Early Menuki Study Thread: Ezo vs Ko Mino

[Henry Wilson]

 

(the cup comparison from persia/china/Japan is pretty neat. But I can't really see a strong connection between the ezo menuki theme *I forget name of flower* and the layered leaf design on the persian cup. While the overall shape of the ezo menuki flower is also somewhat similar to the overall "lumpy" shape of the drinking cup, I am thinking that wouldn't be a good basis to say the designs influenced one another.)

 

Hi Junichi,

Yes the direct connection is pretty abstract. It is the evolution of the one item that I find very interesting and how designs shifted. However, flicking through the books last night, the Iranian lid was one of the first things that caught my eye for some reason. It must be the shapes and to a lesser degree, the way the gold is worn, but I couldn't help thinking Ezo menuki when I first saw it.

[Brian]

Love the research being done here, and the amount of effort that people are putting into their theories. Conclusions being right or wrong..this is the way to learn/debate/study. Allows others to see the thought process and refine their own opinions. Thanks Henry, Boris, Junichi, John and others.

 

Brian

[BMarkhasin]

Gents,

I like all the interesting ideas, and that people are thinking about the artwork in a broader sense, but I agree with Junichi that we have to show some restraint in over-comparing. Henry, in your comparisons, you were comparing Scythian (1 Mill.BC), with Tang/Nara 8th c AD, with Nambokucho (14th c.) and Muromachi ca. 1500. I think this type of comparison creates red herrings (ie. Shang dynasty Tao Tieh masks vs Canadian West Coast Indian masks).

 

I would argue that there are only so many ways to faithfully represent scrolling vines in a limited space on a decorative metal fittings of any type, and so it is totally natural that there would be obvious and easy points of artistic comparison without any tangible direct influence. I could, for the sake of argument and 'devil advocacy' suggest that similarity exists in Japanese representation of river reeds with those of middle-Kingdom Egypt... its an insane suggestion, but artistically, there are likely to be points of unity.

 

In my opinion, comparing Shosoin examples (Asuka to Nara period 6th to 8th c.) to Ezo works is of limited value, despite the Japanese connection. There is clear, documented foreign influence in Shosoin and Horyuji treasures, since many of the items were actually tributary / trade goods imported directly from China, Korea, Parhae and other regional powers. I dont doubt in the same period, that northern trade goods would have showed similar influences, BUT, the percentage of extant Ezo works from this period is so infinitesimally small, it would literally have to be one in a million, and then likely only remaining in Jinja collections, and very very hard to date with confidence. Lets not lose sight that although very rare, the overwhelming majority of Ezo works we have today date no earlier than late Heian/Kamakura. By that time, arguably we would only have been seeing vestiges of original continental influences that may (or may not) have infused Emishi works from Asuka to early Heian. Most Ezo pieces we have were produced in the Kinai (Kyoto/Nara), within the framework of earlier 'northern' styles. If minute points of similarity exist with Persian etc.. it would have been virtually accidental, by virtue of copied designs. Rather than continental influence, I think to appreciate Ezo, you have to look to northern Japanese influence and artistry. This is hard enough to pin-down, without looking for extra-territorial influence.

 

Junichi, regarding Hiraizumi, a slight clarification is needed I think. Hiraizumi as a regional center was created by the Japanese, after expansion into the region had sufficiently derisked the undertaking. Hiraizumi was not an Emishi city which was taken by the Japanese. The points of contact were still strong, and the rulers of the region (Abe and Oshu Fujiwara shoen, among others) had documented direct lineage with earlier local Emishi sovereigns. This was a peripheral settlement, and would have been a cultural crossroads, but the prevalent cultural and political driver was the central Kinai government. There was also a huge Buddhist presence, with temple complexes rivaling Nara. Thus even art produced in Hiraizumi before the sacking would have been strongly influenced by Kinai philophy, craftsmanship and artistry, with the northern element being an overprint or flavor. Thus my point of even the northern influence being hard to pin-down with any certainty. Hiraizumi was all but destroyed during the wars of the late 11th and 12th centuries leading to the establishment of the Kamakura Bakufu. Now only a fraction of the original temple complex remains, and the treasure room was pillaged during the initial sacking. Interestingly, today, the monks are notorious for jealously guarding the complexes and remaining collections. Very little is published on the remaining collections, outside of architectural and statuary studies. Its almost as bad as the Imperial temperament towards excavating kofun.

 

Best,

Boris.

[Fred Geyer]

The above is why I respect Boris and his studies!!

