Why Kamakura = best swords ever??

[Nicolas Maestre]

Hi everyone,

 

As a newbie, there is one thing that I can’t seem to be able to grasp, that I read on multiple occasions, whether it be in books or online articles. That thing is the fact that, supposedly, sword quality after the Kamakura period not only decreased, but was “NEVER to be matched ever again”… This latter statement is what I struggle with.

I have read quite a lot about Nanbokucho and Muromachi periods, and I think I do understand why quality was not the major concern during those times. But what about Edo ? I mean, given the number of Juyo Token swords from past 1600, I’m tempted to think that the quality of those blades is quite high right?

But then you read that later smith tried to replicate Kamakura work, but never quite managed to achieve that… so why is that???

 

In other words and to summarize where I struggle the most:

• What makes Kamakura top quality sword better than later top quality swords?
• Why, despite what happened at the end of the 13^th century with the Mongol invasions, do we still consider the swords used at the time to be of the best quality ever?
• Why were later smiths not able to achieve such a high level of craftsmanship?

 

While I think I understand the basics of what makes a good sword a good sword (i.e. how controlled and consistent the Hada is throughout the blade, how fine it is, how perfectly executed the Sugata is, and of course how much Hataraki can be seen and how complex it is), I’m still confused! Maybe it’s something one can only appreciate with hands-on experience, but then again, what is that “thing”!? 😊

 

Anyways, of course I’m not expecting you guys here to do the homework for me, but if anyone wants to share their views, or point me in the right direction with references specifically on this topic (books or online), I would greatly appreciate it!!!

[Ray Singer]

While I think that 'best swords ever' is a subjective description, it does also align with my feelings. Swords from that time period (which I would extend into Nanbokucho) contain a quality of workmanship, clarity of jigane, depth of activity, aesthetic maturity, naturalistic/unaffected composition which I do not personally think was fully equaled in later days. Part of this I believe is that equivalent material was not available to work with. As an example, the blades which shodai Yasutsugu retempered show a better quality of work in the hamon than the best of his own swords. Having access to the steel of Sadamune (for example) allowed him to reach a quality tier that he seemingly could not get to on his own with the best steel he had available to him for his own works. This alone points to a material quality drop-off in terms of what swordsmiths had to work with in subsequent time periods. 

[Alex A]

Not wanting to go off on a tangent but relates to what has been said., well, kind of.

 

The mention of different materials and how that has outcome on the final product.

 

Always reminded of this page, with regards Akamatsu Taro smiths making their own tamahagane.

 http://www.users.on.net/~coxm/?page=Kimura

 

Read on numerous sales pages that this gives their hada a distinct darker colour in this modern age, reminiscent of older blades.

 

Anyways, back on track.

 

 

[Ray Singer]

And to that I will add that there are other, later smiths who reached an impressive level using their own steel and though special research on masterworks. An example of this in my mind is Shibata Ka, who conducted his own research into the important swords, using his own steel and having examples in his own hands to study. Shibata Ka was a collector of significant means who would acquire and study these swords at length before doing utushi-mono and/or swords that were inspired by koto masterpieces.

 

Shibata Ka of Akita prefecture researched jigane thoroughly and succeeded in forging a jigane that was mistaken for that of the Kamakura period and emulated by no other smiths of the Showa era. When we have a look at his extant works today, they remind us of the great resolution he had in sword forging.
- Amada Akitsugu, Ningen Kokuho (Living National Treasure Swordsmith)

 

 

No one attributes this tanto to gendaito whenever it is used for kantei at a sword meeting. Many people mistake it for a classic tanto of the Kamakura period such as a Shintogo Kunimitsu. Shibata diligently undertook unique research into sword forging and was one of the few swordsmiths who came to grips with the jigane of fine old swords. It might have been possible for him to carry out research that was different from other swordsmiths as his collection included many classic swords. Some people said that he altered old swords and put his signature on the tangs but this is not true. I can recognize his characteristic habits of forging in the jigane of his blades.

