Established ideas that need to change - 3: Pre-Edo period schools & Reliance on NBTHK papers

[GRC]

I started off writing about the "schools issue" but then it was really hard to separate it from the "NBTHK papers" issue since they are the major perpetuators of these school constructs...

So here's a little starter to think about:

 

The MAJORITY of the supposed "schools" of sukashi tsuba makers have NO period documentation to prove their exact timing or duration of production, nor their area of production.

Kanayama, Owari, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, and especially the "ko-shoami" (one of the most laughable attempts to "create a school" I have seen yet).

These were all 20th century CONSTRUCTS that were created on suppositions and inferences starting with Akiyama, and were perpetuated and "refined" by many of the tsuba collectors and authors he influenced, like one of his later students Torigoye.

 

Sasano also adhered to these categorizations and published his works in English, which then set the “doctrine” in stone for most of the English speaking collectors around the world.

Most people would assume that Japan’s NBTHK is the foremost authority on the identification and classification of tsuba, and often defer to their perceived authority as though they have access to secret tomes and manuscripts that they must be referring to in order to make their judgements. Unfortunately this is not the case and they clearly don’t even take the time to look into their own past attributions because they frequently contradict themselves or offer up different assessments for the same tsuba that has been submitted on more than one occasion. They probably take more time to write the paper itself than they do to assess the tsuba in front of them. It’s just a “cash cow” for them… easy money.

 

Unfortunately the NBTHK is predominantly (maybe even exclusively?) populated by people who have adopted these Akiyama-type school names and labels. Keep in mind they are a private organization, who get paid to "certify" that a sword or sword fitting was genuinely produced by a specific maker, or by one of the "schools". So, it is safe to assume that they will inherently act in their own self interest to perpetuate the system they have created.

 

As a result, they have either knowingly or unknowingly  magnified the problem of attributions for unsigned tsuba, because there are a limited number of groups to choose from in the Akiyama framework, so they have frequently “expanded” the original grouping to include a variety of “outlier tsuba” with significantly different characteristics, but somehow similar enough that they thought they could all be "acceptably" grouped together under the same banner. Somewhere along the way, people within this organization decided that was the right way to go… which makes sense, because I could see that if they didn’t do that, people would stop paying money to an organization that frequently gave back papers saying “unknown maker or school of production, but here’s a pretty paper that says so…”  

Unfortunately, there is no visible attempt by this group to do any further study based on detailed comparison. And thanks to the internet, the accumulation of contradictory examples of their attributions is continually building and revealing the serious flaws and contradictions within this paid, for-profit system.

 

Under a better system, these groupings should be split up into separate groups of makers (based on the shared common characteristics in the manner of the tsuba’s production), and each group given its own name or title rather than being lumped together under the same artificial banner for the sake of simplicity and maintaining the established system. Something like Haynes’ systematic numbering of known tsuba smiths who signed their work.

 

For example, I bet we could start parsing out all the examples of “Kanayama” and “den Kanayama” by looking at details such as the tegane (punch marks) around the nakago-ana, the seppa-dai dimensions and proportions, the manner in which the corners and edges of the sukashi are done, the position of “iron bones” along the face of the mimi (rim of the- tsuba) etc…

I'm certain we could even start grouping them by individual smiths within the larger group. 

 

Ideally, a non-invasive technique should be used to identify the percentage composition of the elements found in the steel, so we can more easily group tsuba together by location of their source of sand iron that was used to make the steel (even if we probably couldn’t know where that specific sand iron came from within Japan…). 

 

[GRC]

Beside the fact that these school names didn't even exist before the 1920s, here’s a prime example of how some/most of these pre-Edo school are merely constructs of convenience:

 

**NOTE: Unfortunately I received this info from a long time collector of 30 years, so I don’t have a precise reference or quote to give you at the moment. If anyone can find it, it would be much appreciated. The collector thinks it may have been in some of the publications from the meetings that occurred in the early days with Akiyama and the group of collectors he would meet with. I do not have these documents so I can not verify his statement.

 

Apparently there is a publication that sates that Akiyama saw that the 3^rd generation Yamakichibei (the only one who signed with a location and a sakura flower) was from the Owari area in the early Edo period (mid to late 1600s), so he presumed that all unsigned sukashi tsuba from the Azuchi-Momoyama period 100 years earlier must also be from the Owari area (eg. All the Owari and Kanayama tsuba which had some similar aesthetic sensibilities, as well as all the signed Yamakichibei tsuba). So technically, we don’t even know for certain that the Owari and Kanayama tsuba were even produced in the Owari area… we just all presume this to be true and throw it around like a fact. In addition to that, we can’t say for sure that there was a single “school” that was producing these “Owari sukashi tsuba” or how many smiths were involved, or when their production of these tsuba started and ended.

[DirkO]

5 hours ago, GRC said:

The MAJORITY of the supposed "schools" of sukashi tsuba makers have NO period documentation to prove their exact timing or duration of production, nor their area of production.

Kanayama, Owari, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, and especially the "ko-shoami" (one of the most laughable attempts to "create a school" I have seen yet).

These were all 20th century CONSTRUCTS that were created on suppositions and inferences starting with Akiyama, and were perpetuated and "refined" by many of the tsuba collectors and authors he influenced, like one of his later students Torigoye.

 

Can I first say I like this open discussion idea of yours? You're trying to create a new division of tsuba based on current knowledge. Which is exactly what the people in the past did as well. But obviously they had far less material to go on and were bound by tradition.

Regarding your fixation on Akiyama, I suggest you read Sasano's Japanese Swordguard Masterpieces. He actually goes into the current nomenclature of schools and where they originated from. eg Kyo-sukashi were first mentioned in "Honpo Token Koh" (1795) which references an even older publication "Muromachi-Kaki" - a publication that Sasano doubt ever existed. So he was very diligent and critical about how the naming of schools came to be. This is just one example, the other schools are handled in an equal way. 

In the Toso Tosogu Shogaku Kyoshitsu (NBTHK published - translated by Markus Sesko), Fukushi Shigeo goes even further in dept on the origin of the naming of each school in his typical Q&A fashion. He usually describes what was believed in the past, what's the current view and how they arrived at that and even the uncertainties that still exist and need to be  researched further.

