Hizen steel and Nanbantetsu

[Eric H]

Coming back to the NAMBAN TETSU PROJECT the „new“ Namban-tetsu had to be evaluated for the test...I don‘t know how close this „new“ Namban-tetsu comes to the „old“ Namban-tetsu, however the test was performed with two small blocks.

 

„Namban-tetsu was a highly sought after and expensive commodity...“

I have read in the previous article...and I believe those swordsmiths knew very well to judge the „qualities“ of the foreign steel.

 

Eric

[george trotter]

Hmmm...were swords made partially or wholly using nambantetsu?...I don't know why, but my "imbibed belief" was that they were all partially nambantetsu...maybe I got this from early book sources?

I had a nice blade by Echizen sandai Yasutsugu myself...it was just marked " Yasutsugu, Echizen ni oite, saku kore". , but then, in my even more ignorant youth, I just assumed it was partially nambantetsu...but I suppose I was wrong, as from what has been discussed, I suppose a blade only has nambantetsu in it, or is of nambantetsu, if so marked?

Although I "assumed" my Yasutsugu to have nambantetsu in it, I never saw anything about the jigane which would make me think it had nambantetsu...so if I may ask the panel.... what does one look for?

Regards,

George.

PS...oops this was in answer to Paul's answer to me on previous page.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Interestingly there are some inscriptions that refer to different Tetsu …. Anyone any thoughts on these other than places in Japan?:

Motte Hyotan Tetsu

Motte Gotetsu (5 plate??)

Hyotan testu is fairly commonly belived to be crucible steel from India. The shape of the ingot itself calls for such. It have to be pointed out that this is just one of the many “Nanbantetsu” types reported. It usually is mentioned in discussions about the use of wootz in NihonTo, discussions that have been already addressed “an nauseam” and thanks God hasn’t been risen here (yet).

Anyway seems to me to rmember it's the only one mentioned to be suitable for use in swordsmithing.

 

Gotetsu might mean a 5 different types of steels instead of 5 plates or a geographical place. If my suggestion has any meaning in real life I can’t say.

 

the ones you could take to the frozen wastes of Korea and it not break on the hessian and leather Mongol armour in the middle of winter

Not a good reason to use nanbantetsu, IMHO. This was already achieved far before in a totally different area with no use of nanbantetsu. See swords produced in northern Japan http://www.nihontocraft.com/Ura_Nihon_no_Toko.html

 

so they did their utmost to buy Asian goods and trade them WITHIN Asia to end up with the goods they wanted to take back to Europe by trade, rather than paying in silver. For this reason, it might not be a case of the iron billets coming directly to Japan (Nagasaki) by the Dutch, but may have come there via an Asian middleman (eg from India)...hence the exact origin of the iron has acquired names like, Dutch, Swedish, Indian...etc.

There was very little need of iron in east Asia but Japan and I would say India is the least one to be affected by such a need. Hence I’d more comfortable to suggest that the name “Dutch steel” simply means “steel that comes from the dutch”. For the mentioned reasons the dutch didn’t shipped steel to East indies directly from Europe unless (still to be proved) as ballast. It can be suggested that ballast could have had something else (easier to trade with , say, India) when traveling from Europe to East Indies and then replaced with Indian or Thai steel for commerce with Japan. This works using the same theory of ballast, so we shouldn’t rely on it with strong confidence.

Now what IMHO are great inputs :

1. My perception was that the incorporation of foreign steel by more recognised users such as Yasatsugu was that it was used because it was new, fashionable and in combination with Tamahagane created a jigane with interesting variation in hada. Effectively it was a fashion statement which differentiated his work from others.

2. I think your post offers compelling circumstantial evidence that Hizen smiths on occassion used imported iron. The question is why? was it fashion- no because it was publicised in the way the Edo smiths did

I agree. From the time of “Blood (Portuguese red wine) drinker” Nobunaga, the west achieved a sort of exotic fashion to Samurai. The more advanced weapons as ships, guns, helmets and armor played a significant role in this. I suggest this might well be what remained of this fashion after the Sakoku (鎖国).

Quality- I am not sure any one has suggested imported iron offerd any quality over and above locally produced stock.Has anyone seen any statement either made at the time or subsequently regarding the quality differences between home produced iron and imported stock? Again my understanding was that tamahagane was a much purer and superior product and capable of being welded more effectively. Also much of the structural activity regarding the production of nie, chickei etc was a aided by these qualities.

