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

[FlorianB]

I appreciate the enthusiasm in this topic.

However, what we read here are laments about and proofs for the erroneous classification system.

BTW criticism which isn’t new at all and popped up from time to time.

 

The topic is labelled „ideas that need to change“, but with all respect we read nothing about attempts or even any suggestions for a revision of the classification.

Instead the discussion gets lost in details, which better should be discussed separatly.
 

It’ s easy to tear down the walls but there must arise something new, a heap of ruins will satisfy no one.
If in the past attempts have been made (and I do believe so) to establish a new system these efforts apparently failed.

And as long as no alternatives will exist I’m afraid we will stick to the old classification furthermore: „We know it’s not good, but it’s the only one we have!“

 

Florian

[OceanoNox]

I don't know if this would work, but for starters, an evaluation of several dimensions for all extant tsuba would be a start. When I used the measurements from books and online collections, several times, only thickness or diameter were indicated.

 

Proposed measurements:

 

➀ Easy and non-destructive:

Thickness at the rim, thickness of seppadai, height/width of the tsuba, height and base width of the nakago ana, weight, shape of mimi.

→ This can be done readily by everyone, hopefully without scratching anything.

 

➁ Not so easy, but non-destructive (hopefully):

Design trends (motifs, overal area cut out): possible use of AI for image analysis and treatment, Neutron diffraction (chemical analysis of iron, evaluation of forging), X-ray (chemical analysis of patina).

→ AI network for image analysis is being done currently. However, I have no idea how one would implement the analysis of designs. The measurement of total tsuba area and sukashi area seems straightforward, provided clear contrasting photos are used. I have personally done measurements of areas covered by specific features over total observed area, and it can show nice trends, but it is very very time consuming.

→ Neutron diffraction and X-ray analysis (XRF) were done by Barzagli and Kawami respectively. The XRF one is relatively easy because the tool can be rented (it's like a big hair dryer that one points at the item), but neutron diffraction is very difficult simply because one needs access to one of the few research centers that have it, and it means getting the tsuba there (as far as I understood, it's possible here in Japan to get neutron diffraction done for relatively cheap if the results are published in an open access journal. However, there is always the issue of handling at the facility and taking out the item from wherever they are stored/displayed).

 

③ Destructive:

Hardness (micro Vickers is considered non destructive in the industry, but for antiques...).

→ Quite easy, although to get reliable data, a minimum of polish is typically required. Mr. Nakamura has shown such data in 1963 for several dozen iron tsuba, showing some scatter in hardness (hinting at either some forging or the combination of various irons and steels).

 

 

A specific workshop or artist is unlikely to limit themselves to specific dimensions and materials. But if there are specific traits for various schools (presence of tekkotsu, prevalence of specific designs), the establishment of this kind of database could help narrow down possible origins of tsuba.

With previous comments on papers being more liberally given in recent years, I do wonder whether the financial incentive to "mistakenly" attribute tsuba to famous craftsmen can be overcome. Certainly, it is possible that with this kind of inflation of paperwork, less stock will be put into those certificates, and a new system might be adopted.

[GRC]

12 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

suggesting that, without that verification, this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely. 

Steve, you have clearly erroneously interpreted my statement.

How does "it may or may not be true, but require verification" become "this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely"?

It couldn't be further from the actual words that I wrote.

Let me paraphrase what I said: It could very well be true, but one mention by one author in 1983, who does not directly cite the source of this information, CANNOT be taken as a certainty. It needs some validation of some kind before it can be accepted as a fact.

Plain and simple.

 

12 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

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.  

I 100% agree.

Sliding scale of probability, not "either or", is the only way to go (scientific method once again).

Frankly Steve I don't see how you've gotten the impression that I was using "either, or" "is or isn't" in any way.

I'm just pointing out some of the gaping holes in the apparent "validity" or "certainty" of existing written statements regarding certain aspects in the world of tosogu.

 

more later... gotta work

 

 

[Steve Waszak]

37 minutes ago, GRC said:

Steve, you have clearly erroneously interpreted my statement.

How does "it may or may not be true, but require verification" become "this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely"?

It couldn't be further from the actual words that I wrote.

