docliss

Haynes lists no fewer than five artists, working in Edo between the second half of the seventeenth century and the first half of the nineteenth century, whose mei was AKAO YOSHITSUGU. Most of the work of this school is in the soft metals, but the early masters, living in Echizen, worked in iron, as did occasionally later artists. It is difficult to attribute a particular artist to Mike’s tsuba (six of these artists’ mei are illustrated on pp.609a-610b of Kinkō Meikan) but it probably dates to the eighteenth century - H 12227.0 or H 12228.0? John L.

John’s interesting thread on a tsuba with the inscription FUNAKOSHI SHUNMIN with kao appears to confuse a number of artists of this period. Funakoshi Shunmin (H 08835.0), Ikeda Minkoku (of which there were three artists, H 05096.0, H 05097.0 and H 05098.0) and Ikeda Shūmin (H 08819.0) are all different artists, although they were contempories, in the late C19 and early C20, and all working in Tokyo. I have been unable to find any references to the mei of John’s artist, but have my suspicions that this may not be a genuine work by him. Can anyone help here? John L.

May I please request from Sebastien some details re his lovely kinko tsuba, including an image of the reverse side? With many thanks,John L.

I will attempt to answer Sergei’s request to John Stuart any myself for our reasons for labelling his tsuba as Hikone-bori rather than Sōten work. Since the vast majority of such work (Torigoye states 95 per cent) is Edo period work by workers at Yokohama, one starts with an assumption that a given piece is unlikely to be genuine Sōten work. Add to this the fact that there were probably only two main-line Sōten masters working in the province of Omi in the first half of the eighteenth century, under whose supervision there was a virtual factory of artists producing this work; and the extensive reproduction of this work by the Aizu Shōami and Hiragiya workers, the likelihood of finding genuine Sōten work is very remote. The work of the masters is predominantly of iron, although the second did occasionally use shakudō. Their work is far less elaborate, and with less ubu-zukashi than the crowded scenes of later workers. Indeed, some of the first master’s work is almost Mino-bori in its appearance, featuring flowers and birds on an ita plate. The majority of Hikone-bori work bears the full, lengthy mei of the masters, GOSHU HIKONE (NO)JU SOHEISHI NYUDO SOTEN SEI. While many of these mei are rendered in unusually large kanji, those of the masters were either normal or smaller in size. It has been suggested that the kanji for ‘shi’ in Sōheishi (子) is rendered with a lozenge-shaped, rather than the horizontal, linear first stroke, in the mei of the masters, but this feature may also be frequently found in the mei of copies. Gemmell (Tosōgu: Treasures of the Samurai (1991), pp.48-9) describes a subsection of this group, which he labels ‘Large Figure’ Sōtens, but these are not the work of the early masters, and further research is needed to ascertain their origin. John L.

John L.

Personally, I dislike calling Aizu Shoami and Hiragiya copies of Soten tsuba as 'gimei', prefering to label them as Hikoni-bori work - a label I would apply to your tsuba. John L.

No, reason whatsoever. While perfectly competant work, the reputation of such an artist would not justify the copyimg of his mei. Only the masters of this school suffered such forgeries. John L.

I agrree; it is probably an Aizu Shoami copy. John L.

This ita tsuba is typical of late Bushū work, made in the C19 when a strong Chōshū influence made the Bushū and Chōshū groups virtually indistinguishable. Of the 20 artists listed in Haynes’ Index … that used this mei, only two also used the ‘Bushū ju’ recognition of their residence, and neither of these seem to be of an appropriate period. It is highly probable that there were several other, unacknowledged Bushū artists signing their work thus. John L.

Thank you both. It is interesting that none of these references show the odd kao illustrated on Adam's fuchi-gashira. I would wonder if this were the kao of Haynes' Ikkin III if it were not for the fact that on my own tsuba, with an Ikkin mei and an 'n' shaped kao, there is a date of 1838 - before Ikkin II was born! John L. PS. Or have I mis-interpreted Haynes, who perhaps intended to add the Wakayama reference to his Ikkin II entry rather than to add a further Ikkin artist? It can be interpreted either way, I suppose. JL.

