Utsuri

[John A Stuart]

Paul, you wrote hyperthetical, exaggerated; excessive; hyperbolic. I think you mean hypothetical, assumed; theoretical; speculative, etc. John

[paulb]

Sorry John I am either being incredibly thick or becoming senile. what are you talking about?

[Brian]

Paul,

The spelling :D

Hyperthetical vs hypothetical

We get what you mean though.

 

Brian

[paulb]

Ah makes sense now!

However having my spelling corrected by someone living on the North American continent is a shame I find hard to take

Shakespeare will be revolving in his grave at my inadequacy

I will try harder not to confuse my worms in future

[John A Stuart]

Not that awful is it Paul? All part of the old BE. We have dialects here as well, but, relatively benign as compared to scouser or jordie. John

[paulb]

very true John

living in the north east I wont start on the jordie dialect, it would take too long. Also dont want to hijack the thread.

Perhaps a discussion for another day and place

[Darcy]

"How do we know?"

 

Without a time machine we never know anything. It's almost a useless question to ask. How do we know that Shakespeare wrote his plays? How do we know that Kotetsu made his blades? How do we know Masamune existed? How can you tell a perfect fake from the real thing? How do we know the Kennedy assassination was not a CIA plot? All questions without any satisfactory one sentence answer.

 

What I would point to instead are the following things we know about Japanese swords and weapon crafting in general:

 

1. form follows function... the weapon being part of a competition for survival means that the features we see in it are based on needs. If a feature is there, it is there to help in terms of the mindset of the people who made the weapon and the people who were using the weapon, unless the weapon was not seriously intended for use. Whether a particular feature was made by pure intensive artifice or whether it is the side effect of another process does not matter in terms of the intention of the smith (i.e. both are intentional, one is a direct approach and one is an indirect approach). This in fact is part of the quest for understanding of how it was made. Side effect or direct artifice does not change intention because the smith has at hand alternate processes which can make the blade with no utsuri (in fact, the vast majority of processes available to him will end up with a blade with no utsuri). It is possible that utsuri is the culmination of several complicated steps which must be done correctly in order for it to manifest, similar to the Jacob's Ladder effect in wootz steel, and if any of the steps are disturbed the result does not manifest. This could in fact be the reason that we do not see this kind of utsuri repeating itself after the Kamakura period is over. A many step process being very difficult to replicate vs. a single step direct artifice type of feature like say bo-hi.

 

2. the period of time in which we see utsuri appearing reliably is about 350 years. If it were accidental it would not manifest itself over 350 years. This long period of time implies that it is a complicated technique which has been taught and handed down.

 

3. development... since utsuri changes over the centuries, with various smiths of related schools sharing similar appearance, it implies that techniques were developed that changed the resulting utsuri and these were then shared. Furthermore utsuri becomes more complicated and peaks in the Kamakura period, at the same time we generally believe the greatest artworks are made, then as skill falls off going into the Muromachi, utsuri disappears. But utsuri does become more complicated and beautiful as skill increases, which implies that it is a consciously developed feature that was enhanced over time along with other features of the sword.

 

4. loss... once lost, many smiths have desired to replicate it. If it were accidental or a common side effect then they would have to work to avoid it. The mentality of smiths over time, even until now, has been a desire to replicate it, and as such there is a history of pursuing it as a desirable feature. My feeling is that this is a consistent attitude to utsuri from the beginning, and the loss of the techniques has something to do with the general loss of techniques in the Muromachi period which has to do with making swords more economically on a mass production basis.

