Mumei Kanayama tsuba that point to a specific tsubako

[Iaido dude]

Kanayama tsuba are thought to have been produced only during a 25-30 year period spanning the late 16th and early 17th centuries during the Momoyama and earliest Early Edo Periods. They reflect the aesthetics of the Wabi Tea Culture of their time. However, like all trends occurring in a small sub-population of refined connoisseurs (the buke in this case) amidst the rapid changes in sensibilities that accompanied significant transformation of the sociopolitical landscape, their demand and production were short-lived.

 

We presume that there were, therefore, only a very small group of tsubako in Owari Province at the center of this artistic development. The problem is that none of their creations are signed. Is it possible, nonetheless, to identify individual tsubako based on characteristic features of their mumei works (e.g. motifs, composition, forging techniques, etc.)? Just as we have Shodai, Nidai, and Sandai masters of a particular school such as Yamakichibei (at least 5 masters and perhaps other smiths in their workshops).

 

I submit two tsuba from my collection that I display together because they share so many features in common that they are highly likely to have been the products of a single smith or small atelier, whom I call “Hyotan-dai” (maybe someone can offer a better phrase) because of his apparent fondness for gourds as depicted in my two tsuba. This is speculative of course, but nonetheless compelling. Same iron forging technique (including tsuchime and tekkotsu), perfect marugata type, similar style of seppa-dai, square mimi, and same color/texture. In toto we see a defining profile of his workmanship. 

 

[Curran]

My personal opinion is that the Kanayama tsuba had a longer period of production.

At least 75 years, but not more than 150 years.

 

With the 25-30 year period, are you referencing a specific text or teacher.

I admit that I don't know the texts very well when it comes to Kanayama.

 

 

[Iaido dude]

I’m referring to Steve Waszak’s study of the relationship between Kanayama tsuba and they Wabi Tea Ceremony aesthetic that they reflect. I have to go back to my notes and touch base again with Steve, but it is a very short period of time on the order of 30 years, give or take. 

[Tim Evans]

There are 3 types of shop marks I commonly see on Kanayama tsuba. 

 

A bevel around the nakagoana on the front. In untouched examples the bevels are smoothly cut, but in others the bevel is dented from refitting. 

 

Another type has rectangular punch marks surrounding the nakagoana on the back. These may be layout marks.

 

A third type has small dings at the corners of the nakagoana on the back, also probably layout marks.

[Iaido dude]

Excellent, Tim. I have an example of each of these in my collection. Again, in the absence of mei, I think it is possible to identify a small group of tsubako by the "signature" features of their works--in this case a kind of hallmark consisting of bevels and punch marks aroung the nakago-ana. 

[Curran]

Hmm.  I only own one Kanayama. It is a longtime favorite ex. Jim Gilbert.

For me, one of my desired "One n Done".

 

I will need to pull it from the tansu tomorrow and give it a serious look.

Were it not my love for Ono tsuba, I probably would own a few more Kanayama.   

1 Kanayama  vs  3 Ono.

 

[Iaido dude]

I’m also a Kanayama/Ono lover. I only have one Ono. They seem to rarely come up for sale online (busy family life keeps me from attending shows). 

 

Here’s what Steve texted me from Japan, where he is wrapping up a visit:

 

“My feeling is that they were likely made from the 1580s or 1590s through the Momoyama Period, so, maybe something like 1585-1615.  Past 1615/1620, they would have become more Edoified, losing their vitality.  It’s possible they could have arisen as early as the 1570s, but not before that, I don’t think.  I would agree:  perhaps as few as 3-5 smiths working in a small atelier.  Almost certainly near the Yamakichibei atelier, as they share the same aesthetic sensibilities. 😉”

[Iaido dude]

Here is the $175 Kanayama tsuba I picked up somehow along the way in Singapore (about 2001) at an antique shop, not realizing what I stumbled on until a year ago when I saw it published in Owari To Mikawa No Tanko. It is just chock full of tekkotsu and dripping with Wabi Tea Ceremony aesthetics. It has punch marks around the nakago-ana. 

 

[Tim Evans]

8 hours ago, Iaido dude said:

“My feeling is that they were likely made from the 1580s or 1590s through the Momoyama Period, so, maybe something like 1585-1615

Steve and I have discussed this at length. We think that the deliberately lumpy guards align with the popularity of Tea ceramic aesthetics, starting with the Tea Master Rikyu, (Wabi Tea aesthetics), to Furuta Oribe, (Kabuki aesthetics), but rustic guards started to go out of fashion with Kobori Enshu (Kirei Sabi aesthetics). 

[Robert S]

3 hours ago, Tim Evans said:

Steve and I have discussed this at length. We think that the deliberately lumpy guards align with the popularity of Tea ceramic aesthetics, starting with the Tea Master Rikyu, (Wabi Tea aesthetics), to Furuta Oribe, (Kabuki aesthetics), but rustic guards started to go out of fashion with Kobori Enshu (Kirei Sabi aesthetics). 

That's extremely interesting.  So the thought is that the Wabi aesthetics in tsuba were only a significant trend for about 50 years?  That certainly narrows the attribution of those guards, for the most part.

[ROKUJURO]

Íf I may go back to the initial question "Can we relate a MUMEI KANAYAMA TSUBA to a specific TSUBAKO", I would like to ask if specific KANAYAMA TSUBAKO are known at all?

And if yes, how are they known when they never signed their TSUBA?

[Tim Evans]

1 hour ago, Robert S said:

That's extremely interesting.  So the thought is that the Wabi aesthetics in tsuba were only a significant trend for about 50 years?  That certainly narrows the attribution of those guards, for the most part.

