Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 cabowen said: Ford, your appeal to authority would carry much more weight in my opinion if your authorities were actual martial artists with combat experience. LIke I said, I have talked to such people and I have heard time and again that a tsuba that is not functional is not a good tsuba. Since you have talked to them, I must assume that they were Japanese WWII veterans. In that case they would have used swords in gunto mounts. These mounts, as Ford has already stressed, had smallish, soft metal tsuba (brass). Or I am wrong here? On the other hand, they would not fight US soldiers armed with swords or sabres, so perhaps my argument is not valid at all. Correct me if I am wrong...
Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 sanjuro said: Some few years ago, my old Sensei did some cutting tests on copper and iron blanks shaped like tsuba. They were mounted securely both flat and on edge for the purpose. The Copper blanks were cut quite easily both on edge and somewhat less easily on the flat. The iron blanks (not forged but mild steel) resisted the cuts although on edge the blank was cut to a depth of some five or six centimetres and on the flat, only a deep cut mark was the result. I didnt consider this as a definitive sort of example because real tsuba were not used (for obvious reasons). The copper on edge cuts were quite dramatic. Not all were cut through but had they been mounted on a sword they would have been ruined beyond use. The iron blanks survived remarkably well. I dont know if you would consider this an exhaustive test in a real sense, but it was very indicative of relative strength of the materials. Yes, I would consider this a good test. Soft metal tsuba are not as resistant as iron tsuba. A full blow on your tsuba would be probably a rare, if not impossible event. Since very simple, utilitarian tsuba have been made from soft metal as early as in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, they hardly have been deemed non-functional. It is just that a tsuba's primary function is to prevent the hand of the swordsman to glide on the sharp blade, as already stated. Which is not to say that iron tsuba are not more robust and resistant. They are. Does that sound like a good compromise?
sanjuro Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Quote stating that tsuba that have never been mounted, or are made of soft metal, don't deserve to be called tsuba but "tsuba like" art is another entirely... This is a matter of interpretation surely. The value and validity of a tsuba is in its function as a sword guard, a purpose it can only serve mounted on a sword. The value and validity of a tsuba shaped piece of art, not meant to be mounted, is purely as a piece of art possibly representative of a tsuba. if it is not mounted or mountable it is not a sword guard, hence the term 'tsuba like object'. This does not necessarily demean the piece as an art work. It merely describes its shape and resemblance to the real deal. It seems we are getting big on compromises now.
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 mariuszk said: Since you have talked to them, I must assume that they were Japanese WWII veterans. In that case they would have used swords in gunto mounts. These mounts, as Ford has already stressed, had smallish, soft metal tsuba (brass). Or I am wrong here? On the other hand, they would not fight US soldiers armed with swords or sabres, so perhaps my argument is not valid at all. Correct me if I am wrong... Yes, most were WWII combat veterans, all were trained swordsman. One, Nakamura Taizaburo, was a swordsmanship instructor a the Toyama Academy as well as a member of a special forces unit that armed only with swords, went on evening search and destroy missions. Some gunto had brass, some had steel. Didn't matter much as they didn't face anyone with swords....as you note. They weren't solely basing their opinion solely on their experiences as WWII veterans, but as trained swordsman with intimate knowledge of the actual, practical use of swords.
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 mariuszk said: Since very simple, utilitarian tsuba have been made from soft metal as early as in the Kamakura and Muromachi periods, they hardly have been deemed non-functional. How do you know they were not meant for ceremony, etc. but actual combat? And again, they may have been used but that doesn't mean they were "good" from a functional standpoint....
Jacques Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Hi, Quote Primary function... the Tsuba is used to prevent the hand from slipping onto the blade during fight. I strongly disagree with that, those saying that have probably never practised martial arts such kenjutsu or battodo. The purpose of a tsuba is to protect hand from the opposing blade.
Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 cabowen said: How do you know they were not meant for ceremony, etc. but actual combat? well... I have just made the assumption that ceremonial tsuba tend to be more ornate... An example of a tsuba which does not look very ceremonial, at least in my humble opinion...