- Kokan Nagayama (Living Nationa Treasure Polisher)

 

[Gakusee]

To Ray’s excellent response, I would like to add:

- firstly, that statement relates to “swords on average”. That means that your average Kamakura sword was better than your average Shinto or ShinShinto sword (even though I think when that statement was contrived people were really comparing Muromachi to Kamakura and early Shinto to Kamakura). In other words, you could have great swordsmiths from later periods who attained great craftsmanship (eg Masahide or Masatsugu or Kunihiro etc) but the statement compares the median sword to the median sword. 
- secondly, apart from material, also skill was lost during the Sengoku period (when swords had to be churned out quickly) or the later peaceful times, when swords, well, did not need to perform well (as they were mainly a status symbol) and could not look as well anymore (loss of material, loss of skill, homogeneous production of tamahagane as opposed to Heian/Kamakura regional differences)

 

 

[Franco D]

For serious nihonto students; Yamanaka's Newsletters revised available through the NCJSC ... http://www.ncjsc.org/ncjsc_publications.htm .  Don't expect to find the answers to your questions addressed in a concise format. But, they are there.  Also, AFU's Nihonto Koza. 

 

Further, like others I've come to the conclusion that it is best keep swords of different periods separate for direct comparisons for the reasons given, that is compare them to swords of the same time period. Throughout time swords were being copied from earlier made swords. When one views a later sword they should ask themselves the question, " what is this sword attempting to be and how does it compare to what it is attempting to replicate."  

[Nicolas Maestre]

Wow, thank you guys. 

 

Thanks a lot Ray for the detailed answer 😊.

I admit that I had not approached the question from a raw material perspective... It makes a lot of sense.

 

Man I'm shocked by the words of both Akitsugu and Nagayama. It shows how exceptional what Shibata Ka accomplished really was (not that I can comprehend it, but if those two masters say it, I believe it ☺️).

 

7 hours ago, Ray Singer said:

quality of workmanship, clarity of jigane, depth of activity

 

See Ray, when I read stuff like that, I feel like I will never be able to "see" those things. Especially if all I do is reading books and looking at pictures and not the real thing 😔. Maybe that's why I have not been able to fully get the differences between swords from Kamakura and some later, high quality work...

I think I know the answer... but do you consider hands-on experience a  mandatory step in studying Nihonto?

 

2 hours ago, Franco D said:

For serious nihonto students; Yamanaka's Newsletters revised available through the NCJSC ... http://www.ncjsc.org/ncjsc_publications.htm .  

Thank you for the link Franco!!! Thank you so much 👍

[Rivkin]

Best mid-Kamakura steel has a unique appearance. Its like a smoke, ever changing at every possible angle, very bright yet at the same time obscure. You don't really see it ever again at later times. No one can replicate this period's utsuri or even the hamon. Its just very different.

Late Kamakura is great when it comes to Awataguchi style jigane, very bright, dense and beautiful, but one does see similar or better work in Nambokucho. The trend is that from this point on everything is kind of like drawn with a pencil - utsuri, hamon, everything has a boundary, a well defined appearance etc. In shinto and shinshinto its even more pronounced.

 

I've seen shinshinto Satsuma blades cut down and modern papering to Hasebe or Etchu Tametsugu. I've seen Fujiwara Kunimichi attribution given to what was before papered to good Soshu names.

You don't see anyone faking better ko Aoe examples with even the slightest measure of success. Nambokucho Aoe was replicated at times.

 

 

.,

[Xander Chia]

14 hours ago, Gakusee said:

To Ray’s excellent response, I would like to add:

- firstly, that statement relates to “swords on average”. That means that your average Kamakura sword was better than your average Shinto or ShinShinto sword (even though I think when that statement was contrived people were really comparing Muromachi to Kamakura and early Shinto to Kamakura). In other words, you could have great swordsmiths from later periods who attained great craftsmanship (eg Masahide or Masatsugu or Kunihiro etc) but the statement compares the median sword to the median sword. 
- secondly, apart from material, also skill was lost during the Sengoku period (when swords had to be churned out quickly) or the later peaceful times, when swords, well, did not need to perform well (as they were mainly a status symbol) and could not look as well anymore (loss of material, loss of skill, homogeneous production of tamahagane as opposed to Heian/Kamakura regional differences)

 

 

I’ve also read that the average sword from older time periods tend to be of higher quality due to them being well taken care of and surviving to this day. Whereas the actual average sword from that same time period have been lost. The newer swords have not been through as much and thus have more lower quality works surviving.

[Paz]

It also comes down to smiths and schools and who were around. You have the osafune and bizen schools ect.

