Butterfly Tosho Tsuba

[JohnTo]

I have a few questions regarding a tsuba that I recently purchased.  The tsuba is an iron tosho tsuba (8.88 x 8.8 cm, 3mm at the seppa dai, 2mm at the mimi) with a sukashi butterfly and was accompanied by a NBTHK Hozon certificate.  The nakago ana is slightly concave at the sides where the shinogi of the sword would have rested and has no tagane marks, which would indicate that the tsuba was made for a specific blade, probably at the time of forging, which had bo-hi chiselled through the nakago.  There are no sekigane, again indicating that this was a tailor made tsuba that has not been remounted.  There is a single small kozuka style ana and the overall condition is good, with no active rust areas, but having a mixture of smooth and slightly rough (tsuchime, hammered?) finish.  The surface also looks as if the iron is not homogeneous, but a mixture of different irons and speckled with tiny bright spots (tekottsu) on both the ji and mimi.  A fairly straightforward tosho tsuba I guess, but I do have some questions.

The NBTHK Hozon attributes the tsuba as tosho, rather than ko-tosho.  In view of the simple butterfly sukashi and tapered omote surface, I would have dated the tsuba pre-Edo to about 1550.  I can’t seem to find a transition date for attributing tsuba to ko-tosho or tosho other than a brief statement by Sasano which places the transition at ca.1543, with the arrival of the Portuguese.  Can anyone clarify?

The tsuba has a small kozuka style hitsu (1.2 cm) but is too small for a standard kozuka (1.3-1.4cm) or even most kogai.  However, I do have a wari-kogai (chopsticks) that fits well (see photo).  I don’t think the hole is small enough to be a udenuki ana for passing through a cord in order to secure the blade in the saya.  It would seem to me that if a samurai was on a campaign, then a wari-kogai would have been more use for eating his meals than a normal kogai used to fix his hair.  Besides if it had a spoon end, like the wari-kogai shown, it would still retain the ear cleaning functionality!

The last question that I have is how did the surface get to be like it is?  Both sides seem to be a mixture of patches of smooth and rough areas.  The smooth areas do not appear to show any traces of residual lacquer.  Although the rough areas are below the surface they do not really appear to be as a result of rust.  The patina is uniform and there are no rust scabs.  I have three possibilities for this effect.

Firstly, the tsuba is a fake and has been made to look old. This is probably not the case as it has a NBTHK Hozon and these guys should know the difference.

Secondly, the roughness was caused by rust which was cleaned off and the tsuba repatinated (in antiquity?).

Thirdly, the tsuba originally had a tsuchime finish, but the high spots were smoothed off using sword polishing stones (hence no file marks) before a final yakite and patination.  I like this explanation as I can imagine an apprentice swordsmith making this tsuba and refining his forging and foundation polishing skills.

Thanks for your help and comments.

Best regards, John

(just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

[Shugyosha]

Hi John,

In my head I had the Tosho as being Edo period and Ko Tosho as anything before, but Shibui swords, Robert Haynes/ Elliott Long's website has the boundary before the end of the Muromachi period (if I'm reading the table correctly) so probably more in line with Sasano, though it suggests that the dates should be "taken very liberally". 

 

https://shibuiswords.com/tsubaera.htm

[jsv]

Take a close up photo of the upper part of the photo with the stamp and show us what it looks like. Where did you buy it?

[Bugyotsuji]

The paperwork describes the surface of yours as Tsuchimé-ji, so would that not indicate that it is the original treatment?

 

This one may be later (?) but offered just for comparison.

 

And the reverse

 

[ROKUJURO]

John,

your TSUBA looks fine and authentic to me, but as 'TÔSHÔ' isn't a school but a style, it could have been made even in late EDO JIDAI. 
Looking only at photos and not at the 'real thing', I have the impression it might be a revival piece from SHINSHINTO era.

Have you ever seen a new TSUBA? They are all patinated and never look 'new' in the sense of bare stainless metal. It is Japanese style to prefer a respectfully used (looking) item over a newly looking one.

Patination is a kind of artificial corrosion, making an item look old while protecting it from deterioration.

[FlorianB]

I think the larger size of the butterfly and its elaborate shape together with the existence of a hitsu ana lead to a Tosho instead of Ko-Tosho attribution. Today the NBTHK is more cautious about using a „ko“ prefix anyway.