So does the NBTHK scrutinize old view points and challenge them when they find new info -> yes. However their attributions will always be on the safe side, they will never go on a limb and are very conservative. Which frustrates a lot of collectors, yours truly included.

Were the school names decided by Akiyama? -> no, not even close I'm afraid. Maybe a few were, but the majority weren't

Is there room for improvement? -> certainly, but what you're proposing is exactly the same what they did - trying to catagorize tsuba based on common traits, which I think is the only way this can be done.

Does the NBTHK get it wrong at times? -> yes, they're human. You can easily find examples where they got it wrong. This is also one of the reasons there's now a quotum on the number of pieces put in a shinsa, so they can provide better quality. Is this working? I'll leave that one open as bait

 

5 hours ago, GRC said:

 

Apparently there is a publication that sates that Akiyama saw that the 3^rd generation Yamakichibei (the only one who signed with a location and a sakura flower) was from the Owari area in the early Edo period (mid to late 1600s), so he presumed that all unsigned sukashi tsuba from the Azuchi-Momoyama period 100 years earlier must also be from the Owari area (eg. All the Owari and Kanayama tsuba which had some similar aesthetic sensibilities, as well as all the signed Yamakichibei tsuba). So technically, we don’t even know for certain that the Owari and Kanayama tsuba were even produced in the Owari area… we just all presume this to be true and throw it around like a fact. In addition to that, we can’t say for sure that there was a single “school” that was producing these “Owari sukashi tsuba” or how many smiths were involved, or when their production of these tsuba started and ended.

"Apparently" isn't the way to go here - you will need to come up with the name of that publication before it can be considered.
Shigeo (again NBTHK main office) says in his writings about Owari sukashi tsuba
"Let's start with Akiyama and Ogura. We know that some of their theories have been disproven but that does not lessen their contributions"
I think we can also include Haynes in that list. Although his theories don't always hold up any more, his contribution was great and shouldn't be overlooked.
He was a student of Torigoye, who had a repution of being strong on iron tsuba (not so much on kinko tsuba)

Regarding YKB - I suggest you read the "Owari to Mikawa no Tanko" - published 1982 so well after Akiyama and currently considered the most in depth work on the subject. Again, they go deep into the history of why YKB is indeed Owari based. Are there points of discussion in this book as well? Yes, any good thought provoking book will leave some open endings.


 

[Iekatsu]

Humans like to put things in neat little boxes, collectors like to know what they have and covet things that are rare, important and/or have artistic merit. The NBTHK provide a service to help categorise and sort objects, there is a general consensus that they are in the best position to provide this service, there are clear rules and most collectors accept the categories and rankings. It is a game that most people accept and play, many collectors have a vested interest in the system and maintaining favourable attributions and I do not think there will be any significant shifts in the near future.  

That said there is vast gulf of information about Tosogu that is just not known and may never be known without new research and evidence surfacing, particularly for items pre-dating the Edo period. I agree that the categories used are often quite lose, sometimes totally illogical and are not adequately supported by sufficient evidence.

I think the primary issue is that most people take the attributions at face value, without much thought, not realising that many of the categories are nothing more than groupings and educated estimates.

[OceanoNox]

You know, this is one of the areas where AI could be useful. I know a company that has a learning AI that can now identify the types of fracture when fed microscope photos of failed metal pieces. It's also in the vein of big data: scan as much as possible and use scanning models to see trends appear: what texture is preferred, are there specific designs that appear, size, etc. An issue in this is the dating.

 

I did not know about the school names being set later than the production era for sukashi in general, but for tosho and kachushi, Mr. Ogasawara and Mr. Katsuya did write that while attractive, the names meant nothing and there was not one shred of evidence that the tsuba were made indeed by swordsmiths or armourers (although Prof. Michel-Tanaka did tell me that his swordsmith acquaintance was making tsuba essentially in the tosho style; but I have no idea if this is a transmitted thing or if he made it to fit the category).

Edited December 3 by OceanoNox

[1kinko]

Personally I could care less what schools exist, but I’ve wondered for quite a while why the tools of basic biological taxonomy aren’t used. If you want to key out (identify) a plant or animal out there is a way of answering consecutive questions beginning with basic questions and after each question is answered, another choice comes up, one after another until you get the answer.  AI should make this very easy or tell you that it can only go so far or not at all. 

[GRC]

just moving a couple of solid posts from the sukashi walls thread over to this one because they tackle NBTHK and papering issues...

 

8 hours ago, Bob M. said:

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

[GRC]

7 hours ago, Mark S. said:

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.  

6 hours ago, Iaido dude said:

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.

 

 

[Iekatsu]

It is clear that the categories and methods for evaluation need to be overhauled, but this is something that is unlikely to happen without a new organisation being founded, which would then have to build the trust of collectors and dealers. At the end of the day the attributions are only as good as the faith in them.  

[FlorianB]

Besides the attribution: In my younger collector days (decades ago) a Hozon-paper was something special and proofed a certain grade.

But today Tsuba from top to low End got Hozon so it became an inflationary practice and says nothing about quality at least.

 

IMHO these papers will loose more and more significance (as the former Kicho-Papers have). If there will be maybe a revision of the certification system it can only be build up on levels of quality to become reliable again.

 

Florian

[sabiji]

Florian,
but aren't we ourselves to blame? It used to be time-consuming and expensive to submit a tsuba for a hozon, for example.  There was also no internet in the past, and in the early years there were only very few dealers with the corresponding goods and papers.

But we want papers! We expect every dealer, whether in Japan or elsewhere, to offer his tsuba with papers if possible. And the dealers react and are happy to provide everything with Hozon because it sells much better.

The market only reacts to us, the collectors! And now we are complaining about hozon inflation. 

We are responsible for this, not the NBTHK!

The NBTHK has reacted! The mass of submissions was far too great. Now it is limited. It has become more difficult, or at least more time-consuming, to submit ornamental rates or blades.

 

[FlorianB]

Thomas,

 

in some way You are right, it’s the same old story of supply and demand.

