The successor of Kuniyuki was Kunitoshi (国俊) and when it comes to Kunitoshi, the first thing to address is the centuries old question if there were one or two generations. Now seeing this question from a chronological point of view, we learn that the earliest sword books, that are those which were compiled up the the mid-Muromachi period, list a single Kunitoshi and that this changed from the very end of the Muromachi through the Momoyama up to the beginning Edo period when two Kunitoshi smiths were introduced. And this approach of dealing with two smiths dominated until the 1970s when experts started to go more and more back to the view that there was actually just one Kunitoshi. But let me explain why it went that way. First of all, Kunitoshi enjoyed a very long life and was active for more than fifty years. We know date signatures from Kôan one (弘安, 1279) to Gen’ô three (元応, 1321) and there is one very famous blade extant which is dated Shôwa four (正和, 1315) and added with the supplement “made at the age of 75.” Thus we can calculate his year of birth as Ninji one (仁治, 1240) and although we don’t know when he died, we know that he made the Gen’ô three blade when he was 82 years old, or rather that he was still head of the school at that time because certain works from those late years were actually made by his sons or students (I will address this point later). So let’s assume that he died some time in the early 1320s for the time being. Second, it is only natural that his style changed over time, one the one hand just because of the fact that he was active for more than half a century, but on the other hand also because a certain stylistic change took place all over the country during his time.

Now the oldest sword publication, the often quoted Kanchi’in Bon Mei Zukushi from 1423 that bases on data collected up to the year 1316, lists only one Kunitoshi. Interestingly, it inserts on one occasion (there are two Rai genealogies in the book) a certain Kuninaga (国永) between Rai Kuniyuki and Kunitoshi but anyway, the manuscript for the book was written on the spot, i.e. in Kyôto, and at a time when Kunitoshi was still alive and head of the Rai school. Experts are not sure where to put this Kuninaga but some say he might have well been a Rai smith but who died young and acted thus only for a very brief period of time as head of the school and therefore he was later removed again from the genealogy. The other very old source, the Ki’ami Hon Mei Zukushi from 1381, also lists just one Kunitoshi and so does the Nô’ami Hon Mei Zukushi from 1483. But then come the Genki Gannen Tôken Mekiki Sho from 1570, the Keichô era (1596-1615) Keifun Ki, and first of all the influental Kokon Mei Zukushi, which was published in 1661 but goes back to data gathered up to 1611, which introduce “all of a sudden” two Kunitoshi. However, this is not surprising. It was the time when sword studies experienced a boom and a lot was written back then (and from the early Edo period onwards also actually published in larger print runs). But think about the limited data situation of those days. You have blades signed Kunitoshi with earlier dates which are all of one style and then you have blades signed Rai Kunitoshi with noticeably later date signatures which are all of a significantly different style. Of course you assume they were two smiths and that a shift of generations must had taken place at some point in time. And this approach was subsequently refined by introducing the nickname Niji Kunitoshi (二字国俊) for the former, as he signed in niji-mei, and Rai Kunitoshi (来国俊) for the latter, as he signed with the prefix Rai, and by the end of the 18th century, you get a construct like the Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen which says the following: Niji Kunitoshi was the son of Kuniyuki and was born in Niji one (1240) and died in Kôei three (康永, 1344) at the very great age of 105 (according to the Japanese way of counting years). And Rai Kunitoshi was the son of Niji Kunitoshi. He was born Shôan one (正安, 1299), lived in Yamato province, signed from Kenmu one (建武, 1334) onwards with the prefix Rai, and died in Ryakuô two (暦応, 1339) at the young age of 41. With this as a basis, the complicated theory emerged that Niji Kunitoshi actually started his career by signing with “Rai Kunitoshi” and that it was his son who initially signed just with Kunitoshi. But then the son left for Yamato where he established his own branch of the school and where he too signed with “Rai Kunitoshi.” He died young and his father outlived him for some years, signing with “Rai Kunitoshi” throughout his entire career.

Anyway, this is and was seen as a nice anecdote and never made it much into mainstream discussions on the Rai Kunitoshi subject but I wanted to introduce it here for the sake of completeness and to underline how far things can go when an initially honest approach is fed here and there with tiny pieces of hearsay over time. But the Niji Kunitoshi and Rai Kunitoshi theory prevailed for a long time and even Honma sensei saw them first as two smiths, e.g. at the time when he wrote his Nihon Kotô Shi (the first edition was published in 1958 and is based on a thesis he wrote in 1952). He changed his view later and assumed that there was indeed only one Kunitoshi and also Tanobe sensei is of that opinion. This change in scholarship goes back to the fact that by that time, data and references were much easier accessible. That means, experts were and are no longer to restricted to some old manuscripts which were kept secret and only handed down within the own family and to a very limited stock of available Kunitoshi blades. Now you can bring all sources together and you are not only able to check hundreds of Kunitoshi blades for themselves but compare them with hundreds of blades of contemporary smiths and get a much clearer picture of what was going on back then. To sum that all up, Kuniyuki had a successor, Kunitoshi, who decided at a certain point in his career to sign his blades with the prefix Rai, the name of his family and school. Maybe he did so after his father had retired or died and the earliest dated work known that bears the prefix Rai is from the second year of Shôô (正応, 1289). He was already in his late 40s at that time what explains that he had enough time to sign in niji-mei like his father did. Thus the large quantity of extant niji-mei signed blades.

