Tsuba casting molds ?

GRC · May 24, 2023

ENGLISH REFERENCE LIST:

provide references for this statement: “Cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period (18^th century) onward.”

Here are some references to support the statement that cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period onward:

28. "Japanese Tsuba: From Simple to Ornate" by Gary Murtha (2014): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were often used by lower-ranking samurai who could not afford tsuba made of more expensive materials like gold or silver.

29. "The Art of the Japanese Sword" by Yoshindo Yoshihara and Leon Kapp (1997): This book states that cast-iron tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period, with many being made from the mid-18th century onward.

30. "The Complete Guide to Japanese Sword Polishing" by Kiyoshi Kato (2012): This book mentions that cast-iron tsuba became more common in the latter half of the Edo period, and that they were often decorated with designs that imitated other materials like gold or shakudo.

31. "Tsuba: Japanese Sword Guards" by Julia Meech-Pekarik (1986): This book discusses the history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

32. "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" by Kokan Nagayama (1997): This book also notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

33. "Japanese Sword Mounts: A Guide for Collectors and Connoisseurs" by Hiroko Kapp and Leon Kapp (2010): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

Overall, it seems that there is consensus among experts that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

Provide more references for this statement: “Cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period (18^th century) onward.”

34. "Tsuba and Japanese Sword Fittings in the Collection of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum" by Joe Earle (1983): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were produced in large numbers.

35. "Japanese Sword Guards: Masterpieces of Japanese Art" by Hiroi Takahashi (2008): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to their durability and low cost.

36. "The Art of the Japanese Sword: The Craft of Swordmaking and its Appreciation" by Yoshindo Yoshihara and Leon Kapp (2012): This book discusses the history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to advances in casting technology.

Overall, these references support the idea that cast-iron tsuba were widely produced and used during the mid-Edo period.

Provide more references for this statement

37. "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" by Leon Kapp and Hiroko Kapp (2013): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to their durability and affordability.

38. "Japanese Sword Guards: An Illustrated Guide for Collectors" by Ray Tsuchiyama (2017): This book provides a comprehensive guide to Japanese sword fittings and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to advances in casting technology and were produced in large numbers during the mid-Edo period.

39. "Japanese Sword Fittings: A Collector's Guide" by Basil William Robinson (1979): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were often decorated with intricate designs.

Overall, these references support the idea that cast-iron tsuba were widely produced and used during the mid-Edo period due to their durability, affordability, and decorative potential.

provide more references published before 1970

Finding references published before 1970 may be challenging, as most of the important works on Japanese sword fittings were published after this time. However, here are a few references that discuss cast-iron tsuba and were published before 1970:

40. "Japanese Sword-Guards" by Torigoye Yukihira (1937): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

41. "The Japanese Sword" by Kanzan Sato (1963): This book provides a general overview of Japanese swords, including tsuba. While it does not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, it notes that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

42. "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" by Nagayama Kokan (1968): This book provides a detailed history of Japanese swords, including tsuba. While it does not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, it notes that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

Overall, while these references do not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, they do support the idea that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period, which includes the mid-Edo period when cast-iron tsuba became popular.

This is me writing now:

At this point, I figured I would stop searching, since it started giving results that weren’t directly referencing cast-iron tsuba, just the increased production of tsuba during the Edo period.

Larason2 · May 24, 2023

Chat GPT has frequently been shown to produce erroneous statements. All those tsuba could be references to wrought iron, and Chat GPT wouldn't know the difference. If most of the authors it is referencing don't know the difference between wrought iron and cast iron, it won't know the difference either.

Larason2 · May 24, 2023

I asked ChatGPT "what's the difference between a Nihonto amd a reproduction?" and here's what it said:

"A nihonto refers to an authentic Japanese sword made by traditional methods and by skilled swordsmiths in Japan. These swords are highly regarded for their craftsmanship, historical significance, and cultural value. Nihonto swords are typically made using traditional techniques and materials, such as tamahagane (a type of steel), and they often feature unique and intricate designs.

On the other hand, a reproduction refers to a sword that is made as a copy or imitation of a nihonto. Reproductions can be made by modern swordsmiths or manufacturers using different methods and materials. They may attempt to mimic the appearance of a nihonto, but they do not possess the same level of historical authenticity or craftsmanship.

Here are some key differences between a nihonto and a reproduction:

Craftsmanship: Nihonto swords are crafted by experienced swordsmiths who have undergone extensive training and follow traditional techniques. The level of skill and attention to detail in a nihonto is typically higher than that of a reproduction.
Materials: Nihonto swords are often made using traditional materials, including tamahagane, which is a type of steel produced from iron sand. Reproductions may use different types of steel or alloys that do not match the composition of traditional nihonto.
Historical Significance: Nihonto swords are considered historical artifacts and hold cultural significance in Japan. They often have a documented lineage and may be associated with famous swordsmiths or historical events. Reproductions lack this historical connection and are not considered genuine historical artifacts.
Value: Due to their craftsmanship, historical significance, and limited supply, nihonto swords are highly valued and can be quite expensive. Reproductions, while they may be well-made, do not possess the same value as authentic nihonto.

It's worth noting that both nihonto swords and reproductions can be appreciated and enjoyed for their own merits. Reproductions can be more accessible to collectors or enthusiasts who are unable to acquire or afford a genuine nihonto."

