Tree Posted May 13, 2007 Report Posted May 13, 2007 A couple'a questions: If a sword's signature contains the title 'no Kami' how is it then possible to be sure that it is the signature of the smith who made the sword or if it is the name of the titled person that the sword was made for? A Shinto wakazashi at just under katana length, say 58 cm plus. Most probably not made for a samurai but for a merchant trying to stay just within the legal limits? Quote
Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini Posted May 13, 2007 Report Posted May 13, 2007 My 2 cents : custom orders bear something that make the name of the customer recognizible as "made for" or "special order of" etc. Quote
Ken-Hawaii Posted May 13, 2007 Report Posted May 13, 2007 As I understand the term "(no) Kami," it could also refer to a title that the local lord bestowed on the smith. I'm not sure that made things any clearer, though.... Quote
John A Stuart Posted May 14, 2007 Report Posted May 14, 2007 Tree, If a sword has 'no Kami' it is as Ken says a title given by a lord and as Carlo says there is an indication that the sword is made to order/ or for a particular person within the inscription otherwise. Familiarity also helps one to know whether the title fits the smith's name. John Quote
Tree Posted May 14, 2007 Author Report Posted May 14, 2007 Isn't 'no Kami' an hereditary title? Ed Tree Quote
Guido Posted May 14, 2007 Report Posted May 14, 2007 *DELETED* Sorry for the confusion - I shouldn't post before getting my spelling straight, or without elaborating on controversial historical "data". Quote
Ken-Hawaii Posted May 14, 2007 Report Posted May 14, 2007 Guido, I've been puzzling over that system for many years - thank you for clarifying a lot of my questions!! I hope that you will post more of this explanation as you finalize it, as I'm sure it will be useful for many of us. (BTW, the correct spellings are "restoration" [first paragraph] & "governors" [last paragraph]). Quote
John A Stuart Posted May 14, 2007 Report Posted May 14, 2007 Hi Guido, A good synopsis of the origins of title. It remains problematic to say Emperor Jimmu is the progenitor of pre-reform appointment and title though, don't you think? His ascendancy written about in the Kojiki being hundreds of years after the 660 BC date (1300 years). Even Emperor seems rather, well you know, inflated, given the territory under Yamato(p.f.) control at that time (what? 15% of Kyushu by the Heian period). Revision in the history passed down from the Jomon period seems likely to obscure the real facts. What do you think? Anyway, those were legendary times. John Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.