KANTEI 4 – YAMASHIRO #21 – Rai (来) School 7

We continue with some of the “below of the radar” Rai smiths. I have mentioned another son of Kunitoshi in the previous chapter, the homonymous Kunitoshi (国歳), but hardly anything is known on this smith and I am not aware of any extant blades of him. The Kotô Meizukushi Taizen however says that he was born in Kenji two (建治, 1276) and that he died in Genkô one (元弘, 1331) at the age of 55. Consulting the traditional genealogies, it seems that the lineage of Rai Kunimitsu did not bring forth many independent smiths. Or in other words, it is safe to assume that he trained many students but who remained working as assistants throughout their entire career and did not have an output of blade on their own account. Well, we find a certain Rai Kuniyoshi (来国吉) listed as son of Kunimitsu who was supposedly active around Ôan (応安, 1368-1375) but no blades of him are known either.


This brings us the the next Rai lineage, namely that of Kunitsugu. He had a son, Rai Kunihide (来国秀), who was born in the first year of Kôan (弘安, 1278) and who died in Kôei one (康永, 1342) at the age of 65, so the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen. There are a few signed yari extant of Kunihide and one niji-mei tachi that got jûyô. Incidentally, there are 7 works of Rai Kunihide that passed jûyô but none that bears a designation by the Agency for Cultural Affairs. Asigned tachi of Kunihide is shown in picture 1. It has a wide mihaba, a shallow sori, and an elongated chû-kissaki, what speaks for a sugata from the very end of the Kamakura to the early Nanbokuchô period. The kitae is a dense itame with ji-nie and chikei and the hamon is a nie-laden gunome with a wide nioiguchi that is mixed with chôji, many ashi, and some few sunagashi and kinsuji. The bôshi is midare-komi with a very brief ko-maru-kaeri. Both sides show a bôhi with ryô-chiri and a kakudome in the tang and traces of a soebi. The tang is suriage, has a kirijiri, kiri-yasurime, and bears a thinly chiseled niji-mei. Now interesting is that this tachi is not signed with the prefix “Rai” but the blade is nevertheless attributed to Rai Kunihide. In the jûyô description we also read that because of the kitae with chikei and the nie-deki hamon in gunome mixed with chôji and the midare in the bôshi, the workmanship resembles closely that of Rai Kunitsugu, his alleged father.


Picture 1: jûyô, tachi, mei “Kunihide” (国秀), nagasa 71.5 cm, sori 1.6 cm, motohaba 2.95 cm, sakihaba 2.35 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

It is interesting that seemingly neither signed nor unsigned tantô or hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi of Rai Kunihide going round. Thus I want to introduce another tachi of him before referring to his yari. The tachi (which is now a katana) shown in picture 2 is relative wide and has a slightly elongated chû-kissaki, what again brings us in the same time of end of Kamakura to early Nanbokuchô. The kitae is an overall somewhat standing-out itame that is mixed with mokume and much nagare on the omote side and also chikei and plenty of ji-nie appear. The hamon is a nie-laden suguha-chô to shallow notare that features a wide and bright nioiguchi and that is mixed with gunome, chôji, ko-chôji, thick and long ashi, , sunagashi, kinsuji, uchinoke, and smallish yubashiri which all focus pretty much on the habuchi (i.e. don’t spill much into the ji). The bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri and some hakikake. So again, the workmanship suggests Rai Kunitsugu at a glance but once more, the NBTHK plays the quality card and says the overall quality is just a hint under that of Kunitsugu but the work is clearly from the direct vicinity of Kunitsugu and as the quality is very close, they go for the smiths who ranks very next, and that is his alleged son Kunihide.


Picture 2: jûyô, katana, mumei, attributed to Rai Kunihide (来国秀), nagasa 66.9 cm, sori 1.0 cm, motohaba 2.75 cm, sakihaba 2.1 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Now in picture 3 we see one of his extant signed yari. It is with a nagasa of 11.0 cm a smallish yari and shows a finely forged ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and a noticeable tendency to masame. This appearance of much masame is also true for his other yari and goes most likely back to the different forging techniques used for yari (which are for example also evident on ken). The hamon is a slightly undulating suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki.


