What is Daisho and why we are "wrong" - open discussion.

[2devnul]

Hi everyone,

 

I finally found time to write few words about Daisho. My own opinion and observations. Probably some will agree, some will disagree. I remember I was asked by one of forum members in different topic/thread "what is Daisho for you". Since I can't find that topic, nor remember who asked the question, I decided to start this new open discussion. I hope to see a lot of opinions/comments. 

 

 So first of all what is Daisho and why we are wrong. AFAIK Daisho stands for long/short if you just translate this. In terms of swords this means long & short sword. And that's it, end of topic, that is Daisho. A set of long and short sword. What usually people think is mandatory (and wrong) is that Daisho should be:

 

1. Uchigatana and Wakizashi = not true, as any pair of swords can/was Daisho. It can be Tachi (in Katana mounts) and Tanto. It can be Wakizashi and Tanto. It can be Uchigatana and Tanto ... and so on. 

2. Same motive/theme of Koshirae = not true. Again, depending on wealth and personal choices Koshirae might have same theme or not. 

3. Both swords must be made by same smith = not true. Swords could be made by different smiths and be even from different era. For example Wakizashi could be a family blade which owner inherited, Uchigatana was newly (for the time) made.

4. There are no proofs for my statement and it is just speculation = not true. There are multiple pictures/drawings presenting Samurai with different type of swords or Koshirae in their Daisho sets. There are lucky people who hold in hand inherited Daisho sets and examined them, confirming some of above statements. 

 

These are #4 points that I wanted to share. I will be happy to read your thoughts about above. Like with any historical research/debate I could be totally wrong. However, none of us has time-machine which would allow to time-travel and confirm what exactly took the place. 

 

I'm hoping for wild discussion here, so please 'hit me'

Cheers!

 

[Matsunoki]

What constituted a daisho for the Samurai of the time would depend very heavily on how “wealthy” they were…anything from a matched pair of blades in matching koshirae (maybe some Daimyo) to any old two swords that hopefully looked roughly the same. Regulations existed but I doubt they were strictly complied with unless in important castles/court. Remember most Samurai were impoverished and though their swords were their most precious possession they were still governed by their budget.

However our modern views on what constitutes a Daisho have been well debated here and really depend on our own personal opinions. There is no “hard and fast” single accepted definition. Again…anything from matching blades made at same time by same smith (in shirasaya with no koshirae) to the same but  with matching koshirae (hugely rare) …..and then all the way down to any old two swords that have roughly  the same looking koshirae…..or not! 
….just an opinion.

[PNSSHOGUN]

A topic discussed at length:
 

 

[Rivkin]

Diasho is basically... a koshirae.

Daisho koshirae is a purposefully made katana and waki set. Daisho tsuba is a purposefully made katana and waki tsuba set.

The blades can be unrelated, but in some very uncommon (and almost always shinshinto) cases you also have a purposefully custom order daisho set of katana and waki.

 

Yes you can try to change the definition to attach it to a set of any long and short objects, but why?

[Lewis B]

This discussion came up in last weekend NBTHK-EB meeting in Solingen. It was in German so I didn't catch everything. Literally it means 'large and small'. The shorter can be a tanto or a Wakizashi for example. Doesn't have to be the same maker, school, or in matching koshirae etc. But the definition can diverge from a Western and Japanese standpoint.

[Shugyosha]

Hi Adam,

I don't think that the tachi had to be worn as a katana, I think that a tachi worn edge down slung from a belt and tanto still makes a daisho.

 

If you're in the market for a daisho, I think that you have to be careful to avoid "put together" sets of koshirae that look similar but don't match as the price will always be elevated to take account of the "matching" koshirae. Other than that, as has been said above, any samurai lucky or wealthy enough to own two blades had a daisho. Some even had a dai dai - there is a list of some of the swords carried by the 47 ronin and a number of the short swords are over what we think of as katana length.

[George KN]

This topic has caused me some confusion ever since I got involved collecting Nihonto. 

 

Is there an official definition somewhere, e.g. what does it take for something to be papered as a daisho?

 

As others have mentioned though, it does feel sometimes that the "purposefully made" koshirae definition doesn't fit with the historical reality. 

 

Like if carried these two into battle, even though they have a different habaki, menuki, and tsuba, surely I'd still be calling them a daisho?

 

 

It does feel like there needs to be separate words to describe a "pair of matching koshirae", a "pair of matching blades" (forged at the same time), and a "pair of big/small swords worn together".

[2devnul]

30 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

Diasho is basically... a koshirae.

Daisho koshirae is a purposefully made katana and waki set. Daisho tsuba is a purposefully made katana and waki tsuba set.

The blades can be unrelated, but in some very uncommon (and almost always shinshinto) cases you also have a purposefully custom order daisho set of katana and waki.

