Iaido dude

Glen, I'm not ready to abandon the use of this tool for helping to define modern categorical distinctions between tsuba. AI produces what is, by its very intent, a synthesis of available data. It does not interpret, which is where we need to go next to discern what features might differentiate the categories that exhibit "Owari-Momoyama-ness." For example, the Ono guards are "more commonly" thick. Owari guards are sometimes as thick (>7 mm), but those are rare. I have to do a survey of that defining range and compare to other categories, but the point is that we need to do the rest of the leg work. There is never going to be an airtight set of attributes that we can point to and say, oh it's this, but I still think this approach can be helpful. What the ChatGPT synthesis (and it's likely also true for searches for Owari, Kanayama and Yagyu) does do quite well is to eliminates a lot of tsuba that have been attributed to Ono by individual collectors and/or NTBHK and which clearly do not exhibit this "Owari-Momoyama-ness," whether Ono or other Owari Province category. The results of the search does not apply to Yamakichibei, Hoan, Norisuke, Nobuie, or other Owari smiths. Here is another opportunity to subdivide, ie the Owari/Kanayama/Ono/Yagyu are a sub-group with related features, which is not a new concept and can be expected because of the close provincial geography of these workshops. I'll play around a bit more including a comparison with the Google AI profile, which has the added advantage of providing at least some of the key sources for the synthesis. I think that it may be possible to set up a table with attributes as the columns and tsuba categories (e.g. Owari, Kanayama, etc.) as the rows, and put check marks in the squares to see if a "bar code" comes out that is distinguishing. Some of the attributes may be shared. Others may actually be unique. And more aesthetic attributes should be included, although “stiff” versus “lively, fluid” needs to be better defined. Science and Art are not mutually exclusive, as I have written on and published before.

Thanks, Brian. I agree. The wave and waterwheel motifs hint at Yagyu, but the symmetry is more consistent with Kanayama or Ohno. It is 7.1 mm thick, which is suggestive of Ohno, but I have seen thick Owari and Kanayama. There are two similar and famous Kanayama tsuba in Owari To Mikawa (left) that help to support it's likely Kanayama roots (right), although it still has a unique shape and may still reflect elements of Ohno/Yagyu influence. I just can't fully appreciate tekkotsu without the tsuba in hand; maybe a globular tekkosu at the left bottom between 6 and 7 o'clock. I think that these three are quite rare examples of mokko style Kanayama tsuba.

Yagyu from page 94 "Owari To Mikawa No Tanko."

Here are two study pieces. Are they Kanayama, Ono, or Yagyu or later Edo pieces? https://www.jauce.com/auction/h1164546266 https://www.jauce.com/auction/g1165325614

What is astonishing is that the ChatGPT synthesis iessentially distills the consensus views of the contributors of Ohno post I started previously. The dating extends beyond the Early Edo likely because there are numerous claims of late Edo Ohno tsuba. I have also argued that tsuba that are too busy and elaborate are not characteristic of Kanayama, Ohno, or Yagyu tsuba or anything produced during the Momoyama period in Owari Province. They may represent late pieces influenced by other styles.

