Established ideas that need to change - 1: Rusty sukashi walls

[GRC]

Hi everyone, I would like to start a series of threads that anyone can contribute to with their own observations or topics to then dive into.

This began on a separate thread that started to get sidetracked and the idea to start a separate thread was proposed by Steve @sabi.

The thread was "Water wheel and cherry blossom" if anyone is interested.

 

I would like to propose that each topic get its own thread so that the discussion can stay focused on that idea, rather than having one extremely long thread that meanders and jumps between many separate ideas.

 

So let's use the same title format:  "Established ideas that need to change - #: topic to be discussed"

 

Here are some ideas I have, just off the top of my head...

 

Established ideas that need to change - 1: Rusty sukashi walls

Established ideas that need to change - 2: The timeline of tsuba production

Established ideas that need to change - 3: Pre-Edo period schools***

Established ideas that need to change - 4: Reliance on papers

 

***this one may even need some subcategories to tackle each school specifically (Owari, Kanayama, Ko-shoami, Kamakura-bori, Ohno, Kyo-sukashi/Heianjo sukashi)

 

[GRC]

Back to rusty sukashi walls...

 

This post by @Tim Evans is what sparked my initial post on this topic:

 

On 11/25/2024 at 4:11 PM, Tim Evans said:

An interesting comment in the Varshavsky collection reference from Dale.

 

Provenance: Robert E. Haynes, Mark Weisman.

This is what shibuiswords.com says about this tsuba:

“A very unusual iron plate tsuba. The solid plate is carved with waves on both sides. A cherry bloom in sukashi, lower left, and the right third of the plate in openwork with design of a water wheel. The rim with some iron bones. The hitsu-ana is original but the shape may have been slightly changed. One would expect this to be the work of the early Edo period, but the age of the walls of the sukashi would suggest that this is a work of the middle Muromachi period. This must be the forerunner for the Edo examples we see of this type of design.” (Haynes) a look-a-like tsuba in Haynes Catalog #5, 1983, pp. 20-21, №44: “Typical later Heianjo brass inlay example

 

 

Just for context, Robert (Bob) Haynes is one of the foremost Japanese sword fittings authorities in the US, having studied with Dr. Kazutaro Torigoye in Japan in the 1960's. There is a lot of useful tsuba material by Bob on the Shibui Swords site, Elliott and Bob collaborate a lot since they live near each other. 

 

[GRC]

@sabi commented on the flawed reliance on the apparent "age of the sukashi walls" in the selected passage.

 

Using this flawed logic, the appraiser switched their initial appraisal time from early Edo period (sometime in the 1600s because the Edo period was from 1603-1868) to the middle Muromachi period (sometime in the 1400s because the Muromachi period was from 1336-1573).

 

So the appearance of the sukashi walls (INCORRECT METHOD!) overrode the appraiser's initial judgement of an early Edo period production date, based on the the aesthetics and characteristics of the tsuba itself (CORRECT METHOD!).

In doing so, the appraiser backed up the date of production by some 200+ years, and presumed that the tsuba he was appraising must have been an early forerunner of the typical tsuba of this type.  

 

as @sabi pointed out, a tsuba can easily be rusted (through any number of means... feel free to search for methods online...

so the degree of rusting of the sukashi walls cannot be reliably used to date a specific tsuba.

 

An additional inherent flaw in this approach is that it must assume that all tsuba have been held under similar storage conditions for their entire existence, and that they their surfaces have never been altered or resurfaced (which we all know is not the case as we have all seen many examples of resurfacing and repatinating). 

This is an amazing assumption, especially given that the appraiser also identifies that he thinks the hitsu-ana may have been altered at some point.

So why assume the surface treatment would be untouched while other features of the tsuba could be altered?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

The other problem with the selected appraisal passage is the very idea that such a sukashi tsuba could have been produced as early as the middle of the Muromachi period (a topic that will be tackled separately...). There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a sukashi tsuba like this was produced at such an early date.

[GRC]

Myself and @Sabi were then critiqued for mocking Haynes, the appraiser who was cited.

 

This was my response to that:

 

1 hour ago, GRC said:

Please note, I am most certainly NOT mocking the person.

I have the utmost respect for what Haynes has contributed to this field. We all stand atop some of the foundations he has laid.

However, I will unhesitatingly point out flawed theories that don't hold up to scrutiny or that are unsupported by evidence.

So on a general note, a person's overall contributions to a field of research should not prevent others from pointing out any ideas that are incorrect.

 

The whole notion of reliance on and preservation of rusted sukashi walls needs to be undone.

