Steve Waszak

Great post, Glen. A few thoughts to share here... First, check out the two tsuba below. One is a Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei, the other (more oblong one) is a Nidai Yamakichibei. This would date these pieces to the first couple of decades or so of the 17th century, or perhaps slightly earlier, so, late-Momoyama to earliest-Edo. A question to be asked is whether these two smiths are trading off of an already-established popular form, or if they created the design themselves. Given that the Yamakichibei smiths more frequently work with ita-plate styles, I would lean toward the former. But if these weren't signed, would they be seen as Kyo-sukashi? Owari? Kanayama? Ko-Shoami? Are these gimei, with mei added later to a "Ko-Shoami" or "Kanayama" tsuba? I am quite confident that these are legit Yamakichibei works, based on metal work and on the peculiar idiosyncratic nuances in the rendering of the mei on the two guards, respectively. If they are forgeries, they are perfect forgeries. In any event, one cultural consideration that muddies the already muddy waters further is the post-Momoyama quickening of the cross-currents of influence that affected the various tsuba-making groups. To the degree that any of these groups ever was "pure," uniform, and consistent in its style, design, and construction methods, by the time we get into the 17th century, and especially once the peace was solidified throughout Japan after 1615, such purity and uniformity was rapidly "contaminated" by the streams of influence coming from various places. In particular, though, the exchanges of information and inspiration occurring between Kiyosu/Nagoya in Owari and Kyoto appear to have increased considerably in these years. I think this is a big reason that the five tsuba Glen presents above all are assigned to either the Owari groups or the Kyoto groups. And even the two Yamakichibei examples I include here are, of course, Kiyosu/Nagoya products (if the standard understanding is to be accepted ). So, even the idea that it would be possible to assign such pieces categorically to a "school" is fatally flawed out of the gate. Even it it were somehow possible to determine factually that all Kanayama tsuba had this feature or that one, and that all Ko-Shoami or Kyo-Sukashi had a certain feature or set of features originally (i.e. in early- to mid-Momoyama), by the time of the end of the Azuchi-Momoyama Period, and as the Edo Period gets underway, it is highly likely that all of these groups could and would have employed such features inspired by other groups as they wanted or needed, tsuba by tsuba. So how would it be possible any longer to meaningfully classify individual sword guards made in these years and later? Finally, a quick note on the whole concept of categories and classifying. Why do we need these? We know that these constructs were largely invented by Meiji-era merchants looking to increase the appeal and value of their wares by ascribing "identities" to them, which, as Glen observes, became fixed as factual histories to be recognized and acknowledged as such. But even this early activity to invent schools was based on an understanding, conscious or otherwise, that there is some deep need in us to be able to identify something, to be able to call it something, to label it. If we could exercise the discipline to move away from this compulsion, it could go a long way toward disrupting the status quo and the system that depends on it. Rather than focus so heavily on "identifying" and "classifying" a given piece, emphasizing our analysis and appreciation of its quality and aesthetic sensibilities may be a less treacherous path to take. This is more challenging that it might at first appear, for the entire enterprise of collecting -- anything, really -- is based heavily on categories and classifications, on taxonomies and genealogies, without which many collectors would fumble around looking for order in what they have acquired. So, much of what this thread pursues relies more than a little on psychological considerations.

I'm with you there, Glen. And I think your thoughts here identify an interesting idea, namely, that the aims of the scientific community (arriving at factual knowledge via disciplined, logical methodology) may differ somewhat from those of the humanities, whose ultimate aims pertain to knowledge that is perhaps more philosophically based/concerned, or even the "soft sciences," where identifying the most plausible theories is the quarry, since the answers to many of their inquiries can have no factual answer. As for Sasano's theories, oh yes, lots of contentiousness and rancor there! It's pretty well known in Japanese tsuba circles, I believe, how much division there was between those who subscribed to Sasano's timelines, and those who did not. Academic squabbling: who would sink to such lows???

