Soft metal tsuba and functionality

[Ford Hallam]

Following on from the interesting and revealing thread Chris Bowen started here I think some of the issue that were raised and discussed are worthy of exploring further because they might help us come to a better appreciation of the broader subject of how tsuba were perceived in the past, by the men who used them.

 

The particular issue that interests me is this notion of functionality and it's relationship to what constitutes a 'proper' tsuba.

 

It's claimed by some that the guards ability to act as a protective device is it's most important function and that once this aspect takes a back seat to more aesthetic concerns it then renders the tsuba somehow less than a 'real/proper' tsuba.

 

At face value this seem like a perfectly reasonable opinion. However, it assumes that this functional protective aspect was indeed the most significant aspect for the men who made those tsuba and those who used them. This assumption has not been proven at all and, I believe, needs to be more rigorously examined.

 

I'm not interested in starting any arguments nor offending anyone's opinion so if this topic is a closed subject to you and you really believe there is nothing to discuss please don't post just to express your irritation at my wanting to think about the matter further.

 

It's often very difficult to get a real sense of who these warriors were, their attitudes about their lives, their values and their personalities. This is made all the more difficult when we're faced with many different regional differences and clan attitudes. One province does stand out as being particularly distinctive in it's aesthetic taste as relates to their warrior's swords. This being the Higo province who's tsuba artists flourished under the patronage and direction of Hosokawa Tadaoki (Sansai) 1564 - 1646

 

Hosokawa Tadaoki began his career as a warrior fighting, at the ago of 15, under Oda Nobunaga. Therafter he served Hideyoshi Toyotomi and finally became a trusted friend and retainer of Tokugawa Ieyasu. This man exemplified the bushi ideals of Bu and Bun, the cultivation of the warrior arts as well as the literary and artistic arts.

 

Many of the most revered and admired tsuba, as evidently encouraged and supported by this remarkable man were those made by the famed artist Hirata Hikozo. Without having counted every example extant I can't be sure but a fairly large proportion of his output was in copper and similar copper based alloys. In fact his non-ferrous guards are quite delicate, 3mm thickness being quite typical. Now having worked copper like this and sliced it up quite easily with a small hand operated guillotine I can assure you, as has been asserted by others, that it would be unlikely to be able to withstand a serious blow from a sword weighing nearly 1000g and moving at a couple of hundred kilometres an hour.

 

This being self evidently the case how was it this veteran warrior, and his similarly experienced retainers, considered these rather delicate guards to be suitable compliments to their trusted blades? I suggest that even if the protective aspect was a major consideration in early years this new choice, by the very men who defined what tsuba were, implies that even for them the function and meaning of tsuba was not fixed.

 

I imagine that even back then there would have been some who might have frowned on this development, as there always are when things evolve, but I think the point is made. That such influential warriors saw fit to allow the tsuba to change in this way suggests that for them there was no such artificial definition of what tsuba were supposed to be nor what their primary function was supposed to be.

 

Would you suggest to Hosokawa Sansai that his favourite copper Hikokozo tsuba wasn't really a 'proper' tsuba because it wouldn't stop a sword strike? I think, if he didn't lop your head off, he'd look at you as though you were the village idiot. To imply that a warrior of his experience had made a mistake in what he put on his sword would be absurd. What do we really know about his requirements in a tsuba? or, for that matter, what do we really know for certain about the way they were used beyond supposition and speculation?

 

Do we have any texts by pre-Edo warriors that explain their considerations regarding tsuba? I know there are some texts that describe the desirable qualities of most of the rest of their military paraphernalia but tsuba don't seem to have been considered. Does this mean they weren't seen as all that significant in terms of military/protective hardware? or has anyone seen anything that might shed light on this issue? I'd be fascinated to read anything anyone might be able to provide.

 

...just some food for thought.

 

regards all,

 

Ford

[John A Stuart]

There is no doubt in my mind at all about the efficacy of the tsuba as a functioning part of the koshirae whether iron/steel or other material. The tsuba was a fluid design that changed with purpose and tastes. Look at early tachikoshirae, there were guards of the Chinese type with very little hand protection to large examples in Japanese fashion made of all types of metals and even lacquered leather. There were swords mounted with no tsuba, iron tsuba so delicately wrought that they would afford little in stopping a robust strike and soft metal plate that were quite thick. Tsuba as with all kanagushi were a statement about the wearer and indicated status, affiliation, wealth, philosophy and were in dress a forward proceeding proclamation of such. In the field it would not make sense to wear swords accoutered in fittings subject to deterioration by use, there would be swords fitted for this purpose, as well as the fact that the buke had little to do with battle, after all it was what the new samurai class was for. John

[Eric H]

The particular issue that interests me is this notion of functionality and it's relationship to what constitutes a 'proper' tsuba

 

Primary function... the Tsuba is used to prevent the hand from slipping onto the blade during fight.

