Central to any point I was trying to get across is not the existence or origin of this particular kind of pegged joint but how widespread or commonplace its use was and the extent to which it could be considered typical or representative. I choose a risky way of going about it by taking the comparison route. Maybe a statistical survey of only Japanese carpentry would have been safer even if more boring. So for clarity's sake, I make no contention about the origins of draw boring, just how representative it might be considered.
As far as the quote of mine you have placed, if we get rid of the loaded language or coincidental speculation on introduction, and look at the wider context, it comes down to this: the drawn and pegged joint is used in Japanese carpentry only sporadically regardless of it's origins, where in European carpentry it is commonplace. On this point I am open to any discussion that may shed light on where I might have gone astray. The 150 years actually came from a statement by Chris from earlier as I recall, that I just went along with for the sake of argument. But even going back the 400 years the Dutch have been trading there leaves a lot of room for intercultural exchange. Still, you say Jay, draw boring has been done is Asia for thousands of years.
I have no interest in or intent of defending Zwerger or Grubner for any claims they make or any of their statements at all and I take no position on their conclusions. Still, I will point out they both find that Japanese carpentry is more refined and makes use of a higher skill level and more ingenuity that European carpentry. They do happen to be some of the only writers that have held European and Japanese carpentry up for a side by side look, for what that is worth. The point being that the comparative route I chose has been taken before. Although it was Zwerger for one that pointed out the relationship- maybe overly obvious - between the widespread use of draw boring and the development of boring implements in the Japanese context, which the article from the Takenaka museum seems to support by implication.
I take your point about perspective Jay and am reminded again about the sticky business of making cross cultural comparison. What was it, said by someone? "Cross cultural comparisons can be odious." Anyway that's why I really tried to limit the scope of the comparison I was making about the representative nature of draw boring and its centrality within two traditions relative to each other.
For the technical update... I have been making many square holes successfully. I have been boring a round hole first then going through by hand with a 1" chisel from a hollow chisel mortiser. It really does work quite well. The main difficulty is the chisel getting jammed in the hole, although the chip ejection slot on the chisel makes an excellent place to use a small pry bar and fulcrum to pop it right out. Thanks again for all the input, it certainly helped.
I'm sorry if my post seemed too harsh. I was not being accusatory, just clarifying certain points and what I see as misinformation. The following are just some of you statements that I would have to say are simply not true or misinterpretation. As a practicing timber wright, specializing in (and avid academic observer of) vernacular folk architecture of the Middle East and Asia, I would be more than glad to have a discussion about some of your conclusions. I have just taken some of what you wrote, for sake of clarity, so we can address each point in reference.
Quote:
Also remember that Japanese pegs holes are not drawn, just straight, (think about deflection of the peg for one thing)
Square trunnels deflect just fine and there is no issue with getting them to do so.
Quote:
Look the technique was not feasible until there were augers or some kind of boring tool which in Japan is a gimlet - no timber framing tool, that.
The gimlet is not a timber framing tool, with that we agree, however the technique of drawing a joint tight by offsetting a trunnel's mortise has no bearing on whether it is square of round, or whether it's drilled or chiseled.
Quote:
Sure its possible to chisel the entire square hole which was the way in Japan it was initially done and why the keyed joint dominates. Also the principle is fine if your after maximal stiffening throughout but Japanese construction is in principle about the right amount of flexibility, I mean a flexible joint and one highly tensioned don't go well together. So that's where I see incongruity.
The existence of an evolution in flexibility in Asian frames I agree with. However, this conclusion that Asian and/or Japanese joints aren't tight because of the need for flexibility is false and does not represent the realities of the joinery or the frames, in any way. The actuality, from their horizontal bracing methods, (nuki in Japan)- their draw wedged through tenons on many beams and simple to complex lap joinery, all are extremely tight either by the weight of them or the drawing and/or compression of a wedge. The doubly housed lap joints are very common and lock a frame together, unless gravity turns off, there is nothing to dislodge them, all are as tight, or tighter, than what you would find in Europe. When they do use oblique bracing, (and they do use it but more applicably for specific needs) it is often a strut more than a brace, because unlike European braces, Asian ones work in both compression and tension in many cases. The incongruity, is your conclusion that a flexible frame has to have joinery that is not under tension, which is not the case at all, nor what you find in Asian joinery, of which most are just like what you find in Europe, only more diverse in form and application.
