（Token Bijutsu No.608）

Nihon Koto Shi

(History of Koto)”

By Dr. Honma Junji

(51)

(P.36)

15. Ko-Mizuta, Sue-Mihara and Others

While Osafune smiths were thriving in Bizen Province, there were a few prominent smith of the Aoe school in Bitchu Province in this period. ‘Meikan’ lists the smith names of Ietsugu, Kagetsugu, Hidetsugu, Moritsugu, Kunitsugu and Munetsugu as well as some smiths who were active after the Oei and Eikyo Eras. I have never seen their work, except for a tachi by Ietsugu and a tanto by Kagetsugu. Ietsugu tempered choji-midare in a small pattern on the tachi but with no saka-ashi that is a distinct feature of the Aoe school. Kagetsugu tempered chu-sugu-ha with few hataraki on the tanto. The workmanship of their extant works is not at all refined. Thus we have insufficient information to describe Aoe smiths of the Muromachi Period. The school called ‘Ko-Mizuta’, represented by Kunishige, occurred in this province around the Kyoroku Era. Their production sites of Ehara, Ihara, Asaibe, Matsuyama and Niimi become clear from the inscription on their extant works. The smiths of this school did not add ‘Mizuta’ to their mei in this period. Entering shinto times, the most prominent smith of this school, Oyogo Kunishige, made his appearance and lived in Mizuta then all the smiths of this school came to be called Mizuta. Then smiths who were active in Koto times are called Ko-Mizuta (or Matsuyama-Mizuta) This school comes from the Tatsubo school of Bingo province and there is an extant katana with the mei of ‘Bishu Tatsubo Kunishige Saku’ and the production date is Daiei 8. The hamon of this katana is gunome-midare in nie-deki and the boshi is midare-komi, with a relatively long kaeri and the nakago has ha-agari tip. The blade shows the characteristics of the Tatsubo school very well and the workmanship resembles that of the Ko-Mizuta school. There is an extant work of Kunishige with the mei ‘Ashihara Ju Tatsubo Kunishige’ and this smiths appears to be the founder of the Ko-Mizuta school. He tempers o-midare based on gunome and o-notare, occasionally hitatsura on tanto. His nakago has a long length and ha-agari tip. Generally speaking the workmanship of Kunishige looks like Tatsubo and Sue-Bizen. Their production dates range between the Kyoroku and Bunroku Eras. They normally signed their mei with their common name, such as Saburo Saemon no Jo, Uhyoe no Jo, Toshiro, Matasaburo, Sahyoe no Jo and Jusuke also adds their family name Otsuki to their mei.

There is a school called ‘Mihara’ in Bingo Province of which the smiths were active from previous period. The school includes a considerable number of smiths, but there are few distinguished smiths and their workmanship does not show peculiarity so much.　Also there is a term of ‘Kai-Mihara’ which it is used for the smiths of the school who were active in the end of the Muromachi Period, for instance ‘Mihara Ju Kai Masazane’. They tempered chu-sugu-ha with few hataraki, occasionally o-midare based on gunome and forge whitish jigane. There are extant works of Masaoku, Masazane and Masanao.

(Oshigata)

“BITCHU (NO) KUNI ASAIBE JU OTSUKI SAHYOE NYUDO KUNISHIGE”

“TENSHO 14 NEN 8 GATSU HI”

(P.37)

(Oshigata)

Juyo Token : Katana Mei “BITCHU EGA GUN ASAIBE JU OTSUKI SAHYOE

(NO) JO KUNISHIGE SAKU”

“TENSHU 2 NEN 8 GATSU HI”

(P.38)

In addition to the Sue-Mihara and Kai-Mihara, there was a school called ‘Hokke-Ichijo’ in this province. ‘Mei Zukushi’ says that Ichijo was related to Sukekuni, meanwhile ‘koto Mei Zukushi’ says that Ichijo was related to Masaie. They are active from the Oei Era and there are only few extant works by them. I have seen a katana with the mei of ‘Hokke Ichijo’. The blade has high shinogi, the hamon is chu-sugu-ha with ashi, yo and niju-ba. Also I have seen a tanto with the mei of ‘Bingo no Kuni Ju Ichijo Saku’ ‘Oei 18 Nen 8 Gatsu Hi’. The hamon of the tanto is midare-ba based on ko-notare in thick nie-deki. There is an extant wakizashi with the mei of ‘Ichi’ and this smith belonged to the Hokke-Ichijo school.