I think what Glen has presented regarding the unreliability (as concerns factual information) of a good portion of the literature, as well as the imperfect results received at times through shinsa, pretty clearly establish that "the system is broken." But Florian's words are right on target, as I think, are Thomas's here. There is sufficient doubt about the veracity of significant parts of the information passed down to point to a fairly dramatic reform. But as Florian and Thomas are saying, is it realistic to expect that to happen? It seems hard enough to envision an "ideal" new system, never mind one based in reality and pragmatism. Are we stuck with what we have, then? If so, how best to combat or mitigate its worst effects? This may be a more productive approach than to look to tear down the foundations, again, just realistically speaking. I do wonder if establishing quasi-formal, well-organized Study Groups, in part based off of the arguments Glen is making in these threads, but also expanding into other areas, might be a useful approach. I hesitate even to bring up the idea, simply because of the logistical realities involved in bringing such groups together, especially with any frequency. *Note: I do not feel Study Groups that are conducted online would be sufficient; the material needs to be seen and handled in person. I'm really just sort of thinking out loud here, though. Another way to go, perhaps, would be for some of us to begin to produce formal writing (published articles rather than informal, hurried forum posts) that, rather than attacking the current system, simply employ a more reliable analytical method applied to a well-focused topic to arrive at "new" understandings about given tsuba, tsubako, "schools," and the like. In any event, the status quo seems unpalatable to some (many?) of us. To Florian's point, finding a way out of these catacombs is daunting, but to Glen's point, really seems necessary regardless.

And you, mi amigo, have clearly completely missed the point of the entire paragraph from which the quote you use was drawn. What is the subject of that paragraph? CONNOTATION IN PHRASING. As distinct from DENOTATION. It is abundantly clear what your statement DENOTES. And frankly, I'm surprised that you think I could "erroneously interpret" such obviously clear DENOTATION. Sheesh. Reread that paragraph. Carefully. The focus is on the connotative impact (the reception) of how something is PHRASED. This MATTERS, whether you INTEND such an effect or not. And the words you add at the end illustrate that you're just not seeing this. You say, "It needs some kind of validation before it can be accepted as a fact." Okay, and lacking such validation, which is exceptionally rarely occurring in tosogu studies, which I'm sure you know, what is the take away? That something "may or may not be true"? Such wishy-washy language is effectively meaningless. Empty. It goes nowhere. May + may not = ZERO. Total non-starter. And this is WHY the connotative impact of your phrasing plausibly can lead to the conclusion for many (not for ALL) that the claim in question is false, or at the very least, dubious, for no actual REASON.

