Steve Waszak

Actually, there is a rather interesting article by Matsumoto Seiji in Art and the Sword, Volume 3 (1990) which makes a rather convincing case, I think, for the Owari origins of (ko-)Akasaka tsuba. I personally doubt their having much in the way of Kyoto origins, as the early Akasaka work tends to be much less lyrical than it became (especially with the Higo influence... ) later in the 17th century. Early Akasaka work is more reminiscent to me of the boldness and vigor of Owari sukashi tsuba than it is of the filigree and "gentle" Kyo-sukashi work. As to the notion that the ko-Shoami influenced all the "schools" we're discussing here, I'm not sure I see this, especially as concerns Owari sukashi. I think it's more the other way around in this case, with the ko-Shoami becoming a bit more robust (moving away from the delicacy of Kyo-sukashi) due, perhaps, to the influence of Owari sukashi designs and production methods. Of course, our understanding---and our conjecture---is limited by the lack of certainty we have of the dates involved. It would be helpful if we knew exactly when these "schools" and traditions sprouted and flowered, how much interaction Owari Province had with Kyoto in the late 15th and early 16th centuries, etc... Given that ko-Shoami are seen by many as a "middle ground" between the strength of Owari sukashi and the gracefulness of Kyo-sukashi, however, it makes more sense to me to see ko-Shoami work as being more influenced by Owari than the reverse. Cheers, Steve

Hi Lorenzo, I am inclined to agree with you here. I do feel that these particular designs are Higo in origin, and more specifically, Kanshiro or Hayashi. I'm still not sure if I see the creator as more likely Nishigaki (shodai) or Hayashi Matashichi, but on some gut level I find myself leaning toward Matashichi; somehow, I see these particular types of tsuba as coming out of the Matashichi sensibility of aesthetics and design a bit more than I do arising out of Nishigaki's. One other intriguing possibility to consider is whether or not the design is neither Nishigaki's nor Matashichi's, but is instead the brainchild of Hosokawa Sansai. As the Daimyo of Higo, he is famous for not only his deep involvement with the arts, but specifically for sponsoring the superb " four schools" of Higo tsubako: Hirata Hikozo, Shimizu Jinbei (shodai Jingo), Nishigaki Kanshiro, and Hayashi Matashichi. His sponsorship was quite "hands-on," which is to say that he had direct involvement with these tsubako. It is thought by some that Sansai even made a few tsuba himself, with the guidance of one or more of the four masters. In any case, I do not see the design in question to be an original Akasaka creation, nor am I aware of any other school, tradition, artist, or region that produced this design prior to the early Edo Period. Oh, and it should be said that the story of Karigane Hikobei is apocryphal. As others here have noted, the prevailing theory of Akasaka origins, I believe, is that the earliest Akasaka tsubako came to Edo from the Owari region... At least, this is my understanding... Cheers, Steve

Fully agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. "The Last Samurai" is almost unwatchable, except for the scenes with Sanada... :D Ford, couldn't agree with you more: that scene where Ujio kicks the crap out of Algren is deeply satisfying...lol. Also agree on "The Twilight Samurai," probably my personal favorite in the genre of "samurai films." "The Hidden Blade" is also very good, thought not quite up to "Twilight." John, I SO agree with you, too, about the preposterousness of Algren learning enough kenjutsu in his winter in New Zealand to come anywhere CLOSE to touching Sanada or any of those he's combatting. Sheesh. Beyond silly. Truly. By the way, anyone here have any reviews on films made by the same writers/directors of "Twilight Samurai" and "Hidden Blade"? Cheers, Steve

Hi Lorenzo and Ford... I suppose it is possible that the explanation is as Ford describes. However, I frankly wonder if it is not the reverse: due to the sankinkotai requirement, Higo works were brought to Edo, where Akasaka tsubako were exposed to their designs. When we look at the earliest Akasaka guards (including "proto-Akasaka" Owari tsuba, as well as the earliest "ko-Akasaka" work), the sorts of designs and treatments we might confuse with Higo works are not common, if they're present at all. Only in somewhat later Akasaka tsuba do we frequently see the sorts of designs also seen in Nishigaki Kanshiro and Hayashi Matashichi work. These designs are rather significant departures from what is seen in the earliest Akasaka pieces, and if it is accurate (and I think it is) to see Akasaka tsuba originating out of an Owari tradition, such designs as we see rendered in even the later part of ko-Akasaka tsuba production would seem unlikely to be "sourced" back to Owari sensibilities. On the other hand, the fluid designs we see made by Nishigaki and Matashichi fit relatively seamlessly into their wider oeuvre, especially in the case of Matashichi. Both groups, though, were so original in their motifs and designs that it's hard (for me, at least) to be sure about which came first here, the chicken or the egg... Cheers, Steve

