Contemporary tsuba...can they be valid?

[Ford Hallam]

Steve,

 

sorry for the occasionally sarcastic tone of some of my comments. They weren't meant to be deliberately dismissive but Blackadder seems to have influenced me too much I fear

 

I don't labour under a false belief that we capable of true objectivity but I had imagined that as you seemed intent on addressing the subject in philosophical term some degree of detachment from one's own preferences. The problem with your insistence on the apparent primacy of your subjective tastes etc is that we ultimately all end up claiming the same and we reach an impasse where everything is relative. Despite what some schools of thought hold I for one don't find this sort of accommodation to be particularly helpful.

 

Ok, so perhaps you do have a more "in depth" understanding of Edo kinko work than I imagined. Your critique of it is still so unreasoned, based as it is entirely on your own value judgements, that it's hard to take seriously as an honest appraisal of kinko work as opposed to your beloved Momoyama iron. Your critique appears to nothing more than a justification of your own taste. You claim to understand it but don't care for it, fine. Yet your criticisms are so easily countered by so many exceptionally examples of kinko work that I can help thinking you've deliberately chosen only to look at the very worst...while only viewing the finest of Momoyama work.

 

But in this passage, the phrases "true to," "the spirit of the makers of the past," "maintains its integrity," and "legitimate place" are, again, murky to the point of near meaninglessness. Each of these phrases is descriptive, and the would-be meanings they have escape any sort of ready and clear apprehension. They SOUND good, but really, what do they MEAN? EXACTLY? Of course I am returning us here to my initial point above---the impossibility and illusory quality of "objectivity." The phrases you rely on in this passage MIGHT have some purchase if they could be objectively realized.

 

Fair enough, perhaps I do need to far more clear in the meanings I imply by my use of words but it is precisely because I'm attempting to articulate something that is as yet poorly defined that I'm using such evocative and descriptive language...it's what artists do to make meaning ...we sometimes even get quite romantic

 

The phrases you rely on in this passage MIGHT have some purchase if they could be objectively realized.

 

I sincerely hope so because that is exactly what I'm attempting to to do with my own work. I'll keep searching for my Atlantis then :?

 

My point with regard to "warrior taste" was simply to illustrate that this was only one facet of a much broader and continually evolving aesthetic expression and one that was completely reflective of the times. That you prefer one specific manifestation of this expression is, of course, your right. However, your choice does not render all other forms immediately "less than true tsuba" other than in your own scheme of things.

 

I think you know exactly what was meant by the tsuba not being a "hand guard"...ie; that it's ostensible function was to shield the hand from actual strikes... Semantics aside I think there is a significant difference between something intended to protect from external threat and something that is a "safety feature" intended to prevent injury to oneself. An analogy might be the difference between a car's safety belt and bullet proof windscreens.

 

I can accept that some fitting was desirable to prevent the hand thus injuring itself. This gives us a plausible reason ( in the first instance) for some sort of barrier at the juncture of handle and blade. That this took the form of the tsuba as we recognise it, in all it's manifestations, clearly demonstrates that the specific functional requirement was so easily met and a far more "exciting" range of expressive possibilities were made available to the wearer that this soon overshadowed the initial "raison d etre" .

 

As for wheeling in your "big boys" had you the energy to continue this discussion I doubt anything useful could come of it. Deconstruction of text ( al la Derrida) to the point it has no meaning makes having a conversation a bit of a non starter really.

 

Anyway, I've still enjoyed this conversation. Thanks again for your kind compliments regarding my own endeavours and for your thought provoking responses.

 

best regards,

 

Ford

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I think you know exactly what was meant by the tsuba not being a "hand guard"...ie; that it's ostensible function was to shield the hand from actual strikes... Semantics aside I think there is a significant difference between something intended to protect from external threat and something that is a "safety feature" intended to prevent injury to oneself. An analogy might be the difference between a car's safety belt and bullet proof windscreens.

 

Without any desire to open any polemic, i must say that specific point (handguard) can be discussed only by experimented kenjutsu practitionners.

