OceanoNox

Yes, I understand that. Since your message was more readable, I answered it. So sorry, I should have replied to Carlos' directly. My meaning was about the word tsuba in relation to sword guards, but I know about saliva and radicals.

If you want to see how cooling changes the phases present in the steel, then a TTT diagram (Time-Temperature-Transformation, or isothermal transformation diagram) is the way to go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TTT_diagram-20201210-isothermal_transformations_in_steels.svg On such a diagram, all areas of the blade would start at the same temperature, ideally, but the clay would make the cooling rate different. To read the diagram, take a point at your starting temperature (top left), and draw a straight line going downwards and to the right, with a slope corresponding to the cooling rate (i.e. clay thickness). Quenching in water with thin or no clay would be close to vertical (typically 1~2 seconds). As you increase the clay thickness, you get martensite that becomes mixed with bainite, pearlite, and ferrite in increasing amounts (for the thickest clay zone, there should be no martensite). In terms of mechanical properties, stress concentrations are not good, so a flamboyant hamon might not be the best, and I have read that suguha was the best for a reliable blade, but I cannot recall who said it (possibly Takano Sasaburo, or at least a famous practitioner of tameshigiri).

The different writings I gave all come from Mr. Sasano's book on the origin of tosogu (刀装具の起源 · 著者 笹野大行, 1979). I have personally never seen them written other than つば, 鍔, 鐔. I still feel that collar is the wrong translation, and that fuchi actually means collar. If I may add my own opinion on the topic, we are back to what Dan has written above: unless we can actually perform some measurements, density, hardness, chemical composition, etc., or find clear records of those times, we will continue arguing about the possibility of them having been produced. At the moment, it seems there are none in existence, except perhaps some of the namban tsuba, according to Lissenden's work in 2002 (http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4129/1/4129_1648.pdf). There is little else, and destructive analysis might be the only way to prove anything. As has been said about oroshigane, there was (still is, industrially, stainless steels in particular are mostly made from scraps) a culture of recycling of iron items. This itself is also an issue when discussing tsuba or other historical artifacts: are the existing antiques representative or exceptions? There is a record of farming tools being repurposed to make tsuba in the Edo period. Iron items without further use were processed by oroshi to make "new" material. P.S.: I try to follow expert opinion. If there is data that makes it fact, all the better.

Quite untrue, that. It is documented, at least for British soldiers, that many officers changed the blades and guards to suit their needs, i.e. switch brass guards for steel ones (as opposed to their issued swords), and there are enough well preserved blades to show that clearly they maintained them well. Also a humid environment that will quickly lead to rot, mold, and rust if proper maintenance is not done. Sorry, can you expand on that? I have found it written "止め刃", and "都美波", or "刀盤", but none of them seem to mean "collar".

Thank you all for the answers! The person I talked to told me of old paintings where people were drawn scavenging iron nails from a house almost as it is burning. I expected recycling for everyday objects, but for some reason (mostly because it is not often written in books?) I expected weapons to be made from dedicated steel.

In Japanese funerals, people handle the bones that remain after incinerating the deceased. Otherwise, there is always the handling of charcoal for fires, although in tea ceremony, long iron chopsticks are typically used.

It was brought to my attention that tsuba could be made of recycled material (蛍光x線分析からみた鐔の鉄味 by Norihisa Kawami (川見 典久)), such as agriculture tools, and not necessarily dedicated iron. There is a possibility that iron and steel were in general recycled on a fairly regular basis in Japan. Has anyone seen any such information? And do you think that tsuba were recycled on a regular basis?

This begs the question: would warriors be carrying any weapon at all in such occasions? I assume said occasions would be funerals or temple visits. So those wari-kogai would be more likely on a wakizashi?

Is this what you are talking about? https://nihontoclub.com/bibliography/jssus/tokugawa-jikki

Very likely, it might even be argued, although swords were just side arms, that swords and weapons in general were viewed as consumables in times of strife.

When looking at kogai from the side, the end on the handle side is the exact same shape as mimi-kaki (ear scrapers) still used in Japan (like a hook). As far as I understood Mr. Sasano's book on the origin of tosogu (tsuba, kogai, and kozuka), I think they were items for high-ranking warriors when they appeared, and gradually spread to lower-ranking warriors. Concerning other uses apart from the ones commonly accepted, unless someone finds some old chronicle or journal, we will be left with mostly conjecture.

This is getting off topic, but I would like to see museums (especially if funded by governments) as non-profit / education / research institutions (like schools, universities, and libraries). I'd say we all benefit from relatively unrestricted access to culture and art (obviously, there needs to be some money going in to keep them going). As an aside, I have the same feeling towards research papers. The funding for research comes mostly from taxes, so it's insane to me seeing the prices from research journals (and seeing the piss-poor editing and websites makes me want to scream). Some journals even keep selling old articles (50 year old!) at 30~50 dollars each!

I don't have the reference anymore, but the Hitachi metals website (before its name/structure change) used to have data on the iron sands. Yes, if the chemical composition of a sword is known, then the origin of the iron sands can be determined. In terms of determining the smith only with the sword and no signature, it is likely that the iron sands and forge would be close to one another. Also, but this needs more analysis (to determine consistency of each smith's work), the final microstructure can be analyzed to determine the quenching treatment (mostly work by Profs. Pham and Morito of Shimane university). The crystallographic orientation of the martensite is determined by its parent austenite (before quench); by analyzing the martensite and with the carbon content, they can calculate the austenite crystallographic orientation, the austenite grain size, and infer how hot the steel was before the quench. The issue is obviously that all such analysis is ultimately destructive as you need to cut and polish pieces of the sword to fit in the microscope.