It occurred to me that AI might be able to synthesize the core features that are generally regarded as foundational to the group of tsuba that we commonly refer to as Ohno/Ono. I have used ChatGPT, which of course doesn't provide an annotated bibliography of sources, but can be a powerful tool for "casting the net." The user of course makes the final determination and judgement on the summary without interpretation. The strength in relation to the topic of this post is that it is not inherently biased towards the personal view of the user IF the query is not biased. My search query is: "What features define the ohno or ono (different spelling) or 大野 (Japanese kanji) tsuba (Japanese sword guards)?" Here is the result. I will just say that what I appreciate from this synthesis is the inductive nature of the definition, specifically the physical and aesthetic features, which often get short shrift in any definition that relies purely on historical documents including related period arts and crafts works for determination of what is "fact" versus "fiction." I have always held that in the absence of mei, theses modern categories are an attempt to describe a synthesized set of recognizable shared features of aesthetics and construction, which are highly likely to reflect a related group of artists following shared aesthetic principles and methods of production. The Ōno or Ōno-ha (大野 in kanji) tsuba are a distinct category of Japanese sword guards that reflect particular stylistic and construction techniques. These tsuba are often associated with the Edo period (1603–1868) and are admired for their elegant simplicity, restrained decoration, and excellent craftsmanship. Here are the defining features of Ōno tsuba: 1. Material and Finish Typically made of iron, often with a smooth and subtle patina that develops over time. The finish tends to emphasize the natural texture of the metal, showing the craftsman’s mastery of forging and surface treatment. 2. Shape and Size Most Ōno tsuba are circular (marugata) or slightly oval (nagamaru gata), though other shapes can occasionally be found. They are often medium-sized and exhibit well-balanced proportions. [Steve comment: there is no thickness range given] 3. Design Aesthetic The designs are generally understated and minimalist, often incorporating openwork (sukashi) motifs. Common themes include natural elements such as plants, waves, clouds, and animals, executed with delicate precision. Symmetry and balance are highly valued, giving the tsuba a harmonious appearance. 4. Technique The openwork (sukashi-bori) is a hallmark of Ōno tsuba and is usually intricate but not overly ornate. Chiseling and carving techniques are precise, emphasizing fine details within a minimalistic framework. 5. Influence Ōno tsuba often reflect influences from the sōken (austere or Zen-like) school of tsuba-making, which values simplicity and a focus on practical beauty. 6. Symbolism The motifs and themes often have deep cultural or philosophical meaning, reflecting Zen principles or Japanese aesthetics like wabi-sabi (beauty in imperfection and simplicity). 7. School and Makers The Ōno school or lineage of artisans produced these tsuba, but the term might also refer to a broader stylistic classification influenced by the school. These sword guards were not just functional components but also works of art, reflecting the tastes and values of their era. Collectors and scholars often prize Ōno tsuba for their balance of utility and artistic expression.

Richard, I'm glad to discover that you are on NMB after admiring several of your pieces that Fred Geyer calls "Ikenie tsuba" (sacrifice for the Kirishitan faith). Both of yours are of the earliest style (c. 1552) produced in the Momoyama Period for the new Christian samurai during the time of Toyotomi Hideyoshi. The motif is the Jesuit IHS radiant light symbol (shakoh). Watch makers and the so-called tokeishi tsuba only make their appearance in the Tokugawa era. With the ban on Christianity and the persecution of Christians, several subsequent styles emerged that attempted to conceal the Ikenie imagery in subtle ways--softening the unmistakably Christian radiant light symbol. I think that the similarity to the amida yasuri iconography could have been used to hide the Christian symbol within a Buddhist one, although I'm sure that the Kirishitan did not wish to invoke this connection. I have yet to acquire Ikenie tsuba because most offered for sale are in poor condition. In addition, I am drawn to the ones that have the features of Kanayama and Ohno tsuba consistent with a Momoyama Tea aesthetic, which are rare. There beautiful Ikenie tsuba in the Varshavsky collection.

This is a lovely daisho. I remember seeing a tsuba with the identical composition on Jauce, but with a ruined patina from corrosion and blackening. It always pains me to see such damaged pieces that have great form. Reminds me of how many that have been lost.

I purchased the 2006 Kokusa Tosugu-Kai book specifically to get Fred's article. Really important scholarship that places the Jesuit "ray of light" icon in the historical context of the introduction of Christianity and then the persecution of converts that drove the evolution of the design in order to "disguise" or hide the Christian symbolism.

One of the implications of the hypothesis that ji-sukashi tsuba arose no earlier than late Muromachi period is that much of the date attributions of Sasano sensei and other influential scholars is wrong for Kyo-sukashi, Ko-Shoami, Owari, and Kanayama tsuba. We touched on how some sellers are hawking their tsuba as being among the earliest of these styles dating back to mid-Muromachi. The vast majority of these are Momoyama period and more recent. Again, there is no evidence for Muromachi period Kanayama tsuba. None. Case in point: https://www.jauce.com/auction/b1089471872 I can't tell if the hakogaki indicates Muromachi. If this is Kanayama, I actually don't think it is Momoyama either. The relative stiffness of the composition suggests Early Edo during a transition period to confirmatory Takagawa culture. There are no tekkotsu that I can discern on images.

