Established ideas that need to change - 2: Timeline of sukashi tsuba production

[GRC]

I should start by being more specific about which "sukashi" I am referring to.

I am talking about iron, ji-sukashi tsuba (majority of the plate cut out), like an Owari or Kanayama, or the more elaborate Katchushi and Tosho, or even Yamakichibei which tread a fine line between ji- and ko-sukashi.

There is absolutely no evidence of their existence before the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

There are varying dates for the Azuchi-Momoyama period depending on the source: 

1573-1603

1568-1600

1573-1615

 

The major work of reference written by Sasano in Japanese and English theorized that there must have been elaborate sukashi tsuba during the "golden age" high art period of the Muromachi period (1336-1573), under the Ashikaga shogunate in the Kyoto (Heian) area.

He asserted that the themes and aesthetics of sukashi tsuba showed some similarity with some of the imagery and styling in the paintings from that period.

I would argue that these were perfectly reasonable theories, but they simply aren't backed up by any hard evidence. So without any corroboration, we simply cannot continue to rely on this theory as fact.

 

Given that there were no period documents to confirm or deny the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba before the Azuchi-Momoyama period, I had the idea to go looking for legitimate, dated paintings from the Muromachi period.

 

In all the examples, what was depicted was the following:

1- samurai posing for a portrait all had the fancy narrow tachi tsuba

2- samurai in battle on horseback had large solid round tsuba on their long swords

3- samurai on foot using shorter uchigatana typically had no tsuba at all, and if they did, they were solid and round.

 

There were absolutely no sukashi tsuba of any kind in any of the period paintings that I could find.

If anyone can find another example of a period painting with legit dating, that does show even a single sukashi tsuba, then we could potentially start pushing the date back to that time period.

 

So what did exist during most of the Muromachi period?

There were sophisticated tachi mounts with elaborate filigree work.

There were also some soft metal aoi/mokko shaped guards with "four corners inome" ko-sukashi (boar's eye small cutouts), but that's about it for sukashi.

There may have even been some solid leather guards that may have used a thin metal plate as a core.

 

Now there was an excavation of a destroyed Ashikaga castle, where they found some simple brass "kiku" sukashi tsuba (chrysanthemum pattern openwork).

But, it's important to remember that the Ashikaga were overthrown by Oda Nobunaga, who took control of Heiankyo (Kyoto) in 1568 and expelled the Ashikaga in 1573 (hence the two start dates for the Azuchi-Momoyama period mentioned above).   

Retrieval of these artifacts was then used (wrongly) to justify the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba throughout the entire reign of the Ashikaga during the Muromachi period.

 

So when did the production of ji-sukashi really begin?

There is a growing number of collectors who realize that the most likely time period of their first production was during the Azuchi-Momoyama period of the mid to late 1500s

 

So what was the driving force of this significant shift?

The arrival of the first European (Portuguese) ship in 1543... when foreigners landed wearing their rapiers with elaborately sculpted arabesque hilts.

If you can find a high res image of this, there are samurai in the far right of the painting, some of their tsuba just aren't visible, but none of the visible ones are sukashi tsuba.

 

Why is this an important event?

The arrival and influence of the Europeans, along with pirate raiding along the mainland coast of of the Asian continent, both together are referred to as a period of "Nanbanism", and whose influences fed into this period of change where the samurai had risen to prominence and overthrown the shogunate government of the past.

The Azuchi-Momoyama period was a time of accelerated change and personal expression. Paintings of samurai during this period show a tremendous diversity in the way samurai were wearing their swords, including the first foray of samurai wearing a daisho pair (katana and wakizashi).

It's precisely this period of time when tachi were mostly swapped out for katana that were worn through the obi, which positioned the tsuba at the front and center of the samurai's body rather than slung low and at the side of the body (in tachi style).

