Small Heinjo Zogan Tsuba

[roger dundas]

I would very much welcome any thoughts or opinions about this small tsuba.

I would think that it probably wouldn't appeal to a serious or advanced collector and can understand that but it has a couple of things about it that puzzle me so hope someone will respond.

For a start the chiselling out of the 'hat shaped'? voids to create the eight pointed star shapes seem to my (not now very clear) eyes to be roughly done and without any filing to refine or finish their shapes. I would have thought that a proud tsuba smith would do that ?

When trying to work out a period for it's use, some comparatively similar tsuba have been designated  momoyama but the iron of this tsuba appears to be maybe not that old ?

Then there is the Zogan- brass inlay. For something that looks somewhat insignificant I wonder who or why someone would go to the trouble- even though it is a simple and straight forward chevron pattern design except for the part circles at the top and bottom.

For all that, I quite like it.       ( 64 x 60 x .42)   Maybe Owari School.

Roger D

[SteveM]

Hello Roger,

I don't know much about tsuba either, but I echo your thoughts and maybe by bumping this up someone more knowledgeable will jump in. 

It is a curious mixture of rustic imperfection, and detail regarding the inlay. On the front is an unusually asymmetric placing of three leaf designs, and in the space where you would expect a fourth leaf, the design is simply a geometric pattern. Is this a deliberate attempt by the artist to show three leaves only? I doubt its an oversight, but it seams odd. On the reverse side they are not even rendered as leaves, just as geometric designs - so that strikes me as unusual as well. Can we assume that all the lines would have had inlay - it looks like that was the intention. The outline of the seppa-dai on the reverse side seems crudely done compared to the inlaid outline of the seppa-dai on the front. All-in-all an interesting curiousity. 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Roger, according to Shibuiswords.com, "As a matter of note, nearly all brass inlay tsuba are Heianjo work, a piece may date from 1450 to 1900

[roger dundas]

Thank you Steve for your observations but maybe because this tsuba might not leap out to an experienced collector as a fine thing we may not get too much response from those members who would know- or maybe don't know either due to it being(to me) a bit enigmatic ? Your word 'rustic' seems fitting.

 

I wondered, because of it's smaller size if it might not in fact have been for a Korean sword which apparently were more like Japanese boy's swords for size (or so I have read).

Thanks again Steve. I hadn't intended to do any more posting because of sometimes messing up .

 

Roger d

[roger dundas]

Thank you for your comment Ken. I have seen the simple chevron pattern used on a large tsuba illustrated in Gary Murtha's book on Onin-Heianjo-Yoshiro, page 87(I'm sorry I'm unable to depict it here). Early Edo period he thought. The ' less than precise' channelling and brass inlay looks like the same inlay artist was responsible for both tsuba.The work I would call 'pedestrian' and not what I would expect a Japanese artisan to produce.

So the questions remains for me- is the tsuba plate, including the inlay, of the early Edo period or is it that the tsuba plate is thought (or known) to be early and the brass inlay done at a later but unknown time even up to (but probably not) the 1900s.

Going by earlier wonderful discussions here it seems the questions of just "when" are still unresolved ? The 'when' for the plate and the 'when' for the inlay and are they or are they not contemporary ? I presume we can only have an educated guess.

But the lack of care take in producing this above tsuba, nags a bit.

 

Roger d

[ROKUJURO]

Roger,

these early authentic TSUBA always represent some interesting insights into the techniques of their respective makers.

We know that some HEIANJO style TSUBA have been made by (at least) two artisans, which means that the iron plate was made by a specialized smith and the decoration with brass inlays by another. Your TSUBA  might well be the result of such a cooperation. I could imagine a not so experienced TSUBA maker buying a cheap (= not so well made) TSUBA blank to give it a try. His technique of brass inlay was not well developed, so much of the HIRA ZOGAN was lost over time.

Concerning the manufacture of the TSUBA plate, we have to consider that many SUKASHI openings of early TSUBA were made mainly with chisels, not by drilling, sawing, or filing. Some of these techniques came up only later. This could explain the somewhat rough execution of the cut-outs of this TSUBA. 

I can try to explain the fact that only three leaves are shown and a chevron pattern in the remaining space: The number 4 is/can be pronounced SHI and is the same as 'death'. In many cases the Japanese try to avoid this number. This is what I've read and heard, but on the other hand many TSUBA have fourfold decoration like MOKKO GATA with four INOME, so I am not sure if this could really serve as explanation. .  

 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Jean, without getting too off-track, don't you think that drilling & filing came earlier than the Heianjo school?

[roger dundas]

Thank you once again Jean for sharing your knowledge with all of us who might be curious about the production techniques used  in the making of these historic items- some maybe not so grand in their appearance.

And possibly this tsuba fits into those earlier times of more simple hammer and chisel working ? I like to think so.

 

Roger d

[ROKUJURO]

Jean, without getting too off-track, don't you think that drilling & filing came earlier than the Heianjo school?

