Kunitsuna (国綱), the youngest of the Six Awataguchi Brothers, was a very interesting figure. The Kotô Meizukushi Taizen states that he was born in Chôkan one (長寛, 1163) and that he moved at the request of the bakufu to Yamanouchi (山内) to the outskirts Kamakura when he was 42 years old, what would mean in Genkyû two (元久, 1205). The latter quote is found for the first time in the Muromachi-era sword publication Nôami Hon Mei Zukushi (能阿弥本銘尽, publ. 1483) by the way. At that time, Hôjô Tokimasa (北条時政, 1138-1215) was regent of the Kamakura-bakufu but most other sources quote Hôjô Tokiyori (北条時頼, 1227-1263) as the one who invited Kunitsuna – during the Kenchô (建長, 1249-1256) era – to Kamakura. The Kotô Meizukushi Taizen again says that Kunitsuna died in Kenchô seven (1256) at the age of 93. This would mean that he was working only about six or seven years for Tokiyori, what might be just enough when we bear in mind that he acted there as co-founder of a group of outstanding swordsmiths who developed a new forging tradition. In addition, Tokimasa was the very first Hôjô regent and held this post for less than two years. So it seems rather unlikely that it was him who invited all the swordsmiths as he was surely more busy with getting established the shikken regency of his family. And apart from that, we know that Tokiyori was one of the most renowned sword connoisseurs of his time. Incidentally, the Kenchô era equals his time as shikken. So either Kunitsuna did all what he did in Kamakura at a very high age and over the very last years of his life, or he was not born in 1163 as stated by the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen. But we also can’t rule it out completely as Tokiyori did not randomly recruit smiths but selected the greatest masters of his time, for example also Saburô Kunimune (三郎国宗) and Ichimonji Sukezane (一文字助真) from Bizen Province, and it is assumed that he as sword expert and political key figure of Kamakura not only wanted to have superior cutters but blades that would impress his circles on the basis of their aesthetical appearance. Thus it is possible that he asked the old master Kunitsuna and last survivor of the Six Awataguchi Brothers if he would come to Kamakura to lead a group of local smiths. There is, or rather was, a jûyô-bijutsuhin ôdachi (nagasa 114.5 cm) from the former possessions of the Uesugi (上杉) family that is regarded as kind of proof of Kunitsuna being in Kamakura around Kenchô but the whereabouts of the blade are unfortunately unknown (it is said that it had been confiscated by the occupying forces after WWII). The mei of the blade reads “Kamakura-jû Tôroku Sakon Kunitsuna” (鎌倉住藤六左近国綱) and the date “Kenchô gonen hachigatsu hi” (建長五年八月日, “a day in the eighth month Kenchô five [1253]”). The records of the Uesugi claim that this ôdachi was made by Kunitsuna at the same time he made the Onimaru for Hôjô Tokiyori and that it was handed down within the family at the latest since the old times they held the post of Kantô Kanrei, i.e. the Kantô region deputy of the shôgun, what was at the beginning of the Nanbokuchô period. But the records even claim at another point that the blade was initially owned by the ancestor of the family, Shigefusa (上杉重房, mid-Kamakura), when he moved from Kyôto to Yamanouchi during the Kenchô era. Well, the blade is lost as mentioned so not much can be said about the authenticity of its mei. Also that it once got the status of jûyô-bijutsuhin doesn’t mean much because at pre-WWII times, coming from a big daimyô collection often weighed more than actual quality and authenticity. There are a few tantô with the mei “Yamanouchi-jû Kunitsuna” (山内住国綱) going round but most experts agree that they were made noticeably later, i.e. end of Kamakura to Nanbokuchô, and, if authentic, might be works of a local descendant of Awataguchi Kunitsuna.

Picture 1: ôdachi, jûyô-bijutsuhin, (hardly legible) mei as stated above.

But let us see things from the point of view of Tokiyori. As a man of his rank, he had no other choince other than picking the crème de la crème of what was available his time, and this was Yamashiro, Bizen and Bitchû. We don’t know why he didn’t pick one of the great Ko-Aoe masters who had acted as goban-kaji too but as far as Yamashiro is concerned, only the Awataguchi school was active at that time as the de facto Rai founder Kuniyuki (国行) was just at establishing his school (he was active around Shôgen [正元, 1259-1260]). Of course there were also other skilled smiths active at that time, e.g. from the Hôju, Môgusa, or Ko-Naminohira schools, but none of them was so to speak “worthy enough” in terms of then ranks of craftsmen to aid the Kamakura regent with creating a new forging tradition. The same applies to the time-honored Yamato tradition. Many smiths were working in Yamato province since earliest times but their greatest masters were active significantly later than Tokiyori had started his initiative, for example the Tegai school founder Kanenaga (包永), the Shikkake school founder Norinaga (則長), and the Taima school founder Kuniyuki (国行) around Shôô (正応, 1288-1293), and the Hoshô school founder Kunimitsu (国光) around Kôan (弘安, 1278-88). While on the subject of Kunitsuna’s career, his name is also found on the questionable list of the six goban-kaji who allegedly worked for Gotoba in Jôkyû two (承久, 1220) in his exile on the island of Oki. Kunitsuna was granted with the honorary title Sakon Shôgen (左近将監) and bore the first name Tôroku (藤六) (also as background info for the Uesugi blade introduced in picture 1).

Due to his long life and his move to Kamakura, we are facing two different styles and differences in signature when talking about Kunitsuna. That means a slender and more elegant Yamashiro and Awataguchi style from his earlier years, and a more powerful style that emerged with his move to Kamakura. Well, this is the commonly forward theory but signed works of Kunitsuna are very rare (only eight are in existence to my knowledge) and so we can’t nail down for sure his exact artistic stages and the chronological backgrounds for his change of workmanship and signature but fact is, that the majority of extant works shows a more powerful style. That means, if he had worked most of his life in Kyôto and moved only towards the very end of his life to Kamakura, then actually more true Awataguchi-style blades should be extant. But on the other hand, it is also possible that he was more productive after having arrived in Kamakura, or that these blades were held in higher esteem and thus more often handed down than his earlier Yamashiro blades. Or the traditions are incorrect and he arrived in Kamakura at the prime of his career. Anyway, the first blade that I want to introduce is one that is thought he made whilst still in Kyôto (picture 2). It is a relative short jûyô-bunkazai tachi with an elegant and slender sugata with a koshizori and a pronounced funbari. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and a nie-utsuri and the hamon a ko-midare in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with kinsuji and whose nie increase noticeably from the monouchi upwards. The bôshi shows nie-kuzure and has a ko-maru-kaeri. The tang is ubu, relative long and in kijimonmo-gata. It has to be pointed out that the niji-mei is somewhat smaller than the other known mei. The blade was once worn by shôgun Tokugawa Yoshimune (徳川吉宗, 1684-1751) and Ienari (徳川家斉, 1773-1841) and was submitted for jûyô-bunkazai by Tokugawa Iesato (徳川家達, 1863-1940) in 1931. Since postwar times, it is preserved by the Tokugawa Reimeikai Foundation.

Picture 2: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 65.0 cm, sori 2.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

His most famous work is of course the aforementioned Onimaru (鬼丸) which can be seen in picture 3. Unlike the small Awataguchi-style tachi from picture 2, it is wide and magnificent. It has a deep toriizori with pronounced funbari, plenty of hira-niku, does not taper that much, and has a chû-kissaki that tends a hint to kamasu. The kitae is a ko-itame mixed with ko-mokume, plenty of jinie, and some jifu and the hamon is a wide notare-based midareba in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with chôji, ko-ashi, and yô. A prominent feature of this blade is the diagonal yubashiri-based koshiba that appears somewhat above the ha-machi, an approach in hardening, that is seen in slightly different ways also on his other Kamakura-style blades. Please note that the term “Kamakura-style” is not really a fixed nihontô term. I just use it here to distinguish between his early elegant and his late powerful blades. The bôshi of the Onimaru is a widely hardened midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri and much nie. The tang is ubu, curves strongly, ends in a kurijiri, and shows shallow katte-sagari yasurime. After being a heirloom of the Hôjô, the sword was owned by the Ashikaga family and went later through all the “prominent stations,” i.e. Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, Ieyasu, and was later presented by the Tokugawa to Emperor Meiji.

