patience of its members.  

 

Thanks all,

Jeremy

 

 

[1kinko]

It’s far harder to make an exact copy of tosogu than to make the original. When you make an original nobody knows the errors you made. That’s why students begin by copying the masters work and why utsushimono are so respected.

[Dan tsuba]

Hello Jeremy!

 

You stated in your previous post-.

 

“Thank you all for the responses to my own questions.  I deeply appreciate it.  I've gone back and begun to read all the threads on "cast iron tsuba" and I can see those comments being repeated here, so I sincerely apologize for adding to the cacophony.”

 

Also, I personally think the other observations in your post are well stated!

 

As far as I am concerned, no apology is necessary for adding to the cacophony!  And if you do happen to come across that “Tsuba casting molds?” thread, good luck!  It will take you at least a week to get through it.  Ha, ha, ha, etc!!

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

wow, it seems like I've been missing all the fun in this thread 

 

On the issue of cast-iron tsuba:

 

The simple truth is this:

We still have no definitive date to assign to the initial production of cast-iron tsuba in Japan.

Whether that be pre- or post- Edo, neither has definitive proof, so neither one can be stated with any certainty.

 

So, I agree with Ford on this point: we cannot state with any certainty that cast-iron tsuba were produced during the Edo period. Even if we identify a tsuba as cast, it doesn’t come with a date that we can assign to it.

 

And, I also agree with his point that there have been several instances where a specific tsuba’s method of manufacture was questioned, and perhaps falsely identified… However, that does nothing to contribute to the discussion of WHEN cast-iron tsuba were first produced.

 

There is no doubt that mistakes will be made as people try to sort through this quagmire. However, it’s through situations like these that everyone gets to learn something, which should be the main goal of a forum like this.

 

So, I would make the case that threads like this are NECESSARY, so we can all get a better understanding of what to look for, so that everyone can make a relatively informed decision when it comes to spending their money on a potentially questionable tsuba (Colin, this is said with absolutely no judgement on your tsuba! I’m just generalizing here).

 

Identifying that this particular tsuba motif was repeated in near carbon copies by the Choshu school, is a valuable piece of information. This seems to be unusual when looking at Japanese tsuba production as a whole, and may just coincide with what we saw in the Echizen Kinai thread: with a quote documenting that school's shift toward “mass-production” in the early 1800's, with examples of a pre-set, rote pattern being repeated.

 

The more examples of these that get presented, the more everyone can start distinguishing those ones from the other instances of carbon-copy repeats that typically show up as cast-iron tsuba.

 

And to reiterate a point that has been stated by many, it would be great to have some non-invasive material analysis on some of these examples, to know what their composition is with a high degree of certainty, rather than solely relying on online images with limited viewing angles and detail.

   

[GRC]

A counterpoint to Ford’s “smoking gun”:

 

Ford (being the main proponent of the “post-Edo casting theory”) has been equally guilty of forcing his unsubstantiated opinions on the matter. The assertion that there were NO Edo-period cast-iron tsuba is pure conjecture on his part, and he has not been able to substantiate his claims with any substantive facts or references.

 

I’m actually shocked that he presented his one and only quote, and called it a "smoking gun".

 

"It maybe well here to dismiss, once for all, a theory sometimes advanced by writers in Europe that many of the elaborate guards of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were of cast iron.”

 

The quote specifically refers to 15th and 16th century tsuba, so it has no relevance to what we are talking about... it's referencing a completely different period in Japan's history.  

 

Smoking gun? 

 

He has also made several claims along the way (starting back in his “last word thread”) that were patently false… like the idea that tatara could not reach the appropriate temperature to melt cast iron. Subsequent research on the topic shows this is clearly not correct.

 

If anyone wants to see a long string of opinions with little to no academic rigor, along with a blatant attempt to shut down any discussion on the topic, feel free to read through Ford’s suggested “last word” thread. It is a fine example of how to subvert a series of legitimate questions, and how NOT to engage in fruitful discussion. Many people contributed to that mess, an unfortunately, some people have been swayed by the rhetoric, and old tropes that it contains. 

 

Ford is a wealth of information on many topics, and I appreciate his contributions in those areas. However, with regard to the specific issue of when cast-iron tsuba were produced, he’s just another guy with an opinion. 

[GRC]

With regard to the “fragility of cast iron tsuba”:  

 

This point is completely irrelevant.

 

We're talking about the EDO PERIOD, over 200 hundred years of peace, prosperity and increasing opulence with the growing wealth of the merchant class.