Hi Craig, Thanks... I'll be very interested to hear what you find out from Bob on this... I really have no idea on the matter of which kao Dr. Torigoye used when. So this is all a good learning opportunity for me. Thanks again, Craig. Cheers, Steve

Many thanks, Moriyama-san, for your translation efforts. Very useful. Much appreciated... :D I was a little concerned that the box did not fit the tsuba, but it is quite clear that it does. Thanks again... Craig, Thanks to you, too, for your post here. Good thoughts. I have seen that "quality indicator" (one or two strokes on the kao) used with both the Kodo and the Sado kao. I have no idea how accurate the understanding is that these are reliable quality indicators, or that the Kodo kao was used for pre-Edo works, while the Sado kao was used for Edo pieces. Apparently, Bob Haynes has confirmed this understanding, but I don't know for sure... The tsuba in question here (and its hakogaki), though, would seem to contradict such an understanding... Thanks again to those who responded to this thread... Cheers, Steve

Hi Martin, Yes, Dr. Torigoye did apparently use a particular kao for his trips abroad, but the kao in question here is apparently one he used in Japan, but supposedly only for pre-Edo pieces. The oddity here is that his "pre-Edo kao" is used for a Norisuke tsuba, which means 19th-century... Cheers, Steve

Nobody-san, Oh, yes, here is the tsuba! (see attached photos). Craig, Yes, I read through that excellent thread, and have consulted the Haynes #7. The oddity is that in that thread, it was said that Dr. Torigoye used the bird kao for pre-Edo pieces, and used the "round" kao for Edo-period work. In this case, though, he is using the bird kao for a tsuba that I'm pretty sure is mid-19th-century work. So I'm hoping to gain a little insight here... Cheers, Steve

Greetings, I am wondering if someone could aid me in the translation of this hakogaki... I believe it was done by Dr. Torigoye in the description of an Edo-period tsuba. Yet my understanding is that the kao he used here was one he reserved for pre-Edo pieces, so I'm a bit confused. I'm wondering if I'm missing something in the writing here... Any help is much appreciated... Cheers, Steve

