Ko Term

[kissakai]

I was wondering about the use the ‘ko’ for descriptions of tsuba schools

 

There are the dates I’ve thought are somewhere near

ko Katchushi = pre 1568

ko Shoami = pre 1568

ko Toshi = pre 1568

ko Umetada = pre 1568

Please amend as required

 

While I’m at it what about these dates?

ko Kinko = 1400 to 1600

 

I’ve never seem a description of ko Owari but more likely to be in ‘periods’

Owari 1st period =1500

 

As ko is defined as early school work I wondered why I don’t see these descriptions

No ko Bushu

No ko Choshu

No ko Owari

 

I often hear this term so I should know what it means

[johnnyi]

Hi Grev.  Could it be that putting hard and fast dates on these might be sometimes misleading? By that I mean trying to distinguish  an old tsuba, (for instance a ko-Tosho,  which Robert Haynes speaks of in his Shibui Swords site as having certain distinguishable characturistics)  from the next generation of that tsuba which has distinctly different characturistics?  As an aside, the Ko-Shoami he describes as being made until the end of the Momoyama period which I guess again is attributing "ko" to characturistics of the old school moreso  than exact date?.  Just my 2-cents, It will be nice when the experts chime in on this, as I've wondered too.

 

regards,  Johnnyi

[kissakai]

Over 150 views with only one comment - strange as ko is such a commonly used term so there should be some reasoning behind it

I think the Momoyama is a reasonable call as it precedes the Edo period and is quite a convenient date but being convenient is not a good reason

The reason I asked was to increase my understanding of this term and some of my tsuba have been described as ko *** but are a later date than those without the prefix 'ko'

If anyone has papered 'ko' tsuba that is dated or knows actual book references then this is a start otherwise why use an undefined term?

[Pete Klein]

Pretty much all of this terminology goes back to Akiyama Kiyusaku and others who began the study of fittings in the nineteenth cantury.  There is no single historic 'authority' as there is little to no written history on early fittings so it is mostly speculation at best.  Placing the term, 'Ko' as referring to before Azuchi-Momoyama Jidai is about the best a generalization as we see utilized in descriptives.  Ko Kinko, Ko Goto, Ko Umetada etc. fall into the same general definition.  Suffice it to say it's just a guideline as these pieces were not signed or dated and therefore we can only assume the period of manufacture. 

 

Now then, having said this there are areas where the term is used loosely.  Ko Goto can be used when an exact attribution to one of the first three/four mainline masters cannot be determined (such as to Joshin) but it is also used for work which is early and falls into the realm of the Goto makers design orthodoxy.  Where not it would go to Ko Kinko or Ko Mino 'schools' which here is used loosely to refer to a design concept rather than a specific group of aligned artists.  Most of the later 'schools' (Busho, Choshu, Echizen etc.) started around or after 1568 so you won't see 'Ko' utilized.  Ko is also not used with Kanayama but an attribution can be modified with a time descriptive such as 'shoki (early) Edo' which is also used with Owari and others in an attempt to specify an approximate time of manufacture.  Early Kyo Sukashi in the past were sometimes referred to as 'Heianjo Sukashi' but this isn't seen much in current attributions. The bottom line is that you have to spend about ten years in study to make some sense of the classifications as there is no 'rule book' to refer to.  This is where science, artistic history and wishful thinking tend to collide and the wreck can sometimes be a bit messy.

[kissakai]

Thanks Pete

My concern was that it is a term quite freely used and as such I would have thought there was a more defined definition so your reply has helped me

 

 

Grev UK

[sabi]

Great post by Pete, and to drive his point in a bit further we also have Ko-Akasaka, which refers to the first three generations.  However, they aren't "ko" in the pre-Momoyama sense as they span from the early to late 1600's.  So in this case it's more of a literal tag, early Akasaka. 

[Pete Klein]

Evan -- Yes!  Absolutely correct.  There is some speculation that the earliest Akasaka were actually from Owari and then the school was moved to Edo due to the shogunate relocation.  I haven't read anything on this recently but it is of course a possibility.  It's sort of funny how a society which pretty much wrote down everything missed practically this entire field.  Oh well...

[kissakai]

I've just come back from a holiday so just reading a couple more replies - thanks

I still find it strange that such a common term is a bit like sea cucumber!!!!!

[sabi]

Evan -- Yes!  Absolutely correct.  There is some speculation that the earliest Akasaka were actually from Owari and then the school was moved to Edo due to the shogunate relocation.  I haven't read anything on this recently but it is of course a possibility.  It's sort of funny how a society which pretty much wrote down everything missed practically this entire field.  Oh well...

 

 

Pete - I've read a bit on that and it certainly seems plausible.  There are clear similarities between Owari sukashi and the work of the ko Akasaka masters, specifically the first two IMO.  A shame indeed that so much information has been lost to time!

 

I would also like to correct my earlier post, as ko Akasaka theoretically extends into the 18th century.  The third master, Tadatora, has a death date listed as 1704.

