Article "New information on the Origin of Soshu-den"

[Adrian S]

G'day to all,

 

I've been working on a research article which is now nearly complete. I will post it to my website and with Brian's permission also add it to the Articles section of this Message Board shortly. Before I do that, I though you guys may want to see an interesting sword.

 

This tachi is ubu and is designated Juyo Bunkazai. It is torii-sore, wide mihaba, thin kasane, chu kissaki. The jigane is o-itame with prominent chikei and ji-nie. The hamon is ko-nie with plentiful sunagashi, bold kinsuji and inazuma.

 

First class Soshu-den right? .... Wrong, it is from the late Heian, too early for Soshu, mei is Yoyasu.

 

cheers,

[christianmalterre]

Dear Adrian,

 

isn´t this sword an Yamashiro-Den one?

As far as i do know the Yamashiro tradition does appear already very early in Tosho such like Soshu Kunitsuna,Shintogu Kunimitsu and others.

 

Christian

[Adrian S]

G'day Christian and all,

 

Mamiya speculates that this blade is 3rd generation Yoyasu and so late Heian. The Meikan actually lists this exact blade as 6th generation circa 1293. Yamashiro blades of this era have much tighter and smaller jihada, have some koshisori and fumbari keeping with earlier traditions. Here is my article, hope you enjoy it.

 

http://www.sydneytokenkai.com/research-articles.htm

 

I'm am happy to field questions here on this forum. Please don't recite the standard English language texts mirroring the standard Japanese texts. I assure you I have read them all over the last 22 years quite thoroughly.

 

cheers,

[paulb]

Hi Adrian,

I look forward to taking time reading your article. regarding the sword illustrated above I think the most surprising thing to to me about it for that date is the hamon. I would have expected it to be much more suguha based and quieter.

With regard to the jigane I seem to remember recently on one of the NBTHK monthly kantei blades there was an Ohara school piece which exhibited similar bold patterend itame and nagare. Also recently an early Awataguchi work where they said the smith concerned worked in two styles the classic nashiji of the school and this much larger pattern. Although not as early as this work both of these swords predate Soshu by a long way.

Thanks for your efforts on the article

Best Regards

Paul

[Adrian S]

G'day Paul and all,

 

Your observations are sharp! The Mokusa smiths also display two types of jigane. The earlier type Warabite-to has a soft whitish fine itame hada which is indistint and shows "pools" of darker jigane that look muji. The later style Warabite-to has Ohada. The Sano Museum has published a chemical analysis of these two types and finds them to be two completely different steels. The correlantion with Awataguchi is clear, it may also be explained by using two different steels. I will post this data here, its part of my research anyway which, when complete, I will put up on my site. I have some ideas about this and the technical difficulty of working with iron ore as a raw material as opposed to iron sand, but the details will have to wait until my research is complete before I post it to my website.

 

As I stated in my article. At the end of the Heian there was an emigration of Emishi to south and west Japan ( or they were forced to move). Some Mokusa smiths at that time moved south basically looking for work as the Kanto was now peaceful. They adapted to the Kinai style sword easily, did you know that the earliest "signed" Heian tachi is Fusachika, a Mokusa smith. The sugata and jiba reminds me of Munechika. The most well known example of this emigration is Oshu Masatsune who is considered the founder of the Ko-Bizen school, most connosseurs would not realise that this meant he was from Emishi stock. I am currently researching this emigration and it's impact. I have found some evidence of connections to Hoki Yasutsuna, Bungo Yukihira , the Sanjo school , the Chikuzen school and Miike school. I am also finding some very interesting cultural and iconographical evidence.

 

cheers,

[sanjuro]

Adrian.

 

For what my opinion may be worth, I enjoyed the article immensely. Thank you..... Please keep us posted on your continuing research and findings. Theres also nothing wrong with your line of speculation concerning the origins of Masamune. It may not fall into line with the conventional Japanese view but it asks a very pointed question that deserves an answer.

[Peter Bleed]

Adrian,

WOW! I am blown away by your paper. I will studying more deeply, but you have very perceptively opened a major discussion in Japanese sword history. I have spent most of my life involved - marginally - in the archeology of Tohoku. Has luck had it, my handle was on Stone Age materials, but it has always seemed to me that the historic materials, and iron techology specifically, needs attention. You make a good point that warabite-to are essentially a northern phenomenon. There was always a dynamic iron making industry up north. That is where warfare was before the Kamakura era. And on and one.

