katate-uchi

[Tcat]

From another thread:

 

  sanjuro said:

The problem we face here is the Edo period definition of a wakizashi as opposed to merely a shorter bladed weapon than a katana as defined in the Edo period classifications that we use fairly widely today. Those longer wakizashi of the Momoyama period I dont think were defined as wakizashi at the time, they were merely a sword of a convenient length. They really border on being uchigatana.

 

I have a 59 point something cm ubu blade from around mid 1500s. "Technically" speaking it is a wakizashi, being slightly under 60cm in length, but should I really consider it a smaller uchigatana...or, dare I say it...a "katateuchi"?? (http://www.shibuiswords.com/katateuchi.htm)

 

  Quote

KATATE-UCHI: "One Handed Fighting Sword" were long swords, like Katana. The Japanese produced this long sword style from the period of Bun-mei (1469) through Ten-mon (1532).

 

The sword is ubu with a ha of between 59cm and 60cm, it was likely made around 1550, would that make this kind of blade meant for Katate-Uchi?

[Toryu2020]

Alex -

We have to remember that the real study of nihonto occurs in the mother tongue, there are terms, historical, archaeological, and otherwise that have been adapted by collectors and practitioners for their own use. The various types of tachi (Efu-dachi, Kenukigata-tachi, ito-maki-tachi) gave way to the koshi-gatana which originally was a term for the tanto, but came to mean that blade worn at the hip. In the Muromachi age this blade became shorter, the curve moved toward the tip and the nakago/tsuka became shorter as well for one-handed use. This blade, ideal for the quick draw, came to be known as the katate-uchi-gatana or as you have pointed out; single-handed striking sword. This name has been abbreviated to uchi-gatana and just katana. The blades themselves show similar profiles. Certainly persons of differing sizes, tastes and ages carried them into battle.

 

How then do we know how they were worn and used? You would have to have the original koshirae to say for sure it was worn as a wakizashi or as a katana. Therefore in the modern study of swords, in the absence of other evidence like a koshirae, length is used to distinguish katana from wakizashi.

 

hoping some of this makes sense...

-t

[Tcat]

Thomas,

 

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

 

  Quote

In the Muromachi age this blade became shorter, the curve moved toward the tip and the nakago/tsuka became shorter as well for one-handed use. This blade, ideal for the quick draw, came to be known as the katate-uchi-gatana or as you have pointed out; single-handed striking sword. This name has been abbreviated to uchi-gatana and just katana.

 

Great info. I suppose my question should have been more along the lines of, would a sword this length (59cm+) have been carried alongside another sword, and if so, would this other sword have been longer or shorter? (ie, would the 59cm sword have been the "long"sword of the two or would it likely have been the shorter?) Or...is this something we simply can not speculate on?

 

I have heard of some swordfighting schools and ko-ryu stipulating "very long" wakizashi as companion swords, but have never really gotten to the bottom of just how long these "long wakizashi" are. It would seem to me that 59cm being so close to 2 shaku it could almost count as 2 shaku in terms of usage and technique employed in use. My real question is, generally speaking, given the timeframe of the sword I mention (mid 1500s), would it have been considered a short long sword or a long short sword? (Today we call it a long short sword because of the Edo classification - in this case, would this be correct or neglectful of original intention?)

[sanjuro]

Hi Alex.

 

I just spotted this new thread after answering your post in the other thread. :?

I'll transport it here if you think it worthwhile including in your thread.

[Tcat]

Hi Keith,

 

(in another thread...)

  sanjuro said:

Its all semantics anyhow. Edo period definitions of length are exactly that... They refer only to swords of that period as far as I'm concerned, and can be quite misleading when applied to swords of earlier periods.

 

I agree...I think it could be misleading when people talk about all Japanese swords around this length referring to them as "wakizashi", irrespective of the period they came from - perhaps they were not intended to be "wakizashi" as we understand the terminology today; they could instead have been the *first* sidearm (as in "main" sword), rather than a secondary sidearm. Would this be correct?

 

Also worth noting...I have heard advice from several collectors stating things like "stay well away from swords of this length" citing reasons like they were likely for merchants (spit) rather than 'true samurai'. I ask, is it not possible that a 'true samurai' at some point in time (mid 1500s) carried a sword with a blade just under 2 shaku?

[sanjuro]

Alex.

 

What you say has merit, particularly when taken in context of how these weapons were intended to be used. The katana is limited in length to some degree by the way in which it is drawn from the saya thrust through the obi in a one handed fashion. It is also dictated to some degree by the physical size of the man using it. It is quite difficult to draw an extremely long blade in this way. Bear also inj mind that the average Japanese male is somewhat smaller in stature than his western counterpart. Yes it is possible to draw a longer blade, but it requires a slightly different technique. The uchigatana (or whatever we want to call it), was developed so that it could be employed as a draw and strike sword. A tachi on the other hand was traditionally not required to fulfil this function and was quite a bit longer in the blade. Then again, there are also Tachi of shorter length and Katana (daito) of greater than Edo period prescribed length. It really is a can of worms to become limited in ones thinking, and classify swords entirely by length.