 

There would never have been a need to wear a cast-iron tsuba to battle, so the potential for breakage would never have been a point of concern.

 

So, where’s the issue? It simply doesn’t matter.

[Bugyotsuji]

Many here have tried to cast his ideas in a certain light, but ‘Forged’ Hallam’s opinions will not shatter so easily.

 

 

 

Erm........... I'll just get my hat and coat.

[Brian]

You don't rank someone who has spend their life studying the working and techniques around Japanese metalwork the same as "just some guy"
If you had spend years inside and outside of Japan, learning from Japanese masters, the originals and techniques of working metal, you may also take a different view.
I don't think many of you have been to Japan and met some of Ford's teachers, or been to his house and seen his library on the subject.
I'm not asking you to just believe me, you are welcome to your opinions. But perhaps you don't know the lengths and years spend on this subject, not just on an aesthetic level, but at a scientific level. I've been to his house. Seen the metal samples and technical experiments. Until you have MADE tsuba out of iron/steel and know the subject at that level, I think it's fair to at least consider where he is coming from. This isn't some hobbyist playing with chisels and hammers. You don't get given items by famous museums to restore unless your credentials are at least impressive.

[JohnTo]

Hi guys,

I hesitate to disagree with Ford, but Markus Sesko, in his book the Japanese toso-kinko Schools, page 129 under the information regarding one Dainichi Fucho, active Horeki (1751-1764) states that ‘According to transmission, Fucho learned the kinko techniques from Ugai Gorozaemon who belonged to an Osaka-based family of kettle casters who produced cast-iron tsuba as a sideline.  Maybe Fucho refers with his craftman name to this context ‘Fu’ (Japanese reading ‘kama’) means ‘kettle’ and ‘cho’ among others ‘to make, to arrange’ (Japanese reading ‘kama’).  I have no knowledge regarding Japanese tea kettles but information on the Internet implies that modern makers of testubin (kettles) are casting iron in the way that they have been for centuries.  I also found this:

‘Named “tetsubin” in Japanese, this type of teapot goes back to the 17th-century. Made in Morioka city and Mizusawa city, both in the Iwate prefecture, the kettle is part of the Nambu Tekki category of ironware, which refers to all cast iron products crafted in the former Nambu area. Nambu Tekki itself has origins in the Nambu Kama kettles and ironware, which date back to the Sengoku period, which lasted between 1467 and 1600. Even today, these teapots are almost exclusively crafted in the Iwate prefecture by skilled artisans who use the same traditional techniques.’

I also found this article on the Internet, part of which is shown below, stating that cast iron was in use in Korea about 2000 years ago.

The use of white cast iron in ancient Korea Jang-Sik Park & Mark E. Hall: iams 25.2005, 9-13

‘Conclusions The results here suggest that cast iron was used to make iron and steel on the Korean peninsula by the time of the Korean Three Kingdoms Period (ca. 300-668 AD). The evidence suggests this occurred in both the north and the south of the peninsula. The microstructural evidence indicates that the iron and steel could be made from white cast iron in one of two ways. One way, the items were cast with white cast iron in a pre-formed mould and subjected to a simple thermal treatment for decarburization. The two arrowheads are examples of this method. This manufacturing method would allow mass production of the items. In the second case, white cast iron is decarburized and converted to iron and steel under the combined action of heating and forging. In this method, forging is used to accelerate decarburization. The armor scale and farming implement were made by this method. It is apparent from the present work that, from the early 1st millennium AD, inhabitants of the Korean peninsula practiced a complex ferrous metal technology that incorporated the use of white cast iron. Considering the geographical proximity, the influence to and from China cannot be underestimated, especially in the Koguryo state whose territorial boundary extended to Manchuria. While a Chinese text mentions the use of forging to assist in decarburizing, the metallography of contemporary Chinese artefacts shows little evidence of forging being utilized (see Wagner 1993: 291- 295, 480). Whether this technology was developed in Han China or in the kingdoms of the Korean peninsula requires further research.’  Attached is a picture of the largest cast iron surviving lion (40+ tons) in China cast in 953 AD.

In another article by ‘Gunbai’ Iron and Steel Technology in Japanese Arms & Armors - Part 2: Smelting Process (gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com) an extensive description of the tatara smelting process is given which claims there were two types, namely the Kera oshi and Zuku oshi (news to me as well).  Here are a couple of passages, the whole article is well worth reading.