I started collecting early sukashi tsuba in March this year. While nearly all of the eight excellent Kanayama, Owari, and Ono tsuba in my collection come with NBTHK papers, even if they were not papered, I would still have acquired them on the basis of my own extensive study and with the guidance of mentors from this community. Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon certificates have added nothing to my decision-making. I don't foresee any instance in which I would send a tsuba for shinsa in the future. There is a tsuba recycling on Jauce that is papered separately to both Kanayama and Ono. It clearly isn't Kanayama. If it's Ono, it is very late Ono at best because the motifs and the composition are too contemporary (anchor, Tochihata style rope-like mimi). I didn't need the papers to tell me this. On the other hand, two of my tsuba are published (one in Sasano's gold book, the other in Owari To Mikawa No Tanko) and a third tsuba is nearly identical in style and composition to well-documented examples in the literature (books and articles). I find published pieces to be of value because the high level of scholarship behind them adds to the depth of my knowledge, appreciation, and enjoyment. Additionally, published pieces tend to be highly curated to showcase the finest examples of their kind. That establishes monetary and historical value. This is not to say that there aren't mistakes in even highly revered publications. A tsuba that has long been offered by a seller is papered to Akasaka, but a nearly identical one is published in Sasano's silver book as Ko-Shoami. I think it is actually Owari, although the close relationship between these styles points to the possibility that it is a product of the workshop of a Ko-Shoami master in Kyoto whom Eckhard Kremers hypothesizes to be none other than Kariganeya Hikobei, the elusive and mythical influence behind prototype early Akasaka style guards. So, attribution to Ko-Shoami, Owari, and Akasaka may all be correct if we are considering this from the perspective of a master smith who is actively engaged in the evolution of his art. Are we having fun yet?

The iron quality is very poor likely from rust/corrosion or even fire damage. I think it is generic Edo period. Then bonsho (temple bell motif) is of a design that I have not seen in Kanayama, Owari, Ohno, or Yagyu. The bottom of the bonsho is usually fused to the mimi at the left and right and is not cut at such sharp angles. That motif at the bottom may actually be a tsuba on its side or some other mon. Overall, the composition is very stiff and not typical of the Momoyama period.

There is of course the real concern that bodies like the NBTHK are "not up to the job." However, I think we also have to take responsibility for over relying on shinsa to do the thinking for us, especially in the case of mumei tosogu. Because the current system of certification doesn't seem to provide anything beyond some basic descriptions of motifs and features of the tsuba before making a final pronouncement of attribution ("den" at best if there is some uncertainty) to a single school or style, the judges are hard pressed in many cases when the tsuba display features of many schools, categories, and styles. There is a made-up category that I have been using called "generic Edo" because of the mish-mash of styles and influences that are observed in tsuba produced after Early Edo when tsubako are being influenced through interaction in capital cities, along major trade routes, and through apprenticeships. Submitting such pieces to shinsa will predictably result in invocation of the black box and the frequent attribution of "Shoami," right? How does that help? And why does that leave many feeling uncomfortable or dissatisfied? In other words, the problem is not as simple as pointing a finger at NBTHK or any other expert body or organization. It's the very issue that Glen is trying to address with this series of threads. WE have to study, study, study. WE have to question, question, question. WE have to challenge, challenge, challenge. WE have to network with each other to play an active role in scholarship within our own community, because our motives--born out of a pure love of beautiful art--are not subject to the potential biases that may be introduced by sellers, academicians, and other experts. Sorry, it seems that this belongs more in the thread on #3 related to schools and shinsa, where the topic discussion is progressing nicely. Oh well.

And when is Sotheby's ever right? In this case, Jean, the auction house is likely spouting outdated tsuba scholarship. I have seen numerous sellers offering the same tag line: "Get your very very very early Muromachi period Kanayama tsuba, right here. It's the real deal."

Please see attached Steve Waszak's paper on the Yamakichibei atelier that is uploaded on NMB. It addresses precisely some of the points raised by Thomas, but Steve uses stylistic relationships in addition to well established features of mei to suggest an alternative theory on the chronologic relationship of the 5 masters of the Yamakichibei workshop. So, it isn't necessarily true that there isn't evidence "to determine which artist was the founder or primary artist and what order they worked in." Rather, it is important to use the inductive approach that begins with the features of the tsuba in hand, rather than "received wisdom" from older scholarship that is not based in factual evidence. The Yamakichibei Group of Tsubako.pdf

OK, Glen. I see your point about the thin/old vs. thick/new commentary, but it would mean that Tsukahara Bokuden was NOT a fan of the thicker, smaller, and "newer" sukashi tsuba that would have arisen during his later years. It would make more sense if he were actually griping about those horrible "new wave" tsuba . Regardless, I agree that his commentary is a very important finding that helps to establish your thesis.