This aspect of sword history has been largely ingnored. But you bring it into focus. Thank you!

As an aside, let me say that the tragedy of the the tsunami may impact this discussion. There is in Tohoku now, serious discussion of moving communities on to higher terraces. These moves will require archaeological assessment of previously unexplored areas. One has to wonder if/when Heian era smelting facilities will be found!

Again, THANK YOU for originla and creative thinking. Where will this be published?

Peter

[Adrian S]

G'day all,

 

Thank you Brian, Peter B, Keith G, Barry H. and Paul B for your support. Barry has asked me for permission to print into the JSSUS journal which I am happy to support. Brian has also asked to post to the articles section of this board. This article was part of a thesis and a book, I now feel I may serialize the book into articles and publish later.

 

Peter, here is something for you. The Mokusa swordsmith school remains are undisturbed and still exist in the grounds of the Mokusa Jinja shrine. take a look at some photos.

 

Photo jinja1. this is the old road leading to the Mokusa swordsmith workshop site

Photo jinja2 . excavated iron stone still litters the site!

Photo jinja3. site of a swordsmith's house

Photo jinja4 . site of the Mokusa swordsmith factory ruins!

 

Peter, thought you may like these photos. The Mokusa have a 500 year history of working in this one spot and they were sitting right on top of their raw material resources, literally. If there is a Heian smelter to be found, look no further. Want to organize a dig? I'm in! I think the Mokusa Sword Research group would be in too. It's a matter of getting enough support and knowing the right people. I'm planning a research trip (again) for the New Year, at that time I will visit the site. I wonder if they will let me wonder around with a metal detector! :lol:

 

cheers,

[Tetcho]

Adrian

 

Good luck with your 2012 research trip. I would hope that you would be allowed to perform some compositional analysis of the site ore samples to get an elemental fingerprint. It would be very informative to compare those findings with any analysis you might be able to perform on the blades illustrated in your paper. It would also be interesting to see if you could get some analysis done on some blades by Yukimitsu to assess your hypothesis.

 

Regards, Mel

[Adrian S]

G'day Mel and all,

 

I already have that material comming to me from the journals of the Mokusa Research Group. The problems with Yukimitsu comparing the chemical analysis is getting my hands on a genuine one in the first place. Secondly, both Tamatsukuri Yukimitsu and Soshu Yukimitsu probably used the very same source iron ore anyway. The Iwate Museum and the Chubachi Museum both have the best examples of Mokusa-to available. I'm looking forward to visiting them and discussing the latest research. My search for a comparison sample will be for an iron artifact that I can test with the HHXRF, just a nail produced from the local source would do, I think I may be able to secure something from the group.

 

For those interested in Mokusa, look at page 134 of AFU's tranlation of Nihonto Koza Koto volume 3. It clearly states that the Ko-Bizen was founded by the Oshu Mokusa, in other words the Emishi smiths, not from Yamato people or the Kibi. Think of all the schools that followed the Ko-Bizen and the Mokusa swordsmith workshop ruins is like finding Atlantis.

 

cheers,

[Jacques]

hi,

 

  Quote

It clearly states that the Ko-Bizen was founded by the Oshu Mokusa

 

No, it states only that this fact is said (but not proved).

[SAS]

Thank you Adrian for this very interesting article; I have been interested in the Ainu (emishi) since my college days long ago and have wanted to see info on their swords for some time. Please continue your work and posting it.

[Brian]

Thanks to Adrian, I have converted and uploaded this interesting article to the articles section. This section is now only open to registered members, and all new submissions by members and others, will be added to it.

This section has been moved to the Izakaya area which is also members only. Thanks Adrian. Any other submissions by members are very welcome and will be credited.

 

Brian

[Adrian S]

G'day Jaques,

 

Yes, Nihonto Koza does say "it is said" that the Oshu Mokusa founded Ko-Bizen on pg 134 vol 3 and again on pg143 it states it is said that Masatsune was the son of Oshu Arimmasa. The Meikan lists Arimasa as a Oshu Mokusa smith working 1159 and states he is the father of Taro Masatsune. Hawley has an earlier date 1026 to 1040, and also says the same.

