Shinto into Shinshinto - why?

[Ken-Hawaii]

Although it's fairly clear when & why the Shinto period started, it's not at all clear to me why the Shinshinto period started in 1781. I've heard that the availability of modern steels may have been why, & also that Suishinshi Masahide was the founding father. But in either case, why was 1781 chosen specifically as the start of Shinshinto? Modern steels didn't just magically show up one year, & Masahide was only one smith in one area who made blades for less than 10 years.

 

So why is there such a firm time delineated for the start of Shinshinto?

 

Ken

[NihontoEurope]

Hello Ken,

 

I think it is more style rather than steel that was the major name changing reason.

 

Let's see what "the others" will say.

 

/Martin

[cabowen]

Suishinshi Masahide lived to be 75 (1750-1825) and is considered the father of Shinshinto due to his efforts to revitalize the craft with a return to the koto methods after his research showed that many Shinto blades were more show than go... He attracted a large cadre of students/disciples who went forth and spread this approach across the country. He was an excellent smith, though it is said he was probably a better teacher as several of his students surpassed him in ability. He wrote at least one book investigating the methods to reproduce the koto methods and is one of the earliest smiths to make a somewhat scientific inquiry into the craft. The ripples of his research and work carry into today's smiths. The date is a bit arbitrary but the change in the craft is real.

[kusunokimasahige]

Does that mean that Shinto had less wazamono than shinshinto ? If you say more show than go ?

 

KM

[george trotter]

If I may add a comment here...I would say that the need for wazamono stopped with the peace of shinto times because of the large numbers of koto and sengokujidai wazamono swords surviving. With a more relaxed and discerning cliental, sword production focussed now on a "made to order" period...cost being the arbiter as to the quality one could afford to have made. While there are many "ordinary" quality swords from this period it was not one of wazamono, there being many of quality being made. A strong reason for the "return" to the features of the koto sword was that the shinto sword is generally a "show" sword (I am not being dismissive), by this I mean that the shinto sword is generally made to a "taste' rather than a "necessity"...these are often thin in the kasane and have a wide hamon...often touching the shinogi in many cases. Practical testing and use (see Ohmura) showed then and in WWII that these swords often failed in use. It was Masahide who noted this development and began the return movement to the blade qualities of koto...as a return to not only a "true" nihonto in spirit, but in practical battlefield qualities.

As Chris says (not to put words into his mouth) but the Minatogawa, Yasukuni, RJT schemes of WWII and the many smiths who strived for practical battlefield qualities in a blade 1869-1945 are the continuation of Masahide's revival. I dare to say that many of these modern blades would perform better than shinto blades.

This is my opinion/observation and of course I always stand to receive corrections and comments.

Regards,

[Guido]

While there are many "ordinary" quality swords from this period it was not one of wazamono, ...

If my count is correct, almost 73% of all swords listed as Wazamono were Shintô.

[george trotter]

That is interesting information ... 73 out of every 100 swords made in the shinto period are classed to be wazamono (source?).

May I ask what is classed as a shinto period wazamono...are these the same as the generally accepted wazamono of the sengokujidai?...if yes, then the question that leaps to mind is, why would anyone intentionally make wazamono when there are no more huge armies of ashigaru fighting the endless civil wars who need to be supplied? ...who would order such a sword?

[mywei]

That is interesting information ... 73 out of every 100 swords made in the shinto period are classed to be wazamono (source?).

May I ask what is classed as a shinto period wazamono...are these the same as the generally accepted wazamono of the sengokujidai?...if yes, then the question that leaps to mind is, why would anyone intentionally make wazamono when there are no more huge armies of ashigaru fighting the endless civil wars who need to be supplied? ...who would order such a sword?

 

I think what was meant was that the majority of smiths listed as Wazamono were from the Shinto period, not the majority of Shinto smiths being Wazamono...

 

The fact that the Wazamono list was compiled during the Shinto era may be a factor though

[george trotter]

I think what was meant was that the majority of smiths listed as Wazamono were from the Shinto period, not the majority of Shinto smiths being Wazamono...

