Mei attribution massive confusion. Koto or shinto???

[TomHT]

Hi all,

I recently ran into a head-scratching confusion for my blade and just wonder if anyone can share their opinion or advise on this matter.

So my blade is signed Noshu Seki junin KANEIWA and have been previously referenced in a Mino Museum Catalog and NTHK paper as Koto (Tenso era). However, it recently passed NBTHK Tokuho and was reclassified as Shinto instead.

As such, I did reach out to NBTHK for further clarification. They said since the smith is not in the Meikan, they judged from the appearance of the Nakago and style of the signature and think that it must be made in Shinto period. To add to the confusion, this specific mei is also attributed to Koto period on Nihonto Club website.

At this point, I just wonder if anyone has access to the Meikan and help me find further info on this mei. It would be of great help in resolving this annoying confusion.

[Rivkin]

Writing style, yasurime: Edo period

Work: kind of Muromachi looking.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

First of all, yes. There are many records of Kotou signed "Noshu Seki Junin Kaneiwa".

 

In fact, we can find the exact same 6 descriptions about Kotou period Kaneiwa at Nihonto Club (KAN1025-1030),

 

in "Encyclopedia of Mino-tou” by Tokunou Kazuo Sensei (who also wrote “Encyclopedia of Swordsmiths”, although sadly I don't have).

 

Kaneiwa is also mentioned in other books like “Corpus of Swordsmiths/刀工全集” by Dr. Shimizu Tooru, “Pandect of Swordsmiths/刀工総覧” by Kawakuchi Noboru Sensei and many more,

 

all describing swordsmiths in Eisho (1504-1521) or Tensho (1573-1592), in the Kotou period.

 

......On the other hand, the only Oshigata of Kotou Kaneiwa is of a Tanto, with Higaki-Yasuri instead of Takanoha, a much thinner Tagane, and a different font.

 

(It's like the Tanto on Asahi Touken, but the font is, again, different.)

 

So, I took the liberty to glance at a webpage of Touken Tokugawa, where I think this sword was sold.

 

(A random information, the same sword is also sold at Yahoo! auction for 333,000 Yens on the 25th of March this year.)

It could just be the Sashikomi-Togi, but I am getting a little Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo Minou Shinto impression.

 

The Kitae is a little too tight and neat for Sue-Seki, although Sue-Seki Katanas do tend to have more refined Kitae than Tantos and Wakizashis from (my very limited) experience.

 

So Kitae-wise, this could be a very well-made Sue-Seki, or a good Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo Minou Shinto.

 

Hamon is Nioi-Deki (some would say Ko-Niedeki) with Nioiguchi Shimari-gokoro, while being THE default description for Sue-Seki,

 

could also apply to Minou Shinto from Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo period.

 

Nakago, both the Yasurime and font, like what Rivkin San shrewdly pointed out, looks Edo period.

 

When searching for Kaneiwa, I did not find any source of the Shinto period Kaneiwa.

 

......Which I guess could be what they really meant by "not in the Meikan". 

[TomHT]

Thank you for the response BabyJoe & Rivkin.

 

Just a few more images to further clarify the Koto determination from previous sources.

 

From the info we have, can we safely assume this blade can be attributed to the Keicho era (transition period between Koto & Shinto)?

[Jacques]

From Markus index of Japanese swordsmiths (Nihonto meikan translation)

 

Kaneiwa (兼岩), Bunmei (文明, 1469-1487), Mino – „Kaneiwa“ (兼岩), „Nōshū Seki-jūnin Kaneiwa“ (濃州関住人兼岩)

Kaneiwa (兼岩), Eishō (永正, 1504-1521), Mino – „Kaneiwa“ (兼岩), „Nōshū Seki-jūnin Kaneiwa“ (濃州関住人兼岩)

Kaneiwa (兼岩), Eiroku (永禄, 1558-1570), Mino – „Kaneiwa“ (兼岩), „Nōshū Seki-jūnin Kaneiwa“ (濃州関住人兼岩), gunome-midare in nioi-deki or nie-loaden ō-gunome-midare to hitatsura

Kaneiwa (兼岩), Tenshō (天正, 1573-1592), Mino/Kaga – „Kaneiwa“ (兼岩), „Nōshū Seki-jūnin Kaneiwa“ (濃州関住人兼岩), this Kaneiwa moved later in his career to Kaga province

Kaneiwa (兼岩), Genroku (元禄, 1688-1704), Mino – „Kaneiwa“ (兼岩), „Nōshū Seki-jūnin Kaneiwa“ (濃州関住人兼岩)

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

Yes, Tom San, I, too, think around Keicho would be a safe assumption.

 

Although, just a little further discussion, sugata-wise, it could break either way.

 

This sword has a rather ideal sugata, almost Hizen-Shinto-like (they are noted for good Sugata in Edo period),

 

but depending on who you ask, this could have a little Saki-Zori, a staple of late-Muromachi.

 

Anyway, Sugata, and style in general, are intertwined between adjacent time periods.

 

A Ouei-Bizen sword can look exactly like its Nanbokucho predecessors,

 

and an Azuchi-Momoyama to early Edo sword can be almost indistinguishable from a late-Muromachi one,

 

especially in Seki, where I always feel like a little stunned in time.

 

However, I would think that Nakago alone is definitive enough for its Shinto status.

 

Anyway, off to have my bowl of super spicy greasy stir-fried beef on rice!  I'm so not a morning person, and I can barely think straight without my morning dosage of carbs. 

[Mikaveli]

I don't think this is a case of confusion, just that people place too much emphasis on the koto / Shinto grouping (labels).

 

It's not like sword making changed over night - it's more of a 50-150 year range before the groups become more distinct, but even then...