docliss

How, then, are we to label David’s striking new acquisition? Lion Gate have labelled it as Kō-Hagi circa 1600, and this can clearly be immediately discounted. Apart from the incorporation of positive and negative silhouette on a design of chrysanthemum leaves and blossoms, this bears no relation to the work of the Kyō-sukashi school, from whence Kō-Hagi work originates. Surface line carving is acceptable in the work of this school, but not soft-metal decoration. And ‘circa 1600’ – surely not. Holbrook labelled it as “Brass inlay, Kiami School, kiku, early Edo”, and how realistic is this? Goami work, produced in the late C17 to the early C18, is described as being in the Shōami style and extremely simplistic. The profuse zōgan on a ji-zukashi plate is acceptable, as is the kaku mimi, but a mikaki-ji surface would be more ususal. The overlap between the Shōami and Goami schools is a very strong one, but the very high quality of the zōgan, and the rather broad ryō-hitsu make me rather favour a C18, Awa-Shōami provenance rather than a Goami one. This former group was renowned for its elaborate use of nunome, which reached a peak in their Kenjo, or presentation, pieces. John L.

Dear Tobias It is normal practice not to pluralise Japanese nouns, and 'tsuba' is therefore used both for one or more examples. John L.

Kiami (其阿弥) is a family name with the alternative readings of Goami and Sonoami. Listed as Goami, this group is described in some detail on pp.316-7, and illustrated on p.318, of Afu Watson’s translation of Nihon Tō Kōza, Vol. VI, Part I. John L.

I agree with Thierry that #1 is probably C19 Mito work. It would be nice to see a clearer picture of the mei: I have failed to identify the kao. # 2 and 4, a daisho, are surely not Chōshū work – they are much too decorative for that school. And are we sure that they are of iron? They look rather like shibuichi to me, in which case they, also, are probably late Mito work. As for value, I should like to see the condition of the reverse of these tsuba, and that under the fixing threads, before committing myself to this. John L.

I agree with Marc that this is probably an Aizu Shōami copy of Sōten work. Interestingly the three-stroke kanji for ‘shi’ (子), of Soheishi, on this tsuba has the conventional, horizontal first stroke, rather than the lenticular form frequently found in Sōten mei. John L.

Thank you Jean; I have corrected the typo. John L.

Peter, your post raises a number of questions, which I shall endeavour to answer: The tsuba that were introduced into Japan from the end of the C16 were imports from China, and from India via the East India Company. Very few of these are extant – I have never seen one, and even the Namban Bunka-kan in Osaka has no such tsuba in its collection. Thus we can make no assumptions regarding their construction. Virtually all of the Namban tsuba that we see are locally made copies from the C18 and C19, a time of peace when swords were worn primarily as fashion statements. For hundreds of years the decarburisation of grey cast iron has been possible, enabling its conversion into malleable cast iron. This process was familiar to Chinese and Japanese metalworkers as early as 1734 [swedenborg (1734)], and could certainly have been utilised in the casting of Namban tsuba, thus reducing their fragility. Finally, you have assumed in your post a protective function for the tsuba. This is a subject that has been aired on several occasions on this notice board and, while the tsuba has been credited with improving the balance of the sword; of preventing the owner’s hand from slipping onto the blade; and of holding the tsuka of the worn sword in an easy position for withdrawal, it is generally agreed that protection was not its rôle. You may care to find some of these discussions on this NMB. Kind regards, John L.

The question of the casting of Namban tsuba remains unresolved. I personally believe that a considerable number of this group were produced by the lost wax method of casting and, some years ago, Dr Oliver Impey asserted to me, while I was studying the collection at the Ashmolean Museum that ‘they are all cast’. Such an assertion is supported logically by the virtual mass-production of large numbers of very technically intricate guards, many of which have markedly similar physical characteristics and can be put into a number of sub-groups. But is Peter’s example cast? I suspect that, like most tsuba of this group, the ryō-hitsu were probably a later modifications to the original plate. In such a case the edges of the hitsu would be expected to show an irregularity that is not present6 in Peter’s last image. But Franco’s identification of ‘course detail’ as a reason for suspecting casting does not convince me – lost wax casting is quite capable of producing remarkably fine detail. Franco may be correct in his suspicions but, in the absence of any resolution of the general question of casting in this group, to label this tsuba as cast is really not the ‘kiss of death’ it is with other groups. John L.