 

There was a time, I also thought gaining a papered piece is the top of bliss. But someday I had the opportunity to buy something and asked if it is papered. The seller asked me in return, if I do collect papers? At this point I became grounded and I possess many pieces today without paper. Nice to have them, but it is more important to recognize the quality of a piece itself.

 

Alas, many folks are still blended by papers or even worse demand them to be sure.

 

BTW: The limitations at the shinsa is a result of missing judges, too. I think if they had enough board members, they could manage the flood of submissions as well…

 

Florian

[Jussi Ekholm]

As I stated in the other thread fittings are unfortunately not my thing as I try focus on old blades. However research is my thing and I have done so much digging to NBTHK Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon it is easy to flip some of the info to fittings and koshirae.

 

Just note that NBTHK has all the fittings and koshirae in same paper category, meaning not all of the items 4XXXXX or 40XXXXX are not tsuba but fittings and koshirae in general. I believe the reason for numbering change was that the sword Hozon papers were going to get into 100,000 creating a problem in numbering. The change happened in Heisei 24 (2012). I will show this with actual linked tsuba examples for fittings.

 

Hozon 404848 - item papered in Shōwa 63 (1988)

https://eirakudo.sho.../tsuba/detail/021946

Hozon 464758 - item papered in Heisei 24 (2012)

https://eirakudo.sho.../tsuba/detail/015889

Hozon 4000253 - item papered in Heisei 24 (2012)

https://eirakudo.sho.../tsuba/detail/733167

Hozon 4022661 - item papered in Reiwa 5 (2023)

https://www.aoijapan...bthk-hozon-tosogu-2/

 

Tokubetsu Hozon 200XXX - unfortunately couldn't find one by fast search

- - -

Tokubetsu Hozon 229414 - item papered in Heisei 23 (2011)

https://www.aoijapan...hu-juyu-suruga-saku/

Tokubetsu Hozon 2000882 - item papered in Heisei 25 (2013)

https://eirakudo.shop/901495

Tokubetsu Hozon 2010410 - item papered in Reiwa 5 (2023)

https://www.aoijapan...ubetsu-hozon-tosogu/

 

The conclusion of this above (however note that this includes all the fittings and koshirae [even though I think tsuba is the largest item group sent to shinsa])

At least 86,000 items have passed Hozon shinsa to date

Around 40,000 items have passed Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa to date

 

In overall that is a lot of items. While it is possible there is an error in my count I do believe it is logical as NBTHK has a running numbering for the items, and every item passed has a specific number on the paper. Now the shinsa numbers for Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon are currently limited but before that, you could perhaps make an educated guess in how many items passed a specific shinsa after gathering lots of data, since the numbering is continuous. I feel that might be pretty much useless info and data though...

 

[sabiji]

Florian,

it's no different for me. I understand what you mean.

It's true that there is a lack of reviewers to cope with the volume of submissions. But I'm afraid the problem is likely to get worse. Because the experienced people whose “wisdom” is basically being questioned here are becoming fewer and fewer.

What new society, which has already been called for here, is supposed to improve this? With which experts?

But I admit that I simply don't have the insider knowledge. Maybe I'm too pessimistic. I hope so...

[Iaido dude]

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? 

[GRC]

Here's the KANAYAMA QUOTE from Sasano's Silver book on Sukashi tsuba (thanks to some digging by Bruce Kirkpatrick ):

1st in Japanese:

金山

 

雪期にほに、山いわれるものがある。

 

明治・大正剛「小、耳、 手、意味不明のを直かし、耳に鉄骨のでたもの」あわれ

 

京・正岡・尾張は江戸期の足には全く見当らない が、金山は次の記造がある。

 

保三年(1718)の「彫物日利彩

 

もーれもおし」とある。

 

享保(1716-1736)の松宮市の整図」に は、「かな山手をのば風ありですかしほくんちょうば かちなもありおきなり」とある。

 

天保十年(183)の田中一質の「金上郷寄限」には、 「金山透舞 金山・山城国地名ナルカナルカ不知トム 兎角メリタルラトス 大武用ハカルペン 正 ノ頃世治後ノ作カ 鋪味数百年も及ブロク見 町人好ンデ用」とある。

 

松宮観山のずかしほそくたもよう筋ばかり･･････ と、田中一質の「大西武用・悪カルペン」とは、1111 の松皮菱、116回の松葉透のように、金山には、思い切っ て地を透かしたものが多いことであろう。

 

そして、田中一質の「･･･メリタル･･･」は、「減りたる」で、強く 脱なしをかけ、鉄骨のでた状態を指すのであろう。

 

しかし、これを「締りたる」と読んで、小ぶりを解釈する向きも ある。

 

金山で特徴的なことは、耳や平にでる鉄骨であり、米粒の 頭をならべたような粒状のもの、粒状より大きい塊状といえるも のがある、粒状の地鉄は、澄んだ装錆で精良である。塊状 の地鉄はやや質的に粗であるが、深い愛錆で、手強い。勿 論、中間的なものもある。

 

そして、明快・直観・抽象的なものを透かし、格調が高く、 透明感がある。

 

金山には京風のところはなく、山城の国で作られたとほり えられない、尾張の熱田や大野の金山、美濃の金山など、議 説あるが、いずれとも決し難い。

 

しかし、金山正山版吉兵衛の初・二代の鉄骨のでかたが 全く似ているところから、両者は関係が深く、金山は尾張地方 で作られたと考えられる。

 

金山の時代の上限は応永年間、下限は廃刀令のでた 明治四年(1871)。この間四百五十年である。

[GRC]

Here's the KANAYAMA QUOTE from Sasano's Silver book on Sukashi tsuba:

now translated into english:

 

 

[GRC]

Points of note:

"THERE ARE NO MENTIONS OF KYOTO (what we would call Kyo-sukashi or Heianjo sukashi, I assume), SHOAMI, OR OWARI IN ANY EDO PERIOD DOCUMENTS"

 

and there are varying contradictory accounts of what a "KANAYAMA" might be...

"The Toban Zufu... ~(1716-1736) states "there is a place called Kana Yamate, where the watermark is immediately and greatly expanded, and it is a place of divination"

I presume this could/should be read as: "sukashi tsuba suddenly appeared and proliferated in a sacred area called Kana Yamate".

