Myochin Tsuba Mei Translation Help...

[Soshin]

Hello Translation Assistance Forum,

 

This is my first post of this forum on the Nihonto Message Board. I have what I think is a Momoyama period Myochin tsuba that that has a mei that is difficult to read. This I find is often the case with Momoyama tsuba that are signed. The tsuba was once owned by Skip Holbrook that I purchased on the message board. Skip's notes state the following:

Myochin, signed Nobuiye, crossed staffs & turtle shell kokuin, Momoyama, iron insert on kozuka hitsu-ana

Well I agree about the school and time period comparing it to other works with shinsa papers but as for the mei I don't think it is signed Nobuiye (信家). From what I can determine as I often help people with translations is that the first Kanji is Kane (金) the second Kanji I am not sure on. This second Kanji character might be stylized in some way making it hard to read. This is why I am posting scans of the tsuba which clearly displays the mei. If you need me to post some higher resolution scans or photos of mei please let me know. I would just like the translation for my own research notes as I really like the tsuba and will not be selling anytime soon. Thank you so much for you help.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[reinhard]

David, NOBUIYE is probably the wrong track here. Design is reminding of NOBUIYE-work, but the mei is definitely not "NOBUIYE". Assuming you're right with the first kanji being "KANE" (I can't tell for sure from the picture) and assuming that the second kanji is most probably "KO" (meaning "child", "son", "daughter") you end up with the common family name of Kaneko.

There was a line of Kinko in Choshu province by this name. It is somewhat unusual to find the family name only for a mei. It is as if a member of the Goto family had signed his work with "Goto" only.

However there's not much I could find about the Kaneko-Ke.

This is what the Kinko Meikan says:

 

regards

 

reinhard

[Soshin]

Hi Reinhard,

 

Thanks for the information. Here is a higher resolution photograph of the tsuba under normal light. The mei is I think a little easier to read in the photograph. I was generally agreeing with Skip's attribution to the Myochin school based upon the kokuin, placement of ko-sukashi above and below the seppa-dai, the very dark blackish brown color of the patina, and the shape of the mimi. The thickness is also characteristic of a earlier Myochin at 0.3 cm at the seppa-dai and 0.4 cm at mimi. Later Myochin tsuba of the middle to late Edo period would be much thicker. I wouldn't describe this tsuba as being Choshu like. Does anyone know of a Myochin armor maker using the Kaneko (金子) name around the Momoyama or early Edo periods who also made tsuba? Or any Myochin armor makers that would use the Kane (金) as the first kanji in their name? Thanks again for all the help.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[John A Stuart]

金子 Kinko, Kaneko ??? I can't find any smith with any reading using these kanji. John

[Soshin]

Thanks John. I did a quick Google search using the terms "Kaneko" and "Choshu" and came up with these tsuba from a Christies auction lot. Here is the URL: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_details.aspx?intObjectID=4004105. I would say that the tsuba pictured in the lot are classic Choshu Kinko and likely belong to the Choshu line Reinhard found. They look very different then the current tsuba in question. Does anyone think the mei could have been altered when the iron insert on kozuka hitsu-ana was added? I noticed that the insert is a little bit ticker then the remainder of the tsuba in that area.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[christianmalterre]

Dear David,

 

this Tsuba is not Myochin/also not Nobuie-and/or Momoyama at all.

It is very far from Myochin Iron-not to mention any(slightest) Nobuie!

The "Ko" is correct-what just simplifies the meaning it is an "reminescant"

The formerly given translation from the Japanese character into english is not correct here-you can´t use the general translation taken out from translation-books here.

Ko- in this consense here does mean "a copy of stylism and taste"....

This Tsuba is an late Edo Owari-school Tsuba!

(most probably to be arranged in the Futagoyama direction)

 

Christian

[ububob]

Interesting. Context is important. Christian, I would like to know how you were able to make the late Edo attribution to Owari?

[reinhard]

I would say that the tsuba pictured in the lot are classic Choshu Kinko and likely belong to the Choshu line Reinhard found. They look very different then the current tsuba in question. Does anyone think the mei could have been altered when the iron insert on kozuka hitsu-ana was added?

