MassiveMoonHeh Posted 11 hours ago Report Posted 11 hours ago I have been doing a bit of a deeper dive into Norishige to learn a little more about this smith and try answer some questions. In so doing I wanted to find out as much as I could about him. To do this you have a few sources: 1. Modern Reference books 2. Edo period books 3. Muromachi period books 4. The traditions and stories 5. History books (not specific to Norishige) but explains the lay of the land in Etchū and Kamakura 6. The swords and Oshigata left behind Whilst we would want better references for the major Koto smiths these materials are currently all that we have and from that we try fill in the gaps. With Norishige however unlike other Koto smiths we have something very unusual. We have three very special blades that are not only dated but have his full title including where he is from. It is very unusual to see a blade signed in this manner, especially during the Kamakura period, so why did Norishige sign these blades like this? 1. They were for a particularly important commission or high-status client – Possible but unlikely unless the person was his father or the like - Norishige was a good smith but his reputation grew after his death. 2. A carefully finished or presentation blade – Potentially? But again who would have wanted such a blade. Very unlikely unless it was to showcase a Etchū smith? 3. A fully signed and dated work was intended as a formal record – This is the most probable outcome, but why? 4. Personal pride in lineage - I would suggest that this is again more than likely, but why? Let us look at the three blades: The TokuJu 24/ Juyo 33 (Tanto) 佐伯則重作 / 元応元年十一月吉日 Saeki Norishige saku / Auspicious day of the eleventh month of the 1st year of Gen'ō 1 (元応元年) (November 1319) TokuJu 28 / Juyo 68 (Tanto) 越中国佐伯則重 / 嘉暦 □年十二月日 Etchu Saeki Norishige / Kareki □, December Here the exact date has been drilled through but it was sometime between 1326 and 1329. The Tanto in the Umetada Oshigata this is the same blade found in the Tokyo National Museum: https://colbase.nich.go.jp/collection_items/tnm/F-255?locale=ja The date for this blade is a tough one to work out. The museum suggests the first letter for the date is 嘉 for Ka with means the only logical suggestion after that being 暦 or reki meaning 嘉暦年二 Kareki Era Year 2 (1327). The previous blade above was made in Kareki but the kangi do not match and I cannot see 暦 fitting in that mekugi hole. Also, if this was a blade made around the same time as the the second blade above then I would imagine the kanji for Ka 嘉 would match? Before we continue, one of the main reasons why the kanji may not match if it was years apart was because Norishige has been suggested to be illiterate and being illiterate he would have needed someone to help write down the Kanji for him so that he could copy it onto the tang. As such who wrote this down? That the dates changed and even the way he wrote it changed tells me he engaged someone (potential not the same someone) on three different occasions to help him with the words. It also explains why his writing is so poor making it hard to decipher 700 years on. Back to the date kanji translation, another option is 壬辰年 or Year of the Water Dragon (1312) but Norishige never used the Chinese Zodiac for any of his other blades. It was also not very common for Kamakura smiths. So I am not buying this one. Also that "loop" above the Mekugi hole does not work. The final possibility is 正応二年 or 2nd year of the Shōō Era (1289). This is my favourite as it matches the writing more than the other two even around the loop that gets cut off by the mekugi hole. Thus we get: 正応二年二月十日 / 仁中御服住伯則重 (越中御服住伯則重) Shōō 2 (1289), 2nd Month, 10th day / Etchū, Go-Fuku Resident, Saeki Norishige This is a rather special inscription on the tang as it literally gives us his town Go-Fuku in Etchū. It tells us that Norishige was a resident of this little town, whilst the other two blades simply state that he is either a member of the Saeki Clan or the Saeki Clan from Etchū. As such we can also conclude that of these three blades two could be whilst he is not resident of Etchū, that is he was living in Kamakura. We can also assume that as he has written Resident on this blade that he must be living in Go-Fuku when he wrote this on this blade but before we do we also need to consider that this is also considered one of his earliest blades and therefore this one may also come from Kamakura but captured by a youngster who still identifies as being from Go-Fuku and is only in Kamakura to study under Shintogo. Logic being that he may have wanted to capture the name of the town he grew up in on one of his first swords - pride of place is a huge part of ones life. A student in Kamakura but not a resident as his home town is still Go-Fuku. As a zealous up and coming smith I can certainly appreciate wanting to capture his whole story on one of my first blades. First sword smith from Go-Fuku? Making it big in the big smoke. But the date 1289 poses a problem. Norishige we are told in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen was born in the 3rd year of the Shōō era (正応三年, 1290) in Gofuku-gō (御服郷 / 呉服郷), Nei district, Etchū Province. As such according to this book written in 1792 this is not possible. However, let's consider this. 1792 is some 500 years after the fact. As such this book would need to reference earlier books to give us this date. Making this book a 2nd or 3rd source book. And as such, whilst this book is great for reference we need to consider that this is not a contemporary account. The blade however is written by the hands of the man. It is as contemporary as you can get a sort of time machine - assuming it is not gimei, which most experts agree it is not. And so whilst this date does not make sense to his already being alive and making swords in 1289 perhaps it is telling us something else. Perhaps he is actually giving us his birthday? It is certainly the only blade with a month and a day on it. As such, is Norishige capturing the date of his birth and preserving it for history: Saeki Norishige, resident