 

It would be a very surprising statement considering the way the Yamato the looked on the Emishi if it were not true, it is mentioned in other publications. I am trying to find another primary source for this and some other related information. In any case, I am working on another article and this information is being investigated as part of that.

 

cheers,

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

  Quote

The Iwate Museum and the Chubachi Museum both have the best examples of Mokusa-to available.

 

 

I'm a little uncomfortable with that sentence, In his book (page 16) Kokan nagayama says : "The mogusa smiths appear to have played an important role in the Oshu district, but while they are mentionned in the old sword books, no authenticated examples of their work survive.

[Adrian S]

G'day Jacques,

 

  Quote

I'm a little uncomfortable with that sentence, In his book (page 16) Kokan nagayama says : "The mogusa smiths appear to have played an important role in the Oshu district, but while they are mentionned in the old sword books, no authenticated examples of their work survive.

 

Sorry Jacques, Nagayama in this regard is quite wrong. The Juyo Bunkuzai Yoyasu is one, to my knowledge it has been in a shrine for a long time, we would have to classify that as authenticated by any stretch. Sano Museum display on the Origin of Sori had a tachi signed Mokusa, sorry the book is at home so I will update it's designation. The earliest signed Mokusa tachi in existence, Fusachika is another one. Thats off the top of my head, I have books that show more. The Mokusa Sword Research group would have a list of known examples. I will obtain a copy for my book research. These Museums have some examples on their websites, the region has a high regard for Mokusa. I will give a full report later after my research trip and take some happy snaps while I'm there.

 

 

cheers,

[Brian]

Sorry folks, the links to the article and the one before it are now fixed.

 

Brian

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Adrian,

 

About the Yo/Toshi/yasu :

 

Nihonto koza volume III koto part II (Afu translation) page F34/F35.

 

 

Edit,

 

there are some informations on this group in the same book page 154,155,156, i don't know if you have read them.

[Adrian S]

G'day Jacques,

 

Thanks, yes that is it! Guess you have to agree that Nakayama was wrong. Glad you did your own research

 

cheers,

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Adrian, Nagayama speaks about the heian jidai, there is no works by Mokuza smiths from that time.

 

ps please read my edit on my former post.

[Ford Hallam]

Not being sufficiently versed in the background to the material your thesis explores, Adrian, I am unqualified to comment on your conclusions other than to say I'm quite shocked that you characterise Masamune's workmanship as being "outlandish and rugged". This would seem to fly in the face of how he has been regarded by scholars and connoisseurs of the sword for generations.

 

Further, your bibliography is somewhat scant and although I noted previously your disdain for the late Dr Hamma's scholarship I would have though at least some reference to his studies might have provided a balanced appraisal of what we might reasonably conjecture. Certainly some reference to the many literary sources he cites would not have been amiss I think.

 

I assume you are aware of and have studied the results of his studies as were published in the English NBTHK journals vol 52 through to 59.

[Adrian S]

G'day Ford,

 

  Quote

Further, your bibliography is somewhat scant and although I noted previously your disdain for the late Dr Hamma's scholarship I would have though at least some reference to his studies might have provided a balanced appraisal of what we might reasonably conjecture

 

I assume you mean Dr. Honma Junji, Kunzan is his common or nickname ( refers to the Japanese word for a throat clearing noise he was known for doing .. kun ..kun) and I have referred to him quite often and his references in my article, surprised YOU didn't know that! I guess I assume too much. Actually he was quite supportive of this view as I am told by someone who knew him well, but since he was from Yamagata, he may have an Oshu bias.

 

I assure you my bibliography is indeed accurate, but as most is translations from Japanese I admit I didn't reference as precisely as what I found in English. Our Japanese readers shouldn't have any trouble finding the references though.

 

As for the English NBTHK journals you mentioned, no I do not have copies. My collection of the English language translations are from the Florida Token Kai re-prints and I do not have those editions. I would appreciate a copy if you have the time to send them to me.

 

My conjecture has a sound basis and the more I research the stronger it is looking. I haven't even hinted at the main part of my thesis yet, and I know it will be even more contraversial. I am going on another study trip to the Tohoku in April and will be meeting with some scholars more knowable on the subject. At the moment I am translating (actually my wife) 13 journals of research and excepts from 16 books of interest on various aspects the subject. The subject is fascinating and there is much much more to come. In the meantime, I've made my point, take it or leave it, no difference to me. My research will carry on. In the end the weight of the data will be too overwhelming to be ignored.