So not a single sentence that describes how to actually tell the difference. Then I asked: "How can you tell the difference between a nihonto and a reproduction?" Here's what it said:

"Differentiating between a nihonto and a reproduction can be challenging, especially for those who are not experienced or knowledgeable in sword appraisal. However, there are several factors you can consider to help determine the authenticity of a sword:

Certification and Documentation: Authentic nihonto swords often come with certificates or documentation that verify their authenticity and provide details about their lineage, swordsmith, and other relevant information. Look for reputable certification from recognized organizations or experts in Japanese sword appraisal.
Signature and Tang: Nihonto swords typically bear the signature (mei) of the swordsmith on the tang (nakago) of the blade. The signature can provide valuable information about the sword's origins. However, it is important to note that some reproductions may also have signatures, so further examination is required.
Construction and Materials: Carefully examine the blade and its construction. Nihonto swords are typically made from a high-quality steel called tamahagane and exhibit a specific layering pattern known as hada. Traditional forging techniques, such as differential hardening (hamon), are also present in nihonto blades. Reproductions may lack these characteristics or display inconsistencies.
Fittings and Mountings: Pay attention to the sword's fittings, such as the tsuba (handguard), menuki (handle ornaments), and saya (scabbard). Nihonto swords often have high-quality, intricately designed fittings that complement the overall craftsmanship. Reproductions may have less attention to detail or utilize different materials.
Overall Condition and Aging: Genuine nihonto swords can exhibit signs of wear, patina, and aging that occur naturally over time. Reproductions may lack these signs or have artificially aged appearances.
Expert Opinion: If you are uncertain about the authenticity of a sword, it is advisable to consult with an experienced and reputable sword appraiser or a specialist in Japanese swords. They can provide professional guidance and examine the sword in detail.

Remember that determining the authenticity of a sword requires expertise and careful examination. It is crucial to rely on reliable sources and consult with professionals to make an accurate assessment."

So again, it doesn't actually know how to tell the difference. If it doesn't know this, why are we trusting it about cast iron? It says right on the page: "ChatGPT may produce inaccurate information about people, places, or facts."

GRC · May 24, 2023

Yes, I figured someone might say something like that...

That's why I asked for people to see if they have those references and to verify the statements.

However, the fact that ChatGPT specifically stated when a publication "did not directly reference cast-iron", among other statements that were listed above, gave me enough confidence in the results to at least post them here as sources to verify.

However, what it does make painfully obvious is that the established consensus is that cast-iron tsuba were being produced during the Edo period.

The idea that cast-iron tsuba were only produced in the Meiji era or later, is just an unsupported opinion.

GRC · May 24, 2023

So what exactly is your point Larason?

It seems like you posted a lot of irrelevant material to point out that ChatGPt had difficulty answering one question... which is not the question being addressed in this thread.

ChatGPT is only as good as the question that it is asked, and the published sources that are available for it to reference.

I'm sure there's a myriad of questions you could pose to ChatGPt that would be difficult for it to answer sufficiently.

On the topic of cast-iron tsuba being produced in the Edo period, however, it was very clear.

The published consensus shows that cast-iron tsuba were being produced in the Edo period, and in quantity.

It stated that repeatedly, with supporting references.

This entire thread has established motive, opportunity, and provided ample quotes and references to support the idea.

What published quote or reference has been provided anywhere to say otherwise?

Again, the post-Edo argument just boils down to the opinion of a few individuals, and it has no supporting evidence other than attempts to deflect, deny, or cast doubt by using rhetoric to persuade people.

I'll take the statements from ChatGPt, with 42 references (Japanese and English) over a non-expert's opinion any day. Especially when that non-expert, who specializes in a different aspect of tosugu production, has no evidence to support their claim.

As I have said in the past, It's now up to the post-Edo group to start dismantling each of those references (along with the quotes from Sesko, Haynes and Lissenden, among others, that were posted earlier in this thread), or find some actual evidence to advance their position.

OceanoNox · May 24, 2023

1 hour ago, Larason2 said:

So again, it doesn't actually know how to tell the difference.

Are the points listed not ways to tell the difference? I don't think the software could tell the difference between pictures of antique sword and modern reproduction, but that was not what was asked.

OceanoNox · May 24, 2023

1 hour ago, GRC said:

I'll take the statements from ChatGPt, with 42 references (Japanese and English) over a non-expert's opinion any day.

Those results are certainly impressive. I am a bit concerned about the citations, because so far I have not been able to find some of them via a quick Google search. Did ChatGPT provide actual links?

Manuel Coden · May 24, 2023

4 hours ago, GRC said:

ENGLISH REFERENCE LIST:

provide references for this statement: “Cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period (18^th century) onward.”

Here are some references to support the statement that cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period onward:

28. "Japanese Tsuba: From Simple to Ornate" by Gary Murtha (2014): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were often used by lower-ranking samurai who could not afford tsuba made of more expensive materials like gold or silver.

29. "The Art of the Japanese Sword" by Yoshindo Yoshihara and Leon Kapp (1997): This book states that cast-iron tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period, with many being made from the mid-18th century onward.

30. "The Complete Guide to Japanese Sword Polishing" by Kiyoshi Kato (2012): This book mentions that cast-iron tsuba became more common in the latter half of the Edo period, and that they were often decorated with designs that imitated other materials like gold or shakudo.

31. "Tsuba: Japanese Sword Guards" by Julia Meech-Pekarik (1986): This book discusses the history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

32. "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" by Kokan Nagayama (1997): This book also notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

33. "Japanese Sword Mounts: A Guide for Collectors and Connoisseurs" by Hiroko Kapp and Leon Kapp (2010): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

Overall, it seems that there is consensus among experts that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period.

Provide more references for this statement: “Cast-iron tsuba were especially popular from the mid-Edo period (18^th century) onward.”

34. "Tsuba and Japanese Sword Fittings in the Collection of the Cooper-Hewitt Museum" by Joe Earle (1983): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were produced in large numbers.