 

David, I didn't mean to convince you by all means this tsuba was made by any member of the Kaneko family of tsuba makers. As John pointed out correctly, there are no documented KinKo signing their work by "KANEKO". It's just that there aren't many other possibilities left than considering this mei a family name (which is quite common BTW). It was just an idea that came to my mind.

What you should keep in mind though: ToKo and KinKo, usually working within the limits of their traditional syle, created works far from their artistic homeground at times, depending on the commissioner's wishes. Some of them succeeded better in doing so than others.

The idea that kanji should be understood within context is correct, of course, but I wonder where Christian got his particular theory from.

 

Anyway, copies and forgeries of NOBUIYE-style tsuba (and your tsuba is definitely inspired by some of NOBUIYE's design) were made by the thousands until the end of Edo period. If Christian can tell the quality of the steel by these pics alone: chapeau! He must have seen many genuine and old NOBUIYE tsuba as well as later ones in hand. I haven't.

 

Last, but not least, I don't think the mei was altered in any way. What it means is still remaining a mystery to be solved yet. Maybe grand-master Pete will help you out with this one. NOBUIYE-tsuba are his forte.

 

reinhard

[Soshin]

Thanks Reinhard for the additional information. I was simply listing ideas in the thread as I was doing some searching on the internet.

If Christian can tell the quality of the steel by these pics alone: chapeau! He must have seen many genuine and old NOBUIYE tsuba as well as later ones in hand. I haven't.

I would consider the quality of the iron (steel) and patina to be good but not to the level of a real Momoyama period Nobuie. I did do some checking and the kanji (子) has the literal meaning of child or offspring. A literal translation of kaneko (金子) could be "golden child". According to Christian the implied meaning for the kanji (子) given the context is reminiscent. I find this very interesting. The fact that Kaneko (金子) is a common family name may indicate that the signature is not the mei of the maker of the tsuba but possible one of the early owners of the tsuba.

I was already ruling out Nobuie before I purchased the tsuba as it is clear the signature is not Nobuie (信家) and the color of the patina is not the blackish purple in color even though ko-sukashi and turtle shell kukuin are common designs in Nobuie (信家) tsuba. I was still thinking that in terms of placement of ko-sukashi, overall thickness, and other signs of wearing associated with use and age that the tsuba dated to either the Momoyama or early Edo period. The presence of a iron insert indicates the tsuba has been mounted on a few different swords during its functional life and there is what looks like a sword strike to the rim on the ura side of the tsuba. These are the signs of wear I am referring to. Tekkotsu are also very pronounced in the rim as well. Here is the photo of the rim showing the damage and some tekkotsu as well highlighted in the photo by arrows. At the site of the strike the lamination folds can also be seen very clearly.

 

Bob raises a good question what is the context and evidence are you using Christian that would indicate this is a later Owari tsuba? I was also under the general idea that tsuba production ended in Owari by the middle Edo period.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[Steve Waszak]

David,

 

Could you provide some further information on this tsuba? Dimensions would be useful, and I'd like to see some more images, taken obliquely, of the mimi as well as of the sukashi openings and of the nakago-ana. I am inclined to agree with Christian on his assessment of this tsuba as being a late-Edo "homage-to-early Myochin/Nobuiye" work, but the information/images I'm requesting here would be helpful in making such a determination. Some things to keep in mind, though, are that Momoyama-era Myochin tsuba are never signed (to my knowledge), and that the kikko design used here is one that Nobuiye popularized (but that the early Myochin, again, to my knowledge, did not use). However, the late-Edo/Bakumatsu tsubako often made "homage" pieces, frequently finding inspiration in the powerful works of the Momoyama period. Two of the most well-known of these tsubako were the Norisuke of Owari. I believe this is who Christian had in mind when he mentioned the Futogayama. Both of these Norisuke tsubako were active well into the mid-19th century. One of their characteristics was to exaggerate the attributes (such as tekkotsu) of those tsubako whose work they were "copying." The results often come off as a bit "unnatural" when compared to the real deal.

 

As to the "mei" or whatever the characters might be, if you are correct that they somehow connect to an owner of the guard, this seems to me to be something one would find more in a 19th-century sensibility than in a 17th-century sensibility. If this is a Myochin work, it should be noted, too, that by the 18th century, Myochin guards are almost always signed. With a name so illustrious, it would not make much marketing sense for Myochin tsubako to complete their pieces without a proper mei (the great majority of which will have some variant of "Mune" in the mei).