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Hard to say what it might have looked like originally. In any case, you are applying your conception of what is "ceremonial"... Again, I am not saying that soft metal was not used, just that they aren't good functionally.
Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Jacques D. said: I strongly disagree with that, those saying that have probably never practised martial arts such kenjutsu or battodo. The purpose of a tsuba is to protect hand from the opposing blade. OK, as someone who hasn't practiced martial arts I have a question - do you expect your tsuba to take a full blow from your opponent, or would this be rare? This is a question, no statement, I have no idea but would like to know.
sanjuro Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 I'm with you on this Jacques, but then again I am but a poor martial artist who spends many hours each week with a sword in his hand. Mariusz has made some concessions in this discussion so I wasnt going to argue with his belief that tsuba stop people like me from clumsily cutting themselves. Not to belabour a point, but a swordsmans grip on the tsuka is never in contact with the tsuba at all. It rests in fact behind the line of the fuchi. For interests sake, a wet tsukaito is actually easier to grip than a dry tsuka ito. A wet tsukaito provides more friction to the grip. Many swordsmen when going into battle would wet the tsuka ito to give a better grip and to dilute the blood that ran onto it. Just a little bit of trivia..........
christianmalterre Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 PLEASE DO READ ABOUT TSUBA IN TSUBA BOOKS! Sorry? (Chris,Keith-you both gentlemen would do better in an Budo Forum if still dreaming from "Schnick-Schnack Samurai Nostalgic"...Not?-as far as i remember,this here is an collectors forum...NOT?) Sorry!(may be mine old age...?) Christian
Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 sanjuro said: Mariusz has made some concessions in this discussion so I wasnt going to argue with his belief that tsuba stop people like me from clumsily cutting themselves. Keith, there are always concessions to be made - what we have here is a discussion, a process in which we may learn and sometimes change our views thanks to the knowledge of other participants. I don't think either of us here is a fanboy of tetsu or irogane, respectively What we try to do is to put all arguments together (pro and contra) and come to some sort of conclusion. I am trying to learn a little bit about swordsmanship, hence my question to Jaques about the frequency of a full (not deflected) blow to a tsuba in actual sword fighting. I think we may be coming close to a point where we can agree that soft metal tsuba is not as functional as an iron tsuba, but still functional enough to be used in combat.
Marius Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 christianmalterre said: you both gentlemen would do better in an Budo Forum...Not? I think we just...
sanjuro Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Christian I have never read a tsuba book that dealt in any meaningful way with the practical aspects of tsuba. Since this discussion is about the practicality of tsuba, my comment seemed appropriate. Ignore the gory bits if they offend you, but you cannot deny that the tsuba you are so fond of were once mounted on a weapon and had a very sinister purpose, whether you like it or not. Mariusz. You may well be right! Though we may be reaching some points of agreement here, perhaps our brethren of the forum are not... Who knows? We can only hope that reason prevails. :D PM me if you like, and I can try to answer some of your swordsmanship questions.
Ford Hallam Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Posted March 14, 2012 I see the discussion has veered inevitably to that 'a tsuba must be functional' mindset and that what I was trying to explain is being overlooked. Whatever the requirements in terms of functionality might have been for warriors who used their swords in battle it is glaringly obvious from simply by looking at the evolution of tsuba, ....long before the 'decadent corrupting rot' set in , that what shaped their appearance was not the physical reality of stopping a sword blow but what the thing looked like, ie; aesthetics. Chris, it would be good to be able to ask the opinion of a battlefield season warrior, indeed. This is what I tried to do by making reference to the very man who used them, way back then. Sadly, such a person, with the real world experience we're looking for, simply doesn't exist. All we have are the objects themselves. I'm afraid I know too much about the development of Ko-ryu , particularly the modern Toyama Ryu, to be swayed by their claims of superior understanding of battle field conditions and requirements. That part of my library is complete and merely further informs my opinion. And over 25 years practice myself (I was forced to stop in 2000 due to illness). So you'll forgive my scepticism regarding the views of dojo experts.
kusunokimasahige Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Mariusz, Japanese officers as well as NCO's fought Allied troops with their swords most definetely. The only problem was that they were often shot dead long before reaching the enemy lines. KM
runagmc Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 I propose this to the discussion... Has anyone ever seen an antique soft metal tsuba that was cut through or heard of any old texts that tell about someone being injured due to his tsuba not withstanding a sword strike? Nobody's arguing that soft metal tsuba are as tough as iron ones. The point is, toughness obviously wasn't always the #1 factor in choosing a tsuba. Should we have to put an asterisk in front of the word *tsuba, or use a different term all together, eveytime we talk about one with a feature that makes it less tough or less functional than YOUR ideal tsuba?!