The now prominent positioning of the tsuba plus the general zeit-geist of change and personal expression is when ji-sukashi were most likely produced... and inspired by the elaborate hilts of the Europeans who had arrived in 1543 and were trading regularly with the Japanese through the port of Nagasaki from 1571-1639, until the country was put in near total lock-down and isolationism during the Edo period.

 

So back to Ashikaga find...  The Ashikaga had from 1543 till 1568... some 25 years of interaction and influence from the Europeans, that they likely began producing those simple geometric ji-sukashi tsuba like the kiku (chrysanthemum) forms, and mayyyybe some simple geometric kyo-sukashi type tsuba at most (but none were found in that dig).

It probably wasn't unitl Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were in control that the classic ji-sukashi tsuba like Owari, Kanayama, Yamakichibei, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi were born and explored... otherwise we should have expected to see some more elaborate sukashi tsuba in the Ashikaga ruins, which we did not.

 

So at best there were simple ji-sukashi forms like the kiku sukashi in the last 25 years of the Muromachi period, but not earlier.

I'd love to see any evidence that can push the date further back.

Conjecture and doctrine simply won't due at this point.

[OceanoNox]

There is an article by the Comte de Tressan, in French, dated March 1910 (L'Évolution de la garde de sabre japonaise [1] des origines au XVe siècle). He discusses the exact issue of dating iron tsuba. He cites the Hompou Tokenkou by Sakakibara Kouzan that states "pierced iron tsuba did not appear before the time of Shogun Yoshinori (1402-1441)".

 

In the MET book "Art of the samurai, Japanese arms and armor, 1156-1868", on page 120, there is a mounted warrior carrying an odachi on his shoulder with a wheel sukashi pattern. The painting is said to be from Nanbokucho. On the other hand, several Edo period paintings with samurai do not show the ryohitsu. I think picturial evidence is a good start, but there are also biases, limitations, and conventions in paintings.

 

[GRC]

1 hour ago, OceanoNox said:

In the MET book "Art of the samurai, Japanese arms and armor, 1156-1868", on page 120, there is a mounted warrior carrying an odachi on his shoulder with a wheel sukashi pattern. The painting is said to be from Nanbokucho. On the other hand, several Edo period paintings with samurai do not show the ryohitsu. I think picturial evidence is a good start, but there are also biases, limitations, and conventions in paintings.

That particular painting had no date of production, no artist signature, and no description of the helmet-less samurai being depicted.

All tsuba-related conclusions based off of this painting are pure conjecture and wishful thinking at best. People are seeing what they want to see in order to justify their pre-existing beliefs.

It's important to note that there are NO other paintings in the pre-Edo period that even look remotely similar to the style of this painting... so it's literally 100s of years ahead of its time in terms of painting style, if it was indeed a pre-Edo piece... which is extraordinarily unlikely... next to zero percent chance. 

 

 

[OceanoNox]

5 minutes ago, GRC said:

That particular painting had no date of production, no artist signature, and no description of the helmet-less samurai being depicted.

I simply quoted the description of the book. Unfortunately, as you pointed out about the rust in sukashi tsuba, experts make mistakes (innocent or not). But to make it clear, I have no pre-existing belief in terms of tsuba. As it is, I trust other scholars and enlightened amateurs.

Out of curiosity, can you link or give info about the Ashikaga castle and the findings in its remains?

[SteveM]

The original contains the kaō of the second Ashikaga shogun, Yoshiakira, and the image was supposed to have been that of the first Ashikaga shogun, Takauji, but lately there is a line of inquiry that says the image is that of Kō no Moronao or his son. In any case, mid 1300s. 

 

source

https://emuseum.nich...&content_pict_id=002 

 

[GRC]

Sorry @SteveM, that's not correct according to current thinking in Japan...

it was stated in a recent book published by the curator of a major Japanese museum, that this painting has no known date of production and that the rider is unknown (politely implying that the attribution to the second Ashikaga was just conjecture by some).

I will dig up the title of the book and post a translation of the passage later... might not have a chance today though, so it'll have to wait a bit.

 

This is exactly the type of myth that needs to be undone... 