Only reason that comes to mind is to enhance the carbon content of Tamahagane with high carbon Indian steel. Don’t know how much this could have been a real need.

Assuming that amongst the numerous members there were metallurgists it would be interesting to hear their views on the chemical differences in the material and how they might impact the final sword.

Good point and worth a further discussion but I’ve to highlight this has already been done elsewhere and the

conclusions were… inconclusive. AFAIK there is no definitive way, even with present day instruments and sacrificing an Hizen blade, to definitively say whether and how much nanban steel was used in such blades and even more difficult would be to know where it (eventually) came from. Chances are that nanban steel was mixed with Japanese one and the obtained blend would give only suggestions, not evidences, even if the presence of specific inclusions and rare materials are found. The content of sulphur is not the same on all nanbantetsu types, as aren’t the other impurities.

Could it be that the thin outer steel was indeed the rather expensive and much sought after Namban tetsu?

Now I would conclude my post with a rather provocative question.

Are we shure the thin Kawagane was meant to save steel and not an attempt to achieve a better cutting ability ? Fukunaga Suiken during his tests about reliability of swords seems to have found out that the closer the shingane to the Ha, the higher the performance in resisting cutting streeses. Even incredibly small differences could have made a significant difference. maybe Hizen smith decided to sacrifice durability to performance ? This would undermine the theory Hizen swords were built to save a precious material, highlighting instead the ability of the smiths.

 

In short, IMHO Hizen smiths were great smiths not *because of* nanbantetsu, but *also with* nanbantetsu.

[george trotter]

Now I would conclude my post with a rather provocative question.

Are we shure the thin Kawagane was meant to save steel and not an attempt to achieve a better cutting ability ? Fukunaga Suiken during his tests about reliability of swords seems to have found out that the closer the shingane to the Ha, the higher the performance in resisting cutting streeses. Even incredibly small differences could have made a significant difference. maybe Hizen smith decided to sacrifice durability to performance ? This would undermine the theory Hizen swords were built to save a precious material, highlighting instead the ability of the smiths.

 

In short, IMHO Hizen smiths were great smiths not *because of* nanbantetsu, but *also with* nanbantetsu.

 

Carlo, In considering your question, there is evidence in more modern times (on Ohmura's Military Swords site) about the use of western steel in both sunobe and kitae swords. These swords gave excellent performance in cutting tests and in battlefield use compared with nihonto. The evidence was tested and compiled by professional swordsmen and seems pretty conclusive that these swords performed better than most traditional nihonto. It seems that the more western steel there was, the better they performed ...what is not known however, since these swords were only used for 12 years or so, is how "durable" they are compared to nihonto. The western steel of course goes all the way into the ha, so seems to support Fukunaga...but what the "intent" of the Hizen smiths was cannot be known..."performance"? - we would need test results. "durability"? - they were probably used less than the modern swords.

 

Regarding your opinion of Hizen swords being great, "not because of" namban steel but "also with" namban steel, this is a bit self- contradictory? isn't "because of" and "with" namban steel the same thing? it is present in the sword?...wouldn't it be necessary to consider the modern proof too...this seems to show that more western steel makes swords better performers.

 

This is just information that is on Ohmura's site and I offer it as a discussion, not to be provocative.

Regards,

George.

[cabowen]

I have read results that showed that traditional tamahagane blades performed poorly in the cold weather in Manchuria and that experiments showed that western steel performed better in those cold conditions. I haven't read anything that said that western steel outperformed in all conditions before....Can you point me to the site on Omura's less than web page George?

[george trotter]

Hi Chris,

the Ohmura site is http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_138.htm

 

The translation is a bit difficult to understand at times, but Ohmura gives his sources, even if he pushes a point of view about "vested interests" in the art-sword world. It is possible I have misunderstood some of his nuances also, but it seems to say that experience shows that western steel out-performs nihonto.

He doesn't mention cold weather (I think), but does mention Manchuria. BTW, although Ohmura doesn't mention it on this page, cold must have been a problem as the Mantetsuto was developed (using western steel/western technology?) which was successful and out-performed both nihonto and western steel sunobe gunto and han-tenranto showato? in the cold...I think there might be details on Ohmura's Mantetsuto page?

