Sugata help: Muromachi, Yamato-den, Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki

[gkfalk]

Dear members,
 

I am researching a family heirloom currently held at the MUPA Museum in Brazil: a blade belonging to my ancestor, General Toru Kawase.

The smith has been identified as Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki (Yamato School), active during the Tenbun era (1532-1555). While official measurements are pending, the total mounting length is 104 cm, and I estimate a nagasa of approximately 70-71 cm based on the photos and proportions.

The museum has invited me for a physical inspection and professional photography in two months. In the meantime, I have prepared a composite image from archival photos to analyze the sugata. I would value your expertise on a few technical points:
 

1. Does this specific sugata and curvature appear typical of late Muromachi Yamato-den blades? What else does it reveal (like intended use, etc)? Can you name a few characteristics of it (like the type os Sori)?

2. The yokote is notably attenuated. Would you attribute this to centuries of polishing wear, or is it a known trait of this lineage or period?

3. There are at least two significant nicks and the ha looks very deteriorated. Is a blade in this state generally considered a candidate for professional restoration, or is it better preserved as it is?
    

Please note that I do not yet have clear photos of the hamon or hada, and it remains to be seen how visible they are in the blade's current state. I intend to capture these details during my inspection and will share them with the forum as soon as they are available.
 

Best regards,

[Nihonto student]

Dear GKFalk,

drawing conclusions with this little information is difficult, and the condition of the blade also prevents from reading the work. To try to answer a bit your questions:

- The lack of yokote is certainly due to polishing.

- From the picture blade appears not to be really bad condition, but needs to seen.. keeping in mind that any defects may be hidden under the patina. I can't tell if a naginata-hi is present or if what I see toward the base is a reflection.

- I can't read the signature from the photo. Perhaps another member can confirm... the sugata with that nakago taper personally suggests something later than the Tenbun period.

All the best

Giordy

[gkfalk]

Dear nihonto student,

Here is the enhanced picture of the Mei and Sesko's reference:

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by gkfalk

[PNSSHOGUN]

Was this sword in military mountings? I understand quite a number of Japanese families emigrated to Brazil, it always amazes me where these swords show up. 

[Nihonto student]

15 hours ago, gkfalk said:

Dear nihonto student,

Here is the enhanced picture of the Mei and Sesko's reference:

 

 

 

 

 

Dear G.K.,

 

I haven't found any matches with this mei yet. I'll continue searching. I still believe that sugata and nakago are not typical of the Tenbun period.

Now, considering only Fujiwara Nagayuki, the first thing I'd associate it with is the Takada school,. As you can see Mr. Sesko lists another Nagayuki from the Takada school, I can't confirm that he is actually the author of this blade but I would definitely take the Takada school as the direction and from the sugata I would say from Momoyama to the middle of the Shinto period.

 

Is the signature genuine or not? Without a certified signature for comparison, it's difficult to express an opinion...as a general thinking, I'd say Takada doesn't seem a target for gimei, but you never know.

 

If you get the chance, post some better photos and, above all, the measurements of the blade, nagasa, kasane, sori, etc. measurements are essential to give it context.

 

All the best

 

Giordy

[gkfalk]

Dear Giorgy and pnsshogun,
 

I am not certain if the signature is genuine, as the sword has not been analyzed by a specialist nor has been certified. What I know is a bit of its recent history and an hypothesis regarding its provenance.
 

My great-grandfather, Hisashi Kawase, brought it to Brazil in 1927. It previously belonged to his father, Lieutenant General Toru Kawase, a shizoku from Wakayama, Kii. Toru's father, Narutada Kawase, was a retainer samurai of the Kishu Clan in Kii; he served the 14th shogun, Tokugawa Iemochi, in Edo and was the sword's former owner. The Kawase clan was close to the Tokugawa at least during the late Edo and Meiji eras (see the attached letter), though the Chronicles of Wakayama Prefecture list the Kawase as Tokugawa allies since the Tensho period. However, the historical presence of the Kawase clan in Kii dates back at least to the Muromachi period.
 

After extensive research into the clan’s presence in Kii and surroundings, I discovered an interesting coincidence. While the Kawase clan is not listed in any Yamato genealogies or historical records I searched, the Chronicles of Hidaka, Kii, list a former retainer of the Hatakeyama clan — Kawase Hisatsugu — who became a ronin after the fall of the Hatakeyama and retired to Yamato. This occurred exactly during the same timeframe that Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki was active as a swordsmith in that province, according to Sesko's dating. His son later moved from Yamato to Kii, where he established himself as a Yukawa retainer, and where the Kawase clan remained until the Meiji Era.

I know it is a leap to conclude that the original owner was Kawase Hisatsugu (assuming the signature is authentic and the dating is correct), but this information adds context to the sword's history. Regarding the more recent information, those details are more certain and contribute more to the analysis. As for fake signatures, do you know when they were most commonly made? Don't they usually replicate the signatures of famous swordsmiths? Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki is listed as a fairly obscure swordsmith (Hawley 15) in Hawley’s index, so why fake such a smith?
 

