Gakusee

Late Kanemoto is completely plausible and likely on this one. Kanemoto is a Mino smith as is the Seki school.

Nicolas Plenty of ubu Heian and Kamakura blades are available. What the smith intended is very obvious. Also there are plenty of extremely well preserved Kamakura blades. They are just too precious to test against kabuto or steel rods or new swords . I feel we need to shortcut the whole discussion and in the fashion of how some of the scientific papers are structured, quote what has been already discussed and invoke existing research and use it to substantiate elements of the thesis in order to crystallise overall conclusions with that “evidence”: - There was another NMB topic about which the greatest smiths were. In there you might see that the most reputed, highly regarded smiths with the most Kokuho/JuBu/JuBi/TJ blades are actually Kamakura and Heian smiths. In here I of course include most of the Soshu greats, although there is a minor crossover into the very beginning of Nanbokucho. By extrapolation, if the greatest smiths worked mainly / predominantly during the Kamakura period then the Kamakura blades seem to be evaluated as the best. Not equivalent logically but intuitively you understand the Japanese belief. Just on average they seem to be better, not that it always holds. - Why are the aforementioned the greatest/ most highly reputed smiths etc? Well, Japanese emperors, Daimyo and Shogun decided so and we have followed their taste (as it often happens in Japanese culture / history). It is down to a combination of myth + personal taste (eg Gotoba ushering a certain sense of aesthetic or the Ashikaga shogun preferring certain aspect and also thereafter Oda, Toyotomi and Tokugawa favouring Soshu and Bizen etc) + performance in the respective historic period. - Again why / what to look for / understand why the aforementioned Daimyo etc decided as mentioned above: look at Tom Helm’s post explaining the physical features - also consider Chris Hill’s historic diagram (you need to understand normalisations as he has statistically normalised certain things) demonstrating where/ in which period you had the peak of top-rated blades. It clearly shows you the explosion in Kamakura. Honestly, it is not such a difficult question to address. Overall, it is a matter of understanding Japanese aesthetic, history and culture and then interpreting the question through that cultural and social prism. It has little to do with Western perceptions of which steel is best (modern man made vs Japanese - old /new) or even old Japanese (Kamakura) vs newer. A lot of it is simply tradition- and acquired-aesthetic-based. Separately, and subjectively, I agree with some of the posts above that the exciting / differentiated / lively Kamakura hada interspersed with scintillating jinie and konie of Kamakura, or the elegant utsuri of the period are aesthetically superior to the more monotonous or lifeless or homogeneous output of the later periods. Or even when some of the later (eg Shinto or ShinShinto) smiths achieve something outstanding, as an aggregate, across the population of smiths, on average you cannot say that the blades are so pretty or interesting.

Hi Chris Time and again we hear the Mongol invasion argument for the transition of Kamakura sugata to Nanbokucho sugata. What people fail to realise or pay attention to is that the Mongol invasions happened in the 1270s-1280s. So some 50 years before we deem the typical “Nanbokucho” sugata. If the Kamakura swords were so ineffective against Mongol armour, the change would have been much faster, almost instantaneous, and not measured in 5 decades. Mongol armour consisted of chainmail covering a thick chemise and on top you could have further leather armour. It is true that swords with a lot of haniku could get stuck in disparate media but this needs more analysis. It is more likely evolution of warfare in Japan itself, the transition of armour (from o-yoroi to haramaki and gusoki) and so on. One last point: numerous of the Nanbokucho swords actually have normal mihaba and chu-kissaki. It is not that all of the Nanabokucho swords are the monsters with 3-3.5 cm mihaba and 6-8cm o-kissaki. So, again, food for thought….

Paz Somehow there was loss of knowledge, skill and material during the transition from late Kamakura into “mature” or late Nanbokucho. Yes, Norishige might have worked during some of Nanbokucho (depending on which texts you believe) but some texts state he was a fellow student alongside Masamune of Shintogo. So these “greats” of late Kamakura such as Shintogo, Masamune, Yukimitsu, Norishige, and also of very late Kamakura / early (up to mid-) Nanbokucho such as Go and Sadamune, Kaneuji, Sa, etc. So, it is perhaps fair to assume that into the first half of Nanbokucho there were still great smiths and great swords. But in the latter half of Nanbokucho and into Muromachi the drop in quality is too big when compared to the peak in Kamakura. For instance, there are amazing Go and Shizu swords (some of them better than some of the Masamune) but when you look at rather late Soshu (Akihiro, Hiromitsu etc), while nice, it is nowhere as good as the Kamakura or early Nanbokucho Soshu. Similarly in Bizen. The greats of Kamakura such as Mitsutada, Moriie, Yoshifusa etc produced swords that were much better than the late Nanbokucho /Oei smiths. I agree that +/-20 years either side of the cut-off it probably does not make much of a difference. It is probably more of a generational difference: the smiths working at the beginning of Nanbokucho having learnt from the Kamakura greats simply could not pass it on to their own students at the end of Nanbokucho. The factors and reasons are not well established for this rapid effervescence. Working in a centralised workshop, be it in Osafune or Kamakura, could have helped catalyse knowledge and skill and then with the dispersal of smiths to different parts of Japan those might have diminished. Of course the increasing intensity of warfare later on exacerbated the trend.

