sabiji

The connection between Shintogo Kunimitsu and the Awataguchi school is one theory. The other theory is Kunimitsu's descent from the Taema school. I have to admit that I like the latter better. When I had the honor of holding a Kantei of THE Yukimitsu (Tokubetsu Juyo) in my hands in Berlin in May, Taema inevitably came to mind. However, the blade was a chikei monster, covered all over with needle-sharp chikei, which in turn brought the blade in the direction of soshu. I found it interesting in retrospect that in Junji Homma-sensei's remarks in 1970 about this very blade, Taema also came to mind, at least as far as Sugata and Hamon were concerned.

Well, I obviously made a mistake. I didn't want to start a fundamental discussion about the Mino tradition here. I just wanted to show that there are important reasons for the emergence of certain traditions (or renaissances), which need to be examined. It should have decisive (also distinguishing) characteristics, as well as a fundamental influence on a craft, so that specific characteristics and peculiarities are passed down through generations. In all traditions and renaissances, there are certain schools that have periods of prosperity, which often only maintain a certain level of quality for a few generations and then disappear into insignificance. This can be mirrored in a renaissance such as Shinto. And as others have already written here, it would make sense to divide Shinto into several phases, as each phase is subject to certain conditions and characteristics. Everyone can decide for themselves how they want to divide them up. It may be legitimate to date the beginning of Shinto in textbooks to around 1600. However, if you take a closer look, you cannot avoid including the Momoyama as the actual foundation of Shinto. And that brings us back to the topic. So when it comes to the transition from Koto to Shinto, we should look at the Momoyama period. The consolidation of Shinto is certainly from the Keicho via the Kanei to Meireki/Manji. If you are more fascinated by High Shinto, you should look at Kanbun to Enpo. And if you want to know why Shinto loses its power, you need to look at the period from Genroku and onwards. That's my opinion.

I don't see any tradition in Mino-Den that is qualitatively inferior to the other 4 traditions. Since Mino-Den has its roots in the Nanbokucho, but only really defined itself in the middle Muromachi, it is difficult to compare it with Yamashiro or Bizen. The emergence of the individual gokads is based on certain cultural, economic and political backgrounds and are products of their time. They are reflected in the stereotypical demands of the clientele, such as Yamashiro = court nobility, Bizen = warrior nobility, Yamato = the Buddhist monasteries' claim to worldly power. All three of these social pillars were also the largest landowners in the Kamakura period. (Although originally only the tenno owned land. But the tide was already turning in the middle of the Heian period to the disadvantage of the imperial court). But these shifts in power are the reason for the emergence of traditions such as Bizen and Yamato. The emergence of the Mino is a reaction to an impending conflict between Go-Daigo and the supporting warrior clans against the Kamakura Bakufu (Kemmu Restoration) and an immediately following “counter-revolution” by Ashikaga Takauji, which led to the Nanbokucho conflict. Who knows, if the Southern Court had gone somewhere else, and another province had proved to be more strategically ideal, there might have been an Ettchu-Den, or Echizen-Den. Shinto itself is a renaissance of existing gokaden, especially the soshu-den. The cultural epicenter of Kyoto is crucial for this, as is the fact that the soshu-den was particularly popular under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Honami. This renaissance began in the Momoyama period. Renaissances of certain styles had already occurred before: Bungo Takada copied Bizen and Aoe, the Chikuzen Nobukuni Bizen, Kanabo, as a true Yamato blacksmith, worked more in the Bizen style, etc. However, during the Momoyama period, Kyoto was the benchmark in all areas of art and crafts, such as fashion, painting, ceramics, literature, tea ceremony, but also kodogu and swords. Some lords sent their swordsmiths directly to Kyoto (Horikawa, Mishina), while others were satisfied with their Smiths learning from the students of the Horikawa or Mishina masters. For others, it was enough that their swordsmiths at least drew inspiration and jumped on the stylistic bandwagon. What is truly typical of Shinto, the "standardization of characteristics" already mentioned here—the development of Shinto tokuden—only appears in the following generation of swordsmiths. A notable difference between shodai and nidai is often a much denser kitae. Kunisada and Kunisuke, for example, were a link in this effect. They are actually considered Horikawa students, but they were too young for that; they were more likely students of Horikawa Kunitomo. The hada of their blades soon no longer exhibited typical Horikawa characteristics. But the same applies to the following generations of Mishina smiths. The Momoyama-Periode-smith, Wakasa kami Ujifusa, often still displays an extremely Minoesque hada with plenty of nagare. His son, Hida Kami, already knits his hada much more tightly. And Sandai Bizen kami, with his ko-itame, is fully in line with the trend of the High Shinto period. From the Kanbun period onwards, one can find a dense ko-itame in Kyoto, Osaka, Edo, Owari, Echizen, and so on, as well as a hamon that is essentially based on Nie.