I have also seen lists of sword test results (nihonto) by modern military sword testers on the links pages which are interesting, but I can't just remember which pages at the moment...there are several (perhaps they refer back to the testers Ohmura mentions?) can't remember.

 

Chris, I'm not pushing a barrow here, I have no real position on nambantetsu...this modern information is just a factor to consider in relation to western steel use in nihonto...I raised it in relation to Carlo's comments about namban tetsu and Hizento's reputation as great swords...this info may support that reputation?...but maybe not for the reasons given by Carlo?...hope I don't cause a problem.

Regards,

Geo.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

THE SCHOOL OF TADAYOSHI by Robert Robertshaw

 

page 101 (speaking about Tosa no kami Tadayoshi.

 

Tosa appears to have been a relatively unknown smith signing Tadayoshi from around 1625 who received a highranking

title around 1628, died circa 1632/4, and who had a son called Shôgen Tadayoshi. Tosa (no) Kami blades are

rare and highly valued, and relatively easily identified. He often used Namban Tetsu (imported Dutch and Portuguese

steel, but of reportedly inferior, brittle quality due to its high phosphorous content).

[cabowen]

George-

 

thanks for the link but it is broken...

 

Regarding the debate on steel performance, I have found that the person wielding the blade is much more important than what it is made of in most cases....

 

There were indeed many problems with breakage in Manchuria due to the cold initially with traditionally made blades. Mantetsu-to and other non-traditional steels were developed as a result and found to give better performance.

 

I do know that there are good and bad impurities in steel and western steel can indeed be brittle. The term western steel covers a lot of ground and within that broad definition there are undoubtedly steels that perform well as swords when properly processed and heat treated and those that do not.

 

One advantage to tamahagane is that the smith was able to judge and work his material as he required. Western steels were like handing a baker a ball of dough and telling him to bake bread. Without knowing what is in it, it makes it more difficult.

[george trotter]

Chris, you and I must have hit our submit button simultaneously...my next post went off into space...

I messed up the address...sorry

I had just posted 5 Ohmura pages for you that cover most of what we're discussing...with scientific evidence and historical sources...he is hard to follow at times (translation difficulties) but his comments about the effectiveness of tamahagane vs western steels incl namban tetsu and are relevant to the above discussion...he is of course quite adamant in his opinions.

 

try these pages

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_138.htm

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_149.htm

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_029.htm

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_146.htm

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_147.htm

http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_148.htm

regards,

George.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

These swords gave excellent performance in cutting tests and in battlefield use compared with nihonto. The evidence was tested and compiled by professional swordsmen and seems pretty conclusive that these swords performed better than most traditional nihonto.

 

The evidences you're referring to are the same ones studied by Fukunaga Suiken I've quoted in my post. In fact Fukunaga studied them and the "destructive tests" made by the IJA before the war.

I can give you that a substancial emprovement on the *average* Nihonto has been achieved with some types of mass produced blades, but I also suggest you to see the matter under the

point of view of those times (Ohmura seems quiet unable in doing so...). Propaganda was not a need, was a way of thinking. So let's destroy some "big names" to prove we're able to outperform them for the sake of the Empire...

For example, and returning to the topic, the modern swords outperforming NihonTo in cold weather is propaganda. As I've shown before, swords reliable in cold weather were indeed produced far before. The *average* Nihonto was not suitable for extreme cold weather, because it had *no such a need*. It was perfectly possible to produce swords well suited to cold environment even with traditional means (see link posted before). Of course needing the IJA a production in industrial quantities, it also needed a total different approach.

What sometimes make me laughin is the section of traditionally made sword Ohmura posts as evidence of superiority by the mantetsu swords over the hand made ones because of better distribution of the shingane. I've a picture of a sectioned jokoto that is better built than the example of "average hand made sword" Ohmura use as example.

 

Regarding your opinion of Hizen swords being great, "not because of" namban steel but "also with" namban steel, this is a bit self- contradictory? isn't "because of" and "with" namban steel the same thing? it is present in the sword

 

Maybe I've poorly expressed my opinion, that was intended to stress the fact that whether Hizen swords have or have not nanban steel inside, I think the matter has little or no consequence on Hizen smiths' skillfulness. Personally I think nanban steel was indeed used (and not only by Hizen smiths, and before the Early Edo), but I'm still very uncertain if it had any consequence in the final result. Let's not endorse the case that Hizen smiths were superior for the material used rather than for their skillfullness.