Furthermore, I only know of one other sword with the same signature. It is listed in the magazine Swords and History, issue 531 (刀剣と歴史 [531]), but I cannot access it as I am not a resident of Japan. Source: https://dl.ndl.go.jp/pid/7901225

Regarding the physical characteristics of the blade, I cannot provide precise dimensions at this moment as the sword is currently held in a museum collection. However, I will soon be visiting the institution to personally conduct a formal measurement (nagasa, sori, and motohaba) alongside the conservation staff.
 

I am attaching more pictures of the sword, the mountings, and some references in Japanese.

 

Edited March 20 by gkfalk
adding information

[Jussi Ekholm]

Looking at the mei I would think this would be from quite unknown group of makers who resided in Fujiwara area in Yamato. By extremely unlikely timing coincidence you should take a look on this thread that was started yesterday: 

 

[gkfalk]

Wow! Thank you for the tip on the other post Jussi! I will share there what we have here.

[Nihonto student]

49 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Looking at the mei I would think this would be from quite unknown group of makers who resided in Fujiwara area in Yamato. By extremely unlikely timing coincidence you should take a look on this thread that was started yesterday: 

 

Great Jussi and perfect timing for the post! I was also searching around and found this one:

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/0810_1116syousai.htm

Nakago and Mei's style are a great match.

[gkfalk]

On 3/20/2026 at 7:34 AM, Nihonto student said:

 

 

 

I haven't found any matches with this mei yet. I'll continue searching. I still believe that sugata and nakago are not typical of the Tenbun period.

 

If of any help, I have found these references on Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki. Many of them refering to the Tenbun/Tenmon period. There is one refering specificaly to Tegai Yamato School.

[gordpete]

Regarding the Fujiwara jû Nagayuki, the shape of this sword is typical of Sue-Kotô with koshi-zori and saki-zori with an extended chû-kaissaki. The yokote is present under the rust, which appears to be on the surface. This blade is indeed in need of professional restoration. Please do not give to any of the "so-called" polishers in Brazil. I have seen their work and they are not restorers but destroyers. This smith is not in the Takada School, but as the Meikan clearly states, circa Tenbun, Yamato. As I wrote regarding the Fujiwara jû Yasumitsu, the Fujiwara School smiths are separate from the Sue-Tegai School, but closely related to the Kanabô School. I am in the final stages of my book on Sue-Yamato smiths and would love to include this blade, but as it is out of polish and in Brazil, that does not seem possible. The same goes for the Fujiwara jû Yasumitsu. I would love to have this join my entry on Fujiwara Yasutomo. Nonetheless, I have added Yasumitsu to my Sue-Yamato Meikan at the end of my book. I am expecting the book to be in print either sometime this year or early next year. The text is in English and Japanese and has 100s of example oshigata.

[gordpete]

In addition, the signature is not fake, but typical of a Fujiwara smith's signature. Also, the blade does not have naginata-hi, but bôhi on both sides of the blade.

[gkfalk]

Dear Gordon,
 

Thank you very much for your enlightening analysis. It is a great honor to have your input, especially considering your expertise and upcoming book on Sue-Yamato smiths. 
 

Regarding your observation about the Fujiwara School being closely related to Kanabō, I am curious if your research indicates whether these smiths were specifically commissioned by local clans (such as the Hatakeyama) during the Tenbun era, or if they operated as part of the larger temple-related workshops in Yamato.
 

As mentioned before, I have also found a reference to a 'Fujiwara-ju Nagayuki' in the magazine 'Tōken to Rekishi', Issue 531 (see image below). Are there many surviving examples of this specific lineage that you have cataloged for your Meikan?
 

Regarding a professional restoration of the blade, I do not see it happening in the near future. Since the sword is currently listed as national heritage/patrimony (as an important piece linked to the Japanese immigration), taking it out of the country for restoration would involve a long and complex bureaucratic process with government agencies. However, I would value your recommendations on how such a restoration should ideally be handled. Would sending it to Japan to a licensed Togishi be the only safe way to preserve its integrity and historical value, or are there reliable Togishis in the United States that you would recommend? If so, is there a particular master or institution you would trust with a Fujiwara-Yamato piece?
 

I will soon visit the museum to take professional measurements and clear photos of the blade. Since you mentioned the possibility of including this piece in your study as a documented Sue-Yamato piece in the diaspora, do you have any specific recommendations on photos (specific angles of the nakago or kissaki), precise measurements, or other details I should verify with the museum staff to assist your research?
 

Last but not least, I would also like to ask if you provide professional consultancy services or if your work is strictly academic. Your expertise would be invaluable in helping me understand the best course of action for a future restoration and formal certification. Knowing the right steps to take would ensure that this blade is handled with the historical reverence it deserves, and I would be interested in a more formal guidance if that is something you offer.