 

"in Kinjo Sokuyose" by Tanaka Kazushige (1839), "the NAMES AND PLACES "Kanayama" and "Yamada" are UNKNOWN".

from Sasano himself: "However, since the construction of the steel frames and the first and second generations of Yamasaka Kichibei is quite similar, IT IS BELIEVED that the two are related and that KANAYAMA WAS BUILT IN THE OWARI REGION". 

well dayum... that's pretty damn close to the original statement that I posted as second hand information from a discussion (great memory BK!!! ).

So we actually have NO IDEA WHERE these were produced, we're just working off of assumptions... and solely because Kanayama and Yamakichibei seem to have similar "iron bones" along their edges... AND that's only going off the assumption that the first and second gen of Yamakichibei were made in Owari to begin with (no offical record of this exists... just some other assumptions and quotes like "it is said that...blah blah blah")

I mean WTF? Really? THIS IS WHAT OUR SUKAHSI TSUBA "SCHOOLS" SYSTEM IS BASED OFF OF???? 

 

We simply HAVE TO DO BETTER THAN THIS, or at the very least acknowledge how flawed it is and start constructing a better framework.

Clearly the names themselves are pretty much meaningless and arbitrary.

 

Unfortunately institutions like the NBTHK are still following these narrow sets of school names (all tracing back one way or another to the influence of Akiyama in the early 1900s through his regular meetings of his sword study group) and have been continually ramming in other unknown, unsigned, undocumented tsuba styles into these already existing constructs because they simply don't know what else to call them.

 

They even go along with all the "Ko" b.s. like "ko-shoami" and "ko-umetada" (meaning older than / predecessors)... the tsuba certainly exist, but attaching them to other existing school names is just ridiculousness piled on top of ridiculousness. 

 

By the way, the first time we actual signed SHOAMI tsuba is in the mid to late 1600s (early Edo period) and they look NOTHING like any of the so called "ko-shoami" group of tsuba. TEHRE IS  ABOSLUTELY NO RECORD OF ANY SHOAMI PERSON MAKING TSUBA BEFORE THAT!!! The only record of a pre-Edo "Sho-Ami" (spelled using different kanji)  was only documented as being a "silversmith" for the Ashikaga. Just the one record, that's it, and that's all... and NO MENTION OF ANY TSUBA PRODUCTION WHATSOEVER.

Pure fantasy...

So there are plenty of really nice "ko-shoami" tsuba out there, but the name is complete garbage and has nothing to do with any kind of lineage.

In my opinion, these should be grouped and categorized and given new names based on their "type"... or something along those lines. 

[GRC]

Here's the Owari section from Sasano's silver book:

[GRC]

So it WAS AKIYAMA who ASSUMED that "Owari" tsuba were made there because of the location inscribed in the signature of the third "Sakura" Yamakichibei, who WAS KNOWN TO BE WORKING DURING THE EARLY EDO PERIOD!!!! So he just assumed that the pre-Edo sukashi tsuba were also made there.

 

So again, everything we THINK WE "KNOW" about these pre-Edo period sukashi tsuba schools are just BUILT ON ASSUMPTIONS, and then ASSUMPTIONS BUILT OFF OF THE PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS.... it's all just early 20th Century theorizing that has never been verified by any period documents of any kind... or verifiable EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND for that matter...

 

 

[Steve Waszak]

4 hours ago, GRC said:

"in Kinjo Sokuyose" by Tanaka Kazushige (1839), "the NAMES AND PLACES "Kanayama" and "Yamada" are UNKNOWN".

from Sasano himself: "However, since the construction of the steel frames and the first and second generations of Yamasaka Kichibei is quite similar, IT IS BELIEVED that the two are related and that KANAYAMA WAS BUILT IN THE OWARI REGION". 

well dayum... that's pretty damn close to the original statement that I posted as second hand information from a discussion (great memory BK!!! ).

So we actually have NO IDEA WHERE these were produced, we're just working off of assumptions... and solely because Kanayama and Yamakichibei seem to have similar "iron bones" along their edges... AND that's only going off the assumption that the first and second gen of Yamakichibei were made in Owari to begin with (no offical record of this exists... just some other assumptions and quotes like "it is said that...blah blah blah")

 

Hey Glen 

 

Okay, while I generally am in very close agreement with your sentiments in these threads, as you know, I do need to draw attention to the quoted selection above, for two reasons.  

 

First, there are period documents from the late-Momoyama that record the move of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei, specifically, from Kiyosu to Nagoya in the course of the Kiyosu-goshi -- the transfer of the political seat of Owari province from Kiyosu to Nagoya between 1610 and 1613 (See page 70 of Markus Sesko's translation of Okamoto Yasukazu's Owari To Mikawa no Tanko).  These are labeled as "transmissions handed down over time" (not sure by whom and to whom), and which now reside in the Tokugawa Museum in Nagoya (where it is rather unlikely they would be if they were much later documents, say, late-19th-century or later).  Moreover, it is known that the O-Shodai Yamakichibei's full name was Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori, and, importantly, the kanji of "Shigenori" are known ("Shigenori" can be written using various kanji).  For the specific kanji of his name to be known -- when he never signed with "Shigenori" on any of his known tsuba, it would seem necessary that there were documents with his name recorded, and it would seem likely that these would be documents contemporary to his life.  Further, Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori was also known as Shizuyama Yoshii, again, with the kanji known.  How would this additional name -- which likewise has never appeared as a mei on his sword guards -- and the kanji used to write it, be known if there were not period documents to record it, especially since this was never a name he used to sign his work?  Additionally, he is known to have been active in Genki (1570-1573) -- a relatively brief and obscure period to note his active years (in part) if someone were just conjuring a fiction about him well after the fact -- and to have lived in Kiyosu near Oda Nobunaga's Kiyosu castle.  He was known there early on as an armor maker, working for the Oda.  I think it is good to remember that we may not (or certainly do not) have access to all of the records that may exist or have existed about these early smiths (who knows how many have been lost to fires, floods, etc...?).  Sometimes, the mention of these smiths may have occurred in an otherwise pedestrian document, as in the case of the recording of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei moving from Kiyosu to Nagoya (it's possible that they were only two of a number of artisans whose move was recorded for census, or some such prosaic reason).   I have looked for, but cannot find in my library at the moment, a publication that mentions it having been recorded that Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori was sent out into the field by Oda Nobunaga to repair armor.  I cannot speak to the veracity of this account, of course, but I have seen several such documents that record quite ordinary orders of various Daimyo, high-ranking bushi, etc regarding very unremarkable tasks.  Perhaps this document exists somewhere, but it has never been translated into English or published in many or any books because it does not directly involve "tsuba knowledge."   In any event, I have little doubt (actually, no doubt, really) that the early Yamakichibei smiths were certainly Kiyosu men, and then, in the case of the Meijin-Shodai and Nidai, later moved on to Nagoya.  In other words, definitely Owari.  