 

Fred Geyer

[BMarkhasin]

Junichi,

Regarding the silvery/grey colour of early pieces, thats tough to get across without handling. I have never been able to successfully photograph Ezo pieces to show the subtleties. The backs of Ezo pieces also are highly varied, some with posts, others without. I think this reflects versatility and variance of use... again hard to pin-down with definition. Regarding armor connections, look to the Heian/Kamakura examples in Kasuga jinja (with the wonderful metalwork on the o-sode and kabuto). In the KTK article I also showed a Nambokucho Ezo koshigatana koshirae with a flat spot on one of the sukashi bands on the tsuka or saya, drilled-through for an apparent Byou. I think that was a great example of how these sukashi pieces could be used interchangeably between armor and tosogu. Note the similarity of style of the peonies, the scroll work on the armor kanamono to the Kamakura/Nambokucho Ezo fittings and koshigatana koshirae I posted earlier in this thread.

 

 

 

Best,

Boris.

[John A Stuart]

I include some information that may muddy things a bit more about how Japanese metal craft may have arrived in Japan. There may be a further vector of metal working and outside influences coming to Japan, besides through Korea or from the north by nomadic groups.

This was by way of a group of Wu dynasty families, a sub-branch of the Zhou dynasty, having been established by the Xi family. Xi 姫 is read as Ki in Japanese. Around the 3rd century BCE, due to being over-run by the Yue, groups of these Wu people migrated to Japan, the Wo clan, and some of the families of the Wo, that may have had a royal connection, kept the name Ki. A branch of the family to show a separate divergent lineage adopted the kanji 紀, also read as Ki. The Wu were expert metalworkers and as the Ki family moved northwards in Japan they built shrines called Niutsuhime. The kanji for ‘ni’ 丹in this name means cinnabar and it was this that was used to obtain precious metals. Some later Bizen sword smiths used this family name Ki, ie. Ichimonji Sukemitsu and Ichimonji Sukeyoshi. Remember that these were not Chinese in the sense of the Han or Chin, but, were a Malayo-Polynesian sub-group, a blood line known to be present in ancient and even modern Japanese.

Not only that, we can’t forget the Ji clans. In fact, there was two of them. One lead by a man who was to be known as Susano-o and the other by a woman to become known as Amaterasu. They settled in different areas, but, the Amaterasu group defeated the Susano-o group which had settled in the Izumo area. This area still has a an unique form of Shinto. Sources: (Token to Rekishi; 棄てられた謎の神, Toya)

[Henry Wilson]

Sorry for the late reply. Many thanks Boris for your thoughts.

 

First of all, I got a Scythian date wrong. It should be 4 BC not 4 AD. The date that Boris lists seems off too. I think 1 million BC is a bit too early. (I think we had just master fire by then). Reference to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_art

 

you were comparing Scythian (1 Mill.BC), with Tang/Nara 8th c AD, with Nambokucho (14th c.) and Muromachi ca. 1500. I think this type of comparison creates red herrings. I could, for the sake of argument and 'devil advocacy' suggest that similarity exists in Japanese representation of river reeds with those of middle-Kingdom Egypt... its an insane suggestion, but artistically, there are likely to be points of unity.

The Scythian idea that was suggested by John, to me anyway, is not all that far fetched, if we keep an open mind. The Scythian are traced back to the Black Sea and the time of reference we are discussing is different, but the fact is they did occupy a different side of the same land mass as China. If you look at the map below, we can see that the Black Sea area is connected to the Silk Road by Istanbul. Also suggesting that similarities exist in Japanese representation of river reeds with those of middle-Kingdom Egypt is not that insane an idea too, if you consider that Alexandria was also on a Silk Road sea route. Because there were trade routes, we can not rule out the influence of the Silk Road so easily in my opinion, and it would be fair to say that artefacts produced anywhere along the Silk Road could have migrated towards China.

 

If minute points of similarity exist with Persian etc.. it would have been virtually accidental, by virtue of copied designs. Rather than continental influence.

If I look closely at the images below, between the items I can see what I can only describe as not being the same but having very clear similarities when the patterns of the flowers and foliage are all compared. This could be accidental, but on the other hand it is possible that it isn’t, and I think it is difficult to to say with confidence that there is no or very unlikely any continental influence.

 

 

I think to appreciate Ezo, you have to look to northern Japanese influence and artistry. This is hard enough to pin-down...

This seems to be the point that is holding the counter argument to the Silk Road theory together and reference is made to it continuously through this thread. To help with the discussion, I think it is necessary to have examples of this northern Japanese influence and artistry. For people interested in the background, check out this link: Asian Art Newspaper.