Picture 3: tachi, gyobutsu, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 79.2 cm, sori 3.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 4: The Muromachi-era kawa-zutsumi tachi-koshirae of the Onimaru-Kunitsuna

A blade that is close to the Onimaru in terms of workmanship and mei (although the tang has suffered somewhat in that area) is the tokubetsu-jûyô shown in picture 5. The blade is a little tired and lost some substance towards the tip but is otherwise outstanding. The kitae is a somewhat standing-out itame with nagare and ô-hada along the omote side and shows ji-nie and a faint nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-based ko-chôji mixed with some gunome, ko-midare, ashi, yô, and sunagashi and kinsuji along the lower half. The bôshi is sugu and has a ko-maru-kaeri. The nie-utsuri forms a kind of mizukage-like appearance at the base, that means we see a certain approach in hardening that Kunitsuna’s later blades seem to have in common. The sword was once a heirloom of the Nishitakatsuji (西高辻) family that served on a hereditary basis as shintô priests the Dazaifu Tenmangû on Kyûshû.

Picture 5: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 85.8 cm, sori 3.5 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Next the jûyô-bunkazai that is preserved in the Hie-jinja (日枝神社) (picture 6). The blade is suriage and shows a dense ko-itame with plenty of fine ji-nie and a chôji-midare with ashi and yô that gets more nie-laden and displays conspicuous kinsuji and sunagashi along the lower half. The bôshi appears as somewhat undulating sugu-chô or notare-komi with a rather wide ko-maru-kaeri and some hakikake on the omote side. Interesting here are the horimono in the form of a futasuji-hi with bonji and suken on the haki-omote, and a bonji and a shiketsu on the ura side, the end of both lower engravings running due to the suriage into the tang. There was some discussion about if this might be a work of a different smith with the same name, mostly because the uncommon horimono and the relative sophisticated hamon, but in the meanwhile, it is accepted that it is a work of Awataguchi Kunitsuna.

Picture 6: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 69.4 cm, sori 1.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

The next tachi is a tokubetsu-jûyô and is more slender, deeply curved, and ends in a ko-kissaki. The jigane is a rather stading-out itame that is mixed with nagare, mokume and ô-hada and plenty of ji-nie, some chikei, and we see again the mizukage-like feature at the base that turns here into a jifu-utsuri which runs then all over the blade. The hamon is a widely hardened and nie-laden suguha-chô mixed with some notare, ko-chôji, ko-midare, thick ashi, yô, sungashi, kinsuji, and some hotsure, uchinoke, and yubashiri in places. The bôshi is sugu with a short ko-maru-kaeri and a hint of hakikake. The prominent jigane distinguishes Kunitsuna from his older Awataguchi brothers and the jifu-utsuri and strong nie (with visible ha-nie) make this blade look like Ko-Bizen or Ko-Hôki at a glance. But Ko-Bizen works from that time show a brighter nioiguchi and although they do show nie, they do not occur in that amount like here. And for a Ko-Hôki work, the steel is too bright, i.e. Yasutsuna and his contemporaries forged a more blackish jigane and their hamon has a more subdued nioiguchi. Apart from that, their works show more ha-hada, an overall even more standing-out hada, and have altogether a more rustic appearance.

Picture 7: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 67.3 cm, sori 2.5 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

And finally I want to address the fact that there are several blades going round, some quite old and of highest quality, that are signed with the niji-mei “Kunitsuna” but not attributable to Awataguchi Kunitsuna, at least not according to modern standards. The blade shown in picture 8 was a heirloom of the Ii family and offered by Ii Naonori (井伊直憲, 1848-1904) to the Iinoya Shrine (井伊谷宮) where it is preserved today. The records of the shrine say Awataguchi but this is dismissed and the jûyô-bunkazai designation also says “Kunitsuna, Kamakura period, province unknown.” The blade is a little suriage but maintains its elegant and tapering sugata with the koshizori that bends down towards the tip and the pronounced fubari that dates it at the latest to the early Kamakura period. So if it should turn out that it is a work of Awataguchi Kunitsuna, then surely from his early artistic period. The kitae is a dense but standing-out itame with some masame and fine ji-nie. The hamon is a midare that gets gradually wider towards the tip and that is mixed with chôji, even some kawazu-no-ko chôji, ashi, yô, kinsuji and sunagashi. There are nie which also appear in the bôshi. The bôshi is notare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri. The signature is large and noticeably different from the other Kunitsuna mei. Incidentally. The jûyô-bunkazai designation says about the attribution that there were, among others, also a Bizen, Yamato, and an Iga Kunitsuna but it is difficult to say whose work it acutally is.

Picture 8: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 79.8 cm, sori 2.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

And then there is a jûyô-tachi whose signature is smaller and somewhat different (especially the character for “Kuni”) but of about the same typeface as the Onimaru and the tokubetsu-jûyô from picture 5, but which still got a conservative attribution via “Den,” i.e. “Kunitsuna (Den Awataguchi).” The blade is slender, has a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip, a ko-kissaki, and interestingly a maru-mune. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with ji-nie and a jifu-utsuri and the hamon is a suguha-chô mixed with ko-midare, ko-chôji, many ashi and yô, and fine sunagashi and yubashiri. The nioiguchi is wide and the ha is full of nie. The bôshi is sugu with a short ko-maru-kaeri. The shinsa placed this blade on the basis of its jiba and sugata into the Awataguchi vicinity, i.e. to the earlier phase of Kunitsuna. The blade was once a heirloom of the Date (伊達) family who had received in from the court noble Konoe Motohiro (近衛基熈, 1648-1722).

Picture 9: tachi, jûyô-tôken, mei “Kunitsuna” (国綱), nagasa 68.6 cm, sori 2.1 cm, shinogi-zukuri, maru-mune

*

Now we are through with the Six Awataguchi brothers and next post will continue with the Awataguchi main line, i.e. Norikuni (則国), Kuniyoshi (国吉), and Yoshimitsu (吉光) before we close the school with the remaining noteworthy Awataguchi masters.

Now to the third of the Six Awataguchi Brothers, Kuniyasu (国安), who bore the first name “Tôsaburô” (藤三郎), the honorary title of Yamashiro no Kami (山城守), and who was goban-kaji smith of the fourth month. He is traditionally dated around Shôji (正治, 1199-1201), that means to the very end of the Heian and the beginning of the Kamakura period. Accordingly, we can see at him a shift towards wider and somewhat more magnificent blades. In short, he made elengant and slender but also relative wide and long tachi with a chû instead of a ko-kissaki, the former being close to works of his older brothers Kunitomo and Hisakuni. He also added relative often bôhi. In addition, we know blades with a fine jigane but much more with a rather standing-out itame that tends to nagare and even ô-hada in places. That is why Kuniyasu is known as forging the most standing-out jada of all Six Awataguchi Brothers. That all and the fact that we are facing slightly different signature stiles and relative many extant works has lead to a two generations theory in which the alleged second generation is dated around Kenchô (建長, 1249-1256). But it is well possible that there was just one Kuniyasu, in other words, he might had been active somewhat longer than some of his brothers and just reacted towards the end of his career to then trends in sword fashion. Incidentally, the Kotô Mei Zukushi says that the youngers of the six, Kunitsuna, died in Kenchô seven (建長, 1255) at the age of 93, what calculates his year of birth as Chôkan one (長寛, 1163). Also Kunitsuna, who moved later to Kamakura, made magnificent and powerful blades. So if we assume that the Six Brothers were born not that far apart, Kenchô seems perfectly fine as career end and there is no need for introducing a second generation Kuniyasu.

Picture 1: Characteristic features of Awataguchi Kuniyasu’s workmanship.