 

Yes you can try to change the definition to attach it to a set of any long and short objects, but why?

 

Hi, thanks for your opinion. But this is exactly the statement with which I fully disagree. 

 

My point is that matching Koshirae has nothing to do with what Daisho was. It is modern thinking, highly populated by movies and collectors. I would even say that majority of old pictures (Meiji era) where we can see 'real' Samurai (since real ended with Sengoku/early Edo IMHO), they wear none-matching Koshirae pair of swords. Sometimes even 2x Wakizashi (like @Shugyosha mentioned). Looking at the drawings, you can also find none-matching sets quite often.

 

In other words ... yes, we do see Daisho as being pair of 'same' Koshirae, ideally in company of 'same' blades. But that is the unicorn which many collectors chase, forgetting that Daisho is just a pair of swords. Pair of swords which were symbol, status indicator, sometimes item for showoff (here comes the matching Koshirae/blade topic). 

 

Now, if I put together any Katana/Wakizashi and call it a Daisho, what happens? IMO you can call it that way. Hell, you can sell/advertise it as Daisho set. Because THIS IS a Daisho set from technical point of view. But then again, whole price boosting of matching swords sets will collapse... 

 

[Alex A]

Think folks are being too pedantic over this.

 

If a Samurai had a different katana and a wak with different koshirae then i guess it could simply be he liked them the way they were and didn't consider changing anything necessary. One sword may have been handed down, a gift, stole one, who knows.

 

If on the other hand he was having both swords made new, then it makes sense he would have matching daisho koshirae.

 

 

[Rivkin]

Yes, daisho were actually somewhat popular for a very short time - in early-mid 1800s and possibly also in the beginning of Edo.

The problem arguing about definitions is its pointless. You can call anything you want a daisho, but what's the point.

There is an accepted understanding of what daisho is.

The statement that it was an enduring "symbol" of samurai is false; it was a short lived fashion which possibly occurred a few times in Japanese history. The only exclusive right of a samurai was to wear daito in everyday life. Everything else was up to discretion, situation and custom. There were some classes/families that wore instead a waki or a waki and a tanto, there were many who wore a single daito, very large daito, very short daito, there were some who wore two waki or two daito.

 

Now can one assemble two unrelated swords and call it a daisho - I have not heard this being a crime. Is this a collectible daisho - no. Its what Russians call "arguments of the poor".

For a collector or proper dandy samurai it has to be a proper pair.

[George KN]

Just reflecting on the original 4 points and after reading the related threads - if we agree that a "perfect" daisho is actually a big and small sword made together, with matching koshirae, and that daisho the term just refers to the big/small sword combo regardless of looks and history, then surely "Samurai" and wether the swords were worn can't actually come into the equation?

 

Otherwise we would be excluding any gendaito or new forged or created pairs simply because they weren't around before the class was abolished...

 

(In which case, I very much agree with the OP)

 

Edited November 20 by George KN
Edited for clarity

[2devnul]

I would really like to know opinion on this from native Japanese forum members. I already heard native Japanese calling Wakizashi (or boken!) 'Katana' or saying Daisho for a none-matching sword set. These people were connected with martial arts, so I doubt they didn't know what they talk about. 

 

My point is. Any set of two swords can be called Daisho. From collectors perspective it should be matching set, that is fine, makes sense. But don't deny when you hear someone calling Daisho a set of totally none matching swords.  

2 hours ago, Rivkin said:

There is an accepted understanding of what daisho is.

I can agree on that.

 

2 hours ago, Rivkin said:

The statement that it was an enduring "symbol" of samurai is false; it was a short lived fashion which possibly occurred a few times in Japanese history. 

I disagree. AFAIK during Edo period it was determined by law, that Samurai must carry two (Daisho) swords. 

Edited November 20 by 2devnul
Edit after George's explanation/edit.

[Mark S.]

What defines a true daisho set TODAY?  

DOCUMENTATION

 

Darcy had an article(s) that I believe was labeled “Daisho is and isn’t” or something like that.  But what I gathered from his teachings was that the only way to really know if an old pair of blades is really a daisho set is DOCUMENTATION and a clear chain of custody which make a set extremely rare.  This documentation will fall into one of three categories:

 

1) documentation that shows samurai XYZ carried a set of specific blades (matching smith/koshirae/etc, or not) and documentation that proves the blades you have in your hands are the blades that were actually carried/owned (no substitutions).

 

2) documentation that shows smith XYZ made a pair of blades specifically as a daisho pair to be carried as a daisho pair.  I would assume this would be a special order by a single patron.  
 

3) documentation that Lord XYZ, or other owned/stored/kept/gifted a daisho set of blades and documentation that proves the blades you have in your hands are the blades that were actually owned by said Lord, or other (no substitutions).

 

Without verifiable documentation, it’s pure speculation.