 

5. who used it... the top smiths were able to make utsuri while the efforts of the lesser smiths of the same time period often produced weak or no utsuri. We then associate this with smith skill, just like all of the other features, it implies that it was a difficult to obtain and desirable feature instead of a simple side effect that happened inevitabily or through accident. As well, if it were not desirable, then top smiths would have the ability to replicate the work of the lesser smiths and rid themselves of this feature. Lesser smiths cannot replicate the work of top smiths very well, and logically it follows that utsuri was a goal rather than an accidental result or an undesirable result. For me this is very strong evidence. It's like any major technological advance that is difficult to obtain. Everyone would like to have it. The most inferior manufacturers are unable to make it. The midrange are able to make something which is almost-right. The top end are able to provide it. A feature that is found in the inverse proportions: mostly on poorly made items, next most on mid range, and never on top end items would be something that is being actively avoided instead of actively sought.

 

6. history... that even in the Kamakura period they had a specific name for this feature and that it was associated most strongly with Bizen and at the time the Bizen smiths had the highest reputation, all point to a long understanding and respect and desire for the feature.

 

This is not a "proof". There is no proof. It needs a time machine. There is only a reasonableness argument to be made here.

[Darcy]

In all of this conversation I'm still waiting to hear an explanation as to why utsuri was found to be desirable back in its prime time period?

 

As far as I know there is only speculation and no consensus. Every possible explanation has been floated and supported with theories.

 

Yamanaka says that the utsuri area is much harder than the rest of the ji. He says he thinks it was made intentionally, and that it is ornamental. He says that the best utsuri is on Fukuoka Ichimonji and it peaked in skill in the Kamakura period and fell off over time. He says that the Sue Bizen smiths simply lost the level of skill required to make it.

 

Nagayama says that the purpose was to increase the flexibility of the sword to prevent breakage. He says it is made of steel that is softer than the rest of the blade.

 

So... two good authorities who have the same teacher and completely different opinions. As far as I know there is no answer that comes to us historically. I wish I knew but I am equally happy with the mystery because the thought of lost technology to me is very appealing.

[Darcy]

He made the definitive statement "we know" so it is only reasonable to expect him to reply.

 

"We." ... "We know." As in this is common knowledge that anyone in the collective can answer or find in the appropriate reference manual. As I did and showed you. I think what you are proposing above though is a semantic argument, and it's based on incorrect semantics as well (if he had said "I know" then he would have had special knowledge you would expect him to have to come up with).

 

My apologies if my approach was argumentative.

 

Heartily embraced.

 

But the question remains and that, rather than deflecting the discussion to your issues with my approach, is what should be the focus of the discussion.

 

Deflecting? I addressed your "Chris Bowen is the victim for putting it to The Man and His Cronies" speech directly.

 

I also ignored the rude approach and answered your questions directly until you got into your third "this thread is now about Chris Bowen" post. I answered in detail with quotes directly from references and did my best to explain to you the reasons I saw for utsuri to be a design feature.

 

I think at this point to say the word "deflecting" in anything I've written here is not very honest.

 

Rather, dragging me out and having me discuss with you the definition of the word "we" and what someone's expectations are about calling a poster out and their responsibilities for using this in an (incorrect as well) semantic argument is deflecting.

 

So, again speaking for Ted, you are saying, basically, that he gave an unsubstantiated opinion which can't be proven. Thanks. The Truth has been revealed.

 

No, your reading comprehension skills have been revealed to be poor. If any truth has been revealed, it is this one.

 

What I said is that Ted did not substantiate what he said. Go back and read what I wrote. Read what you wrote. Read what Ted wrote. Think this time before you post.

 

I substantiated what Ted wrote. I did not say it was something that could not be substantiated. I said you accused him of this.

 

Really you are smart enough to read this kind of thing without making such an unintelligent error. And so much for your apology you are right back to the same kind of BS by the time you get to the end of your post.

 

Let's get back to utsuri.

 

If you have information, theories, speculation or opinions to share, I'm interested in reading any and all of it.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Thank you for the replies so far. The recent posts/linked articles are beginning to touch upon what it is I was hoping to see discussed, which is addressing the functional reasons for utsuri, in addition to the other topics. However, at this time I still think there is considerably more to go.

[cabowen]

You are challenging his information as being incorrect, him as being not correctly educated, that his information is not substantiated (this is true) and that it is not capable of being substantiated.