Note: this is a place to note one of the inaccuracies, (IMO,) within Zwerger's text: "diagonal bracing -In the minka, - it was no used at all." p.165 here he was siting Kawiashima's text "Minka:traditional houses of rural Japan," p.77 As soon as one of the folks I teach returns it, I can quote what Kawiashima actually states in his text. He (Kawiashima,) even has photos of oblique bracing in his book. This is one of the reason's, when I refer students to Zwerger's erudite text, I warn them that he may take a different meaning or understanding to the texts he has sited, or perhaps I'm in error on what he is meaning. I find others read Zwerger as I do, most of the time.
Quote:
I say that Japanese pegs are not draw bored mainly because it's true.
Other than sited text, how do you draw this conclusion? My personal experience/observation, from Asian house/ship wrights work demonstrates otherwise. If you have personal observations counter to this, please share it and the text that specifically state this, please site that location. Zwerger's workd, on page 122 only gives a cursory description of "draw boring," that is not enough to fully understand how the technique actually works; failing to mention the offset of the hole in the tenon. His description of the technique, in certain context, is not even accurate.
Quote:
So for clarity's sake, I make no contention about the origins of draw boring, just how representative it might be considered.
Draw boring is represented in Asian/Japanese frames and you actually did make reference to origin as coming from the West, in this statement:
Quote:
that it was introduced relatively late, 150 years ago sounds about right, from the west,
Quote:
it comes down to this: the drawn and pegged joint is used in Japanese carpentry only sporadically regardless of it's origins, where in European carpentry it is commonplace.
How do you draw this conclusion? What did you observe. Where did you read this to be true? I have not read or observed this, but if you have, I would like to discuss your conclusions.
Quote:
But even going back the 400 years the Dutch have been trading there leaves a lot of room for intercultural exchange. Still, you say Jay, draw boring has been done in Asia for thousands of years.
Here again you allude to European influence, which I'm sure there was some limited amount culturally, but not in architectural design, particularly in the imperial class of architecture As such were strictly mandated by building and guild codes, by this time period in Japan. The Japanese would not have seen the Dutch as having much to offer architecturally. Japan did not poses a pelagic sailing fleet and no real interest in it, having been an insular nation, and in many ways, today as well.
I'm not sure what you meant by restating my chronological description of draw boring in Asia?
Quote:
They (Zwerger and Grubner) do happen to be some of the only writers that have held European and Japanese carpentry up for a side by side look, for what that is worth.
Again, this is far from accurate. There are many others, both American and European, that have done not only cultural but architectural comparison of Asian and Japanese timber frames, going back quite some time. For example, (from my reading list,) as far as E. S. Morse, "Japanese Homes and their suroundings," 1886. Zwerger himself sites text after text in his bibliography.
Quote:
The point being that the comparative route I chose has been taken before. Although it was Zwerger for one that pointed out the relationship- maybe overly obvious - between the widespread use of draw boring and the development of boring implements in the Japanese context
Where did Zwerger point out the relationship? I can't remember that when I read the text, and would like to read it, please so I may address his conclusion. I thank you for the reference to the piece written on the Takenaka museum web site, (I have read many of their entries and refer folks there often who have an interest in Asian woodworking,) about boring tools, but do not see how that is germane to the commonality of drawn joinery and it's implementation in Japan?
I have dusted off some of the books in my library, and have access to Dartmouth Colleges Architectural library, so I can possibly site more literature to help in our discussion. Thank you for your time and I look forward to discussing this further with you, should you like.
You know, For this to make any sense at all I think we would have to be more on a similar plane of thought. We would have to agree, in the first case just what it is at the core of the contention because for my part, though it would appear otherwise the way you have contextualized it, it is not a question of an all inclusive survey of Japanese architecture and construction techniques. It could be a question though of what is Japanese carpentry and when can a technique or aspect of it be considered Japanese or what is the Japaneseness of a particular aspect. These are more the parameters of where I am concerning this particular thread, you know, that I find more pointed and where something meaningful might be the outcome instead of the point counter point, you said he said routine because otherwise it will just be a matter or me repeating myself and not getting anywhere. Were there such a consensus, then relating it back to say, draw boring in this case, maybe that would be more interesting. And then my position would be something like the following: That the existence of examples of this technique doesn't qualify it as representative or something we could call Japanese. That in order for that to be the case there would have to be, for one, widespread use, that is to say that it was a technique that carpenters commonly used or used on a standard basis. Equally as important, that the means of producing it with reasonable effort were readily at hand and that there was a need for its use or it fulfilled a function that couldn't be dealt with more effectively otherwise. You see where I'm going, I think. It comes down to the old necessary and sufficient argument. It may be so that I have climbed a mountain once or even many times, but does that mean that I can claim to be a mountaineer?