 

This may be well suited by any kind of Tsuba: iron, plain or sukashi, soft metal, regardless ot its adornment, ivory with shibayama inlay or even lacquered leather.

 

Secondary of course it‘s logically a protection for the hand against sword blows...however Uesugi Kenshin prefered a mounting without Tsuba.

 

Have a look at the Momoyama Owari iron sukashi tsuba for sale here...this type of Tsuba has been classified as too unserviceable to withstand a sword blow...in another thread...but it is based on the "primary function".

 

An iron Tsuba with sword cuts in the mimi.

 

Conclusion: purpose and functionality of a Tsuba is self-explaining and any type of Tsuba, regardless of how old it is, if it has been once mounted on a sword or not, or if it has been created solely for artistic reasons...they have to be considered as genuine Tsuba, ready for immediate mounting on a Koshirae...except a Shibayama Tsuba..

 

Eric

[kusunokimasahige]

In katori shinto Ryu as well as in other Koryu styles a parry is mostly if not always done with the mune.

 

The idea that the tsuba is meant as a protection for the hands not slipping on the blade itself therefore is logical.

 

A side effect could indeed have been that the tsuba might protect a blade glancing off your blade onto your hands, but I think that primarily the tsuba was meant as protection the way it was described earlier.

 

The Tsuba is a different thing than the crossbar on a medieval Western sword or even for that matter the protection on broadswords and rapiers. Also the function/use of the European types of weapons was different than the Japanese sword.

 

It is comparing apples with pears. A comparison by all means, but a faulty one.

 

KM

[Ford Hallam]

Henk, yes, I think at this point we don't really need to go over the whole protection a aspect really.

 

I gather you didn't read what I wrote then... What I was getting to, by drawing attention to the fact that thin copper guards were regarded as suitable by some veteran warriors, was that for them the meaning and function of tsuba was not fixed. That as times changes so the tsuba changed for the men who used them. My point being that it therefore does no make sense to call only one very specific type of tsuba , 'real tsuba'

[kusunokimasahige]

Oh I did read that Ford. And I agree with you completely. A tsuba is a tsuba.

 

KM

[cabowen]

I hope that the moderators allow a little latitude here and allow what I believe is an important topic to proceed a bit before they turn the lights out.....

 

To clarify my earlier opinions:

 

There are tsuba meant for use, and reproductions (I don't like this word because it carries connotations that there is nothing creative produced--("modern renditions?") ) of tsuba that are not made for use at all but first and foremost as art.

 

Tsuba meant for use started simple and became more and more adorned as the use of the sword declined and as tsuba meant for a different market became larger and a major focus. Despite this change, these tsuba were made to be mounted and used. I would consider them tsuba in the traditional sense, not reproductions. The fact that they started simply would indicate they indeed served a martial purpose first, and with the decline in the samurai and rise of the merchant, the artistic came to the fore.

 

Arguing the strengths and weakness of these "made for use" tsuba from a practical standpoint would seem to me to be a valid exercise. I would tend to evaluate a tsuba first from a functional standpoint, then from an artistic one because in my mind, a tsuba that is not firstly functional is a poor tsuba, despite how fantastic the adornment may be. This is the viewpoint one would expect from those who carried the sword and depended on it to protect life on a daily basis.

 

If you want to discuss what attributes are necessary from a functional point of view, one must first define the function of a tsuba, which seems from discussion here, a bit controversial. We have the perspective of the martial arts trained people who by and large seem to indicate that they serve several functions: stop the hand from sliding, protect the hand, provide some sort of balance, aid in drawing the sword, etc. Then we have the perspective offered by Ford and others that the tsuba served primarily a decorative function and would have us believe that functional considerations are met as a matter of course. Based on Ford's recent post addressing the appreciation of a tsuba, functionality plays no mentioned role. My money is on the martial artists.