Let’s move on to the workmanship of Kunitoshi and although I go with the one smith theory, I will stay with the nicknames Niji Kunitoshi and Rai Kunitoshi, but that in a pure stylistic context, i.e. I will use terms like “Niji Kunitoshi phase” or “Rai Kunitoshi phase.” When we look at Kunitoshi’s entire body of work, we learn that he started continuing the style of his father Kuniyuki, turned that style into even more magnificent interpretations with a flamboyant hamon and an impressive tachi-sugata with ikubi-kissaki, and that he later changed towards more unobtrusive tachi with a suguha-based hamon and an elegant, slender sugata with chû or ko-kissaki. As indicated earlier, this specific stylistic change from magnificent and flamboyant to calm and slender can be seen at other contemporary smith and best example is Osafune Nagamitsu (長光) who can be seen as Kunitoshi’s “Bizen twin brother.” Both were the greatest masters of their region, both were working at exactly the same (dated works from Kunitoshi range from 1279 to 1321 and from Nagamitsu from 1274 to 1320), both were highly productive, and both were starting from where a previously dominating lineage had ceased to exist, i.e. Ichimonji in case of Nagamitsu and Awataguchi in case of Kunitoshi, with their fathers (Mitsutada [光忠] and Kuniyuki respectively) doing the first step. And as far as their skill and productivity is concerned, both are well represented among the Agency for Cultural Affairs designations: 17 for Kunitoshi (4 kokuhô and 13 jûyô-bunkazai), and 34 for Nagamitsu (6 kokuhô and 28 jûyô-bunkazai). And more than 200 blades of Kunitoshi are jûyô and about 30 passed tokubetsu-jûyô (not separating Niji Kunitoshi from Rai Kunitoshi). In comparison, about 150 blades of Nagamitsu are jûyô and a little over 20 are tokubetsu-jûyô.

*

Niji Kunitoshi Phase

Going more or less chronologically from here, I first want to introduce some works where he so to speak picked up where his father Kuniyuki left. The tachi seen in picture 1 is designated as a jûyô-bunkazai and shows the magnificent and kind of stout sugata that was prevailing at that time, featuring a wide mihaba, no noticeable taper, a deep toriizori, and a compact ikubi-kissaki. The kitae is a ko-itame that tends to stand out a little and that shows plenty of ji-nie and a faint nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ô-chôji-chô in ko-nie-deki mixed with kawazu no ko-chôji, gunome, and many ashi and yô. The ha tends to slant along the upper half and the nioiguchi is rather subdued. The bôshi is a widely hardened midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri. Both sides feature a bôhi that runs with kaki-nagashi into the tang with on the haki-omote side a suken and a soebi over the rest of the length, engraved below of the shinogi. The ura side shows a koshibi with a kind of gem element and after that the same soebi. The tang is ubu, tapers only a little to a ha-agari kurijiri, shows kiri-yasurime, and a shinobi no ana at the tip. The ha is flamboyant and not that nie-laden and as the nie-utsuri tends to midare-utsuri in places, one might think of a Fukuoka-Ichimonji work at a glance. But although lesser in quantity and size, there is too much ko-nie and ha-nie for a Fukuoka-Ichimonji work and having a faint nie-utsuri with a little midare would be also be odd as we would expect to see a striking midare-utsuri all over on a Fukuoka-Ichimonji blade.

Picture 1: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), nagasa 75.6 cm, sori 2.4 cm, motohaba 3.2 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum

Next is the only dated blade known from Kunitoshi’s Nidai phase (see picture 2). This tachi is signed “Kunitoshi” and dated “Kôan gannen jûnigatsu hi” (弘安元年十二月日, “a day in the twelfth month Kôan one [1278]”). It has a wide mihaba, an ikubi-kissaki, and is a little shortened but keeps its magnificent sugata. The kitae is a ko-itame with ji-nie, nie-utsuri, and some jifu in places and the hamon is a ko-nie-laden chôji-gunome mixed with plenty of ashi and yô and some tobiyaki which even tend a little to nijûba in places. The elements of the ha tend to slant all over the blade and the boshi is midare-komi with yakitsume, i.e. it does not really have a kaeri.

Picture 2: tachi, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), date see text above, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, nagasa 77.9 cm, sori 2.3 cm, the blade is preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum and does not bear any designation of the Agency for Cultural Affairs

Picture 3 shows the meibutsu Torikai-Kunitoshi (鳥養国俊) which was once owned by late Muromachi period calligrapher Torikai Sôkei (鳥飼宗慶, please note that his family name is written with a different kanji for kai than the meibutsu) and ended up via a stopover at Hosokawa Yûsai (細川幽斎, 1534-1610) and his son Tadaoki (細川忠興, 1563-1646) as a heirloom of the Owari-Tokugawa branch. The blade is a kodachi and is today designated as a jûyô-bijutsuhin. It is truly stout and wide, measuring 60.3 cm in nagasa, but kind of elegant at the same time as it has a relative deep toriizori of 2.4 cm. We see funbari and an ikubi-kissaki and the kitae is a dense ko-itame with ji-nie and a nie-utsuri. The hamon is a wide and chôji-based midareba mixed with some gunome and which does not show much ups and downs. There are plenty of hataraki like ashi and yô and the entire yakiba is quite nie-loaden. The nioiguchi is bright, clear, and tight and the hamon gets wider along the monouchi and turns there into a hiro-suguha-chô. The bôshi is midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri and almost tends to ichimai and along the upper half of the blade we see connected muneyaki. The deki and the condition are outstanding and the Torikai is considered to be one of the best work from Kunitoshi’s Niji phase. There are only very few kodachi of him from this time extant but as mentioned in the last part, already his father Kuniyuki made some and so he too continued to take orders in this direction. The overall interpretation with the flamboyant hamon reminds of his “Bizen twin” Nagamitsu but there is too much ji-nie and a nie-utsuri present what speaks against Nagamitsu. And the bôshi is also different as Nagamitsu mostly hardened a so-called sansaku-bôshi.

