Help translate/validate a NTHK SHINTEISHO paper, please

[drdata]

I'd like validation and if possible a translation of the below NTHK paper. I have looked at:

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/origami.htm

 

But I'm confused as the number of columns documented there does not match mine. Is this because the papers are old (from mid 80s I believe), or because the SHINTEISHO level has less details? For example its seems that column 3, which according to link above should have the blade dimensions, is missing.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

regards

 

 

 

[cabowen]

Column 3 does have the blade dimensions...

 

This is indeed an old NTHK paper (1984). Blade is signed Choshu ju Fujiwara Kiyoshige. They date it to Kanbun and call it Nio Kiyoshige

[John A Stuart]

I think 2 shaku 6 sun 7 bu. John

[cabowen]

I think 2 shaku 6 sun 7 bu. John

 

 

That should be 1 shaku 6 sun 7 bu.....wakizashi, not monster katana.....

[drdata]

Wow, much obliged, as always gentlemen. I wish I could reciprocate. I think I'll donate to the site, and if anyone breaks down or needs furniture moved in the LA area then ping me....

 

And to confirm, the 10 vs 6 columns/fields is a function of old vs new certificate, right? Had a hard time finding any examples that match mine and assumed its as most don't deal in the "lowly" shinteisho level.

 

Now that I know what's there I promise to do some homework and map the 10 columns shown on RS's site to the 6 on mine. I know something must be missing. Clearly its not the dimensions.

 

And yes, this is a wak. I like it though. Oldest thing I've ever touched....

[John A Stuart]

Oops, 壱 one 尺 shaku. Sorry. John

[drdata]

Hey, me again. Sorry for the delay. I wanted to follow up on a few fronts.

 

1. Expert assistance and opinions should not be free. I've followed up on my promise to make a small donation to help support this great site. I recently used the for sale section here to acquire a nice wak in a pain free manner and am gracious for the much needed alternative to ebay.

"Confirmation number: 74H71009GS264254P. "

 

2. I have made an attempt to translate my paper in a manner that I hope may be useful to others. For now I post the outer portion. I could use a confirm on the date, which I believe should start with "showwa" and on the 2nd column. The kanji for showwa do not match to my satisfaction, and I'm not having much lick on column 2, which I believe states the school and starts with "ni", as in perhaps "nio"?

 

I still have work to do on the inside but have the era and lengths done.

 

Amy comments, corrections, or hints on column 2 much appreciated:

Edited to reflect school/smith thanks to Jean!

 

[Jean]

For the school try : Nio and a smith named Kiyo shige (shinto)

[drdata]

Thanks Jean. I see the smith there now as was suspecting "nio". I think the kanji/style for the shige 重, threw me as the paper has a more stylized "z" looking end.

 

Regards

[Nobody]

Hey, me again. Sorry for the delay. I wanted to follow up on a few fronts.

 

...................................................

You have done a good job.

To be accurate, the actual kanji used for “Shinteisho” are 審定書. 宷 is not wrong but it is an old style of 審. And “sho (書)” in the context does not mean calligraphy. It only means a paper. I know a site which does explain that sho (書) in such contexts means calligraphy. But it is totally misunderstanding.

[drdata]

Thanks for the tips Koichi-san.

 

I'm away on some business but hope to do the same for the inside upon return.

 

PS> Is the era kanji correct for showwa? Maybe the calligraphy but I only new to put showwa there as someone told me the date was 1984 and no other era worked.

[drdata]

Edit: The attachments have been updated and I beleive the translation is complete. Yea!

 

I'm back with my best try at the translation of the inside. Took me several hours but I found this fun/informative. I hope this means I'm coming along on my nihonto geekdom.

 

Areas in red are where I need help/hints. Red Kanji are those I think I know but cannot get an acceptable match; most significantly what I believe should be "Choshu" or "Nagata" as the province (kuni) in column 5; and a similar case with the "Waki" in what I think should be "Wakaisahi" in column 1, and for the "Bo" in Boshi in # 4.

 

I suspect some of the remaining kanji relate to the nakago but not able to decode as yet. Also attaching in native ppt in case that helps.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

nthk_tranlsation_1984.ppt

[drdata]

bump

 

I hope to get feedback on the sections I'm not able to translate (highlighted in red boxes), and quite happy to hear comments/corrections on what (I believe) is correct.

