Markus

Readind romanji instead of romaji (rōmaji), its already a red flag. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/301873/why-is-romaji-so-frequently-spelt-as-romanji

These books are not related to my own online Gokaden series, they are translations of Tanobe Sensei's books on the same topic, as Brano pointed out. Bizen I (Osafune School) has been translated by me and submitted, and I think the publisher Me no Me has it scheduled for spring of 2026. I am meeting with them in Japan in two months and discuss the future volumes, based on the way Tanobe Sensei is comfortable with continuing writing them (and has made progress so far).

Almost looks like a very stylized arrangement of traditional Chinese polearms to me...

I think that the mystery is actually easier to solve as I think I have found the entry in question: "In addition, Kôzan oshigata has a record of a blade having a date in the Enkei (延慶) era (1308)" The entry just references "a date in the era," but then only gives the starting year of that era, 1308, not the actual year the blade is dated with. If the entry is amended as follows, everything makes sense: "In addition, Kôzan oshigata has a record of a blade having a date in the Enkei (延慶) era (1308–1311)"

I also tend towards Kanezumi (兼住). Have to admit, when I first saw the signature, I had a hunch towards Kanekaze (兼風) as there is a very similar cursive way to write the KAZE character. However, I don't have a WWII era Kanekaze smith in my records, only later knife makers using that name. There is always the possibility of rare (Kanekaze) knife/blacksmiths making some swords at that time as that did happen, but, Occam's razor, I tend towards Kanezumi.

I would like to quote from Tanobe Sensei's latest book on the Yamato tradition, where he elaborates a bit more on the Boston tantō that has bee mentioned: There was more than one generation Norinaga, and descendants of the first master continued to use this name until the Muromachi period. Period sword texts state that short signatures of the type “Yamato Norinaga saku” (大和則長作, “made by Norinaga from Yamato”) go back to the hand of the first generation, and such with longer signatures, containing the character Kunias in “Yamato no Kuni” (大和国, Yamato province) and prefixes like “Shikkake” and/or the honorary title Sakon no Jō (左近允) go back to the second generation, or possibly to later generations as well. The collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, contains a tantō (picture 1) that is depicted in the Kubikiri Asa’emon Tōken Oshigata (首斬り浅右衛門刀剣押形) and that is signed and dated: “Yamato Shikkake Norinaga yonjūhachi saku – Bunpō sannen tsuchinoto-hitsuji sangatsu tōka” (大和尻懸則長四十八作・文保三年己未三月十日) – “Made by Shikkake Norinaga from Yamato, age 48, on the tenth day of the third month Bunpō three (1319), year of the sheep.” In addition, there exists a tantō dated Ryakuō three (暦応, 1340), which is inscribed with the information that it was made when the smith was 69 years old. Accordingly, we can calculate Norinaga’s year of birth as Bun’ei nine (文永, 1272). When we follow the aforementioned period sources in terms of signature syntax, both tantō would be works of the second generation, meaning that the active period of the first generation obviously must be placed earlier than the two dates in question. When we examine the workmanship of a Jūyō-Bunkazai tachi signed “Yamato no Kuni Shikkake-jū Norinaga saku” (大和国尻懸住則長作, “Made by Norinaga resident of Shikkake in Yamato province”) (picture 2), and a tachi ranked Tokubetsu-Jūyō Tōken signed “Yamato Sakon no Jō Norinaga saku” (大和左近允則長作, “Made by Sakon no Jō Norinaga from Yamato”) (picture 3), and compare that to blades signed briefly “Yamato Norinaga saku,” the former do not date any later then the latter. In addition, the signature of both groups of works is fairly close, whereupon I tend to think that the period sources should be revised.

I will chime back in as quickly as possible 👍 I know many here have reached out lately via email on other topics, and I try to work off that back log asap 😇 Just very occupied these days to get the Tosogu Classroom over the finishing line.

I was pointed out to this thread to comment. As written in the preface to my publication: "Point (3) lists the handed-down artistic period where this date has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some dates are based on extant dated signatures and are more or less accurate, but most of them were transmitted again and again over the centuries with the initial listings often simply based on hearsay." What I am trying to say is that all of that is piling on and piling on atop of surviving period sources. There is re-assessment necessary on all levels, no exception. And that is where we are right now.

You may also want to look into this practice: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochimusha

Apologies for the delay, Hamish, reply via email just sent. @Brian I have planned to make announcements of new books coming out here too in the future. Got some in the pipeline once all the other stuff is finished 😇

Hasebe is there, apologies for the confusion, it is Kunishige, Kuninobu, and the like, with the Hasebe reference after their name. So, its maker first, then school. Should have pointed that out.

I tend more towards what is readily available and restrictions with gifts/donations, e.g., gifts coming with conditions, like needs to be in a special exhibition first, needs to be published in an exhibition catalog before made public to members and in the magazine, etc.

And not a single Sadamune.

If you ever wondered how many swords you would have been able to study if you had attended every single monthly NBTHK main branch meeting the last 25 years, here you go: https://markussesko.com/2025/05/12/nbthk-kanshokantei-blades-analysis/

Hm, I do not have anything on this smith in the records. Looking at certain elements of the shape, e.g., kissaki area, continuation of shinogi in tang, I can't help but think that Takekoshi Hideo may have been an only semi-trained swordsmith, maybe a blacksmith venturing out into making sword blades, or something like these scenarios?