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 We know tsuba evolved from simple, purely martial items mostly made of steel, to decorated items, mostly made of steel, to soft metal that was primarily decorative in nature. We know soft metal was mounted on swords. We don't know if they were the first choice for actual combat among the majority of soldiers actually using swords for combat, but can assume, based on the fact that their rise coincides with the decline of combat, that they were not made with combat as a primary concern. We can perhaps assume that since the majority of tsuba produced when there was rampant warfare were steel, that steel was preferred. We know soft metal was mounted on the swords of the rich and powerful and that tsuba became more artistic/garish as swords became less important as weapons and more important as status symbols among the upper and merchant class. We also know that the vast majority of the rich and powerful never actually fought themselves so we can not make assumptions of the practical utility of soft metal tsuba from the fact that certain powerful figures coveted them. We know soft metal does not afford the same protection from a sword cut as steel. We know tsuba were, from time to time, cut with swords in battle. We know there are good and bad tsuba, as judged from a practical standpoint, and good and bad tsuba, as judged from an artistic standpoint. We also know there are lots of bad swords and tsuba, regardless of which angle they are judged from. We have the opinions of soldiers who used swords in WWII and others trained in the martial arts who contend that a tsuba must first be functional, just like a sword, to be a good tsuba. Appreciation from an artistic standpoint does not trump the functional utility. We have the opinions of museum staff and others that have never wielded a sword in any type of actual combat. We have the opinion that modern made items, never meant to be mounted, much less used, are in fact, tsuba in the same sense as those made 200 years ago based simply on their artistic merits. We have the opinion that modern made tsuba not meant for use, despite any artistic merits, are reproductions that capture the form but not the substance of a traditional tsuba made for actual use. Some people collect only pre-modern items, some collect modern items. Those that collect pre-modern items only usually contend that modern made items are simply copies made in a time where they have no relevance. People collect modern made items contend they have artistic merit and that is what they value. Some people value swords as art, some as artifact. The same can seemingly be said of tsuba. Does that about cover the facts that we do know and the opinions that pertain to this discussion?
runagmc Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Quote This is a matter of interpretation surely. The value and validity of a tsuba is in its function as a sword guard, a purpose it can only serve mounted on a sword. The value and validity of a tsuba shaped piece of art, not meant to be mounted, is purely as a piece of art possibly representative of a tsuba. if it is not mounted or mountable it is not a sword guard, hence the term 'tsuba like object'. This does not necessarily demean the piece as an art work. It merely describes its shape and resemblance to the real deal. It seems we are getting big on compromises now. So when a tsuba is unmounted, we need to call it a "tsuba like object", and then when the same tsuba is mounted we can call it a tsuba Is a plate called a plate only when your eating off of it? Or better yet, is a tire called a tire only when it's mounted on a car?