 

It sure reads to me like you are saying it is true that his information is not substantiated. You also make my point, quite ironically, when you repeat the gist of my argument,"how can we know?"...

 

Saying "we know" is a definitive statement, it is not semantics. It is not "we are of the opinion", "it is thought", "it has been said", "other claim", or "I heard it on the grapevine..."etc. There is no wriggle room here-it is has one common meaning that is inclusive of the speaker. Someone is indeed playing semantics here but it is not me.

 

You have made my point.

 

And the personal attacks really add nothing but more verbiage to your already lengthy posts. All those pencils in your eyes must be painful...You can quit anytime.

[Darcy]

It sure reads to me like you are saying it is true that his information is not substantiated. You also make my point, quite ironically, when you repeat the gist of my argument,"how can we know?"...

 

It reads to you like that because you have a reading comprehension problem. And also because you're continuing to be a troll I guess. But saying you have a reading comprehension problem is not a personal attack. When you read something and take the opposite meaning, then you have a reading comprehension problem. If it is further explained to you and you take both explanation and initial text backwards, well. It is what it is.

 

The text is there in black and white. If you can't understand it, you have my direct explanation of what I said. If you want to ignore that, then as I said, you're just back to the same BS and you want this to be another Chris Bowen Was Here thread until it's locked.

[b.hennick]

What started as an excellent thread has degenerated. If you have something to add to the original post then, please add it. The side arguments are best carried on by PM. I do not want to read more of this, OTH I love the great images of utsuri and the discussion of its origins.

[Darcy]

You have made my point.

 

Only in your mind.

 

And the personal attacks really add nothing but more verbiage to your already lengthy posts. You can quit anytime.

 

Again, no personal attacks. You have a reading comprehension problem because you read "blue" when say I said "red." I say no Chris, I said "red", go back and check it. Then you repeat, nope, looks like "blue" to me. I tell you my meaning was "red" and what is written clearly says "red" and if you won't take this explanation, then I don't know what to say other than that you have a reading comprehension problem. Or you're trolling.

 

My posts are long because I have a lot of information to share and I'm not just posting one off stupid stuff meant to poke fingers in people's eyes and derail threads.

 

You can quit reading them anytime. It's not like you ever add anything constructive. You just take everything backwards, when you fail and it's pointed out to you, you declare victory and ... well you don't go home. Sadly. But by all means, declare victory and go home is fine with me.

 

And I apologize to everyone for you having to read Yet Another Pissing Match With Chris Bowen. It is not my favorite thing to do at all. When the guy is sitting here saying that I claimed for instance that Ted's opinion is not something that can be substantiated, right after I substantiated it, it is a matter of honesty and integrity and it forces me to respond to this garbage in public as long as it stands.

[Jussi Ekholm]

There has been a lot of good discussion of the subject. I cannot add any of my own thoughts as pretty much all my information regarding utsuri comes from sources already mentioned here.

 

However the following part which discusses Bizen double yakiba (which I have understood as utsuri, but I might be wrong) is to my knowledge translated from Kokon Kaji Biko which was published in 1829 and this part was originally contributed by Kawabe Masahide. This 25 page Appendix 3 of the Sword and Same is focused on sword making and there are lots of informative gems in that part.

 

[Jean]

De profundis Utsuri

 

Thinking that at 62 trolls belonged to Tolkien world..

 

Ok guys, the subject is interesting so I am going to reopen it and will delete any stray posts.

 

I am also going to clean a few of the useless posts.

[Darcy]

About Bizen Double Yakiba, I have seen utsuri called a "second hamon" sometimes, in fact Yamanaka does it in the Nihonto Newsletters, before saying it is ornamental.

 

I'm going to post more photos and help this get back on track. I have a good set from this Fukuoka Ichimonji to begin with. This kind of utsuri seems to be over the whole ji, there is not a clearly distinguished antai but it appears like steam.

