Shinshinto- Gendaito periods inaccurate?

[jdawg221]

As someone who owns both swords labeled as "Shinshinto" and pre WW2 non Gunto gendaito, something I've wondered is why the Shinshinto sword making period does not extend into the 1930s, or at least the 1920s. Yes the obvious answer is that Shinshinto ends at the Meiji restoration as the samurai class is dissolved, however there were plenty of Shinshinto smiths making swords in Shinshinto style well into the 1900s, and the early gendaito smiths also made plenty of swords that are near identical to Shinshinto sugata. Besides the fact that the shinshinto period only lasts around 80 years, much shorter than the Shinto period, and the gendaito period only lasts around 60 years. In my opinion the Shinshinto period should be extended to around 1931, and the gendaito period should be all swords from 1931 to the modern day, with the term shinsakuto ceasing in usage. Any thoughts?

[Rawa]

It's sword era. Ban on swords [1876] not a start of meiji era [1868] is a timestamp.

https://www.japaneseswordindex.com/period.htm

So you don't look on sugata but date. If someone currently tries to do blade resembling kamakura in shape it's still shinsakuto.

Many smiths actually schifted from sword making into making tools. It was tragedy for art/industry.

"Swords forged after the Haitōrei Edict are classified as gendaitō. The craft of making swords was kept alive through the efforts of some individuals, notably Miyamoto kanenori (宮本包則, 1830–1926) and Gassan Sadakazu (月山貞一, 1836–1918), who were appointed Imperial Household Artist."

Look into Akihide Kurihara and his father history. 

Also first blast furnace was built in 1857 by Takato Oshima.

You don't divide blades itself looking on characteristics in this actual period becouse smiths were making blades the old fashioned way.

Unlike muromachi/edo with strict measurements included in emperor's decree.

Edited September 30 by Rawa

[jdawg221]

14 minutes ago, Rawa said:

It's sword era. Ban on swords [1876] not a start of meiji era [1868] is a timestamp.

https://www.japaneseswordindex.com/period.htm

So you don't look on sugata but date. If someone currently tries to do blade resembling kamakura in shape it's still shinsakuto.

Many smiths actually schifted from sword making into making tools. It was tragedy for art/industry.

"Swords forged after the Haitōrei Edict are classified as gendaitō. The craft of making swords was kept alive through the efforts of some individuals, notably Miyamoto kanenori (宮本包則, 1830–1926) and Gassan Sadakazu (月山貞一, 1836–1918), who were appointed Imperial Household Artist."

Look into Akihide Kurihara and his father history. 

Also first blast furnace was built in 1857 by Takato Oshima.

Well yes but I'm not just considering sugata when making this statement. Stylistically Gendaito are very similar to Shinshinto. Much more similar than late koto swords are to early Shinto, or late Shinto to early Shinshinto. Also, the Shinshinto to gendaito transition is the only sword period which is defined by a historical event. Both koto-shinto and shinto-shinshinto are defined by stylistic changes and sword making changes, despite both changes occurring during significant historical periods. This is ignoring that plenty of Shinshinto smiths, specifically gassan sadakazu and 11th gen kanesada, made swords into the 1910s which stylistically were basically identical to their earlier works. Yeah you could say that there is an equivalent to this with the koto-shinto transition with smiths like tadayoshi 1, but his early works tended to look more like rai school jigane, unlike his later stuff which had a much more iconic sugata and jigane. 

[Rawa]

Shinto/shinshinto 

In the late 18th century, swordsmith Suishinshi Masahide criticized that the present katana blades only emphasized decoration and had a problem with their toughness. He insisted that the bold and strong kotō blade from the Kamakura period to the Nanboku-chō period was the ideal Japanese sword, and started a movement to restore the production method and apply it to katana. Katana made after this is classified as a shinshintō (新々刀), "new revival swords" or literally "new-new swords"

 

So shinshinto period smiths started making swords in koto style.

 

It's never clear period boundary but a longer process.

But new things appear like shikomizue or "samurai spirit reborn" gendaito for army straight said had to resemble koto.

Edited September 30 by Rawa

[Rawa]

You can say same about shinsaku period. Ban was lifted in 1953? Thanks to Honma/Akihide/Sato.