 

The fact that the Wazamono list was compiled during the Shinto era may be a factor though

 

I see. I suppose it could indicate that as there were many smiths alive in 1600 onwards who made the bulk of their swords in the later sengokujidai that they were assessed generally as wazamono smiths even if they now had the time to make better swords?

It could be seen that this classification is thus a distortion of actual shinto period produced sword quality?

[Guido]

That is interesting information ... 73 out of every 100 swords made in the shinto period are classed to be wazamono?

That's not what I wrote, please re-read my post.

(source?).

Kaihō Kenjaku 懐宝剣尺 (published in 1797 寛政九年, reprinted in 1805 文化二年) by Yamada Asaemon 山田浅右衞門

and

Kokon Kaji Bikō 古今鍛冶備考 (1830 天保元年) by Yamada Asaemon Yoshimutsu 山田浅右衞門吉睦.

May I ask what is classed as a shinto period wazamono...are these the same as the generally accepted wazamono of the sengokujidai?

I don't understand this question. Shintō were made between Keichō 慶長(1596) and Hōreiki 寳暦 (1764); Sengoku Jidai = 1482 ~ 1558. Or do you mean if the same standards were applied? If so, the answer is "yes".

...' date=' then the question that leaps to mind is, why would anyone intentionally make wazamono when there are no more huge armies of ashigaru fighting the endless civil wars who need to be supplied? ...who would order such a sword?[/quote']My guess is "anybody who wanted to own a well cutting sword".

[Guido]

The fact that the Wazamono list was compiled during the Shinto era may be a factor though

The lists were compiled *after* the Shintō period.

[george trotter]

If my count is correct, almost 73% of all swords listed as Wazamono were Shintô.

 

You are correct, I misread your comments.

Just on the point of wazamono however, while the testers you quoted class them as wazamono, later testers seem to suggest that shinto blades more frequently failed in cutting conditions...this they attributed to their lack of kasane and wide hamon....so can it be that shinto blades while many may be wazamono, are not good in durability in use?...which possibly leads back to Masahide wishing to re-introduce the best of koto sword characteristics (I say generally, narrower hamon and thicker kasane)? Or, are the later testers and assessments wrong?

[Ken-Hawaii]

Suishinshi Masahide and the Functionality of Nihonto (http://www.nihontocraft.com/Suishinshi_Masahide.html

Translated material provided by nihontocraft.com

 

Suishinshi Masahide is known as the founding father of the Shinshinto era. Early in his career, he aimed to recreate Sukehiro's beautiful toranba style hamon. Masahide devoted all his effort to mastering it. However, around the middle of his career, he changed his approach totally. The reason for the change is known from Masahide's published research. He observed that swords with a "Hade" (wide and gaudy) style hamon tend to break. Masahide wanted to abandon the artistic mentality that focused on the cosmetic beauty of the blade and return to the original function of Nihonto. His new approach was called "Fukko-to". The aim of it was to recapture the practical excellence of Kamakura period works. He wanted to make blades that cut well and were durable. In his book, Token Buyurai, the following statement is made.

 

"Needless to mention rather we are discussing the o-midare hamon of Tsuda (Sukehiro), Sakakura (Terukane), choji or kikusui, if a blade has a wide hamon pattern it tends to break when in use".

 

Masahide gained this knowledge empirically through repeated eye-witness accounts and reliable sources concerning swords in actual use. The following are 25 incidents that Masahide mentioned, in which blades with a "Hade" style hamon were broken. It is a direct translation.

 

1. Suishinshi was at the house of an Akimoto retainer. There was a thief that night. The retainer used the mune of a blade to strike the thief. The blade broke in the middle and the kissaki was knocked off. As a result, it landed on the rooftop of a neighbor�s house. This was a katana by Mizuta Kunishige with an o-midare ba hamon.

 

2. A younger friend of the Akimoto retainer used the mune of a wakizashi to hit a dog. The blade broke in the middle and the dog escaped. It was a mumei wakizashi by Etchigo no Kami Kanesada with an o-midare ba hamon.

 

3. In the Shitatani area, a retainer was fighting a merchant. The retainer's blade broke and his arm was cut. The retainer used a Shinto katana by Omi no Kami Tsuguhira with a wide hamon. The merchant used a Bizen Sukesada katana. Masahide witnessed this himself.