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

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

One or two thoughts here on the matter of "bones" in iron tsuba... It seems likely to me that, initially, anyway, tekkotsu were a by-product of the type/constitution of the iron used by various metal-workers in their production of tsuba. Since iron tsuba were being produced from at least the Kamakura Period onwards, we might expect to find a range of guards presenting with anywhere from zero tekkotsu to rather a lot of it over the centuries. However, I suspect that, in these earlier times, too much tekkotsu might be seen potentially as a structural flaw, or conversely, as an aesthetic one. If we remember that in the 14th, 15th, and early part of the 16th centuries a more definitely Chinese aesthetic sense held much sway in Japan, the various subtle aesthetic principles we might tie to the expression afforded by tekkotsu (yugen, shibusa, sabi, wabi, etc...), and which would have been greatly appreciated and sought after by the late 16th century, would not in fact have been likely to be seen as a desirable trait in an iron guard. I don't think it's an accident that when we think of the various classic forms of Kyoto tsuba (i.e. "refined," high-culture tsuba), we rarely find traditions known for their use of tekkotsu (yes, I do think it is a conscious inclusion in tsuba design and production; more on this in a moment). Consider Kyo-sukashi, Kyo-Shoami, Heianjo-sukashi, and Umetada tsuba: none of these "schools" is recognized for its tekkotsu. In fact, only the ko-Shoami "school" can be seen to incorporate tekkotso in their guards, and even they did not do so to anywhere near the degree that the various Owari Province tsuba smiths did. Why might the ko-Shoami group have utilized tekkotsu, then? I believe it has everything to do with the Tea Culture which was utterly dominant among the most powerful taste-makers in Momoyama Japan. At no other time before or since was there such an intertwining of the ascendence of Tea with that of such potent martial men as Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa Ieyasu, along with "lesser" bushi like Hosokawa Sansai, Fukushima Masanori, and of course, Furuta Oribe. For these bushi, Tea was immensely important. And with that importance came the aesthetics attached to it. In much the same way, then, that Tea aesthetics impacted the evolution/development of the various ceramic types utilized in the Tea Ceremony, those same aesthetics, I believe, found expression in the tsuba of the day. Since those aesthetic principles manifest in ceramics as not only simple formal asymmetry, but also the deliberate "marring" of the surface and structure of the tea vessel in question in order to realize the sought after "Tea Expression," so to did they manifest in the Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Kanayama tsuba of that period. If one has access to enough Yamakichibei tsuba to do a side-by-side-by-side comparison, one can begin to see patterns of tekkotsu in terms of their type, amount, and specific location on the tsuba. They exist in various concentrations and degree according to location on the guard. Viewing many Yamakichibei tsuba at once affords such a realization, if one is observant and conscious of what one is seeing there. Of all the tsuba schools and traditions, Yamakichibei, I believe, most powerfully express the same aesthetic principles guiding the artistic production of Momoyama ceramics; and they are no less conscious in the specifics of their design and creation than are the products of kilns like those of Shigaraki and Iga, along with the Seto, Bizen, Oribe, etc... Let's remember that one of the most important castle towns of the Momoyama Period was Kiyosu in Owari. At various times, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Masanori, among others, all were lords of Kiyosu. Yamakichibei and Hoan are both thought to have been armorers and tsubako in Kiyosu; Yamakichibei is noted to have been in the service of Nobunaga as an armorer and tsubako. Kanayama tsuba are understood to have been made in Owari province as well, as were, of course, Owari tsuba (also known for its fine use of tekkotsu). In my view, tekkotsu are specifically, if not exclusively linked not only to Momoyama Japan (whose aesthetic is decidedly not Chinese [unlike so much of what we see in Muromachi times]), but to Owari Province as well. This isn't to say we cannot find tekkotsu in tsuba made outside of this period or locale, but it is to say that Momoyama Owari is dominant when it comes to the conscious employment of tekkotsu toward a deliberate aesthetic intimately associated with Tea Culture. I have included a few photos here of prominent Momoyama Tea utensils, along with a couple of Momoyama tsuba with tekkotsu. Note the surface expression in each. Then consider the use of tekkotsu in Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Kanayama tsuba. In my view, the crossover is inescapable, especially since so much of the aesthetic principles involved were expressly written of in the Momoyama Period itself (rather than merely centuries later...). Cheers, Steve

Here is a good example of good iron bones. The first and last images in this group of five are especially illustrative... This is a pre-Edo Kanayama tsuba... Cheers, Steve

Keith, you want to take this one, or shall I? lol... ;o) --Steve

Hi Keith, Well, I would imagine that, if the kogai is an implement associated with higher-ranking bushi, there would be fewer men of this rank than there would be of the lower ranks, thus the greater numbers to be found of kogatana/kozuka on uchigatana/katana (and, one would think, greater numbers of tsuba with kozuka-ana than with kogai-ana, at least originally). However, I am still a bit perplexed by the twin kogai-ana some tsuba have. If the kogai-ana is "for" a kogai, and the kozuka-ana is "for" a kogatana/kozuka, why do we see the twin kogai-ana on some tsuba? Perhaps the shapes we associate with kogai-ana (versus) kozuka-ana are really less firmly attached to the implement in question than we (I) think they are? After all, it's not as if many kogai couldn't be drawn through a wide-ish kozuka-ana, nor would it be impossible for some kozuka to be drawn through a decent-sized kogai-ana... Hmmm... I remain in need of enlightenment here... ;o) Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, I was trying to find my source material on the use of the kogai, but haven't been able to locate it in my library just yet. I'll keep looking... What you observe concerning the use of the kogai is partly what my understanding is based on. However, the main thrust has to do more with the use of the kogai as an implement by which the warrior of elevated rank would "make himself presentable" to his superiors (i.e. as a hair-"adjusting" tool). As I said, I am trying to find my sources for this understanding of the use of the kogai, so it's quite possible I'm mis-remembering/misunderstanding something here. However, I am pretty sure the kogai occupies a higher place in the ordering of tosogu than does the kozuka, and part of the reason for this is that its use was restricted to the more "noble" men in the buke. For the purposes of studying tsuba, though, the actual use of the kogai is perhaps a bit less important than simply knowing that it had a higher "rank" than the kozuka/ko-gatana, and that, therefore, early tsuba with kogai-ana (original kogai-ana, of course) had to have been meant not only for bushi (rather than other classes), but for higher-ranking bushi. Having said all of what I have here, though, I must confess that the whole matter is quite muddy to me in that I not infrequently see tsuba with TWO kogai-ana or two kozuka-ana. While the latter case I could sort of understand (the warrior in the field desiring yet one more blade on his person), why would two kogai ever be necessary or desired. I am assuming here that kogai-ana actually WERE meant for kogai, incidentally. If this is not the case, and in fact either implement could be used with either type of ana, then I frankly am not sure what to make of it all! lol... Cheers, Steve