(Oshigata)

“BINGO JU ICHIJO SAKU”

“OEI 18 NEN 8 GATSU HI”

Juyo Token : Tanto Mei “BINGO (NO) KUNI JU ICHIJO SAKU”

“OEI 18 NEN 8 GATSU HI”

(P.39)

There was a school called ‘Tatsubo’ around the Oei Era in Onomichi and Shigemitsu is the founder of this school. Swordsmith directories list Shigemitsu with the production years of the Shitoku, Oei and Eikyo Eras. There appears to be two generations of Shigemitsu. The school included more than ten smiths, but there are few extant works by them with production dates after the Eisho Era. Incidentally, Kunishige who was a descendant of this school thrived after the Kyoroku Era in Bitchu Province. There are not many extant works by Shigemitsu. Referring to katana by Shigemitsu with production years of the Eikyo and Bunmei Eras and a tanto with a production year of the Entoku era, the hamon of the katana is ko-notare mixed with gunome in nie-deki, meanwhile the hamon of the tanto is hitatsura like that of Sue-Bizen smiths. ‘Kinashi’ of Kinashi-Mihara is located 8 km to the north of Onomichi and a smith called Masumori existed there but there is no extant work of this smith confirmed. No other smith from this area is listed in swordsmith directories. ‘Kanto Densho’ says that Kinashi-Mihara tempers gorgeous o-midare with mune-yaki and yubashiri which looks like Hasebe of Yamashiro Province, Also they tempered midare-ba similar to that of Sekishu Naotsuna and forged dense jihada. They are superior to the Tatsubo and the Kai-Mihara schools in skill. The Tatsubo school tempers notare-midare similar to that of the later generation of Sekishu Naotsuna and hitatsura that looks like Takada-mono of Bungo Province. It can be said that the workmanship of Kinashi-Mihada resembles that of the Tatsubo school. Apart from the Tatubo school, the Goami and the Giami schools exist in Onomichi. Goami smiths tempered sugu-ha and hitatsura. There is an extant katana of Giami with a production year of the Tenbun Era.

Swordsmith called Ietsugu and Sadatsugu of which ancestor is Sadaie exist in Tomo. It is very difficult to conclude their lineage since there are few extant works of them. There is an extant wakizashi by Sadatsugu who appears to have been active in the middle of the Muromachi Period. The hamon of the wakizashi is sugu-ha mixed with ko-gunome then a lot of hotsure and sunagashi are seen and hakikake are seen in the boshi then the jihada is itame-hada combined with masame. The workmanship looks somewhat like Yamato-den. Their ancestors appear to be related to the Ko-Mihara school and they should be included in the Mihara school. Also there is a wakizashi by Ietsugu of the middle of the Muromachi Period. The hamon of the wakizashi is o-midare based on notare and the boshi becomes ichimai-boshi. The workmanship is totally different from that of the Mihara school. The smiths of Kai-Mihara occasionally tempered this kind of hamon.

16. Sue-Nio

The Choshu-Sa and the Nio schools of Suo Province thrived in this period and about fifty smiths including Kiyotsuna are listed in swordsmith directories and their descendants were also active during the Edo Period. They made sugata with a high shinogi and a little wide shinogi-ji, forge visible itame-hada combined with mokume and masame and powerful jigane, and temper sugu-ha with hotsure and sunagashi. They occasionally tempered ko-notare and gunome-midare. Their workmanship resembles that of the Sue-Yamato and the Sue-Mihara schools, but the schools include no distinguished smith. Kiyonaga and Kiyokage who are active in the Oei Era left some decent works. There are extant tanto of Kiyonaga with the horimono of a guardian god, crane and turtle. They normally add the school name of ‘Nio’ to their mei.

(Oshigata)

“NIO KIYONAGA SAKU”

“BISHU TOMO JU SADATSUGU”]

(P.40)

(Photos)

Juyo Bijutsu Hin : Tanto Mei “NIO KIYONAGA SAKU”

(P.41)

A descendant of the Sa school, Yasuyoshi lived in Nagato Province. I have seen a couple of his tanto. The jihada is itame-hada inclined to be masame. The Nioi school may have influenced the forging style of this smith and the Yamato tradition is emphasised in his workmanship. In addition, there is a smith called Akikuni who is said to have been a student of the former generation of Yasuyoshi. The second generation of Akikuni was active in the Oei Era. There are oshigata of Akikuni with production years of the Eikyo and Kakitsu eras but it has yet to be confirmed that they are the same smith as the one in the Oei Era. They tempered a continuous gunome-midare and ko-notare in nie-deki, occasionally hoso-sugu-ha and gunome-midare in Sue-Bizen style. The first and second generations demonstrate quite different workmanship from Yasuyoshi. There is an extant katana with the mei of ‘Choshu Setozaki Junin Akikuni’ and the production year of the Oei 9. Setozaki is located on the coast of the Japan Sea and the other side of Choshu from where Yasuyoshi lived. I have seen a tanto with the mei of ‘Choshu Ju Yukikuni’ and Yukikuni is speculated to belong to the Akikuni school. The hamon of the tanto is ko-gunome in a regular pattern, both hotsure and sunagashi are seen inside the hamon and also horimono of fudomyo is carved on it. The tanto is a work after the Oei Era. In addition, ‘Mei Zukushi’ lists a son of Akikuni named Akiyoshi and a grandson, Akinaga. ‘Tsuchiya Oshigata’ lists the oshigata of a tanto by Akinaga. The hamon of the tanto is sugu-ha with hotsure. ‘Koto Mei Zukushi’ lists the oshigata of a tanto with the mei of ‘Choshu Ju Shigekuni’. This smith seems to belong to the Akikuni school inferring from the chiselling style of the mei. The hamon of the tanto is hoso-sugu-ha.