Let me paraphrase what I said: It could very well be true, but one mention by one author in 1983, who does not directly cite the source of this information, CANNOT be taken as a certainty. It needs some validation of some kind before it can be accepted as a fact.

Plain and simple.

 

And you, mi amigo, have clearly completely missed the point of the entire paragraph from which the quote you use was drawn.  What is the subject of that paragraph?  CONNOTATION IN PHRASING.  As distinct from DENOTATION.  It is abundantly clear what your statement DENOTES.  And frankly, I'm surprised that you think I could "erroneously interpret" such obviously clear DENOTATION.  Sheesh.  Reread that paragraph.  Carefully.  The focus is on the connotative impact (the reception) of how something is PHRASED.  This MATTERS, whether you INTEND such an effect or not.  And the words you add at the end illustrate that you're just not seeing this.  You say, "It needs some kind of validation before it can be accepted as a fact."  Okay, and lacking such validation, which is exceptionally rarely occurring in tosogu studies, which I'm sure you know, what is the take away?  That something "may or may not be true"?  Such wishy-washy language is effectively meaningless.  Empty.  It goes nowhere.  May + may not = ZERO.  Total non-starter.  And this is WHY the connotative impact of your phrasing plausibly can lead to the conclusion for many (not for ALL) that the claim in question is false, or at the very least, dubious, for no actual REASON.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hey GRC,

 

Talk about papers and how different organizations (and their so-called experts) have differing opinions.

 

I refer you to this thread and the last couple of posts on that thread-

 

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/33767-found-a-tsuba/page/2/#comments

 

[Iekatsu]

It is always going to be a sliding scale of probability, there will always be significant gaps in what is known and that is ok. I think that the primary point of this thread is acknowledging that those gaps exist and that some of the established and accepted knowledge is not much more than conjecture without credible sources. The NBTHK grading is flawed because many categorisations are based on dated or flawed logic. This is something that is unlikely to be rectified, because it would potentially nullify papers that have already been issued. A new system could be created, but perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

[Steve Waszak]

I think what Glen has presented regarding the unreliability (as concerns factual information) of a good portion of the literature, as well as the imperfect results received at times through shinsa, pretty clearly establish that "the system is broken."  But Florian's words are right on target, as I think, are Thomas's here.  There is sufficient doubt about the veracity of significant parts of the information passed down to point to a fairly dramatic reform.  But as Florian and Thomas are saying, is it realistic to expect that to happen?  It seems hard enough to envision an "ideal" new system, never mind one based in reality and pragmatism.  Are we stuck with what we have, then?  If so, how best to combat or mitigate its worst effects?  This may be a more productive approach than to look to tear down the foundations, again, just realistically speaking.  

 

I do wonder if establishing quasi-formal, well-organized Study Groups, in part based off of the arguments Glen is making in these threads, but also expanding into other areas, might be a useful approach.  I hesitate even to bring up the idea, simply because of the logistical realities involved in bringing such groups together, especially with any frequency.  *Note:  I do not feel Study Groups that are conducted online would be sufficient; the material needs to be seen and handled in person.  I'm really just sort of thinking out loud here, though. Another way to go, perhaps, would be for some of us to begin to produce formal writing (published articles rather than informal, hurried forum posts) that, rather than attacking the current system, simply employ a more reliable analytical method applied to a well-focused topic to arrive at "new" understandings about given tsuba, tsubako, "schools," and the like.   In any event, the status quo seems unpalatable to some (many?) of us.  To Florian's point, finding a way out of these catacombs is daunting, but to Glen's point, really seems necessary regardless.  

[GRC]

@Steve Waszak Steve, i think we'll have to agree to disagree on some of those points. Maybe a discussion to be had over a few drinks rather than on a forum 

But no matter what, in the scientific community, if a new concept is published, it must be peer reviewed and be supported by evidence.

No novel statement can ever be taken as factual without meeting those standards. 

It stays in the realm of "theory" until then.  

 

 

@Iekatsu Thomas, I couldn't agree more about the last statement you made.

 

I'd also like to suggest, in the defense of the actual real people who work for the NBTHK...

