Tanto54 Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 A recent thread has shook my foundational understanding of Nihonto. I’ve always considered the various masterpieces that were made as shrine or temple offerings as great Nihonto (not necessarily the oddly shaped or huge ones, but definitely the ones that are the same size, shape, etc. of a regular Nihonto). I believe that many of these offerings represent the very best of a smith’s work. We know by inscriptions on the nakago and various other documentary evidence that these masterpieces were made with the intention that they be an offering to a shrine or temple and not be used in combat. However, one of our members, who is usually considered an expert on things Nihonto, has said (I paraphrase): if the craftsman that made them did not make them to be USED as a sword, but rather as a “offering”, then they cannot be considered Nihonto [or even a “Sword”].... They can only be called sword-like metal sculptures....” What say you?
cabowen Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 Your are confused. What I said was that items made first as art that were never meant for use were metal sculptures and not tsuba in the traditional sense. Items made by Western craftsman who were not traditionally trained are tsuba-like, or nihon-to-like, but not "tsuba" or "nihon-to". Offering of blades to shrines has a long history and is one of the traditional uses for which swords have been made-that is, there is a long history of such donations and it is thus an established "use". Many times they are made without mekugi-ana which would render them useless from a functional standpoint. Many are made in lengths too large to be of practical use. Such swords made to be donated can not be considered swords in the traditional sense, but ceremonial or ritual items made as "offerings" first. In many cases. however, they are regular swords that are simply donated to the shrine by private parties and I see no reason to not consider these made for combat blades as true swords that have simply been donated. While I have found that many Western collectors get all excited by swords made for shrines, many Japanese collectors I have spoken with seem rather indifferent towards them. Not sure if that sentiment is common among collectors in general in Japan, but it seemed to be a consensus among those that I know....There are various reasons for this.
Brian Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 I'm locking this thread soon, as an extension of a closed thread with no real purpose. Sorry, but this isn't even worthy of debate. Who cares about definitions and symantics. It has a cutting edge..it is a sword. Shrine offerings are whatever the maker decided they are. Dedication swords. If it has an edge and it is long, it is a sword. I am bored of pointless debates over stuff that is petty. Brian
cabowen Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 Like it or not, collecting is all about categories and categories are established by definitions.... The thing is, we are all free to establish our own categories if we so choose. There is no reason to argue endlessly about it....
kusunokimasahige Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 Is there a list somewhere of swords, polearms, bows and arrows and armor donated to various shrines by famous or less famous historic figures in Japan ? With those I mean pre-Meiji. KM
Toryu2020 Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 Not locked yet? Western collectors have no problem it seems displaying buddhas and other votive objects from other cultures. Would you proudly display a crucifix on your mantle if you knew it belonged in the vatican? That said there was a long history of raiding shrine store-houses in order to equip armies on the move. This was historically how many swords were lost, and some discovered! The victor was by unwritten rule to return the swords after the battle. There are records that show swords that went out came back but with different dimensions! Kusunoki-san a single list would be enourmous. Most large shrines with established collections publish catalogues of their holdings - some are exhaustive, listing everything, and some just highlight the better blades... -t
Tanto54 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Posted March 11, 2012 I remember reading recently (but I can't remember where) that a Westerner found and tried to return a nice sword that had been "looted" from a temple during the war. The temple rejected the sword because it was now "desecrated". Does anyone know this story and know the temple's reasoning for deeming the sword desecrated?
cabowen Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 I have heard the same story and have no idea if it is true or not but it would seem pretty obvious as to why a sword looted by an enemy and taken from the shrine would then be considered desecrated..... Pretty far off topic here.....
Tanto54 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Posted March 11, 2012 Dear Chris, I don't want to get into it with you anymore. My post is right on topic. I suspect that the answer will shed light on the Temple's views about whether the object is a sword or not. I find it interesting in Thomas' post that a Temple's storehouse was often "raided", the swords used in battle and sometimes returned (and apparently accepted back by the Temple).
Tanto54 Posted March 11, 2012 Author Report Posted March 11, 2012 Dear Brian, I can understand your desire to lock this tread, but I wish that you wouldn’t. I really am interested to know if these prejudices against offering swords (and soft metal and art tsuba) are really as prevalent as some would have us believe. While I try to choose the very best sword or kodogu that I can afford regardless of other’s prejudices, I am worried that if these biases are really wide spread, when I die, my wife will never be able to recover the obscene amount of money I’ve spent (and hope to spend...) on this passion.
cabowen Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 I fail to understand how a Shrine's refusal to accept back an item that they believe to be desecrated has anything to do with whether or not they consider it to be a sword or not....It could have been a mirror, a bonsho, or any thing else that they may have considered to be defiled by its removal and possession by those not considered "clean".... Therefore, it appears to me that this line of inquiry is far afield of the original question.
Jean Posted March 11, 2012 Report Posted March 11, 2012 I am in it with Brian, so I am going to lock the topic. George, there are enough Japanese swords of the highest quality in the world (go to DTI) without bothering about Shrine swords. You are the first willing collector I have seen over 30 years, torturing himself with this kind of question. If you intend to buy thousand dollars of swords and are worried about this kind of swords, buy Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo swords. From what I have understood, swords in Shrines are not very well kept after.
Recommended Posts