In the spirit of sharing and furthering understanding of this complex smith, Masamune does have some blades that “look Nanbokucho”, but also very often when one reads the setsumei of the Juyo certificate, it says “high-end Soshu work but more likely student work” or something like that. Some examples are below (translations courtesy of Markus Sesko). Note that the blades below are all Juyo and all have den Masamune on the front of the certificate. The important detail, however, is the setsumei. Again, in the spirit of fairness, there are a handful which are not questioned to be by Masamune and have the extended kissaki and wider mihaba than usual, eg a Naruse Masamune and the meibutsu Ikeda Masamune. Example 1. “….although the interpretation of the jiba does show prominently the characteristic features of first-class early Sōshū works, we would not go as far as to attribute the blade straightforward to Masamune as this excellent work attributes at first glance rather to Sadamune (貞宗)” Example 2. “….therefore we are in agreement that we are facing here a work from the Masamune School. The interpretation lacks some calmness, which rather suggests the hand of one of Masamune’s students. Throughout the Edo period, however, the blade was regarded as a work of Masamune himself…” Example 3. “….Masamune’s blades usually feature a mihaba and kissaki of normal dimensions. Thus, there remains some doubt if blades in such a shape are indeed works of Masamune or not. Also, the hamon [of this blade] is a more flamboyant and varied midareba, or in other words, of a more sophisticated approach than usually seen with Masamune, which adds the question whether from the point of view of interpretation, the ha can be aligned within Masamune’s known workmanships or not. However, the jiba is nie-laden and the chikei and kinsuji very beautiful and the blade is undoubtedly a Sōshū work of the highest rank….”

We do not know how capable or healthy Masamune or Norishige were to continue forging past 1333 (theoretically, the official records prefer to start Nanbokucho at 1336 but I think 1333 is more appropriate as that is when the Godaigo-Takauji power struggle commenced). They might have continued into very earliest Nanbokucho. It is speculative as a lot of these dating attempts that our hobby tries to do. When one says that someone is a Nanbokucho smith, one usually means that someone’s most creative period, his /her development and budding and flourishing and greatest masterpieces were created during that period. They started forging in that period, they learnt, they grew, peaked and perfected the craft and so on. That is why when you read Fujishiro and Sesko and Kanzan they talk of the typical eras in which smiths forged. They do not look at the bookends as determinants of the principal era to which they classify smiths. By that token, Masamune and Norishige are deemed Kamakura smiths. Examples of Nanbokucho smiths are Kanemitsu, Chogi, Kencho and so on. However, if someone wants to call Masamune and Norishige Nanbokucho smiths and speculate that perhaps they worked into that period, despite the latest dated examples and workmanship pointing to Kamakura, there is little point in arguing and contesting. It has been a useful discussion as with Jussi’s and Kiril’s help we are bottoming out some of these extreme dating examples (even if some of them are just historic oshigata-based).

I am in two minds about oshigata. I do believe the blades existed as represented in the oshigata, with the appropriate mei and nengo. Just we cannot be too sure if the blade indeed is deemed zaimei shoshin per current standards or was just passed down as zaimei through the generations. All these oshigata books contained Daimyo and shogunal blades and the NBTHK in most cases acknowledged that provenance and upheld it. Re: Norishige, there is a Juyo blade which has a nengo of 1320.

Thanks a lot, Jussi, I stand corrected on the nengo bearing Masamune then. I should have done better homework before opining! I am getting sloppy…. Do you have any other images of the two Masamune? I found these oshigata of the two Masamune you refer to and the 1328 Norishige (Kozan oshigata). I think the Osaka one is believed to have been lost irretrievably to the fire. There is a bit of info in the Yamanaka newsletters about them but I need to look more into the extent to which they might be recognised as shoshin. The provenance is of course top notch but still …

Yes, that is a difficult one as there are no dated blades of Masamune. But the accepted period for him is before 1330, even though he died in Nanbokucho. For his fellow student, I have an image of one with nengo 1328 but usually the few dated blades of Norishige are dated around 1319-1320. Jussi is very good at unearthing obscure and rare blades with nengo. Perhaps he has access to more data.

