Steve Waszak

Chris, That really is a great-looking mizusashi. Do you have any larger photos of it you could/would post? It's hard to tell from the "postage stamp" image if it's period (Momoyama), but it looks to be... Thanks! Cheers, Steve

PM sent.

Thanks for the link, Chris. Interesting reading, including the comments section at the end. Cheers, Steve

Junichi, Much of what you say here express ideas I have long had about the links between Momoyama tetsu tsuba and the dominant Tea Culture those tsuba emerged from and engaged with. The highest of the high-end iron guards of that time I believe were designed via the "guidance" of top buke aesthetes of the day, men whose sensibilities were honed by being steeped (as it were) in Tea. The particular concrete aesthetic details of the major wares of the period are simply too closely echoed in certain tsuba for it to be coincidental, especially given that we can point to specific individuals who would likely, if not definitely, be involved in both. Hosokawa Tadaoki, a Momoyama man even though he becomes Daimyo of Higo in the 1630s, near the end of his life, was a man of Tea (documented) and is credited with essentially establishing the "Big 4" Higo tsuba-making entities (Hirata, Shimizu, Nishigaki, Hayashi). Further, he is thought by some to have inspired/guided the design of some of the tsuba produced in Higo, and is understood even to have made tsuba himself. As far as I'm concerned (and have stated numerous times, now), the link between Tea and certain Momoyama tsuba isn't even questionable. On the Kizaemon Ido bowl, yes, I have long wondered (found dubious) the claim that it was a simple Korean rice bowl. Frankly, it displays a sensibility far too sophisticated---with too many subtle "touches" for a quickly "whipped out" rice bowl. The hypothesis that it is the product of a much loftier aesthetics-driven intent and design is significantly more plausible to me. So the fact that the archeological evidence has resulted in a "surprising" dearth of such bowls or their shards is actually far from surprising to me... Two statements in your post caught my attention, though, Junichi: 1. You say that it "...would also be a bit unfair to compare the aesthetics of late edo kinko tsuba to momoyama tetsu tsuba." Why would this be "unfair"? Unfair how? 2. You say, too that Oribe ware is "...more linked to a style than to a particular kiln or 'school'," but my understanding is that Oribe ware is certainly a type of Mino ware, and that the overwhelming number of Momoyama Period pieces (or remnants thereof) come from a small handful of Mino province kilns. Could you clarify this statement, please? Finally, you say at the end of your post that there may be "other similarities between where the understanding of chawan was up until the 1980s and where with are with tsuba understanding today." I think this is a fair statement, but in using the word "understanding," this does not necessarily sustain the endeavor of classification, right? I'm all for understanding, but remain a bit dubious about attempts to classify these things... Cheers, Steve

Hi Brian, Just thinking about what you say here about linking mon to important personages... I can think of a few examples, actually, where the association (as found in tosogu, anyway) is pretty compelling. The first that come to mind are those tsuba presenting with the mon of the Hosokawa made by the Higo tsubako who worked directly for the Hosokawa, and even directly for Hosokawa Sansai. There are many examples, especially of tsuba made by Kanshiro Nishigaki. Then there are pieces which, while not necessarily depicting a mon definitively linked to a specific individual, do use motifs which can, with some degree of confidence, point to an association with a particular lord or clan. I do agree with you that certain mon, because they were used for so long and by so many different families, become dead ends with regard to connecting their use in a given work to a specific person, and that this, mostly likely, is the rule, rather than the exception. Cheers, Steve

Well, Chris has stolen my thunder pretty effectively here... I might only emphasize the specific architectural ethos and "pathos" expressed in the tea cottages of Momoyama times as being another manifestation of the particular aesthetic principles informing and/or surrounding Tea. These cottages were significant architectural departures in some ways from the various structures associated with upper-class life (including Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines) of that period, and again, we may see the departures here echoing specfic aesthetic details in Kanayama tsuba (Chris' post notes many of these very well). I would add, too, that certain media lend themselves especially well to the emulating or otherwise expressing of the aesthetics of Tea vessels of the time. David, you'd mentioned saddles and "pajamas," but such media wouldn't be as suitable to the expressing of sabi, yugen, wabi, shibusa, and other aesthetic principles/values as iron likely would be. Thus, tea kettles, ceramics, tsuba, stone lanterns, and the like work well for this aesthetic but other media may not. There is much more that might be said here, too, concerning the likely semiotic function of tsuba (and Tea, of course) among the Buke of the period, but I recall a thread from some time ago already indulging in that, so I won't risk redundancy here... Cheers, Steve