[Matsunoki]

Like I said earlier, it’s a matter of personal opinions/interpretations. There is no “legal definition” neither from the days of the Samurai nor in our modern world. It means different things to different people and it’s all been said before. I’m sure many martial artists have a good knowledge of swords, their history etc etc (many on this Forum) but I’ve also met some who talk the biggest load of bollocks and obviously don’t have a clue so I wouldn’t put too much reliance on that variety as being expert witnesses.

[KungFooey]

Sakamoto Ryoma wore katana and tanto - and looked damn fine too!

[Gakusee]

While technically indeed daisho comprises a long sword and short sword, historically, as Kiril says, the term really signified the presence of a long blade and a short blade (not necessarily by the same smith or even school, or era) in a long saya and short saya respectively. Ideally, the koshirae were a matched set (not the blades necessarily; if the latter were a set - great, but not a must) from an aesthetic but also “regulatory” point of view during Edo (since daisho codification emerged at the end of Muromachi). 

As extra colour about definitions, see the last sentence of the second NBTHK text below: ie, only banzashi were strictly regulated but otherwise free interpretations of daisho emerged. 
 

Below comes from the NBTHK:

“In the Edo period, in public places, samurai wore daisho koshirae, which were called Hakama-zashi (worn inside of the hakama pants belt), Ban-sashi, or Denchu-zashi (worn inside of the castle). These styles were not always the same and depended on the samurai's status and the area. Basically there was a hilt covered with white same and wrapped with a black cord in the hishimaki style, a kashira made out of black painted horn, and a saya lacquered with black urushi.

The tip of the katana saya had an Ichimonji design (a flat bottom on the saya), and the wakizashi had a round bottom on the saya. The tsuba had a polished shakudo ground with a mon, i. e. it was a Kenjo-tsuba (a formal design), or had a scattered mon design. Usually a Mitokoro-mono consisting of a kozuka, kogai, and menuku provided sophisticated matching pieces.”

 

 

With kudos to Markus Sesko, same idea but elaborated slightly differently by the NBTHK again in this second text: 

”A daishō is a pair of uchigatana and wakizashi and the practice of wearing such a pair of swords is assumed to have emerged at the end of the Muromachi period. With the Edo period, a formalized daishō-koshirae came into existence which was used at an attendance at a castle and which was referred to as kamishimo-zashi (裃指) or banzashi (番指), The official code of the Bakugi Sankō (幕儀参考) defines such a formal daishō-koshiraeas having glossy black-lacquer saya, with the sayajiri of the dai being straight and that of the shō round, with the hilts being covered in white same and wrapped hishimaki-style with black braid, with the kashira being of black-lacquered horn, and with the fuchi being of shakudō with either a nanako ground or a polished finish. The tsuba was proposedly a Kenjō-tsuba of polished shakudō and the mitokoromono first-class Gotō works. The only decoration should be family crests highlighted just in gold iroe and the sageo should be black braid, although for presentation purposes also purple sageo were used. Apart from the above mentioned official use however, daishō-koshirae were not regulated by the bakufu but several interpretations emerged that base on the banzashi regulations.” 

 

Furthermore, while the NBTHK in the texts above specifically refers to wakizashi, strictly speaking the Edo period sho could be a tanto too. We can see that in this Juyo daisho set appended here. 
 

If we go further back in time, when warriors wore tachi suspended from the waist, they often had a secondary blade thrust through the sash - koshigatana. Could have been a long tanto or kodachi. There are various depictions of such samurai in scrolls, paintings etc. From memory, the depictions did not seem to indicate matched fittings and outward appearance. 
Attached below are Nanbokucho and early Muromachi koshigatana. Their form could be viewed as the predecessor of the wakizashi function, just the way katana gradually replaced tachi. On the last point, for formal occasions even during Edo period, specific tachi koshirae were required. 
 

Some time ago I had put together a few slides on koshirae for our Society and you can see in the enclosed image that in the case of the hitatare outfit, the displayed figure is actually carrying a tachi and a tanto or koshigatana through the sash. 
 

 

[Rivkin]

I would say unconventional thing, but East Asian laws should not be interpreted in a western sense as a permanent list of rules enforced by courts. More often than not those were rescripts issued to address a specific situation in a specific place; some managed to create a tradition, in other cases an existing unwritten tradition had as much or greater impact than any written law.

I would believe images and surviving koshirae more so than a literal reading, and there are plenty of examples from makie world where the laws were very specific and restrictive, and its related to swords in a way: black lacquer with gold mon was allowed only for major (above 100,000 koku) daimyo clans, and anything beyond that in full gold was basically comparable to Shogun's level. Yet in 19th century nobody cared and even before it mostly affected "official" events and related items. 