[Curran]

To add to the mix:  "Proto-Akasaka"  exist, where they scream Akasaka, but date earlier and often show a heavier influence of Owari and/or Kyo-sukashi influence.

 Reluctantly I sold my "proto" in my minimalist pursuit to only own 12 keeper tsuba [can never seem to get below lucky 13, and have 15 at present].

The NBTHK just said "Ko-Akasaka" on that one. I would date it to somewhere between 1601 and 1625.

 

To add to Grev's list, I've seen "Ko-Myochin" NBTHK Hozon papers before.

Terms like "Ko-Hagi" or "Hagi" tsuba often preempt certain periods, meaning you are unlikely to find the term "Ko-Choshu" on NBTHK papers.

But it may exist. To date, I've only seen one NBTHK Hozon attribution to "Ainu"- but they exist. Rarer than hen's teeth. "Ko-Choshu" might exist out there somewhere?

[kissakai]

Hi

Nice feedback that I've summed up and added a bit more so it may be a 'starter for ten'

 

Sasano states ko Tosho and ko Katchushi as 1550

 

1600. Ko-Shoami, Ko Kinko, Ko Goto and Ko Umetada

 

ko Akasaka 1700

An NBTHK paper said "Ko-Akasaka" and I would date it to somewhere between 1601 and 1625.

 

I've seen "Ko-Myochin" NBTHK with Hozon papers.

 

"Ko-Hagi - no one has suggested a date

 

Busho, Choshu, Echizen etc. started around or after 1568 so you won't see 'Ko' utilized. 

 

Ko is also not used with Kanayama

 

​From my own collection I have these 'ko' definitions but I may re-title them after this post:

ko Shoami - 1750

​ko kinko - 1600

ko Umetada - 1700

ko sukashi - 1800

 

Does anyone have papers with 'ko' in the description otherwise this may be the end of this post?

 

[MauroP]

Hi Grev,

I've collected images (not real tsuba, unfortunately) of 925 NBTHK papered tsuba. Among them I can see:

9 ko-tōshō,

7 ko-katchūshi,

23 ko-kinkō,

12 ko-Shōami.

4 ko-Akasaka.

Never seen papers reporting ko-Goto, ko-Mino, ko-Myōchin, ko-Umetada and ko-Nara. My records can be biased in some way, but can give a rough estimate of the relative frequencies (at least of what deserve certification according to the NBTHK panels).

BTW, ko-sukashi has a complete different meaning (and is written 小透, not 古透).
Bye, Mauro

[Curran]

Ko- Myochin:

The tsuba is already sold, so no images of the Hozon papers.

http://www.tsubanomiyako.jp/SHOP/TS-330.html

There was another labeled ko-Myochin sold via Choshuya.com a while back.

 

Ko-Mino:   It was easiest to link to the TH one Fred W. had up for sale, but it seems gone now. I can scan in one of mine, if necessary.

 

Ko-Goto:   well, the Goto supposedly didn't make tsuba until Gen 5 (Tokujo), so I don't think you will see 'Ko-Goto' on tsuba papers.

That might explain Mauro's not having come across any. However, ko-goto as an NBTHK attribution is rather common enough on other fittings.

Here is an easy example:       http://www.seiyudo.com/me-020314.htm

 

Ko-Umetada:    I don't know of any up for sale at the moment. I think the last papered one I saw was on Choshuya.

 

Ko-Nara:   I don't think I've seen such papers.

 

Ko-Hagi or Hagi I think is just shorthand or misnomer for tsuba supposedly early Choshu. I think that is from Torigoye-Haynes, but may be from Watson's translation of Nihonto Koza.

 

[Mauro is clearly right about the 小透 with the ko meaning 'small'. Not the 古 meaning 'old'.]

 

Other than 'ko-akasaka' most any tsuba we see with an NBTHK attribution of  古 before the name is going to generally mean Momoyama or earlier. No?

[kissakai]

Mauro

Do the papers you have access to roughly comply with my dates

Nice to get an idea of which types are not papered although I was surprised about ko Goto but obviously the data is from a limited resource hence the papers request from NMB members that has a huge following

My ko Umetada was defined by Robert Haynes but I understand that definitions are always evolving

Schoolboy error about the ko in sukashi - thanks

[kissakai]

Hi

I was revisiting the ko term

As ko is used on some papers there should be defined dates

Looking back on this post and adding in a couple of other references I wonder if there is any more to be gleaned or is the post dead?

Why the fixation on 'ko'?

As ko is used on some papers there should be defined dates

It is so often I'd like to understand it better

ko can be a desirable and definable description

Who hasn't used the term?

 

 

From Tsuba An Aesthetic Study, Torigoye and Haynes

ko Nara were said by Kuwabara be be before the 3^rd generation so around 1650

​

ko Shoami - 1600

​ko kinko - 1600

ko Umetada - 1700

ko Nara – 1650

ko Akasaka – 1625 from unknown papers

ko Tosho – 1550

ko Katchushi - 1550

 

Sasano states ko Tosho and ko Katchushi as 1550

 

Not found

Ko Hagi

 

I've seen

Ko Myochin with NBTHK with Hozon papers.

