Sakihaba

[JH Lee]

So, I have a Koa Isshin Mantetsu katana, which is my first from this period in history. Since it is a relatively recent sword, and moreover made during wartime, I thought that it would appear quite robust and healthy. And from what I have read, these swords are most well known for their non-traditional engineering and cutting ability. Yet the sakihaba is only ~1.95cm. Given its current condition, I do not believe that the blade has ever been repolished, and the suguha hamon is uniform through to the kissaki. Everything looks fine... only the tip is much smaller than I thought it would be.

 

On average, I have seen that well-preserved antique and also gendai/shinsakuto have sakihaba of around 2.4cm+. Yet every Koa Isshin I have seen on-line (including my own) have sakihaba of only around 2cm or slightly less.

 

The Ohmura article makes mention of another Koa Isshin being mistaken for a Tadayoshi of Hizen.... and some Tadayoshi I have seen on the internet have also had ~2cm sakihaba.

 

Is it at all unusual for a Japanese sword to have ~2cm sakihaba on katana-length blades? That is, not worn/tired antiques but such relatively narrow sakihaba as new blade, by design? Were there period of Japanese sword making or "school" where such narrower profile blade was the norm?

 

Thank you all in advance for the opportunity for further learning.

[Gabriel L]

John, I just averaged the sakihaba for roughly 600 daitō and got a value of 2.07 cm. Glancing at the data the sakihaba does not exceed 2.4 cm extremely often (though there are certainly some big examples). It is easy enough to find examples down at 1.8, even 1.7 cm.

 

Are you sure you didn't mean to write motohaba? The average motohaba for that sample was 3.01 cm.

 

Here is an old graph from this thread:

 

http://f.cl.ly/items/1U0s3y2s233I3P2D1Y ... esData.png

 

Obviously my sample has grown a lot since then, but I haven't published anything on it since that topic.

[JH Lee]

Yes, I am sure I meant sakihaba.... Gabriel, the average across 600 daito-- was that among very old antiques? I ask because many antiques may have been so polished over time that they have lost their original appearance/dimensions; which would then skew the average figures....

[Gabriel L]

John,

 

Thanks, just checking.

 

Here is the complete breakdown by year. Please note that these are daitō (nagasa > 60.6 cm) only.

 

 

Regards,

 

—G.

[JH Lee]

Thank you so much, Gabriel!

 

So, in short, there is nothing unusual or deficient about my sword just because its sakihaba is ~1.95cm.... Good to know.

[mdiddy]

Gabriel,

 

Thanks for sharing this intereting graphic. It seems Muromachi period swords are not very popular.

 

Question: what are the three swords that make up the data points aligned ~850ce?

 

Matt

[Gabriel L]

Matt,

 

The data is still rough & incomplete which is why I haven't put it up before… going back to the sources, I see those three swords are these ones:

 

http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0616

http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0612

http://nihontoclub.com/swords/0000-0607

 

Stan N. of Nihontoclub contributed a big part of the sample, which is why those show up. As to Sanemori, the dating of 850 seems to be based on old sword books… more recently, Fujishiro gives a date of 987, and Sesko lists him as 1135. I think many of the super-old dates in traditional sources are probably exaggerated. The later figures are more realistic.

 

Most of the other swords in the sample do not have this problem of course, as we have much better info on swords made in the late Kamakura period and onwards.

[mdiddy]

Gabriel,

 

Interesting - thanks for the info. 850ce seemed early and if data was coming from commercial sites was curious who/where these items were for sale.

 

Would you be able to graph difference between motohaba and sakihaba along same x-axis? Would be curious to judge fumbari over time.

 

Matt

[Gabriel L]

Matt,

 

First, you are in all likelihood completely aware of this, but I am just mentioning it as a point of clarification / semantics: fumbari is more about a short widening near the base of the blade than the overall taper from motohaba to sakihaba. It's something that is usually lost if the sword is shortened even just a few inches.

 

Second, I remember taking a look at overall taper by year before (both for ubu and unshortened blades) and seeing very little pattern in the sample. It was pretty scattershot. But that was with a smaller sample. I may open the data again tomorrow and taking another look… I'll post again if there's anything interesting.

 

---

 

This was all for an article I was going to write for Barry Hennick of the JSSUS… unfortunately I flaked out of that commitment pretty badly when I moved & changed life plans (it was a crazy time). Now that I've been reminded of it I'll try to see if I can get that article properly done before I begin my upcoming training program.

[John A Stuart]

But, Matt, that would not give funbari as the term is truly meant. This crops up from time to time. Some definitions describe it as the taper from the machi to the kissaki, but, it is more correct being diplomatic or really so being less so, I believe, as a description of taper only from the machi to about 5-6" above the machi. Like a man standing with his legs spread for a more sturdy stance. As described 踏ん張る Here is a link to what I mean. http://www.ksky.ne.jp./~sumie99/kissaki.html#FUMBARI John

 

I see Gabriel has mentioned it already. I believe total taper is sakiboso. J

[Alex A]

Interesting graph Gabriel, 1590 clunker, Dotanuki by any chance?

[Gabriel L]

Alex,

 

Nope, Kanetoki.

 

http://www.sword-auction.jp/english/auc ... 1213703271

[Darcy]

Yeah I would be fixing the dates on Sanemori, he is definitely not considered 850 at this point in time. He is a son of Yasutsuna according to Fujishiro. So the argument is more about how close to the beginning of Kamakura he is rather than how deep into Heian he goes. Most argument I'm aware of now is usually about whether or not Yasutsuna is an early Kamakura smith. Traditionally he's held to be one of the oldest signing smiths but I don't think anyone accepts 800AD for him now. These smiths are making "modern" tachi compared to the old Heian work and this comes after the turning point of Eien where we usually have Sanjo Munechika.

 

I think the most aggressive one can say about him is he comes soon after Munechika, and possibly as late as 200 years after the most conservative. I have the same kind of wide window on the Tomonari on my site. They don't know enough to pin down these things with perfect detail but they have kind of set the window for the appearance of the curved tachi as being with Munechika and Sanjo in Yamashiro the turn of the millennium.

 

I've had a chance to handle one of the signed Yasutsuna blades, which was also ubu and it was interesting as it was wide and robust and not like the gentle Yamashiro blades of the late Heian. The rationale presented by the NBTHK is that the gentle blades were more likely to have been preserved in noble families and the more robust ones were used up in battle.

 

Dr. Honma on Yasutsuna:

 

The name of ‘Hoki no Yasutsuna’ has been listed as a great smith of the Daido Era (806-809) in many swordsmith directories from old times. Though we cannot accept the theory that he was active just after the Nara Period when considering considerable numbers of his extant works such as meibutsu ‘Doji-giri Yasutsuna’, which has the refined sugata of the Japanese sword and the hamon of ko-midare in thick nie-deki. The workmanship of this tachi resembles to that of Ko-Bizen smiths who were active after the middle of the Heian Period but looks a little older. At a glance, his sword looks like one by Ko-Bizen smith but his jihada with chikei stands out more, many sunagashi are seen inside the hamon and jigane looks black. Generally speaking, Yasutsuna is a little inferior to top-class Ko-Bizen smiths in skill. Ohara Sanemori who was a son of Yasutsuna, is also famous, but he is inferior to his father in skill considering the extant works of both smiths. Meanwhile, Yasuie and Aritsuna who belong to the Yasutsuna school are skilful smiths and left fine swords that are superior to Sanemori’.

 

Nihonto Koza has something similar to say.

 

So 850 date in your graph is going to skew things.