when did katanamei start?

[george trotter]

Hi all,

It's a bit quiet so I thought I'd ask about a friend's koto sword being signed katanamei.

The sword is definitely koto, 1300s and fits very well in the Rai school characteristics. Hada, hamon, boshi etc are all correct. Sorry I have no pics, but it is a nice sword with the following details:

Blade 70cm (originally about 75cm).

Nakago has 3 holes...top hole and bottom hole newer, orig, hole now in middle.

Directly below the middle hole is the mei Rai Kunitomo (mei is very old). BTW the mei does not match THE Rai Kunitomo, so may be a later/lesser Rai smith...say Hawley KUN 1342.

I'd say the blade was shortened long ago about 5cm and so the mei was originally "high" (ie below the original hole). The blade has had many polishes since suriage as the "narrowing" starts from the newer length hamachi.

It all looks right and is in private mounted gunto with the Iida Patent dust cover and a tag identifying Colonel Nukina of Nukina's Butai (this would be in the 18th Army (Gen. Adachi) surrendered at Cape Wom PNG Sept. 1945 to the Australian 6th Div. AIF (due to hard fighting, hunger, disease etc, only about 14,000 soldiers were alive to surrender to the Aussies out of 140,000. There were many desperate Banzai charges towards the end).

 

My question is...although it looks good for Rai group around 1320-1360 and is signed, I have never before seen a Rai blade signed katanamei...is this known? and when did katanamei start (I can't seem to find a definitive statement).

 

I'd appreciate a bit of comment and also, if someone has "inside" knowledge of the IJA records, just who/where/what Colonel Nukina was.

 

just for fun,

Regards,

[runagmc]

Hi George, the way I look at it is the change happened with the change in the way they wore the tachi/kodachi vs uchigatana/katana/wakizashi... so probably hard to give a hard date...

[Lee J]

There is a brief discussion about this in Nagayama on page 71. Tachimei through early Muromachi and then katanamei post Muromachi - so a fairly large transition timeframe. Several exceptions both ways are listed - no mention of the smith in question - but the examples given will hardly be all inclusive.

[runagmc]

I read somewhere that uchigatana (worn edge up) were common, at least to some extent (I think for foot soldiers) much earlier than the time frame they are mostly associated with (mid/late Muromachi). If I remember right, they are seen in some early paintings, and maybe there are a few examples?.. but I think I remember reading almost no examples remain? (I personally don't understand this) To me, it would seem more likely that they were just not common, but

 

I guess before I keep rambling about something I don't really know about, and don't remember well what I've read, and where, I'll just leave it at this -

 

1. How common is the uchigatana thought to have been in the Kamakura/Nambokucho periods?

2. Is it thought that they would have been signed on the omote?

3. Could George's sword be a somewhat early example of a sword worn edge up?

 

I guess any info aout early uchigatana would be nice to have, if anyone has any to share or can site sources.

[John A Stuart]

I always consider the Oei period as a good benchmark era for transition from Tachi to Katana and signatures accordingly. John

[george trotter]

Thanks for the comments.

In my own "average" knowledge of koto period tachimei/katanamei changeover period I also thought in roughly those date periods and also thought the katana was mainly "ashigaru" level weaponry...considered of little value/quality and soon used up as farm/domestic cutting tools etc.

But there must have been some better quality uchigatana made, perhaps this was one?

I wonder if Jacques and Guido would like to comment about this one? and the period and the reasons etc?

 

Would it help if I asked for a couple of nakago mei pics and an overall pic?

 

Regards,

[Alex A]

Hello Adam, im reminded me of this thread which shows early scrolls with uchigatana.

 

Ps, ignore my expert input at the time.

 

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=16175&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0

[george trotter]

Interesting link to the scrolls. These seem to show uchigatana being worn by two classes of warrior...ashigaru and also men in boshi, whom I presume to be higher staus...samurai or higher?

 

This Rai Kunitomo sword is good quality, certainly well above the well known Bishu products of the sengaku period.

 

I haven't done any serious searching but are there any uchigatana mountings surviving from the 14th century?

Regards,

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Meibutsu Juzu Maru by Tsunetsugu (Goban kaji) has a katana mei.

[paulb]

George

To add to Jacques brief response. The Aoe school were signing katana mei from their beginnings in the early kamakura period. There are always exceptions in every era, Hizen Tadayoshi school signing tachi mei in the shinto period.

But as a generalisation I think the timing mentioned is as accurate as any. I have always assumed that as the method of carrying the blade changed so did the way it was signed.

[Jacques D.]

Hi

 

My memory didn't work good on that one, Juzu Maru is tachi mei but Paul is right, katana mei is common (but not exclusive) in this School.

 

 

Kitsune Ga saki (Tametsugu) is katana mei.

[runagmc]

Thanks for the link Alex. I missed that post at the time somehow, but I knew I had seen some examples in early paintings. It's an interesting subject... unfortunatly, I can't add anything meanful about how they would likely have been signed, if at all...

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

About uchigatana from the Kamakura era very few are existant today but they are signed katana mei and the nagasa is less than 2 shaku (about 54/55 cm).

[runagmc]

So, I wonder when the lengthening began. Although, the sword George brought up, he says is 70cm, so that's a pretty big jump. George, can you comment on sugata ... does it have a shape that would make you think it was used as a tachi. I know it's hard to say since the shape varied so much, but... maybe if you could get a sugata pic and nakago (& mei) pics maybe it would help the experts. Maybe it's just gimei...

[george trotter]

Yes, I have emailed the owner for mei pics and OA pic.

Sugata is tachi style IMO. It can fit "Connoisseurs" p.59 shape 1 & 2 and also p. 61 shapes 7 & 8.

 

I took a few notes at the time, maybe this will help until pics come (if pics come).

nagasa 69.6 cm. Nakago is 8.1 cm. I think it is about 5 cm suriage. Yasuri seem to be kiri.

Motohaba 3.0 cm and Sakihaba 2.6 cm .

Nakago kasane is 7.75mm, moto kasane is 7 mm and saki kasane is 4 mm

Sori is mild koshizori (now) and is 1.8 cm.

Chu kissaki, and blade shinogi is slightly high (but has had many polishes).

Hamon is close to "Connoisseurs" p.133 drawing 39 and p.134 dr. 42, but also has some irregularities like p.132 dr. 36-37.

I can see masame in the hada, but it may be due to the polishes.

I hope this is not too confusing.

 

To me it fits Rai very well IMO, either early or a later copy of early.

 

If it is gimei, maybe it was a mumei blade that the shortener also thought was matching Rai school and he put on Rai Kunitomo in katanamei...in the 1400s??

 

thanks to all for the comments.

Regards,

[george trotter]

Still no response with pics from owner...so, maybe this ends here.

Sorry,

[Alex A]

A shame George, I was quite looking forward to seeing that. It appears that this thread seems to have sparked an interest for me in early swords used in WW2.

[george trotter]

Hi Alex,

Tell you what, I'll try to see him tomorrow and MAKE him take some pics...they might be rough (as he might be struggling haha).

I'll let you know.

regards,

[george trotter]

Well, sorry, he has sold this sword...so that's it.

Regards and thanks for the interest.