（Token Bijutsu No.553）
Nihon Koto Shi
(History of Koto)
By Dr. Honma Junji
(7)
(P.16)
5. Ko-Aoe
The Aoe school of Bitchu Province that thrived in the
Kamakura Period occurred at the end of the Heian Period. Aoe is the name of
place where they lived. Yasutsugu is the founder of the school and his son is
Moritsugu then the name of Moritsugu had been succeeded through up to the Nambokucho
Period for generations. They forge two different jihada, that is to say, dense
ko-itame-hada and clear jigane, and unique chirimen-hada with sumi-hada and
jifu as well as dark-coloured jigane. Their hamon is based on sugu-ha in
ko-nie-deki then mixes ko-midare and ko-ashi are seen inside the hamon. The ha and the ji of the Aoe school look more quiet and
sober than those of the Ko-Bizen school.
(Reference
photos and oshigata)
Juyo
Bunka Zai Tachi : Mei “MORITSUGU”
“MORITSUGU”
(P.17)
6. Miike
It is
said that a smith called ‘Denta Mitsuyo’ whose priest name is ‘Genshin’ lived
in Miike of Chikugo Province around the Shoho Era (1074-1076). Though, no
extant work of such early age has been confirmed yet. There is a famous tachi
by Mitsuyo that is counted as one of Tenka Go Ken (The five greatest swords in Japan) and
listed in ‘Kyoho Meibutsu Cho’ of the Edo Period, so-called ‘O-Denta Mitsuyo’. Though,
this tachi is a work of Mitsuyo who was active in the same age as Ko-Bizen
smiths. The blade has wide mi-haba and little tapering sugata with
ikubi-kissaki then it could be attributed to one of the middle of the Kamakura
Period. It must be noticed that this sugata is occasionally seen in the Heian
Period and O-Kanehira is another example. The jihada of O-Denta Mitsuyo is
dense ko-itame-hada with fine ji-nie then the jigane is beautiful and looks
soft. The hamon is hoso-sugu-ha with yaki-otoshi in ko-nie-deki then few
hataraki are seen inside the hamon. The boshi turns back in o-maru and wide
bo-hi is carved on the shinogi-ji of each side. The smith name of Denta Mitsuyo
had been succeeded through up to the Muromachi Period. There is another tachi
by Mitsuyo that has the same sugata and mei as those of O-Denta Mitsuyo but the
blade is sai-ha (re-tempered sword).
(Reference
oshigata)
Juyo
Token Katana : (Orikaeshi-me) “CHOEN” “MITSDUYO SAKU
(Nicknamed
‘Usumidori’) （’O-Denta’）
(P.18)
7. Choen &
Sadahide
Swordsmith
directories say that a master smith called ‘Choen’ lived in Buzen Province
around the Eien Era (987-988), Sadahide of Bungo Province at the end of the
Kamakura Period and Yukihira of Bungo Province around the Genkyu Era (1204-1205)
of the early Kamakura Period. There are only few extant works of Choen then it
is very difficult to sum up his workmanship differing from Yukihira who left
many extant works. I have seen a tachi of which workmanship bears a close
resemblance to that of Yukihira and a tanto that can be attributed to one of
the middle of the Kamakura Period. Generally speaking, early Kyushu
smiths maintain a classic workmanship that is seen in the swords of the
Shoso-in Depository and it is very difficult to judge their production age
exactly.
Yamato
swords are on the main current of Shoso-in swords but Kyushu
swords maintain a workmanship of the Nara Period that is not derived from
Shoso-in swords then their locality has been succeeded through up to the
Muromachi Period.
It is
commonly accepted view that Sadahide is a priest of Mt. Hiko
and a teacher or a student of Bungo no Yukihira then he demonstrates a
workmanship that bears a close resemblance to that of Yukihira. He forges
beautiful jigane but nioi-guchi of his hamon (normally ko-nie-deki) looks hazy
also a lot of dim chikei are see in the ji. Incidentally, there is a
possibility of sai-ha when the sword shows this kind of workmanship. Three
tachi by Sadahide that are introduced here show a common workmanship but some
difference of the chiselling style is recognised in each mei. There is an
extant work of Sadahide that has a horimono of kurikara in the groove of the
bottom area and this is to be the old religious horimono carved on Japanese
sword.
(Reference
oshigata and photos)
“CHOEN”
Juyo Bijutsu Hin : Tachi Mei “BUNGO (NO) KUNI SO SADAHID
(Mei of ‘Usumidori’)
SAKU” (78.5 cm)
“BUNGO
(NO) KUNI SO SADAHIDE SAKU”
8. Naminohira
It is
said that a smith called Masakuni moved from Yamato
Province to Naminohira of Taniyama
County in Satsuma
Province around the Eien
Era (987-988) but no extant work of Masakuni has been confirmed. His son is
Yukiyasu and the name of the smith had been succeeded up to the Edo Period.
There is an extant tachi with the date of Heiji 1 (1159) by Yukimasa who
belongs to a branch family of Yukiyasu. The oldest work of Yukiyasu is a tachi
owned by the Sanage Shrine of Mikawa
Province. The tachi is
attributed to the same age as the tachi by Yukimasa or no later than that age. The
blade has narrow mi-haba and
elegant sugata, the jihada is dense ko-itame-hada combined with masame-hada in
company with fine ji-nie and the jigane looks soft and beautiful, the hamon is
hoso-sugu-ha accompanied with hazy nioi-guchi. Yukiyasu of the Kamakura Period
forges jihada combined with conspicuous masame or running itame-hada and makes
wide shinogi-ji. These factors may prove the theory that Masakuni is originally
a Yamato smith. Though, there are few extant Yamato swords with mei. Comparing
between Yamato smiths and the Naminohira school from the middle of the Kamakura
Period, Yamato smiths forge powerful jigane and temper hamon with a lot of
hataraki. I suppose that Yamato smiths of the Heian Period forged jigane
similar to that of the Naminohira school in the Heian Period also similar to
that of the Shoso-in swords.