This is precisely the type of unverified conjecture that our current "house of cards" is built upon. 

 

and @OceanoNox I'll "dig up" that info about the Ashikaga excavation later. I suspect it was from the same book that was outlining the development of the Japanese sword. 

...and I didn't make any judgements about what your prior beliefs may or may not be  I knew you were just posting quotes from books 

so my response was to what was in the quote specifically.

[OceanoNox]

Thanks @GRC, I look forward to reading new stuff.

The age of tsuba interests me particularly because I want to study the evolution over time. Oh, how I wish there were records to be found.

[GRC]

by the way... here's some reliable "pseudo-datable sources" for specific iron kiku rays tsuba (that we typically wrongly call Saotome tsuba).

↑ tsuba signed by the armorer “yoshido” who worked during the Tenbun era (1532-1555)... note, we have no idea when he produced this specific piece, and that his working dates include 17 years after the first arrival of the Portuguese. 

  

↑This was a tsuba that was on a naginata that was on record as having been donated to a shrine by the Ashikaga clan... but no exact date, nor the exact generation of Ashikaga is known. 

Now again, I must point out that the Ashikaga reign lasted a full 25 years beyond the first arrival of the Europeans.

 

Therefore the ONLY sukashi tsuba that can be directly connected to the Ashikaga, and therefore the Muromachi period, are these simple kiku form tsuba. There are NO examples of ANY elaborately patterned sukashi tsuba that can be associated with the Ashikaga.

 

I would argue that it is entirely likely that these tsuba were only being made in the last 25 years of their reign (after the first arrival of the Portuguese with their elaborate openwork hilts).

 

If these were being made since the 1400s, surely some other themes and patterns would have/should have developed over the course of 100+ years, but there is NO evidence of their existence in this time period.

 

This also supports my earlier statement that the more elaborately patterned sukashi tsuba developed under the reign of Nobunaga and Hideyoshi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period of the late 1500s.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I believe Steve has correct info on the painting as it is owned by Kyōto National Museum and I would take their description over others as they have the item in their collection.

 

Here are few quite old sukashi tsuba for you. As I specialize my research on ōdachi and old naginata I think I should have perhaps info on few others in my books.

 

Very large Kamakura period naginata (Katayama Ichimonji) in nagamaki mounts that has a sukashi tsuba, Jūyō Bunkazai item owned by Uesugi-jinja.

 

From the same Uesugi Book a possible ōdachi tsuba 10,2 x 9,9 cm from Nanbokuchō period that resides in private collection.

 

[GRC]

48 minutes ago, OceanoNox said:

Thanks @GRC, I look forward to reading new stuff.

The age of tsuba interests me particularly because I want to study the evolution over time. Oh, how I wish there were records to be found.

 

Same here!!!

It's been sort of an obsession for me for the last two years or so.

That's why I started going down the rabbit hole of checking all the existing sources of statements, and trying to discern which ones are valid and which ones are still just theories or hypotheses that have somehow accidentally turned into facts over time through repetition.  

[GRC]

14 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I believe Steve has correct info on the painting as it is owned by Kyōto National Museum and I would take their description over others as they have the item in their collection.

 

Here are few quite old sukashi tsuba for you. As I specialize my research on ōdachi and old naginata I think I should have perhaps info on few others in my books.

 

Very large Kamakura period naginata (Katayama Ichimonji) in nagamaki mounts that has a sukashi tsuba, Jūyō Bunkazai item owned by Uesugi-jinja.

 

From the same Uesugi Book a possible ōdachi tsuba 10,2 x 9,9 cm from Nanbokuchō period that resides in private collection.

 

First, I would assert that there's next to no chance that those tsuba are original to those blades.

They would have been changed many, many times over since the production of those blades. 

 

Secondly, I will restate that it makes no sense that kiku style openwork tsuba were being made during the Nanbochuko period and remained essentially unchanged until the Muromachi period when we get the Owari, Kanayama and Yamakichibei sukashi tsuba.