Upon reviewing the literature, I find that Haynes now acknowledges the existence of a third Ikkin artist using the two Funada Ikkin kanji. In his Index … Haynes lists two artists using these kanji, H 01864.0 and H 01865.0, both of the Funada family. Under the latter heading he states ’Some even say there was a third generation of the name Ikkin, but this has not been proved.’ In his Addendum Haynes now lists a third Ikkin artist, thus: IKKIN Add. Also see Wakayama vol.II, pp.229-232. H 01865.0 But he adds no further details of this artist - not even the family name. Can any kind member please supply a copy of the Wakayama entry? With many thanks, John L.

How interesting that Adam has posted a pair of fuchi-gashira which bears a different kao for this artist. This ‘n’ shaped kao is quite unlike those normally used both by Ikkin I and II, and bears some similarity to a recognised, alternative kao of Gotō Ichijō. There have been previous discussions on this notice board as to whether this is an alternative kao of Ikkin II, or supports a discounted theory that there may have been a third artist of this name. John L.

John’s impressive genealogy of the Myōchin family inevitably references the reader to a carefully researched article by Ian Bottomley. This, ’A Reappraisal of the Myōchin Armourers’, was published in Newsletter 2004, Issue 1, of the Northern Token Society (UK), and casts serious doubt upon the genealogy of this family prior to M. Kunimichi, ca 1700-1750. John L.

Peter, there are two possible alternatives as to the maker of your tsuba. Firstly, that it bears a gimei mei by an unknown maker, intended to deceive a purchaser or, secondly, that it is by second artist who signed Terumichi. Since Haynes lists only one such artist, Sano Terumichi (H 09593.0), using these kanji, he is thus presently unrecognised. John L.

Tōkasanjin is one of the gō of Katō Teruaki (H 09546.0). Oops! John L.

Can we please have a close-up view of the mei? John L.

Personally, I would label these fittings as ‘demonstrating a namban influence’, but am sure that they would be papered as ‘Namban’. Occassionally one sees true Namban fuchi-gashira, demonstrating openwork and undercutting, and sometimes with a gilt lining to emphasise the openwork, but these are indeed very rare. John L.

Thanks to Morita's expertise, we now know that the maker of this tsuba is listed as H 12262.0 in Haynes' Index .... John L.

Grev, you will find in the front of your Haynes a list of all his various references. The Ws refer to the various Wakayama publications. John L.

Dear Grev The signature and seal on your Teruaki tauba are indeed illustrated on Pl.LXI, #12 of Helen Gunsaulus’ Japanese Sword-Mounts in the Collection of the Field Museum (1923). This illustration is cross-referenced to p.183 of the same publication, where it is attributed to Teruaki Tōkasanjin, but this is in error. This latter artist, Katō Teruaki, used completely different kanji for his mei, and both your tsuba and that illustrated in the above publication are by MIYAGAWA TERUAKI (H 09552.0), an artist working in Tōkyō ca 1850-1875. Your second tsuba is not by Seiryuken Eiji; this artist also used a gold seal rather than a kao after his signature. But I leave it to one of our experts to interpret the mei - sorry .... The kanji on the first tsuba is indeed MASA but, rather than being the initial kanji of an Umetada artist (eg. Masatoshi, Masashige) might it perhaps be instead the initial kanji of Shōami? With kind regards, John L.

Thank you - exactly what I wanted. John L.

Perhaps George T. could be so kind as to copy the two kanji of this mei, as they are listed in the Tōsō Kinkō Jiten? With grateful thanks, John L.

Another nice tsuba whose artist is listed in neither Haynes' Index ... nor his Addendum .... But mid-Edo, Shoami work seems an appropriate attribution. John L.

I suspect that this listing is based solely on the cataloguer’s opinion of the work style, and has no basis on informed fact. John L.

Dear Bruno Since your tsuba was listed in the Marquis de Tressan’s catalogue of 1933. it is surprising that this artist is omitted both from Haynes’, Index ... and his Addendum .... Thus, in the absence of any further information, it is impossible to associate Masataka with any school or master. Neither does the nine-stroke kanji for ‘Masa’ give any indication as to his lineage. It is quite good katakiri-bori work, but not necessarily of Yokoya origin. Yours, John L.