Hi Glen, Many excellent thoughts and points in your posts above. Really appreciate your taking the time to detail these so well. I wanted to offer a few thoughts on all of this myself, some of which are more generally pertinent to this thread broadly, and a few of which are more specific to certain points. First, many of our concerns are really impacted by epistemological questions which are philosophically not only difficult, but whose answers are largely if not entirely subjective, and (therefore) indeterminate. So there is that. How do we know what we (think we) know? On what basis? I don't want to digress before I really get started, though... So, I'll just say that, with regard to tosogu studies, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to know very much with 100% certainty. This would be true even without all of the fabrications, distortions, obfuscations, deflections, and other knowledge-defeating practices we run into in our efforts at scholarship in this field. I think it is reasonably safe to say that, pre-Meiji, there is very little in the way of fully-reliable knowledge on tsubako and/or tsuba-making groups. And once we get further back into history -- say, early-Edo and before -- the amount of knowledge we can be certain of the veracity of becomes scant indeed. This is due to many factors, of course, one of which is that artisans often did not merit inclusion in official accounts, records, etc... by anyone outside of the families themselves. Even when artisans were included in official records, it may well have been for reasons unrelated to their workmanship, production, and so on, and instead for more ordinary reasons such a census-taking, tax-collection, the recording of marriages, births, deaths, and the like. So, we should expect to be frustrated in our efforts to turn up documentation of early smiths that we can receive as 100% reliable and thus capable of proving a specific point of knowledge about them. On top of this, though, Japan is a land of many natural calamities ranging from earthquake and fires to typhoons and floods. Buildings in early Edo and prior times were not constructed to withstand such forces, and were often lost, only to have to be rebuilt. How many records and documents have been lost to such events? Who can know? So, we can and, I think, must temper our expectations regarding the turning up of early records accordingly. How then to proceed? Do we adhere to a relatively rigid standard of epistemological confidence (i.e. something must be objectively factual) before we can accept the information in question? Or, would a "sliding scale" of probability be sufficient? For me, personally, I have comfortably settled on this latter. The specific degree of probability is then subject to constant adjustment as new information, new considerations, and new insights come into play. If one's epistemological position is that, if something cannot be known 100% factually, then we cannot really say we know anything at all about it, I think it will be difficult to get very far in this field, owing to the relative paucity of objectively factual information we really have (and are likely to ever have) about early tosogu and their makers. So, if the essentially necessary alternative is to embrace that sliding scale of probability, progress can be made, I believe. Next, we have to be very careful not to allow our own awareness and recognition of the dubiousness of many source materials and knowledge processes (i.e Shinsa and the resulting papers) to have us flinging the babies out with all of their bathwater. There is a tendency in some circles to reject ALL claims regarding certain tsubako, tsuba-making groups, working periods, working locations, production methods, etc, etc, etc.... simply because it has been shown that SOME "information" about these things is faulty, incomplete, distorted, or otherwise problematic. To reject all recorded genealogies simply because we know that that of the Myochin is unreliable and likely to be largely fiction is itself untenable. And while iemotoism (i.e. "Sensei-ism") is certainly generally problematic as a dependable source or conduit of knowledge, this does not mean, of course, that this sort of source is always wrong. Just because some NBTHK Shinsa results/papers are demonstrably incorrect does not mean that ALL Shinsa and ALL papers are useless and should be rejected out of hand. We should have a healthy (but NOT contrarian) skepticism, but must also be open to knowledge that may come from such sources, I think. This leads me to another observation, one related to the above-mentioned notion of a sliding scale of probability: when we phrase things in certain ways, such phrasing can carry certain connotations, whether intended or unintended. For example, above, Glen, in reference to the section of my earlier post on the possible significance of Yamasaka Kichibei living and working in Owari during Genki, as well as about the name Shigenori being part of Yamasaka Kichibei's full name, you say that "It may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first..." Such phrasing connotes more doubt about the likelihood of the idea in question than is perhaps warranted, especially with the added words, "...but needs to be verified first...," suggesting that, without that verification, this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely. Perhaps you did not mean for such a conclusion to be drawn from those words, but I think, again due to connotative effects, many might take it that way. In this particular example, given the difficulties of verification due to the factors touched on above, it would essentially reinforce the take-away that the claim that this smith worked in that place at that time is wholly empty and should be taken as a fiction. I think this approach is a mistake, though. That is, it seems that an underlying assumption here is that, absent verifiable material, the default should be to reject, deny, or dismiss such a claim, rather than to default to the claim as being likely true, and then seeking out evidence -- probably circumstantial evidence in particular -- to sustain or weaken that likelihood, not in a deductive way (which is dangerous, of course), but in an inductive manner. This way of proceeding does require some willingness to accept that, just because some sources (Japanese or otherwise) are dubious, it does not mean that all are, or that even most are. Such an approach is, I think, more closely aligned with probable reality than the more extreme reverse (i.e. none of it is true or real unless 100% objective verification is achieved). This brings me back to that sliding scale of probability, then: Saying that it is probable that Yamasaka Kichibei lived and worked in Owari in the Genki Period is preferable (to me) to saying that "it may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first." It is preferable because I think it unlikely that a fiction about this smith that is that specific to time and place would have been conjured. Is it impossible that it is a lie? No, it is not impossible. But is it LIKELY to be a lie? No, it is not, since there is ZERO evidence that it is untrue. Again, why default to such a conclusion, whether implied or not? And the more circumstantial evidence about this smith that we acquire (and, as an aside, there is A LOT that I have not brought into these discussions, as they are kind of off-topic), the more we can plug into that probability scale. Using the point concerning Yamasaka Kichibei's full name to continue, you mention that "Any Japanese speaking person would have been able to pick a theoretical name to tack on to the name to lend it an air of legitimate..." Perhaps this is so. But think about it: is the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" not already sufficient to effect legitimacy? Does this name require an addition to achieve that? Why should it? What evidence is there that the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" would be in some way inadequate in its legitimacy? Isn't it (far) more likely that this really was his name, and that, for us to know this now, some record of his full name must exist or have existed until recently? Moreover, (trivia time) did you know that there are at least 17 ways of writing the name "Shigenori"? Of course, this fact doesn't prove that this name couldn't have been conjured well after the fact for some pernicious purpose, such as making (an already illustrious) name (more) illustrious, but is this LIKELY? If so, what is the likelihood? 99%? 95%? 60%? 0.1%? Again, based on what evidence? Or assumption? And I'll stay with my statement that the fact that the name is recorded with specific kanji (this point regarding specific kanji used in names matters a lot to the Japanese) suggests strongly (albeit doesn't prove) that a record of this full name exists somewhere, perhaps in some obscure and relatively pedestrian locale. Finally, you asked Glen, about the references to the handed-down transmissions currently residing in Nagoya's Tokugawa Museum, and which pertain to the move of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei from Kiyosu to Nagoya between 1610 and 1613 (Note: Nagoya effectively absorbed Kiyosu over time, such that Kiyosu is effectively "in" Nagoya now. This is, perhaps, not insignificant, as the Japanese are very fond of retaining local history in the form of documents, letters, and the like in regional museums, repositories, libraries, etc). To address your questions on this, I will quote part of Markus Sesko's translation of Okamoto's Owari To Mikawa no Tanko, page 70, regaring the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei. Okamoto states as follows: "The late Mr. Yamada Shogoro from Nagoya said that it is commonly accepted that the counting with the Shodai starts with the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya in the course of the so-called 'Kiyosu-goshi,' running parallel with the building of Nagoya Castle from Keicho 15 [1610] onwards. This assumption by Yamada is supported by the handed-down transmissions regarding the Shodai and the Nidai, now in the Tokugawa Museum, although it has to be mentioned that these transmissions do not contain any information on a Yamasaka-mei." Again, what is the probability that Okamoto is lying about or otherwise outright fabricating the existence of these transmissions? I would say that it is more reasonable to accept and far more probable that these transmissions do exist and that they likely do reside in the Tokugawa Museum. To decide otherwise would be based on what, exactly? Where would that determination fall on the sliding scale of probability? Oh, and a quick note on that last part of Okamoto's quote: Since the transmissions in question very likely would have been created during or shortly after the Kiyosu-goshi between 1610 and 1613, we should not necessarily expect any mention of Yamasaka Kichibei IF his working period actually was some thirty or forty years earlier during Genki, especially if he'd already passed away by the Kiyosu-goshi, and even more IF the transmissions in question involved something such as a census (of artisans) who'd made the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya. In fact, the very fact of his name being omitted in these transmissions implies to a degree that he lived some time before the (Meijin-) Shodai and Nidai, though of course such an understanding cannot be taken as fact. Anyway, let me just finish up by stating again that I'm really liking these threads you've begun, Glen, and couldn't agree more that they are LONG overdue, and absolutely need to get TRACTION. I agree with the VAST majority of your approach, methods, and conclusions, as I think you know, so any reservations I may be expressing in this or my previous post are truly to be taken as the rare exception. I also certainly don't mean to come off as acerbic or otherwise confrontational in tone, if in fact it seems that way. Sometimes, trying to be emphatic about a point can come across as aggressive and adversarial, which is certainly NOT intended. It's one of those things where, if we were having this conversation in a study group somewhere, all would be said with smiles and winks.