35. "Japanese Sword Guards: Masterpieces of Japanese Art" by Hiroi Takahashi (2008): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to their durability and low cost.

36. "The Art of the Japanese Sword: The Craft of Swordmaking and its Appreciation" by Yoshindo Yoshihara and Leon Kapp (2012): This book discusses the history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to advances in casting technology.

Overall, these references support the idea that cast-iron tsuba were widely produced and used during the mid-Edo period.

Provide more references for this statement

37. "The Craft of the Japanese Sword" by Leon Kapp and Hiroko Kapp (2013): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to their durability and affordability.

38. "Japanese Sword Guards: An Illustrated Guide for Collectors" by Ray Tsuchiyama (2017): This book provides a comprehensive guide to Japanese sword fittings and notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period due to advances in casting technology and were produced in large numbers during the mid-Edo period.

39. "Japanese Sword Fittings: A Collector's Guide" by Basil William Robinson (1979): This book notes that cast-iron tsuba became popular during the mid-Edo period and were often decorated with intricate designs.

Overall, these references support the idea that cast-iron tsuba were widely produced and used during the mid-Edo period due to their durability, affordability, and decorative potential.

provide more references published before 1970

Finding references published before 1970 may be challenging, as most of the important works on Japanese sword fittings were published after this time. However, here are a few references that discuss cast-iron tsuba and were published before 1970:

40. "Japanese Sword-Guards" by Torigoye Yukihira (1937): This book provides a detailed history of tsuba and notes that cast-iron tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

41. "The Japanese Sword" by Kanzan Sato (1963): This book provides a general overview of Japanese swords, including tsuba. While it does not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, it notes that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

42. "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" by Nagayama Kokan (1968): This book provides a detailed history of Japanese swords, including tsuba. While it does not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, it notes that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period.

Overall, while these references do not specifically discuss cast-iron tsuba, they do support the idea that tsuba were produced in large numbers during the Edo period, which includes the mid-Edo period when cast-iron tsuba became popular.

This is me writing now:

At this point, I figured I would stop searching, since it started giving results that weren’t directly referencing cast-iron tsuba, just the increased production of tsuba during the Edo period.

Did you proof check those statements?
Cause for example in "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" not only there's no such statement, but it doesn't even mention tsuba in it.
ChatGPT can be a great tool, but not something you should put blind trust on

ROKUJURO · May 24, 2023

The speed of the AI-generated research is certainly impressive but the citations are not from newly made scientific research but always taken from man-made books. I see that old wrong statements are also cited, so I don't expect too much new insight from AI.

If 'intelligence' is defined as the speed of information storage and processing, AI may be helpful and superior. Producing new knowledge (as opposed to old wrong information) is probably a thing we humans have to do ourselves.

But this may be a philosophical discussion....

GRC · May 24, 2023

ChatGPT is certainly not infallible, but I'm curious to see how many of the 42 references turn out to be incorrect.

@C0D I did state that I had not vetted the references.

I'm sure there will be some errors in there, which is why I asked for people to check to see if they have any of these references and verify/eliminate the statements from ChatGPT.

For example, now we can potentially cross the "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" off the list. Thanks @C0D.

By the way, do you have the 1968 or 1997 version?

Two different editions were listed in the references, and ChatGPT pointed out that there was no reference to cast-iron tsuba in the 1968 version, but there was a reference to it in the 1997 edition.

@OceanoNox: No, ChatGPT did not provide links.

With regards to images, I'm sure ChaGPT can't "interpret" or analyze images, which Arnaud (C0D) also suggest.

I would assume that it is only reporting "examples provided" based on descriptive captions that refer to the images in the books it is sourcing.

But I don't know the details of how the algorithm works.

GRC · May 24, 2023

Agreed, @ROKUJURO

AI such as this one, is only as good as its source material.

For example, the "worn by lower ranking samurai" statement is something we've talked about in the past, and I'd like to see some other source to corroborate that statement.

That's why I "singled it out" from the rest of the summary statements.

Nonetheless, it is in print, so it's a source of reference material for ChatGPT.

Manuel Coden · May 24, 2023

10 minutes ago, GRC said:

For example, now we can potentially cross the "The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords" off the list. Thanks @C0D.

By the way, do you have the 1968 or 1997 version?

Two different editions were listed in the references, and ChatGPT pointed out that there was no reference to cast-iron tsuba in the 1968 version, but there was a reference to it in the 1997 edition.

If i recall correctly should be the 1997 version, i think 1968 version is only in Japanese.

You can also rule out "The Craft of the Japanese Sword", no reference to tsuba in that book either
I should check but also in "The Art of the Japanese Sword: The Craft of Swordmaking and its Appreciation" but i don't recall any reference to tsuba there either.

So now it's 3 wrong quotes on 3 books, my guess is that it just takes titles regarding Japanese swords and put the quote you're looking for in it
Especially most of those books are not digitalized, so no way chatGPT could have read them

GRC · May 24, 2023

It's a fair hypothesis Manuel (C0D), since there are some known errors with ChatGPT, but I can't imagine that all 42 references would be incorrect.

That would be a colossal failure on the part of the AI algorithm.

But that's also why this will be an interesting "check" on its reliability.

@C0D, do you have digital copies of those 3 books that you were able to search for references to "tsuba"?

I just want to make sure so we can definitely cross them off the list.

Let me know,

Thanks :thumbsup:

We can definitely cross off the Cooper-Hewitt reference.

I searched that one digitally.

It mentions cast tsuba, but it was specifically referring to castings in Yamagane, copper, and bronze.

So maybe it's also including references where the words "cast" and "tsuba" in the same sentence?

I wonder if I pushed the program too far by asking it to provide more and more references?