 

4. A Shitatani fencing teacher named Fujigawa was testing a blade by cutting a kabuto. The katana broke about 24 cm from the kissaki. It was a Satsuma blade. 5. In the Shiba area, a martial artist named Akamatsu tested a katana on a kabuto and the sword broke. This was a blade by Ishido Korekazu.

 

6. In Inaba, a retainer was arguing with a Shinto priest, a katana was involved and broken. It was a Inaba Shinto sword.

 

7. Satsuma area smiths tested their katana on thin metal plates and the blades were broken.

 

8. Kobayashi Masaoki, a student of Suishinshi, made a katana with big hamon pattern for a retainer of Etchigo. The blade broke when hitting stone statures in the garden on the mune side. It shattered like an icicle.

 

9. An Awa retainer was testing blades by the order of the lord of the Hachisuga family. He tested blades made by Shinkai, Etchigo Kanesada, Osafune Sukesada, and Suishinshi Masahide. During the mune testing, the blades that had big hamon patterns were all broken. The ones with small hamon pattern developed ha-giri (On the battlefield, this id highly preferable to breaking in half). However, some of these were broken too.

 

10. A family in Shinano had collected more than 150 pieces of broken katana, yari, and naginata of from battlefields in the koto period.

 

11. An Okayama retainer named Watanabe was doing a cutting test on the lower part of a corpse. The katana broke at the monouchi area. It was a Seki blade.

 

12. A bandit attacked the leader of Okayama retainers. The leader used the mune side of a katana to fight the bandit but it broke. He then picked up a bamboo stick and continued to fight. Eventually, he was able to defeat the attacker and used a rope to tie him up. When the retainer checked the bandit he found wounds caused by the bamboo stick but none by the katana. He couldn't help but to laugh at the situation.

 

13. An Okayama retainer got into an argument with a person on a ferry. He drew his katana and made a cut. The blade caught the wooden pole of the boat and broke at the monouchi.

 

14. A Bushi from Mito was doing a cutting test on a skull. The katana broke. A Mito swordsman was fighting with a Bushi. His katana broke about 27cm from the kissaki. It was a Hizen mono with hiro (wide) suguha. Suishinshi Masahide documented the above examples.

 

Takehiro Yasuhide, an Oshu retainer and a student of Suishinshi Masahide recorded the following examples. He worked with Suishinshi on developing the theory of Nihonto Functionality and the publishing of Masahide's research.

 

15. Five newly made Yari by Edo smiths were broken during a wild hog hunt.

 

16. During a fight in Gunma, one combatant used a Mizuta Kunishige katana and his opponent used a well-made naginata by Satsuma Mondonosho Masakiyo, as a result, both were broken.

 

17. In the Fujioka area, a Mito family ken was tested with a katana and the katana broke. It was a Tsuda Sukehiro.

 

18. A Bushi named Nagai used the mune of his katana to hit the shikii of a house entrance. The blade broke into three pieces. It was a katana with big hamon pattern by Kawachi no Kami Kunisuke.

 

19. An Etchigo Takeda retainer hit his katana on a stone lantern in the garden of a Shinto shrine. The kissaki broke off.

 

20. A Bushi Saito in Oshu was in a fight. His katana hit the door pillar and broke into three pieces.

 

21. A Higo retainer practiced fencing with his son who used a ken. The retainer's katana broke. It was an Ishido Korekazu.

 

22. A Higo retainer used the backside of the kissaki to hit the hand of one of his servants. The monouchi part of the katana broke off. It was a Mizuta Kunishige.

 

23. A Higo retainer fell from a horse and his blade broke in two. It was by Setsu no Kami Tadayuki.

 

24. An Oshu retainer was paying respect in a temple and for some reason his blade bumped the Ishidon (stone/rock steps) and the blade broke in two. This sword was from the Nao Yamashiro no Kami family. It was a koto Bizen with choji midare hamon. The retainer had the remaining part of the blade made into a wakizashi about 40cm long.