Thomas S (Sabiji) and Steve M, Really good posts. Very interesting and important points you both make. Thanks.

Hey Glen Okay, while I generally am in very close agreement with your sentiments in these threads, as you know, I do need to draw attention to the quoted selection above, for two reasons. First, there are period documents from the late-Momoyama that record the move of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei, specifically, from Kiyosu to Nagoya in the course of the Kiyosu-goshi -- the transfer of the political seat of Owari province from Kiyosu to Nagoya between 1610 and 1613 (See page 70 of Markus Sesko's translation of Okamoto Yasukazu's Owari To Mikawa no Tanko). These are labeled as "transmissions handed down over time" (not sure by whom and to whom), and which now reside in the Tokugawa Museum in Nagoya (where it is rather unlikely they would be if they were much later documents, say, late-19th-century or later). Moreover, it is known that the O-Shodai Yamakichibei's full name was Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori, and, importantly, the kanji of "Shigenori" are known ("Shigenori" can be written using various kanji). For the specific kanji of his name to be known -- when he never signed with "Shigenori" on any of his known tsuba, it would seem necessary that there were documents with his name recorded, and it would seem likely that these would be documents contemporary to his life. Further, Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori was also known as Shizuyama Yoshii, again, with the kanji known. How would this additional name -- which likewise has never appeared as a mei on his sword guards -- and the kanji used to write it, be known if there were not period documents to record it, especially since this was never a name he used to sign his work? Additionally, he is known to have been active in Genki (1570-1573) -- a relatively brief and obscure period to note his active years (in part) if someone were just conjuring a fiction about him well after the fact -- and to have lived in Kiyosu near Oda Nobunaga's Kiyosu castle. He was known there early on as an armor maker, working for the Oda. I think it is good to remember that we may not (or certainly do not) have access to all of the records that may exist or have existed about these early smiths (who knows how many have been lost to fires, floods, etc...?). Sometimes, the mention of these smiths may have occurred in an otherwise pedestrian document, as in the case of the recording of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei moving from Kiyosu to Nagoya (it's possible that they were only two of a number of artisans whose move was recorded for census, or some such prosaic reason). I have looked for, but cannot find in my library at the moment, a publication that mentions it having been recorded that Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori was sent out into the field by Oda Nobunaga to repair armor. I cannot speak to the veracity of this account, of course, but I have seen several such documents that record quite ordinary orders of various Daimyo, high-ranking bushi, etc regarding very unremarkable tasks. Perhaps this document exists somewhere, but it has never been translated into English or published in many or any books because it does not directly involve "tsuba knowledge." In any event, I have little doubt (actually, no doubt, really) that the early Yamakichibei smiths were certainly Kiyosu men, and then, in the case of the Meijin-Shodai and Nidai, later moved on to Nagoya. In other words, definitely Owari. The second reason I wanted to call attention to the quote above concerns certain logical likelihoods which, in the absence of certainties and objective proof, stand in as "the best available thinking" on a question or issue. Here, I am speaking of the place and time origins of Kanayama guards. You quote Sasano in his thoughts regarding the similarity in construction between Yamakichibei tsuba and those now called Kanayama, and his drawing the conclusion that it would then seem likely that Kanayama tsuba would also have been made in Owari. Two things need to be emphasized here: 1. The similarity in construction between Yamakichibei sword guards and Kanayama sword guards is not merely high, it is so close that no other tsuba-making tradition comes anywhere near these two in terms of the highly specific shared aesthetic sensibilities they express and the peculiar and shared combination of construction methods they employ. 2. While Kanayama tsuba closely resemble Yamakichibei tsuba and vice-versa, nothing else comes remotely close to either one, even so-called Owari sukashi tsuba, Nobuiye tsuba, or Hoan tsuba. No other tsuba made anywhere else in Japan before, during, or after the Momoyama Period looks remotely like a Yamakichibei work, except a Kanayama work, and vice-versa, in terms of specific Tea Culture aesthetics and then also of construction. It is those two groups...and that's it. So, when Sasano posits that Kanayama guards -- in resembling the construction methods (and aesthetics) of Yamakichibei guards -- were therefore likely also made in Owari, it is a damn good guess, especially in the absence of any other viable. evidence-based theory. I mean, where else would they have been made? Kyoto? Well, mayyybe. But if so, they would have really stood out for their "crudeness" in a capital city known for its pride in the elegance and grace of its ways and wares. Do Kanayama guards look like Kyoto's Umetada guards? Or Kaneie guards? Or Shoami guards? Do they look "Kyoto" at all? And if not Owari or Kyoto, where? So, while I absolutely take your point that there is a huge Emperor's New Clothes situation in the world of tsuba scholarship and nomenclature, I think there is some room for a bit of middle ground between knowing 100% that something is the case, on the one hand, and then saying that we know nothing at all, on the other (*We can save epistemological discussions on the nature of knowledge for another time... ). Circumstantial evidence is admissible in Court (in many cases) for a reason. There are, of course, varying degrees of circumstantial evidence, but if one employs sound inductive analytical methods and then qualifies one's conclusions and statements appropriately after the analysis, there is, as I say, some room for this I think, especially given how likely it is that we really can never know for sure many things about pre-Edo tosogu. I recognize that the primary driving force behind your opening this thread is that the above methods are not used and have not been used historically in tsuba scholarship, as your posts have so well pointed out, and that this has led to all kinds of fictions in what passes for knowledge on the subject. The motives behind this are due variously to laziness, to deference (iemoto-ism), and then at timesperhaps to more unsettling (unscrupulous) reasons. In any event, I think it is quite clear that the significant majority of what we read about "schools" and labeling, particularly of anything pre-Edo, is untenable. And while we may not actively be able to really do much about the "traditions" in place, simply knowing how thin are the foundations on which they're built can aid many of us in our efforts to attempt to pierce through the flimsiness.