Peter M, your Namban, tanto tsuba is most unusual, measuring as it does only 4.6 cm in width. Having studied hundreds of tsuba of this group, I have only seen seven that could possibly be labelled as for a tanto, and the two smallest of these measured 4.7 and 5.3 cm respectively. Most interesting – thank you. John L.

Thank you Christian - I shall be very interested to see them. John L.

Attached is a scan from the MFA web site. John L.

Christian, unfortunately the MFA catalogue is very difficult to scan due to its weight and size. The tsuba in question is #354, on pp.354-5. Is that any help? John L.

That is interesting. The MFA in Boston also has a Namban tsuba (#19.291) signed by a Chinese worker - Ch'ang Lo-chiao - working in Nanking. John L.

Dear Ron The deeper one delves into the subject of Kagonami tsuba the more confused one becomes. The Hayashi (1894), Mène (1913) and Ponçetton (1929) catalogues all include illustrations of ‘Kagonami’ tsuba, but these are openwork tsuba, and most are indistinguishable from those that we now label as ‘Namban’ apart, in some cases, from their complexity. Haynes’ translation of TAS is equally confusing, but I understand it to imply that tsuba of the Namban group originating in China in the C16 should be labelled as ‘true Namban’; copies of these made in Japan in the C18-C19 as ‘Kanton’; and all other locally made tsuba demonstrating a European influence as ‘Kagonami’. He further confuses this in his sale catalogue #9 (1984), where he states ‘To be a true Namban tsuba, it must have the design motif taken from European design or style. The others are Kanton (Chinese style) or Kagonami (Japanese copies of the original Canton tsuba)’, thus reinforcing the impression given by the earlier collectors. Do you see my problem? If you accept the statement in JAS, then your tsuba may indeed be labelled as Kagonami, along with numerous others demonstrating a European influence. But it is far from clear, and I still prefer to call them Hizen. Kind regards, John L.

Thank you both for your assistance. John L.

Would an NMB member be so kind as to please translate the attached mei for me? It is from a recently acquired, gendai tsuba. I have so far got SASSHU (NO)JU ? ? ?DEN ? . With thanks, John L.

Peter’s two tsuba are both archetypal examples of the Nanban group, exhibiting as they do many of the defining characteristics of that group. The design of these two tsuba, with their affrontés dragons; the tama jewel; the crescentic-shaped ryō-hitsu; and the seigaiha diaper on the seppa-dai, is a very common one. But variations in the quality of these, with or without the ryō-hitsu, and with either nunome-zōgan, mercury fire-gilding or none at all, suggests a single maker or group of makers where customers could select – or even order – their requirement from a range of alternatives. They were made in Japan in the late C18 or early C19, inspired by guards imported from China in the late C16. Ron’s two tsuba are very interesting and unusual. They are both Hizen tsuba, their chaotic, baroque design being copied from C17, Portuguese tooled and worked leather. Such intricate nunome-zōgan decoration is a feature of Hizen work. Such an origin probably merits a specific nomenclature, but Kagonami …? The term ‘Kagonami’ is found in a number of publications – (Hayashi (1894), Mène (1913), Joly (1914), Ponçetton (1929), Martin (1964) and Haynes (1984), to name but a few – but none of these succeeds in giving a clear definition of this group, the only agreement being that they are asymmetrical! What are Ron’s defining s characteristics of a Kagonami tsuba, I wonder? John L.