 

I have searched for information on such a northern influence school, but at the moment can not find anything that can be described as northern influence around the Heian period that is not Emishi. (As far as Ezo style fittings go, I think any Emishi / Hokkaido influence has been ruled out). However, let us try to get a brief idea of what northern Japanese influence and artistry might be, even if it is hard to identify.

 

Referring to Japanese Art by J. Stanley-Baker, the main art movement of the Heian period was the Fujiwara secular arts. Basically, under the Fujiwara, the arts started to move away from deliberate mimicking of Chinese models to a more “Japanese” style and this art movement is epitomized by the Byodo-in in Kyoto. However, even thought there was a distinct unique Japanese style, modern scholars have deduced from architecture, subdued colours in paintings and artistic form, diagonal alignments and birds-eye views seen in onna e that a lot of these seemingly Japanese traits can be traced back to Tang China, and the Buddhist paintings of that time.

 

For the sake of this discussion, let us say that Kyoto was the base of the “Southern Fujiwara School” and Byodo-in was the centre of this movement. We can then say that Hiraizumi was the base for the “Northern School” and Chuson-ji was the centre of this movement.

 

If we compare what we can find inside the Byodo-in and the golden Konjiki-do, we might be able to make a simple comparison of southern and the northern Fujiwara art.

Referring to the pictures below, we can see that the buildings have a very similar profile. The way the eaves of the rooves lift, like a bird about to take flight is typical of Fujiwara architecture. Note, that the basic Chinese model is still evident but it has taken a new dimension.

A comparison of the statues in the temples reveals in both temples a typical Fujiwara sculpting style.

The area surrounding the deities are different. Chuson-ji seems more sumptuous. However they both have mother-of-pearl inlay, stylistically similar, as a common feature. Also the Konjiki-do has large phoenix (peacocks?) on the base which are similar to those found in Shoso-in. The mother-of-pearl inlay, a technique from Persia in the first place, is very similar to that seen on the Shoso-in items.

 

From this brief and definitely over-simplified comparison, the north and south schools do not deviate that much. I am aware that it represents a very, very small sample, but it does give an indication. On the surface of the matter, there seems to be very strong constants that exist between both main temples, and no startling indication of a separate northern influence can be seen in my opinion, that can be used to reasonably say with any confidence that there was a special and unique kind of northern influence that is important in understanding how Ezo style fittings developed. I am not saying that such an influence does not exist, there just seems to be no concrete information that I am aware of to say that there is. If anyone has any information, please let me know.

 

There seems to be very strong evidence that Silk Road influence was very predominate in the north. Apart from anything else, Silk Road items have been found in tombs around Chuson-ji when the Konjiki-do was being restored in 1962. This leads us back to the Shoso-in and how items there could have influenced the development of Ezo style fittings.

 

I am not saying that I am correct, but I feel that under-estimating the significance of the Silk Road and what the Shoso-in can tell us is a great oversight in the study of Ezo style fittings.

 

I hope this all makes sense and best regards.

[John A Stuart]

Henry, nice theorising. BTW, I think Boris must mean 1st millenium BC when he writes '1 Mill.BC'. John

[BMarkhasin]

Henry,

LOL. You crack me up.. 1 Mill. BC is first millenium BC, not Flintstones! On the other remotely possible connections... if you look hard enough, you will usually find what you are looking for. Best to focus on Ezo within the scope of tosogu... my ¥2.

 

Sorry, but I just cant resist....

Best,

B

[Henry Wilson]

LOL. Very funny. Sorry about the date mix-up. I was really confused as you can probably tell. By the way you look quite well in that picture Boris. The tarzan costume suits you.

I'll take your post as a sign that your belief systems are not holding under the weight of close examination then...

[BMarkhasin]

Its an old photo, but ya, I still got the goods!

[Henry Wilson]

You sure do! :thud: Take care and thanks!

[BMarkhasin]

Gents,

That was fun, but seriously speaking now, the question of what influenced who, when, while looking back through the haze of >1 millenium as laymen is too arduous to begin to address in a thread intended for Ezo and Ko Mino tosogu. I see this thread immediately and irreparably going on a tangent. If we are to opine on esoterics of artistic influence in remote corners of 11th century Japan, I think a new thread and fresh bottle of wine are warranted.

 

There is actually fairly exhaustive literature, (in some cases, rich in speculations) on the subject of finding northern influence overprinted on Heian Kinai aesthetic - from temple architecture to buddhist sculpture, to religious beliefs, etc. When cultures collide, the dominant one directs, the minor ones overprint. Finding northern influence on Kinai artistry is a subtle proposition, but there is literature out there. There is considerably less direct evidence, but lots of circumstantial evidence of extraterritorial influence in northern Japan, and again, there is literature on the subject. If NMB members are interested (and when time permits), I can compile a list of articles/books on these subjects, and provide a guaranteed cure for insomnia.