The position of the signature is interesting. I think the blade is much older. Since I am more closely involved with Mino-Den, I can at least say that this peculiarity of positioning Mei over the Nakago-Ana in Mino at Uchigatana is more common in the second half of the 15th century. I once owned a katate uchigatana with this feature and a date from the Bunmei era (1469-87).

This is far too complex a topic to be dealt with simply. The Koto-Shinto transition, however, is directly related to the artistic, cultural, and aesthetic "pressure wave" with Kyoto as its epicenter from the Tensho onward. Art was produced in many areas for a new elite interested in artistic and aesthetics. Utsushi of the Soshu-Den style was very popular for blades. Schools like the Horikawa and early Mishina set the tone for a swordsmithing renaissance, which soon spilled over into the wealthy trading city of Osaka. I believe that what would later be considered significant for the Shinto character was first developed here in Osaka. Everything else, of course, is also subject to the economic/social developments up to the Genroku period. But this differs fundamentally from the period around 1600. But that is again a very complex topic. Only the term "economic boom" during the Kanbun period makes me chuckle. What economy?

Without question, this blade has already lost some material, but it will also have been quite slender in its origin. The ryumon has a high shinogi, the motokasane specification only says something about the strength of the blade to a limited extent.

Looks like a Tobiyaki to me. You can see it on both sides. On one side like a stain, on the other like a tama.

somewhat abbreviated: 1-12-9 Yokoami, Sumida-ku, 130-0015 Tokyo

If the rest of DEN Kunizane is exactly the same as in the photos, my decision would be absolutely clear...

A complete photo of the entire blade and nagako would be essential to evaluate the sugata. It is difficult to draw conclusions from photos of small sections alone. It could be a sue-koto blade. Finding tanto in a reasonably healthy condition is not so easy. If the nakago is ubu, but the blade seems to have lost some material through polishing, there may be difficulties with the habaki and the material thickness of the nakago. For me, the “hada anomalies” are possibly due to unclean or too cold welds, and thus simply rough weld seams. Within the “weld seam islands” there are no structural changes or color differences caused by material with different carbon content, i.e. Shingane. That's why it doesn't look like tsukare to me. The little bit of Nioiguchi that I can recognize looks very Shimari and looks like very compressed Nioi. The hada also looks quite dense. That's not really typical of sue mino, even though it can be common: Kanabo, Sue Mihara, Bungo...you'd have to see more for that. The repair of the nakago ana is not unusual. This is often done with copper or sometimes with iron. It's hard to tell from the photos what kind of material it is. It looks a bit like lead.

There will be another study evening at the museum in July on the subject of the two great yet contrasting characters Kiyomaro and Munetsugu. But I will try to see how the sword was displayed and described before that. It's always easy to throw around superlatives, but the past Berlin NBTHK-EB meeting can be described as exceptional simply by the number of juyo and tokubetsu juyo on display (11 juyo and 5 tokubetsu juyo out of a total of 23 blades on show - if my memory is correct).

Katakiriba. One side is Shinogi-zukuri, the other side is Kiriba-Zukuri. This is quite common in early Shinto blades, especially Nanbokucho-Utsushi. The best known are the Sadamune copies of Sho- and Nidai Yasutsugu in this design.

9 sun 2 bu according to the Hozon's length specification, i.e. approx. 28.00 cm. I wouldn't have thought so, the tanto looks smaller from the photos...

It is very possible that the damage occurred during transportation. I wouldn't write it if it hadn't happened to me. A few years ago, I bought a katana from a US sword dealer who is beyond reproach here. The tip of the kissaki was broken off by 3 mm when I unpacked the sword at customs in my home town. The kissaki was intact in the sales photos, as was the shipping packaging when I collected the sword from customs. However, the package had already been opened once by customs, namely when the package arrived at the destination airport in Frankfurt/Main. So if the seller is absolutely trustworthy, the tip was intact when packed, then damaged when unpacked, but the package was intact, there is not much left... Apart from that, I have already discovered fingerprints when I received another blade that would never have been sent to me by a Japanese dealer. And I'm not talking about ebay here. @MaxT, that doesn't necessarily apply in your particular case, but you can never rule it out completely.

Exactly! Thanks to Georg!