 

Based on my conversations with dozens of smiths, martial arts practitioners (a few of whom actually used swords in combat and have killed people with them), and others involved with the craft professionally, I have heard over and over that a good tsuba, like a good sword, needs to be functional first, a work of art second. I have a hard time disagreeing with this from a logical standpoint.

 

Now, as far as modern reproductions are concerned, having never been made for use, they are freed from practical considerations, and should be valued simply on the artistic merits that were the central focus of their creation. They are an anachronism and can't ever be considered "tsuba" in the sense of those that were made for mounting when they actual served a practical need. The fact that we are even debating this should be proof alone that they are viewed differently. Again, most collectors of traditional tsuba have little to no interest in modern work (swords as well) because, as I have heard time and again, they are considered reproductions made in a different era- they carry none of the "romance" of the older pieces that many collectors cherish and value. They seem to be of interest more to those that appreciate their art and craft separate from their original martial origins. That does not make them less, just something different.

 

Getting back to the practicality of soft metal tsuba, I understand your argument that because soft metal tsuba were indeed not only worn but favored by certain well known samurai, we should infer that they are functional. I ask you how many actual sword fights did these gentleman participate first hand in? Did they live lives where they could have reasonably expected to use their sword at any time, or were they surrounded by layers of retainers who protected them from threat? How common was the use of soft metal tsuba on swords actually used in battle? The whole rap on post Sekigahara swords and fittings is that because they were no longer of immediate use, they became decadent and declined from a martial perspective. This is a main reason cited by collectors for their disdain of most thing made from Edo forward. I have often heard "made for a rich merchant" as a put down for the showy blades and fitting that became common...I suppose not everyone can appreciate the artistry involved in making much of these later fittings as they seem to come more from the shibui aesthetic seen in the "simple is best" old iron... I can't help but think of General George Patten's beloved Colt with nickle plating and pearl grips- hardly a combat weapon that a man in the trenches would carry. We know well the elaborate koshirae called "Daimyo play things"...to some wonderful works of art, to others, tarted up, pimped, conspicuous consumption that characterizes the excesses wealth can engender.

 

If you want to argue that real samurai used or favored soft metal as proof that they are perfectly functional, then please use examples of samurai that we know actually fought. Seems to me Miyamoto Musashi might be a good example of a samurai that knew something about both Japanese aesthetics and practical martial arts. As I understand it, he even made some tsuba. The one or two that I have seen attributed to him were iron as I recall, not soft metal....maybe he made soft metal as well....I don't recall any examples.

 

In any case, as someone with so much invested and at stake in this debate, we can hardly expect you to agree that modern made tsuba are reproductions or "tsuba-like". Personally, I think you yourself can simply look to the market demand for these modern works of art as answer to the question. As someone with a rare and special talent, I would be, as I said in an earlier post, content with making art in a medium with few peers left in the world. Being appreciated as fine art, again, should be enough....

[Pete Klein]

I have one thing to say -- it's Tadaoki, not Tadatoki.

 

PS: as for the affront mentioned above by Ford I would wager he would have sat him down and prepared tea. Sansai was a student of Sen no Rikyu and one of the 'Friends' of Oribe, a master of Chanoyu and Zen, amongst many disciplines. By the end of tea the offender would have been truly supplicant.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Chris,

 

glad you chose to join in.

 

I understand your argument that because soft metal tsuba were indeed not only worn but favored by certain well known samurai, we should infer that they are functional.

 

No, that not what I said at all. What I said was that because they used soft metal then clearly the functionality, in the sense you define it, was not of primary concern. The whole thrust of what I was getting at was that the function and meaning tsuba had for these men, fresh from campaign as it were, evolved.

 

But your comment about them not actually being in the front line is a valid one. What are we to make, therefore, of all the great masterpiece iron tsuba that do meet your definitions of functionality. Were they carried by similar high ranking warriors, and never intended to get roughed up in a proper fight....or were they really being used by the men on the front line?

 

As for your reference to martial artists who've actually killed with swords....I doubt it would have been similar situation to 16th cent. battle field conditions. And in any case, the standard tsuba on a WWII Japanese Army issue sword is not much bigger than an hamidashi tsuba....so if that's the epitome of function in that context it's obviously not relevant to the present discussion. But as I said, all these 'logical' and 'obvious' suppositions as to what the actual requirements of the pre-Edo warrior were are just that, suppositions.