 

I understand this is not a very sexy sword and a rather mundane request for those that are savvy in all this; I'll not bump again.

 

Either way I'm very grateful for the assistance received so far.

 

Best regards

[John A Stuart]

Row 3; 寸法 sunpo, measurement...壱 ichi, one. The little kanji with numbers boxed on the bottom aren't clear enough for me. John

I'm watching the Man U/ Valencia game and will check more later.

Row 4; 中心 nakago...鋩子 boshi ( a different way)

[drdata]

Thanks John. The pics posted at the start of this thread are as clear as they get; to fit my translation I had to enlarge hence pixilation. Also the native ppt is posted which can be opened for enlarged viewing/editing.

 

The 壱 ichi bit had me. I was expecting the "-" and did not realize the alternative.; likewise with 鋩 for bo(shi).

 

Looks like I guessed Nakago right. Makes me think the kanji directly below describes it, in which case I expect mention of Ubu, a single Mekugiana, Sujikai Yasurime, and/or Kuri-Jiri. I will go back to that section now that I know I'm on the right track.

 

Hope the game ends to your liking.

 

Cheers

Edit> PS I have updated the previous pic/ppt with the delta (thanks again John) so as to avoid anyone wasting their time on formerly red areas.

[reinhard]

Good job, Harry. As for your red boxes:

 

Row 1 starts with DAI (for numeral classification), followed by the numbers 4 1 9 and GO ("number"). Then SHUBETSU ("classification") and at the end it just says WAKIZASHI.

 

Row 3 starts with SUMPO ("measure, dimension"). The next red box includes a formal, non-standard kanji for the number 1.

 

Row 4 starts with TOKUCHO ("distinctive features"). The left side following reads: NAKAGO, ICHI ("one") used in documents and KIRI written in hiragana.

 

Row 5 says SUWO (no) KUNI KAMBUN (era) KEI ("time").

 

regards

 

reinhard

[drdata]

Reinhard, truly appreciate the great info.

 

I would have never got the hiragana part, and the mere mention of "Suwo" has opened some lines of investigation. Definitely tied into Nakata/choshu areas and the nio school; even had a battleship in namesake too it seems.

 

The translation attempt has come along nicely and I've updated the attachments for those still following. I've not yet found what I consider matching kanji for "suwo" or its su/wo syllables, but I believe that is the correct translation.

 

This leaves that small area at the bottom of #3. I think I see a Sichi/7 in there, but continue to be stumped. Is that "z" looking thing part of 沸え (NIE)?

 

Thanks again

[Bugyotsuji]

The small writing at the bottom is a service provided by the certificate maker, allowing for two measurement systems: the Japanese dimensions down the right, and centimetres/centimeters = senchi センチ on the left.

 

PS Re Suwo. Place names often have aberrant readings. Thus Suwo is a very difficult reading for anyone not familiar with the place. No need to memorize this to help your Kanji study, unless you are collecting Japanese area names for Mei.

[drdata]

Thanks Piers,

 

I follow the senchi combination. Still thrown by the "traditional measurement" on the right. I would assume this is some unit of measure that is equal in length to a centimeter. But try as I might I could find no such length unit with that "Z" like kanji. And nothing seemed to equal 1 centimeter, of course.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_units

 

Is the "Z" like kanji supposed to be an romanji "e" like the way ン = "n"?

 

So close.

 

Thanks

 

[Guido]

センチ有之 = senchi ari kore = "this has (a length of X) centimeters"

[Bugyotsuji]

Guido, if you look at the sheet, the Shaku-bu lengths are written down the right side of the column, and 'ari kore' underneath refers to that, I believe.

 

If the length had been written in meters and centimetres, it would have been written vertically to the left of the Japanese measurement, but Western measurements have not been given... no?

[Guido]

Piers, you're absolutely right, lazy me didn't look at the original scan. "Ari kore" indeed refers to the length in traditional measurements, there's no metric equivalent given.

[drdata]

I think I get it! The senchi bit is "null" as no measurements appear above it in the sunpo column. It was there on to accommodate a case of a measurement in centimeters but was not used.

 

And with that I have my missing kanji 有之, which I take to mean "it is/to be" in this context. Will do a final update to reflect the full translation.

 

So very cool.