[John A Stuart]

The thread has gone somewhat tangentially to the original question. We can agree that the tsuba has a function, just not on how we perceive it. It doesn't matter really. Whatever our particular tastes may be matters as little and does not invalidate whether a tsuba is a tsuba or not. Iron tsuba and kinko tsuba have existed concurrently almost from inception, so .... what? Any perceived attribute does not change what they are, an handguard. If an object is made to serve this function then it is VALID. Grey said this and it is a truism. Anything else is redundant. John

[Ford Hallam]

Hi,

 

I think you know exactly what was meant by the tsuba not being a "hand guard"...ie; that it's ostensible function was to shield the hand from actual strikes... Semantics aside I think there is a significant difference between something intended to protect from external threat and something that is a "safety feature" intended to prevent injury to oneself. An analogy might be the difference between a car's safety belt and bullet proof windscreens.

 

Without any desire to open any polemic, i must say that specific point (handguard) can be discussed only by experimented kenjutsu practitionners.

 

I think I probably would have to agree with you Jacques...problem is they all died at least 400 years ago. At least the ones who would be qualified to address the specifics of the original use of the sword as a battlefield weapon.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

He knows the answer...

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qnae ... 1_creation

[Ford Hallam]

Perhaps....but even he admits that much has been lost.

[Mark Green]

Hi Gang,

Jacques, and Ford, You must have missed my other post.

 

I will start by saying that tsuba, "without a doubt" were mostly made to protect your hand. I can not say how many times my hands have been saved by my tsuba. I am a Knight of the SCA. We fight 'full on' with ratan weapons, in full 'real' armor. I use full steel gauntlets when I fight with my katana, as well as a good tsuba. If I used samurai style hand protection. My only protection from having all my finger broken, would be my tsuba. I know that I have taken hundreds of blows to my tsuba, that would have broken many fingers. I am sure that 'in the day' many a thousand hands were saved by tsuba.

 

Hatake, seems like a good teacher, and knows his stuff. However, on all those short films. I did not see him fighting 'FULL ON', in full armor.

That is the trouble with most of the 'Sword' marshal arts. With live steel, you cannot fight full on, for obvious reason. And with wooden swords, most practice is just kata.

In the Marshal art I play at, it is 'full contact', in full 30+ lbs of armor, with 30+mm thick ratan weapons. These swords, and polearms, would break my bones, or kill me, if I didn't block them correctly, or did not have armor on. I practice to 'HIT' my apponent, with blows that would likely do very serious harm, if it were not for the strict safty standards we have about armor.

 

I have trained in Kenjutsu, Kendo, Akido, judo, and about a dozen other MAs. These were all good training, but most were not 'real' danger like what I do in the SCA. I have fought thousands of tournament bouts, as well as been in battles with whole armies. I get to live through these fights, win or loose. The experience of this is immeasurable.

 

I dare say, that I am as qualified as anyone, in these times, on the subject of tsuba, as handguards. I do this on a near daily basis.

Tsuba protect your hands from great harm. They are great for leverage, pinning, and if it were the real deal, for smashing someone in the nose if that was the shot you had.

 

REAL fighting, is about staying alive. Tsuba from any period will protect your hand. Even a pretty, 'trip to the tea house kinko' will stop a sword. I have tested this on everything but shakudo, and I'm sure that would work as well. Because copper does.

 

I would love to test my skills with Hatake, and his students. That would be great fun.

And he would likely say the same thing as I. Tsuba are handguards! And wonderful art too :D

[Stephen]

[sanjuro]

What Sensei Risuke Otake is demonstrating in this video is Katori Shinto Ryu Iajutsu. It has little to do with battlefield usage of a sword which would have been a tachi rather than a katana.

 

Perhaps a video of him using a tachi in full armour would be a better illustration of the uses of a tsuba. (Yes he can use a tachi and does frequently) And in case any of you think I'm talking through my hat as it were, think again. I have a grading in Katori Shinto Ryu Iaijutsu, and Rysuke Otaki was the grading Sensei. The thumb push to release the sword was a usage to which the tsuba was put when Iai was first developed. The use of a tsuba is really as protection for the hand. It is however ideally only to protect from a glancing blow, although a good tsuba will stop a full blow, hence the need for folded and forged steel. It is as Mark says, on a battlefield you use whatever part of the sword will take the blow and deflect a lethal cut. In the dojo, you were taught to receive a blow on the shinogi and allow it to slide along your own blade. That's fine in a dojo. On a battlefield there would be little time or regard for slick technique.