 

If someone wants to talk about tosogu, lets do it, but waxing lyrical on speculation and esoterics is tiring and unproductive.

 

Best,

Boris

[John A Stuart]

That's one of my many faults. Non-linear thought and sometimes lack of focus. Still, thinking in any form is good. I would be interested in a little synopsis of pertinent articles though, Boris, if you've a moment sometime. John

[kaigunair]

I still have a few questions regarding ezo tosogu which I can't seem to resolve.

 

Note that I am discussing early period ezo works:

 

Is the current thought that the early ezo menuki fittings shown in this thread were made in the true ezo style and NOT once part of o-yoroi armor that had been repurposed?

 

If the ezo menuki represent true ezo style tosogu, then are there full early koshirae which are not gusoku/armor put togethers (i.e. composed of parts from o-yoroi gusoku that have been repurposed as tosogu)? I'm alittle confused as it seems that most (all?) of the early period ezo koshirae shown were pieced together and therefore from a later time period.

 

Are there any examples of early period ezo kozuka or kogai which are similar in uniqueness to the ezo menuki, and NOT considered o-yoroi/gusoku/armor repurposed pieces?

 

 

Last Question: Is there any reason to think that at some time in the past, nihonto koshirae were designed to match the gusoku? Like how a kabuto was an accessory to the dou and not a separate piece, is there any older traditions where the koshirae would been seen as an extension of the full armor (vs. just complimenting it like some tiger tail styled koshirae coverings). I wondering if one possibility of ezo koshirae looking similar to o-yoroi parts could be because they were done to match the o-yoroi, not just because they were assembled after the o-yoroi went out of style post mongul invasion...

 

(note: so as we don't get side tracked into a discussion about armor, my understanding about o-yoroi is that originally, most of the armor is made ensuite and matching. Not talking about later put togethers where the family was recycling treasured pieces when upgrading or modernizing, or lower grade armors. )

[BMarkhasin]

Junichi,

 

Good questions... let me put some thought into the response and compile some visuals... Your question, focused on the early period materials, makes the use of visuals tough since there is a paucity of materials, and hard conclusions are dangerous.

 

Best,

Boris.

[BMarkhasin]

Junichi,

 

Most of the Ezo menuki I posted, as well as the Kamakura/Nambokucho koshirae were made as such, and is thought they do represent early (relatively unmolested) examples (not re-used bits). There is a slight possibility that some of the sukashi-less menuki examples may have been used elsewhere (not tosogu). Note that all koshirae date no earlier than the late 12th c. Even the armors I have illustrated date at the earliest to the latest 12th c. This leaves an obvious problem, in that we lose our articulated examples as a basis of comparison, and assigning Heian dates to ‘Ezo’ works is dangerous. Not to say examples don’t exist, but any interpretation will be subject to doubt.

 

What did northern work look like during the early Heian? I think we need to look to fragmentary Heian armor associated with northern clans, and a few extant kenuki gata tachi and warabite to with preserved koshirae. This is painfully limited dataset however, so again, lots of opportunity for (mis)interpretation. One of the earliest extant koshigatana koshirae is pictured as the top example in the image below. The tsuka pommel cap is of Heian style, and likely this piece dates to ca. 1200. The kojiri however is a later modification.

 

 

Specifically, the two early menuki I posted are in my opinion definitely made for koshirae. They have a slight curvature intended for mounting on a tsuka or saya, have that lozenge shape and are just the right size. As armor kanamono, their shape and style would not have worked. The koshirae illustrated throughout this thread were designed as such, and not made of recycled armor bits. The images below should leave little doubt that the koshirae use fittings specifically designed for them.

 

 

However, you must understand that recycling was not in any way a negative thing, and during these early periods, it was normal and acceptable practice. Consider the environment, the relative lack of resources and available manpower, no mass production, and you start to appreciate that people had to make due, and parts transfer / mending was part of life. The same artist who worked on your koshirae may well have worked on your armor, and your statuary. Now as clarification, this is not to say that the koshirae were not later tampered with. For instance, a kojiri may have been lost or damaged, and later replaced with an obviously diachronous and slightly mismatched replacement. This is also common, and should not necessarily be viewed as diminishing quality or importance of these koshirae. If anything, it’s a testament to their importance that owners would have employed kanagushi to restore the pieces - many were luxury goods at the time of manufacture. Most of these types of koshirae (and their blades), are registered as Important Cultural Properties, and a few are Kokuho. In the image below, of one of the most recognized tachi koshirae of 'Ezo' style, its obvious that the ornamentation differs between the tsuka and saya. In this particular example, the pommel cap is also a replacement. So throughout its life (oldest bits estimated at early to mid-Muromachi), it had undergone multiple historic restorations, with the view to keeping the style consistent.