 

But by late kamakura early nanbokucho you have legends such as Masamune, shintogo kunimitsu, Norishige ect who work into the nanbokucho period. And their influence is heavy on their students. Blades are much more darker and have the highest quality jigane and hada. You have what is the combination of beauty art and a deadly weapon. 

 

The mass production of the sengoku jidai did have an effect on quality and artistic style of blades. But not necessarily functionality. 

 

The shinto period is considered on average the period where you have art swords as there was no need for top functionality. But this doesant mean all swords as formentioned were like this. 

 

Regards 

[Gakusee]

15 minutes ago, Paz said:

It also comes down to smiths and schools and who were around. You have the osafune and bizen schools ect.

 

But by late kamakura early nanbokucho you have legends such as Masamune, shintogo kunimitsu, Norishige ect who work into the nanbokucho period. And their influence is heavy on their students. Blades are much more darker and have the highest quality jigane and hada. You have what is the combination of beauty art and a deadly weapon. 

 

The mass production of the sengoku jidai did have an effect on quality and artistic style of blades. But not necessarily functionality. 

 

The shinto period is considered on average the period where you have art swords as there was no need for top functionality. But this doesant mean all swords as formentioned were like this. 

 

Regards 

Paz, you need to check your history….

Please read up a little bit on the timeline of major smiths before commenting that Shintogo or Masamune or Norishige were Nanbokucho smiths   

[Alex A]

The thing i find interesting about this subject is the fact that smiths "TRY" to replicate it, this and other work.

 

Sometimes think, what did they do differently ?

 

If swordsmiths over centuries cant work it out then we certainly cant.

 

We heard about how polish can effect steel in the other thread, maybe trying to match a very old "POLISHED" blade is the issue?

 

Materials, no doubt its all been done already.

 

But what do i know.

 

 

[Jacques D.]

Nicolas,

it's not a matter of combat efficiency but a matter of artistic quality. It is a subject that no one here can discuss

 

Ce n'est pas un problème d'efficacité en combat mais un problème de qualité artistique. C'est un sujet que personne ici ne peut aborder

[Baba Yaga]

It depends your opinion of an Art Piece.  IMO, a sword / fire arm needs to be functional, others are ok with a toothpick with a Mei. It's all subjective and can't be debated.  

 

   

[mas4t0]

12 hours ago, Alex A said:

The thing i find interesting about this subject is the fact that smiths "TRY" to replicate it, this and other work.

 

Sometimes think, what did they do differently ?

 

If swordsmiths over centuries cant work it out then we certainly cant.

 

We heard about how polish can effect steel in the other thread, maybe trying to match a very old "POLISHED" blade is the issue?

 

Materials, no doubt its all been done already.

 

But what do i know.

 

 

 

I've wondered the same thing.

 

I somewhat doubt that there's much in the way of technique that wouldn't have been rediscovered or reverse engineered.

 

We're really only discussing surface properties, which arise from chemical, mechanical, and geometrical properties.

 

Geometry can of course be replicated, leaving us with the chemical and mechanical properties (chemical composition, grain, hardness, strength, inhomogeneities, etc).

 

I would guess that smiths have relearned what was lost in terms of forging technique and heat treat (which should take care of the mechanical properties).

 

If that's the case, it would follow that the differences lie in the material itself. I would guess there's a difference in micro-alloying of the metal (niobium, vanadium, titanium, molybdenum, zirconium, boron, etc) which is responsible for the differences in colour, specularity, etc (when polished with the same stones and technique).

 

I have a pair of honyaki kitchen knives which are as close as possible to identical - other than the steel composition. One is around 1.3% carbon and 0.25% manganese while the other contains an additional 0.4% chromium and 1% tungsten. I sharpen and polish them exactly the same way, (on the same stones) but interestingly the blade containing chromium and tungsten has a noticeable blue tinge when they're placed side by side.

[Alex A]

As mentioned Mark, i cant imagine that materials and technique have not been able to be replicated

 

We are talking swordsmiths 800 or whatever years ago.

 

Weird how no one has got their head around it.

 

But as mentioned,  little we can add here.

[mas4t0]

37 minutes ago, Alex A said:

As mentioned Mark, i cant imagine that materials and technique have not been able to be replicated

 

We are talking swordsmiths 800 or whatever years ago.

 

Weird how no one has got their head around it.

 

But as mentioned,  little we can add here.

 

Perhaps some have mastered it and have kept it quiet?