Picture 3: jûyô-bijutsuhin, meibutsu Torikai-Kunitoshi, kodachi, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), nagasa 60.3 cm, sori 2.4 cm, motohaba 3.03 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, preserved in the Tokugawa Museum

Now to a blade from Kunitoshi’s somewhat later  Niji phase that kind of anticipates the style of his upcoming Rai phase. The blade is still wide and magnificent but the kissaki is no longer straightforward ikubi and becomes chû and we see a hint more taper. The kitae is a dense ko-itame mixed with mokume and shows plenty of ji-nie and a nie-utsuri. The hamon is a calm suguha-chô, or hiro-suguha-chô if you want, in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-ashi, slanting Kyô-saka-ashi (on the omote side), yô, some yubashiri-based nijûba, and much muneyaki. The nioiguchi is rather tight, bright and clear, and the bôshi continues as wide suguha with a ko-maru-kaeri and a hint of hakikake. This tachi can be difficult to kantei at a glance but if you have internalized this and the upcoming chapter, you should be able to see that it can only be a late work of Kunitoshi’s Niji phase because the sugata is still to magnificent for the Rai phase and the jiba is “too advanced” for Kuniyuki. Well, Rai Kunimitsu would be a good guess too as early works of Kunimitsu are often very close to Rai Kunitoshi but there are just not enough nie-hataraki for Kunimitsu and we would also expect an approach of gunome in his ha. Anyway, this is the style that so to speak served as a blueprint for the Rai School itself from here on and for its offshoots Ryôkai and Enju. Incidentally, the blade was once a heirloom of the Owari-Tokugawa family and comes with an origami of Hon’ami Kôchû from Hôei five (1708) evaulating it with 100 gold pieces.

Picture 4: tokubetsu-jûyô, tachi, mei “Kuni…” (国…), nagasa 77.0 cm, sori 2.6 cm, motohaba 3.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

But it must not be overlooked that Kunitoshi also went even more classical in his late Niji phase, for example as seen as in picture 5. This tachi is of an elegant sugata with a normal mihaba, a deep toriizori, and a chû-kissaki. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie, fine chikei, and a nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden hoso-suguha with a little ko-gunome at the machi and faint nijûba accompanying the ha here and there along the ura side. The nioiguchi is rather tight and the bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri. This blade too is difficult to kantei and could perfectly pass as Rai Kunitoshi. That means, this and the previous blade are precious references for us to realize that the late Niji and early or subsequent Rai phase are indeed very much overlapping.

Picture 5: jûyô, tachi, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), nagasa 75.2 cm, sori 2.6 cm, motohaba 2.8 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

How about tantô from Kunitoshi’s Niji phase? There is actually only one tantô known, and that is the meibutsu Aizen-Kunitoshi (愛染国俊) which is signed in niji-mei (see picture 6). To my knowledge, all mumei tantô that are attributed to Kunitoshi are explicitly attributed to Rai Kunitoshi, i.e. to his Rai phase. And from his Rai phase on, tantô increase significantly in number. His father Kuniyuki made hardly any tantô and we can only guess why that was the case. My theory, as stated in the previous chapter, is that Kuniyuki was just active a little to early for the great “Kyôto tantô boom” that started with his colleague Awataguchi Kuniyoshi and that was then continued by Kuniyoshi’s successor Yoshimitsu. So I think that Kunitoshi jumped only later onto that fine tantô bandwagon, i.e. when he was already in his Rai phase. Back to the Aizen-Kunitoshi. The blade got its nickname from the kebori carving of the deity Aizen Myôô on its tang and right above the niji-mei. It was once owned by Hideyoshi and came via a stopover at the Tokugawa family into the possession of the Maeda which owned it until the Shôwa era. The blade has a wide mihaba and follows in terms of sugata very much the sunnobi-style tantô of Kuniyuki introduced in the previous chapter (picture 8), although it is a little shorter. It show a dense ko-itame with fine ji-nie and a nie-utsuri and a “wet” looking steel and the entire kitae is described as nashiji in the old text to the jûyô-bunkazai classification. The hamon is a notare-gunome-chô in ko-nie-deki that is mixed ko-midare, togariba, plenty of ko-ashi, and some tobiyaki and yubashiri. The bôshi is notare-komi to midare-komi with a rather pointed but irregular kaeri. On the omote side we see a suken and on the ura side a hatana-hi with a shorter soebi.

Picture 6: jûyô-bunkazai, tantô, meibutsu Aizen-Kunitoshi, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), nagasa 28.75 cm, sori 0.24 cm, motohaba 2.7 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-mune, owned by Brast Sheave Co., Ltd., Ôsaka

*

Now that should do it for today because I want to dedicate Kunitoshi’s Rai Kunitoshi phase a chapter of its own so that we don’t have one mega post and too much info at once. So stay tuned.

Strictly speaking, Aburanokôji does not refer to a school in the proper meaning of the word but to a loose group of swordsmiths which was active somewhere along Kyôto’s Aburanokôji street. This street runs in a north-south direction and parallel (and pretty close) to the Horikawa-dôri that passes Nijô Castle to the east. Satô Kanzan mentions that the group was working near the Ayanokôji School and when we take a look at the map of Kyôto we learn that the Aburanokôji crosses the west-east running Ayanokôji street somewhere halfway between Nijô Castle and the Nishi Honganji. The meikan associate the Aburanokôji smiths with the Awataguchi School but the workmanship and other genealogical considerations suggest that they were rather linked to the Ayanokôji School, thus my brief detour into geographical details.

Well, when we look into the meikan, only a handful of Aburanokôji smiths can be found, so this group was pretty minor. And when we take a look at these few smiths we learn that half of them are dated into the late Kamakura period, to be precise around Shôô (正応, 1288-1293), and the other half into the early to mid Nanbokuchô period, i.e. around Kenmu (建武, 1334-1338) and Enbun (延文, 1356-1361). And not really a connection is drawn between these “sub groups.” Anyway, one clue on the affiliation of this group is offered by the Kokon Mei Zukushi which introduces the smith Tadaie (忠家) in the Ayanokôji genealogy, namely as son of Ayanokôji Sadaie (定家) and as being active around Enbun. The meikan list Sadaie as son of the famous Ayanokôji Sadatoshi and mostly date him around Kagen (嘉元, 1303-1306). The Kokon Mei Zukushi says that he was active around Shôô (正応, 1288-1293) and Einin (永仁, 1293-1299), so not that far away from Kagen. Enbun seems a bit too far from Kagen (or even Einin) for Tadaie being the son of Sadaie but when we look again at the actual genealogy of the Kokon Mei Zukushi, we learn that a “daughter” is slid-in between Sadaie and Tadaie. This most likely means that Sadaie did not have a son but adopted his grandson as heir. And with this in mind the about 50~60 years of difference between Sadaie and Tadaie don’t sound that bad anymore.