[Tcat]

Does anyone know about which of the ko-ryu use "long" wakizashi, and if so, how long these blades tend to be?

[Ruben]

Dear Alex,

 

search for Hayashizaki ryu for example, they use some kind of wakizashi and interrestingly long Daito.

So there is short- against long sword in some kata. And it´s been sad that Hayashizaki him self developed the draw were the sword hangs "up side down".

He defeated a man who killed his father,... . And I think at this time technics were teachted were you kill one or many in close kneeling positions, also with the "longer" sword.

 

Regards

 

ruben

[chrisf]

Alex,

There is a reference in the To-Ken Society of GB Nihonto magazine no.8 of Autumn 1998 page 33 which is a wakizashi of 53.3 cms but the explanation goes on to say;" This is a so-called single hand use uchigatana which was in fashion in the end of the Muromachi period.The blade has saki-zori and a powerful sugata with fumbari despite being a wakizashi."

[Shugyosha]

Gentlemen,

 

I'm sure this has been discussed previously, however, here's a link to an article by Albert Yamanaka on Japanese Sword Index which gives details of some of the swords carried by the 47 ronin. It is perhaps of interest that a number of them chose a short swords 2 shaku in length or longer.

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/ronin.htm

 

Kind regards,

John J.

[runagmc]

This one is interesting... dai and sho nearly the same length.

 

MASE KYUDAIU MASAAKI, age 63

katana mei: Michitaka (1,2), length 2 shaku 1 sun

wakizashi mei: Yoshitsuna (1,2), length 2 shaku

bow and arrow

[george trotter]

I am no expert and I hope I don't make too many glaring mistakes here, but I think we have to remember the men using these swords and the conditions that prevailed in the sengoku jidai.

The vast majority of soldiers were ashigaru and the type of warfare was, essentially, ground fighting.

In many pictures of the battles I have seen I seem to remember that most foot soldiers carried one sword (I stand to be corrected of course), and a tanto. Their primary weapon was either a naginata, or often a tanegashima, the sword being a secondary weapon.

As the men were all on foot, the length was reduced to about 60cm and the style of mounting became katate ("one hand"). This is perfectly logical.

The quality of these swords being generally "adequate" to the task, collectors have generally disparaged all of this class of sword...but like all things Japanese there are gems among them.

I think it was mainly officers and higher ranked men who had high quality swords, and those who were on horseback had longer blades.

In later years it is fair to say that many were destroyed and the better ones mounted as "wakizashi" to accompany the "growing longer" blades of the peace-time samurai of shinto times.

It is we collectors who have disregarded the name katate-uchi gatana/uchigatana to conform to the Edo period classification of wakizashi and katana. I think therefore it seems safe to call the pre 1600 "wakizashi" of 59 cm a katate-uchi or uchi-gatana and the post 1600 one a wakizashi.

 

Here are two pics of a WWII copy of a Mino Zenjo style sengoku jidai katate-uchi gatana/uchigatana. Made just like the original because it was intended for exactly the same task...ground fighting using one hand or two.

Ha-watari 2 shaku 4 bu or 62.1 cm (24 3/8in), nakago 19.5 cm (7 3/4in) and katatemaki tsuka of 25.5 cm (9 3/4in)...perfect!

Just my 2 cents.

[nihonto1001]

I think it is the current sword collecting paradigm to fit swords into these categories; Katana, Wakizashi and Tanto, based primarily on length. However, there are actually many other ways to catagorize nihonto and the catagories commonly overlap. Collectors seem to penalize "Wakizashi" in value, compared to Katana and even Tanto. This probably comes from the fact that, in the Japanese cast system, only the Samurai class and above, were allowed to carry swords over two shaku in length. Collectors may put a premium on owning a "Real Samurai's Sword". From a collector's standpoint, Uchigatana should be considered as a different catagory, even though some fall into the "Katana" and the rest fall into the "Wakizashi" catagory. One common trait of Uchigatana is predominate sori more towards the monouchi. It was a type of sword, made for a special purpose, used by the Samurai of the day. But, this is stuff we already know.

 

Personally, I am turned off by the whole collecting paradigm. I mean, what constitutes an important sword anyway? I would rather have an extremely healthy wakimono than a sickly sword from a famous smith. But, that is just me. Similarly, I would rather have a healthy Wakizashi, than a tired Tachi. I like looking at nice jihada, not shintetsu.

 

In collecting, each sword is a unique investment, where one must balance their personal tastes with commonly accepted standards. I put more weight on personal preference, as the Samurai did. It is interesting to note the swords that the Samurai revered. For that we just need to look at "named swords". Are there many "named" Katate-uchi? We can also look at the quality of koshirae. Did certain Uchigatana get decked out with excellent koshirae? Probably; these swords were jugded based on their own merit, not on sugata.

 

Where am I going with this? I don't know, but I can't sleep.