Shikkake Naginata Naoshi

[paulb]

In my bad weather quest to try and improve my photography. Attached are some images of a naginata Naoshi attributed to the Shikkake school of the ealry Nambokucho. It recieved Juyo papers in the mid 1980s.I wrote about it in more detail in an article entitled "Study of a Juyo blade" some 13 years ago and this article appears in the article section here and on the Token of GB website. It is interesting when photographing it this time round I have seen so much more detail than I did a decade ago. I guess a combination of improved understanding and experience and better photography. (getting there but still working to improve it!)

[lonely panet]

I like this a lot, post more pics

[paulb]

As requested

[lonely panet]

The soft Evan masame hada mixed with the muneyuki is really enjoyable. BUT the over all sugata really seals the deal. wonderful, but i can only imagine how good it looks in hand.

 

Is the boshi hakikake??

 

 

Thanks for sharing

[Rivkin]

Hm, looks Hosho to me.

 

Kirill R.

[Ken-Hawaii]

An ideal blade to study & photograph.

[paulb]

I think there is too much itame and mokume in it to attribute it to Hosho. The boshi is hakikake.

Two things I picked up when reading about Shikkake in the past:

1. Although seen to varying degrees in most Yamato schools the tendancy for the hada to become masame as it enters the hamon is regarded as a kantei point for Shikkake.

2. To paraphrase a quotation from Tanobe Sensei "When we see a naginata that has obvious Yamato characteristics from the early Nambokucho we tend to attribute it to Shikkake"

 

I am guessing Shikkake for some reason made more naginata and were typically Yamato in style not taking on too many other influences as seen in other Yamato groups of the period.

[Michaelr]

WOW what a beautiful blade and Great photography.  Thank you for sharing   

 

     MikeR

[BenVK]

Love the blade and the photos are also excellent.

Would appreciate some tips on how to take photos as good as this. My biggest problem is the reflection of the camera when taking macro shots.

[paulb]

Ben

I feel very under qualified to offer any tips as I am still in full learning mode. If you do a search on the site there are a number of very useful guides that have been published here over the years. They make a very good starting point.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Paul was this the Shikkake that was featured at Samurai Art Expo 2018?

 

I cannot go into finer details that separate different Yamato attributions from each other but I can offer some statistical data as I've been tracking swords down for many years. It shows something about the attribution of naoshi a bit. So far my data group for Yamato swords is about 750 swords.

 

For Senjuin there is 1 Tokubetsu Hozon naoshi with partial mei remaining and specification in brackets to Nanbokuchō period.

For Taima so far I have 5 naoshi listed.

So far 0 naoshi for Tegai.

So far 0 naoshi for Hōshō.

Then there is Shikkake. I have 1 signed and dated naginata for Shikkake Norinaga, 3 naoshi with mei and 1 mumei for Norinaga. For Shikkake in general I have 1 mumei ubu naginata and 15 mumei naoshi blades.

Lastly I have 7 mumei naoshi with Yamato Shizu attribution.

[paulb]

Hi Jussi,

Your memory is better than mine but I double checked and yes this sword was at Samurai Art Expo. 

Thank you for the statisitcs which I think confirms the comment from Tanobe Sensei.

Something interesting from your analysis when Han Bin Soung wrote a paper in 2000 assessing 10,000 Juyo swords he said 40% were Bizen and only 150 were mumei Yamato swords. That is a very big difference from your figure of 750. As I think the majority of Yamato attributed blades are mumei I don't believe this difference can relate to signed pieces. I wonder why there is such a large difference over a 20 year period. Perhaps more have appeared or the criteria in assessment has changed resulting in more passes.

( It may be of course that his numbers were wrong, but knowing the gentleman concerned I think it unlikely, it could also be that I recorded it incorrectly [which is more likely]. )

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think Han Bin Siong was of course correct, I think I would have greatly enjoyed meeting him.

