Higo Tsuba Appreciation...

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

I wanted to start this topic about tsuba what received a attribution to Higo without getting a more specific attribution to one of the four great schools located in Higo Province during the Edo Period such as Hirata, Hayashi, Shimizu, and Nishigaki. I will start off the discussion with my tsuba that I just received from Japan with a attribution to Higo by the NBTHK. I have other examples of nice Higo only tsuba that I will post later but I wanted other people to contribute their own examples for the discussion. What motivated me to start this topic was the fair number of really nice tsuba with Higo only attributions. I do remember seeing a fair number at the Tampa show this year.

My tsuba that I will start this topic off looks a bit like the beautiful lovechild between a Kamakura tsuba and a Shimizu school tsuba. The carving style described on the Hozon paper is a shell-shaped line carving (kōsuki ke-bori 甲鋤毛彫) also found on some style of Kamakura-bori tsuba.

Here is a example also papered for reference: http://e-sword.jp/sale/2010/1010_6030syousai.htm.

My full write up and additional photos can be obtained from my website here: http://www.tsubaotaku.com/#!gallery4/c1jbk. Enjoy and feel free to discuss and provide other examples for discussion.

[Curran]

I do not know which shinsa yours went into. It is good they confirmed it was 'Higo', as one of our NMB members thought.

However: recently everything Higo seems to be coming back from NBTHK shinsa with just 'Higo' attribution. No more specific attributions.

 

A mumei shakudo piece I sent in got a very lofty attribution to a specific ko-goto master, but a pair of nidai Kanshiro menuki got the 'Higo' papers.

At the very very least, should have gotten 'Nishigaki'.

Seemed an overshoot and undershoot of the target.

 

Others have confirmed similarly vague 'Higo' results: be it published 1st generation works or just 5th gen unsigned works.

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

My tsuba came out of the "woodwork" so to speak when I purchased at an estate auction of a private school in Baltimore in February 2013. I did some minor clean up work on the tsuba. It went into the December 2013 NBTHK tosogu shinsa as a Hozon only submission. Bob Benson was a bit surprised by the Higo only attribution as he was thinking it would go a bit more specific. I am happy with the Higo only call as my tsuba does display a interesting combinations of Edo and Pre-Edo Period techniques not often found together. This is one reason I date it to the early Edo Period approximately 1615-1670. This is one reason I am keeping it regardless of the multiple sell offers to study the design, composition, and the techniques used. This new topic on NMB is an extension of this study.

With this topic I wanted to highlight and discuss the sometimes anonymous independent artists whose works get the "Higo" attribution sometimes that were centered around Kumamoto castle in Higo Province making sword fittings for the samurai population and to a lesser extent the merchant population during the Edo Period. Some historically well known independent artist unlike the maker of my tsuba include Miyamoto Musashi and Nakane Heichachiro. A good example of papered Nakane Heichachiro tsuba can be found on Tetsugendo website here: http://tetsugendo.com/ at the bottem of the Gallery section. The tsuba has papers by the Nihon Tosugu Bijitsukan (Sword Fittings Museum) that has unfortunately been closed.

[Curran]

I have never looked at the Tetsuguendo.com gallery before.

I looked at the Nakane there. A nice one recently went off in the Bonhams London sale.

 

The iron Kanshiro in Mike/Cyrus' gallery section is here now.

I will list it in a few weeks if it doesn't go privately first.

The pleasing thing about it that I would never have been able to tell from pictures is the presence of several tekkotsu on the face and back.

I might have expected them along the mimi, but not where they are on such a thin tsuba. Some things just never to show up in photos.

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

The Nakane Heichachiro tsuba on the Tetsugendo website looks familiar like I have seen it before but I could be mixed up. Would love to see photos of the Nishigaki tsuba if you have time. I will post another tsuba in my collection that might get a basic Higo attribution at shinsa over the long weekend.

[MauroP]

Hi David,

yours it's really a puzzling tsuba. Some features suggest an early Kamakura - 鎌倉 influence (i.e. kōsuki-bori - 甲鋤彫 style of carving and the same design on both sides). On the other hand other features do not fit the Kamakura hypothesis: ten-zōgan -点象嵌 and that kind of dote-mimi - 土手耳 (or it's a tomotetsu-fukurin - 共鉄覆輪?). The fine carvings on the border in omote resemble the early representation of waves in some Heianjō tsuba.

Anyway most of features in my opinion point to a pre-Edo piece. Even the hitsu-ana may well be a later modification (why else disrupt so badly the design in ura side?).

On the main issue (why the tsuba has been papered as Higo) I simply cannot understand.

Bye, Mauro

[Soshin]

Hi Mauro,

 

Thanks for joining the discussion. The designs on the rim of your tsuba is very similar to my tsuba. Does the designs on your tsuba only occur on the front side like mine? In answer to your question. The tsuba rim is described as "dote mimi (土手耳)". While it looks similar to what the Shimizu school did Pete Klein has pointed out stylistic differences between my tsuba raised rim and early Shimizu school work. I understand your pre Edo Period hypothesis but there are a few things that make me think early Edo Period likely during a transitional phase which I think was the NBTHK shinsa panel opinion.

 

1. The overall thickness of my tsuba with a 4.6 mm thickness at rim. Kamakura tsuba are generally fairly thin and don't have a raised rim as the example provided above.