 

It would be damaging to the market if word were to get out that it's impossible to tell apart a contemporary blade from a blade close to a millennia old. There would of course be a strong financial incentive to keep this hidden (if it were the case).

 

I'm not implying this is the case, I'm sure it's very unlikely, but I think it is a possibility.

[Bazza]

Mark H wrote:

>It would be damaging to the market if word were to get out that it's impossible to tell apart a

> contemporary blade from a blade close to a millennia old. There would of course be a strong

> financial incentive to keep this hidden (if it were the case).

 

There may well also be the art challenge, as with all forgers, to fool the cognoscenti of the day.  However, it was once the case in our time - I'll have to dig out the info.  In my decades of accumulating club and society newsletters and inhabiting online discussion boards since 1996, there have been a couple of juicy tidbits on this very subject.  One I remember was concerned with a sudden influx of (I think) Nara period swords that were about to be given high and important cultural object designations until "someone" opined that they were the work of a recently deceased swordsmith.  A committee was formed to look into it.  Now, a definition I remember of a committee is that it is a group of people who lure a good idea down a cul-de-sac and quietly strangle it!!  On that point I cannot recall the conclusions of said committee, but maybe someone else remembers the details...

 

A very interesting rabbit hole for this thread...

 

BaZZa.

[Fuuten]

On 8/26/2022 at 3:16 PM, Alex A said:

Always reminded of this page, with regards Akamatsu Taro smiths making their own tamahagane.

 http://www.users.on.net/~coxm/?page=Kimura

Interesting and informational. Very cool mekugi-nuki tool too, at first I though that was literally part of the tang which would be neat too but less structurally sound I suppose. Thanks for the link. 

[Hoshi]

Quote

I have a pair of honyaki kitchen knives which are as close as possible to identical - other than the steel composition. One is around 1.3% carbon and 0.25% manganese while the other contains an additional 0.4% chromium and 1% tungsten. I sharpen and polish them exactly the same way, (on the same stones) but interestingly the blade containing chromium and tungsten has a noticeable blue tinge when they're placed side by side.

 

This is something which personally interests me. Does anyone know of an academic paper that compares the steel composition of top smiths in different regions and compares light reflection? 

 

The steel "hue" enigma truly puzzles me. Blackish steel in the North, Bluish in the south, etc. We need a formal analysis of steel composition between different regions / periods, and link this to light reflection. 

 

IV: Nakago powded beneath the hamachi (edge side, mune side) x Region (Bicchu/Bizen, Sagami, Kyoto) x period (Mid kamakura vs Late Kamakura vs End of Nambokucho/Early Muromachi)

DV: steel composition + light reflection 

 

The loss of luster of Sagami steel, the rise of hitatsura, similar trends observed in other schools. We need to figure this out. Some material ran out and it's a big piece of the Kamakura Golden Age enigma. 

 

[Paz]

On 8/28/2022 at 10:05 AM, Gakusee said:

Paz, you need to check your history….

Please read up a little bit on the timeline of major smiths before commenting that Shintogo or Masamune or Norishige were Nanbokucho smiths   

Isn't that what I said ? Late kamakura. 🤔

[Gakusee]

10 hours ago, Paz said:

Isn't that what I said ? Late kamakura. 🤔

Unfortunately not,  as you said above that these smiths (Masamune, Norishige, Shintogo) worked into the  Nanbokucho period.

 

”you have legends such as Masamune, shintogo kunimitsu, Norishige ect who work into the nanbokucho period”. 

 

They did not. 
I just wanted to clarify that the smiths you mentioned actually worked in the Kamakura period. 
 

Otherwise I agree with you that indeed the legends of Japanese swordsmithing indeed worked mostly in Kamakura (although some of them in Heian too). 

[Nihontocollector752]

The only one mentioned that did not definitively work into Nanbokucho is Shintogo the other 2 are debatable but the entire debate will be based on very few examples that have dates on their nakago....

[Gakusee]

18 minutes ago, Nihontocollector752 said:

The only one mentioned that did not definitively work into Nanbokucho is Shintogo the other 2 are debatable but the entire debate will be based on very few examples that have dates on their nakago....

Yes, that is a difficult one as there are no dated blades of Masamune. But the accepted period for him is before 1330, even though he died in Nanbokucho. For his fellow student, I have an image of one with nengo 1328 but usually the few dated blades of Norishige are dated around 1319-1320. 
 

