（Token Bijutsu No.577）

 

Nihon Koto Shi

(History of Koto)

 

By Dr. Honma Junji

 

 (27)

 

(P.32)

In addition, there is another school listed in ‘Kokon Mei Zukushi’ and Noritaka is the founder of the school. I have ever seen only one extant work (tachi) of Noritaka. The hamon is ko-choji-midare mixed with ko-midare and shows a different workmanship from that of the Aoe school of Moritsugu lineage. Masatsune, Tsuneto and Tsunekiyo belong to this school.

 

There are smiths called Masatsune in the Ko-Bizen school as well and it is speculated that works of Ko-Aoe Masatsune are strayed into the Ko-Bizen school. There are two style of the mei of Ko-Aoe Masatsune and it is speculated that there are two generations of Masatsune. The first generation is represented by a tachi owned by the Tsurugaoka Hachiman Gu Shrine of Kamakura City and the second generation by the Tokiwa Shrine of Aichi Prefecture. The workmanship of the former looks more classical. Tsuneto demonstrates a workmanship in Ko-Bizen style rather than that of the Ko-Aoe school. I have seen a tachi by Tsunekiyo and the hamon was sugu-ha but I remember that I had a feeling of sai-ha (re-tempered hamon). A smith called Sukezane who was active around the Bun-ei Era exists and I have seen a tachi with the signature of Sukezane, of which workmanship is totally different from that of Ichimonji Sukezane. It is highly possible that the tachi was a work of Ko-Aoe Sukezane.

 

(Reference photos and oshigata)

Juyo Bijutsu Hin : Tachi Mei “NORITAKA”

 

            “NORITAKA”    “MASATSUNE”

 

                             “TSUNETO”

 

(P.33)

It is a commonly accepted theory that Norifusa who is a son of Fukuoka-Ichimonji Sukefusa moved to Katayama of Bitchu Province and Sanetoshi is his student then they are called ‘Katayama-Ichimonji’. As I mentioned before, I am doubtful of this theory. There are two different workmanships of Sanetoshi apart from Osafune Sanetoshi. One is that the hamon is ko-midare in ko-nie-deki and looks like Ko-Bizen sword. The other is in naginata-naoshi, the hamon is sugu-ha mixed with saka-midare, the nakago is finished with o-sujikai-yasuri and the blade looks like Aoe sword. There is another theory that Osafune Sanetoshi and this one is the same smith. The classification of Sanetoshi has yet to be studied.

 

(Reference photos and oshigata)

Juyo Bunka Zai : Tachi Mei “MASATSUNE”

 

                   “SANETOSHI”     “SANETOSHI” (Ko-Bizen ?)

 

(P.34)

24. Ko-Mihara School and Kokubunji Sukekuni

 

It is said that Masaie is the founder of the Mihara school that had thrived in Bingo Province during the Muromachi Period then his smith name had been succeeded up to the end of the Muromachi Period. Masaie used to be called ‘Ko-Mihara’ but all smiths of the school who had been active before the Nambokucho Period are called ‘Ko-Mihara’ today. It is very rare to see the extant work of Ko-Mihara Masaie and his son, Masahiro left a small number of tachi but there is no extant work of these smiths with production date. It is speculated that the earliest work of Masaie is one made around the Kenmu Era inferring from its classic workmanship. There is a smith called Sukekuni who believed to have lived in Kokubunji of Bizen Province and ‘Kokon Mei Zukushi’ and other swordsmith directories say that Sukekuni lived in Tojo of Yasu County; Bingo Province is the same smith as the above Sukekuni. I had never seen the extant work of the latter. Though, I had an opportunity to examine his oshigata recently and became to conclude that they are the same smith and have confirmed that Sukekuni demonstrates a workmanship similar to that of Ko-Mihara. Sukekuni’s tachi that I have ever seen have the production dates of the Gentoku and Kenmu Eras. In addition, ‘Haya Midashi’ lists oshigata with the production dates of Genkyo 2 (1322), Kareki 3 (1328) and Tokuji 2 (1309). The mei of first oshigata is done in normal style and the second one is in unusual style. The workmanship of the latter looks classical.