Apart from the above mentioned features, i.e. hada for Awataguchi-mono rather on the rough side and often bôhi, Kuniyasu hardened mostly a sugha-chô that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-chôji, and ko-gunome of which the individual elements are densely arranged and tend to appear in a connect manner, especially the ko-gunome. Besides of that, we see kinsuji and sunagashi (sometimes prominent) and small uchinoke-like elements atop of the yakigashira which are referred to as karimata (雁股, bifurcated arrowheads). These karimata were later adopted by Rai Kuniyuki (来国行) and became one of his characteristic features but they can also be seen on some swords of Ayanokôji Sadatoshi (綾小路定利). In addition, Kuniyasu’s nioiguchi is not as clar as at Hisakuni. That in turn means, you can mix up his works with that of Ayanokôji Sadatoshi as Sadatoshi too is known for applying groups of several ko-gunome and/or ko-chôji elements embedded into a rather subdued nioiguchi and accompanied by yubashiri and nijûba that create that peculiar “layered” appearance of the ha. Major difference between their works is the bôshi as Sadatoshi’s bôshi is noticeably more nie-laden and shows hakikake and nie-kuzure. Kuniyasu’s bôshi is more calm and appears as only slightly undulating sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri. However, some blades of Kuniyasu also show hakikake and a more wide kaeri, so some of his works are pretty close to Sadatoshi. But apart from that we can say that Kuniyasu’s entire ha is a little more calm than that of Ayanokôji Sadatoshi, that means we see a hint more ups and downs at blades of the latter. The more standing-out hada of Kuniyasu might also remind of Ko-Hôki Yasutsuna (安綱) but Yasutsuna’s blade are overall more rustic, i.e. they have a darker steel, a jifu-utsuri with antai (what gives the ha a rather “brindled” appearance), and ha-bie and hotsure that are interwoven into a conspicious ha-hada. As for Kuniyasu’s tangs, they mostly tend to kijimono, show katte-sagari yasurime, and a kurijiri. There are only niji-mei of Kuniyasu known which are signed with a kind of semi-cursive character for “yasu” with large curves for the vertical strokes, although we can see some differences (but which probably go all back to different phases in the career of a single smith). Please note that Ko-Bizen Kuniyasu signed in a similar manner (see picture 2). So watch out but Ko-Bizen Kuniyasu’s blades should be different in terms of hamon (more flamboyant) and sugata (he was active in the mid-Kamakura period).

Picture 2: mei comparison, to the left Awataguchi Kuniyasu, the one to the right Ko-Bizen Kuniyasu

The blade shown in picture 3 was a former heirloom of the Mizuguchi family (溝口), the daimyô of the Shibata fief (新発田藩) of Echigo province, and is today designated as jûyô-bunkazai. It is a little on the wider side but is overall very elegant, shows funbari, and ends in a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a dense itame with plenty of ji-nie and the hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-midare to suguha-chô along the upper area that is mixed with some prominent ko-chôji and that comes with a rather subdued nioiguchi. We also see some kinsuji and sunagashi and the bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri.

Picture 3: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kuniyasu” (国安), nagasa 79.3 cm, sori 2.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Next I want to introduce a tachi of Kuniyasu that is preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum but that has no whatsoever designation. It is again a little wide, has a deep koshizori with funbari, and a compact chû-kissaki and the kitae ist a rather standing-out ko-itame with ji-nie. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-notare that is mixed with ko-midare, many ko-ashi and yô, kinsuji, and sunagashi and the bôshi is midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri. Please see here to get some impression of the steel of this blade and its overall perfect condition.

Picture 4: tachi, mei “Kuniyasu” (国安), nagasa 79.4 cm, sori 2.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

And as last work of Kuniyasu I want to introduce the jûyô-bijutsuhin tachi that was once owned by the Matsudaira branch (松平) which was in control of the Tsuyama fief (津山藩) of Mimasaka province and which is now preserved by the NBTHK. It is shows a standing-out itame mixed with mokume and nagare and also fine ji-nie, chikei, and a faint nie-utsuri appear. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô mixed with plenty of ko-ashi and yô, kinsuji, sunagashi, and discontinuous yubashiri and nijūba along the yakigashira that create the very “layered” apperance. The ha does not show conspicious ups and downs and its midare elements are densely arranged. The bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri and please note that this blade bears futasuji-hi.

Picture 5: tachi, jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Kuniyasu” (国安), nagasa 71.4 cm, sori 2.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

*

Kuniie’s fourth son was Kunikiyo (国清). He bore the first name Tôshirô (藤四郎) and the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen says that he also signed with “Shirôbei” (四郎兵衛) and that he was around Genryaku (元暦, 1184-1185) 30 years old. As for Kunikiyo, we only have two authentic signed and a few ô-suriage mumei works attributed to him to work with. The jûyô-bunkazai tachi (picture 6) was once owned by the Satake (佐竹) family, the daimyô of Akita, and handed down within them as Awataguchi work since the early Edo period. The other signed work is a jûyô-bijutsuhin but which bears quite a differently chiselled mei. It was once owned by the pre-WWII collector Saitô Moichirô (斎藤茂一郎), who owned several bunkazai, bijutsuhin, and kokuhô, but Honma said that its provenance is unclear. However, he also says that despite of the differences in their mei, both blades are more classical than Rai works and he has no problem with seeing them as Awataguchi-mono. Honma was not sure if the blades go back to the same smith but for him, the differences in mei are too great to see them as just going back to different phases of a single smith’s career. And in this course he was also not sure which one was the fourth of the Six Awataguchi Brothers. Tanobe too remarks the somewhat “hesitatingly” chiselled mei of the jûyô-bijutsuhin but rather tends to think that we are facing signatures of two different active periods of a single smith. Incidentally, there was another Awataguchi Kunikiyo but he was a student of Kunitsuna and active too late (around Kôan [弘安, 1278-1288]) for attributing any of these blades to him.

Anyway, the jûyô-bunkazai is elegant, has a rather shallow sori, funbari, and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with fine and bright ji-nie and shows a faint but beautiful nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-chôji in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-gunome, karimata-like elemements, small tobiyaki and yubashiri atop of the yakigashira in places, ashi, yô, sunagshi and kinsuji. The ha is quite complex and its elements are densely arranged and we can see a strong resemblane to works of Kuniyasu. Kunikiyo’s ha is just a little wider, the sori more shallow, and the shinogi-ji somewhat broader. Please note that Tanobe describes this blade at one place as having a deep koshizori but what is probably a mistake.

Picture 6: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunikiyo” (国清), nagasa 79.4 cm, sori 2.2 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 7 shows a tachi of Kunikiyo that is tokubetsu-jûyô and attributed via “Den” to Awataguchi Kunikiyo. It has a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip and shows a rather standing-out itame mixed with some nagare, plenty of ji-nie, and much chikei. The hamon is a nie-laden suguha-chô mixed with some notare, ko-midare, gunome, ashi, some yubashiri along the monouchi, kinsuji, and many fine sunagashi. The nioiguchi is bright and clear and the bôshi is sugu with a short maru-kaeri and nijûba. The tang is ô-suriage, shows a shallow kurijiri, and shallow katte-sagari yasurime. This blade was once a heirloom of the Sakai (酒井) family, the daimyô of the Himeji fief (姫路藩) of Harima province.

Picture 7: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mumei “Den Awataguchi Kunikiyo” (伝粟田口国清), nagasa 69.8 cm, sori 2.6 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

*

Arikuni (有国) was the fifth son of Kuniie and his first name was Tôgorô (藤五郎). Unfortunately, there is only one signed blade known by him, a tachi (picture 8) that had been shortened to an uchigatana (per nagasa definition a wakizashi today) but whose signature was preserved via orikaeshi. It was once owned by a certain Nakasawa (中沢) from Nagoya but who offered it to the Ise Shrine. The blade remains despite of the suriage an elegant shape that still gives you an idea of the noble and refined original tachi-sugata. It shows a compact ko-kissaki with a hint of ikubi and a dense ko-itame that is mixed with some nagare and masame and that appears with its abundance ji-nie as nashiji-hada. The hamon is a hoso-suguha in ko-nie-deki and the bôshi has a ko-maru-kaeri. Please note that there was another Awataguchi Arikuni smith active from whom a blade dated Kagen two (嘉元, 1304) is extant. Some see him as a possible later generation of Kuniie’s son but the Kokon Meizukushi Taizen lists him in its genealogic section as son of Kunitsuna, although beneath of Kunitsuna’s alleged other son, Kunihiro (国弘), what means that he possibly could have been Kunitsuna’s grandson.

Picture 8: wakizashi, jûyô-bunkazai, orikaeshi-mei “Arikuni” (有国), nagasa 56.3 cm, sori 0.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Next time I will introduce Kunitsuna (国綱), the sixth and youngest son of Kuniie, before we continue with the Awataguchi main line after Kunitomo and sons and students of the Six Brothers.