Jussi is very good at unearthing obscure and rare blades with nengo. Perhaps he has access to more data. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I remember we had good discussion regarding this subject with Rivkin a while ago.

 

I believe there are two dated Masamune that have fire damage. There is Edo nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1314 (unfortunately I have not yet have this one in any books), then there is Ōsaka nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1328, I have this in 4 different reference books.

 

I know there are few Tokubetsu Jūyō that are attributed towards Masamune have the following line for period - 鎌倉時代後期乃至南北朝時代初期 - which I would translate from late Kamakura to beginning of Nanbokuchō (meaning in this that it could be late Kamakura or early Nanbokuchō). I can't figure out Sōshū and it is a mystery to me that I cannot yet understand...

 

For Norishige the youngest date I currently have is 1320, it is actually missing the year but can be judged as it has zodiac and it is only reasonable date in 60 year cycle. There is one that has 1321 date that was featured in old Tōken Bijutsu number but it seems for it the Norishige signature is fake but year signature is genuine.

[Gakusee]

11 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I remember we had good discussion regarding this subject with Rivkin a while ago.

 

I believe there are two dated Masamune that have fire damage. There is Edo nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1314 (unfortunately I have not yet have this one in any books), then there is Ōsaka nagamei Masamune that bears the date 1328, I have this in 4 different reference books.

 

I know there are few Tokubetsu Jūyō that are attributed towards Masamune have the following line for period - 鎌倉時代後期乃至南北朝時代初期 - which I would translate from late Kamakura to beginning of Nanbokuchō (meaning in this that it could be late Kamakura or early Nanbokuchō). I can't figure out Sōshū and it is a mystery to me that I cannot yet understand...

 

For Norishige the youngest date I currently have is 1320, it is actually missing the year but can be judged as it has zodiac and it is only reasonable date in 60 year cycle. There is one that has 1321 date that was featured in old Tōken Bijutsu number but it seems for it the Norishige signature is fake but year signature is genuine.

 

Thanks a lot, Jussi, I stand corrected on the nengo bearing Masamune then. 
 

I should have done better homework before opining! I am getting sloppy….
 

Do you have any other images of the two Masamune? 
 

I found these oshigata of the two Masamune you refer to and the 1328 Norishige (Kozan oshigata).  I think the Osaka one is believed to have been lost  irretrievably to the fire. 
 

There is a bit of info in the Yamanaka newsletters about them but I need to look more into the extent to which they might be recognised as shoshin. The provenance is of course top notch but still …

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here is an image of the dated Masamune. It is in the collection of Tokugawa Art Museum. I believe it was burned in the fall of Ōsaka castle in 1615. It was retempered by Yasutsugu, and Tokugawa Art Museum has another mumei Masamune Meitō that burned in Ōsaka and was retempered by Yasutsugu, there are also signed Masamune Meitō along with mumei Sadamune Meitō with same fate both retempered by Yasutsugu located in different collections.

[Rivkin]

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

For Norishige the youngest date I currently have is 1320, it is actually missing the year but can be judged as it has zodiac and it is only reasonable date in 60 year cycle. There is one that has 1321 date that was featured in old Tōken Bijutsu number but it seems for it the Norishige signature is fake but year signature is genuine.

 

Always an issue whether oshigata can be taken seriously.

There are Norishige 1308 and 1314.

For Shintogo there is oshigata as late as 1328 and a blade with 1324. There is a position there might have been two or three generations.

[Gakusee]

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

 

Always an issue whether oshigata can be taken seriously.

There are Norishige 1308 and 1314.

For Shintogo there is oshigata as late as 1328 and a blade with 1324. There is a position there might have been two or three generations.

 

I am in two minds about oshigata. I do believe the blades existed as represented in the oshigata, with the appropriate mei and nengo. Just we cannot be too sure if the blade indeed is deemed zaimei shoshin per current standards or was just passed down as zaimei through the generations. All these oshigata books contained Daimyo and shogunal blades and the NBTHK in most cases acknowledged that provenance and upheld it. 

Re: Norishige, there is a Juyo blade which has a nengo of 1320. 

[Nihontocollector752]

So based on very little evidence, and considering Nanbokucho begins at 1330 AD, a blade you mention at 1328 AD...it's safe to say that perhaps Norishige and Masamune worked and taught during the period. A period (Nanbokucho) that saw many of the Soshu blades destroyed in battle at the time.