 

In the same way you would expect plenty of daisho tsuba if wearing a two set would be typical for samurai's everyday function, yet they are typically late and not exceptionally common. You would expect plenty of Inoue Shinkai daisho blades simply because it would make sense to order two at the same time if you have the funds, but that's not the case. You look at images, and there are plenty of formal functions where people are dressed for duty yet have one katana and nothing else. If such was a custom at a given time, whatever was commanded 50 years ago did not matter as much.

 

Just a personal opinion and maybe I am missing something.

[Jacques D.]

Daisho resulted from the samurai's obligation to wear one long and one short sword, and nothing else. The rest is a matter of fashion.

[Alex A]

On 11/20/2024 at 3:02 PM, Mark S. said:

What defines a true daisho set TODAY?  

DOCUMENTATION

 

Darcy had an article(s) that I believe was labeled “Daisho is and isn’t” or something like that.  But what I gathered from his teachings was that the only way to really know if an old pair of blades is really a daisho set is DOCUMENTATION and a clear chain of custody which make a set extremely rare.  This documentation will fall into one of three categories:

 

1) documentation that shows samurai XYZ carried a set of specific blades (matching smith/koshirae/etc, or not) and documentation that proves the blades you have in your hands are the blades that were actually carried/owned (no substitutions).

 

2) documentation that shows smith XYZ made a pair of blades specifically as a daisho pair to be carried as a daisho pair.  I would assume this would be a special order by a single patron.  
 

3) documentation that Lord XYZ, or other owned/stored/kept/gifted a daisho set of blades and documentation that proves the blades you have in your hands are the blades that were actually owned by said Lord, or other (no substitutions).

 

Without verifiable documentation, it’s pure speculation.

 

Agree with this but just thinking that finding a pair with such documentation must be rare as hens teeth. 

 

Crossed my mind looking over this Daisho, the swords were made seven years apart towards the end of the Edo period but that really dont mean that they could not have been owned as a pair by the same owner. They come with a box with a family crest, but there's that all important question of provenance. Maybe there is further documents, maybe not. 

 

A splendid pair

Dai Sho : Motohira(Dai Sho:NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon Token)(Daisho Koshirae: NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon Tosogu) - Japanese Sword Shop Aoi-Art

[2devnul]

@Alex A

 

Wow Alex, nice finding. You just made me want to sell my car ...

 

On 11/22/2024 at 5:35 PM, Alex A said:

the swords were made seven years apart

That is the thing. I doubt that owner 'started' to wear Daisho only after the 2nd order was completed. I think he owned other sword/pair of swords and simply switched when he could afford it. Or maybe he was so happy with first order that he decided to purchase 2nd blade from same smith. Who knows. 

 

Again, "What defines a true daisho set TODAY?" makes sense, from collector perspective. 

However, if you see someone owning two swords, totally undocumented, unrelated, in different Koshirae, and stating it is Daisho, then ... well it is Daisho 

 

On 11/22/2024 at 5:35 PM, Alex A said:

Agree with this but just thinking that finding a pair with such documentation must be rare as hens teeth. 

From business/commercial perspective, that is a huge price booster. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I was just checking some historical items in Japanese books and there are possibly few daishō that are slightly pre-1600 as they can be traced back to specific owner. However they had the blades the person had historically and not matching pair of blades. Also the pair of tachi & short sword is referred in books as ryō-goshi (両腰). The actual surviving historical examples of these are ultimately rare. I think in the few koshirae books I have there is only 1 with proven ownership.

 

Now bit tongue in cheeck but still factual at the same time. Unfortunately I don't yet own all of the Jūyō books but so far this is the only item anywhere I have seen with this setup after they re-sent this for Jūyō as the package. There are some papered Jūyō daishō that have attachment daishō koshirae. However this was originally from Jūyō 16 as daishō with attachment koshirae but re-evaluation at Jūyō 47 now has daishō & daishō koshirae on the same paper. An unicorn to chase...

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here is one very rare set that is in Europe. These are not really my thing so I am not that interested in these but I remember this was at Japan Art Expo 2023.

 

https://www.honto-ni...en-no-suke-munetsugu

[Alex A]

Can only speculate about why the swords are part of a daisho and made many years apart.

 

Without provenance then your always going to have some doubt whether they were actually worn of cobbled together in 1920 or something.

 

Maybe with the swords above there is a record of ownership but i would have expected that to have been mentioned as it would be a major selling point.

 

It don't help when they are not in their used worn original state but look to be restored with fresh ito etc.  

 

Did see a daisho a good while ago now, it was only cheap as the fittings and swords were mediocre. The thing is though, they both had some wear and appeared to be untouched which kind of got me thinking that maybe they were a legit used pair. No provenance though.

 

That's the think about antiques, once they are messed with or restored, for me it raises questions.

 

Ps, you do find swords with inscriptions to whom they were made for, must be a daisho out there somewhere with such an inscription.

[2devnul]

https://swordsofjapa...uct/kinmichi-daisho/