of Etchū was born in the 2nd year of Shōō 10th day of the 2nd month or the Gregorian Calendar, the 3rd of March 1289. Now if that is the case then that is one of the rarest things in the sword world. It would certainly be the only blade that I am aware of with a birthday on it to give us the exact date when a sword smith was born. And I realise this is a huge leap but if we assume he is recording his birthday then suddenly the other two blades dates also start to make sense. That we have November 1319 (30 years old) for the first blade above and then December 1329 (40 years old) for the second blade above. This means that these three blades are capturing life milestones. That is he is capturing the fact that he has completed a decade of his life (a milestone event back then and even today.) Which explains why he went out of his way to write down his full name, place of origin and date. A very rare thing for a Kamakura smith to put blade. But as an illiterate commoner from a backwater province who is proud of what he has achieve in his life - it makes sense. He is literally saying this is me a nobody from backwater Etchū made good and thus leaving his mark on the world so that he is never forgotten. It is a theory but to me it is one with legs and I like it. What do you guys think? Feel free to drop bombs. Going back to him not being literate; if he was not literate then he would have had to get someone to help him write out the kanji so that he could copy it onto the Tang. As a little fun excercise, I thought of who this might have been for each sword: If we assume the "Tanto in the Umetada Oshigata" was his first from 1309 (20 years old) then the person helping him write this would have perhaps been Shintogo Kunimitsu. For the 1319 blade (30 years old) it is very probable that it was either Yukimitsu or maybe even Gō Yoshihiro. For the 1329 blade (40 years old) it was likely to have been Gorō Nyudo Masamune or Ko-Nyudo Kunimitsu depending on when he came back to Etchū or maybe even Tametsugu, Kunifusa or Kunimune. Kind of amazing to think of the smiths Norishige shared his life with. An extra-ordinary time and an extra-ordinary smith. As an illiterate sword smith would you not want to make a sword that celebrate your life on a such a major milestone? 4 5 Quote
Hoshi Posted 5 hours ago Report Posted 5 hours ago Hi, Interesting post, thank you for enriching the forum with your investigations. Quote Shōō 2 (1289), 2nd Month, 10th day / Etchū, Go-Fuku Resident, Saeki Norishige I do not think this is the correct reading (and I could be wrong) - if it is, it would reshuffle my understanding of this smith, for reasons that I will elaborate on later. Quote That we have November 1319 (30 years old) for the first blade above and then December 1329 (40 years old) for the second blade above. This means that these three blades are capturing life milestones. That is he is capturing the fact that he has completed a decade of his life (a milestone event back then and even today.) Which explains why he went out of his way to write down his full name, place of origin and date. A very rare thing for a Kamakura smith to put blade. But as an illiterate commoner from a backwater province who is proud of what he has achieve in his life - it makes sense. He is literally saying this is me a nobody from backwater Etchū made good and thus leaving his mark on the world so that he is never forgotten. I do not believe that these long signature are a sign of pride, special orders, or life milestones achieved. While these are often cited as an explanation, to me they are suspect as they do not align with my preferred Occam's razor, which is to use the lens of economic theory and the incentives of commerce to analyze signature types. While it is not a traditional lens of understanding either, it has been shown time and time again to offer great explanatory power at minimal complexity cost in historical analysis. So here it goes, brace yourself. I am aware that this deserves a more in-depth article, and more rigorous efforts at fitting the existing data to the model, but I will throw it out here regardless, fresh out of the idea forge as it goes. Q: Why did smiths sign nagamei? A: So the prospective client could know where to go to order the work. Q: Why did the smiths add dating information in the nakago? A: So the prospective client could know that the smith is still alive in all likelihood, and that it wouldn't be a wasted trip. Q: Why did some smiths leave their work mumei despite being ubu? A: Because they were employed on a fixed salary basis, and their work was aimed at internal consumption, and therefore no "marketing information" was needed (e.g., temples). So by signing with his "place" and a "date", the smith is signaling to the world: this is where I can be found, and I am still alive, still taking orders. Come. From here, you have corollaries: if you see work signed nagamei, you can assume that the intended radius of sales was greater. If you see dated work with the place of production, you have indication that you are facing a form of free enterprise with a large radius of sales. If you see name standardization (e.g., Sukesada), dated and a place, you can assume that the intended radius of sales was the greatest of all. You can also infer that the propensity to sign nagamei was commensurate with the distance to the intended clients: the closer you are to your client, the less likely you need to sign nagamei. Think about it: Yamashiro vs Bizen in their use of nagamei. In the case of Norishige, you see nagamei appearing later in his career, and for good reason: he had moved back to Etchu. He needed his customers to know he could be found there. And by adding a date, he was signaling that he was still alive, still taking orders, and still ready to fulfill them. You can take this very simple theory and take it very deep. It will allow you to elucidate on the intended customers, the social organization of the workshop, the ambition of the smith, and so on. It is very revealing if you take it seriously. I have plans to do a long writeup on this with Markus, but I'm afraid my other priorities on NW take precedence on these more advanced topics for the time being at least. Hence, I do not think 1289 is the correct reading. While working in Kamakura, it would be an anti-signal to his customers to write "Etchu" on his on work. In the meantime feel free to attempt to demolish it. Best, Hoshi 2 1 Quote