If the current grading system is already built on flawed categories (which it is), then the many "wrong" attributions we have all seen in papers, are perhaps less due to random "human error" (although surely some accidents will happen under rushed shinsa conditions), and perhaps more to do with the fact that the categories themselves are flawed and not clearly definable under the current system that only has a limited number of "school concepts" to place the attributions under.

[GRC]

Lovely post Steve!!!

The heart was from me.

 

...definitely daunting but necessary 

[GRC]

@Dan tsuba When I get some time Dan... I've got a selection of tsuba that are all clearly the same "type" and most likely produced by the same group or lineage of smiths, but they are papered to 4 different "schools".

I think it's a clear case of flaw in the system, rather than a flaw in the evaluators themselves.

Again, i think we need to cut the "experts" a bit of slack, because ultimately, their hands are tied by the categories themselves... just trying to be nice 

[GRC]

Just for an additional point of reference, here are images of the English version of Sasano's sukashi tsuba book.

I think it is important to note that the book was translated by a Japanese person, but was "EDITED BY JOHN HARDING"... so it makes for an interesting comparison to the direct translation of the original Japanese text that I posted.

 

First the Owari school:

 

Now Kanayama school:

[GRC]

Also, i stumbled across this last night...posted on www.satcho.com: Japanese Sword · Books · Supplies

It's a quote from Sato Kanzan (written in 1983), commenting about the controversial nature of certain aspects of Sasano's writings.

 

Sasano’s scholarship was not without controversy.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the bibliography for The Japanese Sword (1983), wherein Sato Kanzan wrote:

“Few will be able to appreciate [Sasano’s] rather vague criteria for categorizing the guards,” referring to Early Japanese Sword Guards. 

In case Sato’s sentiment is missed, commentary on Sasano’s Tosogu no Kigen(1976) noted that it was “Controversial work with an ax to grind. http://www.satcho.com/images/forward.JPGThe author believes that uchigatana, the kozuka, and the alloy shakudo were all in use by the late Heian period”(sic).

 

[OceanoNox]

1 hour ago, GRC said:

so it makes for an interesting comparison

Just taking a quick peak at the Owari section, and it's quite the leap from the original Japanese. I cannot understand how they got from 上下張り気味 (tends to be stretched up-down/vertically) to "squared seppa-dai". Likewise, going from 精良 to "hard and refined" (it seems to simply mean "excellent", which could be translated as refined, i.e. that forging took place to make the iron cleaner, but it does not imply hardness at all; 精 can mean strength, but more in the sense of vigor, it is incidentally one of the kanji for semen, to show the meaning of "vigor").

[FlorianB]

2 hours ago, GRC said:

Also, i stumbled across this last night...posted on www.satcho.com: Japanese Sword · Books · Supplies

It's a quote from Sato Kanzan (written in 1983), commenting about the controversial nature of certain aspects of Sasano's writings.

 

Sasano’s scholarship was not without controversy.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the bibliography for The Japanese Sword (1983), wherein Sato Kanzan wrote:

“Few will be able to appreciate [Sasano’s] rather vague criteria for categorizing the guards,” referring to Early Japanese Sword Guards. 

In case Sato’s sentiment is missed, commentary on Sasano’s Tosogu no Kigen(1976) noted that it was “Controversial work with an ax to grind. http://www.satcho.com/images/forward.JPGThe author believes that uchigatana, the kozuka, and the alloy shakudo were all in use by the late Heian period”(sic).

 

Kanzan Sato was one of those who fixed after the war the traditional classification system in question here.

In my eyes this comment shows that there’s someone afraid of new ideas. For me Sasanos’ Tosogu no Kigen was very enlightening.

 

Florian

 

[Steve Waszak]

3 hours ago, GRC said:

Steve, i think we'll have to agree to disagree on some of those points. Maybe a discussion to be had over a few drinks rather than on a forum 

But no matter what, in the scientific community, if a new concept is published, it must be peer reviewed and be supported by evidence.

No novel statement can ever be taken as factual without meeting those standards. 

It stays in the realm of "theory" until then.  

 

I'm with you there, Glen.   And I think your thoughts here identify an interesting idea, namely, that the aims of the scientific community (arriving at factual knowledge via disciplined, logical methodology) may differ somewhat from those of the humanities, whose ultimate aims pertain to knowledge that is perhaps more philosophically based/concerned, or even the "soft sciences," where identifying the most plausible theories is the quarry, since the answers to many of their inquiries can have no factual answer.  