Awataguchi Hisakuni (久国) was the second son of Kuniie and thus the second oldest of the so-called “Six Awataguchi Brothers.” He is listed with the first name Tôjirô (藤次郎) what makes sense as “Jirô” means “second son.” So the “Fuji” from Fujiwara was combined with the fact that he was the second son and this approach was kept for all other sons of Kuniie who were named Tôsaburô, Tôshirô, Tôgorô, and Tôroku (the youngest went without the suffix rô). Just his first son Kunitomo is an exception as he was called Saemon, or if we follow the “Fuji” character integration approach, Tôzaemon, or Tôrinzaemon if we also integrate the alleged family name Hayashi. Anyway. Hisakuni had the honor to become the sword forging instructor of Emperor Gotoba and received for this the honorary title of Ôsumi Gonnokami (大隅権守) and an extra intracalary month was added to the monthly-based goban-kaji to include him in the list. In addition, Gotoba also conferred titles of the ancient courtly Smiths Office (kanuchi no tsukasa, 鍛冶司) upon smiths who worked for the goban-kaji project. For example, Hisakuni was made head of all Yamashiro smiths (Yamashiro Kokuchû Kaji Chôja, 山城国中鍛冶長者) and entrusted with Bizen-Ichimonji Nobufusa (延房) – who was the other sword forging instructor of Gotoba – with another courtly sword office, namely that of the Nihon Kaji Sôchô (日本鍛冶惣庁). Those titles and the fact that Gotoba had chosen him as teacher (it is said that he worked for eight years with the retired emperor) speaks for the great skill of Hisakuni and virtually all experts agree that Hisakuni was the best of all Awataguchi smiths. Incidentally, the Kotô Meizukushi Taizen states that he died in Kenpô four (建保, 1216) at the age of 67, that means he was three years younger than Kunitomo (if we believe in this data).

Fortunately, there are relative many works of Hisakuni extant, both tachi and tantô. Like Kunitomo, and due to the local and chronological context, he made highly elegant and slender tachi with a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip, funbari, and a ko-kissaki that might tend to a little chû. His jigane is of unrivalled quality and also the hamon is perfectly hardened. The fineness and density of his steel is referred to as tataki-tsume (たたきつめ) in old sword publications what means about “as dense as a stamped-down clay floor.” The most famous and best work of him is the kokuhô (picture 1) that was once a heirloom of the Matsudaira (松平) branch which ruled the Saijô fief (西条藩) of Iyo province. It shows a very dense ko-itame whose abundance of ji-nie tends towards nie-utsuri and which appears altogether as nashiji-hada. The hamon is a suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-chôji, ko-gunome, plenty of ko-ashi, some uchinoke, kinsuji and sunagashi in places, and brightly glittering ha-nie. The nioiguchi is very clear and the bôshi is a shallow notare-komi with a short kaeri (almost entirely yakitsume on the ura) with hakikake. The tang is ubu, although its end was altered as the seen on the first and third Kunitomo picture, shows a kurijiri, sujikai-yasurime, and two mekugi-ana. The niji-mei is chiselled right next to the mekugi-ana and it has to be pointed out that this is the thinnest signature known by Hisakuni. Also interesting is that the tang bears at the very end a kaô (picture 2) but which does not go back to the smith. It was added later, probably on behalf of a later owner of the sword.

Picture 1: tachi, kokuhô, mei “Hisakuni + kaô” (久国), nagasa 80.4 cm, sori 3.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 2: Detail of the kaô

Next I want to introduce the Hisakuni tachi from the Imperial Collection (picture 3). It is suriage and shows a dense ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and chikei and a suguha that tends to ko-notare and that is mixed with ko-midare, plenty of ashi and yô, and some kinsuji. The bôshi is sugu with a hint of midare and shows a ko-maru-kaeri with nijûba on the omote side. Please note that the signature is noticeably thicker chiselled than that of the kokuhô, what is the more common signature style of Hisakuni (actually, only the kokuhô was signed with that a thin chisel but Tanobe assumes that all known mei go back to the hand of a single smith).

Picture 3: tachi, gyobutsu, mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 66.7 cm, sori 1.5 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

When it comes to long swords of Hisakuni, also the jûyô-bunkazai from the former collection of the Akimoto family (秋元) has to be mentioned (picture 4) as it is regarded as his “second best” work. The tang was shortened like the gyobutsu just as much as to preserve the mei, which was added with the same thick chisel. The kitae is a very densely forged ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and also an irregular jifu-utsuri with some antai appears. The hamon is a nie-laden suguha that tends to ko-notare and that is mixed with ko-chôji, ko-midare, kinsuji, sunagashi, ha-nie, and seven some ara-nie in places. And with the hakikake in the bôshi and the jifu-utsuri we might say that Hisakuni gave this blade on top of its elegance a hint of power. Please note that like at the gyobutsu, the undulating area of the hamon focuses on the monouchi.

Picture 4: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 78.5 cm, sori 1.6 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 5: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 74.4 cm, sori 2.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, dense itame with a hint masame and plenty of fine ji-nie, the hamon is a suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki with a little shallow notare and is mixed with ko-gunome, ko-midare, ko-ashi, yô, and fine sunagashi, the bôshi is a rather wide sugu-chô with a ko-maru-kaeri, the tang is completely ubu, has a kurijiri, katte-sagari yasurime, and comes in a kijimono-gata, again, we have here the common thickly chiselled mei of Hisakuni

*

Now to Hisakuni’s tantô. The majority of them is small dimensioned and has an uchizori that shows a hint of takenoko (i.e. can appear as more pronounced uchizori). By the way, Hisakuni is often quoted when it comes to the earliest extant fine tantô. And then there is the wide, long, slightly curved, and almost Nanbokuchô-esque jûyô-bijutsuhin tantô of Hisakuni that is the odd one out. But the signature and deki of the jiba is a total match with the other works of Hisakuni and experts agree that this is just one of the more rare dagger interpretations that were occasionally ordered at that time. Well, the blade shows a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô that is mixed with connected ko-gunome, yubashiri that create nijûba and kuichigaiba in places, and some kinsuji and sunagashi. The bôshi is sugu with a rather long running-back ko-maru-kaeri. On both sides a bôhi with a shorter soebi at the base is engraved.

Picture 6: tantô, jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 29.4 cm, hira-zukuri, mitsu-mune

The most representative tantô of Hisakuni (and regarded by some as one of the finest of all Awataguchi tantô) is the jûyô-bunkazai that was owned liked the kokuhô by the Saijô-Matsudaira family (picture 7). It is slender, as mentioned small dimensioned, has a rather pronounced uchizori, and shows a very dense ko-itame with fine ji-nie that tends to form nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô that is mixed with ko-midare, kinsuji, and sunagashi, and we have the same tendency towards nijûba and kuichigaiba as seen on the sunnobi-style jûyô-bijutsuhin. The bôshi is sugu with a little midare-komi and has a ko-maru-kaeri.

Picture 7: tantô, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 20.1 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 8, an heirloom of the Date (伊達) family, shows one of the more rare blades of Hisakuni that is signed with his first name. It is a slender jûyô-tantô that shows a very fine and densey forged ko-itame with ji-nie which appears as nashiji-hada. The hamon is a hoso-suguha in ko-nie-deki with a prominent yakikomi at the machi and with hotsure. The ha widens along the fukura and runs back with a ko-maru-kaeri. The omote side shows three bonji and the ura side a suken.

Picture 8: tantô, jûyô, mei “Tôjirô Hisakuni” (藤次郎久国), nagasa 22.4 cm, uchizori, hira-zukuri, iori-mune

There is also one tachi signed that way (picture 9), a jûyô that bears a kinzôgan-mei with the name of its former owner – Shimazu Narinobu (島津斉宣, 1774-1841), the ninth daimyô of the Satsuma fief – on its tang. It is slender, preserves despite of the suriage a deep sori, and shows an itame with some nagare and ji-nie. The hamon is a nie-laden suguha-chô mixed with chôji, ko-midare, sunagashi, kinsuji, and plenty of ha-nie. The bôshi is a thin sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri.