Rivkin Posted 4 hours ago Report Posted 4 hours ago What I would be very much interested in is tracking the first time anything by Norishige, Yukimitsu and other smiths is referenced in a document. Except dating of many such documents is not entirely straightforward. Because judging by the impact of their work, both Norishige and Yukimitsu must have been extremely prolific and influential in their time. 4 Quote
Lewis B Posted 4 hours ago Report Posted 4 hours ago If I may make some points as a novice swimming in the deep end, with an enthusiastic appreciation for Norishige, in particular. @MassiveMoonHeh as usual has presented some thoughtprovoking and perhaps radical ideas based on the historical accounts, oshigata and extant blades. Its now widely accepted that Norishige was a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. If we consider his works they are all (with the exception of the Midare Shintogo and postulated to be a daisaku work signed daimei by Yukimitsu) all rooted in traditional forging styles going back to his Awataguchi ancestry and swordmaking influences. For want of a better expression he was a traditionalist. What he did do to innovate was adjust his manufacturing style to compensate for the poorer quality Akame satetsu that was available to him in Sagami. This led to an increase the number of forge welds to expel the additional impurities such as sulfur. However the evidence suggests he adhered to a strict heirarchical structure within his atelier. There are no swords signed by apprentices with their mei, while Shintogo was apparently physically in charge. The swords that have been suggested are daimei due to slight variations in the nijimei strike patterns are all dated within a narrow window of 1306-08. Its often cited that favoured apprentices would sign daimei towards the end of a master smiths career/life so they could focus on forging. Dating a nakago in general was unusual in the late Kamakura era, so I agree with Brett, that when a nengo was added it was for a specific reason. It makes sense that the date was to mark a milestone and not necessarily one that has significant meaning for the Shodai, but rather for the apprentice (in this instance) working on the piece. It seems logical that these apprentices like Yukimitsu and Kunihiro would want to celebrate their acheivement by dating their daimei work. The application of grass script for the nengo in these two examples shows a certain artistic flourish and enthusiasm beyond the mere process of date recording. The earliest known dated and signed Norishige blade in oshigata is for 1309. The evidence points to him still working in Kamakura at this time. Does that mean Kunihiro had now become the defacto master of the atelier, but for whatever reason, went against convention and allowed the experienced smiths to sign their own blades? Norishige remained in Sagami for several years after Shintogo's death, continuing his apprenticeship with the more senior Yukimitsu and Masamune. Again atypically signing his own name. Or had the Shintogo atelier splintered with Yukimitsu, Masamune and Norishige establishing their own workshop together, separate from the original atelier with its new head, Kunihiro? The style of work would support the latter hypothesis as Kunihiro largely continued to produce blades, albeit slightly longer, in the suguha style of his father, whereas Yukimitsu et al would continue to evolve and elevate the Soshuden style of swordmaking. Speaking of the 1314 tanto, there is evidence in the nijimei that further points to his level of literacy, with an error in the form of an additional horizontal radical strike for 'Shige'. As to why Norishige, in particular, would make these long inscriptions with precise nengo, could they have been devotional pieces intended for temple offerings? His horimono iconography often had religious motifs in the bonji, as well as Dainichi Nyorai and Fudo Nyoo designs. I find these hypothesis testing threads very stimulating and thought-provoking. Without contemporary records we are trying to piece together a multifaceted puzzle and create a picture with missing puzzle pieces based on academic intuition. This is great work Brett et al. 3 Quote
Hoshi Posted 3 hours ago Report Posted 3 hours ago Hi, I would caution against "inward focused" explanations: to mark a personal milestone, as a sign of pride, as a testament to a new emerging style, as a commemorative act to mark a new genius forging insight, etc. I think these are overfitted to the data and come from a place of deep admiration of the artisans as artist, but we must remember that commerce was always the existential priority. The "outward focused" explanations are more parsimonious: to announce a change of address to the customer, to remind the customer that the workshop is still in operation and taking orders, to signal to the customer that a new forge with a new name is now taking orders, to expand the radius of sales, etc. Quote compensate for the poorer quality Akame satetsu that was available to him in Sagami I am not convinced about this but I am open to changing my mind, I would like to evaluate the source on this point if you can share. Quote However the evidence suggests he adhered to a strict heirarchical structure within his atelier. There are no swords signed by apprentices with their mei, while Shintogo was apparently physically in charge. The swords that have been suggested are daimei due to slight variations in the nijimei strike patterns are all dated within a narrow window of 1306-08. Its often cited that favoured apprentices would sign daimei towards the end of a master smiths career/life so they could focus on forging. But why? Because producing the same product over and over (the