Transition from koto to shinto periods

[Mikaveli]

I'm aware of some of the general differences between the two groupings, in terms of hada, sources of steel / centrality, declining demand and eventual focus on aesthetics, the end of some schools / styles etc. etc.

 

A few times on this forum, I've seen, shall we say, some strongly stated attitudes of disinterest about shinto swords. Sometimes hailed as "made for show" and that the "best" swords were made in the koto period.

 

Without getting in to too much of that, I'm interested in the transition. Where is this evident, how long a time period did it take to go from "typical koto" to "typical shinto"?

 

Knowing a little about the sengoku and Edo periods, whilst 1596/1600/1603 is often cited as the delineation, how rapid were changes in terms of sword production (with Hideyori dealt with in 1615,  the start of sakoku period, Shimabara etc). There was quite a lot going on for at least the first half-century, in general, but what was the timeline specific to swords (any good books or references especially welcome)?

 

 

[klee]

From what I understand, the economic downturn after the Kanbun period lead to a major decline in both quantity and distinctive quality in edo swords. The Connoisseurs book by Nagayama Kokan has always been amazing and something I keep going back to for reference for any era 

[Mikaveli]

2 hours ago, klee said:

From what I understand, the economic downturn after the Kanbun period lead to a major decline in both quantity and distinctive quality in edo swords. The Connoisseurs book by Nagayama Kokan has always been amazing and something I keep going back to for reference for any era 

Thanks - I'll have a read of the Kanbun economic downturn, I haven't come across that in the history books I've read so far.

 

The Connoisseurs book is good, but light on detail in that regard.

On one page (226) it says Shinto were made from Keicho (1596-1615), but "some swordsmiths continued with the five traditions".

 

It tells us that Keicho swords are representative of Momoyama Shinto, whereas Kanbun are representative of Edo Shinto (p35) - but doesn't say why?

 

Likewise, it states Edo starts from Shoho (1644) in sword history, but again doesn't elaborate.

 

As an aside, it also says after Muromachi period, Iron production made "great strides", so smiths were able to create consistently high quality steel. That's an interesting statement, but doesn't give us anything concrete.

[oli]

Good Books:

• Koto-shi from Junji Honma
• Shinto-shi from Markus Sesko
• Shinshinto-shi from Markus Sesko

[Jacques]

The major difference between koto and Shinto is the way steel is made. In Koto, it's the swordsmiths who make it, but this is no longer the case in Shinto, which means that the steel loses the specific characteristics of each region and becomes uniform.  

[sabiji]

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?

[Mikaveli]

Just to start to build a timeline (more to add later)

 

I'd really like any more examples and events between 1543 and 1691.

---

 

1543 - Portuguese ship in Tanegashima, foreign influence on gun / steel making begins.

 

1607 - Teppo-ki (Accounts on guns) written, widening influence.

 

1691 - Tembin fuigo (balance bellows) believed to be invented, halving manpower requirement.

 

1858 - first western style blast furnace built in Japan (end of Tatara iron making).

 

1901 - state run Yawata Steel Works opens, importing of coal and iron ore begins.

 

 

[Jacques]

Quote

first western style blast furnace built in Japan (end of Tatara iron making).

Slightly erroneous: sand iron is not suitable for blast furnaces, so ore must be imported. The tatara will continue to operate alongside the blast furnaces.
 

 

[Mikaveli]

3 hours ago, Jacques said:

Slightly erroneous: sand iron is not suitable for blast furnaces, so ore must be imported. The tatara will continue to operate alongside the blast furnaces.
 

 

The article cites Ohashi Iron Mine in Kamaishi as the source for that blast furnace - https://d-arch.ide.go.jp/je_archive/english/society/wp_je_unu8.html

 

Assuming that's not sand iron (and would be suitable)?

[Jacques]

Worth reading 

https://www.nittetsukou.co.jp/eng/karematuzawa/2.html

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think one thing would be to slice up the Kotō and Shintō to many smaller pieces. For example even just early Kamakura stereotype will be different to late Kamakura stereotype. Likewise early stuff from Genwa/Kanei will be different from Kanbun and then 1700's stuff will vary from that.

 

In general I think one key thing is consistency. I think very good Shintō smiths made very good swords consistently. For someone liking old stuff it might sound sacrilegious to say that from some top old smiths you'll see even works that might not be (or might not even originally been) that good.

