Real-Life kantei-of swords, part 10: Addendum to the article “Real

challenge -kantei Wakimono Swords "

W.B. Tanner and F.A.B. Coutinho

Introduction: In a recent article (ref 1) we tried to identify a sword which was unusual
for three reasons:

First it was a wakimono, that is, a sword from a school that does not belong to one of
the famous five Den (Bizen, Mino, Yamato, Yamashiro, Soshu)

Second it was identified as Kaifu by the NBTHK having received a Hozon certificate, but
also identified as Bizen Gorozaemon Kiyomitsu by the NTHK, for reasons described in
the article. Although we understood the NTHK attribution we believed the Kaifu
attribution was more appropriate due to the other Kaifu swords we reviewed and their
similar characteristics to the one we presented.

Third was our perplexity as to why the Japanese disdain Kaifu swords.

After the article was completed and published we discovered a few more examples of
published Koto Kaifu swords, one of which was a Meibutsu called the “Iwakiri” which
was formally owned by Miyoshi Nagayoshi (1522-1564). In fact, we discovered some
additional interesting information about this school (ref 3) we would like to share with
the readers in this addendum. We also believe we know which smith from the Kaifu
School produced our sword. As is often the case, the Kantei certificates frequently
only identify the school and not the smith, or if the smith is identified the generation is
not given. We pointed this out in two previous articles (refs 4 and 5), suggested that
this can be a source of fun to ascertain which smith produced the sword, although this
may be considered pretentious, due to the limited experience most of us Westerners
have.

Additional examples of Kaifu swords

Figure 1 shows an oshigata signed Ashu Ju Ujiyoshi saku that is a Meibutsu, called
“Iwakiri”. In our previous article (ref 1) we presented an oshigata of a Kaifu
swordsmith that was awarded JUYO status, however, this new oshigata is more
important because this sword has historical context and is considered a Meibutsu
although it is not registered in the Kyoho Meibutsu. (more written on it below.)
Unfortunately, we have no other information other than the fact it was made in the
Eisho era and named the “stone cutter” (“Iwakiri”). The existence of such a sword
increases our perplexity as to why the Japanese dislike Kaifu swords. The sword bears
some similarity to the Juyo sword discussed in our previous article (1) and comes from
the same era. Ujiyoshi was the father of Yasuyoshi.

Addendum to Kaifu Wakimono School 1

Nihonto Zuikan Koto by Kataoka
Figure 1

Figure 2 shows the oshigata of another kaifu blade Ashu Yasuyoshi Saku and is dated
Daiei Gonen Nigatsu Hi (second month of 1525). Comparing the description of this
sword with the description of the Juyo sword and of the mumei subject sword of
article (ref 1) we can see that it is very likely made by the same smith.

Nihon to Koza Koto part 3 - AFU

Figure 2

Figure 3 shows another oshigata of the Juyo sword studied in the previous article. The
Kaifu blade is signed Ashu Yasuyoshi Saku. The blade is dated, but the dated is
illegible, but attributed to the Muromachi era. This oshigata is better than the previous
one. Comparing the description and oshigata of this sword with the mumei subject
sword in our previous article as well as comparing it to the Juyo example, we see the
common characteristics of Yasuyoshi in all three swords.

Addendum to Kaifu Wakimono School 2

Nihonto Zuikan Koto by Kataoka
Figure 3

Further Clarification on prior Article

In the prior article, we were perplexed by why the Juyo description (24th Juyo
setsumei) was negative about a sword that was just granted Juyo status. With great
appreciation to Markus Sesko, who elaborated on part of the Juyo description in a
Nihonto Message Board (NMB) in a Post from 21st October 2016 - 10:20 PM.

“The Kaifu School is very interesting and I did some research on it a while ago. A theory
says that the “resemblance to Go” (i.e. what the 24th Juyo setsumei actually means,
not "transformed itself into a big river" as mentioned in the newsletter) goes back to
the fact that the former owner of the Iwakiri, Miyoshi Nagayoshi (1522-1564) had the
Kaifu master smith Ujiyoshi, who worked for him, study the originals. This approach is
supported by the "fact" that Nagayoshi was known for owning two great Soshu
meibutsu, the Miyoshi-Masamune and the Miyoshi-Go, which were both unfortunately
damaged in the Great Meireki Fire of 1657. “

This makes much more sense and provides a compliment to the sword that it has “a
resemblance to Go”. This also demonstrates the challenge with translating “Nihonto
Japanese”. To Japanese speakers not familiar with the history or specific Nihonto
context of a phrase, it often appears as confusing or unintelligible.

To help further understand why the Kaifu swordsmiths are indeed not well considered
in Japan we looked at the lineages shown in the figure below (ref 2) and examined the
ratings of all the smiths described in our articles.

In the Tosho Zenshu (ref 7), there are four Ujiyoshi working in Oei (1394), Bun Mei
(1492) Eisho(1504) Tensho (1573). Except for the Bun Mei smith that is rated chu
(middle) the others are rated as ordinary.

In the same book there are three Yasuyoshi (three generations) listed working in
Bunmei , Eisho and Eiroku (1558) . We think the our example is from the second or the
third generation. Note that in the lineages chart below the second and the third

Addendum to Kaifu Wakimono School 3

generations are shown as a single generation. In any case the first generation is rated
as gyo (good ), the other generations as Chu (average).

In general, the smiths are rated very low. One exception is Yasunaga who is rated
Excellent and apparently has a Juyo sword. We have not encountered any of his works
yet.

Lineage of Ujiyoshi Smiths - Nihon to Koza Koto part 3 - AFU

Conclusion

In comparing the oshigata of the five Kaifu examples that we have presented (three in
the previous article (ref 1) and two in this addendum) it is apparent that the hamon
and other jihada activities of Yasuyoshi are different from the other Kaifu smiths. In
comparing these examples with our mumei subject sword, we conclude that the sword
presented in our previous article (ref 1) is by Yasuyoshi during the Muromachi era.

In addition, we believe the common attributes used to describe Kaifu smiths are
inaccurate. As stated in our previous article, the Kaifu swords need to be divided into
three categories, Koto, Shinto and all other. Most of the material we have read
describes Kaifu smiths from the Shinto or ShinShinto era. In reference 2 we find the
statement “the Kaifu smiths prospered in the Shinto period and beyond, producing
YAMAGATANA (woodsman hatchet) used by hunters. These were very keen edged, but
the kitae (forging) was the same as the kitae for HOCHO (kitchen knives)” (ref 2) This
statement is only relevant to the Shinto and later smiths. The Koto Kaifu smiths were
much closer in style to the smiths of Yamashiro or Soshu. The same applies to the
statement about Kaifu swords being rustic in nature. This does not apply to the Koto
blades we have studied. It is a pity that there isn´t more written about these early
Kaifu smiths. From the examples, we have seen they are both interesting and well
crafted, but not well documented.

Addendum to Kaifu Wakimono School 4

References

1. W. B. Tanner and F.A.B. Coutinho, Real-life kantei of swords, part 10: A real
challenge-to Kantei wakimono swords. Newsletter of the JSS-US 48(4),2016

2. Honma Junji and Koizume Hisao, Nihon To Koza Vol IX Koto Kantei Part 3.
(Translated by Harry Afu Watson), AFU REASEARCH ENTERPRISES, INC. Rio
Rancho, New Mexico USA, pages 110-123

3. Honma Junji, Token Bijutsu No.608, It says:" There is a term of ‘Kaifu-zukuri’

and this is a kind of wakizashi in kata-kiri-ha-zukuri and was made for odd job
during the Edo Period. It is also called ‘Yama-gatana’ (mountain knife) and its
main purpose is for hunting rather than military use."

4. W.B. Tanner and F.A.B. Coutinho, Real life Kantei, part 8:Oei Bizen Swords -
What we see and what we read. Newsletter of the Japanese Sword Society of
the US, 48(3) 6-11

5. W.B. Tanner and F.A.B. Coutinho, Real life Kantei, part 9:The history of two
tanto. Newsletter of the Japanese Sword Society of the US, 48(3) 6-11

6. Kataoka NihonTo Zuikan Koto, page 947

7. Shimizu Osamu, ShinhanTosho Zenshu, Tokyo Japan, 1988

(1988)

Addendum to Kaifu Wakimono School 5