Ken,

 

that is possible, so I wrote. ....many SUKASHI openings of early TSUBA were made mainly with chisels, not by drilling, sawing, or filing. Some of these techniques came up only later....  

But before drilling iron was possible, punching holes and chiselling openings was certainly the basic method.

 

Probably Ford knows more about when 'modern' techniques came into use. . 

[roger dundas]

 I had hoped for more comments regarding the relationship between early tsuba and their brass inlay.

 Jean has been again generous to share his knowledge and learning but apparently it is not otherwise fully  resolved or generally accepted just  when brass inlays were added to a tsuba and maybe never will be ?

I wonder if the fine brass wire inlays (some quite geometric as on this tsuba), also flowers, leafs and trailing vines- were from a different later period e.g early to mid 1600s- possibly later than the tsuba plate-  I say this because I think it is what Ford was saying a year or so back (?) but the inlay/overlay of mon type figures on Onin tsuba is somewhat earlier ? Their tsuba plates all look to me to have been around a long time and many of them are just a simple unadorned thing except for the brass addition (or at least to my eyes).

Now I have done my best to put forward my thoughts here and trust members will accept the ramblings and maybe respond ?

 

Roger d

[Ken-Hawaii]

Hopefully, this will satisfy your need for comments, Roger. Enjoy.

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/4076-heianjo-or-approximation-thereof/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/24584-unusual-kaga-yoshiroheianjo-tsuba/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/18119-heianjo-zogan-tsuba-serial-productioninfo/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23059-heianjoyoshiro-tsuba-1/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23060-heianjoyoshiro-tsuba-2/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23087-heianjoyoshiro-tsuba-3/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/29818-heianjo-tsuba-or-not/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/22997-heianjo-tsuba-age/

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/10831-late-edo-heianjo-copy/

 

[Ford Hallam]

according to Shibuiswords.com, "As a matter of note, nearly all brass inlay tsuba are Heianjo work, a piece may date from 1450 to 1900

 

 

I would have to take exception to this claim. There is to date no evidence to support such an early date for the use of brass in Japan. The most likely, and evidentially supported date, would be closer to the early 17th century, ie; 1600's. At an absolute earliest date it might be argued that as soon as cementation brass was produced in quantity in China in the late Wan-Li period (circa 1575) some enterprising trader bypassed official government operations of production and control and managed to supply Japan. But then you'd have to provide some evidence for that story   

 

A further technical point that is not considered is the development of wire drawing plates. Prior to this technology being used wire was produced by cutting thin strips off a sheet (with shears) and then either rolling in more round, like bread dough, or twisting it. I've seen evidence of strip inlay that could be mistaken for round wire so in the absence of any information or evidence of drawing plates in pre 1600 Japan I'm further convinced that all these brass inlay pieces are essentially Edo period productions. The plate might be older but not the brass or technique.

[kissakai]

Thats very interesting reply ref wire

[roger dundas]

 Thank you Ken for listing previous discussions on this matter which make me now understand the lack of comment-

this ground has been ploughed over many times before but for all that it seems that Ford's findings, which sit happily with my small knowledge, possibly still doesn't completely suit all other's beliefs ? Maybe that is or is not correct but Ford's findings and assumptions certainly make complete sense to me- the brass was a later adornment done in more peaceful times to relics of a much more chaotic and perilous period .

A further question might be just who commissioned the inlay/overlay work to be done- was it the old fighters, was it their families or could it have been the inlay artists themselves on those old battle relics ?

I really appreciate and thank you all- Steve, Jean, Ken and Ford for taking time to again go over old  ground(some new also) .

 

Roger d

[Ford Hallam]

Roger,

 

you very succinctly sum up exactly my own conclusions.

 

"...the brass was a later adornment done in more peaceful times to relics of a much more chaotic and perilous period ."

 

[Pete Klein]

 A further question might be just who commissioned the inlay/overlay work to be done- was it the old fighters, was it their families or could it have been the inlay artists themselves on those old battle relics ?

 

Roger d

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabukimono

 

I have long held the early 'Heianjo' tsube were worn by the 'kabukimono' as you don't wear something 'quiet' when dressed and acting extravagantly.  The time period would coincide appropriately as well.  Here is one I have posted previously:

 

[roger dundas]

 Than you very much Pete - I am well aware of being the amateur here amongst very knowledgable people and collectors but your reference to the Kabukimono was very pertinent to my mind. Because these brass adorned tsuba would have been bright and shining in the sun or lamplight, it does seem that your idea goes a long way to explain things. The tsuba we see today as we know ,have a muted subdued appearance, the brass oxidised and not flashing as they would have been originally. Thinking of it like that makes your idea not only possible but probable .But who am I to say ?

Can I say this here ?- in the way of the flamboyant dressing of the Kabukimono, it is reminiscent of the German Landsknecht, (although disciplined, highly successful mercenary soldiers) they also liked to  dress most outrageously (C1500-1600s I think).

 

Roger d