docliss

I was pleased to see Grev’s recent posting on Namban tsuba. With one single exception, these tsuba are representative of the group, although I would prefer to label tsuba #3, with the manji diaper, as ‘demonstrating a strong namban influence’ rather than of the Namban group. Tsuba #5, with its bilobed form and the taotie at its four poles, is an example of the auriculate sub-group, as are Curran’s two examples, the first of shakudō and the second – 684’30 from the City of Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery – of sentoku, in spite of its photographic appearance. As a generalisation, one can safely state that tsuba of the Namban group are invariably of iron, while those of the auriculate sub-group are of the soft metal alloys. I have never personally seen an inscription on a tsuba of the Namban group apart, that is, from the Chinese one of the early Ch'ing dynasty, illustrated as #354 in the Catalogue of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. One is tempted to attribute this omission to the frequent presence of decorative serppa-dai, which clearly preclude the addition of any mei, but even those tsuba with plain seppa-dai share in this omission. If any NMB member can post an exception to this rule I should be pleased to see it. John L.

In reply to Rich’s enquiry as to the active dates of Tōjusai Masakatsu, Haynes (H 04109.0) states that there are tsuba by this artist that are dated 1834 and 1840. John L.

P.A.’s tsuba is smallish is size; is unsigned; and has no designated seppa-dai. It is somewhat restrained in its design, and the elongated kozuka-hitsu indicates a considerable age. All of these characteristics, and bearig in mine the limitations imposed by the images, suggest to me a possible Kō-Nara attribution. John L.

Interestingly, Nikolas' latest image reveals the stems of the karakusa design to be ribbon-like in form, with very little in the way of true undercutting. This is quite unlike the normal form of Namban construction, where the stems are much more delicate, and are circular in cross section, with extensive undercutting. Such a tecnique on Nikolas' tsuba would have greatly simplified its constructiuon. John L.

Nikalas’ tsuba is a good and unusual example of Namban work. The openwork is far more extensive than is commonly seen, with a very fine and delicate karakusa design. The extension of this, in low relief, onto the square seppa-dai is unusual, and the two ryō-hitsu appear to be original. Finally, its condition is remarkable. A later work, I am sure, but one to treasure. The old question; was it mounted with square seppa, I wonder. John L.

I am sorry Jean, I misunderstood your reference. John L.

Jean, if Bazza’s very nice tsuba is not Yoshiro zōgan then what is it? I have opened your link, and there is a marked similarity between these two tsuba, but sadly I am unable to translate the descriptive text. What a pleasure, though, to see such darkly patinated and unspoiled brass inlay. Incidentally, I fail to recognise any namban influence in Bazza’s tsuba. John L.

//Jimi-san Thank you for confirming the presence of soft metal decoration of the faces on your tsuba. Sadly the photographic reproduction of the mei in Kinkō Meikan is of such a quality that they do not scan satisfactorily. The translation of this entry, however, is GOSHU HIKONE (NO)JU SOHEISHI SOTEN SEI. Personally, I am reluctant to label the multitude of Sōtenesque tsuba as gimei. The original two masters, working in the first half of the eighteenth century, had a large number of students, most of whom signed their work with the Sōten mei. Their work, together with the innumerable copies emanating from the Hiragiya and Aizu Shōami schools, and later shiiremono made for export at the Yokohama docks, makes genuine work by the masters extremely rare. Their's was generally less decorative, and with less openwork, than that of later copyists and, often on a solid plate, was not unlike that of the Mino-bori artists. Thus I prefer to call all of this Sōten-style work ‘Hikone-bori’ rather than ‘gimei’. John L.

I would very much like one of our linguists to translate the mei on //Jimi-san’s second tsuba. It is of very nice workmanship, and appears to be lacking the usual soft metal decoration of the face – or is that a false impression caused by the photograph? Kinkō Meikan, p.520d illustrates a mei not unlike this one, in a rather ‘cursive’ script. I am rather intrigued by this tsuba, John L.

I very much like Florian’s first tsuba. It is, as he states, inscribed KISHU (NO)JU SADANAGA (some read this as TEIMEI). The mei of this artist are reproduced on pp. 136a-d of Kinkō Meikan, and the one on 136c is very like that on Florian’s tsuba: this entry states that there were two generations. Haynes lists him as H 07752.0 and states that ‘there were at least four or five generations’. This tsuba has the square mimi characteristic of this group of artists. Personally I agree with Antti that it is probably nineteenth century work, and is by one of the later generations. John L.

With acknowledgement both to Thierry and John: The mei on Dale’s tsuba reads GYOYU KISHIN KIZAMU. This uses an alternative kanji for ‘Gyo’, and is not reproduced in Kinkō Meikan, but the work looks appropriate for that of this artist - H 03210.0. John L.