Along these lines, it's important that we take an inductive approach by looking at the evidence. All art scholarship starts with the description of the objects at hand along with the socio-politico-cultural milieu. The problem is that at too early a stage, conclusions are made that impose deductive dogma. When such dogma is widely embraced, falsehood may follow upon falsehood with no efforts to reassess new evidence in light of current understanding. When a dermatologist looks at a rash, he methodically runs through the features of size, shape, color, borders, numbers, etc. Only then can he categorize the rash and make a likely diagnosis. The newbie medical resident will say "it looks like..." and often misdiagnosis and mistreat. I am training myself to look at tsuba without dogmatic biases (I disregard supposed schools, styles, categories, or certificates) and by focusing strictly on features (size, shape, thickness, surface treatment, execution of rim and hitsu-ana, composition, overall sense of power and appeal, etc). More and more I am seeing that strict attribution isn't possible for mumei tsuba produced after Early Edo because there is just such a mixing of styles and techniques. The provincial styles are no longer clearly evident. I recently posted a Kanayama tsuba from the Momoyama period that has a massive seppa-dai more characteristic of Ko-Shoami. Works for me...

If Tsukahara Bokuden died in 1571, just at the start of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, it seems likely that his commentary was just at the cusp of the introduction of ji-sukashi tsuba according to Glen's highly plausible theory. This commentary is interesting because it's not clear to me exactly which styles of tsuba he is referring to as thin/old and new/thick. The Ko-Tosho and Ko-Katchushi tsuba are in fact thin/old, but don't have cut-outs. Ji-sukashi tsuba are actually new(er)/thick(er). So, I'm not really sure at all what to make of this commentary in terms of providing supporting evidence for when ji-sukashi tsuba first appeared. If there is no mention of sukashi tsuba prior to this, then there is really no evidence for the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba (as we know them) prior to the Azuchi-Momoyama period, certainly not prior to very late Muromachi. I would also point out that while Sasano sensei's life's work has provided one of the very important starting points for modern tsuba scholarship, and that while he himself is clear about his respectful disagreements with the dating theories of Akiyama (and even acknowledges his own short-comings in the introduction to his silver book), there are two major pitfalls to his approach to dating that I can clearly see. To highlight these, let's consider the dating of Kanayama sukashi tsuba, one of my favorite categories. Sasano's tendency to date tsuba based on the appearance of the iron supposes that the only major variables that determine the patina are the passage of time and the composition of the iron itself (independent of time). What he doesn't take into account is the emergence of the Kanayama style as an expression of Wabi Tea Culture beginning under the helm of Oda Nobunaga and flourishing under his tea master Furuta Oribe during a 25 year period (1591-1615) (Steve Waszak and Tim Evans will have more accurate dating of this period). This is the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The same can be said of the splendid creations of the other great Owari masters Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Sadahiro. Drenched in wabi, sabi, mono no aware, yugen, and other qualities of the tea and Zen aesthetics of that time, these tsuba were crafted just like tea bowels to reflect the beauty to be found in imperfection, the passage of time, and the impermanence of human existence. The coarse and "rustic" appearance of these tsuba is expressed through iron treatment and surface features such as tekkotsu, tsuchimie-ji, and yakite-shitate. The master smiths could produce tsuba during the same month that "appear" to be of different ages or have features of many different "schools" for that matter. Why would they define themselves so narrowly when commission pieces might dictate a broader variety of style and appearance? Attributing age (the passage of time) to the appearance of iron is therefore a pitfall. The composition of the iron can affect the appearance such as the case of the Yagyu tsuba described as "sandy," but again, this is independent of the passage of time. The very narrow period of time of production and in relatively small numbers reflects the natural history of all arts and crafts that express a highly refined and not widely appreciated taste as in the case of tsuba among the buke--it is fleeting, just a blink of the eye. Thus, Sasano appears to have completely missed the cultural co-development of Tea Ceremony and Owari Province early sukashi tsuba. There is no evidence that Kanayama sukashi tsuba were produced during the Muromachi period. They appear to be cruder and older because that was likely the intention of the smith. We should be cautious of blindly accepting "received wisdom" from any experts including the results of shinsa. That would be like proposing that there is an "end to science" because everything that can be known is already known.

Thanks, Glen. Let us know on this thread when you have started a new thread as we discussed.

Glen, would you do us the honor of starting a new NMB post on the topic of the kind of potential pitfalls inherent in relying on received wisdom from prior generations of tsuba scholars? I think it's an important topic. I happen to agree with you. However, I fear that Deanna's post has gone off track from her original request for what information the community can provide on her new tsuba.