 

As for my investment in the subject, it's irrelevant to me in terms of my work. People who are interested in supporting me do so for the reasons that are not of interest to those who share your view. This really is not about me trying to validate myself. I'm an artist, I make stuff...it's for others to decide what to make of it. This discussion is about examining an opinion which I personally feel is somewhat arbitrary and to my mind doesn't really hold up to a critical analysis.

 

Miyamoto Musashi is supposed to have made a number of tsuba, at least 2 were in copper, of a Catfish and gourd design.

 

And the comments I made on that other thread about tsuba appreciation didn't address functionality because I didn't specify any specific traits according to any school or period. It was very much a series of suggestions. Having said that, If I were to try to enumerate some qualities of battle ready tsuba a great deal of pre-Edo tsuba would thereby be considered poor tsuba. That would include the Kagamishi group, All leather and lacquer obviously, All Ko-Kinko...that'll upset some I imagine, Kyo-sukashi work is out, as are quite a few Owari pieces I suspect.... Ko-Akasaka probably wouldn't be a first choice in a scrap either. What are we left with then if functionality is paramount?

 

The early Tosho tsuba were invariably quite thin, 2 or 3mm at most. Katchushi guards have a more substantial rim, making them more robust. As far as I see it that's the last purely functional tsuba. Once they started producing fully pierced guards it looks to as though the need to stand up to another sword simply wasn't a major concern...if it was they'd have stuck with the Katchushi style...I would. But tsuba continued to evolve...not because of a search for a more combat effective guard but because the users wanted more expressive tsuba that made a statement about themselves. And if that was so, as it clearly must have been or why else the evolution of styles?, the choice of a pieced guard over the obviously more functional Katchushi guard would appear to be made on aesthetic grounds and not purely practical ones. What this would seem to indicate is that after the Katchushi tsuba it was the appearance, ie; the aesthetics, of the guard that was the first consideration

 

While we're about it let me ask this question. We read a lot of descriptions of these early pierced guards being made of well forged and tempered steel but has anyone ever seen an analysis of any of these guards? I would suggest they are not tempered at all, nor need they be of any significant carbon content to allow for hardening. The reason I say this is because there never seems to be a problem when it comes to cutting new ryo-hitsu or reworking the nakago-ana. To be honest, I don't know for sure but those claiming the guards are finely forged and tempered are just guessing too.

 

Now I know this is a hard concept to come to terms with for those of you who see Samurai accoutrements in the same light as Special Forces kit but the fact is warriors of the past were far more concerned with appearance and stylishness than any modern soldier would be.

[Ford Hallam]

Cheers Pete, I thought it was a typo, but it's my spell-check...it just did it again as I types Tadaoki...I've only got Tadatoki in. Fixed now. :D

 

My 'story' wasn't really meant to be taken literally though...but I doubt tea would have been offered in that situation. Tea in a crisis is peculiarly English response, as you know.

[cabowen]

 

But your comment about them not actually being in the front line is a valid one. What are we to make, therefore, of all the great masterpiece iron tsuba that do meet your definitions of functionality. Were they carried by similar high ranking warriors, and never intended to get roughed up in a proper fight....or were they really being used by the men on the front line?

 

I haven't seen a lot of iron tsuba that I would say would be easy to cut through....There are, as we all know, plenty of bad swords...why shouldn't there be a fair amount of bad tsuba, as well?

 

I have often heard that wealthy samurai had several sets of koshirae, the use of which depended on the occasion. Perhaps in peace time, or on occasions when the swords were worn as a fashion statement, the soft metal came out. Again, it is doubtful this was a common practice in koto times....

 

I don't doubt that tsuba became in essence, a fashion accessory, and it is plain to see. But I am saying this was concurrent with the decline in the martial class and is considered a manifestation of the decadence that began to pervade the class. The decline of the functional and the ascendancy of the form over function, is the point. It may have been a godsend to the kinko, but it was a sign that warrior class and the martial spirit they were grounded in was in decay.

 

 

While we're about it let me ask this question. We read a lot of descriptions of these early pierced guards being made of well forged and tempered steel but has anyone ever seen an analysis of any of these guards? I would suggest they are not tempered at all, nor need they be of any significant carbon content to allow for hardening. The reason I say this is because there never seems to be a problem when it comes to cutting new ryo-hitsu or reworking the nakago-ana. To be honest, I don't know for sure but those claiming the guards are finely forged and tempered are just guessing too.