 

For me the surface looks O.K.. If You compare the surface of Tosho Tsuba You’ll see a variety of finishings. There’s no rule because some Tsuba have been more cared for, other suffered more or less through the centuries.

And, yes, as Jean pointed out it could be a younger revival piece.

[Curran]

Not sure why this tsuba is 'Tosho' instead of 'Ko-Tosho'.

 

(a)  Maybe the NBTHK sees something I don't.

(b)  Papers are from 2017. It might be a paradigm shift where 'Ko-Tosho' is now considered pre 1500?

(c)  Maybe the current NBTHK is just being gutless.

 

Since about 2014, I've been less confident in NBTHK papers.

To me, earlier papers mean (a).

Since then, I seem to find a fair number of NBTHK papers are more (b) or (c).

 

I finally got around to doing another shinsa after a few years pause. About 50% of the items [without previous papers] came back 'Horyu'...

One of the mumei ones is a well known tsuba posted in a NBTHK publication....   Do I have to remind them what they wrote 20 years ago?

so I think (c) is on the rise.  What is the value of non-opinions?

 

I really miss the (a) years. 

 

-Curran

 

[Infinite_Wisdumb]

C) is why I no longer paper anything 

[Bugyotsuji]

The members of each specialty Shinsa team change over the years.

[Curran]

2 hours ago, Bugyotsuji said:

The members of each specialty Shinsa team change over the years.

 

There is a difference between the shinsa team changing every few years,

and the Extinction Level event shift somewhere around 2014.

After all these years, I still don't know why or how it happened. In a given year, there will be a shinsa or two with some half intelligent results where I think "oh Wow, maybe there is some hope they will return to their Golden Age level".

 

Then the next shinsa or two prove me wrong.  It is like the one knowledgeable shinsa NBTHK emeritus judge below Juyo level came in, does a shinsa to keep his "retired but working" NBTHK status, and then leaves the rest of the year to the rubes.

      It has been over a decade now.

 

 

[FlorianB]

Maybe the shinsa team got the insight that the traditional classification system of the pre-Edo works is based on pure speculations…

[Shugyosha]

For reference, here's one I used to own which I thought was Ko Tosho: 

[Bugyotsuji]

Dragon vs butter, but yours may be closer.
Those same three dots…

[Spartancrest]

   https://www.jauce.com/auction/h1200411455

[Bugyotsuji]

Ah, similar feeling, but now that dragon is katchushi, not tosho.

[ROKUJURO]

20 hours ago, Curran said:

Not sure why this tsuba is 'Tosho' instead of 'Ko-Tosho'......

Well, looking at this specific TSUBA with its crisp  SUKASHI cut-outs, the almost 'virgin' NAKAGO-ANA, and the overall 'young' and almost unused appearance, I can understand the SHINSA assessment.  

[Curran]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

Well, looking at this specific TSUBA with its crisp  SUKASHI cut-outs, the almost 'virgin' NAKAGO-ANA, and the overall 'young' and almost unused appearance, I can understand the SHINSA assessment.  

I think, to some degree, I had that coming.

I was ranting about the NBTHK too much, given my own disappointments.

 

I'd previously considered the sukashi and questioned it, but reserved judgement until seeing it in hand. I've seen wider cuts in a lot of old pieces.

The nakago ana, I felt was more recent filework from the inside. I see it a bit differently.

 

One point against me is the kozuka ana and how wide it is spaced.

I would have to consider if it were added later or original. If original, then I would have to reconsider if I was being a git trying to see it as a ko-tosho.

I should put my NBTHK opinions away and try on focus on explaining what I see.

 

 

[JohnTo]

Thanks for all the comments guys.  Sorry for being so late in acknowledging them as I have been a bit busy with other things.  Thanks Piers for pointing out that the NBTHK Hozon does state that it has a tsuchime-ji finish.  My bad, I guess I am getting a bit lazy with my translations in my old age and missed those kanji and meant to translate them later.

