Have Tokubetsu Hozen standards dropped?

[Alex A]

22 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

 

 

Hozon & THozon are a judgment of specific smiths and schools.  So (FOR EXAMPLE) you can have Hozon Sukesada blades, and then (the theory is) the best examples of that Sukesada’s blades can go THozon.  You could also have Hozon Ichimonji blades with the best going THozon.  Where the confusion seems to fall is believing the two THozon blades (or ALL THozon) are the same… they are not.  Those level papers do not really place blades/smiths within the ‘grand scheme’ of Nihonto.  They are very specific to that smith/school.  
 

 

 

That was my point, but from ive been seeing over the last few years, they no longer have to be the best, special, rare, whatever.

 

Its a mixed bag.

[Ray Singer]

24 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

DISCLAIMER: This is MY understanding of what I believe Darcy was trying to convey.  ANY mistakes and misunderstandings are my own.  I am very willing to hear if I am misrepresenting something he wrote.  I respect his teaching too much to steer someone else wrong.

 

Hi Mark, here are the two articles that I believe relate to what you mentioned above. 

 

Ladder Theory

https://web.archive....o.com/ladder-theory/

 

Hozon is a Test, Juyo is a Competition 

https://web.archive....yo-is-a-competition/

 

 

[Gakusee]

25 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

 

 

 

NOW… Juyo and above DO start to consider where a blade/smith/school fall within the ‘grand scheme, world, and history’ of Nihonto and is now a competition between ALL other blades/smiths/schools both at the time of submission (what is sitting in front of the judges at that moment in time) and also much more ‘globally’ of what the NBTHK considers ‘best’ in the history of Nihonto.  

 

…. And additionally:  also specifically competition within the blades forged by the very smith whose blade has been submitted to Juyo and above. But I think you are capturing that element by referring to the “grand scheme” of Nihonto. 

[SteveM]

8 hours ago, Rivkin said:

Allies never had strong intentions to confiscate art swords, so as early as 1946 local police departments started to issue permits made on a typewriter with magic words "art sword" "worthy of preservation". There was no unified policy however on how to deal with the situation and in some places police did confiscate a lot of blades and placed them in storage.

Then came NBTHK which formed from the beginning many branches so they could issue "papers" that one could then provide to the police showing its an "art sword" or potentially have local NBTHK to go through the pile of things already brought over by the police and return the "art" ones. 

 

I have to correct this bit. The allies (well, the US occupying army) had conflicting messages. The initial directive #1 issued on 2 September 1945 was for all weapons to be collected in order to demilitarize Japan. There was discussion among the Japanese: "do they really mean ALL weapons?", "what about weapons in museums?", etc... Nakajima Chikuhei (Minister of Munitions) clarified to the Ministry of Culture that "all weapons" did indeed mean every weapon in Japan. This is when swords began to be collected at local police stations. By the end of September there was enough resistance to certain swords being collected, that GHQ issued an exemption notice on 25 September 1945 that said "bona fide Japanese civilians" could retain swords that were verified heirlooms. There was no clarification of the verification process. Also, there was some internal discussion in Japan as to the precise meaning of "retain" and "bona fide" Japanese citizen, but in the meantime the police kept confiscating weapons.

 

There is considerable difference as to how each prefecture went about this, and a lot of confusion. Then, on 3 December 1945, there is so much confusion that GHQ issued an order rescinding their exemption notice of 25 September, and they once again clarify that they want all swords collected. The intention at this time is to get all swords under GHQ control, inventory them, and then figure out how to classify swords as heirlooms, and how to return any heirlooms. 

 

In the meantime, heirlooms were lost and destroyed and separated from their owners, and Japanese collectors were rightfully alarmed. Finally, at the end of December, Honma Junji and Kanzan Satō (they were both high level bureaucrats in the Ministry of Culture at the time) petitioned the Japanese government through an English speaker at the Ministry of Culture (Kurata Bunsaku) to approach the occupying army with a scheme for the Ministry of Culture to validate and register "art swords", which was ultimately accepted by Provost Marshall Victor Cadwell on December 31st. It took some months for the legal apparatus to catch up with this agreement, but by June 1946 the details were fixed and the new registration law/system was put in place (much to the relief of Japanese sword collectors). In the meantime the police collected the swords, but they didn't pass any judgment on which were art swords and which weren't art swords. 

 

The scheme was that the Ministry of Culture would examine and validate the swords, and the "local authorities" would issue registration papers. In Tokyo, the "local authority" was initially the police department. Hence, the earliest registration papers are from the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department. This was the system from 1946 onward, and it kind of lives on to this day, only today its the local boards of education that now issue registration papers.

 

The NBTHK wasn't formed until 1948, and their first job was to sort through the 100s of thousands of swords that were collected and stored in Akabane, and figure out which were swords worth registering, and how to get the swords back to their owners. As far as I know they were never involved in registering or providing proof to the police, but the founding members of the NBTHK were the ones who devised the registration scheme, so there is some overlap of the people involved. The NBTHK had no source of funding for their operations, so they developed the authentication process as a way of bringing in funding for their activities. I think Kyoto was the first branch office, and that was opened in 1949.

[Rivkin]

I very much appreciate the correction since I was trying to reconstruct the process based entirely on papers I've seen. The earliest police issued permit to carry an art sword to a Daimyo family in hands was dated October 1946, then I've seen plenty from 1948-1949. I probably have to look up my photographs because for some reason non-regulation NBTHK attestations (i.e. issued with a position mentioned) I've had/seen were provincial. Dates I think were 1949 or 1950.