 

(Reference oshigata and photos)

“SUKEKUNI” (Mei in normal style)

 

“”SUKEKUNI” (Mei in unusually style)

 

                              Naginata-naoshi-wakizashi : Mei “SANETOSHI”

                              (Owned by the NBTHK)

 

(P.35)

Their workmanship is as follows ; blade has wide shinogi-ji and high shinogi, dense jihada with ji-nie and clear jigane with faint shirake-utsuri or running itame-hada that stands out, sugu-ha or gentle notare mixed with ko-midare and ashi in company with soft nioi-guchi accompanied with ko-nie, sugu-ha in nioi-deki with few hataraki and tight nioi-guchi or sugu-ha with sunagashi in nie-deki, Boshi with o-maru or ko-maru and long kaeri, and ‘mei is signed like ‘Bishu ……….’ or ‘Bingo Shu ……..’ in large characters. Sukekuni makes normal tachi-sugata and his hamon occasionally mixes a little flamboyant midare that is never seen in the hamon of Ko-Mihara. Except the midare-ba, his workmanship has a close resemblance to that of Ko-Mihara. Some old swordsmiths directories list Sukekuni as a smith of ‘Bizen’ Kokubunji but Bishu (Bingo Province) should have been mistaken for ‘Bizen’.

 

(Reference photos)

Juyo Bijutsu Hin : Tachi Mei “BISHU JU MASAIE SAKU”

 

(P.36)

I have seen a tachi with the mei of ‘Bishu Ju Takamitsu Saku’ with a date of the Genkyo Era. The blade has narrow mi-haba, the hamon is sugu-ha mixed with ko-midare and ashi in slanted pattern, and the jihada is dense ko-itame-hada. It looks like one of the Ukai school at a glance but this is to be a smith of the Ko-Mihara school. There are two Takamitsu listed in ‘Haya Midashi’, one in the Joji Era and the other in the Eisho Era. The latter signs in long mei like ‘Bingo no Kuni Mihara Ju Takamitsu’ and this smith is to be a descendant of Takamitsu who was active in the Genkyo Era.

 

(P.37)

25. Ni-o School

 

The Ni-o school of which smiths lived in Kuga of Su-o Province had been active between the Kamakura and Muromachi Periods. Old sword directories say that Kiyohira who was active in the Hoen Era is the found of the school (a theory says that Kiyozane who is Kiyohira7s father is the founder of the school) then his grandson Kiyotsuna was active around the Genkyu Era (1204-1205) and there are three generations of Kiyotsuna. The school name of Ni-o comes from a fire of a temple called Ni-o Do and it is said that a tachi by 1st Kiyotsuna cut a chain that locked the door of the temple and helped to rescue Ni-o Son (a statue of Deva) from the fire. Though, there is no extant work of Kiyohira and Kiyozane. We can see extant works of Kiyotsuna that had been made between the middle of the Kamakura and the Nambokucho Periods and each mei employs different style. There are an extant tanto with the date of Bun-ei 2 (1265) and a tachi with a date of the Kenmu Era by Kiyotsuna.

 

They demonstrate a workmanship that has conspicuous influence of Yama-den. That is to say; sugu-ha mixed with ko-gunome in then hotsure and sunagashi are seen inside the hamon in Shikkake style, masame-hada (but not pure masame-hada), and taka-no-ha-yasuri. Their sugu-ha with hazy nioi-guchi looks like Kyushu-mono (swords by smiths from the Kyushu Island) but we are not sure that they are connected with Yamato smiths directly or indirectly by the way of the Naminohira school.  There are some extant works of smiths around the Kenmu Era who temper choji mixed with gunome in thick nioi-deki.

 

(Reference photos and oshigata)

Juyo Bunka Zai : Tanto Mei “KIYOTSUNA”

(Owned by the NBTHK)

 

“KIYOTSUNA”

 

“KIYOTSUNA”