2. The gold inlay on the eyes of the dragon on both sides. This is very nicely done and adds wonderful contrast to deep brownish-black color of the patina of the iron. This characteristic while not unique to Higo is often found in this group.

3. The overall shape of the tsuba was one favored by the early Higo work more specifically the Shimizu school. Many early Shimizu school works are either tate-maru gata (竪丸形) or aori-gata (障泥形).

4. The shape of the kozuka hitsu-ana (小柄櫃孔穴) is very characteristic of Higo but you are correct that might have been added later.

 

Below is a low resolution photo of the NBTHK Hozon paper along with my tsuba.

[sanjuro]

Firstly let me say that I am by no means a tsuba collector.

One thing puzzles me in a statement as follows

The shape of the kozuka hitsu-ana (小柄櫃孔穴) is very characteristic of Higo but you are correct that might have been added later.

 

OK... an observation to be sure but if one looks at the Ura view of the tsuba and the arm of the dragon. The two grooves that describe the arm itself stop short of the hitsu ana that cuts into the carving of the dragon. Does this not suggest that the hitsu ana was cut prior to the dragon being carved, and the grooves describing the arms truncated in order to prevent them from intersecting with the hitsu ana?

[Soshin]

Hi Keith G.,

 

Thanks for joining the discussion. From looking at the tsuba in hand the grooves that define the arm extend into kozuka hitsu-ana. It doesn't look like the grooves stop short before the opening as the inside edge of kozuka hitsu-ana is uneven at the point where the grooves intersect it. The same can be said for the other smaller grooves cut to defining the dragon design around the kozuka hitsu-ana on the ura side. This could be all intentional by the artist meaning that kozuka hitsu-ana was originally intended to interrupt the design on the ura side. Not really sure in the end if the kozuka hitsu-ana is original or not. Its overall shape kozuka hitsu-ana does fit with the Higo attribution by the NBTHK.

[sanjuro]

[Please see the attached for the area I refer to, and unless i'm going blind the grooves that define the arm stop short of the kozuka ana.

 

Perhaps the photograph misleads me.

 

[Soshin]

Hi Keith G.,

 

The perspective of the photo is misleading. When you look at inside surface of the kozuka hitsu-ana from a angle nearly parallel with the plate you will see the unevenness caused by the grooves extending into the opening. This is also observable with the other smaller grooves on that side that make up the dragon design. These observations should not be taken as substantial evidence that the tsuba is pre Edo Period.

[Curran]

Hi Curran,

With this topic I wanted to highlight and discuss the sometimes anonymous independent artists whose works get the "Higo" attribution sometimes that were centered around Kumamoto castle in Higo Province making sword fittings for the samurai population and to a lesser extent the merchant population during the Edo Period. Some historically well known independent artist unlike the maker of my tsuba include Miyamoto Musashi and Nakane Heichachiro.

 

 

Well, the Kumamoto artists are a complex topic beyond me. Some of them were incredibly skilled and it is a shame we don't have more in English on them. I am not sure there is that much in Japanese.

A talk with an eBayer led me to this attached tsuba. I just assumed it was 3rd gen Nishigaki work, but one of our Higo smart guys said to look in the Hayashi book at the works of an artist known as 'Kohrin'. His works are rare and mostly in the Kumamoto Prefect Museum. I agree with the gent that this is a work by Kohrin. I thought the shakudo trees on the mountain were nicely done.

 

No intention of sending it to the NBTHK for a paper that says 'Higo'.

Anyway, love the design of moon reflected in the rice fields. Nidai Kanshiro did a famous tsuba of this design, and part of why I just assumed it was 3rd gen work in the same line.

There are quite a few Kumamoto artist works I would love to own.

[cabowen]

the eight-fold path perhaps.....

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

Thanks for posting this wonderful tsuba. This is the type of tsuba that I would like to discuss in this topic. Basicly tsuba that have or would likely get a Higo only attribution. The rim looks really nice does it have a shakudo cover? I wonder how they did the moon reflections in the design?

[Curran]

The moons are all inlaid at an earlier stage in the construction.

We can look inside one of the ana and see a cross section depth of one of the moons into the plate.

It isn't very hard to reverse engineer the design of this one.

 

The fukurin is a shakudo twisted rope type fukurin. Much nicer than I anticipated from photos.

This came from an antiques dealer about 20 miles south of me in Port Charlotte (site of a class 4 hurricane landfall about 1 decade ago- totally flattened it).

Unfortunately, it was the only one she had and no word where it came from.

 

As you say, some of these independent artists are a mash-up of the 4 main schools and whatever else.

Nishigaki <-> Hayashi mash-up on this one? I haven't had the time to go further than confirming it is probably Kohrin work.

Often they bridge two schools, and I like the results.

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

I often don't look in many antique shops and are likely missing a few nice pieces that once in a while come along. In my opinion this this is a really great find for a local antique shop.

As you say, some of these independent artists are a mash-up of the 4 main schools and whatever else.

Nishigaki <-> Hayashi mash-up on this one? I haven't had the time to go further than confirming it is probably Kohrin work.

Often they bridge two schools, and I like the results.

I quoted the above text because I think this is an important point about tsuba that received the Higo only attribution they often show attributes of one or more of the main school mix together. Sometime the workmanship can be as good as the work being done in the schools during the same time period. Your tsuba I would consider it a Nishigaki-Hayashi mash up of techniques. In the case of my tsuba it is mash up of Shimizu school techniques and the pre Edo Period Kamakura style.