 

As for Sasano's theories, oh yes, lots of contentiousness and rancor there!  It's pretty well known in Japanese tsuba circles, I believe, how much division there was between those who subscribed to Sasano's timelines, and those who did not.  Academic squabbling:  who would sink to such lows??? 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here is one question as I am not a tsuba guy, what are the oldest dated tsuba? By this I mean tsuba with nengō, so if the date signature is judged legitimate then the age should be proven. I was going through the wonderful (non-tsuba) references I have and managed to find few interesting ones.

[zanilu]

17 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

Another way to go, perhaps, would be for some of us to begin to produce formal writing (published articles rather than informal, hurried forum posts) that, rather than attacking the current system, simply employ a more reliable analytical method applied to a well-focused topic to arrive at "new" understandings about given tsuba, tsubako, "schools," and the like.  

I think thst something in the line of what is done in scientific publications with papers reviewed by peers is the right approach Steve! And on this forum we have a lot of people that has the knowledge and the skills to be a rewier. 

I am, in a very small way, trying to do that on arguments and schools that spark my interest and are represented in my collection. 

 

Luca

[Iekatsu]

On 12/13/2024 at 5:02 AM, Jussi Ekholm said:

Here is one question as I am not a tsuba guy, what are the oldest dated tsuba? By this I mean tsuba with nengō, so if the date signature is judged legitimate then the age should be proven. I was going through the wonderful (non-tsuba) references I have and managed to find few interesting ones.

 

https://tsubakansho....-tensho-dated-tsuba/

 

This is a pretty good summary, as you can see there is a lot of uncertainty about the of legitimacy of extant examples, with examples ranging from plausible to obsurd.

[Iekatsu]

I think that Luca's proposal is a good idea, but to get the best out of it there would need to be some sort of framework or official body to oversee it.

[Steves87]

Yes, a great idea.

I might add though, transparency and accessibility (to past records/findings) are an absolute must. Otherwise it would be no different to the current closed money making systems.

[GRC]

@Steves87 Transparency and accessibility would be the key difference... and should be mandatory. 

The absence of an explanation for the attributions assigned on NBTHK papers is a major problem with the current system.

By never providing this information, it essentially  necessitates that collectors continue to pay for the services of this primary agency of "official judgements".

If the NBTHK did provide statements of rationale, or allow for questions of their judgements, then it wouldn't be long before they made themselves obsolete, because the information would be "out there" for anyone to see even after just a relatively small sample size of a particular "type" of unsigned tsuba. 

Keeping the information hidden away in a "black box" that no one is ever granted access to is actually in their own best interest, not ours...

 

Also, a new system of acknowledged "knowns and unknows" with regards to unsigned tsuba (and even the ones that are "gimei" (deemed to be a false signature)), would already be a better system than one that upholds and perpetuates fictitious attributions to a narrow list of supposed "schools of smiths" that have little to no factual evidence for their existence. 

[GRC]

Ok, found a bit of time to post a great example of how these pre-Edo attributions are built on a whole lot of nothing....

For each of the school names I will show examples of (eg. Owari, Kanayama, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, Ko-Shoami), I think we all would agree that there's are a fair number of tsuba that fit our "ideal archetype" of what we have come to believe are the representative aesthetics and show the same/similar production method.

 

One of the main problems is the lack of certainty and clarity in the criteria that are being used to make these judgements, because the categories themselves are merely "constructs of convenience" that have somehow become generally accepted factual realities over time.

 

However an additional problem is this: what do you do with all the tsuba that seem to have some but not all of the vague characteristics assumed to be at the heart of some of these "schools"?

The result is that the system itself cannot deal with these effectively and will result in inconsistent attributions that will vary among "schools" with some overlapping attributes.

This is likely the principle factor that leaves people feeling disappointed, frustrated and even angry with some of the "unexpected attributions" that they get. Especially when they have paid quite a bit to get these papers from the "black box" that is the NBTHK.

 

Here's a sample of tsuba that I would consider all the same "type".