This idea will lead to false judgements of age and worst of all, lead to the eventual destruction of the very art objects we all seem to appreciate.

So from my perspective, i see this particular idea as "dangerously flawed".

 

So I am hoping that this idea reaches as many tsuba enthusiasts and collectors as possible, so that we can put an end to this harmful practice.

[Curran]

2 hours ago, GRC said:

@sabi

so the degree of rusting of the sukashi walls cannot be reliably used to date a specific tsuba.

...............................

The other problem with the selected appraisal passage is the very idea that such a sukashi tsuba could have been produced as early as the middle of the Muromachi period (a topic that will be tackled separately...). There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a sukashi tsuba like this was produced at such an early date.

 

It isn't the degree of rusting. It is more complicated = a mix of several things including the type of rust, how it has evolved, and the iron/patina interplay.

While most anything can be faked, the insides of the sukashi walls is something very important to study and can help a lot.

 

As to that second bit about sukashi tsuba as early as the middle of the Muromachi...

They are rare and crude, but you find them as far back as mid to late Nambokuchu. I have one from Ito-san+NBTHK that is supposedly late Nambokuchu, but I would date it circa Oei 1394-1420.

 

[zanilu]

I would also add to the list the 

 

5: Accumlated curd or dirt on the sukashi walls as a way of establishing a tsuba age.

 

As for the rust another factor that have to be considered is that the composition of the iron used can vary between tsuba and tsuba,  even among the same school, due to the iron processing method that were pre-industrial. Even today two batch of the same alloy are never exactly the same, the composition of an alloy is always given by ranges of components.

 

@Curran it would be really interesting and instructive if you can elaborate with examples. A small essay would be wonderful, if you forgive my impudent request... 

 

Luca

[GRC]

7 hours ago, Curran said:

the insides of the sukashi walls is something very important to study and can help a lot.

 

I would argue that the only thing that matters here is the method of construction... like chisel angle and finishing method.

 

The type of rust doesn't tell you much other than old rust/new rust and maybe that the tsuba were subjected to similar poor storage conditions at some point, or that maybe there's some similarity in the metal composition such that it rusts in a similar way to another tsuba.

Otherwise, I would say it's wishful thinking that you could date a tsuba by the type of rust in the the sukashi. 

 

And even if you could, you should still get that rust off the tsuba otherwise it'll just keep eating away at the iron... you're just destined to have no evidence of construction method at all if you let the rust continue. 

 

As Luca asked above @zanilu, I have yet to see any published work showing how this could be done with any degree of certainty...

I have only ever heard it stated in tsuba lore of old... wave the magic wand and all shall be revealed when you look deep into the eye of the sukashi 

I bet if we did a controlled study showing only images of the insides of sukashi, without showing the rest of the tsuba, we'd get purely random results on attributions for dates. 

[GRC]

7 hours ago, Curran said:

As to that second bit about sukashi tsuba as early as the middle of the Muromachi...

They are rare and crude, but you find them as far back as mid to late Nambokuchu. I have one from Ito-san+NBTHK that is supposedly late Nambokuchu, but I would date it circa Oei 1394-1420.

Oh now you've really peaked my curiosity...

On what grounds do you date your tsuba to a 26 year window that was 600 years ago?

I'd love to know how you can even remotely justify that. I don't think anyone could do that for an older unsigned piece from almost any era in history... short of maybe a subset of tsuba with very particular aesthetics produced in the very late Edo period.

[GRC]

@Curran I started a new thread for discussing the sukashi timeline 

Let's keep this one on the topic sukashi walls  

[Iekatsu]

Glen,

First of all, a great idea for a series of threads, perhaps long overdue. 

I agree with your summary and conclusions, there are way too many variables at play to use the condition of Sukashi walls as any indicator of age. This practice is totally subjective and lacks any credible scientific methodology. It is important to study the walls of Sukashi, Hitsu-ana and Nakago-ana as there may be indications of the construction method and how the object was used, but the amount of rust/grime is for the most part irrelevant. 

[OceanoNox]

8 hours ago, GRC said:

The type of rust doesn't tell you much other than old rust/new rust and maybe that the tsuba were subjected to similar poor storage conditions at some point, or that maybe there's some similarity in the metal composition such that it rusts in a similar way to another tsuba.

Otherwise, I would say it's wishful thinking that you could date a tsuba by the type of rust in the the sukashi. 

I agree with you. Trying to rust reliably my own tsuba, there are a dozen recipes to promote uniform rusting on iron. The ingredients and compositions of the recipes differ significantly, and thus the iron oxide varies too, in aspect, thickness, and colour. Since heat is also involved to accelerate the oxidization, it gets really difficult to investigate.