Now there is a tantô extant which is signed “Aburanokôji Tadaie tsukuru” (油小路忠家造) and dated “Enbun sannen chûshun no hi” (延文三年仲春日, “a day in the second month Enbun three [1358]”) (see picture 1). This tantô is the only blade known by Tadaie and is not only a very precious reference piece for this smith but also for the entire group as it actually bears the name Aburanokôji in the mei and as it is dated. Experts assume that the Tadaie who is listed at the end of the Kokon Mei Zukushi’s Ayanokôji genealogy refers to the maker of this tantô, Aburanokôji Tadaie, and this assumption is not solely based on the identical name and the identical nengô (i.e. both genealogy and tantô say Enbun) but also on similarities in workmanship. That is, although this tantô comes in a pretty obvious Enbun-Jôji-sugata, i.e. in a sugata we won’t associate with the classical Ayanokôji School at a glance, both jigane and hamon are basically following the Ayanokôji forging tradition. The kitae is a stanting-out itame with nagare and masame towards the ha and ji-nie as well as some shirake appear. The hamon is a hoso-suguha in ko-nie-deki and the bôshi features a short ko-maru-kaeri. The omote side shows a katana-hi with below a suken as relief and accompanied by a soebi, and the ura side a shôbu-hi. Incidentally, this blade was once a heirloom of the Tsuchiya family (土屋), the daimyô of the Tsuchiura fief (土浦藩) of Hitachi province. Later on it was owned by the Shizuoka Prefecture industrialist Yabe Toshio (矢部利雄, 1905-1996) who had a pretty impressive collection (e.g. he also owned the famous yari Tonbogiri).

Picture 1: tantô, mei “Aburanokôji Tadaie tsukuru – Enbun sannen chûshun no hi,” nagasa 28.4 cm, sori 0.3 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

Apart from that tantô, we know, or rather knew, a jûyô-bunkazai tachi signed “Tadayoshi” (忠吉) that is attributed to Aburanokôji Tadayoshi (see picture 2) Incidentally, there was obviously a third character below “Tadayoshi” but which is lost due to corrosion. So the blade was originally most likely either signed “Tadayoshi saku” or “Tadayoshi tsukuru.” The tachi was owned by the Suwa-taisha (諏訪大社, Nagano Prefecture) but was unfortunately stolen and its whereabouts are unknown. It has a koshizori that bends down towards the tip, a ko-kissaki, and shows a standing-out itame with some nagare, ji-nie, and a midare-utsuri. The hamon is a suguha-based chôji in nie-deki that is mixed with kawazu no ko-chôji and kinsuji. The elements of the ha are rather smallish and densely arranged and the nioiguchi is subdued. The bôshi features a ko-maru-kaeri but almost tends to a kuzure-like ichimai. The tang is suriage and has kiri-yasurime. So like the tantô introduced above, the workmanship of this tachi does not link to Awataguchi at all, as the meikan suggest for the affiliation of these two smiths. By the way, it is said that Tadayoshi, who is dated around Kenmu, was the father of Tadaie. If this is true and we want to bring that in line with the genealogy of the Kokon Mei Zukushi, Tadayoshi must have been married to Ayanokôji Sadaie’s daughter.

Picture 2: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Tadayoshi” (忠吉), nagasa 74.3 cm, sori 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Well, what about the other Aburanokôji smiths who appear in the meikan? There was an Aritada (有忠) who is dated to the Jôji era (貞治, 1362-1368) who was most likely linked to Tadayoshi and Tadaie. Apart from that, we find a Tadatsugu (忠次) and a Sadakage (定景) who are both dated around Shôô (正応, 1288-1293). The use of the characters “Tada” and “Sada” do suggest a connection to Ayanokôji (e.g. Sadatoshi, Sadayoshi, Sadaie) on the one, and to the later Aburanokôji group (e.g. Tadaie, Tadayoshi, Aritada) on the other hand. But due to the lack of extant works and records, I have to end this brief chapter here and with the next part we arrive at a very successful Yamashiro school, namely at Rai.

With this post I will close the chapter on Awataguchi and after introducing some works of the more or less “also ran” smiths of the school who have not been introduced so far, I want to add some concluding thoughts on why the school did not make it into Nanbokuchô times.

Let me begin with Tôbei Kunimitsu (藤兵衛国光), the younger brother of Awataguchi Kuniyoshi (国吉) who bore the honorary title Sahyôe no Jô (左兵衛尉). There is some confusion about his active period as the meikan date him traditionally around Kenchô (建長, 1249-1256) but there is a ken extant signed “Sahyôe no Jô Fujiwara Kunimitsu” (左兵衛尉藤原国光) which is dated Shôwa ten (正和, 1321). Please note that the mekugi-ana of this ken goes right trough the year and that the very area of the tang shows considerable corrosion and so some interpret the date as Shôwa one (1312) (see picture 1). Apart from that, there are allegedly also works going round which are dated with the Einin era (永仁, 1293-1299) and then there is the jûyô tantô that was discovered in recent years which is dated Kôan eleven (弘安, 1288) (see picture 4). So either Kunimitsu enjoyed a really long life, or there was a second generation, whereby also the theory was forwarded that Kunimitsu was not the son of Norikuni but of Kuniyoshi. Interestingly, the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen – which lists him next to Kuniyoshi but with no reference of being his brother or a student of Norikuni – says that he was born in Jôgen one (承元, 1207) and died in Kangen two (寛元, 1244) at the young age of 36. Kunimitsu is listed in this source with the first name Tarô (太郎) and with the rank of a shinshi (進士), a person that passed certain tests of the Imperial school of civil servants during the ritsuryô era. However, most meikan date this Shinshi Tarô Kunimitsu to the Kenmu era (建武, 1334-1338). So we don’t know for sure how many Kunimitsu have been active within the Awataguchi school and what their exact relations were within the lineage. Maybe Tôbei Kunimitsu was Norikuni’s second son but had his own son, maybe the Tarô Kunimitsu, trained by his older brother Kuniyoshi. Or Tôbei Kunimitsu was indeed Kuniyoshi’s son and was followed by a second generation of the same name, maybe the Tarô Kunimitsu. But we will probably never know…