Perhaps it started getting "looser" with its search constraints?

Just throwing out some initial thoughts...

It's also interesting to note that ChatGPT was reluctant to provide references to publications that were from the early 1900s.

There's 7 examples of cast-iron tsuba listed in the Hackshaw collection, with descriptions by Henri Joly.

Rich S · May 24, 2023

Don't trust AI. It will lead you down the garden path to ????

Manuel Coden · May 24, 2023

2 hours ago, GRC said:

It's a fair hypothesis Manuel (C0D), since there are some known errors with ChatGPT, but I can't imagine that all 42 references would be incorrect.

That would be a colossal failure on the part of the AI algorithm.

But that's also why this will be an interesting "check" on its reliability.

@C0D, do you have digital copies of those 3 books that you were able to search for references to "tsuba"?

I just want to make sure so we can definitely cross them off the list.

Let me know,

Thanks

We can definitely cross off the Cooper-Hewitt reference.

I searched that one digitally.

It mentions cast tsuba, but it was specifically referring to castings in Yamagane, copper, and bronze.

So maybe it's also including references where the words "cast" and "tsuba" in the same sentence?

I wonder if I pushed the program too far by asking it to provide more and more references?

Perhaps it started getting "looser" with its search constraints?

Just throwing out some initial thoughts...

It's also interesting to note that ChatGPT was reluctant to provide references to publications that were from the early 1900s.

There's 7 examples of cast-iron tsuba listed in the Hackshaw collection, with descriptions by Henri Joly.

I do have both digital and physical copies of the first two, the third only physical one.
I just checked it, it does show some tsuba and mention "pig iron" in a totally different section, nothing about tsuba made by cast iron.

So far no evidence those quotes were accurate

GRC · May 25, 2023

Thanks for the update Manuel (C0D) :thumbsup:

So we can officially remove these ones:

#29 & 36 (early and late editions of same book title and author)

#34

#37

Steve Waszak · May 25, 2023

I have been following this topic for a good while now. Along the way, I have observed what appears to be a fundamental flaw in the approach taken by some to the question of when cast iron tsuba were (first) made, whether as a relatively rare occurrence or as a regular practice. Connected to this, a particular gnawing question has only grown in strength. And with these latest posts, a third concern has arisen. So, I have arrived at the point where I feel compelled to join the fray.

To begin, early on in this long thread (as well as in the "last word on cast iron tsuba thread), it became abundantly evident that a certain outcome or "reality" was sought by some -- namely, that it would be acknowledged and recognized by all (or most) that cast iron tsuba were indeed made in the Edo Period, likely as a regular practice, from perhaps as early as the 18th (or even the 17th) century. This position, for some reason, seems to have been embraced with some degree of investment in its being taken as not merely a valid possibility, but as a probability, if not even a certainty. That is to say, some appear to have wanted it to be true that cast iron tsuba were made (as a regular practice) in the Edo Period. Wanting something to be true and then hunting for evidence to support it is a deeply problematic approach in analysis and scholarship. It is a fundamental logical fallacy that immediately throws deep suspicion on whatever "outcome" may emerge from the efforts involved. Such an approach is deductive, rather than inductive, and is therefore less stable, right off the bat, because a deductive approach utterly relies on the initial premise (i.e. cast iron tsuba were make during the Edo Period) being true (or very highly likely). The subsequent seeking of evidence to support and sustain that premise is then methodologically compromised by the biases, whether conscious or unconscious, that will infect the selection and analysis of whatever evidence ("evidence") is uncovered. Any conclusions drawn via this approach necessarily become dubious due to the begging-the-question logical fallacy attaching to the fact that the initial premise remains unproven. When it is seen by others that a deductive approach has been used, there will immediately be doubt about the conclusions reached, since it will simultaneously be suspected that bias will have infected the process by which evidence was found, analyzed, and accepted. In short, if someone wants something to be true, and then goes about hunting for evidence to support it, whatever conclusions are then reached are, at best, in serious doubt (or certainly should be).

An inductive approach to topics like these will always be the safer, more stable, more reliable one. Do not begin with any premise, assumption, or belief ahead of time. A good scholar will formulate well-considered questions to pursue the most persuasive answers to, without caring in any personally invested way what those answers might be. Then, the gathering of evidence can commence and proceed with biases having a much lesser chance of contaminating the outcomes reached. Analyzing this evidence -- again, with no personal investment in where that analysis goes -- allows for a thesis to be arrived at inductively, rather than one begun with based on a potentially shaky premise (deductive).

As far as I can tell, deductive approaches have been far more prevalent in this thread than inductive ones. In fact, I'm not sure I can recall any inductive reasoning being employed at all (but I can't be sure, and I haven't the time to comb through 10 pages, plus all the content of the "last word" thread on this topic). Side note: Sherlock Holmes actually employed inductive reasoning far more often than any deductive reasoning in his investigations, despite the popular idea that he relied on his deductive skills...

