Ko Kangobeiyo - dates definition

[Uechi]

I'm looking for a time frame for Ko Kangobeiyo. I am currently awaiting delivery of my Naginatanaoshi wakizashi from Japan. It received Tokubetsu Hozon in the NBTHK Shinsa. Some information on Kangobeiyo school indicates the majority of extant nihonto were made in Nanbokucho period through early Muromachi. Those references however are to Kangobeiyo not Ko Kangobeiyo. It is my understanding that the designation "KO" in this context means "early" I assume that that designation would put the nihonto in the mid to late Kamakura period ( approximately 1234 to 1270 ). I base this on the delineation of early smiths from that school.

I would appreciate someone with more knowledge giving me a valid definition of the time frame not my conjecture

[BIG]

Hi Jeffrey,

 

nice xample, sold item from a member

 

http://www.juwelier-strebel.de/asien-ku ... items.html

 

 

Best Regards

[BIG]

Sorry,

 

It's Number 590

 

Best Regards

[Jussi Ekholm]

Hey Jeffrey I was wondering where you got the dates near mid 1200's for Kongobyoe?

 

Pretty much all resource books I have list Morikuni & Moritaka at around Einin (1293-1299). I'm aware that one source lists at c.1260 but the 1290's fit a lot better when taken into consideration who are said to be relatives.

 

I know that Fred Fimio has written a book about Kongobyoe recently, and that is on my to be bought list. However the dates I've seen him use at his website do not go along with my sourcebooks. Will be nice to see his sources once I get the book one day, as his book description says "This book contains some never before seen information, compiled and researched from every known reference on the subject."

 

In my own novice mind I tend to think ko-Kongobyoe spanning from the late Kamakura until the end of Nanbokucho. As that would be what I would consider to be the early school, maybe that is too long period and it ko-prefix ends somewhere mid-Nanbokucho? My line of thought might be totally wrong though so better wait for better opinions.

[Uechi]

Hey Jeffrey I was wondering where you got the dates near mid 1200's for Kongobyoe?

 

Pretty much all resource books I have list Morikuni & Moritaka at around Einin (1293-1299). I'm aware that one source lists at c.1260 but the 1290's fit a lot better when taken into consideration who are said to be relatives.

 

I know that Fred Fimio has written a book about Kongobyoe recently, and that is on my to be bought list. However the dates I've seen him use at his website do not go along with my sourcebooks. Will be nice to see his sources once I get the book one day, as his book description says "This book contains some never before seen information, compiled and researched from every known reference on the subject."

 

In my own novice mind I tend to think ko-Kongobyoe spanning from the late Kamakura until the end of Nanbokucho. As that would be what I would consider to be the early school, maybe that is too long period and it ko-prefix ends somewhere mid-Nanbokucho? My line of thought might be totally wrong though so better wait for better opinions.

 

That is exactly why the question. The Japanese Sword Society lists Ko KongoByoe Smiths as Ryosai 1234,Jitsuna 1240, Sairen as 1278 Moritaka as 1260 and Morikuni as 1270. Shoshin.Com shows Moritaka 1293 and Morikuni as 1278 but doesn't mention a

"Ko KongoByoe". I tend to agree with your opinion that Ko Kongobyoe was late Kamakura to sometime in the Nambokucho. I know unfortunately this is not an exact science just hoping I can get some kind of consensus on a time frame for the early/Ko Kongobyoe.

Thanks for the inputs JDromm

[Marius]

and it ko-prefix ends somewhere mid-Nanbokucho?

 

Please, this is hair-splitting. The whole Nambokucho period is only 60 years. Can you judge a sword's age so preciseley, unless it has a a signature of a known and documented master? Of course not.

 

For many schools "ko" means until late Kamakura (at least according to Nagayama). But these are only attributions/approximations. So chill out, folks

[Jussi Ekholm]

Mariuszk I know that comment was bit hairsplitting and it was kinda made tongue in cheeck. But then again experts have sometimes drawn pretty accurate lines on what is what, of course there are varying opinions on things. Like I said I would think end of Nanbokucho as the divider here, as for me it sounds logical. Yet I could not most likely differentiate for example Oei period work from late Nanbokucho work but I know experts can do it, or at least they'll make better guess than I do. 1293-1392 would be a c. 100 year span for the early school and as most of my sources say most Kongobyoe swords are from Muromachi era.

 

NBTHK for example seems to use the end of Nanbokucho for divider for example for ko-Mihara. The duration would be somewhat similar to my idea of ko-Kongobyoe. Chu-Mihara is only c. 55 years according to Nihonto Koza and after that it's sue-Mihara.

 

I'm just gathering the data from the books and repeating it as I don't yet have my own knowledge built up.

[Jean]

Jussi,

 

Mariusz is right. You cannot define sword school era in the way historians have defined time era (Nambokucho, Muromachi...). Talking of Oei Bizen, smiths who lived, forged, at the end of Nambokucho, beginning of Muromachi cannot be defined as late Nambokucho or Oei smiths.

 

What categorize them is the way they forged swords. So give up the ideaa of dating schools era, all depends of smith forging techniques.

 

Who is going to think that a sword forged in Tenmei is a Shinshinto sword, unless it is dated, that's unrealistic, without Nengo the blade will be classified according to the smith name and his forging period. So don't focuss on dates but on era.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Jean & Mariusz I know what you both are saying and I think you are correct.

 

I think you will need some specific dates for rough understanding, at least it makes it easier for me, regardless of how correct it is. I know that the periods always have transition overlapping, it's not like everything changes in an instant. For example regarding ko-Mihara it says in Koto-Zenshu "Ko-Mihara refers to those Mihara smiths and works which do not date later than the Nanbokucho period," In Nihonto Koza there is Masanobu tachi that is dated Meitoku gonen 1394. Masanobu worked during the transitional period and his works are classified as ko-Mihara. As the two dated swords from him date to 1391 and 1394, to my logic it's logical that he continued to work during the Oei period too.

 

I know this may sound like hairsplitting or nitpicking about the years & such but I understand how Jeffrey is asking about the ko-Kongobyoe attribution. Who were the early Kongobyoe smiths, to whom his sword was attributed? It's just fun to think about these things.

[Uechi]

I'm not looking for exact dates or hair splitting just a general agreed upon time period ( by most experts ) on what delineates Ko Kangobyoe from Kangobyoe. Like I stated, there are references to Kangobyoe School but not much on early smiths i.e. Ko Kangobyoe. It obvious that there is some distinction or the Tokobetsu Hozon attribution would have just been Kangobyoe without a Ko.

[Jean]

if the blade is unsigned, you will have to focuss on the work. the kanteisho means that the work meet ko kongobyoe characteristics; there is no reference to a date :D

 

Edit to add

 

You can take from what I read, Ko kongobyoe period as the one before 1360 (mid Nambokucho) but once again that is not true. Ko kongobyoe swords are the one which don't qualify as being very late Nambokucho/Muromachi.

[Eric H]

Kangobeiyo

Kongobyoe

Kongohyoe

Kongobei

 

Eric

[Jean]

Darcy is right Eric, the characteristics that define Kongobyoe, is the difficulty to encounter according the authors the same "Romanjization" of the school name but who cares, we humans have an aptitude to understand the à-peu-près (something-like)