 

The second reason I wanted to call attention to the quote above concerns certain logical likelihoods which, in the absence of certainties and objective proof, stand in as "the best available thinking" on a question or issue.  Here, I am speaking of the place and time origins of Kanayama guards.  You quote Sasano in his thoughts regarding the similarity in construction between Yamakichibei tsuba and those now called Kanayama, and his drawing the conclusion that it would then seem likely that Kanayama tsuba would also have been made in Owari.  Two things need to be emphasized here:  1.  The similarity in construction between Yamakichibei sword guards and Kanayama sword guards is not merely high, it is so close that no other tsuba-making tradition comes anywhere near these two in terms of the highly specific shared aesthetic sensibilities they express and the peculiar and shared combination of construction methods they employ.   2.   While Kanayama tsuba closely resemble Yamakichibei tsuba and vice-versa, nothing else comes remotely close to either one, even so-called Owari sukashi tsuba, Nobuiye tsuba, or Hoan tsuba.   No other tsuba made anywhere else in Japan before, during, or after the Momoyama Period looks remotely like a Yamakichibei work, except a Kanayama work, and vice-versa, in terms of specific Tea Culture aesthetics and then also of construction.  It is those two groups...and that's it.  So, when Sasano posits that Kanayama guards -- in resembling the construction methods (and aesthetics) of Yamakichibei guards -- were therefore likely also made in Owari, it is a damn good guess, especially in the absence of any other viable. evidence-based theory.  I mean, where else would they have been made?  Kyoto?  Well, mayyybe.  But if so, they would have really stood out for their "crudeness" in a capital city known for its pride in the elegance and grace of its ways and wares.  Do Kanayama guards look like Kyoto's Umetada guards?  Or Kaneie guards?  Or Shoami guards?  Do they look "Kyoto" at all?  And if not Owari or Kyoto, where?  

 

So, while I absolutely take your point that there is a huge Emperor's New Clothes situation in the world of tsuba scholarship and nomenclature, I think there is some room for a bit of middle ground between knowing 100% that something is the case, on the one hand, and then saying that we know nothing at all, on the other (*We can save epistemological discussions on the nature of knowledge for another time... ).  Circumstantial evidence is admissible in Court (in many cases) for a reason.  There are, of course, varying degrees of circumstantial evidence, but if one employs sound inductive analytical methods and then qualifies one's conclusions and statements appropriately after the analysis, there is, as I say, some room for this I think, especially given how likely it is that we really can never know for sure many things about pre-Edo tosogu.  

 

I recognize that the primary driving force behind your opening this thread is that the above methods are not used and have not been used historically in tsuba scholarship,  as your posts have so well pointed out, and that this has led to all kinds of fictions in what passes for knowledge on the subject.  The motives behind this are due variously to laziness, to deference (iemoto-ism), and then at timesperhaps to more unsettling (unscrupulous) reasons.  In any event, I think it is quite clear that the significant majority of what we read about "schools" and labeling, particularly of anything pre-Edo, is untenable.  And while we may not actively be able to really do much about the "traditions" in place, simply knowing how thin are the foundations on which they're built can aid many of us in our efforts to attempt to pierce through the flimsiness. 

 

 

 

[sabiji]

7 hours ago, GRC said:

 

 

By the way, the first time we actual signed SHOAMI tsuba is in the mid to late 1600s (early Edo period) and they look NOTHING like any of the so called "ko-shoami" group of tsuba. TEHRE IS  ABOSLUTELY NO RECORD OF ANY SHOAMI PERSON MAKING TSUBA BEFORE THAT!!! The only record of a pre-Edo "Sho-Ami" (spelled using different kanji)  was only documented as being a "silversmith" for the Ashikaga. Just the one record, that's it, and that's all... and NO MENTION OF ANY TSUBA PRODUCTION WHATSOEVER.

Pure fantasy...

So there are plenty of really nice "ko-shoami" tsuba out there, but the name is complete garbage and has nothing to do with any kind of lineage.

In my opinion, these should be grouped and categorized and given new names based on their "type"... or something along those lines. 

There are mentions of the name Sho A from the years 1489, 1540 and 1571.

 

From the mention in 1540 and 1571, the job title Gin-Saiku emerges. The 1540 mention also states that the Sho A have been in the service of the Ashikaga for generations.

 

This is consistent with the fact that artistic advisors and curators (doboshu) with their origins in the Jishu sect of Jodo Buddhism traditionally use the syllable Ami or just a.

 

Gin Saiku, i.e. silversmith, leaves the range of activities of the early Shoami completely open. It can concern everything from decorations on building elements, religious-cult objects, jewelry, but also sword mounts.

 

I personally believe that there were very few workshops specializing exclusively in sword ornamentation at that time. I can imagine that it was economically better to have a wide range of production. But this flexibility automatically extended to manufacturing techniques and technologies. Which is also an advantage.

 

It is also completely open whether people such as the gin-saiku Sho a Uemonsaburo mentioned in 1540, in his function as doboshu, instructed craftsmen in design or commissioned “collections” of different objects accordingly.

This is why there is no typical shoami style for tsuba, as they are not limited to ji-sukashi.

 

As a doboshu, it makes sense to have its location at least near the Ashikaga and the Hana no Gosho.