Hi Mauro, In fact, the cultural context did change (relatively) abruptly in the Momoyama age. Specifically (and germane to this thread), the rapid ascent of Tea Culture associated with the Buke meant that the particular aesthetic principles held and expressed by Tea were elevated to lofty heights. Those aesthetics are easily seen manifesting in a variety of tea wares developed between the 1570s and the first decade of the 1600s. Examples of ceramic wares specifically designed and developed for the kind of Tea practiced by the Buke in the Momoyama Period include Mino (Shino, Seto, Oribe), Iga, Raku, Shigaraki, and others. The detailed aesthetic features present in such wares are very closedly emulated by Kanayama tsuba, along with other types of Owari province works of the time. It probably doesn't hurt that the dominant political figures of the age (Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi) were both Owari men. Further, Oda is known to have initiaed (or greatly expanded) the giving of objects such as tea vessels (and tsuba?) to his vassals for services performed especially well. Prior to the Momoyama Period, the aesthetics we see so popular in Tea Culture of those decades were not in favor. Instead, it was a much more formal, polished, slick and symmetrical Chinese aesthetic that dominated. So not only did the (relevant) culture change dramatically over a short time, it changed specifically in the direction of an aesthetic that Kanayama tsuba perfectly embody and express. Cheers, Steve

Hi David, Where we run into problems is in the fact that some/many of these sources rely on each other for their information. If some early/esteemed source pronounced a certain dating of a particular work (sometimes without evidence or explaining the reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion), that source may be used by other, later scholars as though it were well-researched, accurate, reliable, etc... But without hard evidence locating the production of Kanayama guards in the 15th century (I am not aware of any such evidence), we are left to consider broader cultural contexts such that we may make an educated guess as to when these tsuba were really made. Those contexts point much more convincingly to the late 16th century as the production time for Kanayama tsuba, specifically, the mid- to late-Momoyama Period. Of course, I am happy to be wrong about this, if any really sound, hard evidence can be brought forth... Cheers, Steve

Hi David, It's a great tsuba, in any event. Congratulations on acquiring it. Cheers, Steve

Yeah, about what I figured in terms of dating. However, such a date (mid-Muromachi) makes little sense in terms of cultural context. That was a period dominated by preferences for things Chinese (and a Chinese aesthetic). The particular features of this tsuba (yakite and tekkotsu) make far more sense as a Momoyama-Period product than one made in the middle of a time predating the Tea sensibilities Kanayama guards express. I know Sasano's theories quite well; they simply fail to convince in the case of Kanayama tsuba. Steve

Hi Junichi, While you and I are generally on the same page here, your noting that there are "objective criteria" avaliable to determine the level of a work's artistic merits (versus the level of its craftsmanship) does give me some pause. Could you specify---using two or three examples in any genre of art---these objective criteria? It may be useful/necessary here to first define what is meant by "art," which of course, invites a rather gaping Pandora's Box. But setting that aside for the moment, I am genuinely intrigued to see what might be offered up as examples of objective criteria in arriving at a judgment of a specific work's artistic quality. Cheers, Steve

An excellent tsuba: Momoyama period (though the papers will probably say Muromachi, these guards are pure Momoyama...) Kanayama Owari province karigane and gourds kanteisho, 80 points Steve