Nobody has done that here! The basic message was that the Takada swordsmiths already had a broader range of styles in the Muromachi - and with considerable quality - than many other “main schools” at the same time. However, you have to be familiar with this subject matter. And who said that? However, Fujiwara-Takada copied Hizen, and sometimes not so badly. It's no wonder that Saga (Hizen), Onizuka Yoshikuni (Chikuzen) and Bungo Takada are not far from each other. There were interactions. How and to what extent? I don't know, it would have to be researched. Nothing comes from nothing. So now I'm really disappointed! Do they really believe this Mongolian fairy tale? Masamune didn't reinvent the wheel. Take a look at Ko Hoki or Mokusa works. There have always been swords that could be produced cheaply, quickly and in large quantities when there was a demand for them. Only most of these swords may have survived from the Sengoku Jidai. I don't want to start a debate about the art sword for the 100th time. I just want to say, very shyly and cautiously, that you can take a closer look at bungo swordsmiths. Because I personally think that this source of swords is undervalued. It's not a commitment. It's a free hobby. That's all

I can only agree with Kirill. I've long since changed my view of the bungo smithy. In the fall of 2022, in addition to the classic Bungo Yukihira, a Bungo Swordsmith from the Sue Koto period was on display, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten. The sword was an unbelievably beautiful Aoe copy with Saka-Ashi and a powerful Utsuri.

Not a collector? Really not? Don't you collect knowledge, and perhaps literature too? I don't mean that in a bad way. I simply ask myself whether it is not simply an oppositional attitude towards the owners of many swords to say that you are not a collector because you “only” study the subject matter. Of course, someone who is only interested in knowledge and not in the physical possession of the objects being studied is not a collector in the traditional sense. But the student who owns nothing must be aware that he cannot exist without being a collector in the conventional sense. He is dependent on being able to study the objects in the possession of a traditional collector or the collection of a museum in order to increase his knowledge. Conversely, the traditional collector with less knowledge may also be dependent on the knowledge of the student in order to better assess his collection. So there is a symbiosis from which everyone can benefit! Nobody is better or worse because they have more or less, or know more or less. The famous collector's disease “emotions” affects the conventional collector just as much as the collector of knowledge. Emotions are basically a good thing, otherwise we would all be zombies. But greed, envy, impatience, superficiality and arrogance cloud our vision and impair our judgment. You should never forget that. I can understand that. I also claim to have a good memory. Nevertheless, I'm often surprised to see a particular blade again after a long time. You often see it "with different eyes," which is also part of the learning process. I would rewrite the Jo, Jojo, and Saijo Saku swordsmiths as: works that would be described as Jo, Jojo, or Saijo Saku. Yes, I know that this is explicitly a designation for the value of swordsmiths according to the Fujishiro system. But it excludes very good works by lesser-rated or not-at-all-rated smiths. And it reinforces the fact that collectors tend to focus on the name of a swordsmith rather than the quality of a particular blade. What I mean by that is that I've often seen works signed by Jo or Jojo swordsmiths and thought, oh God, he must have had a really bad day. The blade is mediocre at best, if not poor. On the other hand, there are notable works by Chujo-Saku swordsmiths, or swordsmiths outside this system.

I go one step further: 本来無一物 Honrai mu ichi motsu! Of course green giraffes exist! Even though they might not have existed before, they do right now. But it doesn't matter at all, because nothing exists in the origin. No Nihonto message board, no Naginata Naoshi, no green giraffes. It's all just a work of human beingness. And it means nothing. We can blow out all the emotions around the things mentioned like an elephant, or simply let them burst. That's why no sack of rice falls over in China. When you realize that, you basically remain completely calm - regardless of whether the naginata naoshi has a kaeri or not. Oooommmmmmmmmmmmmhh.....

I see. Then everything is fine.

https://www.aoijapan.com/katanakatana-in-shirasaya-with-koshiraenbthk-hozon-tokennbthk-hozon-token/ Hi Jaques, I once owned a Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri by Kawai Hisayuki, clearly a Nanbokucho-Utsushi with a huge O-Kissaki. The Tokubetsu Hozon simply said “Wakizashi”. Since I'm at work now and can't refer to my documents, here's a quick example of Tsuruta-San with a naginata-naoshi-tsukuri. Here, too, it simply says: “Wakizashi”. I have yet to see an NBTHK paper that explicitly states “Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri-Wakizashi or Katana, if it is an Utsushi of a Naginata Naoshi. But if it was a naginata, then the NBTHK notes it as a naginata naoshi katana or waki. I'm starting to lose sight of what the problem really is.