 

Yes, the first shoami master to sign was Masanori. In a dated work from 1645, he describes himself as a pupil of Umetada Shigeyoshi and a resident of Nishijin. It is also said of Horikawa Kunihiro that the workshop of his master Umetada Myoju was located about 2 kilometers north of the sword forging district of Kaji-Cho on Horikawa. And so we end up back in the middle of Nishijin near Toyotomi Hideyoshi's Jurakudai castle.

 

If we take the late 1580s as a benchmark, Nishijin was the creative quarter for a clientele of rich and powerful people who resided nearby. Everything from the “fashion industry”, Kano artists, Raku masters, tea masters, to the Goto, the Umetada and obviously also the Shoami could be found here.

 

This concentration and proximity of many artists from different visual arts also explains the stylistic proximity of their works and their influence on each other.

 

However, the Momoyama period under Toyotomi Hideyoshi was also a time when class barriers were cemented.

The shoami were not aristocrats like the goto. Accordingly, there are few records. 

They must also have inevitably lost their patrons (the Ashikaga) and thus their doboshu function with the dissolution of the shogunate, and one can only assume that the shoami thus underwent a major social change.
Since the Umetada were in Hideyoshi's favor, hierarchies will also have adapted to the changed political situation.

And despite all this, the Shoami managed to form regional workshops in almost all of Japan from the early Edo period onwards and had a great influence on other schools, more than any other “tradition”. 

 

 Yes, I know what's coming: it's all just guesswork and fantasy! But in my opinion, the Shoami certainly have a long history. How the whole thing actually happened back then, just because there are hardly any or no records today, is really not the fault of the poor Shoami.

 

[Iekatsu]

It is hard to beat Kagami-shi for worst category grouping. Looks a bit like cast mirror .... the end.

[SteveM]

I would also caution against drawing hard conclusions based on machine translations of the texts above. 

Japanese language contains a lot of subtleties and ambiguities which can go missing, or can get translated into non-negotiable English terms, when translated by google or AI. Plus, the translations often stumble over kanji, which themselves contain information that may get lost in translation. 

[Steve Waszak]

Thomas S (Sabiji) and Steve M,

 

Really good posts.  Very interesting and important points you both make.  Thanks.  

[GRC]

Just as a reminder, the primary goal of this thread (for me anyway) is to reveal the "foundations" upon which our current "knowledge" is built, so that we can shift away from touting suppositions as being facts.... i.e. shift away from "it is known..." "these are...", "these were produced from this time period..." and get back to using statements that are more truthful like "some tsuba scholars have theroizeded that...", "it is most likely that these are..." "It has been theorized that these may have been produced as early as..." ."..AND HERE"S WHY" would also be really nice to see 

 

In many/most cases when we discuss pre-Edo tsuba, the word "we know" should most often be replaced by "we think" or in the case where there's a collection of corroborating secondary evidence: "this is the most likely conclusion...".

And I hope for us all to then work toward the goal of improving "what we actually know".

Call it an attempt, and an appeal to us all,  to "hit the reset button".  

[GRC]

I would also like to point out a few things in @Steve Waszak's post that were not addressed and are quite significant (in my opinion).

 

Here's the actual opening passage from Sesko's translation:

"The first generation was called Yamasaka Kichibei Shigenori and it is said that he was an armour smith working for Oda Nobunaga. He lived in Kiyosu , the town around Nobunaga' Kiyosu castle. He was one of the first craftsman of Owari province who signed his tsuba and it is transmitted that he was active around the Genki era (1570-1573)".

 

re: the name "Shigenori"

It may or may not be true, but needs verification.

The fact that the kanji for the name Shigenori exist doesn't add any weight to its factuality as a statement? Any Japanese speaking person would have been able to pick a theoretical name to tack onto the name to lend it an air of legitimacy. Just playing devil's advocate here. There have been examples of "questionable" sudden appearances of genealogies before (eg. the nearly endless list of generations cited for the Myochin lineage... I have also heard discussion of some serious doubts about the sudden discovery of records about the Akasaka lineage by someone who was apparently a known fraudster, yet the use of the information in the those documents was somehow deemed as valid and was accepted as fact). So there seems to be an established penchant for "lineage construction" by tsuba enthusiasts from the late Edo period onward.

 

re: the words "it is transmitted"

22 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

These are labeled as "transmissions handed down over time" (not sure by whom and to whom), and which now reside in the Tokugawa Museum in Nagoya (where it is rather unlikely they would be if they were much later documents, say, late-19th-century or later).

Firstly, where are you getting this idea that the documents are currently residing in the Tokugawa museum? There is no mention of that in Owari to Mikawa that I can see? 

 

Secondly, saying "these are transmissions handed down" is misleading. The printed statement ONLY refers to mention of the Genki period, not to the prior statements in the passage.

 

Thirdly, "not sure by whom and to whom" matters... What is the unknown source of this information? No reference is cited, so why should any of us be so quick to accept these statements as fact? So if any of us were to belong to a tsuba study group formed of several members of collectors and enthusiasts, could we then publish a statement like this and claim that it is a fact?

 

re: known as an armor maker for Oda   

23 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

He was known there early on as an armor maker, working for the Oda.

The quote is "it is said that he was an armour smith working for Oda Nobunaga"

So far, this is "hearsay" at best, and would be inadmissible in a court of law.

Regardless of its plausibility, this is NOT a fact as it has been presented in Owari to Mikawa. it's just a theory...

and another interesting aspect to this passage is that the machine translation of the original Japanese text says "Oda clan", not "Oda Nobunaga" himself...

 

re: mentioning the Genki period

22 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

Additionally, he is known to have been active in Genki (1570-1573)

So the very first mention of this date, in one book printed in 1983, with no cited source of that statement, suddenly becomes a "known" fact and statement of truth???

I think we should have more stringent requirements for accepting statements like this as factual. In its current state it's "hearsay" at best.

It may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first...