Picture 9: tachi, jûyô, mei “Tôjirô Hisakuni” (藤次郎久国) kinzôgan-mei “Bungo no Kami Narinobu kore o haku” (豊後守斉宣帯之), nagasa 68.4 cm, sori 2.2 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

It is said that the Awataguchi School goes back to a certain Kuniyori (国頼) but who was not a swordsmith, at least it is noted so in the old genealogies which add the supplement “hi-kaji” (非鍛冶, also read “kaji arazu”), lit. “no smith.” So his successor Kuniie (国家) – who is listed as “started to educate himself to become a swordsmith” or “the first [of the school] who carried out the profession of a swordsmith” – is regarded as de facto founder of the school what in turn renders Kuniyori the school’s “ancestor” if you want. Kuniie is also listed as being a “descendant of Yamato´s Kôfukuji (興福寺),” whatever that means, because no source goes into detail about what relationship Kuniie had to this temple. The Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen states that Kuniyori was an armorer from Yamato and that his son Kuniie lived in Tanba (丹波), in the Soekami district (添上郡) of Yamato province which was an area that became a part of present-day Tenri (天理), Nara Prefecture. The Kôfukuji is about 10 km to the north of Tanba/Tenri. So not sure if these two traditions, i.e. being affiliated with the Kôfukuji and living/working in Tanba go hand in hand. I want to do some research on the jôji-hôshi (承仕法師) in the future, the so-called “monk craftsmen” or “monk workers” of a certain temple. Maybe I am able to come across something which helps us in this matter. The Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen dates Kuniie around Tenshô (天承, 1131-1132) but the meikan date Kuniyori around Bunji (文治, 1185-1190) and Kuniie around Genryaku (元暦, 1184-1185), that means both towards the very end of the Heian period. As mentioned repeatedly in this blog, these dates have to be taken with a grain of salt, so even if Bunji was later than Genryaku, there is a certain grey area and the dates do not rule out at all that Kuniyori and Kuniie were father and son. Well, if it is true that Kuniie became a swordsmith with his move to Kyôto, we have no records that tell us who his master was. In addition, there are no blades of Kuniie extant which would allow us to draw some conclusions on the basis of workmanship. I would like to refer to the Japanese practice of tôri-ji (通字) or kei-ji (系字) at this point, the practice of a lineage or school of sharing a common character. When we assume that Kuniie was in Kyôto around Genryaku (元暦, 1184-1185), under whom could he have studied? Neither the Ayanokôji nor the Rai School had been established at that time. The Sanjô School seems a bit too early so maybe Gojô comes into question. Their latest known master, Kuninaga (国永), is traditionally dated around Tengi (天喜, 1053-1058) but as mentioned in the relevant chapter of this series, it is very likely that there were several generations Kuninaga active. So with the practice of tôri-ji in mind, we can speculate that Awataguchi Kuniie might had been a student of a later Kuninaga. But it is of course also possible that the very character for “Kuni” had already been shared in his lineage of armorers and Kuniie so to speak brought it with him from Nara and his use of “Kuni” has nothing to do with the lineage of Gojô Kuninaga. Anyway, I said at the beginning of this series that I don’t want to go too much into historic detail and focus on kantei. But I also said I will introduce some historic background if it is necessary for the understanding of a certain subject. And the establishment of the Awataguchi School is such a case because as mentioned in the following, Kuniie’s six sons and their successors turned out to be the greatest masters of their time. It is thus hard to accept that a school like the Awataguchi came out of nowhere. So either Kuniie was a later and skilled smith from the lineage of Gojô Kuninaga, or he was a skilled armorer who reacted to the then local demand for elegant swords for the aristocracy, studied under a local smith, and worked with his six sons very hard to establish a forge that should become the first point of contact when it comes to high-quality blades. Before I come to the first tangible Awataguchi masters, please take a look here to read about the origins of the Rai School, a post of mine from last year that deals with a famous blade of Kuniyori. So if this blade is authentic and a work of this Awataguchi Kuniyori, then either the armorer approach should be dismissed, or already Kuniyori had changed his profession after his move to Kyôto and not just his son Kuniie. Lastly, I don’t want to leave out what is written in the early Kamakura-period work Uji Shûi Monogatari (宇治拾遺物語). This collection of Japanese tales of unknown author bases on a no longer existing work with the title Uji Dainagon Monogatari (宇治大納言物語), written by Minamoto no Takakuni (源隆国, 1004-1077) who was the Dainagon counselor of Uji. The later Uji Shûi Monogatari writes in Volume 1, Chapter 15: “He entered Kyôto from the Awataguchi Entrance […] nearby where the Awataguchi smiths reside/live.” So it seems that smiths were working there at the latest by the end of the 11^th century but what makes this entry even more interesting is that this chapters starts with the words: “This is another old story.” This is a strong indicator for the assumption that the Awataguchi School does not go back to an armorer who had moved there at the very end of the Heian period. It is of course theoretically possible that the Awataguchi School had been active there as Gojô offshoot and mere below the radar level since mid-Heian times and that it was revived by an outsider, i.e. by Kuniie, who brought as a skilled armorer from Nara (the then heartland of master armorers) new blood into the school.

GenealogyAwataguchi

*

Kunitomo (国友) is the earliest Awataguchi smith of whom we have extant blades to work with (leaving aside the aforementioned Kuniyori tantô). He is traditionally dated around Kenkyû (建久, 1190-1199) and was the oldest son of Kuniie. The Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen states that he died in Kenpô one (建保, 1213) at the age of 67. Again, this information has to be taken with a grain of salt because as stated in my Masamune book, the publication gives for each and very smith his year of birth and death, a data that was not known to earlier authors and just pops up in the Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen that was published for the first time in Kansei four (寛政, 1792). Just wanted to address that at this point because when I am referring to dates forwarded by the Kotô Mei Zukushi Taizen in the future, I am not going to remind of their doubtfulness. So Kunitomo was summoned by the retired Emperor Gotoba (後鳥羽天皇, 1180-1239, r. 1184-1198) for his so-called goban-kaji (御番鍛冶) project and appears on the initial goban-kaji list as smith for the sixth month, and again on the list that features 24 smiths, on that one for the first month. By the way, also his son Norikuni (則国), his younger brother Kuniyasu (国安), and his nephew Kagekuni (景国) appear on goban-kaji lists and his younger brother Hisakuni (久国), Kagekuni’s father, had the honor to act as personal sword forging instructor of Gotoba. It is also said that Kunitomo’s father Kuniie was given the honorary post of supervisor of all goban-kaji. And this is why I think it is rather unlikely that an outsider came to Kyôto where he founded from scratch a school of sword makers whose smiths were considered right from the start as best of the best.

Extant works of Kunitomo are extremely rare and can be counted on one hand. The most famous one is the jûyô-bunkazai tachi that is preserved in the Atsuta-jingû (picture 1). It has a highly elegant and slender tachi-sugata with a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip, much funbari, and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a very dense ko-itame with ji-nie and the hamon a ko-nie-laden suguha with ko-ashi. The bôshi is sugu and has a smallish ko-maru-kaeri but appears almost as yakitsume. The tang of this blade is completely ubu. It tapers noticeably, has sujikai-yasurime, a kurijiri, and the finely chiselled mei is placed above the mekugi-ana and towards the back of the tang.

Picture 1: tachi, jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunitomo” (国友), nagasa 75.7 cm, sori 2.2 cm, shinogi-zukuri, mitsu-mune

There is only one more signed tachi of Kunitomo known, or at least one more that is definitely attributable to Awataguchi Kunitomo. There is namely a tachi signed “Kunitomo tsukuru” (国友造) owned by the Kurokawa Institute of Ancient Cultures (picture 3) that differs in terms of deki and signature style and that Honma hesitates attributing it to the Awataguchi smith and says it might actually be a Ko-Bizen work but from about the same time of production. However, it goes as Awataguchi work its designation as jûyô-bijutsuhin. Anyway, the other definite signed tachi of Kunitomo is a tokubetsu-jûyô (picture 2) and very close to the tachi of the Atsuta-jingû. It shows the same elegant and slender tachi-sugata with funbari and a deep koshizori but has an iori instead of a mitsu-mune. Also it is a little machi-okuri, although its tang has the original kijimomo-style shape whereas at the Atsuta-jingû blade, the end of the tang seems to have been altered so that it does not have this conspicuous curve. The tokubetsu-jûyô has a very dense ko-itame that is mixed with some itame and nagare in places and that appears with the ji-nie and chikei altogether as nashiji-hada. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-ashi, jô, kinsuji, and sunagashi. The nioiguchi is rather wide and like the Atsuta-jingû blade, the ha tends to urumi in places. The bôshi is sugu and has a smallish ko-maru-kaeri but appears almost as yakitsume. Also we see a hint of hakikake at the very tip. There is a small koshibi on the haki-omote side that runs due to the machi-okuri a little into the tang.

Picture 2: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mei “Kunitomo” (国友), nagasa 74.3, sori 2.2 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Picture 3: tachi, jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Kunitomo tsukuru” (国友造), nagasa 72.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, slender and elegant tachi-sugata with a deep koshizori, funbari, and a ko-kissaki, the kitae is an itame mixed with mokume and ji-nie and the hamon is a ko-nie-laden suguha-chô mixed with ko-midare and kinsuji. Well, who am I to question Honma but from the overall interpretation and sugata and especially from the finish of the tang and the position of the signature, it would pass very well as Awataguchi Kunitomo for me.