Ian, congratulations on your posting of your suspicions regarding the prevalence of casting in the production of iron tsuba. I have for some years shared this conviction but, lacking the expertise to confirm it and the courage to express it in public, I bow to your readiness to accept the inevitable brickbats. John L.

Speaking personally. I am not surprised that David’s Namban tsuba failed its TH certification – possibly because of its condition. For me, the most interest part of this exercise will be to see the date attributed to it by the panel. John L.

Higo - ? Suwa Ikuhei John L.

Robert, Umetada Shigenari’s mei is illustrated on pp.153c and d of Kinkō Meikan. As with many of these illustrations, the mei are not very clear and certainly would not scan well onto NMB but, as far as I can see, that on your tsuba looks pretty good. John L.

Bernard Both are good examples of Heianjō-zōgan work, remarkable for the relative completeness of the brass inlay. This is fairly bright in two tsuba that have probably not been touched for a number of years, and both are probably later examples of the group. The first depicts carnations (chanomi) and karakusa in brass suemon-zōgan on an iron plate, the second water plantain (omodaka), similarly rendered. I suggest that the ‘strange motif’ on the seppa-dai of the first tsuba is a collectors number ‘207’ in gold paint. John L.

John While both of Uwe’s two postings are of fuchi-gashira with mei of Nomura Masahide, the first artist is Haynes’ H 03936.0, while the second is H 03944.0, the eighth master of the Nomura family line. Both kao are illustrated by Haynes, and both works appear to be genuine. John L.

Thank you very much for that, Koichi san - it makes sense. John L.

Bernard Another very fine tsuba with an iroye of shakudō and gold, depicting a water well (Ido) and vegetation upon a polished copper plate. It is mumei, late Edo work, but I am unable to attribute it to a particular school. Admittedly, it is rather discoloured in the deeper recesses on the omote surface, but this is probably only an accumulation of grot, and will probably clean gently with no problem. Do any other members have a suggestion as to an attribution? John L.

Bernard Your beautiful tsuba is inscribed INSHU (NO)JU MASAMITSU with kao, but he is using an alternative kanji for ‘mitsu’, and the Inshu is slightly questionable. Haynes lists only two artists using this kanji; this is by Asagi Masamitsu (H 04198.0), and Haynes illustrates the kao. This artist, working in the Inaba province in the early 1800s, succeeded to the head of his family in 1791 and was appointed as artist to the Bakufu in 1806. Kinkō Meikan shows the mei, without the kao, on pp.425a and b. John L.

Bernard There has been a dearth of comments on this tsuba. It is an example of sumi-e zōgan, comprising flat inlay on a polished ground, and resembling ink painting. It is almost certainly late Edo work, but I am unable to assign it to a particular school, as this technique was adopted by a number of schools at this period. Sadly, some of the shakudō inlay is missing, and it is all badly discoloured. It was once a fine tsuba, and I agree with Brian. I would certainly ask Ford Hallam if it is salvageable. John L.

Just older! With thanks, John L.

Marius and Grey That the ryō-hitsu on this tsuba are later modifications to the original plate – something frequently found in tsuba of this group – is, I should have thought, fairly obvious. But these apertures would not have had metal ‘spikes’ protruding into them as in this case; these would have damaged the kozuka and kōgai, and have developed subsequently. As for the absence of rusting of the seppa-dai, this flattened area would have decayed less readily than the delicate openwork, with its large surface area exposed to moisture. I rest my case, John L.

With its extensive openwork with undercutting, its affrontés dragons with a tama jewel and the decorative seppa-dai with a seigaiha diaper decoration – all defining characteristics of the group – Jimi-san’s tsuba is clearly Namban. But it is unusual in several features: the delicacy of the karakusa design, the irregular margins of the ryō-hitsu and the extreme thinness of the mimi are all strange. The only explanation that I can think of for all of these features is of severe damage by rust at some stage in its existence. This would cause both the delicacy of the decoration and the irregular shape of the ryō-hitsu, which are larger than usual. Presumably the rim, once denticular and rusted, has had this decoration removed, thus creating a ‘false’ mimi that is clearly non-functional and, possibly, a slightly smaller than normal size to the tsuba. Its date is anybody’s guess, but I see no reason to doubt a common, nineteenth century Japanese origin. John L.

With its indifferent nanako, mokkō-gata, heavy rims to the ryo-hitsu and brown discoloration of the seppa-dai, is not Bernard’s latest posting an example of Nagoya-mono work? It is however, I admit, lacking the frequently seen tagane-mei in the nakago-hitsu. John L.