Frankly, I'm not sure it matters all that much whether, by mid-Edo, a given tsuba was made for a person of samurai class versus one of the "lower" classes. By this time, the "samurai" were merely government bureaucrats; they certainly were not warriors. By the time of the "47 Ronin," more than a century had passed since Sekigahara. There was no one alive who had fought in a battle, no one for whom the term "warrior" meant anything beyond a fanciful and romantic imagined notion of himself. Come the turn of the 18th century, few knew even which end of the sword to hold. For most of them, a tsuba was akin to a gold watch---a precious bauble by which to impress their fellow bureaucrats. This is one big reason (along with the ascent of merchant class power [and taste]) for the dominance of kinko (soft metal) tsuba by the 18th century. A tsuba certainly no longer had to withstand the stress of any sort of actual fighting, and could function merely as the male jewelry it essentially was. While the decline of the buke was precipitous by this time, those of this class who could afford pricier tsuba seem to have been as enamored of the same relatively gaudy kinko stuff that those of the "lower" classes were. But as others in this thread have observed, it's hard to tell, exactly, who such tsuba were "for." After all, nothing would have prevented a sword-wearer to outfit his wakizashi with a larger-than-usual "wakizashi tsuba," unless I'm mistaken. I do believe that in times earlier than the mid-Edo, the kogai was reserved not only for bushi, but for higher-ranking bushi, so those tsuba from the early Edo Period and earlier whose kogai-ana were original may have been meant for/used by high-ranking warriors. I would imagine, however, that, even if this is an accurate understanding, by the 18th century, such divisions were no longer in play, so tsuba produced then which had kogai-ana may just as well have been meant for merchants as they were for the samurai. Then, too, many earlier tsuba could and likely did have kogai-ana added to the existing plate, again probably for a person of whatever class, as long as it could be afforded. The last vestiges of tsuba as functioning fighting tsuba and/or as possessing the first aesthetic principles as presented in Torigoye and Haynes' Tsuba: An Aesthetic Study, pretty much petered out with the end of the early Edo period (pre-Genroku), and in most cases, well before this. Of course, there are exceptions. But for the most part, I believe this to be the case. For me, therefore, post-Genroku tsuba are rarely of interest (again, there are a few exceptions), and honestly, very few even of post Kan-ei times. Few past this time are invested with excellence in the first aesthetic principles (see reference above), few possess or present the efforts to embody or express the more elevated aesthetic ideals that tsuba of the late Muromachi, Momoyama, and early-Edo periods did, and as just discussed, the "samurai" were no longer samurai, not, at any rate, as they had been for the years pre-Genroku. As for the years pre-Edo which were much "looser" as regards who may own/wear a sword, it is true that the restrictive measures put in place in the Momoyama Period had not yet materialized. As far as the way this impacts tsuba, however, much will depend on the individual guard. Certain types of tsuba were unquestionably made strictly for the more elevated members of Japanese society, and there would have been little chance (read NO chance) for any outside of this elevated level to own such a piece. Recall what I said above, too, regarding the use of kogai. Pre-Edo, unless I am mistaken, only those bushi of higher rank could use the kogai; so any tsuba commissioned/used by such persons were more likely, then, to include a kogai-ana (I'm assuming, here, that we're not discussing tachi, of course), while those tsuba meant for lower-ranked bushi would not have a kogai-ana, but perhaps just the kozuka-ana). As has been said in this thread, there is much to discuss, ponder, and research in this area. But I suppose I would want to ask these questions: of what particular interest is it to attempt to discern which mid-Edo tsuba may have been meant for those of the samurai class, and which may have been meant for those of other classes? What does one look to gain by discerning this distinction (assuming that there is one, and that, if so, such a difference can be ascertained)? I am quite genuinely curious to understand such a pursuit... ) Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Agreed, this seems VERY thin. John, any chance you could post photos of the mimi, maybe a side-on view, and/or a 3/4 shot? Cheers, Steve