refined tanto signed Shintogo) was the best way to ensure the economic flourishing of the operation by creating a brand with high quality control, recognizability, and and exquisite execution. In this context it is not difficult to understand the fate of Shintogo's operations, and this is especially manifest in the signed works of Yukimitsu. There was clearly a disagreement on the direction of the product, with one camp insisting to keep on going with product A, and the other camp seeking to do new things. And hence, they split. Masamune, Norishige, and Yukimitsu (the older) on one side. Shintogo the Elder, Kunihiro, Kuniyasu on the other. It could not be resolved by words either. And oh boy did they do different things. Signed works by Yukimitsu and Norishige (and Masamune) are simply all over the place - in both deki, shape, construction, and so on. It is the polar opposite of the rigid awataguchi top class product, which must have been an absolute soul-sucking grind to produce at this level of quality control. Kunihiro, Kuniyasu (presumably) continued the Shintogo road, retained the strictures, while the 3 others went their own way, probably working from the same co-owned and co-operated forge, collaborating on each other's works. In the end, they outcompeted Kunihiro and Kuniyasu, and they made the right decision. But this was not obvious in retrospect, and as such it was a risky and divisive choice. Having been raised "classically" at the highest level of rigor, they could finally fly from their own wings and begin a truly innovative journey. You will note that this story is a recurring theme in the history of arts. Replace "awataguchi" with "classical french cuisine learned from a 3 michelin star Paris chef" and "Etchu" with "Peru" and you will quickly see the parallels. Van Gogh, Picasso, Monet, the examples abound. It is an archetypical story, it fits well with our theory of excellence, aligns with human commercial incentives, aspiration for mastery, and desire for self-expression. Hence it is probably true. Best, Hoshi 6 Quote
Mushin Posted 3 hours ago Report Posted 3 hours ago Dear Hoshi, I think there is an interesting and potentially useful insight here, although I’m not sure I’m willing to follow the theory quite as far as you do. I agree that we probably underappreciate the economic function of mei. A signature was not simply an expression of pride or authorship. Names, titles, places and workshop identities had reputational value, and by the later periods it becomes difficult not to see something approaching branding in places such as Osafune. Looking at signature conventions through the economics of sword production could tell us quite a lot about how smiths and workshops functioned. Where I have difficulty is with the next step: that a place name and date were essentially marketing information telling a prospective customer, “Here is where you can find me, and as of this date I am still alive and taking orders.” That seems to assume a rather modern relationship between producer and consumer. Were Kamakura-period customers really encountering a Norishige, reading “Etchū,” and then traveling there to commission another one? Some people certainly traveled considerable distances in medieval Japan, but high-level sword production seems more likely to have operated through networks of patronage — warrior houses, temples, retainers, intermediaries and political relationships. The person in a position to commission a Norishige presumably did not need the nakago of somebody else’s sword to tell him where Norishige could be found. I think there is also an important distinction between branding and advertising. “Etchū Saeki Norishige” can assert identity, origin, reputation and perhaps workshop affiliation without functioning as the medieval equivalent of an address. Geographic names in Japanese signatures do not necessarily tell us where the maker could physically be found at the moment the inscription was cut. They can express origin, school identity, lineage or an established professional identity as well. I’m even less persuaded by the explanation for dates. A nengō could record completion, a particular commission, an auspicious occasion, a presentation or votive context, or simply conform to established workshop practice. “I was alive and accepting orders at this date” is certainly one possible interpretation, but what evidence allows us to privilege that explanation over the others? In many cases the person who commissioned the sword presumably already knew perfectly well that the smith was alive. There is another possibility that I think deserves considerably more weight: mei and nengō may also reflect workshop traditions and what amounted to internal identification and record-keeping conventions. Smiths and their workshops were surely conscious of individual makers, generations, succession, changes in names and titles, and different periods within a smith’s working life. In a workshop containing masters, sons, brothers, disciples and assistants — sometimes using related or inherited names — signatures could help distinguish who made what, while dates established when it was made. That information would remain useful long after the original transaction as swords passed between owners or remained within warrior or temple inventories. In other words, we shouldn’t assume that every piece of information on the nakago was directed outward toward attracting the next customer. Some of it may simply represent the workshop’s own conventions for identifying, differentiating and situating its products, as well as the smith’s perfectly natural awareness of his own work over time. The fact that nengō are so valuable today for distinguishing phases of a smith’s career, generations and changes in workmanship may not be merely an accidental benefit to modern students. The people making, ordering and handling these swords were surely aware of chronology too. The same problem arises with some of the proposed corollaries. Nijimei can be explained as evidence of a reputation sufficiently broad that geographic identification was unnecessary, but