Thanks for these images, Thomas. They help to reinforce the idea that sukashi tsuba in these two forms -- kuruma sukashi and kiku sukashi -- were used in the mid- to latter part of the 16th century, if not earlier. As Glen has said, though, they don't really prove, I don't think, that such forms were used before the latest decades of the Muromachi Period.

Hi Jussi, Thanks for these references and images. The tsuba described as "Owari sukashi" belonging to the koshirae supposedly used by one of the Akechi certainly does not appear to be Owari to me; it looks, rather, to be an Edo Period design. Even if it were Momoyama, however, I don't see it being an Owari Province work. As to the last photo you include here of the Odachi, it looks to be a kiku-sukashi work. This lends credence to the understanding that kiku-sukashi and kuruma-sukashi tsuba may have seen somewhat sustained use through the Muromachi Period. If so, it would seem, then, that the big innovation would have been ji-sukashi designs that departed from these two forms, an emergence that, again, would not have occurred before the latest years of the Muromachi Period, and probably more likely, the early Momoyama.

Good point, Dale. There is a lot of sense in what you state here. I suppose, though, that Shodai masters were seen as innovators, and therefore, as more creative, which seems to be highly valued. Since Japanese tradition often sees students/apprentices as working diligently to copy the master's works/designs, at least at first, the perception that following generations' works tend to be derivative may prevail. Of course, as you indicate in your post, what counts as "best" is a philosophical rabbit hole. But if innovation is a key component (if not the key component), this may explain why the Japanese default to "Shodai as best" in their evaluations.