[Ford Hallam]

...and yet finding examples of tsuba with convincing battle damage is proving to be a bit frustrating. I've seen helmets, armour and even sword blades all showing battle damage; ie; cuts. but as yet no tsuba It has been suggested that tsuba that had been thus damaged would have been re-cycled. This I seriously doubt. What better evidence of battle field experience could a warrior have...then a battle scarred tsuba? I would suggest they'd be revered as honourable scars of war. Yet they remain elusive....why?

 

And Mark, with all due respect, I don't think your experience in SCA, using rattan mock weapons, can be offered as "evidence". One only has to look to Kendo to see how this sort of "safe" mode of sword play very soon develops into something quite different from a real life or death fight with live blades. The same is true of Western fencing.

 

J, Christoph Amberger's "The Secret History of the Sword" is an excellent reference for anyone wanting to learn more about the realities of combat with cold steel. It makes for very sobering reading.

 

respectfully,

 

Ford

[John A Stuart]

I found the article in the JSSUS newsletter that refers to damage on tsuba in combat. Vol. 41 No. 3 July 2009. Combat-Damages On Tsuba, By Christopher Leung, pg 23-30. I hope you have it. There are 7 tsuba illustrated, iron and kinko. John

[Ford Hallam]

John,

 

I don't get the JSSUS but I'd love to see these tsuba.

 

regards,

 

Ford

[Mark Green]

Hummmm, That may be true Ford my friend. But it is the closest thing you will find in this day, that will not kill you. Kendo is not even close! We use Kendo shinai for practice with no armor. What I do in the SCA is only safe, due to armor, and training. And I still have broken many bones. The only thing we can't do is grapple. For obvious reasons. (people would really be getting hurt) And that is not so much fun.

And you would likely be surprised to learn what I know about life and death with live steel. That is a kind of excitement nobody needs.

 

I have heard that is a great book.

Many of those battle damaged tsuba may have been scraped for new. Plus, they are very hard to damage! But, I would think if there was a big chunk out of my tsuba, I would replace it, and reforge the old.

Cheers, Mark

[Stephen]

another page if you want ill scan it also.

[Stephen]

did it anyway

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I have a grading in Katori Shinto Ryu Iaijutsu

 

That doesn't exist.

 

Following video:

 

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qnad ... 2_creation

[Brian]

I have been reading this thread with great interest. I know it has the potential to turn "nasty" and history will bear this out. :lol:

However I have been pleased to see the respect and logical arguments put forward. I hope they will continue that way..as then I won't have to do any nasty snipping of the thread or finger wagging. I think both Steve and Ford have raised very good points, and I find my own opinion being formed from both sides of the argument. There is a lot of sense to be gathered from both. While i don't think this is a debate that can ever reach a finite conclusion...it is well worth the pondering over.

As a weapons collector, and knowing that just about every single edged weapon out there, from every country, though all ages, had some form of hand guard...it is difficult to think that tsuba evolved from any other motivation originally. It just seems the natural thing to incorporate when designing an edged weapon. Yes..there are a few exceptions (aren't there always?) but a look through Stones Glossary will bear this out.

However, to me this does not exclude the evolution that might have occurred where they became a blank canvas on which to demonstrate the arts. I don't think one precludes the other. Then again, I do understand this is my own personal opinion..something that tends to make these topics go downhill fast :D

So let's end my little comment by saying that everyone is entited to their own opinion...up until the point that it causes me sleepless nights. And then I start deleting opinions. Let's not get there anytime soon.

 

Brian

[John A Stuart]

Hi Ford, I e-mailed the pertinent info. Let me know when received and I'll delete the files. John

[Stephen]

Let me know when received and I'll delete the files. John

 

huh i posted the files...there going to be delteted?