Junichi, You're certainly raising some good questions here, at least insofar as they generate thoughtful responses... However, I would agree with others than classifying/taxonomy is one thing, and appreciation and/or evaluation of quality is another. It seems that some of what you express in your posts comes from a frustration that too much focus is placed on merely identifying a "type" of tosogu, and not enough attention is given to appreciating why, exactly, a given piece is of a higher or lower quality. On this, I couldn't agree with you more. Even if the taxonomical divisions were much cleaner than they are, and even if they existed as we know them now five and six hundred years ago, this would still be for me (and I suspect, you) a wholly unsatisfying end to reach in the appreciation (not merely study) of tosogu. I find the task of attempting to fit a particular piece to an often conjured category to be rather dull; the much more interesting (both intellectually and emotionally) thing is to assess that piece's quality, what characteristics work together to create that quality, etc... Of course, this is subjective. So what? Some philosophers will tell us that all we can ever "know" is subjective, yet there are certain individuals who denegrate that which is "merely" subjective. Needless to say, such endeavors (attempting to see/understand/ascertain quality) is much more difficult than seeking to locate a piece in its "proper category." But that's part of the fun of it. You also mention that it would be worthwhile to research "the signal or statement the overall tsuba would have indicated during the time and place and station it was worn." You're speaking here of the semiotics of tsuba use (or koshirae use, or types), and again, I wholly agree with you. This is a vastly under-appreciated and under-researched area of study. I believe there have been a few threads that got into this in the past few years, but suffice it to say, I am with you, Junichi, in the sentiments you express here. Not so much with the desire to find a way to categorize the aesthetic aspects of tosogu, but to emphasize these aesthetic aspects---especially as they might be tied to quality---as well as the semiotic effects of tsuba and the like, in the time we devote to these objects. It means a shift away from "schools" and shinsa and categories and classifying, and as far as I'm concerned, this would be a good thing. Cheers, Steve

Yeah, I guess I was just thinking that since the Kamiyoshi Ehon was Rakuju's personal pattern book, and since he had the motif as butterflies, I thought there might be something to that... :D Cheers, Steve

Awa Shoami.

I believe the Kamiyoshi Ehon has the design as butterflies... Cheers, Steve

Better photos here. Measurements are 72mm x 4.2mm at the seppadai, 4.6mm at the mimi. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are as to the school this tsuba might be attributed to, and why... Cheers, Steve

Sorry, that's the only photo I have. It's not my tsuba... Steve

What school/"school" would you attribute this tsuba to? Based on what, exactly? Cheers, Steve

I think this tsuba was probably originally made to look like the tsuba below... Cheers, Steve

Received mine. Excellent presentation of some terrific pieces. Many thanks, Markus. Cheers, Steve

Thanks for that, Ian. This more detailed explanation helps a lot (at least for me). Do we know what the relative malleability, ductility, and strength of metal produced via this decarburation method would be vs. forged material? From your explanation, I can see where the cast iron would achieve a level of malleability, etc... that would greatly affect its suitability for certain applications. What I wonder, though, is if this level would make products made from it equal to (or perhaps even better than) those made from forging (tsuba, let's say...). I find this discussion fascinating (even if my lack of hands-on metallurgy means I know little of what I'm talking about), so I appreciate the contributions of those who can add their knowledge gained from practical experience. Not sure how related this is, but I find the history/speculation on the history of the Ulfberht viking sword very intriguing as well. Here is a video concerning this topic. No idea if what it presents is loaded with problematic data, sources, etc... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM Cheers, Steve

Just following up on Ian's previous post on decarburation, would the Japanese of the period he is referencing have been able to control the local environment for hydrogen presence/concentrations? My understanding is that hydrogen-induced problems might be mitigated via the use of steel with very low levels of impurities, by heating the material to remove absorbed hydrogen, and/or by modifying/controlling the local environment to reduce hydrogen charging. Would any or all of these methods have been known/available to the craftsmen in question in the period(s) under discussion? It seems to me, too, that what you say, Chris, about only the surface metal being affecting (and leaving the internal material virtually or wholly unfazed) would indeed be the case, even if decarburation were beneficial (I'm still having difficulty understanding how the usually negative effects on steel's ductility and strength via decarburation would be eliminated [in fact reversed] via some process used by the craftsman in the years we're referencing, unless, I suppose, the answer to my question in the paragraph above is yes. Cheers, Steve

My understanding of decarburation is that it would result in reduced ductility, reduced strength, and the formation of cracks, making it more vulnerable to breaking. And this is to be sought? What am I missing/misunderstanding here? Steve

One other thought: Suruga?