It just doesn't make any logical sense.

 

Thirdly, what proof is there of any kind that those tsuba were made at that date?

Just to make the point: If I put an Edo period tsuba on a Nanbochuko blade, does that mean I could conclude the sword was made during the Edo period? Therefore the reverse also cannot be true...   

 

Sorry @Jussi Ekholm, but that simply cannot be used as evidence of any kind in this matter.

[GRC]

Truly, I beg of anyone to find a piece of evidence that shows sukashi tsuba were made as far back as the Nanbochuko period or even the early or mid Muromachi periods, other than "so and so said so"...

Just because someone said it or published it, doesn't make it true.

Still a house of cards built on nothing so far...

 

I will gladly change my tune if some real evidence comes up.  

[Jussi Ekholm]

That nagamaki tsuba in your post is for another Jūyō Bunkazai naginata of Uesugi-jinja, this one is attributed as Ichimonji Norikane. The shrine has 3 very large naginata with very similar mounts, I agree that Muromachi period would sound quite plausible for these koshirae. I believe the saya for these have been lost.

[GRC]

I knew this was going to be fun... 

I am thrilled that we're engaging in a proper exploration and discussion of this topic though!

[OceanoNox]

The earliest mention of tsuba with sukashi (cut out, called 切り抜き) I know of, is Tsukahara Bokuden (1489 – 1571). In his 百首, he wrote that one should prefer a tsuba with cut outs, instead of plain thick tsuba (鍔はたゞ切り抜きあるを好べし; 厚く無紋を深く嫌へり). He also mentioned that one should prefer thin/old tsuba to new/thick tsuba (新鍔は如何に厚くと切れぬべし; たとえ薄しと古き好めり). No one knows how old he meant, however. We could suppose that tsuba with cut outs were considered not new by his period (and that would still match with the above statement that sukashi only appeared after 1402).

[Jussi Ekholm]

This is extremely good idea to open up these topics. Unfortunately koshirae is not my field so I cannot add much insight to the discussions.

 

I tried to find specific koshirae examples that can be traced to specific individuals but there are actually only very few of the really old ones pre-1600, and the remaining ones are often to some very famous people.

 

I personally love shrines and temples in Japan and romanticize their items. Often swords donated to them have remained unchanged for long time periods. Also the battlefield ōdachi and naginata/nagamaki were pretty much useless after wars in Japan ended, so many of them have remained in shrines in their koshirae. Now I have been fortunate to see many ōdachi at various shrines in Japan, and also many ōdachi koshirae. I would agree that the ōdachi tsuba in general are really plain. Mostly just metal or leather plates, there are few that have the boar's eye cut outs in corners as you mentioned in the opening post. Unfortunately I don't have photographic memory but I don't think any of the ōdachi koshirae from Nanbokuchō or Muromachi period I have seen in person had large sukashi cutouts.

 

Also one thing to note that artists in the period might not know the actual swords 100% correctly. Atsuta Jingū owns the two famous massive ōdachi Tarōtachi and Jirō Tachi, and were wielded by Magara brothers/or father&son (if I understood the legend correctly) The smaller one Jirō Tachi 166,6 cm blade was I believe by legend wielded by Magara Jūrōzaemon (真柄十郎左衛門), and there is a famous painting in which he wields the ōdachi on horseback at battle of Anegawa 1570, where he died. I think Jirō Tachi was dedicated to the shrine shortly after battle by the victorius side and Tarōtachi bit later in 1576.

 

Here is the painting and it has similar open wheel tsuba as in the painting discussed earlier.

https://en.wikipedia...i_sword_on_horse.jpg

 

Someone has taken pictures of Tarōtachi. Here is the current koshirae. Now in one book there is a text passage about these koshirae but I cannot yet read it correctly.

https://static.wikia...00?cb=20150919175256

 

Atsuta Jingū also has 3rd ōdachi with similar koshirae that was made in 1620, it has 144,5 cm blade and it has 17,5x17,0 cm tsuba that is dated to 1620. So obviously this was later than the 2 famous swords but as it features the same koshirae style it could have been made to honor the famous swords. Unfortunately photography is always forbidden at the shrines so I do not have any pictures.