Picture 1: ken, mei “Sahyôe no Jô Fujiwara Kunimitsu” “Shôwa jû/gannen jûnigatsu hi (+ 2 bonji),” nagasa 20.3 cm, ko-itame with masame and ji-nie, suguha-chô with some ko-notare and plenty of nijûba

As for Awataguchi Kunimitsu’s extant works, there are two tachi which are famous, a jûyô-bunkazai that is preserved in the Yôrô-ji (養老寺, Gifu Prefecture), and a jûyô-bunkazai that is owned by the Kurokawa Institute of Ancient Cultures. Both blades are slender, elegant, show a relative shallow sori, traces of funbari (both blades are surage), a rather wide shinogi-ji, and a ko-kissaki that tends towards chû and a hint towards ikubi, a feature that was popular in mid-Kamakura times. Also the interpretation of the jiba is very similar. We see a densely forged ko-itame with fine ji-nie and a nie-utsuri, a ko-nie-laden hoso-suguha with a rather wide nioiguchi, and a ko-maru-bôshi with a relative wide kaeri. The former, i.e. the Yôrô-ji tachi shows a few ashi and seems to be a little more nie-emphasized as there are some chikei and kinsuji. The interpretation places the two blades perfectly into the principal stylistic approach of the Awataguchi school.

Picture 2: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Kunimitsu” (国光), nagasa 73.2 cm, sori 1.3 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, horimono of a suken towards the base of the omote side, preserved in the Yôrô-ji

Picture 3: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Kunimitsu” (国光), nagasa 80.3 cm, sori 1.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, owned by the Kurokawa Institute of Ancient Cultures

Picture 4 below shows the aforementioned tantô of Kunimitsu. It is quite graceful and has lost some substance – leaving only traces of the once engraved suken on the omote and the gomabashi on the ura side – but with the jiba very well preserved. The kitae is a ko-itame with masame-nagare that features plenty of ji-nie and fine chikei and the steel is extra bright and clear. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha with a little notare that is mixed with a little ko-gunome on the ura side. The nioiguchi is wide and the suge-bôshi shows a wide ko-maru-kaeri. Based on this work, it seems as if Awataguchi Kunimitsu’s tantô are a little more nie-emphasized than his tachi. Please check out Darcy’s site here for some excellent pictures of the blade and the steel.

Picture 4: jûyô, tantô, mei “Kôan jûichinen – gogatsu ichinichi Kunimitsu” (弘安十一年・五月一日国光, “a day of the fifth month Kôan eleven [1288]”), nagasa 21.7 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

Now there were some theories forwarded in the past that Awataguchi Kunimitsu and Shintôgo Kunimitsu were the same smith but these are dismissed today as their signature style differs significantly (note the left inner part of the character for “Kuni” and the upper part of the character for “mitsu”) (see picture 5). Well, the theory of course suggests itself as Shintôgo has his roots in the Awataguchi school but apart from the signature, the blades of Awataguchi Kunimitsu just don’t show enough chikei and kinsuji to pass for Shintôgo (the steel is different too) and they belong within the Awataguchi school to the least nie emphasized blades at all. So if you add up all kantei points for Awataguchi Kunimitsu, you arrive at: Slender tachi-sugata with a rather shallow sori and a somewhat wider shinogi-ji in combination with a nashiji or nashiji-like hada, a noticeably narrow suguha-based hamon, and a bôshi with a relative wide kaeri (see tantô in picture 4). Again, the jiba does not feature much nie what gives the blades a more unobtrusive overall appearance.

Picture 5: Awataguchi Kunimitsu left, Shintôgo Kunimitsu right

*

There are a few blades extant by Kunisada (国定), a student of Awataguchi Kuniyoshi’s student Kuninobu (国延), but as he moved later to Ayabe (綾部) in Tanba, I want to introduce him when we arrive at this province. The same applies to Kagenaga (景長), the son of Awataguchi Yoshimasa (吉正) who in turn had studied under Tôshirô Yoshimitsu, who founded the Inaba-Kokaji (因幡小鍛冶) lineage. So we will talk about him in the course of when we learn about what was going on in Inaba province. However, last but not least I want to introduce Awataguchi Kagehisa (景久) as there is a single tantô of him known (see picture 6). In other words, there are virtually zero blades of all the other Awataguchi smiths extant who are quoted in the genealogy but who were not the famous masters of the school. So Kagehisa is said to have been the student of Tôshirô Yoshimitsu and he is traditionally dated around Kôan (1278-1288) or Shôan (正安, 1299-1302). The tantô in question is in hira-zukuri, small and elegant, and has a hardly tapering tang that tends to furisode. The kitae is a very fine ko-itame with a little nagare, plenty of ji-nie, and a little chikei. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-midare mixed with ko-notare at the base, gunome-ashi, fine sunagashi, some kinsuji, and nijûba in the upper half. The bôshi is midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri with hakikake. The blade features a very bright nioiguchi and Satô Kanzan speaks of it “as might be excepted, of high quality.” In short, it fits into the legacy of the Awataguchi school and the tradition that Kagehisa had learned from an outstanding mastersmith. Also backing the tradition is the noticeable tendency towards midare in the ha and towards furisode in the nakago. The latter shows kiri-yasurime and a small and quite finely chiselled niji-mei.