 

cheers,

[Adrian S]

G'day Jacques,

 

The section in Nagayama that the quote comes from is Entitled , "Late Heian to Early Kamakura"...He makes no reference to a time frame either on the quote, he says

 

  Quote

The Mokusa smiths appear to have played an important role in the Oshu district, but while they are mentioned in the old books, no authenticated examples of their work survives.

 

Jacques, as I said before, in this instance, Nagayama is wrong. The Yoyasu actually has been assigned as late Heian, or 1235, or 1293 depending on your reference. You pick, but either way it drops pretty much into the period that Nagayama is talking about. I go stylistically with 1293. The tachis signed Fusachika and Mokusa definately earlier and definately fit. There are shrine pieces that are even earlier still and are recorded as Mokusa blades. Here is an example, from Tsutsukowake Shrine located in Fukushima, it is clearly very ancient. Maybe Oshu was not Nagayama's specialty and I mean no disrespect, please. In any case I think it is strange that Nagayama only gives the topic a couple of sentences.

 

Now let me ask you. If the Mokusa school has a 500 year history, is famed in its time for being excellent quality, lists literally hundreds of smiths. Yet we only have a few examples. Does that smell right to you?? .. As I said in my article, many of the best Mokusa swords were made osuriage and re-assigned as the work of Soshu or other Soshu influenced work for that matter. Now there can be some innocent reasons here for the osuriage. Most old Mokusa nakago are short, thin and narrow, not keeping with later trends. Also they were sensuki, the combination of these factors would have made them difficult to mount sturdily.

 

 

cheers,

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

  Quote

The Yoyasu actually has been assigned as late Heian, or 1235, or 1293 depending on your reference

 

Huhh!! Heian jidai ended in 1185.

 

  Quote

If the Mokusa school has a 500 year history

 

I never said that.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Adrian,

 

As I said, I don't have the background knowledge to critique your essay. I did indeed mean Dr. Homma and by reference I referred to the lack thereof in your bibliography. If you have been basing some of your work on his research it ought correctly to be reference and acknowledged in the bibliography. This is usual scholarly practice, is it not?

 

Having said that the following are the 3 times you mention him;

 

  Quote

Kunzan states “Kanchi In Bon‘ and other swordsmith directories list many smith names from Mutsu

and Dewa Provinces between the Nara and the Kamakura Periods “

5

 

 

Kunzan states “Considering that there were many battles in this area, such as ‘Zen-kunen-no-eki’

and ‘Go-sannen-no-eki’ when the Imperial Court sent their armies to Oshu to subjugate the Ezo

(Japanese aborigines) … It is quite natural that many swordsmiths resided there and there was

remarkable progress in sword forging techniques. “

9

 

Kunzan describes Hoju , “Hoju forges whitish jigane and itame-hada

that combines nagare-hada and stands out, and tempers ko-midare and sugu-ha mixed with

ko-midare in accompanied by a hazy nioi-guchi in nie-deki.”

5

 

None of these quotes are actually anything to do with his own research on Masamune but are simply specific points you've taken to build you own theory while ignoring the bulk of what he has to say. This is not really referencing his theories at all. Referencing his thesis would involve a considered appraisal and critique of it.

 

I'm happy to make copies of the articles I mentioned and I'll forward them to you shortly. As for what you may have heard about his real thoughts on the matter I can't possibly comment on hearsay. The article was published posthumously though so I had rather thought that it was his final statement on the matter.

 

However, as I said, what struck me most was the final paragraph of your conclusion where you describe Masamune's workmanship thus; "his outlandish and rugged style". I think you may well be on your own in seeing it that way. :?

 

Regards,

 

Ford

[Adrian S]

G'day Ford and Jacques,

 

Ford, I had made references to Kunzan's NBTHK articles that I used direct quotes, reference points 5 and 9. My apologies if that dosen't meet the accepted critia. The full quote was not warranted as the exerts from these quotes were referring to a point I was making only.

 

I would consider Masamune's style outlandish, rugged, bold and manly for his time, considering the comparitively sedate style of his predecessors and those of contempory kaji of other schools. That's what makes him so attractive and unique. Just my opinion.