 

Sorry for going bit off topic with this as it was not exactly on topic but illustrating how difficult it is to prove something with certainity. I agree the tsuba I posted a picture of might not be Nanbokuchō period, just that Japanese experts have possibly agreed on that as it was featured in publication. I do think shrines and temples are the best places to discover original and unaltered items, of course they might often not be that desirable by high end collectors.

 

[Iaido dude]

If Tsukahara Bokuden died in 1571, just at the start of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, it seems likely that his commentary was just at the cusp of the introduction of ji-sukashi tsuba according to Glen's highly plausible theory. This commentary is interesting because it's not clear to me exactly which styles of tsuba he is referring to as thin/old and new/thick. The Ko-Tosho and Ko-Katchushi tsuba are in fact thin/old, but don't have cut-outs. Ji-sukashi tsuba are actually new(er)/thick(er). So, I'm not really sure at all what to make of this commentary in terms of providing supporting evidence for when ji-sukashi tsuba first appeared. If there is no mention of sukashi tsuba prior to this, then there is really no evidence for the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba (as we know them) prior to the Azuchi-Momoyama period, certainly not prior to very late Muromachi.

 

I would also point out that while Sasano sensei's life's work has provided one of the very important starting points for modern tsuba scholarship, and that while he himself is clear about his respectful disagreements with the dating theories of Akiyama (and even acknowledges his own short-comings in the introduction to his silver book), there are two major pitfalls to his approach to dating that I can clearly see.

 

To highlight these, let's consider the dating of Kanayama sukashi tsuba, one of my favorite categories. Sasano's tendency to date tsuba based on the appearance of the iron supposes that the only major variables that determine the patina are the passage of time and the composition of the iron itself (independent of time). What he doesn't take into account is the emergence of the Kanayama style as an expression of Wabi Tea Culture beginning under the helm of Oda Nobunaga and flourishing under his tea master Furuta Oribe during a 25 year period (1591-1615) (Steve Waszak and Tim Evans will have more accurate dating of this period). This is the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The same can be said of the splendid creations of the other great Owari masters Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Sadahiro. Drenched in wabi, sabi, mono no aware, yugen, and other qualities of the tea and Zen aesthetics of that time, these tsuba were crafted just like tea bowels to reflect the beauty to be found in imperfection, the passage of time, and the impermanence of human existence. The coarse and "rustic" appearance of these tsuba is expressed through iron treatment and surface features such as tekkotsu, tsuchimie-ji, and yakite-shitate. The master smiths could produce tsuba during the same month that "appear" to be of different ages or have features of many different "schools" for that matter. Why would they define themselves so narrowly when commission pieces might dictate a broader variety of style and appearance? Attributing age (the passage of time) to the appearance of iron is therefore a pitfall. The composition of the iron can affect the appearance such as the case of the Yagyu tsuba described as "sandy," but again, this is independent of the passage of time. The very narrow period of time of production and in relatively small numbers reflects the natural history of all arts and crafts that express a highly refined and not widely appreciated taste as in the case of tsuba among the buke--it is fleeting, just a blink of the eye. 

 

Thus, Sasano appears to have completely missed the cultural co-development of Tea Ceremony and Owari Province early sukashi tsuba. There is no evidence that Kanayama sukashi tsuba were produced during the Muromachi period. They appear to be cruder and older because that was likely the intention of the smith. We should be cautious of blindly accepting "received wisdom" from any experts including the results of shinsa. That would be like proposing that there is an "end to science" because everything that can be known is already known.

