Workshop & Tools
Having been exposed to various artists and their workspaces, I’ve been fortunate enough to compile methods and tools. Here I’ll compare the traditional Japanese smithy vs. the smithy of a Northern American swordsmith. The spaces belong to Fusataro and Michael Bell respectively.
The Japanese Forge is primarily fueled by charcoal, the standard for centuries. The main reasons for using properly prepared charcoal versus other fuels are:
1. Charcoal can produce a lot of heat, so much so that it can burn/melt the metal; not the desired effect. With charcoal you can bring the working piece to a critical temperature in very little time.
2. In concert with heat, charcoal allows the bladesmith to manipulate the carbon composition of metal; a process occurring at the atomic level. Manipulating the carbon content levels is the main differentiator between ductile or hard Tamahagane, both of which are required to make a fully functional sword.
3. Charcoal was readily available.
Swordsmiths outside of Japan have had the freedom to improvise. In this example, Michael Bell’s shop used a natural gas fuel source for his forge.
[singlepic id=90 w=320 h=240 float=left]
The advantages range from availability, better temperature control and cleanliness. But influencing the carbon content within the working piece isn’t an option when using natural gas, so that part of the forging process isn’t available here. This changes how the metal is read throughout the forging process.
It’s much easier to work with natural gas because managing your fire is as easy as ensuring that there’s enough fuel in the tank. Using gas is a cleaner way to forge, but personally I like managing the fire when forging, it keeps my mind from wondering.
Another key difference between shop spaces is the placement and use of equipment. The key to equipment placement is to minimize the distance between fire and anvil or power hammer.
Japanese smiths work in a sunken, cemented cavity surrounded by equipment that’s roughly at the right height to eliminate the need to bend over. Generally speaking, the same height considerations are taken into account by non-Japanese smiths, minus the sunken cavity.
[singlepic id=91 w=320 h=240 float=center][singlepic id=89 w=320 h=240 float=right]
The anvils and hammers are usually very different. Japanese anvils are made specifically for swords, whereas blacksmith anvils are much more versatile as their work required it.
The Japanese anvil is essentially a solid rectangular cube that sits in the ground. The working surface is perfect for sword work, but little else. Having the anvil grounded is necessary for height requirement purposes, but also helps deafen the strike a little. Unlike other anvils, there is no beak or hardie; anvil extensions that help blacksmiths work pieces that require curls or twists. That aside, there’s actually more working surface on non-Japanese anvils, making them easier to work with in some instances.
Japanese hammers are weighted forward heavy and difficult to get used to for anyone who hasn’t used them. In my experience, this is because they’re balanced toward the striking end, making the strike occur at a height different from most other hammers. This difference affects striking technique greatly, but as always there are reasons for this specialization in Japanese hammers. Reasons I’ve been given range from the hammers best suiting the workspace and meeting the striking requirements for sword work. But in the end, the best hammer is the one that allows the user to leave as few hammer marks as possible, which is more related to skill and experience than anything else.
In this example I’ve given Taro a hammer developed by Uri Hofi, an Israeli smith I spent some time with many years ago. The Hofi hammer is still my favourite to work with for almost anything.
[singlepic id=47 w=320 h=240 float=left][singlepic id=48 w=320 h=240 float=center]