 

So far the only possible link between quality and nanban steel is the carbon content yotan steel had. The higher the carbon content the more the folds allowed (cause of the carbon content loss in the process). The more the folds allowed the finer the hada. But such a fine hada has been achieved before when no nanbatetsu was available, and we don't know how much yotan steel (if...) was used in the very likely case of a blend with Japanese steel. So we still remain with an unanswered question. IMHO.

[paulb]

Carlo,

I think your point is very well expressed and certanly reminded me that we need always to read such reports in context. Throughout history propaganda has always played a major part.

I am not in a postion to comment on the validity or otherwise of the report you and George refer to, but it would make perfect sense that the results were weighted to meet the motivational requirements of the times.

Also your point about Hizen is well made. basically they made good swords, This was due to their skill and technique. Whether they incorporated some foreign iron or not and whether that enhanced or retracted from the quality is open to debate but I think beyond proof.

Certainly I think it is safe to say that their very high reutation is not solely the result of them using imported iron in place of tamahagane.

regards

Paul

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

The need for a sword that fitted extreme cold was not rised by the fact hat *all* the traditional Nihonto broke on the battlefield but by the observation that *a few* didn't.

Those were recognized as produced by a fairly unknown school situated in northern Japan and nicknamed Ura-NihonTo.

Sometimes it's enough to read history "between the lines".

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

 

 

http://www.nihontocraft.com/Ura_Nihon_no_Toko.html

[cabowen]

George-

 

Thanks for the links....I fought my way through half of it before getting a head ache and throwing in the towel. The text displays on top of itself in many sections and even if the translation was decent, it is illegible.

 

The gist of it seems to be that modern science was used to produce a blade with performance, not beauty, the goal. I find it rather easy to believe that with all the modern tools and science available, a superior performing sword can be created. This is not to say that the smiths of old did not make a superior cutting sword, only that it was probably only the best smiths and maybe with a lot more variation.

 

I have no doubt a Mantetsu blade will perform as well or better than 99% of old, traditionally made swords. For myself, I see a lack of beauty in the mantetsu sword and the reason I collect Japanese swords has as much to do with beauty as with function. Therefore, while they may be technically superior, they are inferior as an example of craft.

 

No doubt a modern, mass produced sniper rifle will outperform a handmade matchlock, yet there are many that choose to collect the matchlock, not for its performance as a weapon, but for the beauty of its handmade construction.....

[george trotter]

Hi Carlo, Chris, Paul and Jacques,

thank you for your detailed responses, all of which make good points.

I have to say that I agree with you about the quality of Hizen swords. They could not have gained such a high reputation for quality and performance and held it for so long if they were not good....the question we can't answer is whether the nambantetsu use is, or is not, a factor....or it just comes down to skill in making.

 

I included the Ohmura research as I did not clearly understand Carlo's comments, and it seemed related to the nambantetsu question. I thought that Ohmura's pages supported the inclusion of western steel to produce a better "performance" outcome. While I agree that the Ohmura sources might suffer from the "military mentality" and that the tests are sometimes not rigidly controlled, the swords that fail/pass are not clearly identified and the scientific data is a bit haphazard...it is interesting data, for instance with the cold weather use and the higher cutting without bending/breaking rate. I do notice that Ohmura san includes sunobe gunto and han-tenran type showato under gendaito, which I think are entirely separate classes.

 

I notice that Echizen is in the Ura-Nippon area...I wonder if the nambantetsu use by Echizen Yasutsugu line (and the Musashi branch) is originally related to the cold and whether these swords of high reputation performed as well as Hizento?, and if so, is it "because" of nambantetsu or skill of the makers?

 

It would be interesting to know if known nambantetsu users' swords generally performed better/worse than non-nambantetsu all tamahagane blades...I suppose we'll never know.

 

regards,

George.