 

Now I know this is a hard concept to come to terms with for those of you who see Samurai accoutrements in the same light as Special Forces kit but the fact is warriors of the past were far more concerned with appearance and stylishness than any modern soldier would be.

 

You need to be more precise with your terminology. There is no doubt that all iron guards were forged (except any that may have been cast, no no no, let's not go there!) because their only source of steel would have required it. Whether or not it was first quenched to harden, then tempered (reheated) to draw the hardness down a bit to make it less brittle, I do not know. I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest tsuba were not hardened and that later ones were. Also, it would be very difficult to do any sort of carving on a hardened tsuba if it hadn't been tempered back to a nearly soft state.

 

In order to quench harden, a reasonable level of carbon is required. Too little carbon and they can not be quench hardened.

 

From the tsuba I have seen with sword cuts, it was clear that those were not hardened to a great extent, if at all, or they would not have been cut as they were....

 

Your comment about the fashion con samurai should be qualified. Surely true of later ages, but the simplicity of the early accoutrements and the philosophical and religious underpinnings in earlier periods speak against the samurai as fashion plate.....

[kusunokimasahige]

Now I know this is a hard concept to come to terms with for those of you who see Samurai accoutrements in the same light as Special Forces kit but the fact is warriors of the past were far more concerned with appearance and stylishness than any modern soldier would be.

 

Not at all Ford, anyone who has read about and studied the Hagakure, Samurai history as well as Samurai society should be well aware of this.

 

In any highly ritualistic culture, philosophy, arts, artifacts as well as practical use of these artifacts are deeply entwined.

 

KM

[Toryu2020]

Cheers Ford!

I love Sansai as an historical figure and I love Higo tsuba, especially Jingo. And until you pointed it out I never made the connection. There could hardly be a finer example of samurai virtue, courage and action. I am sorry to say Chris, but this man was no pampered figure-head whose feet never touched bare earth.

 

The proto-type of the Higo koshirae which became so popular is known by two names, one is "Nobunaga koshirae", so-called for the Kashu Nobunaga blade that it held. A hint at Sansai's character in that he carried no famous blade but a simple working mans sword. It is also known as "Kassen koshirae" not from battle (kassen) but from the Thirty-six Immortal Poets, San-ju Rokassen.

 

The story goes that when Sansai learned that a group of his retainers was involved in a scandal he became so enraged he struck down the leader then and there. (some versions of the story say he killed all 36 offenders with this very sword) An elegant exterior hiding deadly serious intentions. (this was after 1600 and after he retired BTW)

 

I have to give Ford props here Sansai knew war, he designed his own armour, he was a martial artist, the very man that employed Musashi and he would, as has been said, hardly have employed inferior materials or items of decoration for something as vital as his own sword or those of his family and retainers. With this one example I think Ford has made a tremendous point.

 

with your all's indulgence, I include below a snippet of my article "Bun Bu Ryodo" from the newsletter of the NCJSC;

 

"Hosokawa Tadaoki Sansai 忠興 (1564-1645) – If any man was a better example of the dual way than Hosokawa Yûsai it would be his eldest son, Tadaoki. He served Nobunaga like his father, earning the fief of Tango. Because of differences with Akechi Mitsuhide he sided with Hideyoshi. He took part in the campaign to subjugate Kyushu, was among the generals called on to bring down the Hojo of Odawara and was the commander in the siege of Nirayama castle.

His wife, a daughter of Mitsuhide, had been baptized, Gracia. She had been confined to house arrest following the assassination of Nobunaga. Later in 1600 when Tadaoki was campaigning with Ieyasu against the Uesugi, representatives of Ishida Mitsunari came to his Osaka home to take her hostage. As the wife of a samurai lord she understood she could not be taken alive, but as a Christian she could not commit suicide. So it was that Tadaoki had arranged for one of his retainers to take her life and then (the retainer) his own and thus frustrate his enemies.

From Tango Tadaoki was transferred to Kokura, Buzen with an income of 360, 000 koku and then to Yatsushiro, Higo with an income of 540,000 koku. Here he gathered great artists and accomplished painters and swordsmen.