[jdawg221]

6 minutes ago, Rawa said:

Shinto/shinshinto 

In the late 18th century, swordsmith Suishinshi Masahide criticized that the present katana blades only emphasized decoration and had a problem with their toughness. He insisted that the bold and strong kotō blade from the Kamakura period to the Nanboku-chō period was the ideal Japanese sword, and started a movement to restore the production method and apply it to katana. Katana made after this is classified as a shinshintō (新々刀), "new revival swords" or literally "new-new swords"

 

So shinshinto period smiths started making swords in koto style.

 

It's never clear period boundary but a longer process.

But new things appear like shikomizue or "samurai spirit reborn" gendaito for army straight said had to resemble koto.

I agree that the boundary is never clear, and yeah another thing I've noticed is that if you compare 1920s Gendaito to 1940s Gendaito the stylistic trends diverge. But at the same time something like an Osaka Shinto sword from the 1660s is basically nothing like a Yokoyama bizen sword from the same period. So how someone interprets era differences very much can be subjective. I mean there are plenty of who fall for the Shinto "art swords" trope when in fact many Shinto swords were made with pure usability in mind. 

[Toryu2020]

The era designations are just tools for kantei, in general swords looked like A in the Koto period and looked like B in the Shinto period. When you do Kantei there is only Koto and Shinto - if you bid on a Shinto smith for a Shinshinto maker they do not say "Wrong period". Of course we like to (need to) break it down further, most of the eras cited are political ones EG Nanbokucho and Muromachi while there are given dates for these periods swordsmiths did not change styles based on a specific date, rather they worked in the style of their teachers and perhaps followed trends seen in the capitals, only changing slowly and if you were out in the country you got the news much later. 

 

The time periods are generalizations to help you break down all the tremendous data on makers into digestible bites and think in terms of trends. A smith who was born prior to the Haitorei and who worked primarily in the Shinshinto period is a Shinto smith. Born before the Haitorei but working primarily in the modern era = Gendaito smith. There will always be smiths that overlap these dates, some who are trendsetters and some who only follow the trend later...

[Rivkin]

3 hours ago, jdawg221 said:

As someone who owns both swords labeled as "Shinshinto" and pre WW2 non Gunto gendaito, something I've wondered is why the Shinshinto sword making period does not extend into the 1930s, or at least the 1920s. Any thoughts?

Very few only smiths who can be seen as extension of shinshinto, for example Gassan. The rest started anew with random steels and strange styles, only in late 1930s you start having Shibata Ka and other smiths who to an extent restore the tradition. Still, until 1970-1980s probably the quality was two grades below shinshinto.

[jdawg221]

6 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

Very few only smiths who can be seen as extension of shinshinto, for example Gassan. The rest started anew with random steels and strange styles, only in late 1930s you start having Shibata Ka and other smiths who to an extent restore the tradition. Still, until 1970-1980s probably the quality was two grades below shinshinto.

Hmm I don't think I've ever heard that. If anything imo it's the opposite, after the 70s/80s overall nihonto quality declined since alot of the experienced Gendaito makers passed away by that point. Most shinsakuto I see are just replicating what their father or master taught them, there's very little creativity involved. Contrast that with Gendaito where the variety in work between smiths is almost endless

[Rivkin]

There are conflicting opinions about recent work since after 1980s the economy of swordmaking has been slowly declining. But they are better. Early Showa is not impressive outside of a few names. Actually for better or worse post 1960 works tend to be really similar to shinshinto in stylistics. A bit artificial, harsh, strong lined, but bright and rich.

 

[jdawg221]

30 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

There are conflicting opinions about recent work since after 1980s the economy of swordmaking has been slowly declining. But they are better. Early Showa is not impressive outside of a few names. Actually for better or worse post 1960 works tend to be really similar to shinshinto in stylistics. A bit artificial, harsh, strong lined, but bright and rich.

 

I mean it's decent work, but it just doesn't excite me at all. For instance akamatsu taro makes nice swords, but once you've seen 1 sword from that lineage you've basically seen them all. It's very samey, not really any variety. Here are 2 of my Gendaito, both of which are good work but from some lesser known smiths

[george trotter]

For decades I have Interpreted the gendai era as follows...

Gendaito 1876-1945 - traditionally made as weapons.