This may be an opportunity to study Sebastian’s Mitsuhiro tsuba in more detail. The detail of the ubu-zukashi is remarkable and, among other images, one can distinguish the three sambu-naru – monkeys that could speak, hear and see no evil – and a pair playing the game of strength known as kubi-kubi. The attribution to sentoku is an interesting one. There are several tsuba of this type that have had the kanji for sentoku defaced, and one wonders at the reason for this. Sentoku was a valuable metal, the use of which was, at one time, confined to coinage – a fact that may explain this defacement. Haynes, on p.1059 of his Index…, states that ‘it is sometimes difficult to separate the work [of the three generations], although one can learn the differences in their signatures.’ On pp.18-21, Vol.3, No1 of Bushido, Robert Burawoy further discusses some identifying characteristics in the tsuba of the three Mitsuhiro generations. He suggests the following pointers: • The work of Mitsuhiro I is signed HISHU YAGAMI (NO)JU MITSUHIRO. The quality of the work is rather poor, and the mimi comprises repetitive, identical figures. • That of the second master is signed HIZEN YAGAMI (NO)JU ….This is the work of a very skilled artist, and the mimi comprises a non-repetitive variety of figures. • Like the first master, Mitsuhiro III signed HISHU YAGAMI (NO)JU …. His work is not a skilled as that of the second master, but his mimi are also of non-repetitive and varying figures. Sebastrian’s tsuba is, in fact, inscribed HISHU YAGAMI (NO)JU and has a mimi of continuous, identical figures, thus suggesting an attribution to Mitsuhiro I. The marked left curvature of the second and third vertical strokes of the ‘shū’ kanji of Hishū further support this attribution. John L.

Sebastien’s tsuba is indeed very fine, but this raises the recurring question regarding the nomenclature of tsuba as ‘Namban’. This tsuba, of which only the ura side is illustrated, is inscribed SENTOKU KANE WO MOTTE SAKU KORE (Made with sentoku kane). Doubtless the omote side is signed by Noda Mitsuhiro (H 05200.0 – H 5202.0), one of three artists of this name, working in Yagami in the Hizen province between the second halves of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This tsuba I would therefore label not as Namban but as Yagami (or Mitsuhiro) work. In reply to Peter’s enquiry, it is my personal conviction that the Namban label should only be attached to tsuba demonstrating the openwork and undercutting typical of the group. Where possible, other tsuba should be labelled according to their own school characteristics and noted as ‘demonstrating a namban influence’ John L.

Dear Christian, thank you for posting the image of the tsuba by Iwata Norisuke. You are quite correct in your recollection of a similar tsuba in my own collection. This is mumei, and I have labelled it as a possible utsushi by Iwata Noriaki (H 07309.0), working 1925-50 on iron plate, in the early style of the school. John L.

Christian, you are a true gentleman! With kind regards, John L.

I fear that Christian and I are destined to disagree over the attribution of Sebastien’s two tsuba. With their chocolate-brown, factory-iron plate; bold, ubuzukashi work, with gold nunome decoration, within a solid mimi; and the conventional shapes of the seppa-dai and ryō-hitsu all indicate, in my opinion, a C18 Bushū provenance for both tsuba. There will always be a measure of disagreement between a Bushū and a Chōshū attribution, so strong was the former’s influence upon the latter schools. But Kinai – surely not? Koban-shaped seppa-dai – no. Wide, Shōami style ryō-hitsu – no. Chōshū-like iron plate – no. And mumei? In my opinion both of these tsuba are typical of Bushū work, differing only in their mumei state. The second is probably the earlier, and the better, of the two. John L.

The recent thread regarding Sendai katchūshi tsuba, posted by David, I find very interesting, having previously been unfamiliar with the attribution to this area of katchūchi tsuba demonstrating linear, rain-like engraving. Sendai is the major city of the department of Miyagi-ken, on the island of Hondō. This department was created in 1868, and corresponds largely to the former province of Mutsu. This latter province, together with Dewa, formed the district of Ou, comprising the whole Northern part of the island of Hondō. This contained the district of Aizu, and the towns of Sendai and Shōnai, all important centres of tsuba production. In addition to the large Aizu Shōami school, the district of Aizu also harboured two generations of artists who used the signature of Hirokuni and worked, in the 1700s, in the katchūshi style. Whether or not these featured rain-like decoration I know not. The attached image is of a tsuba demonstrating a similat decoration, which would probably be considered as katchūshi in style, but is not Sendai in origin.. Measuring 7.0 cm – 6.9 cm – 0.3 cm, it has a kaku-mimi demonstrating granular tokketsu, and is signed KISHU (NO)JU SADANAGA. Four or five generations of artists (H 07752.0) signing their work thus worked in the province of Kii into the mid C18. The first of these was a student of Hōan Kawaguchi. John L.

I agree that the kanji on Ron’s very fine habaki read TERUMITSU (英満), an artist listed by Haynes as Omori Terumitsu (H 09603.0). I can see no reason to doubt the veracity of this mei, and Kinkō Meikan, on pp.53a-54a, illustrates several very similar ones. John L.

John L.