 

I am still missing bit from the magical 10k mark and I have something planned when I reach that. And my stats will be slightly skewed as I have my own idea what I am after and data what I am needing for it. For the specific time frame I am after I am including everything from Kokuhō to Hozon, and even including some items with other provenances. I should have now about the great majority of Japanese government authorized swords that are fitting to my interest. I know I am still missing some (maybe a lot) Prefecture Bunkazai and City Bunkazai items.

 

The numbers that Han Bin Siong had in his paper very strongly correlate the data I have in total (even though he had just Jūyō swords). It seems in my database c. 39% is Bizen and Yamato is only bit over 8% at the moment. For the c. 750 Yamato swords I have, only 156 of them have mei (partial, orikaeshi, gaku included) and 4 are just fumei. That leaves about 590 mumei Yamato blades, and given the circumstances as I have already went through most of high level items the amount of mumei will only increase and mei will become even more of a rarity. I already know many of the upcoming ones as I go onward in Jūyō but they will be few in number compared to mumei ones. But signed Yamato swords (with the small exception of Tegai Kanenaga) are very rare in general.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Paul & Jussi, is Han Bin Siong's paper available?

[Peter Bleed]

This has been an interesting thread, Thank you, Paul. Like, Kirill, I also immediately thought, "Hosho" - until I looked at the overall sugata. An attributio to the Nambokucho truly seems better. GREAT Images, Paul?

Peter

[paulb]

Hi Ken,

I think I had it once but can't find it. I think it was written to use alongside the year 2000 Yamato exhbition held, I think in Amsterdam. I have to admit like most purely academic texts,  it was extremely heavy going. The statistical analysis was interesting however. The main point being that in relative terms Yamato work is rare, signed Yamato work even more so.

[Wim V]

I suppose you gentlemen may be referring to the article "The Yamato Hosho Tradition from Kamakura till the Present, Reunion after Thirty Years", by Mr. Han Bing Siong?

 

This was published in Token Bijutsu nr 556 (May 2003 issue), and can also be found on Darcy's website as reference information with the description of an important Hosho blade that once was in the collection of Mr. Han:

 

https://yuhindo.com/hosho-sadakiyo/

[Rivkin]

 The main point being that in relative terms Yamato work is rare, signed Yamato work even more so.

 

Aside from Bizen and some Yamashiro celebrities, who was signing their blades en masse before Muromachi… Seems to be an exception rather than a rule.

 

Kirill R.

[paulb]

Thank you Wim

I am not sure if thats where I saw it but I will certainly check it out

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think we are straying from the original subject but as I feel it is interesting to discuss these things I'll continue a bit.

 

I was just reading Nihonto Koza the other day and there was a point made that for Akihiro and Hiromitsu mumei katana don't generally been historically attiributed to them. For Hiromitsu I know 2 mumei katana and both are Bijutsuhin and for Akihiro 2 mumei katana that are Bunkazai. As both of them have a lot of signed shorter swords still remaining the lack of mumei swords is possibly due to avoiding attributing mumei katana to them. Similar thing with Shintōgo Kunimitsu, there are lots of signed pieces by him remaining, yet I haven't seen mumei sword attributed to Shintōgo Kunimitsu yet. There are few that are attributed to Shintōgo Kunihiro and Shintōgo in general. Now you got the opposite with Yukimitsu, Masamune and Sadamune, signed pieces are incredibly rare but there are lots and lots of mumei attributions to them. I know Darcy has been saying for years that it is extremely important to understand there are differences within the same mumei attribution. I also remember Wim said in other thread that for Jūyō items it is important to read the description to understand why the NBTHK made the call they did. Of course for items below Jūyō we don't have that information readily available so we must try to study ourselves.

 

I know that shortening some of the large Nanbokuchō swords makes us miss a lot of original signatures on long swords but here are some smiths outside major 5 traditions who have relatively large amount of signed work remaining. Bungo Yukihira (Heian - Kamakura), Sa Yasuyoshi has many signed short swords remaining (Nanbokuchō), Hōki smiths have relatively high amount of signed tachi remaining (Heian - Kamakura), Mihara Masahiro (Nanbokuchō - Ōei), Aoe smiths in general have lots of signed swords remaining (Kamakura - Nanbokuchō). Now the numbers I am talking about are not huge by any numbers that is why I am using the term relatively.