 

 

---

It is interesting to note that among these 25 accounts there is a disproportionate number of broken shinto blades from Osaka and Mizuta followed by Ishido and Satsuma. The text does not mention the exact ji-ha of these blades and the extent to which they were typical for the given school/smith. However, perhaps it is important to understand that blades do break and we can take steps toward judging functional excellence from Masahide's research.

---

It is true that there are many Saijo Wazamono smiths that made a hade style hamon. Kiyomaru, Kotetsu, Tatara Nagayuki etc..... Koyama Munetsugu should be mentioned as a maker of a very functional choji hamon in Shin-shinto times. (A nioi deki hamon is not as brittle as nie deki) Also, with koto there are a great many famous cutters with a wide hamon. The core steel of the blade has much to do with its ductile properties, thus its durability. A very skilled smith could overcome the brittle nature of a widely tempered nie deki blade by introducing other durability promoting elements into the construction of the blade. Masahide's observations are hard to put into context but none the less, they are enlightening.

---

Another thought is that some of the above examples may lead the occidental to uneasy preponderance. Especially the striking of stone with a blade or the use of the mune offensively. This is not something we hear much about in Western texts. Perhaps cultural differences are at work here? Lore of blades cutting unsurpassable objects is not uncommon in the east. This leads me to believe that it is not at all unthinkable that some Samurai, especially one of lower rank without formal education, may attempt to cut stone to display the quality of his sword. As for the use of the mune side of the blade in combat, this was a common tactic that was very effective in delivering a non lethal blow. Much like a "warning shot" in our frontier days or simply a mild punitive action. In many documented sword tests the mune as well as the sides of the blade were given specific and deliberate attention to make certain it could withstand the abuse of being used this way. Thus the sword is to be a complete weapon able to used in a variety of ways depending on the situation at hand.

[Markus]

Although it's fairly clear when & why the Shinto period started, it's not at all clear to me why the Shinshinto period started in 1781. [...] So why is there such a firm time delineated for the start of Shinshinto?

 

Back to your initial question Ken, this date can be explained by the Japanese trend to stick to nengô eras.

I.e. some date Suishinshi Masahide´s main artistic period around Tenmei (1781-1789), others around Kansei

(1789-1801). In short and following this trend you can say that if Masahide was active around Tenmei and

the founder of shinshinto, shinshinto - upon reversion - can be dated from about Tenmei (1781) onwards.

[cabowen]

A few things to consider regarding the number of wazamono from Shinto exceeding those from Shinshinto:

 

1. Shinto period was twice as long as shinshinto thus it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect at least twice as many smiths/blades rated thus, all else equal.

 

2. Blade testing was very "in fashion" in the Shinto era.

 

3. Many shinshinto blades were tested privately, not by the families making the ratings.

 

4. Cutting tests used to determine "wazamono" are not conducted in battlefield conditions and as such, are no guarantee of practical performance.

 

5. Actual battlefield data collected by Nakamura Taisaburo, Naruse, and others during WWII tend to confirm many of Masahide's observations regarding Shinto. It is most likely that the Japanese Army was aware of this info as well and incorporated it into the speced requirements for the Jumei Tosho contract smiths later in the war.

[george trotter]

Your quoting of Masahide is enlightening Ken and I had read this before...it is surely a continuing connection to his general findings on the effect of wideness of the hamon on blade failure that in WWII his empirical findings were generally supported by certain sword experts who had tested mixed periods and styles of swords in batches and also from battlefield experience evidence (Ohmura's site)...hence the rules for the RJT scheme smiths was that while they had discretion in the pattern of the hamon, it was strictly required to be kept as "chu" in width...this must surely be a "truth" deriving from evidence that supported Masahide's findings and was surely the reason he went away from the "shinto style" to re-discover the practical sword?

Interesting topic Ken, thanks.

Regards,

Edit to add...I see Chris has commented on this point also...in fact I think I remeber that some of the swords tested (and failed) in modern times had previously been tested wazamono in Shinto times.

[kusunokimasahige]

Very interesting read indeed, thank you for your answers and the discussion.

 

Looking at the stresses on swords when quenched, the size of the Hamon would no doubt be a factor in breakage I think.

It is also interesting to read that the construction of the blade's core has massive effects on the sword.