‘Unlike the Kera oshi, to produce steel with the Zuku method two phases are needed (hence the name "Indirect").
The first one is the smelting of liquid steel, pig iron or cast iron.
The furnace is heated, charcoal is added and later on iron sand/ores; the process last 4 days, in which the slag is fully separated from the steel.
The final product would be cast into moulds and then is brought into the Japanese "finery" which were closer to the furnace and decarburized into the required material; this is where the fining phase start.’

‘After this reading I bet that nobody has ever heard of Sagegane but a fair amount of people would be familiar with Tamahagane.  It is quite a mystery explain why one is more popular than the other; although is written practically everywhere, Tamahagane was not the only high carbon steel used for weapons and armor.In fact, according to some researches done in the past, the Zuku Oshi method which was established since the Kamakura period (1192-1333), not only was older than the Kera Oshi method, which dated back to the Tenbun Era (1532-155) but it was even more used throughout Japan.And is not an impressive feat; although blast furnaces are more sophisticated and advanced than bloomery ones, the Japanese probably obtained their technology from China which was already using blast furnaces, and until recently it was assumed that in China bloomery were not used at all (this thesis has been debunked by recent evidences, but blast furnaces remains the main source for steel and iron in ancient China).’

When I look at nanban tsuba in my collection I think they were made by Chinese craftsmen living in around Nagasaki using casting methods brought over from China.  Unlike the poor quality Japanese cast tsuba I have, they have no casting seams, so I think they were finished off by hand and maybe subjected to a decarburisation process before being sold to poor samurai (of which there were an abundance in the 18thC).  The tsuba are also characterised by a lack of rusting which, IMHO, indicates they were cast.   

OK, so I’m out of line with general opinion and I’m no expert, but the NMB is a discussion forum to present different ideas.  It would be great if some cast tsuba were sent for carbon-14 analysis to determine when the iron was smelted, but ours is a minor historical interest and would be low down on the British Museum’s list of studies.

Best regards, John

(just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Glen

 

The weather here is 'English', grey and drippy...but thankfully not too cold today.

 

I appreciate your appreciation of some of the salient points I made. For that thank you.

 

As you and Dan have both pointed out Brinkley was indeed referring to the 15th and 16th century. This is on page 265 in fact, and reading the context of this interjection he makes at this point it's clear he's speaking about works by makers like Nobuie, Myochin and Kanie. With these type of guard, being quite solid for the most part and having a particularly rustic aesthetic about them, we can now imagine why Europeans might have thought them cast, especially when contrasted with tea kettles of similar ages.

 

He does go on to address the then contemporary problem of cast pieces as follows, on page 266

"There is, however, an explanation of the cast iron theory advanced by European writers. Many of the guards sold to foreign collectors in recent times (circa 1915, the publication date of the book) have been of cast iron, made expressly for the unweary curio-hunter. From these a deceptive inference has been drawn as to the nature of the genuine old work."

 

But to be honest my posting of Brinkley's quote as a 'smoking gun' was done more in jest than anything else. I honestly don't think my general position on the issue of Edo cast tsuba needs Brinkley's support and surely no-one would think me that lax as to rely on one random quote given how much verbiage I'm capable of generating!? 

 

Glen, I'm intrigued as to the patently false claims you say I made in the thread I linked back to. I can't find a post where I wrote what you say I did regarding tatara etc.? It seems irrelevant to me anyway, given that we know cast iron kettles were cast way back then. That's not an error I think I'd make so egregiously  I may at some point pointed out that tatara produce a product that was never fully liquid and that a bloom was the usual output, not liquid cast-able iron. But if you would point out my "patently false" claims I will address them as soon as I'm able so that I don't mislead anyone further.

 

But now to the more important issue;

 

Firstly I don't support any particular position in respect to the Edo period casting of tsuba. To characterise my position thus is a strawman argument. 

 

Quote

Ford (being the main proponent of the “post-Edo casting theory”) has been equally guilty of forcing his unsubstantiated opinions on the matter.

 

All I have argued is that so far no convincing evidence has been presented to support the claim that Iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period.

I don't even really need to use any specific historical or metallurgical expertise to make that criticism, I am merely pointing out the disjointed and unsubstantiated aspects all being bundled together in an attempt to create a convincing narrative, but is ultimately a house of cards. No great academic rigour required.

 

I have on occasion drawn attention to various obvious technical and maybe even historical/sociological aspects of the discussion but again, I don't believe these constitute claims of any dogmatic sort but were more a matter of pointing out what seemed to me to be obvious problems with some of the ideas being suggested of perhaps on occasion I've corrected a clearly inaccurate metalwork technique idea or metallurgical misunderstanding. 