couldn’t one construct the opposite hypothesis just as easily? A sword intended to travel farther from its place of manufacture might require more identifying information, not less. Likewise, I don’t think ubu mumei can safely be equated with salaried or internally consumed production without considerably more evidence. Different schools and workshops may simply have had different signing traditions, just as they developed different conventions regarding nakago, yasurime, mei placement and other features. This is where I think the theory risks becoming difficult to falsify. Nagamei means the smith was advertising where to find him; nijimei means his reputation traveled far enough that he didn’t need to; mumei means the intended customer already knew who made it; a date means he was advertising that he was still alive; absence of a date means that information wasn’t necessary. If every possible signature convention can be accommodated by the model after the fact, we need some independent evidence before we can know whether the model is actually explaining the phenomenon. So, I wouldn’t dismiss the underlying idea at all. In fact, I think the strongest version of it is fascinating: mei should be studied as evidence for the economic and institutional organization of sword production, rather than merely as signatures. That potentially tells us something about workshop structure, patronage, reputation, geographic identity, succession and market reach. I’m just not convinced we can make the further leap from “mei had economic and reputational functions” to “nagamei and dates were essentially customer-acquisition tools.” And that makes me particularly cautious about using the theory to reject the Shōō 2 reading. If the reading is philologically, historically or oshigata-wise problematic, that’s one thing. But rejecting it because “Etchū” would have been an anti-signal while Norishige was supposedly working in Kamakura seems to require the economic model to be true before using the inscription as evidence that the model is true. There is a danger of circular reasoning there. It’s a very interesting hypothesis, though, and I think there is a way to test it. Take a substantial body of dated and geographically signed blades from smiths whose movements, patrons and working locations can be independently established from contemporary records, and then ask whether changes in their mei actually correlate with changes in location, patronage and intended market. If those patterns consistently line up, then there may be something much more substantial here than an elegant economic theory. 5 Quote
eternal_newbie Posted 3 hours ago Report Posted 3 hours ago 17 minutes ago, Mushin said: Different schools and workshops may simply have had different signing traditions, just as they developed different conventions regarding nakago, yasurime, mei placement and other features. See for example, the ongoing debate over Bishu Osafune ju and Bizen Osafune ju, a variation happening within a single school. For all the debate over branding, quality and so on for all we know it could have simply been a statement of patriotism at a time of particular strife, e.g. "Product of the Bishu Region" vs. "Proudly Made in Bizen Province". 1 Quote
Hoshi Posted 3 hours ago Report Posted 3 hours ago Hi, (I edited my mistake on the previous post, I wrote Nijimei when I meant Nagamei, apologies for the confusion. To be clear: Nagamei are the long mei containing the place, Nijimei is the short mei containing only the name) Its a testable hypothesis. It can also be countered by physical evidence: a blade containing an address that is false (say, Norishige signs "Etchu" while working in Kamakura, hence why this data point I believe is wrongly interpreted). Or evidence of proximate consumption for nagamei dated with with the nijimei consumed distally (e.g., a Bizen smith signing "nagamitsu" for blades intended for far away Kyoto, and Bishu Osafune Nagamitsu for blades intended for proximal consumption by the warriors of the castle guarding the crossing). Another way is to analyze sugata and hamon concordance with distal vs proximal taste. A derivative and testable hypothesis is that blades intended for Kyoto are more likely to conform to Kyoto taste (slender "elegant" tachi as opposed to brutal war swords with wide motohaba). If we find the opposite, namely that bizen blades with nagamei are more likely to be "war swords" and blades with nijimei are more likely to be "court swords", then we are contradicted. As I said earlier it's really premature so I am fully expecting pushback, on the other hand with clever analysis it is fully testable, it has to be done but I'm not sure when I have the time. Also, different motivations can co-occur with this "outward" explanation. It can be patriotism, tradition, and so on. But at some point the idea emerged and regardless of its intention, it made commerce more efficient as a side effect. You can think about it as a "random mutation" in the theory of evolution that leads to increased fitness. If we put motivation aside, we are left with a "weak" version of the theory in the formal sense. Best, Hoshi 1 Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted 2 hours ago Author Report Posted 2 hours ago Chris, your Occam's Razor theory is interesting - thank you for sharing your initial unedited thoughts - I always appreciate your excellent insights. The more you share the more I learn. Thank you. In terms of my initial reaction to your economic radius theory, to me this theory sounds a little more complicated than what Friar Occam would allow, only because some of the reasoning perhaps needs more thought. 1 hour ago, Hoshi said: Q: Why did smiths sign nagamei? A: So the prospective client could know where to go to order the work. 1. Only a handful of people ever saw the Nakago. As such it is pretty poor advertising. But agree it was advertsing if the blade performed well. Reality is then person who survives a battle with an unbroken blade is more likely to tell his mates where he got the blade than these guys will ever take the handle off the blade and read the Nakago. 