 

Now I am not really one to judge quality as that is not my thing in collecting. Those above are just my thoughts that I've seen as I've visited many museums and shrines to see their swords.

[Geraint]

Dear Michael.

 

As with any technology adoption is a gradual process rather than a sudden one, assigning a specific date to any such change is problematic.  You may find this interesting, https://www.Japan.travel/Japan-heritage/popular/izumo's-ancient-tatara-ironmaking-heritage-shimane-iron-sword

 

Also perhaps this summary, https://www.touken.or.jp/english/explanation/informationcorner.html

 

We are drifting a little from your original enquiry but it is all interesting in relation to sword production.

 

All the best.

[Gakusee]

54 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I think one thing would be to slice up the Kotō and Shintō to many smaller pieces. For example even just early Kamakura stereotype will be different to late Kamakura stereotype. Likewise early stuff from Genwa/Kanei will be different from Kanbun and then 1700's stuff will vary from that.

 

In general I think one key thing is consistency. I think very good Shintō smiths made very good swords consistently. For someone liking old stuff it might sound sacrilegious to say that from some top old smiths you'll see even works that might not be (or might not even originally been) that good.

 

Now I am not really one to judge quality as that is not my thing in collecting. Those above are just my thoughts that I've seen as I've visited many museums and shrines to see their swords.

 

 

Jussi

 

Two things about old swords:

1) As Jacques points out above, centralised and more consistent / purified Tatara iron leads to fewer impurities on average, less character (ie fewer inclusions in the steel), and loss of regional variances due to local sand etc. Steel becomes more homogeneous and methods of forging more uniform

2) What you see from the old swords is their diminished, polished-down self, often exhibiting core steel or steel which if not quite classified 'core', would have been hidden by 1-1.5mm of top layer (which might have been more refined or more consistent)

 

So, it is of course understandable why Shinto and later look they way they do.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Both points are of course very valid Michael.

 

Still I think some of the old swords in Japan have been preserved extremely well even though they are very old. So in those cases I assume they are as close to original as is possible for example for the 700 year history of the sword. I am mostly referring to ubu or nearly ubu swords here, that are in prestigeous Japanese collections.

 

Even though not my personal preference I cannot deny that for example Tsuda Sukehiro and Taikei Naotane make very fine swords. In quality I would say these swords would be much better than some old less refined things I personally like the most. I feel Shintō smiths seem to be belittled too often. It is of course bit offtopic but as I read the OP I felt I knew what was meant that Shintō is not appreciated that much.

 

One important factor also is that swordsmiths could produce swords of varying size and shape. While most Japanese swords are very similarily sized throughout the history, you can still find variance even within the works of a single smith.

[OceanoNox]

Can the slight variations in chemical composition really be seen on the blade? There might be slightly faster or slower grain growth due the elements in the steel, but I thought the forging and heat treating process of each smith would have a stronger effect on the final appearance of the sword.

By the way, Prof. Ohmura has a page on this various structures of the swords across time/styles:

http://ohmura-study.net/008.html

[Mikaveli]

3 hours ago, OceanoNox said:

Can the slight variations in chemical composition really be seen on the blade? There might be slightly faster or slower grain growth due the elements in the steel, but I thought the forging and heat treating process of each smith would have a stronger effect on the final appearance of the sword.

By the way, Prof. Ohmura has a page on this various structures of the swords across time/styles:

http://ohmura-study.net/008.html

 

I wondered this too - things like construction (kobuse, sanmai etc.) together with folding/hada style, selection of materials and carbon content and impurities retained in the process.

 

Likewise, when people talk about steel production being centralised - how centralised? I'm assuming all production wouldn't have all come from a single source, and even if at one point, a smith managed the whole life cycle, there should be a progression towards more centralisation? 

 

Smiths, then schools, then cities, then regions, before national. Was there ever a period where steel cam from a single source in Japan?

[Gakusee]

22 minutes ago, Mikaveli said:

 

I wondered this too - things like construction (kobuse, sanmai etc.) together with folding/hada style, selection of materials and carbon content and impurities retained in the process.

 

Likewise, when people talk about steel production being centralised - how centralised? I'm assuming all production wouldn't have all come from a single source, and even if at one point, a smith managed the whole life cycle, there should be a progression towards more centralisation? 