Like his father he was a master of Tôken, adept at poetry, painting and tea ceremony. As a student of Sen no Rikyu he developed his own school of tea and collected some of the most famous articles of tea ware known. His taste in tea and experience with Hoki ryu iaijutsu were a direct influence on the development of the Nobunaga Koshirae. His experiences on the battlefield are directly reflected in the armour that he developed for himself but that we now know as Etchu Ryu gusoku from his title of Etchu no Kami.

He studied Waka, Shushi-gaku, and Tenrei Tokujitsu and he revived the annual festival of Sharei. Sharei was a tournament held on the 17th of the first month where retainers tested their archery skills against one another, the winners receiving increases in their stipend. He was known as the “Daimyo of Bunbu Ryodô.”"

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Thomas,

 

thanks for the additional material and I'm chuffed you can see the sort of character and attitudes these men displayed in the same way I do.

 

The fact of the matter is the warrior class were extremely conscious of their appearance on the battle field. The most striking example being the rather conspicuous army of Ii Naomasa. The whole lot of them in bright red and with huge banners on their backs sporting gold mon and kanji. Not very subdued at all. And it was Tokugawa Ieaysu who made the suggestion that they display themselves in such a striking manner.

 

Consider the armours most higher ranking warriors wore. If they are restrained at all, the kabuto rarely was. In fact the taste for striking and flamboyant helmets was fairly common, if not de rigeur.

 

This from Stephen Turnbull's; 'Samurai, the world of the warrior' pp56

"Wishing to make themselves noticeable above the common herd, senior samurai frequently enhanced plain body armour by embellishing their helmets with many weird and wonderful designs of buffalo horns, peacock feathers plumes, theatrical masks and conch shells. When Admiral Yi of the Korean navy won a battle against the Japanese in 1592 a collection of extraordinary helmets was among the booty taken, and Yi described them in tones of wonder in his report to the King of Korea."

 

 

Hi Chris, to address your objections and points;

 

I don't think any warrior going into battle sporting a giant pair of lacquered rabbit ears could be considered by anyone to be particular reserved or influenced by "philosophical and religious underpinnings" in terms of his appearance. :lol: and as my references cited above this seems to have been the norm.

 

With regard to my question re; "finely forged and tempered" tsuba. That isn't my term, I used it as an example of, as I wrote, the sort of thing we frequently read in descriptions of tsuba. The very point I was making was that it is imprecise and unverified and yet another example of the sort of unexamined notion that clutter thinking about this subject. Thank you for your helpful explanation about steel and heat treatments though . The use of the word tempered does suggest to me that the steel had sufficient carbon content to heat treat it (it would have to above 0.3% actually) and that by tempering it had previously been hardened as tempering is the final process. I know that and you must know I do so I assume your detour was merely a smoke screen intended to draw attention away from the main point I made and which I, rather helpfully, I though, made bold for you.

 

As for the whole functionality issue which seems to be the main point you are stuck with i think we've actually been misled by this red-herring. I think it fair to say that most modern Japanese authorities now agree that the guard was not intended to cope with blade strikes at all but, as has been pointed out repeatedly, served to prevent the hand slipping onto the blade. Nobuo Ogasawara re-states this view in the new Metropolitan Museum catalogue.

 

That being the case any suitably size disc adequately serves that function and it follows, as I've demonstrated in my previous post (in bold) that this requirement is so easily met that it allowed for the development of a wide array of styles that clearly were not conceived with strength or durability in mind yet were regarded as fit for use. The mere fact that warriors could then choose a different style of guard means that they all 'worked' and that the decision over which type to choose was based on aesthetic criteria.

 

If function, as you define it, ie; to protect the hand from a sword blow, was really the main consideration why then did the classic and elegant Owari guard supplant the no-nonsense and rugged Katchushi guard? It's self evident from simply comparing these 2 examples the choice of the Owari guard was made on the basis of what it looked like and not that it was more likely to hold up to a blow from a sword.

 

[Ford Hallam]

And if there remains any doubt that the Bushi class chose their tsuba primarily on the basis of what they looked like, aesthetic considerations, over purely functional factors consider this famous and venerated Owari masterpiece. It is glaringly obvious that in choosing this type of guard over a Ko-katchushi type a clear preference for the artistry and appearance of tsuba has been demonstrated. Whoever used these guards wasn't concerned about it withstanding a sword cut. By your definition, Chris, this is a bad tsuba.

 

 

I think that concludes my argument.