Shinsakuto 1953-present - traditionally made as ART.

[Mikaveli]

So, taking the literal definition, gendaito means modern / present day sword.

 

Shinsakuto means newly produced sword.

 

I'm sure I saw somewhere that there was a convention that said shinsakuto was used to describe swords made by smiths still alive, whereas gendaito describes smiths after the Edo period/Meiji restoration that have passed?

[Mikaveli]

On Swords of Japan, it mentions the distinction of shinsakuto first appearing after the occupation of Japan, but it's since become more ambiguous.

 

On a Japanese site I found, shinsakuto was used only for brand new, made to order (for you) and everything else after shinshinto is gendaito.

 

Also, as far as I'm aware, those two terms don't denote / differentiate between "art swords" and "weapons".

 

Gunto on the other hand (lit. military swords) denote usage.

[sabiji]

On 30.9.2025 at 17:45, Rawa said:

Shinto/Shinshinto 

Im späten 18. Jahrhundert kritisierte der Schwertschmied Suishinshi Masahide, dass die heutigen Katana-Klingen nur auf Verzierungen und mangelnder Zähigkeit beruhten. Er betonte, dass die kräftige Kotō-Klinge aus der Kamakura-Zeit bis zur Nanboku-chō-Zeit das ideale japanische Schwert sei, und startete eine Bewegung zur Wiederherstellung dieser Produktionsmethode und deren Anwendung auf Katana. Nach dieser Methode hergestellte Katana werden als Shinshintō (新々刀) klassifiziert, was „Schwerter der neuen Renaissance“ oder wörtlich „neue Schwerter“ bedeutet.

 

Daher begannen Schmiede der Shinshinto-Zeit, Schwerter im Koto-Stil herzustellen.

 

Es handelt sich nie um eine klare Periodengrenze, sondern um einen längeren Prozess.

Aber es tauchen neue Dinge auf, wie Shikomizue oder „der wiedergeborene Samurai-Geist“, von dem Gendaito für die Armee direkt sagte, er müsse Koto ähneln.

The matter is much more complex than a blacksmith might think: everything is stupid, from now on we'll make swords like we used to.

 

The Shinshinto marks the beginning of a noticeable social change in the transition from the 18th to the 19th century. Here, too, various factors come into play that cannot be described in a few sentences. But it is remarkable in any case that an emperor, in this case Kokaku, begins to interfere, albeit “gently,” in the politics of the shogunate. Events such as the great Tenmei famine, but also diplomatic incidents with Russian expeditions, reveal the shogunate's inability and inflexibility to respond to such crises in a timely and appropriate manner.

However, the prudent and cautious appearance of an emperor in circumstances of public interest at that time inevitably brought with it the idea of placing the emperor at the head of the country as the actual political and social guiding institution.

 

Some philosophers refer back to the time before the introduction of Buddhism in Japan, seeking there the strengths of an original Japanese identity with the emperor as the leading and guiding institution of ALL Japanese people (a role that the Tokugawa shogunate had long since ceased to fulfill) in order to address the problems of the present day.

There have been and still are some attempts at reform by the shogunate, but the circumstances mentioned above are forcing an unstoppable spiritual renewal, especially among the simple and middle-class samurai, most of whom are young. 
The longing for a strong country with strong leadership is leading to a renaissance of the samurai spirit. And in this context, one can also understand the renaissance within the sword-making traditions, which are inevitably affected by this general mood. It may sound crude, but the quest for a strong country, strong leadership, and a strong identity goes hand in hand with the desire for strong blades.
In my opinion, this is the essence of Shinshinto. The Meiji Restoration is logically the result of what emerged as a foundation from the Tenmei era onwards. Events such as Perry's arrival only accelerated this development and were milestones in a “more active phase,” even among sword smiths. Shinshinto may have been a short phase, but it was enough to reveal the character of the different generations of swordsmiths. Suishinshi Masahide and Kato Tsunahide were just as much children of their time as Kiyomaro and Munetsugu were later on.

 

 

But for me, Shinshinto ends with the Haito Edict and the abolition of the samurai caste. In my opinion, this marks the end of a social foundation on which all previous sword traditions existed in the first place.

The continuation of craft traditions, or the creation of blades after this point in time, is based on completely different foundations, needs, and goals.