 

Smiths, then schools, then cities, then regions, before national. Was there ever a period where steel cam from a single source in Japan?

Gents - I think this is documented somewhere - come on, do some homework , where is the fun in discovery? 

 

I think it started in Muromachi in Shimane but eventually in the Tokugawa controlled Edo period it became even more centralised. 
 

…. and yes of course the more you purify and the more you hammer eventually the jihada becomes finer but the colour, inclusions and chatacteristics of the jigane still depend on the iron composition. 

[Mikaveli]

5 hours ago, Gakusee said:

Gents - I think this is documented somewhere - come on, do some homework , where is the fun in discovery? 

 

I think it started in Muromachi in Shimane but eventually in the Tokugawa controlled Edo period it became even more centralised. 
 

…. and yes of course the more you purify and the more you hammer eventually the jihada becomes finer but the colour, inclusions and chatacteristics of the jigane still depend on the iron composition. 

 

So, from what I've read, by the 18th / 19th century, the Chugoku region (a big chunk of western Japan) eventually peaked at around 80% of domestic steel production.

 

But, that's at its peak. Regional decline in steelmaking started around the 11th century. And at least by the start of the Edo period, there were still several hundred furnaces spread across Japan (with more than 100 from the Chugoku region).

 

 

Quote

Starting around the 12th century due to the enlargement of the

ironmaking furnaces and other technological innovation.

The large-scale ironmaking furnaces

changed from the previously-used

mode of repeating operations and

movements over a short period, to

long-term operation in one place

 

So, more centralised, yes - but there were still at least a dozen steel making prefectures spanning the entirety on Honshu. You'd imagine swordsmiths had some degree of choice in materials - as much of the steel was transported.

 

In any case, the picture it paints, is a progressive reduction in steelmaking distribution, over the course of half a millennia - and whilst by the end of the Edo period, one region was dominating - this wasn't the case at the start - and there had been a similar progression towards centralisation starting centuries before that.

 

 

[OceanoNox]

FYI, from two sets of experiments done in the early 2000s with bladesmiths (published by Prof. Takuo Suzuki), there is little evidence that the "impurity" content (I mean atoms that are not interstitials, like carbon) actually changes with folding. Only the carbon content and the amount/shape/distribution/size of inclusions changes with the folding and forging process.

About the effect of composition, it has a clear effect on oxidation, but I am not aware that it changes the colour of polished steel. 

Forging indeed will give you smaller grains, but then again, how the smith heats the blade prior to quenching will also change this grain size. There was a very nice study in Prof. Morito's team where they managed to show how different the grain size prior to quenching was with different smiths. 

Also, I thought a lot of the final aspect of the blade depended on the polisher. But here, I have virtually no knowledge.

 

EDIT: All that to say that I think the carbon content, the smith, and the polisher have a larger effect on the final aspect of the blade than the other elements present in minute concentrations.

Edited Saturday at 12:31 PM by OceanoNox
Added a conclusion

[David Flynn]

I have a Dotanuki Kozukenosuke. According to records and book listings, he listed as Shinto, 1596- 1615.  However, the Sugata, is definitely Momoyama!

Personally, I would still class this sword as Koto.   Unfortunately, it doesn't have a nengo.

[Hoshi]

Hello, 

 

It's more complex than that but it isn't a mystical deep topic either.

 

Multiple structural factors were at play which have a historical basis. 

 

I. Near extinction event of expertise during the late muromachi, e.g., Floording of the Yoshii river, war, etc. 

II. The only major production center left was in Mino, which focused on quantity, lowering production cost and quality

III. Smiths from Late Mino, notably Daido, went on to repopulate the craft 

IV. During the momoyama/early Edo, smith location changed from being industrial villages of entrepreneurs competing against each other towards in house castle smiths with a fixed allowance. This structural change reduced the beneficial effects of competition between smiths/schools. 

 

It was not just the centralization of steel production that was at play. 

 

- The near universal dominance of Sue-Mino smithing technics that would go on to seed the Shinto period. And we all know that Mino was the lesser of all traditions in terms of quality, but the most effective in terms of output. 