[John A Stuart]

Hi Stephen, By the time I scanned the pages and e-mailed them so many posts happened a new page started and I wasn't aware you posted them. I of course meant delete them from my hard drive. John

[Ted Tenold]

Tsuba = Guard = Hand Guard

 

Though I've read through the commentaries and find them interesting, deeper examination of guards "true purpose" (dare I say existence) and how to validate it seems to wax trancendental.

 

Perhaps the question should be "How are guards invalidated?" Does a guard not protect? Can not the guard of highest artistic expression protect as the pedestrian can? Iron and non-ferrous can not protect to a modest degree of equality?

 

A guard is, as it is so named, intended as such. It's validation emerges in function despite form or material. It starts this simple and everything else beyond this is expression created and creativity appreciated, but always a guard first.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi John,

 

yes, got your email...thank you very much.

 

I have to say that to be fair to Mr Leung his article and hypotheses deserve to be assessed more thoroughly, in a separate topic perhaps. Is this something that is reasonable to do here?

 

Having said that It is clear from reading his methodology ( if it can be called that) the examples chosen do seem to be a bit arbitrary. I quote his selection criteria;

 

i. possibly combat damage

ii. probably combat damage

iii. likely combat damage

Only examples from group iii. were chosen and they were in that group because the author was able to identify the type of weapon that likely caused the damage. Mr Leung doesn't qualify his criteria for making these judgements so we must assume it's just a matter of what he thinks combat damage should look like despite not having any proven samples to compare to.

 

Herein lies the problem, they are damaged, that's self evident. What caused the damage is by no means clear at all. As for ascribing specific damage to particular weapons I feel this only serves to further undermine the basic premise as it reveals a willingness on the part of the author to "see what he wants to see". This is just guesswork.

 

 

Brian,

 

glad you're enjoying the ride... :D . Here's a thought re; all the worlds swords had hand guards observation, almost every culture used shields in combat also....but except in very specific, static positions, the Japanese did not.

 

In any case while I'm certain any guard would offer some protection and was almost certain originally conceived of for that purpose I'm still puzzled as to why we see no evidence of this intended use in terms of battle scars.

 

Great stuff pops up when we all get stuck in and dig around a bit :D and it's certainly woken the forum up after the slumber of christmas

 

regards,

 

Ford

[Stephen]

I have mulled thru most of the post, did i miss a line or two about balance? been told a time or two from the old guard (pun intended) a Samurai would try on a few to see what balance it gave the blade. Sorry if I missed it in all the hot win....er pontificating. Think Ted said it best and its come down to the old what is "Art" saw.

[Bazza]

In any case while I'm certain any guard would offer some protection and was almost certain originally conceived of for that purpose I'm still puzzled as to why we see no evidence of this intended use in terms of battle scars.

WELL!! I can't imagine what I could have contributed to the discussion thus far, but there are a few things that haven't been touched on. I'll get to those later in another post, but here I've chipped in to talk about battle damage to tsuba.

 

I once had a daisho that had clear clash marks on the blades. Somewhere I have a hand-drawn rendering of the marks. On the dai tsuba was a clear cut from a sword. Taken in conjunction with the clash scars on both blades there was no doubt in my mind that it was a sword cut. After the daisho passed from my hands I saw the tsuba quite some time later and was shocked to find that the new owner had peened the cut closed. I dunno why he did this because it was still evident "something" had happened at that spot. So, Ford, here is a singular example for you.

 

As the koshirae was clearly late Edo I feel the clash marks happened in that very turbulent time known as Bakumatsu, possibly even in the years before the Haito Rei in 1876. Notice I haven't used the expression "battle scars". As the blades were in fairly decorative "civilian" koshirae the clash more likely occurred in a street or domestic environment rather than a battlefield. Also, the fact that the blades had not been re-polished suggested the damage occurred at a time close to the end of the samurai as a class.

 

Further on the Great Discussion of the tsuba as a hand guard, recently I viewed (on the web) an image of an ukiyoe of a battle scene. The writer commented that it was very unusual because the artist had depicted the "little bits" on the ground - the fingers and hands that get cut off during battle. Whither tsuba as a hand protector??? Not apparently of much use if a cut comes from left-field (or right-field!) and takes a swordsman's hand off at the wrist!!! So it would seem that the random occurrences of cutting in the hurly-burly of battle makes the discussion of the tsuba as protecting the hand (or not) something of an exercise in over-intellectualisation???