 

And just food for thought (playing devil's advocate again): Why wouldn't someone pick that time period? (the three years leading up to the battle where Oda Nobunaga defeated the Ashikaga)... first, the more obscure the better (less verifiable), and secondly, it puts him knee deep in production when Nobunaga was gearing up for war... making this smith a "significant player" in that build up, adding to his perceived importance... just "pomp and circumstance" with a touch of "romanticizing" perhaps? 

 

 

22 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

as in the case of the recording of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei moving from Kiyosu to Nagoya

Steve, could you share the source of this this document? ...and do we have access to this document? ... or is it one person's written commentary about its existence?

Just curious, because this would be a very significant piece of evidence in the YKB story.

 

 

Now, I have to say, YKB was never one of my intended targets when i started this thread, but the Sasano quotes regarding Owari and Kanayama tsuba, drew heavily from Yamakichibei references, so the YKB kind of got caught up in the crossfire so to speak. 

I should also point out, that I also think it is extraordinarily likely (pretty damn close to 100%) that the YKB were producing their tsuba in the Owari region.

[GRC]

Re: Kanayama's area of production

23 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

The second reason I wanted to call attention to the quote above concerns certain logical likelihoods which, in the absence of certainties and objective proof, stand in as "the best available thinking" on a question or issue. 

 

I totally agree... "highest probability" is always my aim... always has been and always will be.

Using the scientific method is at the core of my being. 

 

Based on all the similarities (both in iron bone production method and some of the aesthetic sensibilities) between the Kanayama tsuba and the Yamakichibei tsuba, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume they would have been produced in close proximity, perhaps both in time and location.

 

However, does "similar method of production" = "same location of production"? 

Those two concepts cannot be automatically connected or outright assumed.

Is it highly probable? Sure.

 

Ultimately, I was merely pointing out that we have absolute NO HARD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND to support anything about the Kanayama tsuba.

 

For example, I would love to know all kinds of things about them...

when they were first produced?

how long they were produced for (as the thick ji-sukashi types with lots of iron bones on the rim)?

what connection do they have with the Yamakichibei? How was this shared technique established and under who's direction?

who were these smiths retained by? i.e. who did they work for?

 

We can theorize all we want, and may even end up being correct about many of these theories, but we might never be able to "know for certain".

 

But under these circumstances we must acknowledge the statements we make about them are just theories for now.

That's all I was trying to say. 

[GRC]

I hope to tackle some of the Shoami stuff soon... gotta wait for my next "window of time" to dig up the sources and quotes that I have floating in my memory. 

These were passages that I read that, in my mind, completely destroyed the notion of pre-Edo "Shoami-ness" or "ko-shoami ness" in specific connection to ji-sukashi iron tsuba. 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Glen,

 

Many excellent thoughts and points in your posts above.  Really appreciate your taking the time to detail these so well.  

 

I wanted to offer a few thoughts on all of this myself, some of which are more generally pertinent to this thread broadly, and a few of which are more specific to certain points.  

 

First, many of our concerns are really impacted by epistemological questions which are philosophically not only difficult, but whose answers are largely if not entirely  subjective, and (therefore) indeterminate.  So there is that.  How do we know what we (think we) know?  On what basis?  I don't want to digress before I really get started, though... So, I'll just say that, with regard to tosogu studies, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to know very much with 100% certainty.  This would be true even without all of the fabrications, distortions, obfuscations, deflections, and other knowledge-defeating practices we run into in our efforts at scholarship in this field.  I think it is reasonably safe to say that, pre-Meiji, there is very little in the way of fully-reliable knowledge on tsubako and/or tsuba-making groups.  And once we get further back into history -- say, early-Edo and before -- the amount of knowledge we can be certain of the veracity of becomes scant indeed.  This is due to many factors, of course, one of which is that artisans often did not merit inclusion in official accounts, records, etc... by anyone outside of the families themselves.  Even when artisans were included in official records, it may well have been for reasons unrelated to their workmanship, production, and so on, and instead for more ordinary reasons such a census-taking, tax-collection, the recording of marriages, births, deaths, and the like.  So, we should expect to be frustrated in our efforts to turn up documentation of early smiths that we can receive as 100% reliable and thus capable of proving a specific point of knowledge about them.  On top of this, though, Japan is a land of many natural calamities ranging from earthquake and fires to typhoons and floods.  Buildings in early Edo and prior times were not constructed to withstand such forces, and were often lost, only to have to be rebuilt.  How many records and documents have been lost to such events?  Who can know?  So, we can and, I think, must temper our expectations regarding the turning up of early records accordingly.  

 

How then to proceed?  Do we adhere to a relatively rigid standard of epistemological confidence (i.e. something must be objectively factual) before we can accept the information in question?  Or, would a "sliding scale" of probability be sufficient?  For me, personally, I have comfortably settled on this latter.  The specific degree of probability is then subject to constant adjustment as new information, new considerations, and new insights come into play.  If one's epistemological position is that, if something cannot be known 100% factually, then we cannot really say we know anything at all about it, I think it will be difficult to get very far in this field, owing to the relative paucity of objectively factual information we really have (and are likely to ever have) about early tosogu and their makers.  So, if the essentially necessary alternative is to embrace that sliding scale of probability, progress can be made, I believe.  

 

Next, we have to be very careful not to allow our own awareness and recognition of the dubiousness of many source materials and knowledge processes (i.e Shinsa and the resulting papers) to have us flinging the babies out with all of their bathwater.  There is a tendency in some circles to reject ALL claims regarding certain tsubako, tsuba-making groups, working periods, working locations, production methods, etc, etc, etc.... simply because it has been shown that SOME "information" about these things is faulty, incomplete, distorted, or otherwise problematic.  To reject all recorded genealogies simply because we know that that of the Myochin is unreliable and likely to be largely fiction is itself untenable.  And while iemotoism (i.e. "Sensei-ism") is certainly generally problematic as a dependable source or conduit of knowledge, this does not mean, of course, that this sort of source is always wrong.  Just because some NBTHK Shinsa results/papers are demonstrably incorrect does not mean that ALL Shinsa and ALL papers are useless and should be rejected out of hand.  We should have a healthy (but NOT contrarian) skepticism, but must also be open to knowledge that may come from such sources, I think.