 

Thanks again all

[reinhard]

the mere mention of "Suwo" has opened some lines of investigation. Definitely tied into Nakata/choshu areas and the nio school

 

Harry, this is going to be tricky and it's the point where I don't understand this paper:

 

Nio school was founded in Suwo province at a very early time (blades from mid-Kamakura period are extant). It continued existing into Muromachi period and during its later stage there were Kaji signing by the name of KIYOSHIGE. Their mei were quite different from the one in question though.

 

At a much later time, during Edo period, other smiths working in Nagato, Choshu province, also signed their work by the name of KIYOSHIGE. They signed their works "Choshu (no) Ju Fujiwara (no) KIYOSHIGE" and the like. Your sword belongs to this group. First generation is said to have worked there around Kambun era (1661-1672). Little is known about them. Their best-documented kaji worked around Horeki era (1751-1764).

 

First generation KIYOSHIGE in Nagato might claimed to be a descendant of Nio school in Suwo province. Nevertheless he was working in another province (Choshu). Actually he's not much more than a name in old records by now.

 

"Officially" attributing (t)his work to "Nio KIYOSHIGE" (which sounds definitely more interesting than just saying he was a no-name smith during Edo period) seems a little....manipulative... to me.

 

Enjoy your research and correct me, if I'm wrong

 

reinhard

[Bugyotsuji]

Harry, yes, that's right. Literally This (object above) has (a length of)

 

Just to narrow it down a little further for you, has or have yu/ari 有or 有りis a generally useful Kanji to learn anyway.

 

之 kore (=this) is old and rare, but does crop up in old writing and on swords (normally in general Japanese nowadays written in Hiragana これ). So, one character for your general box, and one for the specialist box.

[drdata]

Piers, thanks again for the confirm/tips.

 

Edit:

Having mulled more I believe that Reinhard's point was more to the effect of the shinsa judge being a bit too "generous" in naming the better known/revered Suwo rather than Choshu province for this smith. If so what is the motivation given its a Shinteisho (low level) rating?

 

Why go half way? I only have one shinsa under my belt but cannot say why the judge would have done me any such favor. Again if the judge is out to defraud why not issue a better paper?

 

[end edit]

 

Reinhard, I think I follow and appreciate your candor. I have no doubts its a work by a mediocre smith, hence the reason I could afford it.

 

The real question is should I execute my initial plan to have it polished? But that's best left to a new thread.

 

I'm happy if its from Kanbun era and not gimei, meaning it was made by a "Kiyoshige" of some type. I understand the shodai (of the choshu Nio's) was rated the better (of the 6-8 smiths), and in theory this could be his or the nidai's work based on the era stated. The shodai was also known for "quality horimono" as per below.

 

Whether he was just riding the coat tails of the real Nio school's fame I cannot say. Frankly, there is not much info to be found on the Nio school period, genuine or usurper, so either way it seems a minor school.

 

Most of what (I think I know) came from Clive Sinclaire's site; I pray he takes no offense to an in line posting here:

 

http://www.to-ken.com/swordregister/no60.htm

 

Choshu province (or Nagato) is not one normally associated with great sword production, although the tsuba makers of Hagi, the capital city of the province, were renowned. During the koto period, the main school was that of Sa Yasuyoshi who went to Choshu from Chikuzen province. In shinto times, the Nio group moved to Choshu from neighbouring Suo Province and became known as the Choshu Nio. It is probable that they were invited and patronised by the Mori clan to service their swordmaking requirements.

 

As for the naginata under discussion, it was made by a member of the Kiyoshige group, the founder of which, Hachisaemonjo. Fujishiro lists Kiyoshige as Chujosaku and states that he was a good carver of horimono and may have come from Yamato province, but I believe he is referring to the sandai. As with this naginata, the works of this smith are said to resemble late Mino Seki work, although his better works resemble Naoe Shizu (Kaneuji). There appear to be seven generations named Kiyoshige all signing in the manner of this naginata and sometimes including the name of Hagi. They worked from the middle shinto period (about 1660 – 1st generation) up to the end of the shinshinto period. It seems that they may have a close connection with the previously mentioned Nio school as Kiyoshige was a common name of the Nio and the character for Nio was certainly included in the mei of the nidai, at least. However, it is thought that the present naginata is by a later generation, maybe the sixth or seventh, dating from Bakamatsu period (the mid-19th century).