Tsuba might have served a minor role in practical terms of preventing the hand sliding onto the blade. Any significant protection against a sword cut was clearly not enough of a consideration to direct the design evolution of tsuba in a purely functional way that reflects that concern. Therefore we must regard all development of tsuba beyond the most basic and functional, ie; tosho and katchushi, as being as a result of aesthetic considerations.

[IanB]

All, Although this is probably a little off topic, I think it relevant to Ford's opinion on the part played by aesthetics during the Sengoku Jidai and by Hosokawa Tadaoki in particular. Early in my studies of Japanese armour, when information was far less readily available in the West than it is now, I was rather confused by the fact that several styles were labelled 'Etchu ... this' or 'Etchu...that'. Not unnaturally I leaped to the erroneous conclusion, that there must have been armourers in that province who had introduced or devised these innovations. Now of course I know it was Hosokawa Tadaoki who had devised the etchu zunari helmet and etchu suneate and that they were so-named after his court title Etchu no Kami. These two innovations were primarily practical, but he also introduced others in the design of armour that had no practical function whatsoever. One was the lacquering and lacing of the left front gessan in a decorative style, usually gold lacquered laced with red, even though the remainder of the armour was black lacquered and laced. His reasoning being that this was the element you presented to the enemy in face to face combat and should therefore appear 'glorious' to indicate your appreciation of beauty to your enemy. He also favoured large, delicate helmet crests that would be easily damaged in action and present a romantic appearance as the warrior returned home after a battle.

Ian Bottomley

[Marius]

Chris,

 

what do you say to early soft metal tsuba? They were worn on tachi (eg. aoi tsuba) on koshigatana and, last not least, on uchigatana. Some of the tachi kanagushi work, dating from the Muromachi period is so simple and made from rather inexpensive material (like katashirome or yamagane), that it is virtually unthinkable these tsuba were worn for splendor. The humble footsoldier would have had a tsuba mounted on his uchigatana. This tsuba was often made from yamagane or a yamagane alloy...

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Ian,

 

thanks very much for that additional information. It's all very germane I think

 

Mariusz,

 

What Chris wrote their was not what I meant. Just mentioning it in case anyone takes Chris' misundertsanding as being my point. To clarify, as I did to Chris;

No, that not what I said at all. What I said was that because they used soft metal then clearly the functionality, in the sense you define it, was not of primary concern. The whole thrust of what I was getting at was that the function and meaning tsuba had for these men, fresh from campaign as it were, evolved.

 

You probably understood what I meant but I don't want any more misrepresentations clouding the issue

[Marius]

Ford,

 

I have removed the quote from my post. That should help us avoid misunderstandings

 

BTW, I think it would be logical to assume that if the tsuba's combat functionality was (most of time) limited to preventing the hand from gliding down the blade, tsuba made from soft metal to be mounted on a combattant's uchigatana were fully functional in the eyes of their producers and users.

 

A hint: It seems that Uesugi Kenshil wast fond of tsubaless koshirae. Since these koshirae were for uchigatana (ie. a sword designed mostly for slashing), would this not reinforce the above assumption? I know this is hair-splitting, in a way...

[cabowen]

Chris,

 

what do you say to early soft metal tsuba? They were worn on tachi (eg. aoi tsuba) on koshigatana and, last not least, on uchigatana. Some of the tachi kanagushi work, dating from the Muromachi period is so simple and made from rather inexpensive material (like katashirome or yamagane), that it is virtually unthinkable these tsuba were worn for splendor. The humble footsoldier would have a tsuba mounted on his uchigatana. This tsuba was often made from yamagane or a yamagane alloy...

 

We have too few complete koshirae from your average samurai remaining today to do anything but speculate. The vast majority of tsuba remaining from koto period are iron but of course there should be some exceptions. These don't prove the rule.

 

To early soft metal I would say there was a better option available and most seem to have chosen it.

[christianmalterre]

With due respect Chris,

 

may i ask you on what fact you do ground your´s hypothesis here?

Your´s very personal "theory" sounds very interesting for me!

I´d ben very keen in learning more of this!

(you equally may P.M.me if you like-no need so to post your´s thoughts in the forum if there may be preference(s) from your´s side...)(???)

 

Very interesting either way!

 

Christian

[cabowen]

Which hypothesis is that?

[sanjuro]

Chris.

 

I think the hypothesis that Christian is referring to is the one you have based on plain common sense, knowledge and logic! Some of which seems to have been lost or ignored by the champions of soft metal tsuba.