 

This leads me to another observation, one related to the above-mentioned notion of a sliding scale of probability:  when we phrase things in certain ways, such phrasing can carry certain connotations, whether intended or unintended.  For example, above, Glen, in reference to the section of my earlier post on the possible significance of Yamasaka Kichibei living and working in Owari during Genki, as well as about the name Shigenori being part of Yamasaka Kichibei's full name, you say that "It may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first..."  Such phrasing connotes more doubt about the likelihood of the idea in question than is perhaps warranted, especially with the added words, "...but needs to be verified first...," suggesting that, without that verification, this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely.  Perhaps you did not mean for such a conclusion to be drawn from those words, but I think, again due to connotative effects, many might take it that way.  In this particular example, given the difficulties of verification due to the factors touched on above, it would essentially reinforce the take-away that the claim that this smith worked in that place at that time is wholly empty and should be taken as a fiction.  I think this approach is a mistake, though.  That is, it seems that an underlying assumption here is that, absent verifiable material, the default should be to reject, deny, or dismiss such a claim, rather than to default to the claim as being likely true, and then seeking out evidence -- probably circumstantial evidence in particular -- to sustain or weaken that likelihood, not in a deductive way (which is dangerous, of course), but in an inductive manner.  This way of proceeding does require some willingness to accept that, just because some sources (Japanese or otherwise) are dubious, it does not mean that all are, or that even most are.  Such an approach is, I think, more closely aligned with probable reality than the more extreme reverse (i.e. none of it is true or real unless 100% objective verification is achieved).  This brings me back to that sliding scale of probability, then:  Saying that it is probable that Yamasaka Kichibei lived and worked in Owari in the Genki Period is preferable (to me) to saying that "it may or may not be true, but needs to be verified first."  It is preferable because I think it unlikely that a fiction about this smith that is that specific to time and place would have been conjured.  Is it impossible that it is a lie?  No, it is not impossible.  But is it LIKELY to be a lie?  No, it is not, since there is ZERO evidence that it is untrue.  Again, why default to such a conclusion, whether implied or not?  And the more circumstantial evidence about this smith that we acquire (and, as an aside, there is A LOT that I have not brought into these discussions, as they are kind of off-topic), the more we can plug into that probability scale.  

 

Using the point concerning Yamasaka Kichibei's full name to continue, you mention that "Any Japanese speaking person would have been able to pick a theoretical name to tack on to the name to lend it an air of legitimate..."  Perhaps this is so.  But think about it:  is the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" not already sufficient to effect legitimacy?  Does this name require an addition to achieve that?  Why should it?  What evidence is there that the name "Yamasaka Kichibei" would be in some way inadequate in its legitimacy?   Isn't it (far) more likely that this really was his name, and that, for us to know this now, some record of his full name must exist or have existed until recently?  Moreover, (trivia time) did you know that there are at least 17 ways of writing the name "Shigenori"?  Of course, this fact doesn't prove that this name couldn't have been conjured well after the fact for some pernicious purpose, such as making (an already illustrious) name (more) illustrious, but is this LIKELY?  If so, what is the likelihood?  99%?  95%? 60%?  0.1%?  Again, based on what evidence?  Or assumption?  And I'll stay with my statement that the fact that the name is recorded with specific kanji (this point regarding specific kanji used in names matters a lot to the Japanese) suggests strongly (albeit doesn't prove) that a record of this full name exists somewhere, perhaps in some obscure and relatively pedestrian locale.  

 

Finally, you asked Glen, about the references to the handed-down transmissions currently residing in Nagoya's Tokugawa Museum, and which pertain to the move of the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei from Kiyosu to Nagoya between 1610 and 1613 (Note:  Nagoya effectively absorbed Kiyosu over time, such that Kiyosu is effectively "in" Nagoya now.  This is, perhaps, not insignificant, as the Japanese are very fond of retaining local history in the form of documents, letters, and the like in regional museums, repositories, libraries, etc).  To address your questions on this, I will quote part of Markus Sesko's translation of Okamoto's Owari To Mikawa no Tanko, page 70, regaring the Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei.  Okamoto states as follows:

 

"The late Mr. Yamada Shogoro from Nagoya said that it is commonly accepted that the counting with the Shodai starts with the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya in the course of the so-called 'Kiyosu-goshi,' running parallel with the building of Nagoya Castle from Keicho 15 [1610] onwards.  This assumption by Yamada is supported by the handed-down transmissions regarding the Shodai and the Nidai, now in the Tokugawa Museum, although it has to be mentioned that these transmissions do not contain any information on a Yamasaka-mei."  

 

Again, what is the probability that Okamoto is lying about or otherwise outright fabricating the existence of these transmissions?  I would say that it is more reasonable to accept and far more probable that these transmissions do exist and that they likely do reside in the Tokugawa Museum.  To decide otherwise would be based on what, exactly?  Where would that determination fall on the sliding scale of probability?  

 

Oh, and a quick note on that last part of Okamoto's quote:  Since the transmissions in question very likely would have been created during or shortly after the Kiyosu-goshi between 1610 and 1613, we should not necessarily expect any mention of Yamasaka Kichibei IF his working period actually was some thirty or forty years earlier during Genki, especially if he'd already passed away by the Kiyosu-goshi, and even more IF the transmissions in question involved something such as a census (of artisans) who'd made the move from Kiyosu to Nagoya.  In fact, the very fact of his name being omitted in these transmissions implies to a degree that he lived some time before the (Meijin-) Shodai and Nidai, though of course such an understanding cannot be taken as fact.  

 

Anyway, let me just finish up by stating again that I'm really liking these threads you've begun, Glen, and couldn't agree more that they are LONG overdue, and absolutely  need to get TRACTION.  I agree with the VAST majority of your approach, methods, and conclusions, as I think you know, so any reservations I may be expressing in this or my previous post are truly to be taken as the rare exception.  I also certainly don't mean to come off as acerbic or otherwise confrontational in tone, if in fact it seems that way.  Sometimes, trying to be emphatic about a point can come across as aggressive and adversarial, which is certainly NOT intended.  It's one of those things where, if we were having this conversation in a study group somewhere, all would be said with smiles and winks.