Nanban tetsu

[Henry Wilson]

The post of nanban tetsu in the nihonto forum got me thinking....

 

Where tsuba (or other fittings) ever made with nanban tetsu? I think that early Heianjo were inlayed with Chinese metal (brass) but how about the main plate of the tsuba, not the inlay and details.

 

Merry Christmas

[Henry Wilson]

If any one is intertested there is an article in Richard T's blog about Nanban tsuba dated January 2nd.

 

http://tosogu.blogspot.com/

[Rich T]

from holidays, the Namban article is by Curran Campbell and is very good info. I like your question Henry, and it could do with some study. I also have a tsuba by the 6th Yasutsugu and I wonder if these sword smiths also used Namban tetsu, as they did with their swords.

 

Interesting stuff

 

Rich

[docliss]

In reply to Henry Wilson's query, dated 25 December, as to whether sword fittings were ever made of Namban tetsu, this begs the question 'what do you mean by Namban tetsu'? Clearly, iron that was maufactured in Japan by the smelting of local iron sand can be excluded from such a label, but the admixture to this of any iron of a foreign origin probably constitutes Namban iron.

 

The importation of iron from Korea into Japan occurred as early as the third century AD. A few centuries after this, Japan became self-reliant until the importation of iron by the Dutch from China, Korea and India around 1600. In 1882, in spite of the abundance of local iron deposits, Japan produced only 5,000 tons of iron while she imported an annual average of 11.000 tons over the preceeding ten years.

 

In the absence of any definition of what we mean by 'Namban tetsu', and of any present method of detecting its presence, we can only assume that, from 1600 onwards, most Japanese iron contained an unknown, and variable, amount of the imported iron. Whether or not you label such iron as 'Namban' is a matter of personal choice. I do ...

 

John Lissenden.

[Curran]

I remember seeing a tsuba at one time that was signed something like "this was made with namban tetsu by _____". The signature was more interesting than the tsuba, but I made mental note of it.

 

That was a while ago. Not sure which, but I believe it was on a Japanese website.

[Henry Wilson]

Thanks for the replies. I found these tsuba and it is state they are nanban

 

http://www.aoi-art.com/fittings/6300-6349/06347.html

http://www.aoi-art.com/fittings/6300-6349/06348.html

 

How can anyone tell they are nanban? The chinese style design seems to be a kantei point, but how can some determine what is foriegn iron?

[Henry Wilson]

And I found these two as well. They are all lacking the square nakago-hitsu which may also be a kantei point too. Am I correct?

 

http://www.aoi-art.com/fittings/tsuba/05169.html

http://www.aoi-art.com/fittings/550-599/05581.html

 

I quite like that last one. Any comments?

[Grey Doffin]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe these tsuba are classified as Nanban because of the design (foreign influence), not because they were made of foreign iron. Grey

[docliss]

Yes, they are all tsuba of the Namban group. In my opinion #06347 and #06348 are pretty odinary examples of the group and #05169 of poor quality. #05581 is an above average example of the group.

 

The main defining characteristics of the group are the presence of openwork and undercutting, with decorated and unconventionally shaped seppa dai. A Chinese influence, commonly of affrontes dragons and the tama jewel is also present. The modified, square nakago-hitsu is only occassionally found - this most commonly in the auriculate sub-group - and is by no means a defining feature.

 

As already discussed, the presence of namban tetsu in this group is a bone of contention, and at present there is no way of detecting its presence in a tsuba. The chemical anaysis of an iron tsuba is a simple proceedure, and would appear to offer an answer to this problem. Locally made iron has a remarkable purity of 99.8 - 99.9 percent, probably because of the use of iron sand and of charcoal in the smelting process. The presence of phosphorus is probably the best indicator of purity, being as low an 0.001 - 0.003 percent in the local iron, and this may be 4 - 10 times higher in imported iron. But the addition of phosphorus has a hardening effect upon iron while inhibiting its carburisation, and it is possible that phosporus may have been intentionally added to local iron for this purpose.

 

John Lissenden.

[Ed]

I think Grey is correct in saying that the ones you have linked to are called Nanban(namban) due to design not metallurgic properties. Did they contain any foreign steel in their make up, who knows.

 

There were Tsuba made from Nanban Tetsu and clearly labeled as such, just as some swords were. Again, were they 100% nanban tetsu, ??.

 

Here is a link to one made in 1793, by Tsuguhide.

It states, "Made with Nanban Tetsu".

 

http://yakiba.com/tsuba_nanbantetsu.htm

[docliss]

Dear Ed

 

Thank you for posting the photographs; I have, of course, heard of tsuba with a 'made of namban iron' inscription, but have never before actually seen one. The artist is presumably H 10749.0 in Haynes book, and this inscription may be a reflection of his swordsmith background.

 

Your photographs do make very nicely the point that being made of namban iron does not alone make a tsuba of the Namban group. This tsuba, in spite of its inscription, is Bushu work rather than Namban.

 

John L.

[Ed]

Hi John,

I hope my previous post did not indicate that I thought this to be a Tsuba of the Nanban style, it is not.

 

I will try to be more precise.

 

It is only an example of a tsuba made from Nanban Tetsu, or Foreign Steel.

 

Motte: With, by, of.

 

The inscription "Motte Nanban Tetsu" means, made "of nanban tetsu".

 

"Motte Nanban Tetsu" in the inscription on this tsuba is describing material's used only.

 

"Motte Nanban Tetsu" bears no indication to the School where it was made.