Barrett, I remember studying in hand that Dew on Grass sword when Darcy had it. A mighty chu/sue Aoe blade and quite the weapon…. I liked it quite a bit at the time.

Unfortunately not, as you said above that these smiths (Masamune, Norishige, Shintogo) worked into the Nanbokucho period. ”you have legends such as Masamune, shintogo kunimitsu, Norishige ect who work into the nanbokucho period”. They did not. I just wanted to clarify that the smiths you mentioned actually worked in the Kamakura period. Otherwise I agree with you that indeed the legends of Japanese swordsmithing indeed worked mostly in Kamakura (although some of them in Heian too).

Paz, you need to check your history…. Please read up a little bit on the timeline of major smiths before commenting that Shintogo or Masamune or Norishige were Nanbokucho smiths

Some Tsuda Sukehiro look like that and even some Kotetsu

To Ray’s excellent response, I would like to add: - firstly, that statement relates to “swords on average”. That means that your average Kamakura sword was better than your average Shinto or ShinShinto sword (even though I think when that statement was contrived people were really comparing Muromachi to Kamakura and early Shinto to Kamakura). In other words, you could have great swordsmiths from later periods who attained great craftsmanship (eg Masahide or Masatsugu or Kunihiro etc) but the statement compares the median sword to the median sword. - secondly, apart from material, also skill was lost during the Sengoku period (when swords had to be churned out quickly) or the later peaceful times, when swords, well, did not need to perform well (as they were mainly a status symbol) and could not look as well anymore (loss of material, loss of skill, homogeneous production of tamahagane as opposed to Heian/Kamakura regional differences)

Yes, Uwe, I agree indeed lovely armours. The Kato one was priced around 18-20m yen in Japan but went very quickly…..

Some more examples that talk of mix of mokume and itame hada.

Some examples where the Juyo setsumei explicitly states there is mokume hada.

Ok, now that I am officially on holiday, I have a bit more time on my hands for a more thorough response to our resident expert in physics, metaphysics, human intelligence and psychology as well as Japanese swords. So, firstly, of course Naotane produced work in ko-itame, of which there are numerous examples. Below for your perusal is this beauty from the Juyo 17 session rendered in elegant ko-itame. The photos, while not particularly high-res, do show the tight ko-itame. The setsumei is quite laudatory, comparing the style to Kagemitsu and calling the deki (workmanship) superb.

I am afraid that contrary to what you say,Jacques, there is plenty of mokume in the OP sword. There is no bad faith. Just plain eyesight and understanding of what mokume is, rather than just reading the setsumei.

Jean et al, it is pointless to argue. I have numerous Juyo Zufu examples which mention the mokume hada in Naotane’s work. I just do not wish to waste my time attaching them here. The other participants enclosed numerous quotes from books and the Token Bujitsu magazine. Yet, some people like being argumentative and entrenched.

Jacques, you are absolutely right that the Juyo 66 Naotane’s kitae posted above is described in the setsumei as having koitame hada overall. 鍛：小板目肌つみ I thought you were referencing a different blade, but you did enclose the setsumei to the Juyo 66 Naotane, which is the one on Aoi Art’s website. I am not contesting what the NBTHK is saying but it is possible to have some mokume here and there in otherwise itame based hada overall. Here, however, this is not mentioned, I shall concede that. Personally, I am surprised by that, but it is a fact. What is mentioned however is that this blade is believed to be an utsushi of Osafune Kagemitsu, which I find quite interesting.

Jacques, but this is a different blade entirely. It has some itame and some looser hada and nagare and if one looks really hard, one can find the ko-mokume. The Naotane in the post above clearly has mokume (not ko-mokume and not ko-itame) in the red circled areas highlighted by the OP for clarification. The rest of the Naotane blade has itame as you correctly identify. I also agree with you that Tsuruta san is a very skilled businessman and knows the game well and panders to our Western tastes accordingly. All in all, the wood burls in red circles and elsewhere are mokume. You could not really have only and exclusively mokume hada (even though it could be predominantly mokume hada) and in reality it is usually combined with some itame. Ko-itame hada is a tight and small and is a good compliment in general.

These have some hallmarks of hand-forging and look impressive for Chinese swords (definitely better than the Chinese iaido katana I own). Do you know more about how they were made etc?

This is not ko-itame.

Thank you very much.