I think the emergence of ko-tosho and ko-katchushi tsuba out of a plain-plate foundation can certainly be seen to have occurred as early as the 15th century. It isn't much of a stretch to imagine a smith deciding to perforate a simple motif into a plain plate, or even for the owner of a sword himself to do so (perhaps quite crudely). Once others saw the motif of a crescent moon, or snowflakes, or a butterfly, it is fairly easy to see how it could catch on and become "trendy." And once the concept took hold, it could kind of explode into more ambitious ko-sukashi expressions, such as that seen in Florian's example above (which I think is clearly Muromachi). But I think Glen's (OP's) thread here was begun with the focus on ji-sukashi tsuba in mind, especially. And perhaps even more so, those that are not the "usual" kuruma-sukashi or kiku-sukashi designs, i.e., those produced out of the traditions now called Kyo-sukashi, Owari sukashi, and Kanayama. Such ji-sukashi designs, I believe, did not come into existence until -- at the earliest -- the very end of the Muromachi Period, and perhaps more likely, the early Momoyama Period. One consideration as regards how early the kuruma-sukashi designs may have emerged: the earliest tsubako who regularly signed their works were Nobuiye, Yamasaka Kichibei, and Kawaguchi Hoan, all of whom lived and worked in the castle town of Kiyosu, Owari, at least for a time, in the 1570s - 1580s (and maybe as early as the 1560s). Each of them made kuruma-sukashi tsuba, and two of them -- Yamasaka Kichibei and Kawaguchi Hoan -- made them as a relatively large proportion of their output. The question here is whether these smiths more or less "invented" or reinvigorated the design themselves, or if they instead were simply following trends in that direction that had already been established by others. There is no evidence that I am aware of that the kuruma-sukashi design was already present and popular at the time of the emergence of these three smiths (instead, I believe plain-plate tsuba, as well as some ko-tosho and ko-katchushi guards were prevalent). Moreover, according traditional Japanese practices, artisans of a kind, such as potters and lacquerware craftsmen, often/usually lived in the same parts of town, even on the same street, and so it is quite possible that Nobuiye, Yamasaka Kichibei, and Kawaguchi Hoan were neighbors who saw one another's works and perhaps even had some conversations about it. Even if this were the case, though, there is something of a conceptual jump from the regular patterns we seen in kuruma-sukashi (and kiku-sukashi) sword guards to the more sophisticated expression seen in ji-sukashi designs representing a variety of motifs, as in Kyo-sukashi, Owari-sukashi, and Kanayama works. Perhaps these can be seen as something of a marriage between the motif expression found in ko-tosho/ko-katchushi -- which presented definite subjects, such as dragonflies -- and the more openwork kuruma-sukashi designs of the Kiyosu masters. The presence of European swords in Japan by the mid-16th century, too, may have exerted considerable influence toward the development of the much more open ji-sukashi designs. All of this suggests a dynamic time in the expressive potential of sword guards in the latest Muromachi and early Momoyama years. Add in the factor of the advent of some tsuba being regularly signed meant that tsubako had gained enough cultural gravitas to put significantly more consideration and effort into the refining of their works than may have usually been the case in the relatively simplistic ko-tosho and ko-katshushi forms.

From the images provided by the seller in the auction, this certainly looks Edo Period to me. There is none of the characteristic dynamism infusing Momoyama Period Kanayama tsuba here. The best evidence -- based on cultural consideration rather than material analysis -- is that Kanayama tsuba emerged in the Momoyama Period, probably in the 1580s or early 1590s. There certainly is zero evidence that they were made before Momoyama.

Amen, Steve, Amen! Great post once again. Many bullseye points made.

Brilliantly stated, Steve. Spot on. One quick note: Nobunaga dies in 1582, so, Furuta Oribe wouldn't have been his Tea Master during his lifetime. Oribe only assumes that "title" in 1591 with Sen no Rikyu's death. But this doesn't affect everything you say here, as the impact of Tea Culture was indisputably huge during Nobunaga's lifetime, due in no small part to his own efforts to do so.