Good to hear that I am not the only one that thinks that the NBTHK shinsa is not perfect, I too have seen identical looking tsuba with different attributions.  I just feel that these guys know more than me, so make fewer mistakes and I have so much to learn.  I guess that mumei iron tsuba must be the hardest category to evaluate, especially as most of the artists are lost to history and were unrecorded.  If only carbon-14 dating was cheap and readily available it would make dating easier, but then we would not want to drill samples out of our tsuba!  Elemental analysis using XRF would also be a fascinating area for study to see if different schools had different amounts of trace elements in their iron.  Sorry, its just the scientist in me getting carried away.

 

Thanks again, John

[ROKUJURO]

Hi John,
 

 C14 dating would not be possible for dating iron TSUBA as it is a specific method for dating organic matter. In addition to that, the carbon content of TSUBA iron (in case you could isolate it) is especially low (just traces, if at all).

[Jake6500]

14 hours ago, JohnTo said:

Thanks for all the comments guys.  Sorry for being so late in acknowledging them as I have been a bit busy with other things.  Thanks Piers for pointing out that the NBTHK Hozon does state that it has a tsuchime-ji finish.  My bad, I guess I am getting a bit lazy with my translations in my old age and missed those kanji and meant to translate them later.

Good to hear that I am not the only one that thinks that the NBTHK shinsa is not perfect, I too have seen identical looking tsuba with different attributions.  I just feel that these guys know more than me, so make fewer mistakes and I have so much to learn.  I guess that mumei iron tsuba must be the hardest category to evaluate, especially as most of the artists are lost to history and were unrecorded.  If only carbon-14 dating was cheap and readily available it would make dating easier, but then we would not want to drill samples out of our tsuba!  Elemental analysis using XRF would also be a fascinating area for study to see if different schools had different amounts of trace elements in their iron.  Sorry, its just the scientist in me getting carried away.

 

Thanks again, John

 

I had the same idea once upon a time, then I checked the price tag of an actual XRF gun and awoke from my dream turned nightmare lol

[JohnTo]

Jake,

My dream hobby in retirement would be to spend a couple of days each month in the BM or V&A in London examining soft metal tsuba with an XRF gun and collecting data on the composition.  Of particular interest would be 'chocolate brown shakudo' tsuba, often sold by major auction houses and Japanese dealers, which I suspect are nigurome with little or no gold.

 

John  

[JohnTo]

Hi Jean,

I know that many Japanese sword enthusiasts do not know that iron can be dated by measuring the carbon-14 content using an accelerator mass spectrometer.  I saw one of these about 30 years ago being used for medical research it was a monster and was housed in a warehouse.  Maybe technology has advanced since then.  The ability to do this with Japanese iron artifacts is due to the use of charcoal in the smelting (tatara) and forging processes.  It is carbon from the charcoal which gets incorporated into the iron that is dated.  No good for Western iron smelted using coke.  There are several studies on the web and I believe that the swordsmith Yoshindo Yoshihara got involved in one such study to provide iron with a 'zero' time point.

Below is an abstract form another study.

best regards, John  

 

 

¹⁴C Ages and Calendar Years of Japanese Swords Measured with Accelerator Mass Spectrometry

 

Kazuhiro Nagata, Akihiro Matsubara, Yoko Saito-Kokubu, Toshio Nakamura

Abstract

Steel of Japanese swords has been produced with Tatara process from iron sand and charcoal. Carbon dissolved in steel was absorbed from wooden charcoal fuel during the production of the steel. From the decay of ¹⁴C activity in the steel, the ¹⁴C age of Japanese sword can be determined. The ¹⁴C ages of 4 Japanese swords were measured with accelerator mass spectrometry and calibrated to calendar years. Each ¹⁴C age provided plural calendar year periods with definite probabilities, and one of the periods agreed with the production year of each sword that was determined from the sword master’s name cut in the grip of his sword after taking the age range of charcoal used for steel production and usage for several generations of the same names of sword masters into account.

[ROKUJURO]

Thank you John,

very interesting!

But as I wrote above, traditionally made TSUBA do not contain carbon in a useful amount, so this method might not work.

I have tested damaged TSUBA (19th century) for their carbon content, and it was Zero with my method. With the TATARA method, a wide range of iron-carbon alloys is produced. That goes from cast iron with more than 3 % of carbon down to pure iron without carbon - and every percentage inbetween.

Edited Saturday at 11:11 PM by ROKUJURO