 

From a NM member

I've collected images (not real tsuba, unfortunately) of 925 NBTHK papered tsuba.

Among them I can see:

ko Tosho        = 9

ko Katchushi = 7

ko Kinko        = 23

ko Shoami     = 12

ko Akasaka   = 4

 

 

No ko prefix used

Busho, Choshu, Echizen, Kanayama

 

 

Grev

[John A Stuart]

It may depend on specific scholars opinion where early is in relation to the span of the type. Rigid time points just beg for exceptions, don't they? Even within the lifetime range of one specific artist there is an early, 早 ko-. period and a later, 後 ato-, period. If you were to have an early Bushu tsuba, who would gainsay your use of ko-Bushu? John

[ROKUJURO]

Grev,

BUSHÛ!

[kissakai]

There was known fighting art of Basho and someone had to make their fighting equipment!

[Jean]

Why not say: Ko means early or before, instead of trying to do it as western people, meaning putting everything in nice square boxes. Dates in tsuba are very « flexible », unlike daito, they were rarely dated (I have never seen one) and they were more often unsigned....

[kissakai]

I understand these comments re pigeonholing but if I see Edo on papers I know the date range

If some papers say ko Tosho then it is not 1600 but may pre 1550

There must be rules/guidelines for ko that the Shinsa team use

If it was not important them it would be used!

Sometimes terms are frequently used but maybe not understood

[Jean]

Grev,

 

Don’t you think that if it was as simple, it would have already been put in chart by Japanese kodogu experts?

[Henry Wilson]

I have a tsuba papered to Ko Kagamishi by the NBTHK.  This is an unusual classification and seems to denote that it is pre Muromachi.

[kissakai]

Hi Jean

I think we just have to accept our different views

I know the term is unlikely to be documented but t may be partially done using references already known such as books and papers

Henry: Kagamishi was out of the blue - nice one and is along the lines of 'Sasano states ko Tosho and ko Katchushi as 1550'

I still think I will use the listing above and add in ko Kagamishi unless anyone has a counter argument

 

 

Grev

[Jussi Ekholm]

I am not a tsuba guy and the following periods are presented by Fukushi Shigeo and taken from Tosogu Classroom vol.1

 

Ko-Tōshō - until end of Muromachi

Ko-Katchūshi - until end of Muromachi

Ko-Kinkō - from late Nanbokuchō / early Muromachi to until early Edo?

Ko-Shōami - until end of Momoyama?

Ko-Hagi - from end of Muromachi until early Edo

Ko-Akasaka - Refers to first three generations, and sometimes early Akasaka tsuba in general - According to dates from Akasaka Tsuba Yuisho from Kan'ei until Hōei c. 1624 - 1711

 

Shigeo did not use ko prefix for old tsuba like Heianjō-sukashi or Kanayama

 

For example about Kanayama he states that earliest ones are most likely from Ōei and youngest ones around Tenshō.

For Heianjō-sukashi he gives time frame of around 170 years about Eikyō to Bunroku

 

I also have the Iron tsuba book by Japanese Sword Museum, it has these descriptions

 

Ko-Tōshō - made before Keicho period

Ko-Katchūshi - made before Keicho period

Ko-Shōami - until early Edo? (I didn't totally understand the English description)

[vajo]

Great post Jussi.

[kissakai]

Well that helps a lot - thanks Jussi

[Jean]

It was chartered...

[kissakai]

I have (assuming I've note messed up) my interpretation of these posts

 

 

Reference data from:

 

Tsuba An Aesthetic Study, Torigoye and Haynes

ko Nara were said by Kuwabara be be before the 3rd generation so around 1650

Fukushi Shigeo from the Tosogu Classroom vol.1

Tsuba book by the Japanese Sword Museum

Shigeo books

Sasano states ko Tosho and ko Katchushi as 1550

 

ko Katchushi pre 1550

 

ko Tosho        pre 1550

 

ko Hagi          pre 1600

 

ko kinko         pre 1600

 

ko Shoami     pre 1600

​

ko Nara          pre 1650

 

ko Akasaka   pre 1700

 

ko Umetada   pre 1700

 

No ko prefix used for:

Bushu, Choshu, Echizen, Kanayama, Heianjo sukashi and Myochin

 

Kanayama period 1400 to 1600

Heianjo sukashi    1450 to 1600

 

 

I've enjoyed this discussion and it still surprises me the knowledge that is available from the NMB

These are some terms like ko Nara that are of only academic interest and I don't think it is a term I'd used

 

What I am glad to define is ko Katchushi and Tosho, Katchushi and Tosho and by deduction revivalist  Katchushi and Tosho

​Also glad to add or remove the ko Shoami label

 

 

​Many thanks

Grev