Hi Brian, One of the challenges for iron tsuba connoisseurs is in attempting to differentiate the genuine early (pre-Edo) iron guards -- especially those attached to famous names (e.g. Saotome, Nobuie, Yamakichibei) -- from those made in the mid- to late-19th century during the era of Bakumatsu revivalism. This period saw quite a bit of enthusiasm for returning to the glories of Momoyama times, and this manifested in many efforts among the sword guard makers of the day to pay homage to those illustrious tsubako of the past. I don't have much specific knowledge on the Saotome, but it is not difficult to imagine a late-Edo Saotome smith harkening back to "the good old days" in creating a tsuba meant to express those aesthetic sensibilties. I'm not saying your tsuba is certainly a 19th-century work, as I just don't know. But it is worth remembering that a lot of 19th-century works were made to try to capture the powerful iron expressions seen in the tsuba of nearly three hundred years earlier.

This is a terrific price for a guard of this caliber. It could be double this price and be a bargain. I don't "do Higo," but if I did, this would have been vacuumed up within minutes of its being posted.

Hmmm... Not sure where this idea came from, but it is quite inaccurate. There are a good handful of pre-Edo tsubako who regularly signed their works. Among them are the two Nobuiye, the two Kaneiye, the early Yamakichibei smiths, Hoan, Sadahiro, Umetada Myoju, Umetada Mitsutada, and Koike Yoshiro Naomasa. So, not only were there pre-Edo smiths who regularly signed their tsuba, but each of these artists is generally regarded as one of the very finest tsubako of any era in Japanese history. This doesn't have much to do with the OP's concerns, but I did want to respond to that statement for educational purposes...

Excellent thoughts expressed in your post here, Steve.

Mikolaj, Fantastic collection. So great to see such an outstanding concentration of fine early iron pieces. Kudos, and thanks so much for sharing these.

Yagyu. Late-17th century. Theme likely having to do with luck/protection from harm. Iris + mugwort (yomogi+shobu).

I'm a fan of what Steve proposes regarding an Ohno Consensus Working Group, (and, perhaps, not only for Ohno). In particular, the inductive approach Steve describes is one I have highly endorsed and subscribed to for years (as many will know). This much more systematic and objectively analytical method isn't sufficiently present in tosogu scholarship, in my experience. Instead, there is too much reliance on uncritically accepting "what Sensei said," both in Japan and in the West. Clearly, there can be value in "Sensei's" teachings, even a lot of value; the trick is to discern what is valid and valuable, on the one hand, and what, on the other hand, is based on "traditional understandings" which had as their basis questionable "knowledge" followed by a steady and stubborn subscribing to an Emperor's-New-Clothes narrative. Navigating these murky waters is tricky, of course. But that's why what Steve proposes here is so inviting: anchoring an approach to tsuba scholarship in the material details of what can be seen in the objects themselves, and then, when a sort of "critical mass" of generalization can be realized, moving relatively organically to a more deductive approach by which theories and understandings can be tested. In the end, we still may not arrive at any absolutely hard and fast conclusions, but given the current instability present in assigning "Ohno membership" to a variety of disparate tsuba, it seems to me Steve's proposal has merit and certainly worth pursuing.

Excellent thread, everyone. And excellent Ohno tsuba, Steve. Congrats on the acquisition. Very powerful oniguruma (not oniKuruma ) design. For me, if a distinction between Kanayama and Ohno work resides in any one feature, it would be the massivenes of the form of Ohno works. Kanayama tsuba can be just as powerful in their own way, but are often a bit more elegant and evocative in their Tea sensibilities. Really enjoying the discussion here...

I'm barely over the shock of losing Darcy, and now this... Too stunned to say much just now. Terrible news. RIP Ford.

Love the story here, Steve. And an impressive(!) collection of Owari/Kanayama tsuba. Love your arranging of the seven guards the way you have, too. Excellent! I will quibble with your valuing of your horidashi treasure, though: I should think it would be closer to twice as much as the dollar range you mention... It is a really good piece.

Here is a link to the sort of tsuba I describe above. Note the "shop mark" to the right of the ura seppa-dai (just about 3:00). It is a beautiful tsuba, extremely well made, but not Hoan, in my opinion only, of course. https://www.tosoguya...oan_rinpo_tsuba.html