[Iaido dude]

Along these lines, it's important that we take an inductive approach by looking at the evidence. All art scholarship starts with the description of the objects at hand along with the socio-politico-cultural milieu. The problem is that at too early a stage, conclusions are made that impose deductive dogma. When such dogma is widely embraced, falsehood may follow upon falsehood with no efforts to reassess new evidence in light of current understanding. When a dermatologist looks at a rash, he methodically runs through the features of size, shape, color, borders, numbers, etc. Only then can he categorize the rash and make a likely diagnosis. The newbie medical resident will say "it looks like..." and often misdiagnosis and mistreat. I am training myself to look at tsuba without dogmatic biases (I disregard supposed schools, styles, categories, or certificates) and by focusing strictly on features (size, shape, thickness, surface treatment, execution of rim and hitsu-ana, composition, overall sense of power and appeal, etc). More and more I am seeing that strict attribution isn't possible for mumei tsuba produced after Early Edo because there is just such a mixing of styles and techniques. The provincial styles are no longer clearly evident. I recently posted a Kanayama tsuba from the Momoyama period that has a massive seppa-dai more characteristic of Ko-Shoami. Works for me...

[Steve Waszak]

Brilliantly stated, Steve.  Spot on.  One quick note:  Nobunaga dies in 1582, so, Furuta Oribe wouldn't have been his Tea Master during his lifetime.  Oribe only assumes that "title" in 1591 with Sen no Rikyu's death.   But this doesn't affect everything you say here, as the impact of Tea Culture was indisputably huge during Nobunaga's lifetime, due in no small part to his own efforts to do so.  

[GRC]

Awesome examples and quotes everyone!!!!

1 hour ago, Iaido dude said:

If Tsukahara Bokuden died in 1571, just at the start of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, it seems likely that his commentary was just at the cusp of the introduction of ji-sukashi tsuba according to Glen's highly plausible theory. This commentary is interesting because it's not clear to me exactly which styles of tsuba he is referring to as thin/old and new/thick. The Ko-Tosho and Ko-Katchushi tsuba are in fact thin/old, but don't have cut-outs. Ji-sukashi tsuba are actually new(er)/thick(er). So, I'm not really sure at all what to make of this commentary in terms of when ji-sukashi tsuba first appeared. If there is no prior mention of sukashi tsuba prior to this, then there is really no evidence for the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba (as we know them) prior to the Azuchi-Momoyama period, certainly not prior to very late Muromachi.

I would suggest that this clearly points to the idea that thin, large ko-katchushi, ko-tosho and what would would call the "Saotome kiku style" (chrysanthemum pattern) already had some sukashi elements at this point and were the already established norm ie. the "old style", while smaller thicker sukashi tsuba like Owari and Kanayama would likely be the "new type" at this point in time.

This passage from a text from that time period is a massively significant find actually    

 

 

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Atsuta Jingū owns the two famous massive ōdachi Tarōtachi and Jirō Tachi, and were wielded by Magara brothers/or father&son (if I understood the legend correctly) The smaller one Jirō Tachi 166,6 cm blade was I believe by legend wielded by Magara Jūrōzaemon (真柄十郎左衛門), and there is a famous painting in which he wields the ōdachi on horseback at battle of Anegawa 1570, where he died. I think Jirō Tachi was dedicated to the shrine shortly after battle by the victorius side and Tarōtachi bit later in 1576.

 

Here is the painting and it has similar open wheel tsuba as in the painting discussed earlier.

https://en.wikipedia...i_sword_on_horse.jpg

 

These are both significant pieces of evidence that support the idea of the emergence of simple ji-sukashi tsuba in the late Muromachi, and the emergence of the smaller thicker type of more expressive ji-sukashi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period.

 

All of which fits very nicely with the socio-political events of the time.... Nanban influence from Europeans (seeing openwork guards for the first tuime), switching to wearing katana rather than tachi (making the tsuba more prominently displayed), all under a broader umbrella of a period of exploration and expression of individuality among the samurai class who were rising to prominence, as well as the samurai class immersing themselves in tea culture and all its associated philosophical concepts (which can often be seen in the themes and aesthetics of early small, thick ji-sukashi tsuba). 