There may be some variation in the seppa-dai, tegane marks, hitsu-ana shapes,  and other features, but not enough to truly separate any of these tsuba from the group as a whole (in my opinion of course ). 

 

 

I'd love to know what everyone out think thinks these should be labeled as... but I won't ask lol 

... that might start an endless battle and debate that might never end until someone with enough "perceived experience and political clout" weighs in and tries to get everyone else to fall in line.

Unfortunately, situations like those run the risk of eventually becoming "autocratic systems of belief"... and if you don't agree with the ruling mob, then you're cast out as a heretic of sorts.

[GRC]

... so I'll spare everyone the headache and jump straight to the reveal 

There are FIVE DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTIONS FOR THESE FIVE TSUBA!!!!

In my opinion, this is clearly NOT just an issue of "human error", but instead, points to a "systemic error" in both the categories, and the system itself.

 

These are posted in no particular order, but numbered left to right, and top to to bottom:

1, 2

3, 4

5

 

1- Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi

2- Owari

3- Kanayama

4- den-Kanayama (i.e. "kanayama-ish"... or sometimes also interpreted as "in the tradition of" school-X... but you'll never know which, or why, under the current system)

5- Ko-Shoami

 

[GRC]

Oh by the way, I started collecting digital examples of these quite a while back, and brought up the issue I was seeing in this group of tsuba with the multi-decade long-time collector "Bruce K". 

He actually said that he once saw these described as "kyo-kanayama" in a a book at some point, which is essentially a "hybrid name" of sorts, because it is labeling the tsuba as though it was made in two completely different areas of Japan (Heian-kyo (now Kyoto), and the province of Owari (where Kanayama tsuba are presumed to have been made)). 

 

I liked the acknowledged hybrid nature of this name, so I started labeling all these examples with name just to keep track of them all. 

Clearly, attempting to assign these to a single school name under the existing system, is a complete disaster.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Huge thanks @Iekatsu Thomas, that was exactly what I was looking for. The blog post was great in overall. I was not able to find any 1500's tsuba in my sources just few right at the beginning of 1600.

 

@GRC That idea about open accessible data is amazing and I hope it will catch on. I am always supporting open research.

 

I think one thing about NBTHK is that it is mainly for people living in Japan. I am a long time member and with unfortunately very limited Japanese language skill having contact with headquarters is very difficult. I do believe it is possible to ask questions when picking up your item after shinsa results. Now currently there is just huge flood of dealers sending in items due to NBTHK papers having so much market influence. And the vast majority of international people send the items to shinsa through agents so the item owner will not be there in person to ask the questions.This summer I was having some questions at NBTHK offices (nothing shinsa related) at headquarters and due to my limited Japanese I only got about 20% of info I was after. However I remember there was an older gentleman with a sword discussing about it with the staff. Of course I needed to focus on making somewhat reasonable questions in limited Japanese supported by English... But I believe asking questions about specific items in person is possible.

[GRC]

That's interesting Jussi...very valid points about the flood of submissions from sellers, and international owners sending their stuff in by proxy. 

I would love to know if anyone out there knows anyone who has received papers and has then had the opportunity to ask questions about the attribution from the shinsa team.

I personally have never heard of such an example, but i don't know anyone in Japan, who is a Japanese speaker and who has gone through this process in person. 

[Steve Waszak]

On 12/14/2024 at 9:22 PM, GRC said:

Ok, found a bit of time to post a great example of how these pre-Edo attributions are built on a whole lot of nothing....

For each of the school names I will show examples of (eg. Owari, Kanayama, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, Ko-Shoami), I think we all would agree that there's are a fair number of tsuba that fit our "ideal archetype" of what we have come to believe are the representative aesthetics and show the same/similar production method.

 

One of the main problems is the lack of certainty and clarity in the criteria that are being used to make these judgements, because the categories themselves are merely "constructs of convenience" that have somehow become generally accepted factual realities over time.

 

However an additional problem is this: what do you do with all the tsuba that seem to have some but not all of the vague characteristics assumed to be at the heart of some of these "schools"?

The result is that the system itself cannot deal with these effectively and will result in inconsistent attributions that will vary among "schools" with some overlapping attributes.