 

 

Video by Kokuten Komiya which shows quite well what a sword does when quenched :

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=24 ... =2&theater

 

 

 

.

[Lance]

Great thread, the mention of Wazamono brought something to mind; I remember reading in various publications that many of the Koto masters were never realy tested as they were too valuable, and given what would amount to an "honorary Saijo O-wazamono ranking.

I realize that they basically earned their esteem on the battlefield, but still interesting, and in part might explain why there's so many Shinto listed as mentioned earlier.

 

links:

http://japaneseswordindex.com/sharp.htm

"None of the great Koto masters were tested. Among blades not tested were swords by Soshu Masamune, Soshu Sadamune, Bizen Nagamitsu and Ise Muramasa. Their swords were considered too valuable as historical art objects to risk damage by testing. Their swords have traditionally been considered among the finest blades ever made."

 

http://www.jp-sword.com/files/wazamono/wazamono.html

 

Regards,

Lance

[w.y.chan]

What about metallurgical changes over age? Even amongst collectors there is some vote for this. If true a cut well sword 600 years ago may not cut equally well or as structurally strong today as was when first made.

[Alex A]

Whilst on the subject of Wazamono, i do not understand why all schools where not tested?, surely in the midst of the untested there where great blades, i read somewhere that it was a bit of a fix to boost the popularity of the chosen smiths, money making involved. Please feel free to correct me... great read by the way.

 

Alex.

[kusunokimasahige]

This might sound really stupid, but is cutting with a sword through bodies of criminals or those who were executed already, laying on top of one another really comparable with cutting through a sword wielding opponent in full armour ?

 

I wonder what the Japanese who lived back then wrote about that.

 

 

 

 

.

[Alex A]

Isn't it strange how the title of wazamono still helps to sell swords to this day. As for the testing, totally inaccurate, too many variables.

 

Alex.

[Rivkin]

I am not sure that shinto are worse cutters than kamakura. I am unaware of any supporting data for this, as very few kamakura blades were ever tested. Usually it goes from widely postulated in martial arts community thesis that more artistic blades are also better cutters. Which is questionable to say the least. Ichimonji looks great, as does vivid early hada, but all it means is that these things are horribly inhomogeneous, and, well, that's about it. Unfortunately, you just can't do much cutting-wise if your best steel is 0.4 carbon, with horrifying quantities of phosphorus and sulfur to boot, a typical bane of (early) medieval smiths all around the world. Shinto/shinshinto there is plenty of better quality steel around, but hada is unimpressive. But I've met a number of Japanese who believe that four seasons is a weird unique Japanese quality and that a melted padlock from XVth century will produce an infinitely superior cutter than modern steel. Artistism - yes, cutter - NO.

 

Shinshinto has a different ideology than shinto - mass reproduction of early koto work. There were decent copies made before, but probably 1725-1750 was the last "good" shinto period. Lots of swords from 1750-1800 are extraordinary unimaginative - suguha with absolutely no activity, tight hada. It will cut, but would your want to be dying next to it?

But then a lot of shinshinto swords have horrible unwieldy balance, hada artificially enhanced through brute mixing of different steels.

 

P.S. There are swords from 1850s that are looking shinto, and those from 1800s that are already fully within shinshinto space of ideas.

 

Just my vision.

Rivkin

[Jean]

I have never been excited over the wazamono rating. First because only some blades from some smiths were tested and above all because to establish the wazamono rating of a smith, at least ten swords of a given smith should be tested and a real methodology of testing should be pre-established for all swords testing whoever the smith, in the same condition...

[george trotter]

In terms of tested swords from the shinto or any pre-Meiji era, wouldn't the nearest to a reliable testing sample be the swords of the 1933-1945 smiths of the Yasukuni Jinja and the Rikugun Jumei To schemes? We know from contemporary literature (shown in Tom Kishida's book) and from RJT scheme directives that swords were tested on a regular basis .