Picture 3: hira-sankaku yari, mei “Rai Kunihide” (来国秀), nagasa 11.0 cm


Another smith who came from the lineage of Kunitsugu was Rai Hidetsugu (来秀次). He is listed as son or student of Kunitsugu but also as son of Kunihide whereas some put all them all in a pot and say that Kunihide and Hidetsugu were the same smith who succeeded later as 2nd generation Rai Kunitsugu. This would mean that Kunihide changed his name at some point in his career to Hidetsugu or vice versa. The meikan list Hidetsugu a little later than Kunihide, i.e. around Jôji (貞治, 1362-1368), and the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen says that he was born in Enkyô two (延慶, 1309) and that he died in Jôji six (1367) at the age of 58. Well, as the signature style of Kunihide and Hidetsugu is quite different, I would keep them all separated for the time being and dismiss the approach that we are facing here the same smith who succeeded later as 2nd generation Rai Kunitsugu. Interesting is that unlike Kunihide, there are just tantô and no long swords of Hidetsugu extant. Also no hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi of this smith are extant as far as I know. So let’s take a look at one of his tantô (picture 4). It measures 27.9 cm in nagasa, has an uchizori, and shows an itame-nagare with shirake. The hamon is a nie-laden ko-notare with sunagashi and some kinsuji and yubashiri and the bôshi is notare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri and a hint of hakikake. In the Nihontô Kôza, Honma states that this tantô fits well into the lineage of Rai Kunitsugu but earlier in his Nihon Kotô Shi he said that “There are two tantô with the signature of ‘Rai Hidetsugu’ existing and their hamon is midareba, but their workmanship is totally different from that of Rai Kunitsugu.” The other tantô, which is briefly presented in the Nihontô Kôza and shown here in picture 5, is of different interpretation, i.e. it is even more nie-laden and hardened in gunome-chô, and shows clearly a different signature style. Well, Honma says that if viewed each by its own, he would say that they are authentic but in comparison, he is not sure if one is gimei (or both) or not or if one goes back to the hand of a second generatio Hidetsugu. So this is something for further study but I am not aware of any other signed Rai Hidetsugu blade popping up in the meanwhile and there is also none that passed jûyô so far. But maybe this discrepancy has to be seen in view of what Honma suggests, namely that at around this time, the Rai School had already lost their traditional workmanship and things becoming washy.


Picture 4: tantô, mei “Rai Hidetsugu” (来秀次), nagasa 27.9 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, iori-mune


Picture 5: The other known tantô of Rai Hidetsugu as a reference.

On the other hand, there were still some late Rai smiths who tried to keep up the tradition of the school. For example, there was a tantô discovered about 15 years ago that is signed “Rai Kunikiyo” (来国清) and dated “Meitoku yonnen hachigatsu hi” (明徳二二年八月日, “a day in the eighth month Meitoku four [1393]”). Now this Rai Kunikiyo is not listed in any meikan and the date of Meitoku four, i.e. at the very end of the Nanbokuchô period, makes this tantô one of the very last Rai works known. It is rather wide, has a thin kasane, shows a hint of sori, and a dense ko-itame that is partially mixed with ô-hada. Also ji-nie and a faint utsuri appear. The hamon is a suguha in ko-nie-deki that features a wide nioiguchi and that is mixed with noticeably wide hotsure areas and some sunagashi. The bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri and we see a suken on the omote, and a wide koshibi on the ura side. Not sure if the tang is a little suriage but the mei is thickly chiseled. The two characters for the nengô era are barey legible on the oshigata but the descriptio says that it is clearly Meitoku when examining the tang in hand.