 

... It looks to me like we're quickly building a pretty decent convergence of actual evidence and theorizing on this particular time period beginning around the mid-1500s (late Muromachi).

 

Again though, I'd happily move the date back to the 1400s... so long as some concrete evidence shows up 

Although, moving it back would then require finding some justifiable socio-political reasons for this significant shift in the style of tsuba production.

So far the only one I have read (from Sasano), is that "a variety of arts (primarily painting and calligraphy) were highly prized during the Muromachi period"... although it's important to point out that this was primarily among the elite upper class and highest ranking among the warrior class, but not so much among the general warrior class under their employ.  

[GRC]

by the way, that painting of the European ship was painted around the year 1600, and zooming into the image, we can see that one of the samurai has a "rays of enlightenment" sukashi tsuba while the one next to him seems to have a round solid tsuba (maybe with a katchushi style dote mimi (raised added on rim))

[GRC]

Here's another example...

[Iaido dude]

OK, Glen. I see your point about the thin/old vs. thick/new commentary, but it would mean that Tsukahara Bokuden was NOT a fan of the thicker, smaller, and "newer" sukashi tsuba that would have arisen during his later years. It would make more sense if he were actually griping about those horrible "new wave" tsuba . Regardless, I agree that his commentary is a very important finding that helps to establish your thesis.

[GRC]

80 year old warrior on his horse saying "damn those new fan dangled tiny thick tsuba!!!"

classic rock rebelling against new wave 

[ROKUJURO]

It seems there are older SUKASHI TSUBA: 

SOTHEBY'S:  An Early Kanayama Tsuba, mid. Muromachi period (c. 1400)

[Iaido dude]

And when is Sotheby's ever right? In this case, Jean, the auction house is likely spouting outdated tsuba scholarship. I have seen numerous sellers offering the same tag line: "Get your very very very early Muromachi period Kanayama tsuba, right here. It's the real deal."

[OceanoNox]

6 hours ago, Iaido dude said:

The Ko-Tosho and Ko-Katchushi tsuba are in fact thin/old, but don't have cut-outs.

I think (based on what the tsuba I have seen as labelled ko-tosho or ko-kachushi) Bokuden meant 影透かし (the design is cut away, the metal around it remains).

[FlorianB]

The illustrations of Tsuba on paintings (scrolls and screens) and woodblock prints are not a reliable source.
In most cases plain round or mokko-shaped swordguards WITHOUT ANY decoration (neither sukashi nor kinko - and by the way without hitsu-ana!) are shown. Does it means that samurai didn’t use decorated Tsuba?
Certainly not, but the depiction of small details was apparently technical difficult or the artist wasn’t interested in an exact depiction and a simplified, standardized type was sufficient for him.

 

 

Florian

[Rivkin]

I am trying to understand which "sukashi" tsuba are being considered:

Complex asymmetric designs?

Or the ones which have at least central, possibly greater symmetry (rays, wheel, whatevver the name one wants to assign)? They appear in Kofun?? So is the statement they disappeared and then reappeared? 

[Rivkin]

13 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I believe Steve has correct info on the painting as it is owned by Kyōto National Museum and I would take their description over others as they have the item in their collection.

 

Here are few quite old sukashi tsuba for you. As I specialize my research on ōdachi and old naginata I think I should have perhaps info on few others in my books.

 

Very large Kamakura period naginata (Katayama Ichimonji) in nagamaki mounts that has a sukashi tsuba, Jūyō Bunkazai item owned by Uesugi-jinja.

 

From the same Uesugi Book a possible ōdachi tsuba 10,2 x 9,9 cm from Nanbokuchō period that resides in private collection.

 

 

Common design/execution, appearing in numbers in Korea and Manchuria, associated with 16th century battlefields. They are more or less all alike, as shown in attachment.

In local finds, they outnumber tosho/katchushi plates about three to one. This taking into account most plates are probably continental in origin.