ShuShinKan Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 Dear all! I wonder actually what might be the reason for the absence of kanji. In my imagination, the smith is a proud and well educated person, following tradition rules and his intention. No reason not to place a name on a blade. So why? Any suggestions - or knowledge? Happy for all replies! Gunther Quote
John A Stuart Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 A few reasons; osuriage, kazuuchimono, wakizashi-not signed always, smith's prerogative. John Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted February 20, 2009 Report Posted February 20, 2009 the smith is a proud and well educated person, following tradition rules and his intention. Smith is a monk and doesn't bother (or is not expected) to sign his work, reason that enter in the smith's prerogative. mentioned by John. Quote
Brian Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Yep..there are a ton of reasons. Could be he made swords for "the other side" and didn't want that known. Could be he regarded his work as distinctive enough to speak for itself. Too humble to sign his blade? Plus the others mentioned. Just one of those things that happened, and I guess we would have to live in those times and those circumstances to understand it fully. Brian Quote
ShuShinKan Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Posted February 21, 2009 Thanks for your replies! I consider buying an unsigned katana but I have to little knowledge about nihonto to see if I only throw away my money. Guess I need to feel for it or leave it undone. Gunther Quote
Jean Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Maybe, was it specially forged for kantei Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Maybe, was it specially forged for kantei Nope Jean. For that there are the "reverse Orikaeshi mei" to be unfolded to reveal the solution. :D Quote
Stephen Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 one other option is he made more that one like that and signed the best one Quote
ShuShinKan Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Posted February 21, 2009 Nice to see that you had lots of fun with my question! Thanks for all creative answers ! If this is ok with you I consider this thread as closed. /Gunther Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Gunther, it wasn't joking about your question. It was just a moment of fun among friends. Don't take this in a personal way. Quote
Brian Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Let me just explain Carlo's joke for those that might not get it, or are novices or don't know the terminology... Orakaeshi mei is when the sword is shortened and to prevent loss of the signature, the part with the mei is folded over and inlet into the shortened tang so that it is still there as an indicator of the smith. Of course, given Jean's joke that some swords were not signed, purely to provide us with a puzzle a few hundred years later... Carlo's answer was that for that, they would have done an inverted folding over of the mei, so that you can take a guess, then lift up the fold to reveal the signature underneath. :lol: Brian Quote
Guido Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Those Krauts ... no sense of humor ... Quote
Brian Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Yes, Mr Schiller....before you get me into a whole lotta trouble :lol: Gunther..Sweden? We have a few collectors from there I think. Jesper? Brian Quote
ShuShinKan Posted February 21, 2009 Author Report Posted February 21, 2009 Hello guys, sweet of you that you worry about my humour. Actually I did not understand a word after a couple of statements and thought you had changed topic, so thats why I thought I state my topic as answered and have no longer need of following it. Thanks for your effort getting me on good mind, I like the forum. It is perfect! I simply do not catch up with learning all the terminology.... Embracements! Gunther PS: the term krauts is considered outdated, we eat the same junkfood like everybody else nowadays Quote
Jacques Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Hi, The question asked is not so stupid, Signing swords was an obligation since the promulgation of the Taiho Ritsu-Ryo by the emperor Monmu Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted February 21, 2009 Report Posted February 21, 2009 Yes, nobody said the question was stupid, and was about why *not sign* swords, not about why *sign* it.... Quote
Jacques Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Hi, Yes, nobody said the question was stupid, and was about why *not sign* swords, not about why *sign* it.... No worries, i just felt it was slightly suggested. About the Taiho Ritsu-Ryo edicted in 701 and often revised later, if it has been scrupulously respected, we should not find mumei blade excepted the suriage ones. Quote
Brian Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 There is a bit about this here Entering the Japanese Sword Age, it became a custom that swordsmiths signed their smith names on the nakago, but there is no extant work of the Shoso-in Depository that has a smith’s name inscribed on the nakago. There are two swords that have characters on the blade amongst 100 tachi of the depository. These characters are inscriptions that praise the swords, but are not swordsmith’s names. Two treasure swords with kin-zogan are registered in ‘Shutsuzo Cho’ (a list of swords coming both in and out of the collection). There are notes about the two swords on the list, “Jiden” and “Hito-kuchi Mei Daisho Saku” (there is a record on the list that the swords were taken out of the depository on the 26th of December, 759). Though I have not been able to confirm that they are smith’s names or their titles, it is uncertain whether these inscriptions chiselled on the blade or nakago. According to a clause included in ‘Taiho-ritsuryo’ (legal codes) that was issued in 701, swordsmiths were ordered to sign their names on the nakago of their works, therefore, there should have been swords with smith’s names on their nakago in that period. How should we understand the actual fact that there is no extant work with a smith’s name in the sword collection of the Shoso-in Depository? Possibly tachi categorised as kin-gin-denso-tachi that were worn by emperors and court nobles, might not be recognised as weapon, therefore, they were not to be subjected to the code. However, muso-to in dabira style should have smith’s names on the nakago since they are to have been used as weapon. I wonder if the clause of the Taiho-ritsuryo was not practised by swordsmiths and resulted in a mere scrap of paper? Incidentally, the Engi-shiki codes issued later orders to officials in charge of swords supplied to the government, to sign their names on the swords, but this did not apply to smith’s names. Meanwhile, swords for sale in the market were still subjected to the clause of the Taiho-ritsuryo codes. Brian Quote
Jean Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Gunther, don't worry about krauts, I haven't eaten frog legs for years. Tradition is gone with the wind Quote
ShuShinKan Posted February 22, 2009 Author Report Posted February 22, 2009 Jean, thanks for the statement, also on the frogs behalf... I actually like "kraut". It is delicious with some wild meat or in a sour lake... Quote
Guido Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 O.k., group-hug! Didn't know that it's politically incorrect to make jokes at one own's expense. I'll go back to rediculing others while drinking lots of beer and wearing my lederhosen! Guido "l'Allemand fou" Schiller Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted February 22, 2009 Report Posted February 22, 2009 Guido, how's the beer in China ? I wonder if the clause of the Taiho-ritsuryo was not practised by swordsmiths and resulted in a mere scrap of paper? Scholars even doubt how much of the original text is still present in the later transcriptions (130+ years later) we've got... Considering the clause as legit and original, I think it was an embarassingly failed attempt to follow the strict rules of quality control present in China from as early as Han Dynasty, requiring that maker, quality control responsible and date of construction had to be inscribied on the items created for the Army (from crossbow to swords that bear even the quality of the steel refining). Different social environment and control ability by the Court made the difference in the (failed) application of the rules. This can be inferred cross-referencing W.W.Farris "Sacred Texts and Buried Treasures" and "Heavenly Warriors" with Y.Hong "Weapons in Ancient China" and Donald B. Wagner, "Iron and Steel in Ancient China". Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.