 

[Darcy]

This is utsuri off of a Soden Bizen Kanemitsu. It is midare with some choji shapes and some gunome shapes but not too defined other than the outline.

 

[Darcy]

Utsuri from a Soden Bizen Masamitsu (student of Kanemitsu). Utsuri is not as strong on this one but the relationship to the Kanemitsu looks clear.

 

 

It is even a slight bit visible straight on. This happens sometimes but is not so common.

 

[Darcy]

This is an Aoe Tsugunao from the Nanbokucho. The blade has a signature. The utsuri is in many layers and somewhat like the Fukuoka Ichimonji. It seems to have jifu in it as well.

 

[george trotter]

At the risk of being accused of trolling, can I ask two questions and make a comment ?

Can I ask, (I think this was touched on) is it possible that certain groups known for utsuri were supplied from either the same iron source or the same type of iron from different sources? In other words, is it possible that it was some characteristic of the raw material that gave a propensity for utsuri to appear?

Also, from the pics of utsuri that were posted, all but one polish looks like sashikomi, and the one pic that looks like hadori it is not really possible to see utsuri...can I ask, does hadori allow utsuri to be seen?

 

 

Respectfully,

[Stephen]

George san

[Darcy]

At the risk of being accused of trolling, can I ask two questions and make a comment ?

Can I ask, (I think this was touched on) is it possible that certain groups known for utsuri were supplied from either the same iron source or the same type of iron from different sources? In other words, is it possible that it was some characteristic of the raw material that gave a propensity for utsuri to appear?

Also, from the pics of utsuri that were posted, all but one polish looks like sashikomi, and the one pic that looks like hadori it is not really possible to see utsuri...can I ask, does hadori allow utsuri to be seen?

 

Nobody is reacting against anyone asking questions.

 

Raw material is definitely one component of what gives swords their regional distinctiveness, but it would probably be safe to say for instance that Kanemitsu and Masamitsu above have access to the same material. Fukuoka Ichimonji and Yoshioka Ichimonji, same thing. But you see a decline in the ability from one to the other. I'd best guess then that, like with making a cake, you need the right raw materials in order to get to the goal, but it really depends on what you do with them in terms of the quality of the final product.

 

Hadori is a cosmetic effect applied to the hamon. Hadori is visible from all angles. Utsuri is not. If someone wanted to fake up an utsuri it would look like hadori with no hamon under it. It would not look like utsuri.

 

Also all of the above swords have hadori polish. The Masamitsu is in an old polish that has probably seen a lot of uchiko so the hadori is a bit muted. I have not often seen true sashikomi and for the most part that's what the available swords represent (rare sashikomi). From what others have said on this board not every polisher can do it properly and getting it done can cost more but I never looked into it. I think in my life I only photographed two or three swords in sashikomi.

[bone]

(dope smacks self)

[Darcy]

This for instance is the Kanemitsu and from the sugata photo the hadori clearly shows up.

 

http://nihonto.ca/kanemitsu-1/sugata-l.jpg

 

A lot of people have the opinion that hadori obscures the hamon and makes it hard to see. When dealing with a high level sword in a high level polish, hadori for me has been a non-issue and the yakiba shows clearly in photographs. Where it becomes an issue is if the activity was weak or poorly defined, or if the polish is just poor, then it interferes with photography and viewing the details in the sword. But it really comes down to bad polish, or bad sword, or both vs. something really wrong with the concept.

 

The high level sword that most comes to mind that I photographed was also a Fukuoka Ichimonji and it was in sashikomi, Tokubetsu Juyo, and it was very difficult to take the sugata photos and have them look presentable. This style of photograph that comes from Japan with the white mune, without the ha in white hadori it feels unbalanced. And the yakiba would show up very dim and with little contrast to the ji. The sword had amazing activity but with that style of photo it was extremely difficult and required a lot of post production work to come out good at all.