 

 

Below is an image of an early koshirae, with what appears to be a platform drilled with a hole, which looks a lot like those we normally associate with armor kanamono for the placement of byou (fasteners). Also just because I referenced a yoroi earlier in this thread, it is not to suggest that only they could have shared styles with Ezo tosogu – also haramaki and dou maru etc..

 

 

Kozuka Kogai from this period are virtually non-existent, and many are of rough or archaeologic condition. Most are simple, very thin (<2.5mm), varied in size (length and width), and vary in style, with some having a reverse mimi (saka mimi), some no mimi at all. Blade styles vary as well, from inserts, to integrated examples like umabari. They are typically yamagane and gilded or tinned, although bronze, silver and shibuichi were used. There is a large variance in kozuka/kogai associated with Ezo koshirae, and I am personally unsure if I would call many of them ‘Ezo’. Just goes to show that variance is a characteristic of early period works. None of the kozuka kogai I have seen incorporate ex-armor kanamono.

 

PS - note the silvery gold colour of the Ezo kanagu in the image above. That should give you some idea of what people refer to as the silvery sheen seen on older pieces... Its not exactly right colour vs real life, but its getting there.

 

Best,

Boris.

[Pete Klein]

Boris -- most excellent posts. I have great admiration for your knowledge and insight.

[kaigunair]

Thanks so much for the amazing response. Will re-read and digest the latest post (as well and the entire thread) over the next few days...

 

[Henry Wilson]

I mean this most respectfully and this is not meant to sound mean or ill-intentioned or anything like that, but I find what Boris has written so far in this thread to be very ad hoc. What I mean is that a lot of it seems very "ground breaking" and subjective, which is fine if something new has been found. The problem is that I find a lot of it impossible to corroborate, and I can't just take someone's word for it.

 

....evidence of extraterritorial influence in northern Japan, and again, there is literature on the subject. If NMB members are interested (and when time permits), I can compile a list of articles/books on these subjects...

 

This would be much appreciated as I want to believe, but so far can't. Again no bad blood is intended.

[BMarkhasin]

Henry,

No problems, and taken in the spirit it was intended. I happen to agree with you, it can seem ad hoc. Some things are only learned through direct exposure/experience and layering-in information picked-up along the way. Occams Razor applies as well I suppose. I'm a pragmatist, and abhor fits of fanciful dreaming, so I hope I am presenting my ideas clinically.

 

The fact of the matter is that if as collectors / researchers of tosogu, if we relied on the published 'gospels', we would be just rehashing ideas of old, and focused on the mainstream interests. I have chosen to invest my time, energy and a lot of capital to pursuing ideas that I have found to be problematic. Ezo is one example. I believe that things like historic, cultural, religious, economic and ethnograhpic context are critical in understanding antiquities, and this is what I have tried to incorporate in my studies - plus some hard science where I can.

 

Expressed above are my ideas based on observation, lots of independent study, collaboration of other collectors / researchers (mainly in Japan), and investment in areas very few others are interested in pursuing. I reserve the right to change those ideas as new or contrary information comes to my attention, and I am certainly not married to any of my ideas. The pieces I have kept in my collection and spent time on, are those which tell a story, and fill-in gaps. My thoughts are not ground-breaking (well ok, I like to think maybe once or twice ), but perhaps instead 'integrated'.

 

Blah blah blah, you get the point.

 

Best,

Boris.

[Ford Hallam]

Some things are only learned through direct exposure/experience and layering-in information picked-up along the way.

 

So what happens when someone else, with at least as much exposure to the actual artefacts and practical metallurgical understanding, art history knowledge, experience as an artist/craftsman, regards these theories as being unsubstantiated?

 

Why should students of this subject acquiesce to claims of authority from authors who seem unwilling to provide material evidence or concretely reasoned argument?

 

I can only speak for myself, although many have expressed similar concerns, but whenever anyone, in an on-line discussion, retreats to unavailable 'evidence' or suggests that the questioner is merely insufficiently educated (but no education is offered) to grasp the 'truth' of a theory I'm inclined to call 'Emperor's New Clothing'

 

Sorry Boris, but the various images of famous koshirae described as Ezo merely demonstrate no such 'school' existed. The technical and stylistic differences are so striking as to suggest a plethora of groups working in different places and times.

