Early Namban Tsuba

[raven2]

Hi everyone,

 

This is a new tsuba I just got from Grey. Dimensions are: 7.8 cm x 3 mm. It is very interesting to me because of the fairly obvious age and the very unusual hitsu-anas. Skip Holbrook’s tag says "Namban, nunome flowers, Muromachi period". I have been doing some research into the early Namban but this doesn’t seem to fit dimension or style-wise(being a very thin flat plate with no sukashi) and it seems to be older than the Momoyama dates given for the earliest Namban (I would tend to think it is early to mid 15th cen.). Please note actual color is darker and more brown than pictures.

 

My thoughts are these:

1) Is this a very early Canton? I am not sure the style fits although the silver numone would make sense. Perhaps the unusual hitsu-anas were made by a Chinese smith?

2) Could this be a ko-katchushi decorated for export to China in the Muromachi. If so, is that why the hitsu-anas are so unusual. Could they have been made for a Chinese sword since they obviously wouldn’t fit Japanese. I am not familiar about Chinese weapons so I don’t know if I am way off base here.

3) If it was made for the Japanese market, why are the hitsu-anas so strange? Did the smith not understand what he was doing, as Grey suggests. If so, would that not tend to support Chinese? It seems unlikely to me that the smith would have been Japanese.

 

Any comments would be appreciated.

[Henry Wilson]

2) Could this be a ko-katchushi decorated for export to China in the Muromachi.

I don't think it could be a Katchushi because it does not have a raised rim for a start. The plate looks more Tosho, especially the type of metal I think I see and of course the lack of rim.

 

The cut-outs, I would call ko-sukashi and not hitsu-ana because they are not functional for regular Japanese swords of any era. These type of cut-outs are seen on Tosho tsuba but are usually in different places on the plate.

 

To me, the zogan looks like lead, as silver usually patinates to a black.

 

Also to me, the Namban call is unusual too because it looks nothing like what I have come to know as Namban. In my opinion it would seem that Kamakura-bori tsuba would also be Namban if the convention that has labeled this tsuba was applied to that group, that is Chinese derived motifs (which I can't really make out on the tsuba) found on a Japanese iron plate hand guard.

 

All in all a mystery and hope someone with more knowledge can set us all straight.

[Soshin]

Fred D.,

 

Thank you for starting this interesting topic with your fine tsuba that I think is Japanese made. :D I have high standards when it comes to Namban tsuba. Here is a early Namban tsuba now in my collection that is from the same old US collection that is now in Tokyo for Tokubetsu Hozon NBTHK shinsa in December: http://dastiles1.wix.com/reflections-#!Composite-View/zoom/c5om/image2px. More information is on my website.

 

I also have this early Namban like tsuba example that Ginza Choshuya in Tokyo said was early Edo Period. It is also in my collection and has a older NBTHK Tokubetsu Kicho paper dated 1970: http://dastiles1.wix.com/reflections-#!Art-View/zoom/c211q/images6p. To me I like to call it a Namban Ko-Katchushi tsuba and might be much older than the early Edo Period. It has signs of old black lacquer along it surface much like other Ko-Katchushi tsuba.

[raven2]

Thanks for the thoughts Henry and Dave. Dave, I have read both the thread and your website and got a lot of information there. Henry, I think you are on the right track. The more I study this the more I am convinced that it is really not Namban but Ko-Tosho. I forgot about the raised rim on Ko-Katuchshi and the rest of the Tsuba seems to fit in pretty well including the apparent age and thinness. The question would be if the openings are sukashi, what do the represent? They certainly are original to the plate (it is hard to see, but the remnants of the nunome do work around the openings). The design is definitely floral. I am going to keep researching sukashi designs. My other question is wouldn't the nunome be an unusual decoration for a Ko-Tosho?

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Fred

 

To me the nunome and the overall look would probably put this in the Shoami group mainly because it is a bit of an oddball tsuba.

 

The larger ko sukashi could represent the moon and the smaller could represent an eosetric Buddhist symbol which I have seen on tsuba but can't find an example of now. Here is a version of it used by a popular Japanese political party.

 

It could also represent dango which was a banner of Nobunaga, but this symbol usually has three parts.

 

The floral pattern that I can see reminds me of carving seen on some Nobuie tsuba. Kind of.

 

Just some thoughts and hope they help.

[Soshin]

To me the nunome and the overall look would probably put this in the Shoami group mainly because it is a bit of an oddball tsuba.

 

Hi Fred D.,

 

I fairly sure Henry W. is correct. I would place your fine tsuba in the Ko-Shoami group also given the abstractness of the openwork design. The use of lead inlays I find very interesting. My two tsuba above clearly indicate in my opinion that early Namban tsuba developed from katchushi tsuba group during the Azuchi-Momoyama Period.

[raven2]

Hi Dave,

 

It does make some sense now that it has been brought up, although the thinness of the plate puzzles me and also isn't Ko Shoami sukashi generally positive rather than negative? I had also thought that the larger sukashi might represent the moon. The Buddist symbol is new to me although it does seem to be similar to the smaller sukashi.

