Steve Waszak

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

Kawaguchi Saburoemon Noriyasu (Noriyasu can also be read "Hoan") was the Shodai of the Hoan group. He died in 1614, as Jean notes. He worked therefore in the Momoyama Period, not the Muromachi. It is believed he was originally of the Buke, but due to political misfortune (the assassination of Oda Nobunaga in 1582), his status shifted, and he became an armorer, and then, a tsubako. It is, of course, difficult to know the truth of this narrative, but this is what is generally accepted about this smith. Shodai Hoan tsuba are rarely encountered. HIs best works are masterpieces in iron, combining a powerful yakite-kusarashi effect on the surface of the plate, a beautiful "rippling" of the metal in the forging process known as "uwabamigane" (I believe this translates to something like "python skin"), and sensitively-rendered sukidashi-bori to express motif elements. His sword guards often carry that peculiar Momoyama vitality that infuses so many of the arts of that specific time. I believe the reason the NBTHK assigned a "Hoan" ascription to your tsuba, Lex, is that on the lower left quadrant of the omote, something akin to an uwabamigane effect may be seen. In cases where a mumei guard presents with this detail, especially in combination with well-done sukidashi-bori and the yakite-kusarashi surface treatment (sort of a "melty" effect), the NBTHK will often default to a "Hoan" ascription. Personally, I am not convinced, however. I believe that there was another group of tsubako, likely working in Kyoto, that worked in this style (perhaps along with other styles), where acids were applied to the sukidashi-bori elements to achieve the appearance of a slightly melted surface. Such tsuba are predictable in their details: in addition to the above-mentioned use of acids, sukidashi-bori, and sometimes a "rippled iron" (uwabamigane) presentation in the metal, they always have a round sugata, the same or similar sort of "hourglass" tegane around the nakago-ana, and the same shape to the hitsu-ana we see in your tsuba here. They will also often (if not always?) have a very small mark on the right side of the seppa-dai, sometimes on the omote, sometimes on the ura -- not a mei, but a sort of "shop mark" or some such -- that is very easy to miss, owing to its being rather tiny and subtle. These tsuba are never signed, in my experience. I think I may see such a shop mark on the upper right seppa-dai of the omote of your tsuba, Lex. I do not believe these are Hoan tsuba. Hoan had become a pretty big name by the late-Momoyama and into the early-Edo Periods. Signing one's works had become a tradition of sorts for many tsuba-making groups by the early-Edo years, and this is certainly true of the Hoan group. While not circulating in abundance, post-Shodai Hoan guards are found with enough frequency to confirm that they are signed as a matter of course. But the tsuba I describe above -- with their specific and predictable characteristics, and which I am confident your tsuba is one of -- are not signed. Because of this anonymity, and because they bear a superficial resemblance to key features found in Shodai Hoan tsuba (they also are missing important details), the NBTHK default to a "Hoan" reading on these. This is not to disparage this group's work or your tsuba, though, Lex. These are really well-made pieces with a great deal of aesthetic merit, in my opinion. Their combination of acid-etching and sukidashi-bori achieves a beautiful effect. But the peculiar personality of Shodai Hoan is not present in these pieces. If you'd like to see a good example of one of these sword guards, let me know, and I can provide a link.

Thanks for posting this, Dirk. Mono no aware was actually a very important value informing the Tea aesthetics so dominant in late-16th and early-17th-century Buke culture. We see it pouring forth from such wares as Setoguro chawan, Bizen mizusashi, and Iga hanaire, but it found its way to the finest iron tsuba of the time as well. One interpretation of the effect of yakite treatment in works by (in particular) Hoan, Yamakichibei, Nobuiye, and the Kanayama "school" is that it echoes the dilapidation (impact of the passage of time) of what was once a pristine surface. In the expression of mono no aware thus realized, such tsuba also may be said to possess degrees of sabi. Interesting note: the term wabi-sabi is likely a relatively recent construct (i.e. 20th-century). While the aesthetic values wabi and sabi are known much further back (several centuries, at least), the joined term wabi-sabi does not seem to appear in any documents from the Momoyama or Edo Periods. It does not appear in the various Tea diaries and records of those years, though the terms do appear separately. We may thus wish to pause in describing Tea objects from those times (ceramics and iron tsuba known to have been tightly associated with Tea) as having or expressing "wabi-sabi." Here is a Shodai (hanare-mei) Nobuiye tsuba expressing the Yodo no Mizuguruma theme. It is thought that Nobuiye had close associations with Oda Nobunaga, and may have worked for the Oda family in the Momoyama Period.

Looks terrific, Steve. Well done. I totally echo Tim's thoughts here, too. The koshirae is where tsuba "live," after all. For those who haven't obtained a copy of Uchigatana no Koshirae, it really is a must-have for superb examples of early (pre-Edo) koshirae.

Yes, this is the smith classically identified as the "Yondai," or "fourth generation." In my view, this smith worked many decades after the original Yamakichibei smiths of the Momoyama years, and probably is not directly related to those early men. However, an association between this "Yondai" artist and the smith referred to as "Sakura Yamakichibei" (erroneously labeled the "Sandai") is fairly likely. Both worked in the late-17th century, I believe.

Certainly appears to have the features associated with Kanayama work: prominent tekkotsu, smaller dimensions, a yakite finish to the surface (though the condition of the guard, perhaps due to rust damage, makes it harder to be sure about the finish), symmetry in design, motif, and rim structure. As you note, Steve, the tsuba's condition is less-than-ideal. Not sure what, if anything, might be done to improve this. Some gentle ivorying may have a positive effect. Nice tsuba in many ways, though.

PM sent.