Exactly. Also, theories (or mechanisms to explain phenomena) are regularly re-examined and re-analyzed, as experimental methods and tools improve. If theories keep being proven right by people all around the world, especially seeing the competition between researchers to be the first to publish the next breakthrough, it's not group think, it's just true. If the data is valid, it does. Just as some theories keep being validated, sometimes the experimental methods are not suitable and the results wrong (it happened for many papers in my field that were proven wrong once other experimental methods became available).

As far as I know, he did quit his old dojo to make his own school. He IS good and I will certainly never reach his cutting ability. At the same time, tameshigiri itself has been described by Nakayama Hakudo in particular as a means to an end, not the end itself.

You are completely right. And your comment also raises the question of a hierarchy where juniors dare not contest the senior's opinion, and whether the senior is always the best person for advice (there was a joke on PhD comics where the supervisor messes up his student's experiments because he hasn't actually done experiments for years) (as an aside, my Japanese professor also commented that it's a sign of bad leadership, when the decision-making seniors do not allow input from the "boots-on-the-ground" juniors (and technically, drinking parties are the way to do it, so you can excuse the rudeness with the intake of alcohol)). I think that the whole point of the exercise is to do it as "analog" as possible, and to rely on as little technology as possible. As for why they don't do more small tatara, I suppose that there is a time constraint. This specific place is, as far as I know, operated by Hitachi Metals (now Proterial?), and so the engineers doing the work may not be able to allowed to do it for longer. But as others have said, some smiths make their own tatara (some in oil drums lined with clay).

I lack data for a good statistical analysis, but from what I have seen in online collections (such as MET or Boston Museum of Fine Arts), kachushi tsuba being around 9cm in diameter seems not uncommon in the 14th and 15th century, and tosho seem in the vicinity of 8.5cm (but as said, limited by online museum collections, and also limited to the labels by said museums). Yes, I found such a reference for Edo period in Mr. Kawami's book, Tosogu wonderland (2016), hence my surprise reading that in this book. Thank you! I had no idea that there were such restrictions. Those are not his comments, but citations from various old texts (I only know that Yamamoto Kansuke was smack in the middle of the 16th century and he is said to have had a large tsuba). Another seems to be 劔甲新論 by 鈴木黄軒, which may be in Edo era. I did not say they made poor design choices, but depending on what you want from your tsuba, surely the design parameters would vary? I'd say that instead of a tsuba wider than its height, it's more about having a tsuba that is not completely round. Since the whole topic appears to be war and tsuba, I'd wager that all the previous comments CITED by the author are less about esthetics but about a certain practicality.

Has anyone read it? I have downloaded it, probably from the Japanese Diet library. It is difficult to read, as it was written in 1942, and there is no punctuation and the Japanese itself is so different from what I know. But it does state interesting things. Such as: ①　While the Tokugawa government imposed many things, it seemed to not have set absolute rules on tosogu (or at least tsuba), but there were official complaints about tsuba. ②　Several sources are detailed (such as by Yamamoto Kansuke), and it seems there is a consensus on tsuba size (around 3 sun in diameter). ③　Several people appeared to recommend thin tsuba with sukashi and thicker mimi, to avoid vibrations in the hand and in the habaki and mekugi, which are stated to be damaged when a thick tsuba is hit. ④　It is written that thick plain tsuba should be avoided (and also gold or silver kojiri) (there is also a mention of fine tsuba, 細鍔, but I do not understand the difference with thin tsuba, perhaps Owari or Akasaka style sukashi?). One reason, besides the vibrations, is that it would be overly heavy without added benefits. ⑤　At the same time, the sukashi should be small enough to avoid getting tangled or run through by a blade. ⑥　There is also a recommendation that the tsuba should be a bit taller than wide. Anyway, I am still reading, but I would like to know if others have read it, and what your thoughts are. I am especially confused by the statement that the Tokugawa government did not establish rules on tsuba, as another book stated that for court appearance, the tsuba should be shakudo (and other requirements in general). N.B.: As I wrote above, I am not sure if I got everything right, as some kanji are downright obsolete, my Japanese is limited in the case of historical documents, and the quality of the scanned document is a bit lacking.

Oh! I always assumed the butterflies were also a misnamed design, having never seen the dots for the heads. This changes everything. Thank you for showing the original designs.

For anyone interested, here is Ford's post (from 2010!).

Thank you! I was starting to doubt my memory. I will try to find your post. This is indeed what I have been feeling and trying to express in my other post about Higo / namako tsuba. I remember some photos of your own tsuba with a renkon design, but I had never heard of the Higo chrysanthemum designation.

To me, they look like neither (and most of the butterfly wings, namako and such, do not look like the part). Here is the tsuba reoriented when the sword is in hand (I drew the bones of the hand too). It is mostly an experiment based on the (remembered) aforementioned comment.

You're completely right. I will check again.

It's what I remember. In the Boston Museum tsuba, if this is the front, it would be the left hand. In mine, it is the right hand (thumb on the right, index on the left, with the knuckles of the middle and ring fingers).

Remembering the words of Ford Hallam, here or his own forum, about the tsuba with silk worm sukashi, I think he said it might be fingers. So I tried myself. Here is the tsuba in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts: And here is a drawing with sukashi of the finger bones when gripping the tsuka: I think it's pretty close. Then again, this feels like my previous question about namako: is the design really supposed to be silk worms (or butterfly wings), or is it a name set on a design whose meaning has been forgotten?