 

To put it plainly, there never was a 'school' called Ezo, nor is there any evidence that any extant metalwork represents the creative output of the HiraIzumi Court.

 

What we have are various and disparate examples of metal work, to varying degrees influenced by earlier work, in a variety of locations. As John Harding sensibly suggests we might refer to this amorphous group as "Sho- Ki Kinko" or 'First Period Kinko'

Edited to add a suggestion from Guido Schiller that a more appropriate term, and one in line with blades of the same period, would be Jōko-Kinkō 上古金. It has my vote.

 

Much weight has been placed on the seminal artcle by Tom Butweiller and while I find it to be without any substantive weight you may read it for yourselves to decide.

Here's a link to the scanned article:

[BMarkhasin]

Ford,

I assume you are speaking about yourself. I wont comment.

 

Schools are a relatively recent phenomenon, and I have never suggested Ezo as a school. I certainly don't think it appropriate to call it a school -- or use the term Ezo for that matter, but we are stuck with this crappy terminology and have to dance around it. We are speaking about a broad group of works which spanned hundreds of years and a large geography. I suggested an early northern influence, and early links to Mutsu, Dewa and northern Kanto regions. I personally think the earliest examples originated in the general area around Hiraizumi / Sendai, but in craftsmanship were related to Kinai works. I also think that starting from the Kamakura / Nambokucho, these works take on a more southern flavour and were likely produced largely in the Kinai. Some may not have been originally intended for use as tosogu, and I see the possibility of links to armor and other arts of the period. By mid-Muromachi time, they are supplanted by ko kinko and ko Mino works in popularity and then go through a few revivals. There is a large variety within this group of works, as should be expected. I have also said that as we are dealing with pieces of tosogu that could date back 800+ years, and there is a paucity of examples and research either western of Japanese. I have offered my insights and ideas on the subject, and pointed to one of the very few western articles which people could access. I think that Buttweiler's thoughts have merit, and he should be credited for introducing the subject to western audiences. As for opining on the koshirae I have presented, I have not shown them to suggest a commonality, but as what is now taken as the best representatives of this group of works. As for the term Sho Ki Kinko, I personally have always liked this term, and use it often when speaking about early pieces, rather than Ezo, ko- this and ko- that. I will say that it is critical to handle these pieces and compare them. Images simply don't do them justice and miss all nuance. Take it, leave it, use it or abuse it...

 

 

Best,

Boris.

[kaigunair]

While I can appreciate the questioning and requests for sources made by both Henry and Ford, I do want to thank Boris again for all the posts that help to clarify his thoughts on the origin of ezo theories. It really expands and explains the original ideas expounded in the Butweiller articles that were published back in 1979 in Bushido.

 

At the same time, while its good to question the new ideas, it would be equally helpful for this thread and neophytes if there was a more point/counter-point made with support. Boris had brought up several different ideas about the origins of "Ezo" fittings, and its hard to discern (at least for me) what is in contention, if not all of it.

 

Going back to the original piece:

NBTHK Juyo Ezo: http://tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/b00114.html

 

I'm going to label the "new" thoughts about Ezo as "BB" for Boris/Butweiller. My understanding is that this ezo piece was deemed NBTHK Juyo worthy and priced at $7500 for the following reasons:

Historical: BB-pre momoyama fittings, possibly 12th century pieces, pushing current timeline of tosogu studies back.

BB-developed in northern area after the fujiwara gained power in the area and took over the rich natural resources from the emishi.

Aesthetic: BB-represents early kinko craftsmanship in a northern style

BB-similarities to o-yoroi armor decorative metal work

Kantei Points:

BB-Delineated into several different periods (early, middle, late). The current example is early.

BB-unique meturllurgy of non-homogenous shibuishi

( in advance if I've made a mistake here - Please correct as I have not had time to fully process Boris' responses)

 

Opposite these ideas, the more traditional view of same piece would be given the following attributes:

Historical: 14th/15th century fittings, developed around the time of ko-kinko works.

made by, or mainly used by emishi/ainu

Aesthetic: different tradition than ko-kinko works.

austere depictions favor well when viewed through tea ceremony aesthetics

Kantei Points: no discernment between early, middle, late periods; all one category or school.

 

General Kantei Points for early(BB)/top quality ezo pieces:

Gold over shibuishi

Edge is uniform thickness.

Rear punched/cutout areas left rough.

Design is asymmetric, of vines and plants, sometimes including animals, insects , crest motifs

 

Going over the BB point, I think there are a few where everyone is in agreement? But hopefully by identifying which of the BB points one does not agree with, and providing the support for the counter argument of the traditional or alternative idea, that would help inform and enlighten the forum.

