Paul Martin , Japanese Sword Specialist
1. Lots of people are interested and or fascinated by the beauty of the katana but besides absorbing some general info on the web and watching some documentaries, 98% doesn’t get any further than that. How and why did you ended up in this fascinating world of the Japanese sword?
My interest began in much the same way as many people’s did—through participation in martial arts. I would hear about samurai spirit and bushido, etc. This of course led to an interest in Japanese cinema and Kurosawa, and Kobayashi Movies. This was the beginning, but then in 1993, I joined the British Museum and saw Japanese swords up close for the first time. I had always thought that Japanese swords were cool, but I had only ever really seen them strapped to the hip of cinematic samurai. I was immediately captivated by the metallurgical activities in the hardened edge, and the hues and textures of the steel itself. Until that moment, I had never realized that there was such a thing as a Japanese sword specialist, and I think that it was in that same moment I decided that I wanted to be one.
My epiphany coincided with an element of luck. At that time the only Japanese trained sword specialist in the UK was the keeper of the department of Japanese Antiquities: Victor Harris. Victor was a direct student of Kanzan Sato and the first translator of Miyamoto Musashi’s book Go Rin no Sho: A Book of Five Rings. He also understood the sword in its spiritual capacity and was a Japanese fencer (Kendoka). The chances of finding a mentor like this are very rare. From that point on I worked very hard studying Japanese language, kendo and swords until a position in the Japanese department became available. Even then I had to compete for the position, but my enthusiasm for the subject won through. I was consequently given responsibility for the care of the Japanese arms and armor collections.
I later realized that even staying at the British Museum for all of my working life would not allow me to study Japanese swords to the fullest. I decided that if I wanted to become a sword specialist in the Japanese sense, I would need to go to Japan and study all aspects including kantei and oshigata drawing like a Japanese sword specialist.
2. There’s always a lot of discussion about real and ‘fake’ tamahagane. So the question of course : can tamahagane produced outside of Japan (by either a kera oshi tatara or zuku-oshi tatara ) still get the label ‘real tamahagane’ ? After all, we tend to forget that the process of producing tamahagane was introduced by the Chinese (and the Korean?).
This is a rather complex question and subject to one’s point of view. In the metallurgical sense, you could say ‘yes, that all steel produced from the same raw materials of iron (Fe) and carbon (C), using the kera-oshi method or zuku-oshi method produces a form of ‘Japanese-type steel’ for sword production even outside Japan.
However, even inside Japan, we have to begin by defining what is ‘real tamahagane’? Is the locally produced tamahagane of the Kamakura period the same as Edo period tamahagane when centralized smelting took place and steel was shipped along the main roads? Is kera-oshi real tamahagane, or is decarburized zuku-oshi the real steel? Are Shinto era blades made from nanban-tetsu not real Japanese swords? Even today, not all smiths use tamahagane made at the Nitto-ho tatara in Shimane, and many of the ones that do add their own special ingredients trying to emulate a distinctive jigane of a particular smith or school.
Additionally, just as it can be argued that the differences in locally gathered raw materials used for the jigane of the different traditions within goka-den can be distinguished in the hues and textures in a completed blade, a difference can be seen in both the manufacturing methods and the steel itself on non-Japanese made blades. This is not a new discovery by any means, it is said that there are distinguishable factors between continental (Chinese and Korean) made chokuto and domestic chokuto of Japan’s Ancient and early Heian periods that are kept in the Shosoin imperial repository, Nara. Both China and Korea were rich in iron ore, but as it was expensive for Japan to import ore, it resulted in iron and steel production techniques using sand-iron flourishing in Japan. It is undeniable that the steel technology came from China and Korea, but once steel and sword making took off in Japan it began to immediately develop its own characteristics culminating in the introduction of the distinctive curve into the blade.
However, rather than just judging the raw materials alone, we must look at the characteristics of a completed blade as it is not only the jigane that separates Japanese made blades from their non-Japanese counterparts. Swordsmiths in Japan do not just produced a blade with a curve in it and call it a katana or a tachi. The Japanese swordsmith is also something of a connoisseur. He must also study sugata and understand the different shapes of the various periods, and the subtle difference in the sugata of the school that he is aiming for. All smiths in Japan are aiming for a specific school or tradition, and are not just making ‘generic’ Japanese style swords. I think that just as importantly as researching jigane, to be successful, ‘Japanese style bladesmiths’ should also be studying other aspects such as sugata, the related activities produced in a hamon, and should focus their work by aiming at the workmanship of a specific school in a specific era.