Picture 6: tantô, mei “Rai Kunikiyo” (来国清), date see text above, nagasa 26.3 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune


To conclude this chapter, I want to introduce the smith Rai Mitsushige (来光重) who is dated around Gentoku (元徳, 1329-1331) and who was a student of Rai Kunitoshi. Well, some speculate that Mitsushige was the early name of Rai Kunimitsu but the signature style differs too much as to follow this approach blindly. However, signed works of him are extremely rare so well, we can’t say for sure if there is some truth in this tradition. I for my self see them as two individual smiths for the time being. Now there is one signed tantô extant (see picture 7) that is also dated, namely “Gentoku sannen jûgatsu nijûninichi” (元徳三年十月廿二日, “22nd day of the tenth month Gentoku three [1331]”). It is rather wide, has a little uchizori, and comes in a sunnobi-sugata. The kitae is a ko-itame with nagare and ji-nie and the hamon is a suguha in ko-nie-deki that shows nijûba along the monouchi. The bôshi narrows very much down along the fukura and runs widely back as ko-maru-kaeri. On the omote side we see a suken and on the ura a take-kurabe-style koshibi with soebi. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, shallow katte-sagari yasurime, and bears a rather largely chiseled mei.

Picture 7: jûyô, tantô, mei “Rai Mitsushige” (来光重), date see text above, nagasa 26.9 cm, uchizori, motohaba 2.65 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune


Easter eBook Super Sale II

Dear Readers,

I just started, like last year, an Easter eBook Super Sale where ALL of my eBooks are reduced by 50%! This offer will be valid for a week so you have enough time to decide what you want. So fill up all your tablets (or PC´s) with all the important Nihonto and Tosogu reference material you need four your studies!

If you have any questions or can´t find the one or other book, don´t hesitate and contact me via my “markus.sesko@gmail.com”.

Thank you and a Happy Easter to everyone!



KANTEI 4 – YAMASHIRO #20 – Rai (来) School 6

Now I want to talk about some of the Rai smiths who worked under master Kunitoshi and then deal in separate chapters with the Nakajima-Rai lineage, Ryôkai, and the Nobukuni School that goes back to the Rai offshoot that was established by Ryôkai. Due to the relative large number of active Rai smiths, all these chapters will be divided into several parts. Again, I want to create a useful reference and don’t want to rush through all the schools just because we are running out of time, and there are anyway no limitations of space here in the net. Or in other words, I want that later on, one can find also some of the more unknown smiths being dealt with and their workmanship described in this series. But let’s continue with the Rai School.

Now when we take a look at the traditional genealogies of the Rai school, we learn that Kunitoshi had supposedly several sons, namely in chronological order: Ryôkai (了戒), Kunimitsu (国光), Kunizane (国真), Tomokuni (倫国), and Kunitoshi (国歳), whilst some also see Kuniyasu (国安) as his son but more on him in the corresponding chapter. Now Ryôkai is said to have been born when Kunitoshi was 17 years old, what would mean in Shôka one (正嘉, 1257). He entered priesthood (more on this in the corresponding chapter) so his second son, Kunimitsu (born in Bun’ei one, 1264) became his heir. His third son Kunizane was born in Bun’ei five (文永, 1268), his fourth son Tomokuni in Bun’ei nine (1272), and his fifth son Kunitoshi in Kenji two (建治, 1275). Again, all these dates go back to the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen, which is questionable in this context, but I nevertheless want to use the dates here for the sake of comparison.


Kunimitsu has been dealt with and Ryôkai will get a chapter on his own so let’s continue with Kunizane (国真). So his father (and master) Kunitoshi was 28 years old when he was born and according to the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen, Kunizane died in Bunpô two (文保, 1318). The meikan traditionally date him around Shôwa (正和, 1312-1317) and some say “active before Kenmu (建武, 1334-1336),” what would both match with the aforementioned life data of 1268-1318. Problem with this date is that quite a number of his works, or at least works that are attributed to him as signed blades are very rare, speak clearly for Nanbokuchô, i.e. to a noticeably later production time. Thus it has been forwarded that he lived much longer than said or that there was a second generation Kunizane. A later Rai Kunizane appears in the meikan who is dated around Bunna (文和, 1352-1356) what would match (also because he is listed as grandson of Kunitoshi). But there are also some few more classical blades extant, i.e. such which do come close to Kunitoshi if you want, or in other words, we know some few more Kamakura-Rai and several Nanbokuchô-Rai works of Kunizane and so both could be true, that he was a master who lived long and who changed his style of the years, becoming also more productive in his later years, or that there were just two generations. If you ask me, I tend towards the latter approach. Anyway, signed works are very rare as mentioned and as far as I know, they count less than a handful, or to be precise, we are talking about 1 tachi, 2 hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi, and 1 tantô. And whilst we are talking about figures, there are no blades of Kunizane that are designated as a kokuhô or a jûyô-bunkazai and 18 of him passed jûyô (no tokubetsu-jûyô) to this day. Unfortunately, I don’t have a picture of the tachi, which seems to be, with a (only very slightly shortened) nagasa of 61.1 cm, more a kodachi than a “real” tachi. It is preserved in the Ise Shrine’s Jingû Chôkokan Museum. Satô Kanzan describes it as having a normal mihaba with a thin kasane and a ko-kissaki and showing an itame that is a little tired, stands out, and shows some masame and fine ji-nie. The hamon starts in the lower half as ko-midare mixed with tobiyaki and develops in the upper half to a hitatsura, running into a midare-komi bôshi with a ko-maru-kaeri with hakikake. There is a bôhi on both sides that runs with kaki-nagashi into the tang and the blade bears a finely chiseled tachi-mei. So with the thin kasane and the hitatsura, it looks like we are facing here a later, i.e. a Nanbokuchô work.

Picture 1 shows one of the two extant signed hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi. It has a nagasa of 38.4 cm and does show a sori, namely one of 0.3 cm. And with the thin kasane, we have here really a blade whose sugata says Nanbokuchô, and not early but heyday Nanbokuchô. The kitae is a very dense ko-itame with ji-nie and the hamon is a gunome-midare in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-notare, ashi, , and sunagashi and that tends, like the above mentioned tachi/kodachi, in the upper blade section to hitatsura. The bôshi is midare-komi with hakikake and shows a long and wide kaeri that runs as midare-komi back to form a part of the hitatsura approach. On the omote side we see a suken as relief in a katana-hi and on the ura side a futasuji-ji. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, and shows centrally a rather finely chiseled sanji-mei.


Picture 1: wakizashi, mei “Rai Kunizane” (来国真), nagasa 38.4 cm, sori 0.3 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune, preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum

Picture 2 shows the other extant signed hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi. The nagasa is with 35.7 cm a little shorter what makes the sori of 0.4 cm a hint more prominent. This blade too is thin and wide and truly Nanbokuchô. The kitae is an itame with ji-nie and chikei and the hamon is a shallow notare in ko-nie-deki and a rather wide nioiguchi that is mixed with gunome. The bôshi is notare-komi on the omote, and midare-komi on the ura side and shows a ko-maru-kaeri that runs back in a long fashion. There is a katana-hi engraved on both sides and we can see traces of a tsurebi on the ura. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, and bears again a rather finely chiseled sanji-mei. This blade doesn’t show any approaches to hitatsura.


Picture 2: jûyô, wakizashi, mei “Rai Kunizane” (来国真), nagasa 35.7 cm, sori 0.4 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

How about his long swords? The signed kodachi/tachi aside, I first want to introduce a blade that was designated as an Important Cultural Property of Ôgaki City (Gifu Prefecture) in 1961 and was just recently submitted to the NBTHK in 2012 to authenticate its attribution inlaid via a kinzôgan-mei. It passed and got tokubetsu-hozon papers and it might be a very good candiate for jûyô. Well, the kinzôgan-mei does not come with a kaô but Tanobe attributes it in his sayagaki for the blade to the 12th Hon’ami main line generation Kôjô (本阿弥光常, 1643-1710). He also writes that the workmanship is very typical and also that the jiba of this very blade might well be used as a reference for future attributions to Rai Kunizane. Now the blade itself shows a ko-itame that is mixed with ko-mokume and that features ji-nie and a clearly visible nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-gunome-midare in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with some chôji-midare sections, plenty of ashi, and with sunagashi and kinsuji. The bôshi has a ko-maru-kaeri and shows nijûba and rather prominent hakikake. So in terms of the sugata, i.e. the fact that the kissaki is not that prominently large, and the ji with the nie-utsuri, I would place this work before the Nanbokuchô period, i.e. more towards to when Rai Kunitoshi was still alive or just had died, what essentially means late to end of Kamakura.


Picture 3: katana, kinzôgan-mei “Rai Kunizane” (来国真), nagasa 71.2 cm, sori 1.5 cm, motohaba 2.94 cm, sakihaba 2.18 cm, kasane 0.54 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

The next blade that I want to introduce is an ô-suriage mumei jûyô katana that is rather wide, does not taper much, and that shows an ô-kissaki but the thick kasane and the rather deep sori place it not into the heyday, but right before the heyday of the Nanbokuchô period. It shows a ko-itame with ji-nie that is mixed on the omote with some ô-hada and also a nie-utsuri appears. The hamon is a suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-chôji, ko-gunome, ashi, , and some few hotsure. The nioiguchi is clear and rather tight and the bôshi appears on the omote side with a little midare, on the ura side as sugu-chô, and runs back with a brief ko to chû-maru-kaeri and a hint of hakikake. Now when you read the description and take a first look at the oshigata, everything would speak for Rai Kunimitsu, but please note the smallish and densely arranged hataraki along the habuchi that appear on the ura side’s lower monouchi area. So these smallish hataraki are one hint that identifies the hand of Kunizane but the NBTHK usually orientates towards the quality aspect. That is, if the workmanship speaks for Kunimitsu at a glance but the quality is just a hint inferior, they might go for Kunizane. And if you have Nanbokuchô hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi, i.e. with Enbun-Jôji-sugata, that shows a tendency to hitatsura but which still says Rai at the end of the day, it is also a recommendable option to go for Kunizane.


Picturre 4: jûyô, katana, mumei, attributed to Rai Kunizane (来国真), nagasa 74.0 cm, sori 1.9 cm, motohaba 3.05 cm, sakihaba 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

While we are on the topic of quality and the differentiation of Rai smiths, I want to quote Tsuneishi at this point, who writes:

The term “Rai-ichimon” (来一門) is a generic term for all Rai smiths like Kunizane, Kuniyasu, Kunisue, Kunimune, Kuninaga, or Kunihide of whom relative few signed works are extant and whose skill is noticeably inferior to that of the main line masters Kuniyuki, Kunitoshi, Kunimitsu, and Kunitsugu. That is, compared to main line works, their sugata is not so perfectly in harmony, their hamon is usually calm, unobtrusive, suguha-based and lacks nie what makes their blades sometimes look like Aoe at a glance. But compared to Aoe, their suguha is not as tight, there is less hira-niku, the hada stands more out and is overall not that tight, and there appears Rai-hada, what identifies them as Rai works in the end. But on the other hand, these Rai-ichimon works are in terms of overall dignity and quality, i.e. hardening and forging of the steel, still more close to the Rai main line than the works of contemporary Rai offshoots (like Ryôkai, Ko-Uda, Enju, Fujishima, Chiyozuru). Accordingly, higher quality works that are shortened and/or unsigned might therefore well bear attributions to Rai Kunitoshi. Tantô can be interpreted in the classical Rai style, i.e. with takenoko-zori and hardened in nie-deki, but some show a suguha-chô with less nie that is mixed with densely arranged gunome-midare, whilst wide and thin sunnobi-tantô or hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi respectively often show a large midare and a tendency to hitatsura. Works of the latter category show thus the then (i.e. Nanbokuchô) influence of the much thriving Sôshû tradition and might be difficult to identify as Rai as they often resemble contemporary Hasebe or Nobukuni works. However, the nie-hataraki like the appearance of the sunagashi and the forging technique are not Sôshû but remain always Rai. And incidentally, also Rai-hada that is mixed with masame might appear on these Rai-ichimon works.

Also Tsuneishi assumes that the lack of signed works of these Rai-ichimon smiths does not go back to the fact that they were not very productive but rather to that they were most of their life busy working for the Rai manufacture and as assistants or “suppliers” to the successive masters. Thus it is just safe to assume that a certain share of the so numerously available Kunitoshi and Kunimitsu blades are actually damei by these Rai-ichimon smiths.


Now to Rai Tomokuni (来倫国). As stated at the beginning, the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen says that he was born in Bun’ei nine (1272) and further that he died in Shôchû two (正中, 1325). Apparently, there are no long swords of him extant, neither signed nor (shortened and) unsigned ones, and as far as signed works are concerned, we are dealing with just two specimen, a tantô in hira-zukuri and a tantô in kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri. Also, no blades of him bear a designation by the Agency of Cultural Affairs and to the present day, only four passed jûyô (all tantô or hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi). With Tomokuni, we are facing the same “problem” as with Kunizane, that is, he is listed as son of Kunitoshi but many of his works speak for heyday Nanbokuchô what gave rise to the theory that there was a second generation. Anyway, the meikan list him around Genkô (元享, 1321-1324) and those who follow the two-generations theory list the second Tomokuni around Bunna (文和, 1352-1356). A characteristic feature of him is that he signed with a thick chisel and for whatever reason, he did not follow the rule of the school by using Kuni as the first character of his smith name but as the second character. Honma writes in his Nihon Kotô Shi that he remembers two tantô of Tomokuni, most likely he is referring to the two signed examples, that came with a narrow mihaba and a ko-midare hamon which showed overall a similar workmanship to that of Rai Kunitoshi. Some see them more in the vicinity of Ryôkai by the way. But the majority of the unsigned blades that are attributed to him are wide Nanbokuchô-style hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi with a strong, sometimes zanguri-like jigane and a ko-notare-based hamon what makes them remind of the Nobukuni School at a glance, so Honma. There is the approach to attribute all these to the second generation what then suggests that the first generation, of whom signed example do exist, was mostly active working for the Rai workshop and did not work much independently, and that the second generation hardly ever signed.

Picture 5 shows one of the signed tantô of Tomokuni, the kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri one. As we know, this blade shape was also applied by other smiths of the Rai School and by Ryôkai. It is of standard length, has a normal mihaba, a hint of uchizori, and shows a dense ko-itame with ji-nie and jifu. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-notare that is mixed with ko-midare, gunome, ashi, sunagashi, and on the omote side along the monouchi also with nijûba and uchinoke. The bôshi is midare-komi with hakikake and a somewhat pointed and late starting kaeri. Both sides show a naginata-hi with marudome. The tang is almost ubu, has a furisode shape, a kirijiri, and ô-sujikai yasurime.


Picture 5: tantô, mei “Rai Tomokuni” (来倫国), nagasa 24.8 cm, a hint of uchizori, kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri, mitsu-mune, preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum

Next I would like to introduce one of these nanbokuchôesque hira-zukuri ko wakizashi of Tomokuni and as a side note, they all seem more merge with sunnobi-tantô in his case. In other words, it seems that he did not make like extra long hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi that scratch the 40 cm and smaller tantô but actually just one category of blades, namely sunnobi-tantô. The one in picture 6 has a nagasa of 32.6 cm, is wide, thin, and has a sori. The kitae is an itame with plenty of ji-nie and some chikei and the hamon is a ko-nie-laden notare with a wide nioiguchi that is mixed with gunome and kinsuji. The bôshi is notare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri and hakikake. The omote side bears a suken and the ura sude a koshibi with soebi. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, and shallow katte-sagari yasurime. The jûyô description says briefly that the sugata is Nanbokuchô but the jiba Rai, so Tomokuni.


Picture 6: jûyô, wakizashi, mumei, attributed to Rai Tomokuni (来倫国), nagasa 32.6 cm, sori 0.3 cm, mihaba 3.0 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

As you see, it is difficult to grasp individual features within the aforementioned Rai-ichimon group as so few signed references are extant. So if you have an unsigned Rai sunnobi-tantô or hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi that shows a notare-based ha and that reminds of Nobukuni at a glance, where do you go? If it is more on the longer side and shows an approach of hitatsura, you go for Kunizane and if it is rather on the short side and has a strong and/or rougher jigane, better go for Tomokuni, but at the end of the day, there is a big grey zone.


This brings us to another one of the Rai-ichimon, the Rai Kunimune (来国宗), who was either the son or student of Tomokuni but who is listed as having also studied under master Kunitoshi. Same story here, the older, i.e. feudal sword publications place him somewhere from the end of the Kamakura to the early Nanbokuchô period but those few works of him that are extant rather speak for mid-Nanbokuchô and so most of the more recent meikan list him around Bunna (文和, 1352-1356). I am not aware of any long swords of Rai Kunimune and as far as signed example are concerned, I think there are only two going round, that is two tantô in hira-zukuri. One of them is shown in picture 7. The blade was once a heirloom of the Yamanouchi family (山内), measures 27.0 cm in nagasa, and has a little sori of 0.15 cm. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with fine ji-nie and some masame towards the ha and the steel is overall rather whitish, i.e. comes with shirake. The hamon differs a little from the usual Rai hamon as it appears as a ko-nie-laden, rather uniformly connected gunome with a subdued nioiguchi that is mixed with angular elements and plenty of sunagashi. The bôshi appears on the omote side as notare-komi and on the ura side as midare-komi, but running back on both sides in a long fashion and with a ko-maru-kaeri with hakikake. The tang is ubu, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, and bears a thickly chiseled sanji-mei. This is by the way the only jûyô blade of Rai Kunimune.

RaiKunimune1Piture 7: jûyô, tantô, mei “Rai Kunimune” (来国宗), nagasa 27.0 cm, sori 0.15 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

The other signed blade that I am aware of is shown in picture 8 and is basically similar in deki. It is a sunnobi-tantô measuring 30.4 cm in nagasa, showing a sori of 0.34 cm, and with the wide mihaba a nanbokuchôesque sugata. The kitae is an itame with chikei that tends again to masame towards the ha and the hamon is a chû-suguha in nie-deki that is mixed with some gunome-midare, a few kuichiga-ba, and some nijûba. The bôshi is a shallow notare-komi with a long running-back ko-maru-kaeri with hakikake. So the masame towards the ha and uniformly connected gunome should be a good kantei point for Rai Kunimune. Here is a link to a Rai Kunimune where you can clearly see the masame. Please note that the blade got papered hozon even if it is saiha, probably due to the extreme rarity of zaimei examples of this smith. It appears to me that the tang had a recent re-patination job done, probably because of the effect the fire damage had on the patina of the tang. A few red flags here though so this blade is presented here as a reference but with reservation.


Picture 8: tantô, mei “Rai Kunimune” (来国宗), nagasa 30.4 cm, sori 0.34 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-mune


That should do it for today and next I will introduce some more rare Rai-ichimon smiths before we deal with Mitsukane and then with the Nakajima-Rai lineage. So stay tuned.


Report Japanese Legacy II



I aplogize for the rather long time of nothing going on here but first there was travelling, and then an important project needed attention. And with this, I want to give you a brief report on the first reason for my blog absence, and that was the international conference on Japanese armor, Japanese Legacy II, taking place in Florence from February 25 to 27. Well, those of you who were there know that it was great but I want to use this report to create interest in our activities and maybe the one or other either joins the armor association NKBKHK, and/or attends the next meeting in 2018.


As mentioned, the conference was held over three days and the entire afternoon of the first day, Thursday, was spent at the famous Museo Stibbert. For me, it was the first time there and of course I agree with those who have been there, namely that it is a very very fascinating place! Now this first afternoon was so to speak the “warm-up” for the conference and the opportunity to study certain selected objects hands on, like for example several fine armor masks and teppô from the collection of the museum. Also shown to us was a very special armor (picture 1, the one in the middle) of which Francesco Civita, the curator at the Stibbert, was just recently able to confirm with experts from Japan its former wearer. Just a note at this point: I am not going into great detail as first, I don’t want to anticipate or rather interfere with possible reports and treatises by the persons themselves, and second, to create as mentioned an interest and to motivate people to participate in upcoming events and hear and see everything on the spot.


Picture 1: The armor in question and the accompanying helmet.

The second day of the conference, Friday, was started right in the morning and after a short introduction to the organizing party, the Life Beyond Tourism, which did a great job in perfectly organizing the whole three-day event, so a big thank you at this point!, Mr. Civita continued from the day before and gave us a lecture on not only this very armor but on armors used in the Shimabara Rebellion in general. He was followed by Jan Petterson who was speaking about Japanese matchlocks, but embedded into a case study of the Uesugi clan, giving us a great insight into the ups and downs of their fief and how this all like the financial crises affected, or rather not affected, the fief-employed gunsmiths. Present via Skype was Piers Dowding (Mr. Bugyotsuji for those who are on the NMB) who was unfortunately not able to make it for reasons of health. Hope you are doing well Piers! Jan was joined by Ian Bottomley who worked out in detail certain stylistic and technical similarities of Japanese teppô in view of the previous distribution of matchlocks throughout the Asian mainland. The second day was packed and start of the afternoon lectures was made by Japanologist Bas Verberk, curator at the Wereldmuseum Rotterdam. He gave us an insight into one aspect of his PhD research, namely on the comparison of armor masks to their Noh counterparts. Again, not going into details here, also because Mr. Verberk’s doctoral thesis is yet not finished, but this much I can say, there is no denying that certain inspirations took place as armorers surely did not suddenly start to produce masks out of an absolute artistic vacuum. Bas Verberk was followed by collector Aymeric Antien, who gave us, assisted by his fellow collector Luc Taelman (both contributing, amongst others, to the publication Helmets of the Saotome School which I had the honor to provide with translations a few years ago) an overview of the evolution of the Japanese helmet, with a main focus on the time from the 16th to the 17th centuries. An important thing I learned with Aymeric’s lecture: With great helmets it is just like with masterly swords, i.e. it is not just the interpretation, it is first of all the quality of the workmanship that has to be recognized to make observations when talking about the greatest of the masters. Mr. Antien finished his lecture the next day, Friday, and was followed by the researcher Francesco Grazzi from the ISC Florence (picture 2) who introduced to us the results of his metallurgical studies done in a non-destructive way through neutron diffration. These were only the first of a planned row of studies and aim is, to identify the forging and hardening methods of Japanese swords via this non-destructive way. And the conference was completed by another lecture from Ian Bottomley (picture 4), that is on the evolution of armor in general, but he also referred to certain aspects addressed by his lecturing predecessors.


Picture 2: Lecture by Francesco Grazzi


Picture 3: Jo (left) and Luc (right) telling us what we gonna hear at the conference.


Picture 4: Ian Bottomley

Not mentioned so far was Jo Anseeuw, our man when it comes to non-Japanese members of the NKBKHK. Jo deserves special thanks as he managed it to open for Western collectors a window to the Japanese armor society, making it possible that we have now a pretty solid and substantial base of members outside of Japan! So in this sense, I apologize if I have overlooked someone who too was responsible for making this great experience of the Japanese Legacy II happen, I thank you to all of you gentlemen (and ladies), and I am really looking forward to our next meeting!

And last but not least, I am also very happy that I was finally able to meet, on Sunday, with Francesco Marinelli and Massimo Rossi from the INTK (and to talk about swords, or about one tantô in particular). Again thank you very much for your small gift (that I enjoyed with my friends later in Salzburg) Oh and yes, I am also glad that I had added a couple of extra days to spend, romantically, in Florence 😉