 

The angled light photos, sashikomi performs very well as one might expect. That sword was fantastic, just that hadori makes some styles of photos easier and if done right does not interfere with the ability to enjoy the sword. On some sugata photos though the hamon can be obliterated into a cloud of white hadori and then I feel that it is questionable polish. Often times the degradation can be a surprise that it is so extreme.

[drjoe]

as promised, here is some food for thought. I am a hobbyist bladesmith and I have produced some interesting activity in my blades that resembles utsuri. here is a picture of a tanto and a nakiri with hamon.

 

you could say that it isn't "real" utsuri, but does anyone really know what utsuri is? I have a good idea about how it was produced here and I wonder whether similar circumstances gave rise to utsuri in days of yore.

 

in any case, the fact that this arose unintentionally in my work and to a certain extent was not a desired feature makes me wonder whether it was historically accidental as well.

 

 

[Darcy]

in any case, the fact that this arose unintentionally in my work and to a certain extent was not a desired feature makes me wonder whether it was historically accidental as well.

 

Can you share how you did it? It looks good. There's no saying that there is even one legitimate form of utsuri or if there are many, as I was writing above. What would be further interesting is to test it for hardness.

 

The first time something happens, like say casting a spark off of a piece of flint for some ancient man, it is an accident.

 

The second time it's done, with knowledge of the first, it is a technique.

 

After this, starting a fire or not is a choice. So on your next blade, you have a choice to produce your utsuri by replicating the same steps, or not. Discovery is usually some combination of experiment and accident. Another example is penicillin.

 

Fleming recounted that the date of his discovery of penicillin was on the morning of Friday, September 28, 1928.[18] It was a fortuitous accident: in his laboratory in the basement of St. Mary's Hospital in London (now part of Imperial College), Fleming noticed a Petri dish containing Staphylococcus plate culture he mistakenly left open, was contaminated by blue-green mould, which formed a visible growth. There was a halo of inhibited bacterial growth around the mould. Fleming concluded the mould released a substance that repressed the growth and caused lysing of the bacteria

 

Accident first time. Next time, technique. Provided you remember how to do it.

[Brian]

Joe,

That is very interesting, and looks good. Would also like to know a bit more about the technique whether accidental or not. In between all this mess, there is a huge amount of good info and pictures of utsuri.

 

Brian

[paulb]

Thank you for the images Darcy they illustrate various forms of Utsuri beautifully.

I think there is little doubt that to achieve any particular feature in the blade surface depends to some extent on the raw material. However if you consider neighbouring schools such as Bizen and Bitchu, they were producing very different products with raw material originating from the same source. While ko-Bizen and ko-Aoe had many common features by the time the Fukuoka Ichimonji and chu-Aoe schools were producing the characteristics were markedly different. If the raw material was the same the differences seen must be a result of technique.

This does not answer the deliberate or accidental question but these schools were producing characteristics which became features of their work. If it were a chance occurrence then isn’t it reasonable to assume that there would be some cross over with midare utsuri regularly showing in Aoe pieces and jifu in Ichimonji?

Moving into Soden Bizen and Sue Aoe the differences become muddied with both working in nioi and producing a weak shirrake utsuri (also dan utsuri in Aoe). This again points towards technique with smiths responding to market demands.

The fact that Bizen swords were predominantly nioi based suggest that the steel composition was softer and they didn’t work at as high temperatures as their neighbours in Bitchu. If the resulting sword was softer than others it would seem reasonable to attempt to increase the hardness of the surface structure. Again this suggests (to me at least) that this was a deliberate act rather than chance occurance.

[george trotter]

Hi Paul, yes interesting and logical points. I just thought there may be a "major" link to the source metal, but as you say, (I think) it was different types of utsuri for different schools/locations and they were consistantly different, so it must include deliberate intention. I wonder if anyone knows some modern tosho who make utsuri...have anyone asked them about this (choice of metal...choice of forging temps/techniques) and such matters.

 

Thanks for your responses regarding utsuri and hadori Darcy...especially your comment that utsuri can be seen on a hadori blade from any angle.

Regards,