kusunokimasahige Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 It partly does Chris. What is important in this case is one of the things you mention in the beginning of your post. Historically after the siege of Osaka castle, and with inclusion of some rebellions as well as the last battles when the Meiji Emperor tried to take over, there are little recorded instances where the sword was used in battle. Private duels between Samurai were, for the most part, not written down or recorded, and if they were, we highly likely do not have all the sources left. Also, when it comes to battle functionality we have only some swords in musea which are still in their original koshirae and with their original tsuba. When did the Tokugawa bakufu decide that it was ok for the merchant class to wear swords ? Was it laid down in law and does that law still exist ? Do we know if and how many merchants used their swords in battle ? What kind of tsuba did they use ? Were there samurai who on official business wore their swords with the most magnificent tsuba they had ? Did Samurai have sets of different tsuba which could be mounted on their own swords? One for battle, one for bling ? There are so many questions left unanswered that it is in part an impossibility to reach a conclusion based on "the evidence" . What we are left with is only an educated guess, and nothing more. KM
runagmc Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Quote We know there are good and bad tsuba, as judged from a practical standpoint, and good and bad tsuba, as judged from an artistic standpoint. And if you want to call some tsuba good, and other tsuba bad, in accordance with your personal preference, that's perfectly understandable. What has been said here, is that modern tsuba or "bad tsuba" shouldn't be regarded as tsuba at all, but just an artistic interpretation, and I can't understand that. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... it won't be the first time, and I'm sure not the last
christianmalterre Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 with your´s agreement-i will link me out of this threat- it´s obviously not only boaring(due obvious to be seen lack of competence)-it´s additionally getting stupid! Sorry! (either way-Adam,thank you -at least one here who does use his brain) No further comment-do play further... Christian
Brian Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 I own a few antique firearms, including some that are elaborately factory engraved, and have seen many others that were clearly not intended to be fired, as they are very highly decorated. but they are guns. If you don't believe me, care to stand in front of one? :lol: Sorry...but I'm not buying it. A tsuba is a tsuba is a tsuba. If made for artistic reasons only, then it is an art tsuba. Its function or maker's intention should not influence its categorization or naming. My opinion....worth what you pay for it. Brian
kusunokimasahige Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Well said Brian ! Here is a question.... Art or functional ? http://www.riflegear.com/blogimages/KittyRifle.jpg KM
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Brian said: I own a few antique firearms, including some that are elaborately factory engraved, and have seen many others that were clearly not intended to be fired, as they are very highly decorated.but they are guns. If you don't believe me, care to stand in front of one? :lol: Sorry...but I'm not buying it. A tsuba is a tsuba is a tsuba. If made for artistic reasons only, then it is an art tsuba. Its function or maker's intention should not influence its categorization or naming. My opinion....worth what you pay for it. Brian Sure, they are guns, they function. Care to place your hand under a modern soft metal tsuba not meant for use and let someone have a whack at it? Does it function? Was it made to function? What is a modern made black powder Colt Navy or Remington Army called? A reproduction. What is a highly engraved modern Colt Navy called? A highly engraved reproduction. What are modern made, non-functioning copies of historical firearms called? Non-guns. Why should a modern, not made to function "tsuba" be any different? Call it a tsuba if you wish but I would never consider it anything but a modern reproduction.
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 [quote name="runagmc" So when a tsuba is unmounted' date=' we need to call it a "tsuba like object", and then when the same tsuba is mounted we can call it a tsuba
Ford Hallam Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Posted March 14, 2012 Quote It is a tsuba-like object when it was MADE solely as an art work, and not INTENDED to be used as a tsuba. It is a reproduction. And it therefore follows (according the Chris Bowen) that blades made by today's top swordsmiths, obviously not intended to be used to kill an opponent in battle, are sword-like objects. They are reproductions. Good luck with advancing that fancy in Japan among professional smiths. Additionally, Chris, your use of the word 'reproduction' is clearly very specific and obviously inaccurate in many respects. A reproduction can only be of something specific that existed previously. Ergo; if a tsuba is an original design it cannot be a reproduction. Obviously what you mean is 'a object made in a particular genre' ...but that would give it too much credibility for your taste I suspect. Further, as there are so many different style of tsuba, as well as different aesthetic expressions (apart from wabi/sabi) there are a wide variety of genre's to work in. The form itself is not a genre....merely a generic term for the object itself, a bit like 'oil painting'. Oil painting have a long and varied history, and were/are commissioned for a variety of reasons. Any book on art history will reveal that art in the past inevitably served very specific functional purposes. Portraits most frequently to signal the sitters status and importance. If, for argument's sake, we claim that the original oil paintings were only portraits and that therefore a painting today, done on canvas just like the originals, but of an oily tool box is not a 'real oil-painting' not a single art historian or critic would take you seriously. This is essentially the position you've painted (unavoidable pun) yourself into.
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Ford Hallam said: And it therefore follows (according the Chris Bowen) that blades made by today's top swordsmiths, obviously not intended to be used to kill an opponent in battle, are sword-like objects. They are reproductions. Good luck with advancing that fancy in Japan among professional smiths. You are comparing tsuba to swords. It does not follow as a matter of course that because tsuba may be reproductions that swords must be as well. Also, I wouldn't say it is up to the smith or artist to decide how the paying public views their output- they can call it anything they want. The market decides ultimately... And if you asked collectors in Japan, or even elsewhere, if modern swords and tsuba are reproductions, you would, in my experience, hear from many that indeed they both are.... At least with modern swords, the smiths haven't lost sight of their original purpose. In fact many smiths make two types of swords: practical blades to use for martial arts, and "art swords" for collectors. They are distinctly differentiated though they both are considered functional weapons by the government, and smiths, when making "art swords", will tell you that functionality is always the first criteria in judging their success or failure. When a sword, modern or antique, has a hagire, no matter how small (and some I have seen would never be noticed unless pointed out with a magnifying glass), it is considered dead. Why? A tiny hagire could never have any impact on the functionality of a blade never made to be used, but a modern smith will destroy such a blade every time because a sword that it not functional first, even if it is not made to be carried and used, is not a good sword.
Ford Hallam Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Posted March 14, 2012 Quote You are comparing tsuba to swords. It does not follow as a matter of course that because tsuba may be reproductions that swords must be as well. Why not, you must be consistent in your argument or show good reason why there needs to be a different logical thought process in the case of tsuba. Besides, you didn't say tsuba 'may' be reproductions....you have been very adamant. No 'may' about it in your mind. You've specified why modern tsuba are not 'real tsuba' and merely reproductions....I simply applied the same logic to certain blades. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. And in any case you didn't make any fundamental distinction between tsuba and blades when you started your thread that this one followed from. We're not talking about specifics relating to only a blade or a tsuba but only about the principles by which you chose to judge. But from what you have written about some modern blades made for martial arts use you would then fairly judge this to be a tsuba. A reasonably accurate copy of a form supposedly created by Musashi (someone you suggested would know what a functional tsuba should look like) and made to actually fit a blade...and function as a guard if, in the highly unlikely event, it needed to (something I always keep in mind btw). If you still feel this is merely a 'tsuba-like' object then all those blades made by modern smiths, albeit intended for serious practice, are also, by your own definition, merely 'sword-like' objects. I rest my case. The steel itself was painstakingly worked by myself and treated to reveal the grain to demonstrate that it is in fact hand made steel, the few restrained touches of 'decoration' don't imped any functionality. Like many smiths I also make fittings that are intended for use...so do I get the same status you seem prepared to afford smiths? And, I've actually never made a tsuba that wasn't first fitted and conceived around a blade of my own. How it works as a functioning tsuba is always by starting point. In fact at the moment I'm carving, from steel I forged myself, an original design (not terribly unlike Musashi's version...only better) of a catfish. This will be part of a koshirae intended for serious use. And mine will easily stand up to a sword strike much better then most classic pre-1600 pierced tsuba because mine is essentially a plate. But ultimately you fall back on this; Quote Also, I wouldn't say it is up to the smith or artist to decide what it is they make as they can call it anything they want. The market decides. Which is nonsense and just a cop out. Since when did the market decide what was legitimate classical music, ballet or even literature? Money doesn't answer every question of culture. In this context money buys you choices...not intellectual property rights.
IanB Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Cutting at tsuba, whether of copper and iron, as well as helmets sitting on a section of tree trunk has little validity in reality because the object being cut is absolutely rigid. Were someone holding the sword, any blow would force the sword and tsuba to move in the direction of the cut, reducing the force of the cut. The same applies to helmets, the blow forcing the head to move downwards until the energy of the blow is reduced sufficiently for the muscles in the neck and body to resist it. Sadly the only valid test would be for someone to actually hold the sword or wear the helmet - tests not to be undertaken lightly. Ian Bottomley
Recommended Posts