Yes, I noted that one of the differences was the massive "Ko-Shoami" style seppa-dai along with the more rounded central motif that has been the focus of discussion for much of this thread. The end of Ko-Shoami production and the brief period of Kanayama tsuba production coincide during the Momoyama Period, although I don't have knowledge of geographical overlap and likelihood of cross-influence. Ko-Shoami and Kanayama tsuba continued to be produced into the Early Edo Period with some loss of the vitality associated with Momoyama period guards. It was listed and sold on Jauce several months ago for a higher price. There was considerable interest, but I didn't set my max high enough at the time. Then it was listed again to my delight and again generated interest, but I had the successful bid this time. I am considering whether to mount it on my practice iaito, which needs a lighter tsuba such as this one. The aggressive ji-sukashi with motif in negative silhouette achieves the 97 gm weight. It would be even lighter if it were a more traditional <7 cm Kanayama tsuba. Interestingly, Ito san's example approaches 8 cm, which is impressive.

One of the sections in Koichi's link of Ito Sanpei san's commentary caught my eye, which speaks to the issue of symbolism and meaning. He includes both sides of the enjoyable argument about the artist's intension (explicit vs. unknown/unknowable). I would argue that the more Buddhist the iconography, the more likely that the latter predominates. In my conversation with Ito Mitsuru, I don't think it's possible to make a tsuba that you can't explain the design of at that point when you make and sell it. Sellers also use sales pitches such as "This is a copy of XX, so it's good luck" or "It's popular in the capital right now". When making a tsuba to order, I think the customer specifies the design with a specific intention. However, there are many tsuba classified as Kanayama tsuba whose design intention is unclear at this point. In the introduction to the characteristics of Kanayama tsuba in "Open Tsuba: Beauty of Bushido" (by Sasano Daigyo), it is mentioned that "There are many square-mimi (square edges), thick tsuba, many tsuba with unclear meanings, and steel bones protruding from the tsuba edge, and they are small tsuba by design. "However, the designs of Kanayama tsuba from the Momoyama period, which is a later period, include the "Matsukawabishi tsukashi" in our collection, as well as "Tsurigake tsukashi," "Shining light tsukashi (clock tsuba)," "Lightning tsukashi," "Thunder pattern tsukashi," "Shadow scale tsukashi," and "Jojo tsukashi," and while the intention is unclear, there are aspects of the designs that are easy to understand. In modern times, it is called "unknown watermark", but I think it was a well-known design at the time. However, compared to the designs of other schools of swordsmen, such as old swordsmiths, old armorers, Kamakura, Heianjo inlaid tsuba, Owari watermark tsuba, and old Shoami tsuba, the Kanayama tsuba design is unique. I think that the reason for this uncommon design is that it was made with the assumption that it would be used within a certain organization (for example, a specific school of swordsmanship like the Yagyu tsuba, or for the warrior monks of a specific temple) rather than with the intention of selling it widely on the market... And of course many motifs were simply a family mon, which was stylized and abstract, but also symbolized some meaningful martial ideal, omen of good luck, or some utilitarian purpose that favored victory with perseverance and valor. I have just ordered Sasano Daigyo's book since it is so heavily referenced by Ito Sanpei san.

I'm still not at all certain what the motif represents, I couldn't agree more that it is in the small details that we sometimes discern a new semiotic attribute. This is especially true with more abstract representations. Claude Levi-Strauss believed that the human brain has a structure such that symbols manifest in a restricted range that is repeated throughout human history, often in cultures that had no clear opportunity to interact and share meanings. Carl Gustav Jung believed that there is an inherited underground subconscious cavern from which we may dip a ladle and drink deeply. This is conceived of as a transmitted repository of symbols--this a place that may provide content for our dreams. I am attaching an article that I published in 2000 about the inter-relationship between science and art, where I explore some of these concepts. Pharos Summer 2000 p. 11.pdf Pharos Summer 2000 pp 12 - 13.pdf

Koichi, thanks so much for the link. What an amazing commentary on precisely this Kanayama tsuba motif as well as the type of tekkotsu that may be found in early Owari Province tsuba. My tsuba is different than the majority composition of this kind in being more “curvaceous,” which is what appeals to me. There is a lot for me to consider and digest with more leisurely and dedicated study. It has enhanced my enjoyment of this piece immensely. It is natural it seems that what is beautiful, mysterious, and evocative to our minds, as in the case of this motif, becomes an invitation to find meaning through it. Without the possibility of time travel to ask the tsubako what he intended with this creation, we may need to depend on historical clues from prevailing cultural and aesthetic trends, geography, and just the simple pleasures in life such as watching steam rise from boiling water.