Lee, Thanks for posting that link. Interesting. But notice how much thicker this piece is than the one originally posted in this thread. That is an important point, I believe. How many Edo Period tsuba do we know of that were 2mm (or less) in thickness? Even 3mm is rare in Edo times... Cheers, Steve

Yes, I did say I thought it possible that the zogan may have been added to an earlier ita plate... What you say here, Curran, is one reason that papers don't mean a whole lot to me. There have just been too many iffy calls made, as your example regarding the ko-tosho/"Shoami" illustrates. But then, given that so many of the "schools" that we find papers attributing tsuba to were convenient "taxonomic" inventions of various scholars and dealers of the Meiji Period, rather than existing as such when the tsuba in question were made, the notion that "correct" attributions can even exist in many cases is highly dubious. When one throws in all of the "cross-fertilization" in design and construction methods increasingly seen in the Edo period, it should invite us to be less concerned with identifying what "school" given mumei tsuba might be. We may want to ask ourselves why we are as focused as we are on the "identity" of tsuba, rather than (it would appear to me) on what makes a tsuba qualitatively excellent (or not). The fact that this latter would be seen as "too subjective" does not in the slightest invalidate this sort of inquiry, at least, not any more than such considerations would invalidate any form of critical examination and appreciation of art. Perhaps I am veering too far off topic... Apologies. Cheers, Steve

Higo? Hmmmm... I don't see this as Higo, I'm afraid. The plate is way too thin for Higo, the hitsuana do not speak of Higo sensibilities, and I don't see Shimizu steel here. The bori is too naively done to be Matashichi. If it is Higo, it's the thinnest plate I've ever heard of being attributed to a Higo artist... Cheers, Steve

Hi John, An appealing, intriguing tsuba here. My initial thought is that the zogan may be a later addition to an earlier ita plate. Your observations of the various features of the tsuba, including those that are "at odds," are good ones. As you say, while the Kunitomo employed the sawari inlay and forged quality steel for their tsuba, the overall design of this piece speaks to a pre-Edo sensibility, I would say. The thinness of the plate, in particular, has me thinking this tsuba can't be Edo, or at least, not the part of the Edo period in which Hazama tsuba are thought/known to have been made. Further, again as you have noted, the rendering of the motif is not done in a manner consistent with usual Hazama work. In fact, the only real strong indicator of anything having to do with Hazama, it seems, is the use of sawari inlay. I don't recall offhand if sawari was an invention of the Kunitomo, or if it had existed/been used well prior to their popularizing of it. In any case, the dimensions of this tsuba, together with its design (shape, engraving, large, elongated ryo-hitsu, and rendering of the motif) and metal quality, suggest a pre-Edo time of manufacture, specifically Momoyama. I would suppose ko-Shoami here. Whatever it is, it is a really strong, highly appealing tsuba, I think. I will look forward to others' comments... Thanks for presenting this, John... Cheers, Steve

Interesting tsubs, Mariusz. I don't think I've seen one quite like this before. I wouldn't be able to locate this piece with confidence in a particular school, but I would agree with Ford: not cast and of the Edo Period (mid-to-late-Edo). Here is an image of the iconic Owari crab tsuba from the Tokyo National Museum. Obviously very different from yours there, but since you asked for crab tsuba... Cheers, Steve

Thanks for the explanation, Reinhard. Very interesting and thought-provoking. ;o) Cheers, Steve

Hi Reinhard, I'm just a little confused: when you say "this" in the above sentence, could you specify exactly what you're referring to? Thanks. Cheers, Steve