 

Thanks in advance.

[Henry Wilson]

But hopefully by identifying which of the BB points one does not agree with, and providing the support for the counter argument of the traditional or alternative idea, that would help inform and enlighten the forum.

 

I think I have tried to do this in previous posts. I don't want to sound like a broken record but I want to know more about the northern influence which seems to be crucial in this discussion. I tried to get an impression of it myself, the results of which I posted above to support any conclusions I made.

[Ford Hallam]

Junichi

 

I applaud your attempt to draw something concrete from all of this :D so I hope you don't mind if I offer some counter-points to the points you've identified.

 

I'm going to label the "new" thoughts about Ezo as "BB" for Boris/Butweiller. My understanding is that this ezo piece was deemed NBTHK Juyo worthy and priced at $7500 for the following reasons:

Historical: BB-pre momoyama fittings, possibly 12th century pieces, pushing current timeline of tosogu studies back.

BB-developed in northern area after the fujiwara gained power in the area and took over the rich natural resources from the emishi.

Aesthetic: BB-represents early kinko craftsmanship in a northern style

BB-similarities to o-yoroi armor decorative metal work

Kantei Points:

BB-Delineated into several different periods (early, middle, late). The current example is early.

BB-unique meturllurgy of non-homogenous shibuishi

 

1: The menuki you refer to is described as early Muromachi. That would be early 14th cent. Not 12th Century.

 

2: We have no definite evidence base in terms of examples of Northern Court metalwork to examine or compare so what exactly is being referred to in stylistic or aesthetic terms to enable these menuki to be called "Northern work" ?

 

3: There are clear similarities in terms of workmanship and design with O-yoroi mounting BUT I would suggest this demonstrates that wherever armour was made varieties of early menuki in similar style were also made. No specific location is implied.

 

4: The delineation into different periods, (early, middle, late) is entirely arbitrary and/or subjective and not based on any significant material evidence. The criteria seem to be, if it looks older then it is. This is not in any way a reliable starting point, I think.

 

5: The matter of shibuichi being the base material is extremely troublesome for me. It's a relatively expensive alloy, containing a reasonable proportion of silver and apparently being made at a time when silver was far more expensive than in the Edo period. One account suggested silver was a quarter of the price of gold, as opposed to 1/40th outside of Japan. This was in fact the basis of foreign precious metal trade. Buying gold from Japan and paying in silver.

 

Shibuichi is a notoriously hard alloy that resists deformation. This makes it quite unsuitable for uchidashi work and why, even in the Edo period, shibuichi menuki are quite rare. It's also tricky to fire gild shibuichi, copper being almost always the preferred base for gilt pieces. And why chose such an intractable metal to make menuki with if you intend to make them look gold anyway?

 

I would suggest that where analysis indicates that shibuichi has been used it may mean we're looking at work that needs to exhibit a silvery/grey base metal where the gold has been (purposefully?) worn away. I think genuine early work with this particular colour is more likely impure copper. The silvery sheen is, imo, primarily the result of the arsenic content. Having said that I've not seen any analysis that does indicate early pieces were made of shibuichi. The introduction of the alloy is generally credited to the Machibori artists at the start of the Edo period. Notably the Yokoya group. And most of the shibuichi menuki I've seen are by them also.

However, and this is an important point, native copper (yamagane or impure unrefined copper) mined in Japan was significantly Argentiferous. That is, it contained a proportion of silver, along with lead, arsenic and other trace elements. The presence of silver in such samples should not lead us to conclude that they are shibuichi.

 

Opposite these ideas, the more traditional view of same piece would be given the following attributes:

Historical: 14th/15th century fittings, developed around the time of ko-kinko works.

made by, or mainly used by emishi/ainu

Aesthetic: different tradition than ko-kinko works.

austere depictions favor well when viewed through tea ceremony aesthetics

Kantei Points: no discernment between early, middle, late periods; all one category or school.

 

1: This dating may be more accurate but the Ainu/Emishi connection is no longer held to be realistic at all. The Ainu had no significant metalworking culture and we have no evidence that the Emishi did either.

 

2: What is this different aesthetic? If a Northern style hasn't been described or demonstrated how can we posit something different to it?

 

3: I've already pointed out that any categorisation in terms of early, middle, late periods is essentially arbitrary. We simply don't know the stylistic chronology of any of the pieces under discussion. We might embark on a thorough analysis in proper art design terms (with cross reference to armours who's dates we can be more certain of) but this has not been done yet in any meaningful way. Pointing to random bits to suggest links (especially when they are clearly so disparate) is not the way art historians build convincing pictures of artistic development.