- The loss of the battlefield feedback loop 

- The loss of proximity-based competition from independent schools/smiths (e.g., what used to go on in Bizen province) 

- The change from independent smith entrepreneurs towards house smith retainers with a fixed allowance

- A general reduction of demand by the clients for high-end quality swords due to economic and social factors. 

 

You have notable exceptions as always, with Yasutsugu and Umetada smiths working directly for the Shogun trying to crack the puzzle of how to make Koto-level swords, then Hankei, etc. 

 

Cheers

 

Hoshi

 

[Mikaveli]

2 hours ago, Hoshi said:

And we all know that Mino was the lesser of all traditions in terms of quality, but the most effective in terms of output.

 

 

Shots fired... 😂

 

No, we don't know that. Lacking in prestige, perhaps - but there are several factors that influence the perception on Mino-to. Being newest, association with mass production etc. along with general focus on practical use, rather than decoration.

 

Is there any objective data, showing which den produced "better" swords? Sharper, more resilient edges, less prone to breaking etc. Very little that I've seen. Conversely, the availability of quality steel improved, as did the knowledge and technology of forging (as this thread began with) and construction techniques. The presence of certain hataraki doesn't necessarily denote quality (which effects were intended versus consequentially etc.).

 

The lense of the modern art sword collector is but one, very subjective lense (with a great deal owing to tradition and bias).

 

[Mikaveli]

5 hours ago, David Flynn said:

I have a Dotanuki Kozukenosuke. According to records and book listings, he listed as Shinto, 1596- 1615.  However, the Sugata, is definitely Momoyama!

Personally, I would still class this sword as Koto.   Unfortunately, it doesn't have a nengo.

I think in Sesko's history of the Shito era, he suggests a later start date (from c. 1624) before what he cited as a noticeable change in the jigane and sugata.

 

There's lots of talk about whether the koto/shinto dividing line was chosen to align to political eras. Whatever the original thinking, I think it's healthier to think of the transition as less Boolean.

[David Flynn]

Michael, I agree with you there.   Just because there is an accepted date, doesn't mean that everything changed overnight.  I have another one I find interesting.  I have a Harima Ujishige katana dated 1789.  By the date, it's classed as Shinshinto, however, I would still class it as Shinto.

[jdawg221]

11 hours ago, Mikaveli said:

 

Shots fired... 😂

 

No, we don't know that. Lacking in prestige, perhaps - but there are several factors that influence the perception on Mino-to. Being newest, association with mass production etc. along with general focus on practical use, rather than decoration.

 

Is there any objective data, showing which den produced "better" swords? Sharper, more resilient edges, less prone to breaking etc. Very little that I've seen. Conversely, the availability of quality steel improved, as did the knowledge and technology of forging (as this thread began with) and construction techniques. The presence of certain hataraki doesn't necessarily denote quality (which effects were intended versus consequentially etc.).

 

The lense of the modern art sword collector is but one, very subjective lense (with a great deal owing to tradition and bias).

 

This is something I have always argued, no one is testing antique swords, and even wazamono grading was only done on relatively recent swords, not so much the older koto stuff. People on here and various other sites love to argue all day about what the best sword making tradition is, or who made the best blades, but lets face it, no one on here or elsewhere who is alive can determine anymore than what they themselves think is the best based off subjective views on artistic value, balance, and maybe how it feels to swing around. Anyways I am partial towards gendaito, shinshinto, and shinto swords if that means anything, but that is mainly because those pieces tend to be in a condition which is closest to how they would have looked when originally forged, Very few koto pieces survive in a state that has not seen dozens of polishes or multiple kissaki reshaping efforts, so having any sort of objective evaluation on the durability or performance of these swords is iffy at best. 

[Tohagi]

Hello, I remember reading many year ago, a 1870 Test.

I think it was called "Nihonto performance lesser with cool water". Something like that.

They test more than 20 blades, some koto blades too until bending or breaking...

I also remember Masahide did the same at his time and had it registred.

 

Just my two cents. 

 

Eric 

 

[sabiji]

22 hours ago, Hoshi said:

 

 

- The near universal dominance of Sue-Mino smithing technics that would go on to seed the Shinto period. And we all know that Mino was the lesser of all traditions in terms of quality, but the most effective in terms of output. 

 

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.

[Hoshi]

[Rivkin]

The greatest problem of mino all its best smiths were going full soshu, rai or even bizon of yamato