Tsuba Terminology Question...

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Finished up my "Black Friday" shopping for myself on the NMB. :D Reading through my small collection of books a Tsuba terminology question developed in my mind that inclined me to start a thread the NMB Tosogu forum. The question started from some inconsistencies I have observed in the application of the prefix ko (古) meaning old in some English books on tosogu. The prefix of ko (古) is officially (i.e. NBTHK and NTHK kantei) used in the context of Katchûshi (甲冑師) and Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba for works of the Muromachi Period and earlier or just the pre-Edo Periods (i.e. Azuchi-Momoyama Period and before) works? Here is a photo of a early Edo Period Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba in my collection. The major kantei point why I think it is Tôshô (刀匠) and not Katchûshi (甲冑師) is because the thickness of the seppa-dai is greater at 0.35 cm then the mimi at 0.25 cm. This type of change in thickness where the seppa-dai is thicker is often seen in Tôshô (刀匠) and not Katchûshi (甲冑師) tsuba. Normally in Katchûshi (甲冑師) tsuba the rim significantly thicker then the center part of the tsuba. The complexity of the sukashi and surface treatment along with the thickness is another reason I think this is a Edo Period work. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

(Updated with new thickness measurements after remeasuring under direct light.)

[Curran]

David,

 

I am not sure I understand exactly what is the question. There were no question marks in your post.

 

Having seen a tsuba I strongly believed late Muromachi, but with the papers not saying 'Ko-katchushi ', I recently asked the question about NBTHK attributions of the last few years. I have seen fittings with older Hozon papers that I regarded as late muromachi, and the papers said 'ko-katchushi'. However, Rich T and possibly Peter K (?) voiced opinions which left me to infer that nowadays the 'Ko-' attribution is only on Hozon katchushi or tosho if more mid-muromachi or earlier.

 

I don't know if this is absolutely true, but it seems to hold in my limited experience with tsuba designated as such with NBTHK papers in the past 6 or 7 years. I hope that information is accurate and helps a bit. Don't stand on it as Fact.

 

Curran

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

While my question is verbose there is a question mark in my post. Next time I will bold it and use a larger font size. :lol: To simplify my question would a Katchûshi (甲冑師) and Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba dated to the Azuchi-Momoyama Period be attributed to ko-Katchûshi (古甲冑師) or ko-Tôshô (古刀匠) officially on the shinsa paper by the NTHK and NBTHK? The reason I am asking is just for my own personal research and the correct association of a time period of production based upon an official attribution. Another way to state the question is if I see a Katchûshi (甲冑師) and Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba with the ko (古) prefix then I should date it to Muromachi Period assuming all other normal attribution points patina color, iron, workmenship, and style point to this early production period?

 

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Curran]

I see two question marks this time!

 

?#1 No

?#2 Yes

 

My current understanding is that for more recent NBTHK papers, ko-tosho or ko-katchushi basically implies mid-Muromachi or earlier.

Ask Jim Gilbert or Gordon R. about NTHK fittings papers, or maybe Chris B can say for the NPO NTHK. I cannot recall if I have seek a ko-kat or ko-tosho attrib on NTHK papers.

[Pete Klein]

" if I have seek"...

 

getting to you, Curran?

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Quick note I updated this thickness measurements after remeasuring under direct light. The thickness of the seppa-dai is greater at 0.35 cm then the mimi which is only 0.25 cm. Still the thickness of 0.35 cm at the sappa-dai makes me think early Edo Period for age of this Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba. It was sold to me by a dealer in the USA as a early Edo Period Tôshô (刀匠) tsuba.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Pete Klein]

OK -- here are some thoughts on the original question(s). 'Ko' is used in conjunction with several of the Akiyama Kiyosaku schools and in general means 'Early', 'Fiirst Generations' or 'Pre' ( Ko + den ) where there are similar works made in the Edo Jidai, (with some overlap into the Azuchi Momoyama Jidai), the 'Ko' prefix marking the distinction. No signed works fall into these categories:

 

a) Ko Goto - early work, usually considered to be by one of the first three masters, or resembling their work but not being able to be attributed specifically to any one master. Quality must be consistent with their workmanship. Also includes work thought to pre-date Yujo.