Ultimately, as I have thought about it, and maybe you will see it otherwise, there is a great deal of subjectivity either way. You, and others, say examples of draw boring are found in contemporary and historical Japanese buildings, so draw boring is Japanese. I say it may be that there are instances of draw boring throughout Japanese carpentry but it's not characteristic and wouldn't call it Japanese.
Since you ask, the specific passage from Zwerger about the relationship between the ability to drill holes with a drill and the centrality of parallel sided peg use is: Wood and Wood Joints..., p 122.
I'm sorry you think we have to agree with each other or "be more on a similar plane of thought," to have a learned discussion about a topic. I feel that as long as someone has reasonable emotional/intellectual intelligence, they should be able to dialog about a topic, even if they have different experiences or concepts. I for one, grow each time in mind and soul, when I have an exchange that makes me think in a different light.
Quote:
the way you have contextualized it, it is not a question of an all inclusive survey of Japanese architecture and construction techniques.
I don't believe I contextualized anything, nor did I request a survey. I quoted what you said, made a counter point, and asked for a reply that would demonstrate further facts about your position, it's that simple.
I still would like to do that, not only for my own interest in the topic, but for others that may read this post thread. The topic is "draw joinery," and "stiffness," in Asian/Japanese timber framing. It would be fine, at another time and post thread to discuss Japanese joinery, but I'm still waiting for you to address the sections of your quoted remarks that I have written comments to. We do not need to discuss "Japaneseness,," I have not mention anything relating to "Japaneseness," nor did I claim that "draw boring," was Asian or Japanese. As far as, "point counter point," well that kind of is idea about discussing something with someone that you might have a different perspective from.
Quote:
Were there such a consensus, then relating it back to say, draw boring in this case, maybe that would be more interesting.
Lets get to the discussion of "draw boring." Please address what I wrote in the last thread post and here, about the realities of it in Asia/Japan, and what experience or reading you have done to show that it was not as I have described it.
Quote:
That the existence of examples of this technique (draw boring,) doesn't qualify it as representative or something we could call Japanese.
I, nor anyone else, called draw boring Japanese, just that it is used and relatively common.
Quote:
That in order for that to be the case there would have to be, for one, widespread use, that is to say that it was a technique that carpenters commonly used or used on a standard basis.
Again, I'm not claiming that draw boring is Japanese/Asian. I am stating that many of the joint, in common use in Japan and Asia, today and antiquity, are "drawn joints," either by offset trunnel, wedge, and/or sloped geometry of a joint.
Quote:
Equally as important, that the means of producing it with reasonable effort were readily at hand and that there was a need for its use or it fulfilled a function that couldn't be dealt with more effectively otherwise. You see where I'm going, I think. It comes down to the old necessary and sufficient argument.
I do clearly see your argument, and have addressed it. They had the "need," as anyone that is constructing anything of wood, to secure it snuggle and tightly together, as they have for several thousand years. Simple put, Asian joints are very tight, always have been.
Quote:
It may be so that I have climbed a mountain once or even many times, but does that mean that I can claim to be a mountaineer?
I was going to let this go, and pass over it. I just can't, I am a mountaineer and AMGA Certified member. I have been rock climbing on and living in mountains, and in the wilderness, most of my life. I teach indigenous life skills. If someone does something once that does not identify them with those qualities but, yes, if someone tries, even in failure, to try something many times, I would identify them with that action.
Quote:
You, and others, say examples of draw boring are found in contemporary and historical Japanese buildings, so draw boring is Japanese. I say it may be that there are instances of draw boring throughout Japanese carpentry but it's not characteristic and wouldn't call it Japanese
I and others do not say that draw boring is Japanese. I never have and I never will, what I have said was that many of the pegged joints in Asian and Japan are "drawn joints," it isn't just a random "instance." Is there a degree of subjectivity, of course. There is on any topic.
I was looking for something from Zerger that you may have read, other than on page 122, as I already explained in my last entry, this is not a very good description of "drawn trunnel technique."
As I read through what you write there it's clear that we are not making any progress. It was just not meant to be, or so it seems, that we came to a meeting point concerning this topic where the discussion could begin. Without some common ground, to use another metaphor, it strikes me as odd to have further discussion.
Here are a few pictures of the square peg detail, plus a few other pics of the project. One plus about the square pegging... the pegs sure are easy to make!
Thanks! They will have a slight draw. I was making pegs today so I drove the one in the picture for size testing purposes. I used a 1" wood owl to do the initial hole with a drill stand. I have both the 1.5" and 2" bar and chain for the Hema. I didn't know they made anything smaller for that.