 

Regards,

Barry Thomas.

[Steve Waszak]

Ford,

 

Don't have the time to get into the sort of protracted exchange I'd like to with you (and I would LOVE to be able to engage you in person on this), but I've reproduced a few of your quotes from the last post you directed at some of my comments... First, these three:

 

"The problem with your insistence on the apparent primacy of your subjective tastes etc is that we ultimately all end up claiming the same and we reach an impasse where everything is relative. Despite what some schools of thought hold I for one don't find this sort of accommodation to be particularly helpful."

 

"As for wheeling in your "big boys" had you the energy to continue this discussion I doubt anything useful could come of it. Deconstruction of text ( al la Derrida) to the point it has no meaning makes having a conversation a bit of a non starter really."

 

"I don't labour under a false belief that we capable of true objectivity but I had imagined that as you seemed intent on addressing the subject in philosophical term some degree of detachment from one's own preferences."

 

Whether you find Deconstruction and its inevitable implications/conclusions "helpful" or "useful" or an effective "non-starter" for conversation, the validity of what it argues, and the results achieved by applying its tenets, principles, and methods cannot be argued with. It is Deconstruction, perhaps more than any other theoretical mode, that destroys the fantasy of objectivity so thoroughly and irrevocably. The "usefulness" you speak of here seems to reside in the tacit and continuing assumption of objectivity; you say here that you "don't labour under a false belief that we [are] capable of true objectivity," but your efforts to dismiss/set aside Deconstructive realities (as well as the fact that you directly speak of objectivity in a straightforward way in previous posts) belies this claim, I think. I only mention all this because what MUST result, logically, is, simply, the advancement of our views and opinions from a recognized, biased, subjectivity. Sooo...when you say:

 

"Your critique of it is still so unreasoned, based as it is entirely on your own value judgements, that it's hard to take seriously as an honest appraisal of kinko work as opposed to your beloved Momoyama iron. Your critique appears to nothing more than a justification of your own taste. You claim to understand it but don't care for it, fine. Yet your criticisms are so easily countered by so many exceptionally examples of kinko work that I can help thinking you've deliberately chosen only to look at the very worst...while only viewing the finest of Momoyama work."

 

...you are missing the point that our own value judgments are ALL we really CAN go on. Many might like to pretend this isn't so, but they are, simply, mistaken. As for the many "exceptional examples of [Edo] kinko work" you mention, I'd be delighted to see some of these, and to then either eat my words...or explain exactly why I, yes I (me and my personal opinion), find them inferior to the best, second-best, and third-best of Momoyama iron... And again, when you say:

 

"However, your choice does not render all other forms immediately "less than true tsuba" other than in your own scheme of things."

 

...I will maintain that each of us has to rely on our own "scheme of things." That's all there is. Of course, we may read, and we may study, and we may have deep-into-the-night discussions with experienced and learned scholars, collectors, and critics. But in the end, with objectivity recognized as a mirage, we must, finally, come down to our own judgments of what constitutes quality, excellence, brilliance, etc...

 

If you have read, as I'm sure you have, Torigoye and Haynes' Tsuba: An Aesthetic Study, they say a few words about such things as quality, excellence, and brilliance to be found in early iron, and most emphatically NOT to be found in Edo kinko (see the early pages of this publication). They go into this at some length, actually, speaking specifically of such concepts as "first aesthetic qualities, second aesthetic qualities," and so on. Unfortunately, I do not have access to my library just now, or I'd reproduce some of these passages here. Are you free to disagree with these scholars? Sure. But I happen to agree with their assessments fully. Certainly not because these views are advanced by luminaries like Torigoye and Haynes, but because the values they detail agree with my values as far as aesthetic response and sensibilities are concerned.