This brings me to some of the most recent posts, those concerning the AI-located references/literature on the subject. The much bigger issue -- a far more fundamental one -- regarding the many references that the AI search turned up, is that it doesn't seem to be recognized that most, if not all of these references are simply parroting a single original reference work, one that first made the claim that cast iron tsuba were (regularly?) made from the mid-Edo Period on. It is not exactly a revelation to observe that Japanese reference works on nihonto and tosogu are notorious for repeating what sensei said. Again and again and again and again. Iemoto-ism has long been a thorn in the side of those looking to engage in and apply sound scholarly approaches to this field. So, to find dozens of references that all claim and "reinforce" the "fact" that cast iron tsuba were made from the mid-Edo Period essentially means nothing, even besides the fact that AI-generated results are not to be trusted. We could locate a thousand reference works that all agree that cast iron sword guards were being made, even as a regular practice, in the 18th-century, but if all of these references are simply repeating what the prior reference stated, the evidentiary value here is 0.00. What would need to be uncovered is evidence in the form of an unquestionably reliable written work (preferably more than just one) contemporary to the time that the casting of iron tsuba was being done so that the practice could have been witnessed directly and thusly recorded, again, by a reliable recorder of the practice. Short of this, to have some 20th-century reference work claim -- as a statement of fact -- that cast iron tsuba were made some 200 or 300 years prior, without providing any sort of concrete, uncontrovertible evidence, amounts to nothing more than empty words. Until the Holy Grail in the form of an indisputably reliable contemporary record (or two, or three) is discovered, reference books -- as a form of evidence for the production of cast iron tsuba in Mid-Edo Japan -- will not function in that role.

This leads me to the third part of this post, that concerning the perplexing question that has loomed over this thread the whole time: Who cares if cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo Period? Outside of some sort of peculiar curiosity regarding exactly when certain technologies arrived in a certain place (curiosity for curiosity's sake), who cares? If the whole point for collectors, connoisseurs, and scholars of tsuba in learning to recognize the signs of an iron tsuba having been cast is to do so in order to avoid such tsuba, what difference does it made when it was made? It is generally, if not universally agreed that cast iron tsuba are emphatically not worthy of being collected (unless one has a quirky sense of collecting focus, or one wants of collection of What Must Be Avoided). Certainly, no such collection would be received as merit-worthy. *Here, I use the term "collection" as a gathering of objects that has been curated via processes of serious study and scholarly analysis; I do not use this term to mean or be a synonym for "accumulation." There is a vast difference between the two. Since it is inarguable that cast iron tsuba are seen by virtually all as (incomparably) inferior to forged works, and since this means that the value in learning to recognize tsuba as having been cast is that doing so will allow us to avoid them like the plague, why should we care when such things were made? I would find an 18-century cast iron tsuba (if they really exist) to be no more or no less unimportant and unworthy than one cast in the 20th century. Both would be equally useless to me. And, lest someone argue that 18th-century tsuba (if they exist) would have value as a mid-Edo artifact, this position collapses as soon as we remember that if what is sought is a mid-Edo artifact, one should pursue one of the forged iron guards made then. Even an utterly mediocre forged iron tsuba is greatly preferable to a contemporary cast iron work (if such a thing exists) from the mid- or late-Edo Period.

And so, to me, this is a topic whose intrinsic value does not warrant the efforts to determine whether cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo Period, and, if so, exactly when. Beyond this, even if it did, a deductive approach used in the effort to determine the answers to those questions doesn't work. And reference books here are next to useless, even if AI-generated results were infallible, because none can provide direct and reliable witness to cast iron tsuba having been made in the Edo Period.

Dan tsuba · May 25, 2023

Steve Waszak,

I understand what you are saying in your post and thank you.

And as has been stated before (by me in this thread and other threads) the only way to tell for certain if a tsuba is hand forged or cast is to subject it to non-invasive or invasive metallurgical testing.

From doing the research for this thread I have found that the ingenuity of the Japanese craftsman is not to be underestimated.

Also, there are evidently many members interested in this thread as can be surmised by the number of views.

The bottom line is this: If I bought a tsuba from a reputable dealer and spent anywhere from 500 to 3000 U.S. dollars (or more) would I be interested if it turned out to be actually made from cast iron and not hand forged (as I thought or was described as such)? As stated above, “the ingenuity of the Japanese craftsman is not to be underestimated.”

What would you do if you purchased a tsuba that you thought was hand forged and turned out to be made from cast iron (and possibly hand worked)?

With respect,

Dan

GRC · May 25, 2023

Steve, there are many valid points in that post,

and your frustration with the pursuit of this topic is very clear.

So why should anyone pursue this topic at all?

Here are some of my thoughts on this, regardless of the “value” of the objects in question…

1- It is necessary to investigating the statements about tsuba that are being stated as fact, yet do not appear to have supporting evidence. ie. dispelling the myths that are being perpetuated.

This requires gathering as much evidence as possible and “letting the chips fall where they may”.

If the evidence gathered ends up supporting or refuting any aspect of the existing views on the topic, or reveals that there is still no definitive answer, then why not try to find out?

Gaining any knowledge at all on the topic is better than to leave it unexplored.

2- Establishing a timeline of what techniques were developed when, where and by whom, seems to be one of the main pursuits in the study of tsuba.

Why would this topic be any less valid, regardless of their value, or lack there-of, in terms of their “collectability”?

3- Learning about when such techniques began or were amplified, allows for the potential to gain further insights into the cultural, technological and economic conditions that led to those technical shifts.

Why wouldn’t someone want to add to that understanding? It would be adding one more piece of information into a larger whole.

4- With regard to finding and citing references.

Yes, there is definitely the potential to reinforce an element of “sensei-ism”, where an initial printed statement could be propagated in publications by other authors, making the initial statement “appear” to be more valid. This is a very good good point that Steve made.

However, if you don’t do a literature search, then how will get to the root of what these statements are built upon?

It is entirely possible that in looking into the references which the AI is using to project a “consensus view”, we will find out whether the published statements have any supporting evidence at all. The references could end up being just another case of “so-and-so said so”.

I view this as just another avenue to dig up whatever evidence is available. So again, why not look into it?

Those are just my thoughts on pursuing this topic.

GRC · May 25, 2023

On the separate issue of "proof":

If it came across as though I was using this AI-generated consensus as “definitive proof”, I apologize for that.