 

b) Ko Kinko - Pre-Edo soft metal work.

 

c) Ko Mino - Pre-Edo work of the Mino School / style. I am not aware of any steel work in this school.

 

d) Ko Umetada - somewhat nebulous, used for pieces which resemble early school work but are unsigned.

 

e) Ko Shoami - works not fitting into the Heianjo/Kyo Sukashi school and predationg Kyo Shoami. There are kinko and non-sukashi tsuba as well as other kodogu (rare).

 

f) Ko Tosho - early flat plate, un-pierced or mon sukashi tsuba with only minor sukashi and no mimi enhancement.

 

g) Ko Katchushi - early flat plate, unpierced- or mon sukashi tsuba with either minor or more elaborate sukashi and with mimi enhancement (dote, uchikaeshi, kaku, etc.)

 

 

 

please note: The 'Ko' in 'Ko-Gitsune Saku' is not used as defined above so is not related to this discourse.

 

 

 

As for Tosho and Katchushi those with the 'Ko' prefix are generally considered to be of the Muromachi period pre-dating Azuchi-Momoyama. (In actuality there most likely were none being made into the sixteenth century as the sword simply was not the primary implement of warfare and the extant items are noticably older). It appears they were produced either along side or slightly after the Nerikawa tsuba however I am not aware of any evidence they existed prior to Nanbokucho (see Nerikawa Tsuba, Gilbert below) so production in the Muromachi is the most likely timeframe. As to whether they were actually made by sword smiths or armor makers is open to debate.

 

 

 

note: As the uchigatana came into use in the latter Nanbokucho I have some doubt as to Sasano's assertion that they were produced in the Kamakura or earlier but readily admit I might be incorrect. As there are no records aside from one figure in one painting which might well be due to artistic license therein lies my doubt. Along with this goes the theory that hundreds of thousands of fittings were made for export along with swords being produced. I find this assertion illogical as for one shipping blades in koshirae would open them up to salt air and therefore rust leading to destruction along with the increased bulk and complexity of crating semi-fragile curved koshirae. If these swords were produced it would be more likely that they were bundled in oiled cloth and shipped tightly bound with any fittings/saya made at the points of destination. Craftsmen would have had little problem accomplishing this and from a logistical perspective this seems the more likely methodology.

 

 

 

If I might be allowed to add I feel it is very important to understand that when it comes to mumei - anything we are dealing with subjective guesswork and therefore open to interpretation. There were other categorization systems aside from Akiyama's however his became the one recognized by the majority, quite possibly by virtue of publication, thus becoming the recognized standard, for whatever that is worth. Any proper education must start with a basic system of classifications, rules and principles but must equally include openness to the evolution, variation and development which comes with experience of the student(s) or one is left with pure dogmatism which stunts development and precludes research advancement. IOW's take it all with a dose of salt and be open to change.

 

 

 

PS: the tsuba linked in the opening post to me looks like Umetada school work, shoki Edo, and not Tosho as the sukashi design is too complex, tapering surface to the mimi and that amida yasuri would not be found on Tosho work. If anything Katchushi would be a better appelation.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~jggilbert/nerikawa.htm

[Soshin]

Hi Pete,

 

Thanks for taking the time to write up with such a detail explanation that I am sure will help improve my as well as others understanding of the topic. Comparing this tsuba to another signed Umetada tsuba with a similar style of openwork I do notice the similarities. Because this work is unsigned would the term Ko-Umetada (古埋忠) be applicable or is the work to late in the early Edo for that to be applicable? I am fully aware this is a nebulous term to being with.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Pete Klein]

Did I write 'Ko'? lol