Picture 6: jûyô, tantô, mei “Kagehisa” (景久), nagasa 22.6 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

*

It is difficult to say how or if at all the Awataguchi main line was carried on after Yoshimitsu. Incidentally, if we count Kuniie (国家) as first generation Awataguchi, Yoshimitsu would have been the fifth generation main line. The school itself had existed for about a century at the time of Yoshimitsu. Well, before I come up with some attempts at explanation, I want to introduce what the historic sources say about what was going on after Yoshimitsu. In the earliest extant sword publication, the Kanchi’in Bon Mei Zukushi, there isn’t any mention at all in this respect and Yoshimitsu is even listed in line with Kuniyoshi and Kunimitsu. Therein the main line goes Kuniie → Kunitomo → Norikuni → Kuniyoshi, period. Yoshimitsu is seen as contemporary or, if you want, as younger brother of Kuniyoshi. In the Kokon Mei Zukushi, Yoshimitsu is succeeded by Nobumitsu (延光) who again has four smiths under him, Masamitsu (正光), Yoshimasa (吉正), Yoriie (頼家), and Kunisumi/Kunizumi (国純), although it is not mentioned who his official successor was or if one of them succeeded him as head of the Awataguchi school at all. Tsuneishi introduces in his Awataguchi genealogy two students of Yoshimitsu, namely Yoshikuni (吉国) and the aforementioned Kagehisa (景久). And the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen lists Masamitsu, Yoshimasa, Nobumitsu, and Kunichika (国近) below of Yoshimitsu.

Let us focus on the tradition of handing over one character to the next generation for a little. When we look at the Awataguchi genealogy we learn that in many cases, the first character of the master’s name was used as second character of the successor’s name, e.g. KUNItomo → NoriKUNI → KUNIyoshi → YoshiMITSU or AriKUNI → KUNIhisa. So in the case of Yoshimitsu, we would expect some name like MITSUxxx. Interestingly, the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen says that Masamitsu also signed with Mitsumasa. A Yoshimitsu student with the name Mitsumasa is not found in the meikan but when we look at the Masamitsu we come across Daruma Masamitsu who is said to have been the son of Daruma Shigemitsu (重光). Well, both Masamitsu and Shigemitsu are dated around Eitoku (永徳, 1381-1384) but lo and behold, there exists the tradition for Shigemitsu that he was the son of Awataguchi Yoshimitsu. But we must be careful. Genealogies were pimped or doctored later on exactly that way, that is, having a smith working in Yamashiro province who shares the same character as a famous master smith tempts the compiler to create this very connection in the first place. So basing a theory just on limited genealogic data can mean falling right into the trap of the compiler. In other words, when you start from a certain smith and go downwards you might just follow what was actually created by a compiler by going backwards.

How about the branches of the other masters of the school? Not many students are recorded for any of them, except for Yoshimitsu’s predecessor Kuniyoshi and for Kunitsuna, the youngest of the earlier Six Awataguchi Brothers. As mentioned, one branch that had emerged under master Kuniyoshi relocated to Tanba province and flourished there throughout the Nanbokuchô period (also by being joined from a branch of the lineage of Yoshimitsu’s student Masamitsu which had moved to Tanba too). And the school of Kunitsuna brought forth Shintôgo Kunimitsu who was one of the founders of the Sôshû tradition as Kunitsuna himself had moved to Kamakura on bequest of the bakufu.

The downfall or rather discontinuance of the Awataguchi School is most likely linked to the fact that the Kyôto-based and highly prestigious lineage was mainly producing for a clientele that came from local aristocracy and highest circles. So by the time of Yoshimitsu, i.e. late Kamakura, the school was facing a Kyôto of an aristocratic class that had reached a point at which its political obsolescence, that came along with the establishment of the Kamakura-bakufu in 1185, had been pretty much noticeable. Of course, Kyôto was still undisputed center when it comes to refined culture, connection to the Chinese mainland, and sanctioning of courtly titles, and traffic between the imperial capital and Kamakura was heavy. Another severe impact on the ability of the Kyôto aristocracy to put anything into practice came with the two invasion attempts of the Mongols which tooks place in 1274 and 1281. We all know that “favourable” weather conditions played an important role in the defeat of the invading fleet but as the bakufu was responsible for national defence, it took large parts of the “victory” on it’s own account. In other words, the Shogunate in Kamakura was so to speak capable of not only defending but also of being in charge of the country. Accordingly, the local Kyôto smiths were about losing a great amount of business and much more promising was what was going on in Kamakura and the newly established Sôshû tradition of sword making. But on the other hand, another Kyôto-based school, Rai, was just about to flourish (and became as successful as it gets). So there was surely a demand left. Anyway, what we can see is that from late Kamakura onwards, a significant shift from noble to martial took place and maybe the Rai School was just more capable of responding to this request. Well, there are still many things in the dark when it comes to the early Kyôto schools. Maybe there were other, i.e. local and/or genealogic factors involved than mere the factors supply and demand and rise of the warrior class. For example, we are still not able to fully connect the dots and draw the connections between Sanjô, Gojô, Ayanokôji, Awataguchi, and Rai. I mean, overlapping workmanships give us a pretty good good hunch about that they must have been somehow connected. But we don’t know for sure which schools’ founder was trained by whom and so on. And with this, I want to close the chapter Awataguchi and move – with a short stopover at Aburanokôji (油小路) – over to the Rai School.

The Awataguchi main line was continued by Norikuni’s eldest son Kuniyoshi (国吉) of whom no first name is handed down, although we know that he bore the honorary title Sahyôe no Jô (左兵衛尉). Just to let you know, the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen says that he was born in Genkyû one (元久, 1204) and that he died in Bun’ei four (文永, 1267) at the age of 64. Traditionally he is dated around Hôji (宝治, 1247-1249) and contradicting the anyway suspicious year of death forwarded by the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen, there are old oshigata collections extant that show blades dated for example Kenji four (建治, 1278) and Kôan six (弘安, 1283) and ten (1287). Following the latter data means that with Kuniyoshi, we have reached the closing years of the mid-Kamakura period. Fortunately, there are relative many works of this Awataguchi smith extant and these works comprise all kind of blades like tachi, uchigatana, ken, tantô, and larger dimensioned sunnobi-style tantô. So we have a pretty good overview of his artistic repertoire, although it must be said that long swords are rarest when it comes to quantities in the extant oeuvre of Kuniyoshi. Let me work through Kuniyoshi’s workmanship step by step, beginning with long swords and coming via the “others” to his tantô.