It should be made clear to everyone, that the consensus view was generated from the information that the AI program had access to.

This cannot be taken as absolute proof, unless the sources of information that it was based upon are validated.

Getting many eyes to look into those sources was my attempt to “crowd-source” the task.

Additionally, posting the AI-consensus served as a nice counterpoint to a post on another thread, where someone claimed the opposite idea as the consensus view, without providing any supporting references at all.

As Steve was explaining in his detailed post, it is important to point out that this AI-generated consensus statement could be equally errant in its assertion. It’s only as good as its source information.

OceanoNox · May 26, 2023

4 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

And so, to me, this is a topic whose intrinsic value does not warrant the efforts to determine whether cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo Period, and, if so, exactly when.

I really disagree: because WE cannot find immediate value in a pursuit, does not mean it is devoid of any value. Just like unpublished research about negative results or neutral results can lead people to do the whole thing again, when they could have build up on some preexisting results, or put their efforts towards something else.

At the same time, the starting point (here believing that cast tsuba were commonly made) is not necessarily a bad thing IF honesty and integrity in the research is maintained: it should translate to "Were cast tsuba produced?" with a whole study on whether the casting technology was available.

N.B.: I have been on the "objective" side of this in research, where researchers who had discovered a specific mechanisms were trying to fit all results into their own theory, disparaging other theories to the point of dishonesty, while I tried to find what mechanism best explained my own results.

Otherwise I agree that we should look for primary sources as much as possible. Again, this is possibly a lifetime endeavor, as many documents are almost inaccessible (either destroyed, unreadable, or simply stored and forgotten somewhere).

Steve Waszak · May 26, 2023

First, to respond to Dan:

I'm not quite sure what the commentary regarding the ingenuity of the Japanese craftsman is supposed to be achieving in this discussion. If you're suggesting that they were so clever as to be able to invent casting processes and then master them so fully as to produce iron guards that looked 100% forged (which I've never seen any evidence of), what does that have to do with when such tsuba were made? Could such testing determine dates of production when the object in question is steel/iron? If so, has this ever been done on a tsuba whose presentation was so poor that it was suspected of being cast and an Edo Period product? What were the results? And if such testing cannot, in fact, reliably and accurately determine the age of an iron/steel sword guard, what is the point of the comment that "the only way to tell for certain if a tsuba is hand forged or cast is to subject it to non-invasive or invasive metallurgical testing"? Setting aside the veracity (or lack thereof) of that statement for a moment, you seem to be conflating the matter of whether iron tsuba were cast and how one can determine this with when they were. Since the bulk of this topic as pursued in this thread has been mostly focused on the question of when, rather than whether or how (although the "how" could inform the investigation of the "when," I realize), I don't really find this content of your post here very directly relevant.

As to the matter of the popularity of this thread, oh yes, for sure it has garnered a lot of interest. As I say, I have followed it, too (though my reasons have had much more to do with observing the analytical processes used than with any interest in cast tsuba, outside of the practical matter of knowing how to spot them). However, I suspect that the majority of this thread's followers are mostly interested in the general subject of cast tsuba in order to determine how to identify them (if this is possible without the testing you mention), with the purpose being that of avoiding them at all costs. As I said in my earlier post, though, if this is the primary reason for the interest in this thread, the question of when tsuba were first cast in Japan, regularly or otherwise, doesn't matter.

As to the questions you ask at the end of your post, they both return to the matter of whether a tsuba is cast, not when, with a heavy underlying intimation filtering through both that a tsuba that turns out to be cast is a negative outcome. Both questions exemplify and reinforce my point that what matters is whether an iron tsuba is cast versus forged. Neither of your questions have anything to do with when a given sword guard was made. The answers to your questions, incidentally, are "Yes, you damn well should be," and "I'd use it as a coaster or as a doorstop, if I didn't simply throw it away." I would also go back to the drawing board to redouble my efforts to recognize the signs of cast works, although, if what you say is true that "the only way to tell for certain if a tsuba is hand forged or cast is to subject it to non-invasive or invasive metallurgical testing," then there would be no point in such efforts after all.

Steve Waszak · May 26, 2023

And now to Glen :

You set up your first post by saying, "Here are some of my thoughts on this, regardless of the “value” of the objects in question…"

Right off the bat, we have a bit of a problem. For me, disregarding the value of the objects in question is itself a questionable stance. This is partly due to a matter of practical considerations: we all have limited resources in time, energy, focus, concentration, etc... Why devote hours and hours of these resources in a direction where the relative intrinsic value of the objects is so low, and where the value of what is or can be learned is so exceedingly minor? The initial premise you seem to be starting with is that the "'value' of the objects in question" can or should be divorceable from the various investments in focus, time, and energy spent investigating them, and/or that any inquiry at all has some measure of substantive intrinsic value (knowledge for knowledge's sake). But if you spend dozens or hundreds of hours researching X, those are hours that could have been spent researching Y, when Y is intrinsically a far more valuable pursuit. And while knowledge for knowledge's sake can have some (usually trivial) value, it pales next to the pursuit of knowledge where that knowledge is attached to something of infinitely greater importance to the field in question.

Let me ask: Just because something can be researched, does that mean it should? Time and effort and energy spent researching one thing is time, effort, and energy not spent researching others. So, to your Item 1 in your first post, I would agree that dispelling myths is critically important in this field, since there are so many that are pervasive and pernicious. But why not choose battles that matter more? Unless one has boundless amounts of time and energy, one cannot do the work to dispell all the myths flying about.

You do describe a proper inductive methodology, however, which is great to see. "Gathering as much evidence as possible and 'letting the chips fall where they may," as you say, is exactly the right approach. You then say:

"If the evidence gathered ends up supporting or refuting any aspect of the existing views on the topic, or reveals that there is still no definitive answer, then why not try to find out?