Picture 4: tachi, tokubetsu-jûyô, mumei, attributed to Awataguchi Kunitomo, nagasa 76.6 cm, sori 1.6 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, elegant and slender tachi-sugata with a deep koshizori, funbari, and a ko-kissaki, the kitame is a dense ko-itame mixed with some itame here and there, nagare, ji-nie, and chikei, the hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-midare mixed with ko-gunome, ko-chôji, ashi, and plenty of kinsuji, the bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri with hakikake and kinsuji

*

Honma also says that there are two tantô that bear the mei “Kunitomo” which are no Awataguchi works but whose signatures don’t give the impression of being gimei of Awataguchi Kunitomo either. In other words, they are most likely works of another Kunitomo who is not found in the meikan and whom Honma attributes on the basis of the workmanship to the Yamato tradition, probably Senju’in school (and somewhat later than Awataguchi Kunitomo). Also he says that there are blades going round that bear the niji-mei “Fujibayashi/Tôrin” (藤林). Kunitomo is listed with the name Fujibayashi Saemon (藤林左衛門), although the exact reading or interpretation of this name is unclear. Some read it as “Fuji Hayashi Saemon,” i.e. Hayashi as the family name, “Saemon” as the first name, and “Fuji” referring to the clan name Fujiwara (藤原). Another theory suggests that the entire name is completely read as one first name, i.e. as “Tôrinzaemon.” And the reading “Fujibayashi/Tôrin Saemon” follows the assumption that Kunitomo´s first name was Saemon and that he signed his family name Hayashi and Fuji for the clan name Fujiwara in a conbined version as “Fujibayashi” which can also be read “Tôrin.” Now Honma says that such a Fujibayashi/Tôrin signed tachi was once submitted for an old kichô-tôken shinsa. The blade indeed did look like an Awataguchi-mono but it did not pass because of the suspicious or rather very uncommon signature. And then there is the kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri, kikuchi-yari-style ken signed “Fujibayashi/Tôrin” that was once owned by Naruse Masanari (成瀬正成, 1567-1625), the first daimyô of the Inuyama fief of Owari province. Here too, no one dares to attribute the work to Awataguchi Kunitomo, even if old sword publications say that Kunitomo also signed with the niji-mei “Fujibayashi/Tôrin” and even depict drawings of tangs with this mei.

Sadatoshi (定利) is regarded as the de facto founder and, in practical terms, also as the almost solitary representative of the Ayanokôji School. It is not exactly clear where he came from, scholastically speaking, but records say since olden times that he lived in the Ayanokôji district of Kyôto what earned his school or group its name. There is the tradition that Sadatoshi was the son-in-law of a certain Nagamasa (永昌), the legendary ancestor of the school. Some say that Nagamasa came originally from Tôtômi province and then there was also a northern Môgusa smith of the same name who was allegedly active in the late Heian period. As seen in the genealogy presented below, Nagamasa was suceeded by his heir Sukesada (介定) and then Sueyuki (末行) followed as next head Ayanokôji main line. Also we see that as far as records are concerned, the school had quite a wide genealogy and it seems that it must had been very much flourishing back then. But for whatever reason, not a single blade has survived of any other Ayanokôji smith than of Sadatoshi and Sadayoshi (定吉) and “funny” is, that Sadayoshi does not even appear in the earlier genealogies of the school. Another problem we are facing with the Ayanokôji School is that all the handed down active periods seem to be too late. Experts agree in the meanwhile that Sadatoshi was probably active earlier than it is stated in the old records, which date him around Bun’ei (文永, 1264-75). In concrete terms, the shape and first and foremost very classical workmanship of his blades rather suggests early than mid Kamakura. This in turn would place Nagamasa somewhere from the end of the Heian to the early Kamakura period, what matches more with the handed-down active period of Môgusa Nagamasa, Heiji (平治, 1159-1160), than with that of Ayanokôji Nagamasa, which is Kenchô (建長, 1249-1256). The pushing back of Sadatoshi’s handed down active period is also supported by another factor, namely his relation to Rai Kuniyuki (来国行), the earliest Rai smiths of whom works are extant. There are theories that Ayanokôji Sadatoshi and Rai Kuniyuki made daisaku works for each other and that Kuniyuki was Sadatoshi’s son, i.e. that they really worked very closely together. The degree of truth of all that might never be found out but what we can say is that their workmanship has indeed many things in common. And due to a relative good evidence base of dated works of Kuniyuki’s son Kunitoshi, we can date Rai Kuniyuki around Shôgen (正元, 1259-1260) and going from there, again Ayanokôji Sadatoshi’s handed down active period of Bun’ei (文永, 1264-75) seems to be too late as his works are for sure more classic and a little older than that of Rai Kuniyuki. Tanobe sensei sums it up with: “When we take into consideration all extant blades of Sadatoshi, we can see more common points in terms of sugata and jiba with classic Ko-Kyô-mono like Sanjô or Gojô than with Rai Kuniyuki. And the majority of Kuniyuki’s works looks at least one generation younger than those of Sadatoshi. But it is possible that the later active period of Sadatoshi overlapped with the early active period of Kuniyuki.” For the sake of completeness, I also want to forward some other approaches concerning the background of Sadatoshi. It is namely also said that he was the son of the Yamato Senju’in smith Tôgorô Sadamune (藤五郎定宗) who was active around Jôô (貞応, 1222-1224). This would kind of match in terms of his actual active period but there is hardly any Yamato influence seen in Sadatoshi’s blades. Also it is speculated that Sadatoshi might not have been an Ayanokôji smith at all. That means, he rather worked in the vicinity of the early Awataguchi and the very beginning of the Rai School and his only connection to the “real” Ayanokôji School was that he was married to Nagamasa’s daughter and eventually moved to their place in Ayanokôji. In other words, the rather “below-the-radar” group of smiths around Nagamasa and Sukesada that worked in Kyôto’s Ayanokôji only made it into the records because of Nagamasa being connected via his daughter to the, obviously very active and Awataguchi/Rai-related grandmaster Sadatoshi and not the other way round.

GenealogyAyanokoji

Well, the true connections of the earliest Yamashiro smiths might be lost forever in the mists of time so let’s go over to what is tangible, and that is Ayanokôji Sadatoshi’s workmanship. Sadatoshi made tachi with a noticeable taper, funbari, a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip, and that end in a ko-kissaki. So all in all, his tachi are sender and of a very classical elegance. I might sound like a broken record but as long as we find ourselves in pre mid-Kamakura times, we will come over and over again terms like “elegant” and “classical.” Back to Sadatoshi. I have mentioned that we can see similarities in workmanship to Rai Kuniyuki but that does not necessarily apply to the sugata. That means, if you have a blade where you hover between Sadatoshi and Kuniyuki, go back again one step and take another look at the sugata. Kuniyukis tachi, at least those which are interpreted in a more slender manner, don’t taper that much, rather show a torii than a koshizori, and feature a ko-kissaki comes with a hint of chû or ikubi. In short, Sadatoshi’s tachi tend more towards Heian than to mid-Kamakura. As for the jigane, Sadatoshi’s steel is described as toromekite (蕩めきて, lit. “melted, sticky, syrupy”) and nebaki-yô ni mietari (粘きように見たり, lit. “has a sticky/viscous look”) in old sources. That means his jigane looks soft, “sticky” and a little subdued, compared to the bright and clear steel of Awataguchi and Rai works for example. The kitae is an excellently forged itame to ko-itame that can be mixed with some mokume and that shows plenty of ji-nie and occasionally also some fine and unobtrusive chikei. Sometimes the hada also stands out and the ji-nie might tend to nie-utsuri with jifu whereas some works show an approach of shirake. Sadatoshi usually hardened a ko-nie-laden mix of ko-midare, ko-chôji and ko-gunome whose elements are rather densely arranged and might connect to groups of several ko-chôji or ko-gunome in places. Along these connected groups, the ha usually appears as suguha-chô but apart from that, we see ups and downs and also some togari. The nioiguchi as well as the entire ha are altogether rather subdued. In addition, we usually see ko-ashi, yô, fine kinsuji and sunagashi. And the partially connected, partially disconnected, but often quite prominent yubashiri, the small tobiyaki, and the nijûba elements create that classical, “layered” and subjectively ancient look that ties Sadatoshi more to the Sanjô and Gojô Schools than to a technical mid-Kamakura background with its noticeable more sophisticated and magnificent interpretations. Another important kantei point are the mostly strong hakikake and nie-kuzure in the bôshi. The bôshi itself is suguha-chô to midare-komi and has a ko-maru-kaeri, a frayed tip where it is hard to define how the turnback is formed, or runs out as yakitsume.

