Kao Questions

[Tsuba gardener]

Hi Group,

1) l'm aware that  mei could be faked on fittings but did the same occur with kao?

 

2) Why were kao added when a mei was  present? 

 

3) Was it only the master of the school that was authorised to use a kao?

 

4) Why wasn't kao used on schools such as Myochin, Kinai, Soten or Nobuie.

 

Many thanks in advance.

[Rivkin]

Kao is a stylized signature used on Japanese documents from ancient times. It is an addition to the name and is signature as such, signifying the document is prepared in the presence and hand signed or entirely handwritten by the said person. For example, copies of government rescripts do not bear kao, the originals do.

Generally, kao would be associated with upper ranks of beaurocracy or government-recognized heads of important institutions. 

The use of kao on metalwork is generally a late (i.e. 19th century) tradition: swordsmiths and tosogu makers were usually not tasked with writing high ranking documents. Which is also an issue btw since if you read some 15-17th century swordsmith documents you have no idea is it the original, or its a copy made 100 years later by someone trying to prove something - I encountered this issue quite a few times.

[Tsuba gardener]

9 hours ago, Rivkin said:

Kao is a stylized signature used on Japanese documents from ancient times. It is an addition to the name and is signature as such, signifying the document is prepared in the presence and hand signed or entirely handwritten by the said person. For example, copies of government rescripts do not bear kao, the originals do.

Generally, kao would be associated with upper ranks of beaurocracy or government-recognized heads of important institutions. 

The use of kao on metalwork is generally a late (i.e. 19th century) tradition: swordsmiths and tosogu makers were usually not tasked with writing high ranking documents. Which is also an issue btw since if you read some 15-17th century swordsmith documents you have no idea is it the original, or its a copy made 100 years later by someone trying to prove something - I encountered this issue quite a few times.

Thank you Rivkin, for the context. Reading your explanation made sense in the context of metalwork.

[Bruce Pennington]

Neil,

I can't answer the "why", but can say it has been discussed and guys suggest it might have been used as sort of a marketing flair.  Give the visual effect of an important blade, possibly?

 

Fakery?  There have recently been a couple of blades that were being called gimei that had a kao (inscribed kakihan; not stamped kokuin).  

 

Use - Kakihan are all tied to individual smiths.  Most kokuin are, too, however during the war, Amahide ran a forge where he and 4 other smiths used a forge kokuin (hot stamp).  There are a couple of others, like the Warrior stamp, that are still a mystery.

 

I agree with Kirill that generally, most are seen from the 1800's and later.  I have 2 kakihan, one of the smith Sa and one of Kanemune on blades believed to be from the 13-1400s.  Then I don't see any until the cut-testers started using them in the 16 and 1700s.  Then in the 1800s they began in earnest with the smiths.

 

All this is just blades, though.  I don't track the tsuba and other items signed with mei and kao.

[Tsuba gardener]

5 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

Neil,

I can't answer the "why", but can say it has been discussed and guys suggest it might have been used as sort of a marketing flair.  Give the visual effect of an important blade, possibly?

 

Fakery?  There have recently been a couple of blades that were being called gimei that had a kao (inscribed kakihan; not stamped kokuin).  

 

Use - Kakihan are all tied to individual smiths.  Most kokuin are, too, however during the war, Amahide ran a forge where he and 4 other smiths used a forge kokuin (hot stamp).  There are a couple of others, like the Warrior stamp, that are still a mystery.

 

I agree with Kirill that generally, most are seen from the 1800's and later.  I have 2 kakihan, one of the smith Sa and one of Kanemune on blades believed to be from the 13-1400s.  Then I don't see any until the cut-testers started using them in the 16 and 1700s.  Then in the 1800s they began in earnest with the smiths.

 

All this is just blades, though.  I don't track the tsuba and other items signed with mei and kao.

 

[Tsuba gardener]

Hi Bruce, thank you for your in-depth response. 

Neil 

[kissakai]

Nice replies - thanks

 

[Bryce]

G'day Neil,

My favourite smith Gassan Sadakatsu almost always finished his mei with a kao, but occasionally he left it off. I don't really know why. His father Sadakazu on the other hand often didn't sign with a kao. Sometimes he did include one, sometimes he used a kokuin instead and sometimes he included a kokuin and a kao. No real pattern to this I can discern. Also, when students signed for their master, they also incuded the kao.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[Kanenaga]

Kakihan on a blade by O-Sa? May we see it?

[Tsuba gardener]

Thanks Bryce, thanks for your reply especially as you brought points up which have questioned my hypotheses that only the heads of the school used a kao rather than students. 

On 11/3/2024 at 12:01 AM, Bryce said:

G'day Neil,

My favourite smith Gassan Sadakatsu almost always finished his mei with a kao, but occasionally he left it off. I don't really know why. His father Sadakazu on the other hand often didn't sign with a kao. Sometimes he did include one, sometimes he used a kokuin instead and sometimes he included a kokuin and a kao. No real pattern to this I can discern. Also, when students signed for their master, they also incuded the kao.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

14 hours ago, Kanenaga said:

Kakihan on a blade by O-Sa? May we see it?

Les,

Here is what I have from a Gunboards thread:

[Kanenaga]

So it's a kinzogan mei, an attribution rather than a signature.

And the kakihan likely belongs to whoever did the inlay work, rather than Sa himself. Just my opinion, of course.

[Shugyosha]

I may be wrong but that looks more like a kinpun mei than kinzogan: I can’t see any evidence that the gold was inlaid rather than “painted” on and I think that reduces the likely veracity of the attribution. 
 

There have been a lot of these on the Japanese auction sites lately with a fanciful attribution painted on in gold to lend the air of an authoritative judgement - generally without papers of course.