 

Now to the claim regarding Edo cast iron tsuba;

 

I want to link to this site for reference to the definitions I will refer to in the following. 

https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/36589

 

To clarify the present situation as I see it with regard to the notion that iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period I would make the following observations by simply quoting directly from the academic site I linked to above. I don't believe these points are controversial and they are pretty much universally accepted and worked with.

 

 

Quote

 

1. Holder of the Burden

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo

 

 

Our present body of literature does not catalogue a body of tsuba described as cast iron work, Edo period. Nor are there any reference to manufacturing centres or where these items might have fitted in the overall scheme of things. So we can reasonably say the whole notion is not part of mainstream academic thinking in the tosogu world at the present moment, the status quo. So it is for the proponents of the Edo casting theory to present convincing evidence for their new idea.

 

 

 

Quote

 

2. Shifting the Burden of Proof

One way in which one would attempt to shift the burden of proof is by committing a logical fallacy known as the argument from ignorance. It occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proven true.

 

 

This is what has now been attempted. The Edo casting theory is being posited as perfectly acceptable and reasonable and that it is for the critics to prove wrong.

Quote

The assertion that there were NO Edo-period cast-iron tsuba is pure conjecture on his part, and he has not been able to substantiate his claims with any substantive facts or references.

As I don't bear the burden of proof I don't need to prove a negative proposition.  

 

 

Quote

 

3. Proving a Negative

A negative claim is the opposite of an affirmative or positive claim. It asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something.^[10]

A negative claim may or may not exist as a counterpoint to a previous claim. A proof of impossibility or an evidence of absence argument are typical methods to fulfill the burden of proof for a negative claim.

 

If I were to respond by attempting to 'prove a negative' then I would suggest all I need do is point out the lack of evidence for the argument that iron tsuba were cast in the Edo period. "...an evidence of absence argument"

 

And that's all there really is to it. And it's all I've ever maintained. Present coherent real world evidence and we've got a working theory, if not it's just a muddled Dan Brown saga.

[Dan tsuba]

There was another thread on this forum that dealt with cast iron tsuba.  It is fairly recent and is titled “Tsuba casting molds?”.  Much of the same discussion and discourse found on this thread can also be found on that thread.  It is a long (10 pages) thread and may take quite a while to read.  However, I think some members may find it of interest! 

 

I am not going to continue the “argument” or "argue" anymore on this thread, what I have to say on the subject was previously stated by me in the “Tsuba casting molds?” thread.

 

Now, in one of the posts here (in this thread) it was stated by someone;

 

“Student: What is the secret to eternal happiness?

Sensei: To not argue with fools.

Student: I disagree!

Sensei: Yes, you are right!”

 

I would like to add something I found on the internet a few months ago.  It goes something like this- 

 

“ARGUING ON THE INTERNET IS LIKE PLAYING CHESS WITH A PIGEON. IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW WELL YOU PLAY OR STRATEGICALLY SOUND YOUR MOVES ARE. THE PIGEON IS JUST GOING TO KNOCK OVER ALL THE PIECES, CRAP ON THE BOARD, AND STRUT AROUND LIKE IT WON.”

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[Matsunoki]

Next time I’ll try and put a controversial tsuba up for comment🙂 I hate this boring stuff.

[Spartancrest]

9 hours ago, JohnTo said:

casting iron in the way that they have been for centuries.

This "Classic" cast namban/nanban tsuba [nice example John B ] shows features of annealing [softening] with the tagane-ato, re-working with the fine kebori around the dragons heads and the addition of 'nunome'. I can show you a hundred just like it in various 'grades' but what I can't prove is where they were made. Are they Japanese or Chinese in manufacture [not design]? Have we been barking up the wrong tree all along? Were the numerous cast tsuba made offshore and imported to Japan - not unlike todays influx of Chinese fakes? The Chinese had a longer history of casting iron objects than the Japanese did and they were trading for centuries back and forth.

Just another theory thrown into the mix - I think perhaps our search has been too narrow concentrating strictly on Japanese casting methods.

As I say just a theory.  

[1kinko]

The most direct connection to the mainland was Korea through Tsushima Island. When did cast iron reach Korea and what did they make, for themselves and/or Japan. What was the role of the Dutch?

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

Just wanted to comment on some stuff.

 

JohnTo- I have read your post many times!  Thank you, it is an amazing amount of research. It is much appreciated, and I learned a lot from it!

 

Spartancrest- Also some great research from you concerning cast iron Nanban tsuba!  Thank you!

 

The adventure continues!  This is what this forum should be all about!

 

With respect,

Dan