Picture 1: Characteristic features of Ayanokôji Sadatoshi’s workmanship.

The ubu tangs of Sadatoshi are finished in kijimomo-gata or at least tend to kijimomo and show sujikai-yasurime. Sadatoshi always signed with a niji-mei which is chiselled in a beautifully ancient-looking manner. The character for “Sada” is in its cursive style quite peculiar and is noticeably larger than the character for “toshi.” The mei itself is always arranged pretty close to the nakago-mune and sits at blades with a bôhi below of where the groove runs out as kaki-nagashi. Well, the range of extant Sadatoshi signatures differs a little but Tanobe says that they all show about the same dymanic ductus and can be traced back to the same craftsman, although to different stages in his active period. Tsuneishi suggests that those mei which are overall somewhat smaller and where the character for “toshi” is noticeably larger or of the same size as the character for “Sada” are works of the 2^nd generation Sadatoshi who signed his name in early years with the characters (定俊). And Satô Kanzan mentions a signed (almost sunnobi) hira-zukuri tantô from the possessions of the Gotoh Museum (五島美術館) which shows a pure suguha and which is somewhat inferior in quality than the extant Sadatoshi tachi. But he says that the mei does not look gimei at all and that this blade might thus actually be a work of the 2^nd generation Sadatoshi. Incidentally, Tsuneishi quotes pretty specific differences in workmanship between the first and second generations Sadatoshi. He says that the second generation mostly hardened a more calm suguha-hotsure with lesser nie-hataraki and prominent hajimi, and that his itame is mixed with masame, stands more out, is mixed with ô-hada, and shows more shirake. He also says that the second generation made more kodachi than tachi.

Picture 2: kokuhô, tachi, mei “Sadatoshi” (定利), nagasa 78.8 cm, sori 3.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, this blade is regarded as the best extant work of Sadatoshi [former heirloom of the Abe (阿部) family, the daimyô of the Bingo Fukuyama fief (福山藩), today preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum]

Picture 3: jûyô, tachi, mei “Sadatoshi” (定利), nagasa 67.7 cm, sori 2.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, this blade shows one of the most classical deki of Sadatoshi and Tanobe writes that it “establishes intuitively as well as objectively a connection to Sanjô or Gojô” [former heirloom of the Naitô (内藤) family, the daimyô of the Echigo Murakami (村上藩) fief]

Picture 4: tokubetsu-jûyô, tachi, mei “Sadatoshi” (定利), nagasa 71.8 cm, sori 1.1 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

*

Now to Sadayoshi (定吉). He is listed as son, student, or contemporary of Sadatoshi, in short, we don’t know fore sure how he was related to the latter. He is traditionally dated around Kôan (弘安, 1278-1288) but this has to be seen with the traditional Bun’ei (文永, 1264-75) dating of Sadatoshi which is, as mentioned, no longer sustainable. His works are as classical as Sadatoshi’s and Satô states that he knows two tachi of Sadayoshi which really look like works of Sadatoshi at a glance in terms of tachi-sugata and interpretation of the jiba. One of them is shown in picture 5. It shows a classically elegant tachi-sugata with funbari and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with fine ji-nie and the hamon a ko-nie-laden mix of ko-chôji-midare with kinsuji and some protruding kawazu no ko-chôji along the monouchi. The nioiguchi is subdued and the bôshi is a shallow notare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri. The tang comes in a kijimono-gata with sujikai-yasurime like at Sadatoshi and please note that also the signature is executed in a very similar way, i.e. showing a cursive-style character for “Sada” and the second character being smaller than the first one.

Picture 5: tachi, mei “Sadayoshi” (定吉), nagasa 77.3 cm, sori 3.0 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune [preserved in the Tôkyô National Museum]

Picture 6: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Sadayoshi” (定吉), nagasa 70.4 cm, sori 2.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune. This blade was initially attributed to the Chikuzen Sa smith of the same name but recent studies have revealed, that because of its jiba and signature style, it is most likely a work of Ayanokôji Sadayoshi.

*

By the way, one of my most favorite blades is a tokubetsu-jûyô Ayanokôji Sadatoshi. It was shown to me by a gentleman when I spend some time in the Hokuriku region some years ago. It is neither the most spectacular blade nor the healthiest early kotô blade I have seen. Its beauty is of a restrained, understated nature. It does not try to impress and is thus of true classical elegance, although I have to mention that I am a Yamashiro guy (apart from Aoe works which I like very much too). Looking at that blade gave me a flash of 800 years of Japanese history, of old Kyôto, of aristocratic Heian culture on the eve to warrior culture and much more. It made me walk home with a big smile on my face because, well, you can’t keep up the same constant level of enthusiasm and motivation as there are those days where you ask yourself, what the heck am I doing and did I make the right decisions? But if somebody had asked me why I was smiling, I would have replied that with looking at that outstanding sword, I just got reassured that my life is on the right track…

We have arrived at the one and only direct Sanjô offshoot, the Gojô School. According to tradition and as seen in the Sanjô Genealogy presented here, the offshoot was founded by Sanjô Arikuni’s (有国) son Kanenaga (兼永) who lived and worked in the vicinity of Kyôto’s Gojô axis, what earned the school its name. Traditionally Kanenaga is dated around Chôgen (長元, 1028-1037) but what has to be seen in the context of bringing him in about “grandson-distance” to Munechika who, as we know, is traditionally dated around Ei’en (永延, 987-989). Before we continue I have to address an obvious thing, and that is the course of this series. As you can easily see, talking about the early schools – i.e. everything that comes with a “Ko-” prefix (like here Ko-Kyô-mono) – means dealing with a big lack of extant references. So no one can avoid making his or her way, hand over hand, along the very same few blades and matching them as good as possible with the written references (which on top of that differ from each other). Apart from that, the historic references were often written in a rather flowery style and early oshigata were highly subjective copies of a blade’s characteristics. In addition, there had been this “need” among upper (warrior or aristocratic) classes from the earliest times on for having swords by certain famous master in their collection. This lead to many counterfeit signatures and attributions of unsigned blades to famous names which in turn later entered the annals as alleged original references themselves. And when we combine all this, it should be easy to imagine that we are facing a huge hodgepodge of data and it is not surprising that many unsigned blades that are attributed to a certain smith or school do not really match the interpretations of the very few extant signed specimen.

Picture 1: The two “unshakeable” Kanenaga mei; left the jûyô-bunkazai, right the jûyô-bijutsuhin

As for Kanenaga, there are only five signed blades extant, or just two if you rule out the three where only the character for “Kane” is left (at two of them the blade is shortened up to the character of “Kane,” both are jûyô, and at the other one, which is tokubetsu-jûyô, only the “Kane” character is illegible of the niji-mei). The two “unshakeable” ones are designated as jûyô-bunkazai and as jûyô-bijutsuhin respectively whereas they signature differs (see picture 1). The former is signed in an overall somewhat larger manner than the latter and also the lower part part of the character “Kane” (兼) is chiselled in a different manner. The jûyô-bunkazai tachi (picture 2) is slender and has a deep koshizori with funbari and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is a dense ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie, fine chikei, and faint nie-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-chôji in ko-nie-deki with a rather wide nioiguchi that is mixed with ko-midare, ko-gunome, ko-ashi, and kinsuji. The bôshi is sugu with a ko-maru-kaeri, nijûba, and hakikake. The tang is entirely ubu and has a kurijiri and one mekugi-ana. The blade has an elegant and very classical shape but again we have here (see chapter on Sanjô Yoshiie) some characteristics that make one think of Bizen, for example the relative large amount of “real” chôji (i.e. not just chôji ashi along a suguha-chô but “actively” protruding chôji tassels), especially along the monouchi where the hamon shows conspicuous ups and downs. So the overall quite sophisticated interpretation of the jiba speaks on the one hand for a later production time, i.e. rather early Kamakura than mid-Heian, but the classical shape and the nijûba along the bôshi which tie the blade to the Sanjô school on the other hand speak for Heian. Thus we maybe meet in the middle, which would be late to very end of Heian.

