Jump to content

Lamination


Guest Rayhan

Recommended Posts

Hi Members

 

I am here with another question that may get the eyes of all the seasoned collectors here rolling as in "Why Ray?" but I am not willing to lose anymore sleep on it so here goes:

 

If in the case of Samonji (example O-Sa) producing swords in Soshu style is it safe to assume he used Soshu Kitae on all his constructs?

 

Same for other traditions and schools, if we look at a Gokaden collection are we looking at not only Jigane, Hamon, etc but the construct and laminations being equally individual and complex or was there a standard lamination such as Sanmai and Kobuse keeping more complex methods for special commissions? Did purchase price or buyer budgets play a role perhaps?

 

Sorry if this has been covered in length before  :bowdown:  :bowdown:  :bowdown:

 

Rayhan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

 That is a really interesting question and hopefully someone, not me, will have an authoritative answer. If the answer were logic rather than knowledge, one would expect that particularly in koto times the initiation into a tradition would follow, perhaps more than anything, the laminate construction practices of that school as such could influence the jihada properties which are special "trademarks" to each tradition. Thus during Edo times, when smiths were less dependent on locally materials, we might expect that the use of unique metals and complex structures would be less controlling in the production process as jihada tends to be more uniform.

 Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Arnold for that input and I agree that if the central principle was to always be true to the tradition and methodology of the school then they should keep the lamination methods at the heart of the forging process, if we hear that schools declined (in quality) then perhaps this would mean they moved away from it at some point perhaps. We also see different values placed on different swords from the same makers so did that mean they did what the client requested according to budgets? So many questions! 

 

Jacques i am going to have to agree with John here, a blatant statement on something many people have written about before as having existed without any proof is bold, especially here on NMB,  :laughing: For the Tanto I see where you are coming from since it is a smaller blade and so not much laminating would be needed but apart from the engineering I am asking about the tradition and the principles behind that. Wouldn't the smiths still remain true to that even if it was a Tanto or a Tachi is my query. 

 

What about the mass production in Bizen during the Muromachi era, was there a lax approach to their standards or did they devise a special Kitae for this purpose of mass?  :bang:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question I have often debated but never reached a conclusion on is whether the inclusion of soft core steel was of functional benefit or just away to save money. Some engineers and smiths I have spoken to say the idea of the soft core acting as a shock absorber is a myth it has no benefit. Others take the opposite view.

It is stated, and I have no reason to doubt it, that early blades by such smiths as Munechika, the ko-Bizen smiths and the Awataguchi smiths used single piece construction. They were using top quality steel throughout. I think this is why even on long swords the hada always looks crip even when heavily polished. Relating to your other post Bo-hi in awataguchi blades are said to be very fine and I  think again even though they are deeply carved in slender blades they show no evidence of the courser core steel.

The introduction of a soft core seems to come in a little later in Bizen and possibly Rai work. I wonder if this is because increased demand put strain on supply of top quality steel or the smiths found a way to improve profit margins

Of course it could be as often said it was done to improve performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question I have often debated but never reached a conclusion on is whether the inclusion of soft core steel was of functional benefit or just away to save money. 

 

Shingane is present from the Han dynasty even in swords found in high ranking people tombs. As per the Soshu kitae I haven't a picture depicting a sword section showing it but I encountered mention of it many times during my studies as a further evolution of honsanmai. 

post-46-0-21536300-1508429291_thumb.png

post-46-0-71988700-1508429302_thumb.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Carlo

Thanks for the information. I am not doubting it existed prior to the Bizen smiths using it just that in some schools and traditions it wasn't used. I haven't heard one way or the other regarding yamato work. Less focussed on the higher ranking users and aimed for greater practicality perhaps they incorporated it earlier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The study of the swords in the Shoso-in made by Markus are enlighting. Of course I can't boldly state that all schools and traditions used shingane always and every time.  I offer only an opinion based on what I had and have researched not forgetting that in Nihonto exception is the rule... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You cannot discuss the construction of a blade without regarding the intended performance. A TANTO is basically designed for stabbing and cutting, and is not likely to be bent in a fight. The aim of the inner construction is to make it sufficiently rigid for these purposes. In many cases, the dimensions will also allow to parry a sword blow.  For blades like these, a mono-steel or KOBUSE construction will be o.k.

Long blades are mainly intended for slashing blows against soft or hard targets. Stabbing is no main objective. The necessary resilience is achieved by the composite construction (sandwich system) with a more flexible core steel to prevent breaking.

The core steel (SHINGANE) is probably not much cheaper than the KAWAGANE, but its quality is not so critical. It just fills in the space between the high quality KAWAGANE layers. Any steel with a low carbon percentage would be acceptable in this place.

As to mass produced swords in war times, quality (and costs) were probably reduced by the way of less work (= fewer foldings) as the refining of the slightly impure TAMAHAGANE was a necessary, but time-consuming process. Not working (= folding) the steel properly could end in a failure of the blade.   

  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the contributions on this topic. I agree Jean © that I should define what blade so let us look at it from the Katana or Tachi point of view as Tanto or even Wakizashi can be of single steel or less laminates. I do believe in the bimetallic structure theory since having steel structures that can bend and go back to their original shape is imperative for a sword, as well as the known fact that when impact waves move from a hard to soft medium they dissipate much faster. Heat caused from friction on the strike area will also move from the harder to softer areas and due to the lattice in the soft it would cool much faster.

 

The question remains for Katana and Tachi (or larger swords) did schools determine structure on budgets, tradition, or indeed the status of the person making the order? did certain schools decline due to the omittance of these traditions? 

 

For the mass swords, thank you Jean for the answer! Speed in production makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't simply make such a blanket and controversial statement with no associated proof or reference.

 

 

 

Don't reverse the burden of proof, nobody can proove inexistence, if you say shoshu kitae exists, you have to proove it...

 

About lamination i trust Kokan Nagayama  who says  methods such kobuse or makuri  were invented in the late muromachi (sengoku-jidai) Economic purpose is certainly the main reason for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't reverse the burden of proof, nobody can proove inexistence, if you say shoshu kitae exists, you have to proove it...

 

About lamination i trust Kokan Nagayama  who says  methods such kobuse or makuri  were invented in the late muromachi (sengoku-jidai) Economic purpose is certainly the main reason for that.

I never said it existed or didn't exist, I was simply asking for some sort of reference or fact to back up such a controversial opinion. However if all you have is Strawman arguments to bring to the table, so be it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

About lamination i trust Kokan Nagayama  who says  methods such kobuse or makuri  were invented in the late muromachi (sengoku-jidai) 

Believe it or not, you stated this also a long time ago. This hurted me so much that I decided to put together my essay to prove both you and Nagayama are wrong, and using academical arguments and Japanese sources some at least of the same level of Nagayama some may be higher. You can find their names and the works I took information from in the bibliographic  section of my essay. You can find it here : http://www.webalice.it/tsubame1/Downloads/2)%20Notes%20to%20On%20the%20Origins%20of%20NihonTo.pdf

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Already in Jokoto ;

 

quote...

 

Most specimen consist of three to five layers, and combinations of two or six layers of steel are rather rare. From this point of view we can say that in most cases ancient sword blades consist of three layers of steel forged in a vertical manner, so to speak a shingane with each one layer of Kawagane to the sides. And the incorporation of horizontally arranged layers too flowed eventually into the well-known forging methods of the Japanese sword. Therefore it is important for the understanding of the history of development of the Japanese sword to look back on the forging methods of ancient blades”.38

 

...unquote

 

38 Suenaga Masao "Nihon Jodai no Buki" page 142

 

 

And the everlasting work of Boris Markashin : 

post-46-0-64780700-1508515994_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shingane is present from the Han dynasty even in swords found in high ranking people tombs. As per the Soshu kitae I haven't a picture depicting a sword section showing it but I encountered mention of it many times during my studies as a further evolution of honsanmai. 

 

According your picture Soshu kitae would be existent in Heian jidai ? Soshu den was not born at this time... 

 

Kokan Nagayama was an expert and a polisher you are not polisher nor expert.....  All that you can write has no real value.... 

 

You are like climate skeptic... Dunning Kruger...  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According your picture Soshu kitae would be existent in Heian jidai ? Soshu den was not born at this time... 

Kokan Nagayama was an expert and a polisher you are not polisher nor expert.....  All that you can write has no real value.... 

Sorry to delude you that's not a picture from my essay. I'm no expert nor polisher but used the knowledge of top experts and polishers to sustain my theory, all documented in high level publications I've cited in my bibliography. Anyway You have no arguments against a gamma ray picture. Shingane definitively existed much before you ridicolously insist it was, citing just one source in front of can't remember how many, including the ones that studied and cared the Shoso-in blades. BTW you'll be able to say that anything I write has no value only when you too (like me) will have an essay translated and published in Japanese by a Japanese museum (search in the Publications of Chubachi museum). Or Shut up.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...