 

My suggestions would be to drop the Ezo label immediately. In the sense that it's meaningless and confusing Boris and I are in complete agreement. And following on from the abandonment of the Ezo label we can also let go of any notions of Northern court origins until solid evidence materialises to force a reappraisal. I also suggest we stop trying to create artificial connections and histories and concentrate instead on the objects themselves. A careful and well documented examination of the physical objects may eventually build into a coherent picture of their family tree. Present attempts to force everything into predefined boxes is only distorting the matter.

 

Of interest to me, and which rather interrupts a nice even theory of metalwork evolution, is the fact that the earliest Sword mountings unearthed in Japan, are of copper sheet that's been fire gilded. In fact the refining of copper seems to have been very advanced by the Nara Period, the 8th Century, with numerous examples to illustrate the technological know how of the time. It seems odd to me that the makers of early kinko work, while quite sophisticated in terms of metalworking technique, and tool making by extension, didn't know to or bother to refine the basic copper ore.

 

And concerning a different tradition of metalwork but a good example of what a scholarly study of the early development of kinko work might look like here's a link to a study called "Metalwork from the Hellenized East"

[kaigunair]

Thanks Ford! A very helpful response and definitely makes it easier to understand and better grasp the counter viewpoint. Now I have even more to mull over.

 

I think the main idea surrounding the counterpoint can be found in the statement "Just because something looks old, doesn't mean it is." That, for me anyways, is an anchor point in trying to wrap my mind behind these two very different theories about the "Ezo" juyo piece in question.

 

I didn't realize that there is a disagreement about the base metal being shibuishi or yamagane! This is very interesting indeed. I would have thought it would be a very easy thing to verify. Boris mentioned doing some electron microscope scanning that would support shibuishi. So I wondering how the insight brought up by Ford, that native copper (yamagane or impure unrefined copper) mined in Japan was significantly Argentiferous, would affect the electron microscope results/analysis? Other than buying the piece in question and then cutting or melting it down, would there be a better way to test it for shibuishi or yamagane? How about polishing a small portion of the back of "early period ezo" fittings to see if it looks more like shibuishi or yamagane? (hmmm...crowdsourcing enough funds from the forum to buy and destroy juyo fittings papered to ezo... )

 

All the other good points/counterpoints are so dense, will take me a little while to unpack. But I am very thankful for all the wonderful insight and informative view points! Might I say this is a very exciting discussion so far , and thank you to all who have provided helpful input!

 

(ps: chances of having a well stocked tosogu examination table at the august show, sponsored by the NCJSC no less, are looking good! Might even be a nihonto/tosogu examination full corner booth area. Please keep fingers crossed!)

[Ford Hallam]

Junichi

 

I'd summarise my view thus:

 

The term Ezo is essentially meaningless in relation to early Tosogu.

 

There's no reason to posit an origin for any identifiable metalwork in any Northern province or Hiraizumi. Nor is there any convincing evidence that we should even look there. This may change should new material come to light.

 

There exists a body of fittings, mostly menuki or menuki-like (saya fittings perhaps) that seem to be made of a similar unrefined copper and are finished by means of fire gilding (mercury gilding or Kinkeshi). This gilding technique was common practice from as early as the Kofun period. Descriptions of gold foil applied with mercury flux (?!) or gold powder and urushi are, as far as I can ascertain, not in evidence and may only exist in the confusing glossary provided by John Harding in the Henry D Rosin Collection Catalogue. Which I otherwise recommend as a reference to some fine examples of Sho-Ki Kinko....and which, Boris may be pleased to learn, I first had the opportunity to study at length 20 years ago, in London.

 

Within this group of early fitting, which we ought properly to call Sho Ki Kinko (First Period Kinko), or perhaps Jōko-Kinkō 上古金, there exist clearly differing styles.

 

I would suggest these differing styles indicate disparate groups that may later have evolved into the more clearly defined Ko-Kinko groups. Two obvious candidates being Ko-Mino and Ko-Umetada. The stylistic similarities of these two groups within the earlier Shi Ki Kinko groups ought to be fairly easy to recognise.

 

As to origins of these various groups any centre of power, or all, may be reasonably considered viable. Workers tend to follow the money and the market.

[Henry Wilson]

Fantastic posts Ford. You have definitely given us all lots to think about. I hope the discussion can developed from here.

[Guido]

What Henry says. But if a new name is indeed needed for this type of early fittings, I think that Shoki-Kinkō 初期金工 sounds a little "constructed". I'd prefer Jōko-Kinkō 上古金工. That would also be in accordance with swords of about the same period. Just a suggestion/thought.