[Pete Klein]

I would not be surprised if this is an early Canton/Chinese Namban import tsuba brought in by the Portuguese during the Momoyama Jidai. The lack of hitsu ana, shape of the sukashi, thinness of the plate along with the silver nunome are an irregular combination for standard Japanese work and the overall design simply doesn't look Japanese to my eye. As individual characteristics you will find them but all together is a bit unusual. It's quite an interesting piece.

 

PS: The early 'Namban' works do not look like the later, standardized Nagasaki 'Namban' tsuba with their intricate laced sukashi work.

[raven2]

Thanks for the info Pete. It does seem to be a bunch of contradictions when you try to fit it in a school. As you said, everything all together just doesn't seem to work. Perhaps it is an early Chinese import.

[Fred Geyer]

Fred,

 

Peter is right no early namban, will post early tsuba and koshirea

 

Fred Geyer

[raven2]

Hi Fred,

 

Good to hear from you. :D Not sure what you mean by "no early Namban". Is it a typo and actually "on early Namban". All information is greatly appreciated since it is hard to find attributions about it. Looking forward to seeing your posts.

[Fred Geyer]

here are a few photos

 

Fred Geyer

[Fred Geyer]

one more

 

Fred Geyer

[Fred Geyer]

china tsuba

 

Fred Geyer

[Soshin]

Hi Dave,

 

It does make some sense now that it has been brought up, although the thinness of the plate puzzles me and also isn't Ko Shoami sukashi generally positive rather than negative?

 

Hi Fred D.,

 

No I have seen Ko-Shoami tsuba with both types of sukashi with thin and thick plates with brass, gold, and silver inlays before. Most latter Shoami tsuba only used positive sukashi from my observation. I would be interested in how they attribute and date your tsuba at shinsa. Are you going to the Tampa show this year?

[raven2]

Hi Dave,

 

I am not sure, I have been thinking about it but it depends on a number of factors. I will need to think about it.

[Henry Wilson]

Pete and Fred

 

Thank you both very much for your input. I have learnt something.

[raven2]

Ok, I have been doing some more research and I have talked with a friend who had some interesting thoughts after looking at the pictures I sent her. She clarified to me something I had noticed but didn't put together. She felt that the round sukashi seems not to have been cut at the same time as the "gourd" which I believe is original to the tsuba, but put in when the nakago-ana was enlarged.

 

The sides of the gourd are perpendicular to the face of the tsuba but the sides of the round sukashi slant in and are not very skillfully done. The nakago-ana also slants in the same manner although on the opposite side (not sure which is the omote and which is the ura on this one). The nakago-ana has also been enlarged and not in a very skillful way. The inner edges of the round sukashi also are not the same as the inner edges of the gourd, but rougher and not as well cut and similar to those of the nakago-ana.

 

If this is so, then I am going back to my original thought that this is a Ko-Tosho from early to mid Muromachi that originally only had the "gourd" as decoration. The size (7.8 cm diameter and 3 mm thickness at the seppa-dai and 1.8 mm at the mimi) and the single, small ko-sukashi all fit. Some time down the line, the owner, decided to have it put on a different sword and had the nakago-ana enlarged and the other sukashi put in at the same time. The nunome would also have been added at his time to embellish the appearance (as evidenced by the decoration going around both sukashi and not interrupting it, which it would have if it had been applied prior to the round sukashi). Added nunome is not unheard of (see the second tsuba down here: http://www.shibuiswords.com/EDLcollection.htm which also has a bit of nunome left on it).

 

Obviously, this is all conjecture, but it seems to fit better than what I have been struggling to reconcile. I would still be interested in any thoughts or comments. I will say that this has been a very pleasurable exercise so far. :D

[Pete Klein]

Look carefully at the second (lower) picture and you can see there are silver borders circumscribing 'both' sukashi. They are original. As for added nunome, I really doubt it in this case.

[raven2]

Hi Pete,

 

I realize that they surround both(I mentioned that earlier in the thread). But if the plate originally had both sukashi, why is the round one cut so more poorly than the "gourd". If the nunome was a later addition it could have been done after the round sukashi was added. I am certainly not totally convinced of anything. I still have not been able to find pictures of early Canton pieces other than what Fred G was so good to send. But this looks nothing like any of those.

[Soshin]

Hi Fred D.,

 

I am not completely sure and love the idea of throwing such "curve balls" at shinsa teams visiting the USA. Ko-Tosho and Tosho often have a thicker seppa-dai then the rim this is opposite from any nanban tsuba that is early or otherwise I have seen. This much thicker seppa-dai compared to the rim clearly matches the characteristics of your tsuba with a single simple ko-sukashi design. The silver inlays and additional opening cut differently could have been added later. This I wouldn't call is an embellishment but a change in aesthetics from when the tsuba was originally made. If I remember correctly Curran had a Ko-Tosho tsuba up on eBay that once had a silver inlay.

A long time researcher of Nanban tsuba PM with the opinion that my "Nanban shaku" attributed tsuba with NBTHK papers was likely a altered Ko-Katchushi tsuba with added Nanban style decorations along the outside of the dote-mimi as well as the botan and karakusa pattern on the plate was added later likely during the early Edo Period. This was also when the shakudo insert was added to the butterfly ko-sukashi that has a central shippo design motif.

[raven2]

I agree with you Dave and this would be the same as what you are describing, a Ko-Tosho with another sukashi and nunome added later to change the aesthetics, maybe in the early Edo after the Tokugawa edicts.