Well, Kamakura-Tachi and Mino-Den don't go together. Mino-Den only developed in the course of the Nanbokucho, and defined itself in the middle Muromachi. But since you mention a Yamatorige Utsushi, we would be at the origin in Bizen-Den, Fukuoka Ichimonji. But I think it's basically good! I have seen some excellent gendai, but also some quite mediocre blades, which were probably made specifically for use in martial arts. That's why it's important to know who you're ordering from, communicate clearly what you want and ideally have seen some work from your chosen smith.

Well, here is another example : a Naginata Naoshi Katana, Nakago O-Suriage. The boshi is ko-maru with a short kaeri. The Sword is attributed to Kaneyuki, the son, but probably younger brother of Kinju. I studied Kinju intensively for some time. This way of working is typical for him and his environment. The yakiba is kept narrow, the character is retained in the kissaki, and the boshi forms the logical and harmonious conclusion. This way of working remains identical, whether tanto, ko-waki, tachi/katana or naginata. The boshi is usually a ko-maru with a very short kaeri up to the yakizume. This basically follows the style of its Yamato (Senjuin) roots, in which a short kaeri up to the yakizume is common. What I mean by this is that probably a whole series of naginata naoshi before the correction or change to katana/waki in the boshi region did not look significantly different, because the existing boshi corresponds to the style of the school/swordsmith. A yakizume at a school/swordsmith who otherwise does not harden something like this naturally indicates a clear modification in the sugata in the case of a naoshi. It could be difficult with Kinju, because yakizume can also be applied. And then we are back to the sugata and here we come full circle, which has already been mentioned here several times, that it was precisely because of this sugata that such naginata were particularly popularly modified into katana/waki, because the amount of work involved in the modification was correspondingly low and the original boshi remained largely intact. Conclusion: @ Jaques, no, I can't say how the Kaneyuki Naginata (Naoshi) shown by me looked 100% in its origin. But I know quite well the working style of the school around Kinju and would say that no significant modification of the sugata was made here. Nevertheless, the blade is called a naginata naoshi katana because the blade has been modified from a naginata to a katana. Well, a major point of contention here is obviously whether the example I showed was actually a naginata or nagamaki, or whether it was conceived from the beginning as a katana in this naginata-naoshi-tsukuri form. But I don't think so. The Nanbokucho period is not a revival period. Forms considered typical of this period were developed here, such as the often-mentioned enbun/joji sugata. A sugata that also emerged due to changing war tactics favoring infantry. The Nanbokucho is the heyday of the naginata. The typical castle towns, where swordsmiths worked for local princes and warlords, emerged much later. In Nanbokucho, many swordsmiths worked on the grounds of Buddhist temples. This was also the case at Kinju. Or at Kaneuji. A tegai smith who first switched to the mino-kokubunji, and there were also large temple complexes in Shizu and Naoe. Alongside the samurai, the monasteries represented the second most important military force, intervening in the fighting on behalf of one side or the other, or even just for themselves. It is also no secret that families of the court nobility supported monasteries or encouraged the establishment of monasteries on their lands, thus indirectly using their military power to achieve their goals. Morinaga, a son of Go Daigo, was the high priest of the Tendai-Shu on the Hiei and represented a significant military resource in his "reconstruction" against the Kamakura Bakufu. The naginata is also the standard weapon of the monastic military contingents. In any case, the naginata must have been produced in large numbers at that time. It's simply logical that naginata were later modified into katana/waki, firstly because they were particularly well suited for this purpose, secondly because there were still sufficient resources for such weapons, and thirdly because modifying them into katana and waki was obviously cheaper than producing them from scratch. The emergence of naginata naoshi zukuri, i.e. the deliberate copying of a shortened naginata, coincides, in my opinion, primarily with the copying of a specific forging style, such as the soshu style. Kaneuji, Naoe Shizu, Sue-Sa, Hasabe, and at the same time their typical sugata of the Nanbokucho were copied. This, in turn, is a Kantei characteristic of Keicho Shinto. This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that such utsushi existed much earlier. There are always exceptions, and nothing is set in stone. But the essence is always the obvious.

Partially the Hamon reminds me of Kataochi-Gunome, especially what you have drawn. Partly flattened yakigashira, partly somewhat inclined gunome, which are evenly and regularly connected to each other (tsurete). This has nothing to do with the Yamato-influenced Mihara. The origin of this style lies in the late Kamakura in the Bizen (Kagemitsu), can be found again in the Sue-Bizen (I once owned a Sukemitsu with pure Kataochi gunome), and became popular again in Shinshinto. An acquaintance of mine also owns a very long and very classically shaped katana with an interpretation of this gunome by Inshu Kanesaki, one of the late generations made around 1860.

Both time and money can be wasted without any problems. It's always a question of point of view.