I  think it was more of a subtle change. The Tea Masters were a big influence at the upper end of Buke culture and influenced Buke taste and aesthetic choices. Rikyu promoted Wabi tea, which was an egalitarian and transformatory experience. Tsuba that reflect the transitory and transformatory, like Kanayama and Yamakichibe, are about process, mystery and no fixed identity. These tsuba show process through incompleteness, which is usually mistaken for flaw and imperfection. You can think about it as a Buddhist artform or aesthetic language.

 

Oribe used Wabi as a base of taste, but developed Daimyo tea, which was a more hierarchical and confirmatory experience. Enshu continued developing Daimyo Tea and introduced Kirei sabi, which was restrained, rustic but very elegant. For tsuba examples, think of tsuba like Jingo or Nishigaki or Akasaka. Some lumpiness but more sophisticated and artistic. 

 

For more information on the transformatory or confirmatory uses of chanoyu, this essay by Herbert Plutschow is a place to start. 

https://anthropoetics.ucla.edu/ap0501/tea/

[Iaido dude]

40 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

Íf I may go back to the initial question "Can we relate a MUMEI KANAYAMA TSUBA to a specific TSUBAKO", I would like to ask if specific KANAYAMA TSUBAKO are known at all?

And if yes, how are they known when they never signed their TSUBA?

 

Yes. My contention is that we have to use an inductive approach. Start with a description of notable features. Identify a “signature” that can group tsuba into a few distinctive groups. This signature serves to identify the tsubako in lieu of mei. Same principle. 

[Tim Evans]

39 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

Íf I may go back to the initial question "Can we relate a MUMEI KANAYAMA TSUBA to a specific TSUBAKO", I would like to ask if specific KANAYAMA TSUBAKO are known at all?

I don't think these unknown tsuba smiths can be identified to a named person, but I think it is possible to sort some of these mumei ji-sukashi tsuba of this period into groups or shops that show common detail characteristics. 

[Iaido dude]

Point well taken, Tim. If not individuals, then a handful of workshops producing distinctive sub-styles of what we call Kanayama tsuba. Within a workshop it is not meaningful or possible to identify a named person since they are historically unknown. 

[ROKUJURO]

So the answer to Steve's initial question would be "NO, we can't relate a MUMEI KANAYAMA TSUBA to a specific TSUBAKO".

As we do not have names, I would like to ask if schools, workshops, ateliers or groups are known or their respective location in OWARI province?

[Curran]

32 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

So the answer to Steve's initial question would be "NO, we can't relate a MUMEI KANAYAMA TSUBA to a specific TSUBAKO".

As we do not have names, I would like to ask if schools, workshops, ateliers or groups are known or their respective location in OWARI province?

 

Depending on the Japanese scholar or writer, there are some areas specifically associated with Kanayama smith.

BUT, take them with a grain of salt.

My memory says they don't quite agree on where, but it may also be in part to the evolution of villages, towns, cities, to large cities.

 

The amount of yakite on Kanayama (and some Ono) does seem to have hit a crescendo in earliest Edo.

How that popularity tracts with the popularity of wabi tea and Buke culture, the our tea guys would better be able to say.

 

 

 

 

[Iaido dude]

My argument is that, as often is the case for mumei tsuba and even when there is an identical name (but clear stylistic differences in execution) on tsuba with mei, in the absence of historical identification of named individuals or ateliers—the best we can do is to use our powers of inductive reasoning to observe the work of such distinct individuals or their workshops. We are in fact doing that through a community on this thread and have to be comfortable with uncertainty even as we do this because there is no other way. I think that relying on conflicting theories from a small group of “experts” will give a false sense of certainty and will not really move the needle forward. We must be discriminating and decide for ourselves whether any argument holds water. Additional analytical tools (eg using AI for more accurate identification, more detailed spectroscopic testing) may be brought to bear if validated. 

 

BTW, Sasano sensei often remarks on the likelihood that a specific tsubako made a number of tsuba that have striking similarities (gold book). So, this is by no means a new approach I am using to propose the existence of Hyotan-dai. 

[MauroP]

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
[L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition no. 7]

[Iaido dude]

Here is another "grouping" of Kanayama tsuba (small size, lumpy tekkotsu), but with unusually pictorial imagery. Sasano doesn't quite argue that #1 and #2 are likely by the same smith, but he presents them together and describes them as unusual. If this is another distinct Kanayama workshop group, then the taste is more of the "rustic elegance" sensibility of Enshu's kirei sabi. An additional one (#4) from my collection (ex-Sasano, Gold book, #75) has the same yakite shitate "melted" surface treatment and hitsu-ana that are similarly if not identically shaped as those of #3 (especially the kogai hitsu-ana). 

 

 

 

 

[Tim Evans]

Interesting observation on those poetic and atmospheric pictorial kanayama being kierei-sabi, I had not thought of them that way before. Enshu was the Tea Master to the Shogun Tokugawa Iemitsu, where we see the Tokugawa-driven shift in Buke education away from Buddhism to Confucianism, following the Chinese scholar-warrior model. This aligns with ther rise of Kaneie (also kierei-sabi), which this scholarship I recently discovered, (published in the JSS/US Newsletter by Arnold Frenzel) puts Kaneie in the early Edo period, much later than what has been supposed by other researchers.  

 

https://www.jssus.org/1975_Bulletin_Part1_Kaneiye_Tsuba__Sword_Etiquette_and_Care_Japanese_Lacquer_Swords_Travels_Oshigata_Artist_Seals.pdf