Gaining any knowledge at all on the topic is better than to leave it unexplored."

Why not try to find out? Again, is the topic worthy of such effort? And time? And thought? And energy? When there are so many better topics to devote oneself to? Really? I would argue that this topic (when cast iron tsuba were first made in Japan) is not. My words here echo what I've said above about value, both of the object of focus, intrinsically, and of our own time and effort. Should a blade scholar and connoisseur spend hours and hours studying the nakago shapes of rapidly-made cheap Muromachi Period swords meant for export? Why would he? As I have stressed, if there is value in such efforts such that knowledge of how to avoid being fooled by would-be high-quality items is gained, then those efforts have merit, I think. But to pursue something like that "for knowledge's sake" does not.

Your second item again returns to the idea of disregarding a tsuba's "value, or lack there-of, in terms of their 'collectability'." I've already spoken at length on this. But just to emphasize via a question: is it really the case that ALL possible topics and sub-topics pertaining to tsuba are equally worthy of intense scrutiny and research and critical inquiry? Just for the value of knowledge for knowledge's sake?

Item 3 in your first post states:

"Learning about when such techniques began or were amplified, allows for the potential to gain further insights into the cultural, technological and economic conditions that led to those technical shifts.

Why wouldn’t someone want to add to that understanding? It would be adding one more piece of information into a larger whole."

Three responses here: 1. if the techniques and technical shifts in question result in a product whose intrinsic value is low, then the value of the knowledge of those techniques is reduced (not absent, maybe, but reduced). In the case of attempting to determine when iron tsuba were first cast, the intrinsic value of the product created is indeed low. 2. How, exactly, are we to "learn about when such techniques (casting of iron tsuba) began or were amplified"? What methods shall we rely on to determine this? Printed reference materials would seem not to be of much help, since none survive (apparently) that would have served as contemporary records of the techniques used and when they began. Can tsuba suspected of being cast be analyzed, whether invasively or otherwise, to determine the age of the item with precision? If the answer is no, then how can we accomplish this worthy goal? 3. As to why someone wouldn't want to add to that understanding, again, its a matter of the relative value of doing so, and the investments in time, energy, effort, etc... involved.

Item 4: Well, if investigative efforts into the literature could result in a reliable, confirmed, original/primary source, then sure, that would be good to find, even for this topic, I guess. But if initial efforts show that there aren't any such sources, and that all the literature in question that mentions cast iron tsuba production and its origins itself begins with publication dates in the 20th century, then this effort becomes futile. This is even more the case when one recognizes the pervasiveness of iemoto-ism or "sensei-ism" in so much of the literature in this field. This factor cannot be overstated as a critical consideration, whether or not one is applying AI-assistance.

Clearly, there is a potent philosophical element involved in determining value, whether we are discussing the value of objects or the value of our research and critical inquiry efforts. For me, cast iron tsuba are valueless, somewhat akin to painting by numbers. And so, the sole value (for me) to be gained in looking at or studying cast iron guards is to know how to spot them in order to shun them. And that means that when they were made is irrelevant.

Jussi Ekholm · May 26, 2023

I do not have access to ChatGPT but I would strongly advice against using it in do research like this. On all cases where I have seen it to be used regarding nihonto, it is just giving misinformation that it is creating out of thin air, usually misinformation that is fitting exactly to the question that the person asking the question wants to hear, creating a false narrative.

As for the reference books provided by ChatGPT, I believe for the Japanese reference names, it is also creating them, making them appear as looking like genuine references. I am not a fittings guy and I have limited resources on them but hopefully someone can verify the authencity of the provided references.

1. 日本刀装具図鑑, I cannot find a book by this name. I believe it is a mashup of real books, like most in the list.

2. 刀剣の美術館, I cannot find a book by this name. I think names of the books by Tokyo National Museum are always more specific.

3. 刀剣装具の世界, I cannot find a book by this name, I think it might be created from 刀装具の世界 (an exhibition of Watanabe Museum of Art): https://watart.jp/exhibition/刀装具の世界～技巧・造形美と鳥取藩の鐔師たち/

4. 日本刀装具大鑑, I cannot find a book by this name. I think it is creation from Nihontō Taikan 日本刀大鑑

5. 刀剣装飾の美術史, I cannot find a book by this name.

6. 日本刀装具の美, I believe this is false creation of 刀装具の美 Tosogu no Bi

7. 日本刀装飾大鑑, It created the same name as in 4. but with incorrect kanji (刀装飾), someone more proficient in language can add insight on this

8. 刀剣装飾大鑑, I cannot find a book by this name.

9. 刀剣の美術, I believe this is miscreation of NBTHK monthly magazine 刀剣美術 Tōken Bijutsu

I think ChatGPT just added NBTHK, Tokyo National Museum etc. as authors to make the information sound real.

@GRC Can you find a single Japanese book reference in real life book that ChatGPT gave to you?

GRC · May 26, 2023

Here's my detailed response

Those are fair points to consider

I certainly do agree that being able to identify what is cast is more important to the collector than when it was cast.

GRC · May 26, 2023

My response above was to Steve's post, not to Jussi

@Jussi Ekholm, I did a few quick searches but stopped after the first three. I was getting inconsistent results, and just suspected something might be missing from the titles provided.

But now that you've done that extensive searching (thanks!), it's far more likely to have been a construct by the AI that was "forcing" a "positive response" to the prompt I gave it to "provide references".

That's a dangerous thing to have about, without providing a full disclaimer that the program will do that.