17. Smiths of Nankai-do

I already described that the Iruka school existed in the previous period in Kii Province. The lineage of this school is succeeded up to this period, and Jitsuka and other smiths of the school demonstrate Yamato-den. Iruka is the name of a place and the smiths of the Iruka school also live in Kumano and Konakawa. There is a smith named Kunitsugu who is said to have been a student of Norizane who lived in the Oei Era. This smiths is called ‘Sudo Kunitsugu’ having to do with the chiselling style of ‘Kuni’ He makes beautiful sugata, tempers hoso-sugu-ha and forge dense ko-itame-hada. Also he tempers o-midare based on gunome and hitatsura (on tanto) then jihada tends to be running in the case of midare-ba. He is a fairly skilful smith and his work with sugu-ha looks refined. Swordsmith directories say that the first generation is active in the Oei Era and the second generation in Eisho Era. The swords with midare-ba could be the work of the second generation.

(Oshigata)

“KUNITSUGU” “IRUKA” “JITSUKA”

“CHOSHU JU AKIKUNI”

“YASUYOSHI”

“OEI ? NEN CHOSHU JU”

“CHOSHU JU YUKIKUNI”

(P.42)

There was a school called Kaifu in Awa Province, of which the founder is said to have been Ujiyoshi. ‘Koto Mei Zukushi’ says that there are two lineages of the Kaifu school. Ujiyoshi who was active in the Koreki and Oei Eras, and Fuji who was active is in the Oan Era are said to be the founders of these lineages. However, his extant work is never earlier than the Oei Era and there seem to be a few generations of Ujiyoshi. Swordsmith directories say that the first generation was active in the Kakitsu Era and the second generation in the Meio and Eisho Eras. Also they say that Ujiyoshi was a son of the first generation of Ujihisa. ‘Koto Mei Zukushi’ says that Ujihisa and Morohisa are the students of Fuji and were active around the Oei Era. A theory says that Fuji was a student of Naminohira of Satsuma Province and that Ujihisa lived in Kyushu temporarily. There is a work with the mei of ‘Kyushu Miyai Ju Ujihisa’, but I have never seen the work of Morohisa or Ujihisa. There are extant works of Yasuyuki and he seems to have been active around the Eisho Era.

I referred to Ujishige in the previous section of this province. The smiths of this province, such as Ujishige and Yasuyoshi, demonstrate two different workmanships. One is that hamon is o-notare and ko-notare, accompanied with a hazy nioi-guchi then kinsuji and sunagashi are seen inside the hamon and it looks like Go Yoshihiro at a glance. The other is that jihada is ko-itame-hada combined with masame-hada and jigane looks soft and whitish and the hamon is sugu with few hataraki and the workmanship shows characteristics of the Naminohira school or Kyushu-mono. There is a term of ‘Kaifu-zukuri’ and this is a kind of wakizashi in kata-kiri-ha-zukuri and was made for odd job during the Edo Period. It is also called ‘Yama-gatana’ (mountain knife) and its main purpose is for hunting rather than military use.

It is said that a smith called Yoshimitsu existed in Tosa Province since the end of the Kamakura Period and swordsmith directories say that there were four generation of Yoshimitsu up to the Bunmei Era and the mei of ‘Tosa no Kuni Gamo Ju Fujiwara Shi Gorozaemon no Jo Yoshimitsu’ is listed in the directories. There are, however, few extant works with a long mei and the production year. Most of their mei are signed in two characters. It is very rare to see their extant katana and most of them are tanto made after the middle of the Muromachi Period, which has sugata with narrow mi-haba, no sori and very thick kasane. The hamon is hoso-sugu-ha or chu-sugu-ha and jihada combines a little masame, jigane looks whitish and the workmanship reminds one of Sue-Yamato-mono like Arihoshi. In fact, since olden times, Tosa Yoshimitsu has been highly esteemed by many people mistaking it for Toshiro Yoshimitsu of Yamashiro Province. Blades with the mei, ‘Atsushi Toshiro’ by Awataguchi Yoshimitsu have extremely thick kasane and some insist that it is the work of Tosa Yoshimitsu, but their insistence is absurd and they do not understand that Tosa Yoshimitsu is no comparison to Toshiro Yoshimitsu in the quality of jigane. It is certain that many fakes of Toshiro Yoshimitsu have been made and that Tosa Yoshimitsu has been mistaken for Toshiro Yoshimitsu since the Muromachi Period.

(Oshigata)

“YOSHMITSU”

“ASHU YASUYOSHI SAKU”

“DAIEI 5 NEN 12 GATSU HI”

“ASHU UJIYOSHI SAKU”