2. Once you bought a sword you did not go back for a warranty repair. Either you survived or your were dead. Again good performance sees new custom from word of mouth not a signed nakago. That full names and locations on blades are rare speaks to this - because Smiths did not get business from the battlefield from their Nakago. They got it from word of mouth. And got none if their customers died. 1 hour ago, Hoshi said: Q: Why did the smiths add dating information in the nakago? A: So the prospective client could know that the smith is still alive in all likelihood, and that it wouldn't be a wasted trip. 3. Smiths rarely put a date on their blade. Why? Because it was simply not needed. When was anyone going to see the nakago and go... "Oh, wow 1319 - Norshige is still alive!"? Because again very few people ever saw the nakago. As such I struggle with this dates on nakago to show aliveness logic. The surviving samurai will tell his mates where he got the blade - no dates required and as such there are very few today. 1 hour ago, Hoshi said: Q: Why did some smiths leave their work mumei despite being ubu? A: Because they were employed on a fixed salary basis, and their work was aimed at internal consumption, and therefore no "marketing information" was needed (e.g., temples). 4. This is the one theory that may work, that is, if the Hōjō employed every smith in Kamakura and gave them a salary to make swords. If this was true I could see the logic of no signatures on blades but the Hōjō never had a standing army and as such never had a need to permanently employ sword smiths. So that theory is dead in the water. 5. Also the largest temples with warrior monks in Yamato who could have employed salaried smiths and perhaps they did but even if they did we still have Yamato smiths who were known to be tied to Monasteries with signed blades. This runs counter to your argument. Whilst Kamakura smiths did not. Why? As such even for monastries this theory does not appear to hold water, either. In terms of what was going on economically in Kamakura during this time and your theory on economic radius. Why did the Kamakura smiths not sign their blades? Your economic radius theory suggests this is because they have a captive audience. That is, your theory suggests no signatures for smiths in Kamakura as they were so close to their customers therefore they need not sign? But Bizen smiths continue to sign their blades during this period - cause no captive audience (economic radius is wider than Kamakura). No local captive audience. This one is interesting. Certainly Bizen serviced all of Japan. Even back then like today they still have the largest collection of smiths in one place and judging from their Juyo and above numbers they were and still are extremely well regarded. Meaning the whole of Japan was their captive audience. And yet even with this large economic radius they did not sign with dates to show liveliness even though the whole of Japan was their customer base. Nijimei is the dominant signature form of Bizen smiths. As such whether they are dead or not is not a concern or even a thought when they customer travels to Bizen. If the smith is dead get another good smith. You also do have examples of Bizen smiths not signing their blades? Why was this? Truth be told, regardless of where in Japan you were based if the nakago is your only form of advertsing then as you suggest you sign the blade. But this was not the case. Why? That the Kamakura smiths did not for a period during the Late Kamakura Period suggests that there is something else going on that was more than purely economic practice. A major reason why your economic radius theory this does not sit well with what was going on in Kamakura at the time is that Kamakura actually became the first place in Japan where Kanban (Signboards) became a thing - similar to Europe at the same time they were images painted or carved out of wood as people could not read. This was done to attract custom from a captive audience. Why? Competition of a small economic radius. They also adapted the Noren (Shop Curtains used to keep out dust since the Heian) to display crests and symbols that again advertised their business to the local community. Why? Competition in a small economic radius. More people in one place literally saw advertsing in Kamakura boom. Not reverse due to a small economic radius. That Kamakura started advertising their little shops more aggressively locally to a captive audience due to competition, while at the same time their sword smiths stopped signing their blades which is also advertising (makers mark) does not gel with your economic radius theory. That you have a captive audience does not limit advertsing but increases it as their is more competition. As displayed by the events in Kamakura. As such, I am struggling with your proposed economic razor theory here as it goes counter to every economic theory that ever existed. Humans are naturally pre-disposed to sign their work or advertise to make more money. More competition means more advertising. As such a makers mark is not only a sign of pride through out the world for what ever they made, be it clothes, pottery, wood work etc. but it ensures new custom as the buyer becomes the advertiser through word of mouth and showing off his incredible thing he bought identified by the maker's mark regardless of economic radius. As true today as back then. It is the reason we buy Apple Products and not Affle Products. Or go to a specific restaurant rather than any restaurant. So why did the smiths in the Late Kamakura period abandon this? I fear your economic radius theory does not explain this. It infact it appears to run counter to conventional economic theory and is definitely, due to the proposed reasoning, not as simple as your suggest but instead appears to be alot more complicated than originally proposed. Kamakura smiths stopped signing their blades just as advertising exploded? Why? Certainly, I agree Occam's Razor is at play here but I fear your economic radius theory is not it. Norishige