Picture 2: jûyô-bunkazai, tachi, mei “Kanenaga” (兼永), nagasa 77.1 cm, sori 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune [owned by the NBTHK, former collection of Kimura Tokutarô (木村篤太郎, 1886-1982)]

I don’t have any information on the jûyô-bijutsuhin so I want to focus on the tokubetsu-jûyô of which the second character is illegible but which is otherwise ubu. Please note that the NBTHK is, as often in such high spheres, careful and gives an attribution to Gojô as there also other Gojô artists active whose names start with “Kane,” e.g. Kanetsugu (兼次) and Kaneyasu (兼安). Well, these smiths quasi only exist on paper as no signed blades are extant by them, but it is true, you just can’t make a straightforward Kanenaga attribution if you are not entirely sure. So the tokubetsu-jûyô (picture 3) also has an elegant sugata with a strong koshizori, funbari, and a ko-kissaki. The jigane is an itame with ji-nie and a faint nie-utsuri. The hamon shows this time not so many chôji. It is a suguha-chô in ko-nie-deki that is mixed with ko-chôji, ko-midare, and plenty of ashi and yô. The nioiguchi is rather tight but tends to be dull along the monouchi. The bôshi is sugu with a short ko-maru-kaeri.

Picture 3: tokubetsu-jûyô, mei “Kane…” (兼◯), nagasa 77.4 cm, sori 1.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

*

Now to Kanenaga’s alleged son Kuninaga (国永) with whom we are facing the very same difficulties. He is listed, as mentioned, as son of Kanenaga but some see him as his younger brother. Traditionally he is dated around Tengi (天喜, 1053-1058) but problem here is that several of Kuninaga’s works even look a hint more classical (i.e. old) than works of Kuninaga. But again, evidence base is very limited. As for “unshakeable” signed Kuninaga works, there are only six known, and within these six, we can make out four different signature variants with experts being in disagreement on the dating or attribution to different craftsmen and/or generations. Let’s start with Kuninaga’s famous work, the imperial treasure (gyobutsu) Tsurumaru-Kuninaga (鶴丸国永) (see picture 4), whose mei makes up one of the four categories by itself. Well, at least most experts agree that the Tsurumaru is not only the best work of Kuninaga but the best of all Ko-Kyô-mono in existence (and some even say that it is the best Yamashiro work of all). The blade is ubu and kenzen, i.e. in perfect condition, what adds to the value of the piece, and shows an elegant sugata with funbari and a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip. The kitae is a very densely forged ko-itame with fine and beautiful ji-nie and the hamon is a suguha-chô with ko-midare and ko-chôji in thick nioi, plenty of ko-nie, and kinsuji. The bôshi tends to sugu and has a ko-maru-kaeri. So the Tsurumaru shows overall a more sophisticated workmanship than the Mikazuki-Munechika and dates therefore somewhat later.

Picture 4: gyobutsu, tachi, mei “Kuninaga” (国永), meibutsu Tsurumaru-Kuninaga, nagasa 78.8 cm, sori 2.7 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune

Category two of the known Kuninaga-mei contains two blades, a tachi that is preserved in the Ise Shrine and a jûyô-bunkazai ken (see picture 5) that was once owned by the tôsôgu expert Kokubo Ken’ichi. Unfortunately, I have no picture of the Ise Shrine blade but want to assume for the time being that the workmanship is similar to that of the ken as also the mei is very similar. My assumption bases on the following two factors: One is the statement of Honma sensei who was of the opinion that the Ise Shrine tachi is the oldest extant signed work of Kuninaga. And the other factor is that we can see a lot of the very classical, “naturally layered” approach of the ha at the ken. This feature can also be seen on the works of Sanjô Munechika what supports an earlier production time. The Ise Shrine tachi is slender and shows a koshizori and a ko-kissaki The kitae is itame that is mixed with ô-hada in places and the hamon is a nie-laden hiro-suguha-chô that is mixed with ko-midare and ko-chôji that comes with a more subdued nioiguchi. The ken shows a noticeable amount of masame along the kitae what makes it kind of yamatoesque. This and the fact that it is, well, an old ken, might add to the subjective “old feel” of the blade and Tanobe sensei assumes that ken had always been forged in a more classical way because making them had a strong religious and ceremonial character and did not leave much artistic freedom or room for trying something new. Apart from that, Tanobe also assumes that the subdued nioiguchi and thus more ancient feeling hamon of the Ise Shrine tachi goes back to a loss of hira-niku and that the hamon might once had been similar to that of the Tsurumaru. And Tsuneishi Hideaki (常石英明), the author of the Nihontô no Kenkyû to Kantei and Nihontô no Kantei to Kansho, even assumes that mei of category two go back to a third generation Kuninaga. Tsuneishi also says that the Tsurumaru-mei dates to the later years of a the first generation Kuninaga.

Picture 5: jûyô-bunkazai, ken, mei “Kuninaga” (国永), nagasa 32.1 cm, ryô-shinogi-zukuri [once owned by Kokubo Ken’ichi]

Also rather classical is the tachi whose mei forms category three. The blade was once a heirloom of the Bizen-Ikeda (備前池田) family and is completely ubu (see picture 6). It is slender, has a deep koshizori that bends down towards the tip, funbari, and a ko-kissaki. The kitae is itame and the hamon is a suguha-chô that is mixed with ko-midare and plenty of ha-nie, ashi and yô and that turns into a nidan-ba in places, i.e. a two-layered ha that consists (in this case) of a ko-midare-chô with much nijûba that makes it look like as if a “second” ha, a suguha, runs atop of it. Tsuneishi attributes this blade to the early period of Kuninaga.

Picture 6: tachi, mei “Kuninaga” (国永) [heirloom of the Bizen-Ikeda family]

And category four is formed by two blades, a jûyô-bijutsuhin tachi that was once owned by Itô Miyoji (伊東巳代治, 1857-1934) and a jûyô-bijutsuhin tachi that was once a heirloom of the Uwajima-Date (宇和島伊達) family. Tsuneishi says that the mei of this category go back to the second generation Kuninaga and Tanobe suggests that their workmanship can be considered as a kind of precursor of the later Yamashiro smiths, e.g. Ayanokôji Sadatoshi (綾小路定利) and Awataguchi Kuniyasu (粟田口国安). The tachi of Itô Miyoji (see picture 7) has an elegant sugata with some traces of funbari and shows a very densely forged ko-itame with penty of ji-nie and fine chikei. The hamon is a suguha-chô with ko-midare, plentiful of ko-nie, mixed with ko-chôji, and shows many hataraki in the form of yubashiri and repeated ashi especially in the area of the monouchi at the haki-omote side. In addition there are small and faint yubashiri and tobiyaki which run parallel to the ha but not in a continuous manner. The nioiguchi tends to be subdued. The other jûyô-bijutsuhin, i.e. the one from the possessions of the Uwajima-Date family, is suriage and shows the remnants of a relative wide and deeply cut suken on the one, and a koshibi with atop a bonji on the other side. It has a fine ko-itame with some nagare and plenty of ji-nie and yubashiri which tend to form an utsuri over almost the entire blade. The hamon is a nie-laden ko-chôji with many fine kinsuji and the bôshi is like at the Itô Miyoji blade more calm than the rest of the hamon and appears with as midare-komi with a short ko-maru-kaeri. So all in all, these two blades make with their rather flamboyant hamon a more sophisticated impression than the Bizen-Ikeda blade whereupon I don’t follow the approach of Tsuneishi of the latter being a work of a third, and the former two a work of a second generation, although I tend to think (for the time bing) that there was probably more than one generation Kuninaga as the mei and the workmanship show significant differences.

Picture 7: jûyô-bijutsuhin, tachi, mei “Kuninaga” (国永), nagasa 75.4 cm, sori 2.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune [once owned by Itô Miyoji]

Picture 8: jûyô-bijutsuhin, tachi, mei “Kuninaga” (国永), nagasa 69.4 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune [heirloom of the Uwajima-Date family]

For a better overview of all this “confusing” information, I have arranged above a large pic with the four mei categories in its center with all the so-far introduced blades connected to them so that you see it for yourself. So click on it, zoom in, and enjoy J. Last but not least I want to introduce a blade that is attributed to the Gojô school, i.e. not differentiating between Kanenaga and Kuninaga, but which is in my opinion insofar important as it forms kind of a link to the Sanjô school. It shows a nie-laden ko-midare that is mixed with ko-chôji, ko-ashi, fine kinsuji and sunagashi, and prominent yubashiri, nijûba and sanjûba (especially along the upper half of the blade) that create this “layered” appearance, although here no longer as ancient looking as at Munechika (but still pretty much classical). For a more detailed write-up and excellent pictures of the blade and its hataraki (highly recommended), please go to Darcy’s page here. That should do it for today and with the next part we are slowly entering Kamakura times when I will talk about the Ayanokôji school.

Picture 9: jûyô, tachi, mumei “Den Gojô” (伝五条), nagasa 68.7 cm, sori 1.9 cm, shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune