INTERESTING
SAIDAN MEI
In over thirty years of collecting Japanese swords, I
have never owned one with saidan-mei, the result of a tameshigiri inscription. I
guess being a kendo man, I felt that I should have a “proven sword” in my
collection. I am pleased to say that this situation has now been remedied and I
have a blade with not one, but two cutting tests recorded on the nakago. I think
this is very rare and I cannot recall having seen one before although I am
assured that they do exist.
The sword itself is a graceful tachi or katana that
is o-suriage and I suppose it would now be considered as chisa-katana or
o-wakizashi (nagasa is about 55.0 cm). The hamon is in ko-nie deki, based on
suguha with several dips like inverted gunome at intervals. The boshi is almost
yakizume with the smallest of kaeri. The jihada is somewhat difficult to see (I
think it has a Meiji period or maybe Showa period polish) but there appears to
be some masame present. There are two mekugi-ana and there is machi-okuri and
the jiri is ha-agari kuri jiri. My guess is that it is a late Yamato-den piece,
maybe sue-Tegai or something similar. I apologise for not being able to provide
a comprehensive description of the blade but it is out of my possession at the
time of writing.
The two saidan-mei
are on opposite sides of the nakago. I crave your indulgence whilst I explore
the possible ramifications of this unusual occurrence.
The first inscription is on the omote. You will
notice that it begins below the lower or first mekugi-ana and I think this is
significant. This would have been done before the machi-okuri, which created
more space at the top of the nakago. This inscription reads: Kanbun
Juni Nen Go Gatsu nana Hi and then in the second column Futatsu
Dō Otoshi. (Kanbun 11th
year, 5th month, 7th day –1672 – right through two dō).
I believe that this may have tested at this time because it had recently
undergone 0-suriage and possibly the owner required proof that it was still an
effective weapon after having undergone such major surgery.
Then we come to the second which reads Enpo
Sannen Ni Gatsu Nijuichi Hi, (Enpo 3rd Year, 2nd
month 21st day – 1675) followed by Yotsu-dō Dodan Barai
(four dō, clear through to the dodan) and in the second column Kiri-te
Nakanishi Jurobei (cut by the hand of Nakanishi Jurobei). Well, this is
a severe test carried out less than three years after the previous test, what
could be the reason for this? I think that the answer lies in the machi-okuri,
which I believe, took place in the intervening years between the two tests. It
is evident, from the position of the end of the bo-hi (in the new moto-machi
area) that this was cut at the same time, or possibly after the machi-okuri. It
would seem that the owner was very conscious of the necessity for his sword to
be fully functional and he had many changes made to the sword. He had firstly
had it shortened, then a machi-okuri, another mekugi-ana and then a bo-hi cut
into both sides of the sword. Understandably he would have been concerned that
the sword may have been fatally weakened and so it was submitted to a second
test. This test was more demanding than the first as it cut four dō rather
than two as in the previous test and seems to have successfully proved the
blade’s integrity. Strangely enough, the tester is only named in the second
test and not the earlier one. Is it possible that the two tests were planned
before the first was carried out and that he waited for the second before
identifying himself?
The actual tests cuts that were
recorded as having been made, yotsu-dō and futatsu-dō (four and two dō
or waist cuts) are open to some discussion. The tester, Nakanishi Jurobei is
recorded on one test as having cut nanatsu-dō (seven dō cuts). He has
therefore, along with other seemingly extravagant claims, gained something of a
reputation in the West at least, of being prone to falsifying the results of
cutting tests. Whilst it is quite possible that he was a rogue and a fraud (I
never met him!) there may be a different and kinder explanation to these
multiple body tameshigiri. For instance, I think seven dō might not mean
all seven bodies were cut in one stroke. It could easily mean that seven
separate dō were cut in seven different strokes. One would still be able to
claim that seven were cut. There is no doubt that multiple bodies were cut as we
can see them piled on the dodan in certain old tameshigiri instruction manuals,
but seldom more than two high, I believe. It is also known that in certain
schools of tameshigiri, there were different cuts known as ichi-no-dō,
ni-no-dō and san-no-dō which might lead to similar inscriptions.
Further, I would expect there to be witnesses to an official cutting test,
including the owner of the sword, which would make exaggeration difficult
- or am I simply too trusting and naive?
I hope you are able see in the
enlarged pictures of the inscriptions that the characters are very small and
well cut. Unfortunately, they were originally filled with gold, which would have
been spectacular. This has now been picked out and only minute traces are left,
severely devaluing the piece.
When I acquired this sword, it was in
a rather short Kyu-gunto saya which was obviously custom made for the blade.
However, the normal Kyu-gunto D-shaped hilt was not on it. In its place was a
conventional shin-gunto tsuka and tsuba which appeared disproportionately long
for the saya. There is a leather foul-weather cover on the saya, upon which the
name Kawada
was written, in black ink. This seems most likely to have been the previous
owner’s name. (In fact a certain Kawada Tsuchitaro is known to have
surrendered a sword to Major General- Crowther at Thaton in Burma in October
1945. As this Kawada was a Lt General (commander 31st division of the
15th Army) it seems improbable that his sword should have ended up
with a lowly lance-corporal, but I guess it is well within bounds of possibility
in those confusing times, the sword being in the right area at the right time.
Further, I would be surprised if there were many officers surrendering swords
named Kawada in Burma at that time and so there are good odds that this is the
sword shown in the photo of the surrender below. Incidentally, Kawada seems
rather a short person and so the short sword would have been ideal for him –
more research is definitely needed on this provenance question. As the Kyu-gunto
was a style of mounting originating from the Meiji period, it is also quite
possible that the sword saw service in the Sino-Japanese or the Russo Japanese
wars.
This sword came from the grandson of
the veteran who received it in South East Asia, probably in late 1945 or early
1946. Elsewhere on this website in the article on “Surrender”
swords, there are further details of this sword.
Oshigata
and photo of nakago
R.F. Russell, as a lance corporal
seems to have been of relatively low rank to receive a sword and it must have
been part of a general distribution of trophies rather than being personally
surrendered to him. I have been unable to ascertain whether L/cpl Russell
7960278 saw combat in SE Asia, but I doubt it, being part of the 2nd
Division Postal Unit of the Royal Engineers although under overall command of
S.E.A.C (South East Asia Command). I hope it wasn’t him who picked out the
gold from the inscription!
I am not usually prone to such
speculation or flights of fancy but I believe these theories and ideas are borne
out by what may be seen on the sword which one can consider as hard fact. Of
course, I might be accused of putting the best spin on things, but I am willing
to entertain any other ideas that members might care to proffer. It seems that
around the Kanbun time many saiden mei were inscribed onto swords. This may be
that at this time, relatively few had experienced actual combat and wished to be
assured that their sword was capable in an emergency. It may also have been the
Tokugawa regulations governing the length of swords which prompted the
alterations on many blades. It seems that the results of
relatively few cutting tests were recorded after Kanbun period (1661-73)
until the shinshinto period when, once again, a samurai might have to rely on
his sword.
Since I started writing this, I have
learnt that the blade, which was entered into the March 2003 NBTHK shinsa, has
been attributed to Kashu (Kaga province) Kiyomitsu and has a Hozon certificate
dated 23rd May Heisei 15th year (2003)
Originally written in 2002
Adapted for the website by
Clive Sinclaire
Bexley, Kent
May 2008