My interest began in much the same way as many people’s did—through participation in martial arts. I would hear about samurai spirit and bushido, etc. This of course led to an interest in Japanese cinema and Kurosawa, and Kobayashi Movies. This was the beginning, but then in 1993, I joined the British Museum and saw Japanese swords up close for the first time. I had always thought that Japanese swords were cool, but I had only ever really seen them strapped to the hip of cinematic samurai. I was immediately captivated by the metallurgical activities in the hardened edge, and the hues and textures of the steel itself. Until that moment, I had never realized that there was such a thing as a Japanese sword specialist, and I think that it was in that same moment I decided that I wanted to be one.My epiphany coincided with an element of luck. At that time the only Japanese trained sword specialist in the UK was the keeper of the department of Japanese Antiquities: Victor Harris. Victor was a direct student of Kanzan Sato and the first translator of Miyamoto Musashi’s book Go Rin no Sho: A Book of Five Rings. He also understood the sword in its spiritual capacity and was a Japanese fencer (Kendoka). The chances of finding a mentor like this are very rare. From that point on I worked very hard studying Japanese language, kendo and swords until a position in the Japanese department became available. Even then I had to compete for the position, but my enthusiasm for the subject won through. I was consequently given responsibility for the care of the Japanese arms and armor collections.
I later realized that even staying at the British Museum for all of my working life would not allow me to study Japanese swords to the fullest. I decided that if I wanted to become a sword specialist in the Japanese sense, I would need to go to Japan and study all aspects including kantei and oshigata drawing like a Japanese sword specialist.
2. There’s always a lot of discussion about real and ‘fake’ tamahagane. So the question of course : can tamahagane produced outside of Japan (by either a kera oshi tatara or zuku-oshi tatara ) still get the label ‘real tamahagane’ ? After all, we tend to forget that the process of producing tamahagane was introduced by the Chinese (and the Korean?).
This is a rather complex question and subject to one’s point of view. In the metallurgical sense, you could say ‘yes, that all steel produced from the same raw materials of iron (Fe) and carbon (C), using the kera-oshi method or zuku-oshi method produces a form of ‘Japanese-type steel’ for sword production even outside Japan.
However, even inside Japan, we have to begin by defining what is ‘real tamahagane’? Is the locally produced tamahagane of the Kamakura period the same as Edo period tamahagane when centralized smelting took place and steel was shipped along the main roads? Is kera-oshi real tamahagane, or is decarburized zuku-oshi the real steel? Are Shinto era blades made from nanban-tetsu not real Japanese swords? Even today, not all smiths use tamahagane made at the Nitto-ho tatara in Shimane, and many of the ones that do add their own special ingredients trying to emulate a distinctive jigane of a particular smith or school.
Additionally, just as it can be argued that the differences in locally gathered raw materials used for the jigane of the different traditions within goka-den can be distinguished in the hues and textures in a completed blade, a difference can be seen in both the manufacturing methods and the steel itself on non-Japanese made blades. This is not a new discovery by any means, it is said that there are distinguishable factors between continental (Chinese and Korean) made chokuto and domestic chokuto of Japan’s Ancient and early Heian periods that are kept in the Shosoin imperial repository, Nara. Both China and Korea were rich in iron ore, but as it was expensive for Japan to import ore, it resulted in iron and steel production techniques using sand-iron flourishing in Japan. It is undeniable that the steel technology came from China and Korea, but once steel and sword making took off in Japan it began to immediately develop its own characteristics culminating in the introduction of the distinctive curve into the blade.
However, rather than just judging the raw materials alone, we must look at the characteristics of a completed blade as it is not only the jigane that separates Japanese made blades from their non-Japanese counterparts. Swordsmiths in Japan do not just produced a blade with a curve in it and call it a katana or a tachi. The Japanese swordsmith is also something of a connoisseur. He must also study sugata and understand the different shapes of the various periods, and the subtle difference in the sugata of the school that he is aiming for. All smiths in Japan are aiming for a specific school or tradition, and are not just making ‘generic’ Japanese style swords. I think that just as importantly as researching jigane, to be successful, ‘Japanese style bladesmiths’ should also be studying other aspects such as sugata, the related activities produced in a hamon, and should focus their work by aiming at the workmanship of a specific school in a specific era.
没有评论:
发表评论