This is likely the principle factor that leaves people feeling disappointed, frustrated and even angry with some of the "unexpected attributions" that they get. Especially when they have paid quite a bit to get these papers from the "black box" that is the NBTHK.

 

Here's a sample of tsuba that I would consider all the same "type".

There may be some variation in the seppa-dai, tegane marks, hitsu-ana shapes,  and other features, but not enough to truly separate any of these tsuba from the group as a whole (in my opinion of course ). 

 

 

I'd love to know what everyone out think thinks these should be labeled as... but I won't ask lol 

... that might start an endless battle and debate that might never end until someone with enough "perceived experience and political clout" weighs in and tries to get everyone else to fall in line.

Unfortunately, situations like those run the risk of eventually becoming "autocratic systems of belief"... and if you don't agree with the ruling mob, then you're cast out as a heretic of sorts.

 

Great post, Glen.   A few thoughts to share here...

 

First, check out the two tsuba below.  One is a Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei, the other (more oblong one) is a Nidai Yamakichibei.  This would date these pieces to the first couple of decades or so of the 17th century, or perhaps slightly earlier, so, late-Momoyama to earliest-Edo.  A question to be asked is whether these two smiths are trading off of an already-established popular form, or if they created the design themselves.  Given that the Yamakichibei smiths more frequently work with ita-plate styles, I would lean toward the former.  But if these weren't signed, would they be seen as Kyo-sukashi?  Owari?  Kanayama?  Ko-Shoami?  Are these gimei, with mei added later to a "Ko-Shoami" or "Kanayama" tsuba?  I am quite confident that these are legit Yamakichibei works, based on metal work and on the peculiar idiosyncratic nuances in the rendering of the mei on the two guards, respectively.  If they are forgeries, they are perfect forgeries.    

 

In any event, one cultural consideration that muddies the already muddy waters further is the post-Momoyama quickening of the cross-currents of influence that affected the various tsuba-making groups.  To the degree that any of these groups ever was "pure," uniform, and consistent in its style, design, and construction methods, by the time we get into the 17th century, and especially once the peace was solidified throughout Japan after 1615, such purity and uniformity was rapidly "contaminated" by the streams of influence coming from various places.  In particular, though, the exchanges of information and inspiration occurring between Kiyosu/Nagoya in Owari and Kyoto appear to have increased considerably in these years.  I think this is a big reason that the five tsuba Glen presents above all are assigned to either the Owari groups or the Kyoto groups.  And even the two Yamakichibei examples I include here are, of course, Kiyosu/Nagoya products (if the standard understanding is to be accepted ).  So, even the idea that it would be possible to assign such pieces categorically to a "school" is fatally flawed out of the gate.  Even it it were somehow possible to determine factually that all Kanayama tsuba had this feature or that one, and that all Ko-Shoami or Kyo-Sukashi had a certain feature or set of features originally (i.e. in early- to mid-Momoyama), by the time of the end of the Azuchi-Momoyama Period, and as the Edo Period gets underway, it is highly likely that all of these groups could and would have employed such features inspired by other groups as they wanted or needed, tsuba by tsuba.  So how would it be possible any longer to meaningfully classify individual sword guards made in these years and later?  

 

Finally, a quick note on the whole concept of categories and classifying.  Why do we need these?  We know that these constructs were largely invented by Meiji-era merchants looking to increase the appeal and value of their wares by ascribing "identities" to them, which, as Glen observes, became fixed as factual histories to be recognized and acknowledged as such.  But even this early activity to invent schools was based on an understanding, conscious or otherwise, that there is some deep need in us to be able to identify something, to be able to call it something, to label it.  If we could exercise the discipline to move away from this compulsion, it could go a long way toward disrupting the status quo and the system that depends on it.  Rather than focus so heavily on "identifying" and "classifying" a given piece, emphasizing our analysis and appreciation of its quality and aesthetic sensibilities may be a less treacherous path to take.  This is more challenging that it might at first appear, for the entire enterprise of collecting -- anything, really -- is based heavily on categories and classifications, on taxonomies and genealogies, without which many collectors would fumble around looking for order in what they have acquired.  So, much of what this thread pursues relies more than a little on psychological considerations.