 

Finally, as for the tsuba's martial function as a guard BOTH to protect the palm from sliding down the blade on thrusts AND to protect it from (incidental) blades strikes, I really don't think there can be any doubt that, at times, at least, it has been effective doing each of these. Others here have said this better than I can. To doubt this based simply on not having seen many blade-damaged tsuba is eyebrow-raising, frankly. I myself have two tsuba in my small collection which give very telling evidence of having warded off the edge of a blade. And really, is it so hard to imagine, in the heat of life-and-death fighting, that a tsuba could, at this point or that, in that moment or this, catch an opponent's blade sliding down one's own, or be used for some leverage in extreme in-close struggling? Having said this, I do agree that, with the coming of the Edo age, a tsuba's primary function became more semiotic than directly martial, though as others here have said, if pressed into service, it could still function in its original capacity.

 

In closing, let me just say again that I have a huge amount of respect and, truly, awe, in the skills you have, Ford, in creating the pieces you do. They are often breathtaking in their fine-ness and brilliance of execution. They may not be made to my particular taste, but that's irrelevant. They are tours-de-force of fine metal art. I applaud your efforts and results here.

 

Regards,

 

Steve

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I found the article in the JSSUS newsletter that refers to damage on tsuba in combat.

 

It is an interesting article indeed, but seems the author in the introduction doesn't support the protection from enemy's blade as main purpose of the Tsuba. But I'm going to memory as I'm at work now...

 

I would highlight that Kote are the items intended to protect the hand (also the hand)

from enemy's attacks.

 

There is the habit to consider the sword as a weapon for footsoldiers (martial arts mentioned so far...) but it's always forgot it was, in the first peridod of its history, a secondary wepon

for *mounted* soldiers.

 

We should remember that swords were, for a considerable period of time, used from horseback, position that lessen even more the chances of a slipping of

enemy's blade toward your (armored) thumb and second finger.On the contrary, if

you use the sword point first during a "charge" (may we use this word?) , you need something to stop your hand slipping on the blade at the impact against the target.

 

Evolution of the combat led to footsoldiers, but the Tsuba had already achieved its

place in the Samurai world, possibly offering other services to the new situation.

 

If it was Tsuba's primary function we should have much more evidences especially on old ones

that (supposedly) saw a lot of fight as good Tsuba weren't trashed differently from

damaged swords.

 

IMHO...

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

you use the sword point first during a "charge" (may we use this word?) , you need something to stop your hand slipping on the blade at the impact.

 

That's right, Tsuka-ito is perfect for that and you can put your left palm on the kashira to push.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Hi,

 

you use the sword point first during a "charge" (may we use this word?) , you need something to stop your hand slipping on the blade at the impact.

 

That's right, Tsuka-ito is perfect for that and you can put your left palm on the kashira to push.

 

This is what I meant suggesting it's wrong to think like a footsoldier (modern martial artist).

 

I can't see how you can do such a thing like the one you suggest while moving on horseback

(I know Samurai were able to ride with both hands free, but I can't imagine the position you suggest as a viable one to strike somebody on the right side of your horse, possibly on a lower position if the target is by foot). I know you're both a martial artist and ride a horse so care to explain ?

[John A Stuart]

Very true Carlo, from horseback it prevents the hand from sliding forward on the sword, although it was for the Japanese a slashing weapon used much like the European sabre or the Chinese dao. For weapons used in a thrusting action it would be even more important, for example the vamplate developed in the 1300's to protect the hand even though gauntleted or more recently the lance of the uhlan's used straps to withstand the shock of a thrust to prevent slipping. Interesting to note is that these light cavalry which were very effective in turn were rendered ineffective by the heavies armed with sabres. John

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I think the design and purpose of Tsuba was already fixed when swords were still straight,

and the change of the perceived purpose follows the change in tactics.

 

WarabiteTo had small Tsuba with hardly a protective function and these swords were

supposed to be used by Kanto soldiers slashing by horseback (but not only...). Yamato high rank soldiers surely on horseback had still the Chokuto with "rounded" Tsuba, well suited

to stab. With the fusion of ChokuTo and WarabiteTo japaneses very wisely maintained the best of both types. We're discussing something that pre-dates *any* Japanese martial art

and even the creation of a Samurai Class.

 

Worth the pain ?