[paulb]

Coming back to the orginal theme and I am conscious that I don't want to bore people, but I have been playng with another blade to see if I can get more detail in the hamon and reduce glare from the shinogi-ji. I am becomng a contortionist trying to adjust angles of blade, camera and lights.

Going to give it a rest now as I feel I am runing around in ever decreasing circles. But if nothing else I hope it might encourage others to have a go. If a technically challenged impatient idot like me can make progress think what you can do!!

 

 

[Rivkin]

I think we are straying from the original subject but as I feel it is interesting to discuss these things I'll continue a bit.

 

I was just reading Nihonto Koza the other day and there was a point made that for Akihiro and Hiromitsu mumei katana don't generally been historically attiributed to them. For Hiromitsu I know 2 mumei katana and both are Bijutsuhin and for Akihiro 2 mumei katana that are Bunkazai. As both of them have a lot of signed shorter swords still remaining the lack of mumei swords is possibly due to avoiding attributing mumei katana to them. Similar thing with Shintōgo Kunimitsu, there are lots of signed pieces by him remaining, yet I haven't seen mumei sword attributed to Shintōgo Kunimitsu yet. There are few that are attributed to Shintōgo Kunihiro and Shintōgo in general. Now you got the opposite with Yukimitsu, Masamune and Sadamune, signed pieces are incredibly rare but there are lots and lots of mumei attributions to them. I know Darcy has been saying for years that it is extremely important to understand there are differences within the same mumei attribution. I also remember Wim said in other thread that for Jūyō items it is important to read the description to understand why the NBTHK made the call they did. Of course for items below Jūyō we don't have that information readily available so we must try to study ourselves.

 

I know that shortening some of the large Nanbokuchō swords makes us miss a lot of original signatures on long swords but here are some smiths outside major 5 traditions who have relatively large amount of signed work remaining. Bungo Yukihira (Heian - Kamakura), Sa Yasuyoshi has many signed short swords remaining (Nanbokuchō), Hōki smiths have relatively high amount of signed tachi remaining (Heian - Kamakura), Mihara Masahiro (Nanbokuchō - Ōei), Aoe smiths in general have lots of signed swords remaining (Kamakura - Nanbokuchō). Now the numbers I am talking about are not huge by any numbers that is why I am using the term relatively.

 

In a very professorial mode:

For Akihiro and Hiromitsu the issue is probably more that the daito are generally displaying far less of hitatsura and tend more towards calmer Soshu, in rather drastic contrast to tanto. Dmitry has a great example in his book, for which the alternative attribution is Sadamune. Shintogo Kunimitsu has a few daito, but one can also argue that the quality is weaker and less uniform in long swords. Signed Masamune generally all weak. There are by far not that many problems with Sadamune (or Go for that matter) attributions as with those of Masamune, and whether Kamakura or Nambokucho period's attributions to Masamune are more problematic is still an open question - he simply might have been not that early a smith. That would target the notion of him being this great teacher, but such status seems to be quite problematic at present anyway.

But overall, there is often a quality differential in Soshu between tanto and daito, which is very much unlike Bizen. Daito in hitatsura are scarce to begin with; even with generally more uniform in quality smiths like Norishige, daito are much more likely to have quality issues, at least in some part of the blade. 

 

With Yasutsuna there is plethora of problems, beginning with him originally supposed to be a contemporary of Amakuni, so the exact dating is unclear, despite whatever is written in books. There is also an issue of him and Amakuni being quite popular temple swords during the Edo period, with many signed examples of both, sometimes of what supposed to be one and the same historical blade.

 

There is probably a contributing factor can be that very few daito are still ubu, and very few schools worked in tanto during the Kamakura period. However, still Bizen, Rai, Awataguchi and a few individual smiths (Norishige, Hasebe, Akihiro, Hiromitsu tdo stand out in Soshu, for example) do seem to be an exception in a sense that their signed works are far from uncommon.

 

Kirill R.