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Soshin]

Hi Steve,

 

Here are some new photos of the tsuba that I hope are a little better and more helpful for identification. The mei is also clearest in the photo of the Omote side. Two photos are along different parts of the mimi. Thank you for clarifying what I think Christian had in mind. The tsuba has the following measurements: 7.0 ✕ 6.8 ✕ 0.30 cm (mimi = 0.40 cm). The Owari Sukashi school only lasted until the middle Edo period but both generations of Norisuke based in Owari produced tsuba during the late Edo that were high quality for the time period. I know that at the 小道具の世界 – Kodôgu no Sekai blog http://kodogunosekai.com/ Rich highlighted a tsuba by the second generation Norisuke that is wonderful. Let me know if anyone needs any more information. Thanks again.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[christianmalterre]

Dear Bob and David,

 

thank you all for those comments-(:-)!

Owari attribution due the fact that myself i do collect solely Owari or Tsubashi comming out/ben influenced from Owari-tradition.

Owari attribution due the fact of knowing this stylism of Tsuba,collecting Owari,owning and later times parting Owari Tsuba(most of them papered by NBTHK)

Owari attribution due the fact myself i did study several other Tsuba to be arranged in the typical Owari direction not only in mine but also in other old Owari Tsuba collections here in Europe and Japan....

 

David-this is not a critic here at all-the Tsuba you willingly do offer here for insight-is an very nice one!

It´s just not Momoyama,but this will not change it´s quality for yourself´s collection and importance at all!(so i do hope at least?)

 

So a bit of wind blewn out the sails here.?.-LOL!

 

Christian

[Soshin]

Dear Bob and David,

David-this is not a critic here at all-the Tsuba you willingly do offer here for insight-is an very nice one!

It´s just not Momoyama,but this will not change it´s quality for yourself´s collection and importance at all!(so i do hope at least?)

 

So a bit of wind blewn out the sails here.?.-LOL!

No I am not upset as I did not purchasing tsuba for the reason that I was thinking it dated from the Momoyama period. I was simply using the information provided by the tsuba former owner as a starting point to do my own academic research. I would consider all tsuba in my collection as study pieces per se. I have started to focus my collection on iron tsuba from the following school/groups Yagyu, Owari Sukashi, Nobuie and copies, Yamakichibei and copies, Tempo, Satome, Katchushi, Tosho , and Shoami. This tsuba I would consider it in the style of Nobuie likely made by one of the two generations of Norisuke tsubako of Owari. This tsuba is well within the context of what I collect. Does anyone know what works of the Owari Nobuie school look like and were they ever signed differently other then Nobuie? The Kaneko (金子) may be the signature of a early owner of the tsuba if made by either generation of Norisuke or the mei of someone working in the Owari Nobuie school during the late Edo period.

 

Just wanted to edit the post and add some more ideas and questions relating to Japanese to English transliteration. I was thinking that there is more then one way to transliterate the Kanji 金子. Wouldn't it be equally correct to use Kinko as Kaneko? Does standardized Romaji have a specific conversion to address this? Having someone more experienced with tranliteration of Japanese signatures would be great. Thanks again for everyone taking the time to reply to my thread.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.

[Steve Waszak]

Hi David,

 

Here are a couple of photos that may interest you. The first photo here is of an "Owari Nobuie" tsuba. These really are quite different in many ways from the two Momoyama Nobuiye masters...

 

The second photo is of a small Nobuiye work; the mei is "hanare-mei," the signature recognized by most authorities as the "first generation" Nobuiye of the late-Muromachi and Momoyama periods.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Soshin]

Thanks for the comparison between the Owari Nobuie and a original Nobuie from the late Muromachi or Momoyama periods Steve. Having similar motifs in all three tsuba is very helpful. I would say that while my tsuba is not to the level of craftsmanship (specifically the mokko-gata form) of the original Nobuie I would say that my tsuba is closer then the Owari Nobuie example provided. I am drawing this conclusion based upon comparing the turtle shell kokuin design found in all three tsuba. My tsuba turtle shell kokuin on the Ji (surface) of the tsuba has a similar delicate melted appearance similar to the original Nobuie more so then the Owari Nobuie example.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S.