 

Some time ago, I joked about using carbon 14. Radiocarbon seems to give plausible results for the dating of rust, although it requires sampling of metal (https://www.tms.org/.../0305/Cook-0305.html).

[GRC]

Arnaud, a few years back, I looked into the possibility of carbon dating.

I did some calculations based on the amount of material needed for the technique, and you'd need to use almost an entire tsuba to get an accurate result, not just a small sample from one... so that possibility seems dead in the water.

 

[Curran]

18 hours ago, zanilu said:

@Curran it would be really interesting and instructive if you can elaborate with examples. A small essay would be wonderful, if you forgive my impudent request... 

Luca

 

Yes, that would be nice. I do have some pics.

Waking up too early on a cold day, I thought on it in the morning silence of 4:30am.

Conclusion:   It would be like engaging in one of the political discussions in the Izakaya section.

I don't have Darcy's love for Roman Rhetoric forums poking holes in logic constructs. Those days, and Darcy, are past.

 

I simply disagree with Glen and voiced it. I'll leave it at that.  Constructing a Darcy'esque rebuttal would take far more time than I currently have, and I probably couldn't do it at Darcy's level.

Looking at sukashi openings, especially under magnification, is useful for a lot of reasons- including age dating. No, I don't think it should be a lead indicator. It just should be part of the process.

Do it on several hundred thousand tsuba, like Bob Haynes, and you might respect his opinion or that of Torigoye-san.

    Bye.

[GRC]

@Curran here's a simple rebuttal...no need to invoke Darcy 

If the master of the technique himself, Haynes, can use that method and wrongly misjudge the dating of a tsuba by 200 years, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is an unreliable technique.

 

I'm hoping we all move toward an approach that uses more reliable evidence.

There are too many obvious flaws in using this particular method.

 

You are of course entitled to your own beliefs and I won't judge you for it 

[Shugyosha]

It’s the same with the patina on sword tangs, after a while you get a rough feel, but that doesn’t take account of all the factors outside of age alone that go in to creating the patina. However, I suspect Mr Haynes gets it right more often than we do. 
 

The overriding rebuttal to any argument regarding judging age and origin of swords and fittings is that, to be certain, one would have to be there at the birth. Beyond that there is study and experience (mine are negligible by the way) so the views of those with more of these, Mr Haynes, NBTHK shinsa panels, etc have to be the benchmark. 

We are in the kingdom of the blind and these guys are the partially sighted. You may disagree with what they say and they’re human and/ or very busy and pressured so there may be slip ups but hopefully only in someone else’s item(s). 

 

[Bob M.]

Just playing devil's advocate here -

 

Of the results arising from NBTHK shinsa what percentage could be regarded as wrong ?

Same question but in the views of Western collectors and dealers ?

Are these ( wrong attributions ) grievous enough to change the entire current system ?

How strong would the arguments need to be to overthrow the time and investment by numerous academics and dealers who have a vested interest in retaining the status quo ?

Perhaps an alternative society to give opinions with a more 'western and modernist' slant could be set up ? 

Take the responsibility away from the NBTHK to look at Tosogu as they are clearly not up to the job ?

Is part of the problem that genuine expertise in this field is disappearing at an alarming rate, thereby giving less able 'experts' more of a say than in older days?

Is there a danger of the opinion/attribution being more highly regarded than the piece itself ?  Even more so than today?

 

Interesting thread though, great to see opinions on this.

 

Regards

[Mark S.]

57 minutes ago, Bob M. said:

 

Perhaps an alternative society to give opinions with a more 'western and modernist' slant could be set up ? 

 

Based on the current system(s), I just don’t think an organization like this would be given the opportunity to gain credibility and therefore would not last long.  

[Iaido dude]

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.

 

 

[Spartancrest]

Woops! looks like I devalued my tsuba - what value would the chewing gum in the sukashi have added? Have I missed out on the big bickies? [Large sum]

Anyone got a a stick of Wrigley's? 

 

  The flavour that lasts and lasts! 

[Steve Waszak]

Amen, Steve, Amen!  Great post once again.  Many bullseye points made.  

[Shugyosha]

9 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

Woops! looks like I devalued my tsuba - what value would the chewing gum in the sukashi have added? Have I missed out on the big bickies? [Large sum]

Anyone got a a stick of Wrigley's? 

 

  The flavour that lasts and lasts! 

That’s the wrong flavour: tsuba with Juicyfruit are worth more and those with Hubbabubba are guaranteed TH. 😁