[cabowen]

I think it bears mentioning that the research which Omura cites details the scientific methods used to manufacture "state of the art" swords. These methods included not only a metallurgical analysis to determine the optimum materials, but also a manufacturing process which produced uniform construction (with the core centered as it should be) and using instrumentation, even, controlled, uniform heat treatment. Basically, they eliminated all the guesswork that is part of traditional sword making and optimized the most important variables.

[george trotter]

I agree...Ohmura shows research that does point to the uniformity of materials, temperatures and production techniques being in large part the reason the products were so consistant in quality and performance. It is also interesting that the most successful seem to be from the larger establishments with the resources to ensure these outcomes...smaller factories and individuals fared less well. The western steel lends itself well to these processes, being more uniform in the required metallurgical characteristics.

 

I wonder if the Hizen smiths were able, for their time, to ensure a higher standard in these things than their competitors?...and once set in place were able to produce a superior product for a long time...possibly connected also to the use of a continually consistant grade of nambantetsu?

 

regards,

Geo.

[paulb]

George,

I think your point assumes that imported iron was consistant. While this might be true in the 20th. century I would doubt it necessarily the case in the 17th. century. Comments prior to this discussion suggest otherwise and that the imported material had higher and more variable levels of impurities. While Tamahagane has been produced in more or less the same way between 1600 and 1940 the same cannot be assumed for imported steel. Therefore the material under test in the 20th century is likely to be very different from the earlier material.

regards

Paul

[cabowen]

There were several factors that contributed to the success and prosperity of the Hizen school: strong patronage meant a steady stream of quality materials and craftsman; a strong demand meant regular work (practice makes perfect), a long, continuous patronage meant continuity and refinement.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I have no doubt a Mantetsu blade will perform as well or better than 99% of old, traditionally made swords.

 

Difference might be so slim to be unnoticeable, if present, especially for the use such swords were intended to.

 

I would like to rise an exception that has not been made so far, using what I believe is common sense, and still relevant to the topic of the use of western steel instead of Tamahagane.

 

We know for a fact that IJA and IJN (in the usual environment of competition we know they acted during all the war) both established a forge to provide traditionally made swords to their officers. I'd unerline the fact that the task was to equip their affluent officers with traditionally made swords. *Not* to support the traditional art of swordmaking. They could have done so leaving these

swords for civilian only.

 

If traditionally (well) made swords were so inferior, why to allow affluent officers arm themselves with such inferior weapons and not force them to use standard Koa Isshin Mantetsu ?

Why to waste money and time in supporting these forges, again *not* intended to support the traditional process, instead to enforce the Mantetsu production ?

Why so many officers used ancestral swords, many with gimei of big names, putting their live in danger ?

Why during the russo-Japanese war, the WWI or the Siberian intervention no such a need arose (not even the need of frost-resistant blades when supporting the Czar in Siberia) ?

 

Too many question maybe but I've made out a rather explicative answer that, to me, works quiet well.

 

I tend to attribute this to the mentality change started during the early '30s (maybe some year before) that sorted in the military dictature. Propaganda and Bushido-like organization of Army and Navy suddenly made every officer and NCO in need of a well made "Japanese" sword and the only way to provide such a large number of men with good swords was to produce them industrially. Whether or not they were (are) really better wasn't relevant because the establishment had no other way out than say that industrially made swords were more effective to fulfill the massive need of a "samurai sword", to the point of performing tests on antiques that invariably ended out supporting their assertions.

Industrially made swords were made even before, but the need to explain they were better never arose until the '30s. Even the choice of a traditional sugata instead of the western one calls for

a psicological target. Before, western sabres were perfectly good to slash russians or chineses, so good that ancestral blades were adapted (butchered?) to fit the standard sabre-like mount.

 

I think the focus was on psicological effect rather than effectiveness. To support how they were training their troops, they didn't feel the need of a good automatic rifle or anti-tank weapons,

no self-sealing fuel tanks for planes. They needed an excessively long Arisaka bayonet for the heirs of Ashigaru and modern mass produced Tachi for the heirs of Samurai, even when they were pilots, paratroopers or sailors.

 

Psicology might be at the root of the use of nanban steel as well. We could have two situations sparked by the same psicological need of a superior weapon. Whether this is the case and how much

the superiority is effective looks like a very personal interpretation of facts and evidences.

 

Nonetheless I think that the point of view I'm expressing is at least worth a consideration.