 

Jacques, I think I made my point as clearly as I can. Please re-read my direct quote from Nagayama and note that I have refered you to other examples. Frankly, I am not interested in having to explain it a fourth time. If you don't accept that extant Mokusa blades dating back to the Heian exist, just because Nagayama said they don't , that's not my problem.

 

It's 4.30 am

 

good night gentlemen,

[christianmalterre]

Dear Adrian,

 

in full respect of your´s and the your´s beloved research work you do and did your(s)self-equally, in full respect of your´s personal very strong stamina,interest and passion you do show here...(and believe me please,-i fully do honour and respect such hard to ben found characteristica in todays collectors mind )-

i, but-just have to ask here...as i do not understand the your´s idea here....to be very honest:

 

Why(?) shall this Yamashiro-Den blade be other-than an very excellent(outstanding-perfect-phantastic-georgeous-minutious,ect.ect...) Yamashiro-Den blade?

And of course!-Where shall there be an any slightest Soshu in?

 

(just to clearify(i do speak from that very blade you did post pictures here- and i read and thought about what you wrote,studied your´s essaye,read those other posts-reread again-but,to say it honest at least-i do not really understand....)(perhaps you may explain me?)

 

Yamashiro is Yamashiro-Or do i see ghosts here(!?)or am i completely wrong here perhaps???

(this of course-does happen-LOL!)

Sorry!(?????)

 

Christian

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

  Quote

If you don't accept that extant Mokusa blades dating back to the Heian exist, just because Nagayama said they don't , that's not my problem.

 

Your problem is that you are speculating without serious references (if serious, was badly read) so your credibility is near zero.

 

I quote here one of your bibliographic reference : Token Bijutsu No.562, NBTHK pg 10

 

  Quote

Old sword directories say that Oshu was inhabited by the swordsmiths Yasufusa, Takeyasu, Fusho, Kiomaru, Garima, etc. in the Heian Period as well as Bunju who lived there in the Taiho Era (701-708). Considering that there were many battles in this area, such as ‘Zen-kunen-no-eki’ and ‘Go-sannen-no-eki’ when the Imperial Court sent their armies to Oshu to subjugate the Ezo (Japanese aborigines) and that the three generations of the Fujiwara family thrived in this area and established a distinguished culture. It is quite natural that many swordsmiths resided there and there was remarkable progress in sword forging techniques. Although, there are no extant work of the swordsmiths described above, there was a smith called Hoju who lived around Hiraizumi (castle city of the Fujiwara family) in the Kamakura Period and whose extant works have been confirmed. The name of this smith had been succeeded for several generations up to the early Muromachi Period. They left some tachi with dates like Shochu, Kenmu, Eitoku and Oei Eras (1324 – 1429). There are a few extant tachi by them on which workmanship looks older than the one with a date of the Shochu Era and the production date is speculated to be the middle of the Kamakura Period. Their workmanship is as follows; jihada is itame-hada combined with masame accompanied by dim chikei and jifu then stands out and looks coarse, hamon is ko-midare or midare based on gunome (they normally temper sugu-ha on tanto) then consists of nie accompanied by a subdued nioi-guchi and sunagashi are seen inside the hamon. Their workmanship looks unrefined on the whole. There is an interesting ken with an inscription of ‘Yamato no Kuni Ju Tohon Hoju’ and a date of the Enkei in the old Imperial collection.Possibly this ken is evidence that a branch school of Hoju of Oshu existed in Yamato Province. Alternatively the maker of the ken has nothing to do with them. This is a subject that has to be sorted out but it appears to be a very difficult task to find a solution since the ken does not show enough characteristics to reach a firm conclusion.

 

 

 

The nihonto koza volume i quoted states that the blade you shown is not from the smith your say but by a later one bearing the same name.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

More (Yamanaka's newsletter)

 

 

[Adrian S]

G'day Chrsitian,

 

Thank you for an intelligent question. The Yoyasu shows strong Soshu characteristics. The jigane in particular is more hadatatsu and bold than what you would expect from the contemporary Yamashiro-den. The strength and size of of the chikei, and the description of the hamon is also very Soshu. My feeling, which is also an area of investigation is, that the Mokusa and Soshu used the same raw material being iron ore and so the jigane is similar. I have some opinions as to Yamashiro den source materials too as there seems to be little local supply in the Kyoto area, if you will allow me to conclude my investigation in that regard, then maybe it will become even clearer then.

 

cheers,