 

Taking the Yasukunito, these were made on site under the scheme and supervised in a "school" forge situation. the teachers descended from the Suishinshi Masahide line and the work followed the Nagamitsu and Kagemitsu style of Kamakura Bizen (most have medium hamon, often suguba with small midare). These blades were essentially the continuation of the practical sword "ethic" of Masahide and had the benefit of modern metallurgical research. A proportion was tested with tameshigiri and inspection and graded in price in relation to their discovered and tested quality.

 

Taking RJT, which had smiths in various locations, a smith who entered the scheme in 1943 had to present samples for testing and thereafter, his swords were tested at random from time to time to ensure quality (hamon was set at chu), if passed, the sword received the star stamp (the test was on straw bundles and iron bar, and lateral strike test together with polish, hamon and dimension testing/inspection). Say from early 1943-Aug 1945 a smith could be expected to have made 250? swords, it is reasonable to say that at least 10-20 would have been tested...therefore, if he continued as a RJ tosho, it is because his work must have passed test. These schemes follow largely the lessons taught by Masahide and implement his teachings on practical need for reliability in use and as such, are logically of a far higher verifiible quality than anything (regardless of papers etc) from before Meiji era...what do members think?

[Ken-Hawaii]

I have the two-volume set of Kubikiri Asaemon Token Oshigata in which are shown many ways to test swords on criminals. I'm not sure when these were originally printed, but just from the photos I can tell that there was a specific testing regimen, depending on how much resistance was wanted in the tameshigiri target. If someone knows more about the era, we could probably figure out what was tested. Here is one diagram:

 

 

Ken

[george trotter]

Ken san,

doesn't it always come back to how reliable the test and or test document was? In those times, as today, there were strong considerations on who commissioned the test, who did the test, how much money/reputation/social connection rested on the outcome?

Are these origami and various nakago inscriptions believable?

just askin'

[Ken-Hawaii]

Good point, George. I don't have any information on who commissioned these two volumes, or when, but I do have to think that there was a considerable cost to put them together. How likely is it that someone was willing to pay out however many ryo to create these 100+ diagrams & even more oshigata just for money/reputation/social connection? I'm sure there are other members who can comment on this far better than I, though.

 

Oh, & don't forget that I can't read the Kanji, either. :D

 

I just found some info that might shed some light:

This tameshigiri has been done by The Yamadas, usually called Kubikiri Asaemon, from generation to generation. This book contains interesting or valuable documents selected carefully from among a lot of ones (entitled "Token Oshigata") owned by Yamada Family. It includes approx 460 plates in it.

 

Ken

[Gabriel L]

Like Jean, Alex, et al. I have never considered the historical wazamono rankings to have any actual meaning, except to add to the narrative/color/flavor of a given sword and flesh out its contextual value.

 

A sword is a sharpened piece of metal. It will cut things. Whether it will kill someone or not is not based on its semi-mythical ability to cut even better (a simplistic fixation shared both by period samurai and modern anime watchers), but on who uses it and what they use it on. Put another way, even if there are substantial differences in cutting ability between swords, as there naturally will be depending on geometry etc.… do you really think those differences would be relevant against armor, or that they matter at all against an unarmored spot?

 

And of course while the original rankings formed a much more objective assessment than had possibly ever been assembled in Japan before that point, they still don't have anything approaching the level of scientific objectivity and statistical validity that any modern test, even by a non-scientist, would be expected to meet.

 

Besides, it seems to me that a more interesting and critical question is not which blades will cut (they all will), but which blades won't break (not all of them, evidently).

 

Anyway I think I am preaching to the choir... and this is getting pretty off-topic now that I look back at what thread this is.

[Rivkin]

Very pleased to encounter the lack of machoistic perception of nihonto. With very limited abilities I don't want to play the expert here, but natural arrogance take over.

My desire was always to see the (unavailable) full list of failures. From (very limited) experience some of it would probably be accompanied by "hagired" or "bent".

Some by "too unbalanced/heavy to wield efficiently".

 

Still, even semi-trained martial artist could not sever Mishina's head from multiple attempts with supposedly the best wazamono, but I would guess with a lot of swords that would be not achievable realistically at all.

 

One thing that always bothered me is how fresh were the bodies they used? Rigor mortis is a natural limited so that they need to be either very fresh (or better alive) or already rotting?

 

Rivkin