There are only two zaimei tachi of Kuniyoshi extant whose signatures are bulletproof. Then there is a group of three signed blades where the signature is off a little, although these mei are thought to be most likely authentic and within the range of natural changes of a smith but which are nevertheless labelled as “need further study.” In other words, the NBTHK is very very careful in this respect and does not lean an inch out of the window when it comes to big names like Awataguchi Kuniyoshi. And then there are more than a dozen of jûyô and more than a dozen of tokubetsu-jûyo tachi known which are unsigned but which are attributed to Kuniyoshi. So let’s focus on the signed specimen to define how he interpreted his long swords. One of the two bulletproof zaimei tachi (see picture 1) is tokubetsu-jûyô and it is very special because it is completely ubu. The blade has an elegant tachi-sugata with a deep koshizori with funbari but does no longer taper that much like earlier Kamakura blades and ends in a straightforward chû-kissaki, i.e. nothing like ko or slightly elongated ko-kissaki, as it was typical for preceding periods, but chû. It shows a very dense ko-itame with a little nagare, plenty of ji-nie, fine chikei, and a nie-utsuri and the steel is clear and looks “wet.” The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô that comes with a little undulating notare and that is mixed with a few ko-gunome, ko-chôji, and ko-midare, ashi, some kinsuji, and a conspicuous, discontinuous nijûba that appears almost over the entire blade (sparing just the base). The nioiguchi is wide and bright. The bôshi is sugu with prominent nijûba and almost runs out as yakitsume. The tang is as mentioned ubu, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, and two mekugi-ana.

Picture 1: tokubetsu-jûyô, tachi, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 75.5 cm, sori 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

The signed jûyô-bunkazai (see picture 2) was shortened up to the signature but retains its elegant sugata that is again not that much tapering and ends in a chû-kissaki. The interpretation of the jiba is very similar to the tokubetsu-jûyô and we see the same prominent and discontinuous nijûba that focuses on the upper part of the blade and that continues into the bôshi, here even a hint more pronounced. Incidentally, this feature has already been pointed out in pre-Edo period sword publications.

Picture 2: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 72.3 cm, sori 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

The mei of these two blades also mark so to speak the both extremes of Kuniyoshi’s spectrum of signature variations, that means the one on the tokubetsu-jûyô is the finest and largest, and the one on the jûyô-bunkazai the thickest and most compact mei. Picture 3 shows these two signatures compared to those which are as mentioned labelled as “need further study.” [Sidenote: The way these signatures are actually addressed in NBTHK papers is “to mei ga aru” (と銘がある) but this supplement deserves an extra and an explanation goes beyond the scope of the kantei series.] Again, we are talking here just about long swords. Signed tantô and ken are plenty and will be addressed later.

Picture 3: mei of the tokubetsu-jûyô left, of the jûyô-bunkazai right, and below those which “need further study”

To demonstrate what discrepancies we are facing with the “to mei ga aru” works, or rather to demonstrate the lack of discrepancies, I want to introduce in picture 4 one such blade, the one whose mei is shown in picture 3 on the bottom left. It even passed tokubetsu-jûyô, that means if the mei (and workmanship) was that off, it would not have received jûyô (or even hozon) in the first place. In other words, if the mei was judged as gimei (or way too off), the blade would not have passed any paper and be returned to the owner who might then be left with the decision having the signature removed and submitting it again (most likely then it would actually receive a paper on Awataguchi, or even on Awataguchi Kuniyoshi). So these to mei ga aru signatures can make it up to the tokubetsu-jûyô rank without problem and the supplement in question has to be understood as “precaution” on the part of the NBTHK. Take a look at the blade in picture 4 and judge yourself. It is a slender tachi with a deep koshizori and a chû-kissaki, showing a very dense ko-itame mixed with some mokume and nagare that features plenty of ji-nie, chikei, a hint of jifu, and a faint nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden chû-suguha-chô mixed with ko-chôji, ko-gunome, plenty of ashi and yô, fine sunagashi, kinsuji, and the very same prominent discontinuous nijûba that also runs into the bôshi. The nioiguchi is wide and bright and the bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri. The condition of this blade is outstanding. It was once owned by the statesman Ôkubo Ichiô (大久保一翁, 1818-1888) and went then into the possession of the Iwasaki family (岩崎).

Picture 4: tokubetsu-jûyô, tachi, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 70.9 cm, sori 2.1 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Now to Kuniyoshi’s “other” blades. There are about seven ken of him known of which I want to introduce the most famous one, the jûyô-bunkazai ken. I have “only” pictures of five of these blades in my database but I dare to say that the majority of them is identically interpreted. They are all slender, in ryô-shinogi-zukuri, show a thin hi along the rather high shinogi (a groove that is referred to as shinogi-hi by the way), and their tips are not that stubby (that means they don’t have a pronounced fukura). The majority has a nagasa between 21.0 and 25 cm (although there is an overlong jûyô-bijutsuhin ken with a nagasa of 84.8 cm), that means Kuniyoshi’s ken are mostly small and graceful and have a nakago that is relative long in relation to the blade length. Their jigane is about identical to that of the tachi, i.e. highest quality nashiji, and the hamon is a suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki with kinsuji and sunagashi and some ken feature a few hotsure and others a little mixed-in notare (the jûô-bunkazai for example). We also see nijûba, also not that prominent as on long swords, and at one ken, the nijûba just appears in the bôshi, meeting at the shinogi ridge (see picture 6). The jûyô-bunkazai ken is signed with a fine chisel whereas one jûyô-bijutsuhin ken bears a thickly chiselled mei, that means we can’t make out any rule when it comes to ken signatures (for example that all of them are signed the same way and would therefore go back to the same phase in his career).

Picture 5: jûyô-bunkazai, ken, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 24.2 cm, motohaba 2.3 cm, ryô-shinogi-zukuri

Picture 6: jûyô, ken, mumei “Den Awataguchi Kuniyoshi” (伝粟田口国吉), nagasa 23.8 cm, motohaba 1.9 cm, ryô-shinogi-zukuri

Next “special case” is the famous jûyô-bunkazai and meibutsu Nakigitsune (鳴狐, lit. “howling fox”) from the former possessions of the Akimoto family (秋元) which ruled the Tatebayashi fief (館林藩) in Kôzuke province. Here we are facing a long uchigatana (the jûyô-bunkazai designation says “katana”) in hira-zukuri and although this is the only one of its kind, i.e. by a famous smith from that time (Kamakura), it has some Heian-period predecessors. Please note that the blade shows a bôhi which is engraved very close to the mune, a characteristic feature that is typical for the Awataguchi School. However, the diagonal end just above the habaki is unique to Kuniyoshi and also found on some of his tantô. By the way, Tanobe sensei sees the Awataguchi Hisakuni tantô shown in picture 6 here from its overall impression as “miniature version” of the Nakigitsune. The jiba of the Nakigitsune follows that of Kuniyoshi’s tachi and on this blade too we see prominent nijûba. But the suguha is pretty wide and we see some ko-gunome and ko-notare along the fukura. Please check out hi-res pictures of this blade here.

Picture 7: jûyô-bunkazai, uchigatana, mei “Sahyôe no Jô Fujiwara Kuniyoshi” (左兵衛尉藤原国吉), nagasa 54.0 cm, sori 1.6 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

Tantô make the majority of Awataguchi Kuniyoshi’s extant oeuvre. There is one jûyô-bunkazai, a couple of jûyô-bijutsujin, and more than a dozen jûyô/tokubetsu-jûyô tantô, and the majority of these tantô is signed (all but one in niji-mei, the one “exception” is signed “Saemon no Jô Kuniyoshi”). When we take a look at all these tantô we learn that he interpreted them in a great variety of shapes. There are such with a standard, a mid-sized and elegant Kamakura-period sugata, smaller and wider tantô that tend to a hôchô-sugata, long and thin tantô, and long and wide tantô that come in a sunnobi-sugata. His tantô show a little uchizori or no sori at all and can come with an iori or a mitsu-mune. Also we see several kinds of grooves like gomabashi, katana-hi, katana-hi with tsurebi, combination of suken on the one and koshibi on the other side, combination of katana-hi with bonji on the hira-ji towards the base, bonji and suken as relief in a katana-hi, and futasuji-hi on both sides. As mentioned, the hi are engraved in Awataguchi-manner quite close to the mune and some end in Kuniyoshi’s peculiar diagonal manner. And before I introduce some of his tantô I briefly want to address Kuniyoshi’s standing within his school. Some see him as best tantô smith of all times whereas this attribute is mostly associated with his successor Yoshimitsu. Others say he was the best when it comes to a gentle and dignified suguha whilst Honma sensei ranks him second in his school in terms of skill, only surpassed by Hisakuni. Well, works of these Awataguchi masters are all outstanding and the quality is so close that such rankings are more of a subjective nature and not really something to fight about.

Picture 8 shows the jûyô-bunkazai tantô of Kuniyoshi. It is wide and with a nagasa of 22.9 cm rather compact, what gives the piece a hôchô, i.e. “kitchen knife” sugata. It shows a dense ko-itame that is mixed with some ô-hada in places, fine ji-nie, and a hint of jifu-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden chû-suguha that is mixed with ko-ashi, yô, and a little ko-gunome at the very base. The nioiguchi is bright and rather tight and the bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri. Please note that this blade does not show nijûba. Both sides feature a katana-hi that is, again, arranged pretty close to the mune, and we can also see traces of a tsurebi. The tang is ubu, has a kirijiri, kiri-yasurime, and is signed in niji-mei. Incidentally, this blade was once a heirloom of the Asano family (浅野), the daimyô of the Hiroshima fief of Aki province.

Picture 8: jûyô-bunkazai, tantô, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 22.9 cm, uchizori, motohaba 2.4 cm, hira-zukuri, iori-munne

In picture 9 we see a tantô of Kuniyoshi that features prominent nijûba, also in the typical manner what means interrupted and a hint more emphasized in the bôshi. This is, or rather was Kuniyoshi’s largest known tantô, was because it is a little machiokuri. It measures now 29.1 cm but was originally 30.9 cm in nagasa. So this tantô comes in sunnobi-sugata and somehow foreshadows the later Nanbokuchô interpretations. The jigane is a very dense ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and appears altogether as nashiji-hada. We see a little mixed-in jifu and a prominent nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden chû-suguha-chô mixe with a little notare and, as mentioned, nijûba. The nioiguchi is bright and the bôshi is sugu with a kind of ô-maru-style kaeri. Both sides bear a katana-hi with tsurebi. The tang is machiokuri, has a kurijiri, kiri-yasurime, and shows a thickly chiselled niji-mei.

Picture 9: tokubetsu-jûyô, tantô, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 29.1 cm, only very little uchizori, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

And last but not least I want to introduce another tantô of Kuniyoshi, a jûyô-bijutsuhin, that shows the diagonal ending of his hi that I have mentioned several times. This tantô – which was an heirloom of the Aoyama family (青山), the daimyô of the Sasayama fief (篠山藩) of Tanba province by the way – is with a nagasa of just 20.4 cm pretty short and tends with the wide mihaba to a hôchô-sugata. The jigane is a dense ko-itame with plenty of fine ji-nie and nie-utsuri and the hamon is a chû-suguha in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-ashi and yô and that thins somewhat down towards the fukura. Please note the ko-ashi at the base which make the hamon there tend a little bit to ko-gunome. This feature anticipates a typical characteritic of Kuniyoshi’s successor Yoshimitsu (which will be addressed in detail in the next chapter) and that is why I am introducing this tantô here. Also we see nijûba, although here just at the base, and some hakikake along the relative wide ko-maru-kaeri.

Picture 10: jûyô-bijutsuhin, tantô, mei “Kuniyoshi” (国吉), nagasa 20.4 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

And to get a feel for the brilliance, the outstanding and breath-taking quality of the Awataguchi steel, I would highly recommend checking the photo gallery at the very bottom of Darcy’s site here!