celebrating a birthday vs complicated economic theory that runs counter to standard economic practice. Which fits Occam's Razor better? Finally getting back to your theory that Norshige moved back to the sticks and started signing his blades. That the majority of his blades remain unsigned to this day suggests: 1. That he never made a lot of blades in Etchū?; or 2. He continued to not sign blades in Etchū? I guess it depends when you believe he moved to Etchū. But even if he moved in 1333 when the Bakufu collapse he would have been 44 years old and still had 25 years ahead of him to make blades. Yet, we still have very few signed blades. Why is that? By the way my birthday theory is just that a theory and I do not suggest otherwise and am happy to be proven wrong as I am more keen to find truth than hold on to bunkem theories. I still however for now prefer it over your economic radius theory. In terms of Occam's Razor which theory is easier to explain. And when it comes to Occam's Razor that is about. Peace. 3 Quote
Mushin Posted 2 hours ago Report Posted 2 hours ago No doubt, it's a thought-provoking, fun theory. Where I agree 100% are that signatures were almost certainly a form of early branding. But to make that branding only economic and not personal pushes the envelope a bit too far for me. I think ruling out the egos of smiths and ateliers to mark a milestone or to organize their corpus would be a mistake. The danger of the theory as currently presented is I think it imposes modern economic thinking and perspective on a medieval culture of a warrior society that was still evolving. It's also is a little too sweeping and too "perfect," squeezing a myriad of reasons and evolving traditions to fit 21st marketing and philosophical thinking. While it is fun to imagine that smiths were supremely aware of their chops, and that the signatures were as much an economic and manufacturing scheme as an expression of ego, I think this assumes too much on the part of the Kamakura/Nanbokucho warrior as consumer. The theory has just too many holes for me. On the subject of mumei blades, a friend of mine who is a big but quiet collector in Florida, spent a lot of time with Yoshindo Yoshihara in Japan about 20 years ago. During that time he noticed that Yoshihara had a stockpile or unsigned works. When somebody would visit his studio and didn't want to commission a work, they would go through what he already made. Once a blade was chosen, Yoshihara would sign it. I often wondered if this was a personal business touch of his, or the practice went further back. If so, it could offer another explanation for mumei blades. Just a thought. Again, the theory is great fodder for further thought. Thanks. Bobby 3 Quote
Hoshi Posted 2 hours ago Report Posted 2 hours ago Hi, Yes it is by no means perfect and "ready for publication" - It's just food for thought. It deserves its own rigorous testing regime, to operationalize it through data analysis and historical analysis. I'm glad its stimulating so much debate, keep going it's great. Just remember that to test it, one needs to only look at ubu works (or slightly suriage), and there are not that many left. Small sample size may even make it unviable for testing beyond the "anecdotal" class of evidence - but such is life under uncertainty. Especially since we can expect missing data to be predominantly on the 'war sword' side of things and be left with large class imbalance. Best Hoshi 3 Quote
Rivkin Posted 1 hour ago Report Posted 1 hour ago (edited) Wow, I'll have to be a bit more arrogant than my usual. The theory that how detailed the sword signature is corresponds to how developed versus regional the markets are as far as I know have been introduced by me in "Study of the Eastern Sword". If there was an earlier citation, would be glad to hear. But... The problem of adapting printed theory: underlying details. There are plenty of Asian and to lesser extent Japanese books that consider the subject of sword making. They are however almost never cited, and the reason is that to most modern readers they would appear extremely bizarre. They are primarily concerned with magic rituals performed, how to divine the proper length of a sword, whether one needs to add gold... Spoiler - yes, premier sword should be added because it strengthens the blade and also makes inflicted wounds unhealable. There were however two things which people understood even in the 15th century. Some swordmiths names are better than others. Hence personal signatures as soon as the smiths were no longer essentially bonded property of estates. And that iron from certain areas should be used, from others - don't. Hence province names are very specifically mentioned. There is a theory that it was more important in places which used iron ore rather than sand since then you save on processing times but you have to deal with S, P versus Mn, Mb and Ni which creates more substantial variety. Which did not change the fact that provincial reputation of iron was substantially differentiated even as early as 6th to 10th century, almost everywhere. The dates are the most intriguing thing because a lot of sword cultures actually never have those. The ones that do tend to have smiths mentioned in text personally and the date confirms - this is such smith from this generation. To the point that famous generations tend to use dated signatures more often than average ones. Edited 44 minutes ago by Rivkin 4 Quote