[cabowen]

[Ford Hallam]

Keith,

 

so the opinion of Morio Ogasawara (and other senior Japanese authorities) as to the function of tsuba being merely to prevent the hand slipping onto the blade is irrelevant? Your contention that it is all about protecting the hand from sword cuts is more informed than their then.

 

You speak of "plain common sense, knowledge and logic" yet seem unable to provide any really convincing evidence other than to continue asserting that that it's obvious. I would have thought that a fair reading of the points I've made would have at least provided some evidence worth considering. Evidently, your 'understanding' of this matter is so secure and certain that you are unable to entertain the notion that the whole idea is based on erroneous assumptions.

 

I invite you to consider the point I made regarding a choice between a Katchushi tsuba or a pierced Owari guard, as I illustrated earlier. Consider, if you will, what the over-riding factor was likely to have been if the warriors choice was the Owari guard.

 

There is no question that any suitably sized disc will serve to stop a hand slipping forward or help deflect, or stop an opponents blade that might slide forward. Protection against a full on strike/swing...I very much doubt.

 

As I've argued extensively, this 'functional' aspect is so easily met by almost any disc, that other considerations, namely the aesthetic aspect, came to regarded as more relevant in terms of selection. My point being that the entire development of the tsuba is clearly driven by aesthetic demands and not practical, functional ones as that aspect was already inherent in the form.

 

This discussion reminds me of the sort of argument climate warming deniers try to use.

 

I invite anyone to compare Keith's undefined "plain common sense, knowledge and logic" with the points I've elaborated on at length in this thread and Chris' earlier one. The truth is, apart for repeatedly claiming that their position is just logical and obvious they fail to present any real evidence and refuse to address any counter evidence.

 

And it's not about championing soft metal tsuba at all. It's about getting to a realistic understanding of the subject, one not based on fanciful imagining and romantic elitism. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts.

[sanjuro]

Ford.

 

The comment I made was in a lighthearted vein, and taken as such at least by Chris to whom it was directed. After all, who am I to disagree with you and go against the opinion of the 'go to' guy, 'the last word in tsuba' man himself?

I can explain my view in only one way. If I were to ever be involved in a sword duel using Nihonto, I sincerely hope that the sword in my hand would be equipped with a nice iron tsuba rather than a prissy copper ko kinko gingerbread tsuba. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong in this great tsuba functionality debate, when the chips are down its better to be safe than sorry. In such a situation, art would definitely be taking a rear seat. Your artworks ( and those of other tsubako) have their place I guess and I appreciate them for what they are, but not mounted on any sword of mine.

Now lighten up a little, this is a discussion that has raged for decades among nihontophiles and experts alike. Its not likely to be resolved by such as we, and its good for a few years yet if we dont take it too personally or too much to heart.

[Marius]

May I ask a stupid question? Has anyone seen tests where a yamagane or bronze or shinchu or katashirome or shakudo tsuba, mounted on a tsuka (or an equivalent) has been cut with a Japanese sword (or an equivalent)?

 

I wonder if cutting through would indeed be so easy as many people assume...

[runagmc]

Stating that you would feel more comfortable with an iron tauba is one thing... 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...

[cabowen]

I have seen swords cut through soft metal plates in tests to the extent that I would not want to use a soft metal tsuba on a sword that I had to trust my life and limb to....

 

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.

 

While there are undoubtedly some Owari sukashi tsuba which are poorly made from a functional standpoint, assuming that they all are tells me that you need to do more homework about the practical. Are all iron tsuba good from a functional standpoint? Clearly no. It does not follow that therefore functionality is not important. Also, I think it is safe to say that these poorly functional tsuba in iron came to the fore as the shift was being made away from pure functionality to more decorative work. You might say therefore that these wispy works in iron were the beginning of the end of manly works for men....

[sanjuro]

Mariusz

 

Some few years ago, my old Sensei did some cutting tests as a demonstration to his students 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 steel 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. The blades used incidentally were a gendaito and a showa to. Not outstanding blades by any means, and less so after the tests.

Sorry to the blade guys who think this is barbaric, but please bear in mind that gendaito and showa to at that time were almost worthless as collection pieces (The equivalent of $25 would buy either type, fully mounted ).

Now the whole nihonto world will think I am a desecrator of collectable blades, but please remember I was not the person doing the cutting tests.