(Reference
photos and oshigata)
Juyo
Bunka Zai : Tachi Mei “YUKIYASU”
(Owned by the Sanage Shrine)
“YUKIMASA HEIJI 1 NEN 8 GATSU 2 KA”
“YUKIYASU”
(P.20)
3. Kamakura Period
1. Outline
The
Kamakura Period had produced many master smiths and they founded various
schools across the country. There is no doubt that the Kamakura Period is the
most impressive term through the history of the Japanese sword. Main production
sites of the Japanese sword before the Kamakura Period were Yamashiro, Bitchu,
Hoki, Chikugo, Bungo and Satsuma
Provinces. Entering the
Kamakura Period, the sword production site spread to Yamato, Sagami, Mino,
Mutsu, Etchu, Bingo, Suo, Chikuzen and Higo Provinces, and so on. Bizen Province
had thrived most through up to the Kamakura Period then Bizen smiths created
gorgeous o-choji-midare in thick nioi-deki, meanwhile Masamune accomplished
peculiar forging method and produced peculiar jigane with a lot of chikei.
The
Japanese sword is inseparably related to bushi therefore it is quite natural
that the Japanese sword made astonishing progress when bushi expanded their
power most. At the beginning of the Kamakura Period, retired Emperor Gotoba
called up master smiths to his palace and had them forge swords there. He
occasionally tempered by himself and his enthusiasm encouraged swordsmiths very
much. There seem to be many errors in copying about ‘Gotoba In Goban Kaji’ (swordsmiths
called up by the Imperial order) described in ‘Kanchi-in Bon Mei Zukushi’ and
other old sword books. Though, ‘Jokyu Ki’
says “Gotoba In (Retired Emperor Gotoba) had Tsuguie and Tsugunobu forge
swords then quenched them by himself. The swords quenched by him are called ‘Gosho-yaki’.
Court nobles and ‘Hokumen no bushi’ (Royal guards) loved to wear the
gosho-yaki.” Japan
was preparing for the invasion of Mongolians at that times and I supposed that
swordsmith became to produce stout and practical swords under such
circumstances.
The
Japanese sword became to have distinguished features from the middle of
Kamakura Period, that is to say, wide mi-haba and little tapering sugata also
extended chu-kissaki in the late Kamakura
period. In the meantime, o-choji is tempered in the middle of the Kamakura
Period then gunome-midare and notare-midare in the late Kamakura Period. Choji,
gunome and notare are also seen before the middle of the Kamakura Period but
hamon became to be tempered on the basis of choji, gunome and notare from the
middle of the Kamakura Period. The production of tanto was in full swing and
they have uchi-zori or no sori and shorter ha-watari but they became to have
wide mi-haba and slight sori at the end of the Kamakura Period.
More hi
and religious horimono are seen on the blades in this age including bo-hi with
bo-hi, futa-suji-bi, koshi-bi, bo-hi with soe-bi, bo-hi with tsure-bi,
naginata-bi, goma-hashi, su-ken, ken with sanko, bonji, fudomyo-o, kurikara,
names of gods and deities. Most of hi carved on the shinogi-ji of tachi has
kaki-nagashi end or square end in the habaki area. Entering the middle of the
Kamakura Period, bo-hi became to have round end and ascended hi-saki. Though,
bo-hi with descended hi-saki is also seen at the end of the Kamakura Period.
There are
some extant works of naginata made in the Kamakura Period and has narrower
mi-haba in the upper part and shallower sori than those of naginata made after
the Nambokucho Period. We have not confirmed the existence of genuine hoko and
yari made in the Heian and Kamakura Periods but there are two yari (one of them
has a signature of ‘Minamoto no Rai Kunitoshi’) that are a worthy of further
study in their production age. Both of them are short yari in
hira-sankaku-zukuri. A large sasaho-yari owned by the Nangu Shrine is said to
have been made by a Senjuin smith but the ji and the ha are not visible since
the blade was half polished but not finished. Inferring from well-formed sugata
and niku, the yari is a work of the Kamakura Period or no later than that.
Ken was
not a practical weapon of bushi and used for Buddhist service. There are only
two extant ken by Gojo Kanenaga and Kuninaga, which we can confirm of the
production age of the Heian Period. There are a certain number of ken made by
famous smiths of the Kamakura Period like Awataguchi Kuniyoshi, Yoshimitsu,
Niji Kunitoshi, Rai Kunitoshi, Rai Kunitsugu, Hosho Sadayoshi, Osafune Mitsutada,
Nagamitsu, Motoshige, Hatakeda Sanemori and so on. Most of them are in
ryo-shinogi-zukuri then have short ha-watari and little tapering sugata also
their hamon are tempered on the basis of sugu-ha. Also there are some mumei ken
that are said to have been made by Amakuni, Shinsoku and Yukihira. Their hamon
are deformed and don’t have particular pattern. They include sai-ha blades but
have something in common with the hamon of the hoko conserved in the Shoso-in
Depository. These hamon appear to suggest a quenching technique of very old ken
and hoko and further research is needed.