Jussi Ekholm Posted 1 hour ago Report Posted 1 hour ago I don't know Sōshū that well and it is a school I do really struggle to understand, I can't understand the fame. I got gifted the wonderful Sōshū-den book by NMB member and I admit I am puzzled by many things in the wonderful book. It is very well researched so it is most likely correct information. However I would think even late Kamakura Sōshū smiths would sign their tachi. There are several signed Shintogō Kunimitsu tachi, there is a signed Masamune tachi etc. I cannot see any reason why they would make mumei tachi, now I agree that the amount of ō-suriage mumei above certain length does not make logical sense, as not all of those surviving swords were in my mind ōdachi. I do personally believe not all remaining ō-suriage mumei are ō-suriage mumei, however I do not have skill or knowledge to prove my theory. I also think that several of the tachi that are currently judged as ubu mumei would have had a signature originally. Just my personal thought and way of thinking. Thank you for posting the item in Umetada oshigata and the connection to Tokyo National Museum item Brett. That was a new thing for me. What is interesting I personally think TNM might be skeptical of few Norishige tantō they have in the collection, as they haven't published pictures or information about the items on the website. I cannot see other logical reason why they wouldn't publish and document these extremely valuable signed examples well. They do have another interesting signed Norishige, and it is with Kamakura signature, that might be extremely interesting to the Sōshū lovers on board. It is signed □□国鎌倉住則重 / 保元年十二月三日 □□ Kuni Kamakura jū Norishige. As there is no picture it is impossible to say anything about the year but using logic I would think it is missing first character and it would be 文保元年, as in 1st year of Bunpō (1317). That would probably be fitting the timeline being established for the smith. https://colbase.nich.go.jp/collection_items/tnm/F-247?locale=ja Also it seems there has been Imperial collection item signed 相模国住人則重 and dated to 正中 (1324-26), however it seems Honma Junji doubted the legitimacy of this item. One thing is that whose authority will you accept on items. At Ōyamazumi-jinja there is a dated naginata by Norishige It is signed and dated to 1325, 正中貮□十月日越中国住人則重. Now I think it is easy to discard the shrine items that do not have authentication by Bunkachō or NBTHK but I feel they are extremely valuable items. I have seen the naginata several times, I cannot of course say if it is legitimate Norishige. However what is interesting is that several dated tachi oshigata by Norishige on Sōshū-den book have the similar form where year is written first and then Norishige signature on same side under it. 3 Quote
Rivkin Posted 1 hour ago Report Posted 1 hour ago 11 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said: I cannot see any reason why they would make mumei tachi, A considerable portion of period's ubu blades are mumei. Strange for a tanto, but a tachi if the order was issued locally, never intended to enter the market, the order possibly given not to a specific smith but rather an estate - such items are very seldom signed worldwide. 3 Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted 1 hour ago Author Report Posted 1 hour ago 4 hours ago, CSM101 said: Number 4 Thank you for sharing. TokuJu 9 / Juyo 31 勝 則重 / 正和三年 十二 月日 Katsu Norishige / Shōwa 3 12th month or December 1314 Note as this is not one of the decade birthday blades as such it falls in the middle between 1309 and 1319. In December 1314, Norishige would have been 25. He also as such does not call himself Saeki here nor does he reference Etchū. He instead uses the word Katsu 勝 (Win/Victory) above the mekugi hole and before his name. In terms of dates; 1312 - Shintogo dies 1312-1317 - student of Yukimitsu. It is unclear why he signed with the Katsu 勝 (Win/Victory) Norishige with a date however, scholars including our own @Markus suggest this is Norishige deliberately paying homage to Sanemori showing his Ko-Hōki affinity as the 勝 is placed in the exact same location that Sanemori placed his on the Nakago. Sanemori is the only smith prior to this blade that used this character in this position. It makes sense that this happens whilst he was apprenticing under Yukimitsu who together with Masamune were certainly greatly influenced by ko-Hōki Smiths... certainly more than Shintogo. In fact the older writings suggest Masamune was trying to imitate Yasutsuna - as such clearly that was his love. It should be noted that whilst Norishige appears to be showing his love for Sanemori's work here. Yukimitsu whilst being influenced by the Ko-Hoki was alot more conservative in his approach and in this regard even though he is expressing his love for the Ko-Hoki smith Sanemori here, this blade is also more conservative and reflects Yukimitsu and Shintogo's conservative teaching more than Norshige's more flaboyant later works. As such this also may be the first time he attempts to break from Etchū with his own makers mark - certainly he has done this for a reason, although this reason at this specific date remains unclear. Perhaps this is the moment he decided what type of smith he wanted to become. This signature however is not something he turned into a ongoing habit when signing. A moment in time perhaps as he found himself - expressing his love for ko-Hoki. Regardless this signature strengthens the theory that Norishige signed his blades at times to express his individuality and not purely for commercial reasoning. 2 Quote
Jussi Ekholm Posted 1 hour ago Report Posted 1 hour ago Thank you for specifying that Kirill. I understand it to a certain point, I am just so puzzled with Sōshū in general. If they were seen as so amazing items I would think there would be more preserved signatures in various forms, and as there are oshigata books that show various signed items. 2 Quote
CSM101 Posted 32 minutes ago Report Posted 32 minutes ago I forgot the translation. Token Bijutsu 530.pdf 1 1 Quote
eternal_newbie Posted 24 minutes ago Report Posted 24 minutes ago 2 hours ago, Mushin said: When somebody would visit his studio and didn't want to commission a work, they would go through what he already made. Once a blade was chosen, Yoshihara would sign it. I do wonder if there's also the possibility of mumei blades being made for customers whom you didn't know particularly well, or was likely to be taken onto the battlefield and potentially seized by a victorious enemy. After all, it wouldn't do for the blade that cut down the Emperor's favourite general or relative to end up literally having your name all over it. 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.