Thanks again, to everyone who did some searching. :thumbsup:

It was a good "check" of the AI's potential for that type of use, and it certainly seems to have failed badly in providing genuine references.

Larason2 · May 26, 2023

I think one of the problems is that there have been some contributors that have been saying a presented tsuba is cast without evidence, (or evidence that in my opinion has been convincingly challenged). I also suspect that for some, there may be a financial stake in their credibility or the credibility of those they learned those assessments from. As has been pointed out, in the field of nihonto, false assessment has been used by unethical actors in the past for financial gain. In my opinion, this makes this very difficult to resolve. There is a tendency online to infinitely prolong debate rather than to allow yourself to appear wrong or admit you may be in error, particularly if there is a financial stake.

I think there is also the desire by many on this forum to be able to say convincingly whether a presented tsuba is cast or not. I don't think there is usually enough actual evidence to make this call, though sometimes there is. The trouble is also we don't necessarily know if this discussion is driven by curiosity alone, or by hidden risk of financial gain or loss.

So for me, it's enough that a piece isn't called as cast when there's no evidence, or only controversial evidence. I think the Edo portion of it is an attempt by some to add validity to a call that something is cast. If it can be shown that tsuba were cast in the edo period in Japan, particularly in large numbers, then this means the pre-test probability of a cast piece is much higher.

Brian · May 26, 2023

Fantastic responses Steve, really enjoy your approach.
One thing I do often notice is the fact that many novices who collect Japanese items have this romantic notion that an item may have been carried into battle by a...Samurai! Ooh!.....wow...awe...shock...it must have been seen some battle. Taken some heads. I trust that this isn't something felt by our members, but many guys out there do have that dream.
So when they buy a tsuba and find out it's cast, the horror that it may not have been made at a time when the samurai existed is just too much to bear. The whole idea that cast tsuba are later means that they aren't a Samurai item, and that the whole romantic hope is flawed.
Again, not saying this is the reasoning among our members, but out there in collecting land, anything that removes an item further away from the Samurai is seen as a huge negative. Swords couldn't have been owned by mere merchants. Fittings couldn't have been made for Western export. I fear much of the reasoning behind trying to date these tsuba as earlier is to place them in a time that is far more romantic when it comes to collecting.

Gakusee · May 26, 2023

3 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I do not have access to ChatGPT but I would strongly advice against using it in do research like this. On all cases where I have seen it to be used regarding nihonto, it is just giving misinformation that it is creating out of thin air, usually misinformation that is fitting exactly to the question that the person asking the question wants to hear, creating a false narrative.

As for the reference books provided by ChatGPT, I believe for the Japanese reference names, it is also creating them, making them appear as looking like genuine references. I am not a fittings guy and I have limited resources on them but hopefully someone can verify the authencity of the provided references.

1. 日本刀装具図鑑, I cannot find a book by this name. I believe it is a mashup of real books, like most in the list.

2. 刀剣の美術館, I cannot find a book by this name. I think names of the books by Tokyo National Museum are always more specific.

3. 刀剣装具の世界, I cannot find a book by this name, I think it might be created from 刀装具の世界 (an exhibition of Watanabe Museum of Art): https://watart.jp/exhibition/刀装具の世界～技巧・造形美と鳥取藩の鐔師たち/

4. 日本刀装具大鑑, I cannot find a book by this name. I think it is creation from Nihontō Taikan 日本刀大鑑

5. 刀剣装飾の美術史, I cannot find a book by this name.

6. 日本刀装具の美, I believe this is false creation of 刀装具の美 Tosogu no Bi

7. 日本刀装飾大鑑, It created the same name as in 4. but with incorrect kanji (刀装飾), someone more proficient in language can add insight on this

8. 刀剣装飾大鑑, I cannot find a book by this name.

9. 刀剣の美術, I believe this is miscreation of NBTHK monthly magazine 刀剣美術 Tōken Bijutsu

I think ChatGPT just added NBTHK, Tokyo National Museum etc. as authors to make the information sound real.

@GRC Can you find a single Japanese book reference in real life book that ChatGPT gave to you?

I have actually tried ChatGPT with Juyo Zufu for which I have translations and sometimes the results are so far off, it is not even funny. For standard, non-technical subject matters where English resource material is prolific, it does reasonably well. For arcane subjects such as nihonto, in less intuitive languages such as Japanese and Chinese (where different alphabets and characters have different meanings subject to context or time-period usage), then caveat emptor. Be very careful as it mixes myth with fact, pulp fiction with history and blends things up. I made repeated attempts to teach it about Osafune, and within the same discussion thread, it did seem to pick it up somewhat. However, in a new dialogue, the knowledge was gone. It is a very advanced semantic model but that is what it is for now.

Dan tsuba · May 26, 2023

Hello again Steve Waszak,

I noticed that you stated in one of your previous posts that-

“Well, if investigative efforts into the literature could result in a reliable, confirmed, original/primary source, then sure, that would be good to find, even for this topic, I guess. But if initial efforts show that there aren't any such sources, and that all the literature in question that mentions cast iron tsuba production and its origins itself begins with publication dates in the 20th century, then this effort becomes futile.”

If my recollection is correct (who knows I am getting old!) there are a couple of references to cast iron tsuba that were published in the late 19^th century (and very early 20^th century) that are stated somewhere in the 11 pages of this thread!

I believe that they are not comprehensive or “long winded” references, but they were written in the late 19^th century (and very early 20th century)..

Anyway, I just did a quick search of this thread and found references stated on p 2,3,5,6,7,and 9. I am certain that you are already familiar with several of the references stated.

With respect,

Dan

Sign In

Tsuba casting molds ?

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ROKUJURO

Ford Hallam

Ford Hallam

Posted Images

Join the conversation