Naginata-naoshi

[Jacques]

Quote

When (here) we talk about naoshi, the suriage is generally implied.

The problem is that the term naginata naoshi includes both real naginata naoshi and those made in style (see Kanzan Sato's article).

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

Just now, Jacques said:

The problem is that the term naginata naoshi includes both real naginata naoshi and those made in style (see Kanzan Sato's article).

 

Yes, I agree with you there.

 

That's why I've wanted to see any examples where any evidence of rework (aside from a lack of kaeri) is visible.

 

It's not clear to me that the (naoshi) examples in this discussion were previously naginata.

 

The answers suggest how they would / could have been modified - and it all seems logical, but obviously with no true before and after (understandably).

 

It's not even particularly clear why. Sure, the "fewer battles" argument is logical - but would it have been purely an economic decision?

 

As we've seen, naginata were still being produced in the early Edo period and beyond - so there was still some new demand?

[Jacques]

Quote

That's why I've wanted to see any examples where any evidence of rework (aside from a lack of kaeri) is visible.

It's impossible to know. It would have to be documented (the same naginata before and after) by the craftsman who did the work. A kissaki is not like a nakago, where there are clues showing that it has been suriage. The mune is polished and burnished, with no trace of alteration.  

 

A true naginata naoshi Description says the nakago is suriage.

[Mikaveli]

46 minutes ago, Jacques said:

It's impossible to know. It would have to be documented (the same naginata before and after) by the craftsman who did the work. A kissaki is not like a nakago, where there are clues showing that it has been suriage. The mune is polished and burnished, with no trace of alteration.  

 

A true naginata naoshi Description says the nakago is suriage.

 

This (pictured) example is really interesting. I've never seen an example with such a deep mune-machi (and with the orikaeshi-mei too).

 

What book is that from?

[Tsuku]

Against my better judgement —

 

I posted this example earlier. Perhaps it was overlooked or an appropriately in-depth study was not made.

 

This blade was Jūyō-tōken in the 44th shinsa. The NBTHK paperwork clearly attributes it as a 薙刀直し刀 naginata-naoshi katana, right there on the front of the certificate.

 

A copy of the setsumei is attached. I will draw your attention to a few points.

• 形状  薙刀直し造 keijō naginata-naoshi zō
• 帽子  乱れ込み先小丸 bōshi midare-komi-saki kō-maru [kaeri]
• 茎  大磨上 nakago ō-suriage
• 説明  ... 本作は薙刀を磨上げて刀としたもので... honsaku wa naginata o suriagete katana to shita mo node... "Here we have a naginata which was shortened and made into a katana..."

 

Thus:

1. NBTHK calls this a naginata-naoshi and and describes the form as such.
2. An intact boshi with kaeri remains.
3. NBTHK specifically says in the setsumei that it originated as a naginata that was shortened.

[Mikaveli]

 

5 hours ago, Tsuku said:

Thus:

1. NBTHK calls this a naginata-naoshi and and describes the form as such.
2. An intact boshi with kaeri remains.
3. NBTHK specifically says in the setsumei that it originated as a naginata that was shortened.

 

Where things go in circles is that whilst the NBTHK assert that it was a naginata, no proof is offered.

 

We all can see / accept it's made in the style of a naginata, and (at least to me) I can see some evidence of suriage - although the position / depth of the mei is interesting. Edit: actually I see the description acknowledges kiritsuke now.

 

But, to Jacques' point, could the NBTHK prove that it was ever mounted / used / made as an actual polearm (rather than just a non-shinogi-zukuri long sword)?

 

A non ubu nakago actually makes it more ambiguous.

[sabiji]

Well, here is another example : a Naginata Naoshi Katana, Nakago O-Suriage.

 

The boshi is ko-maru with a short kaeri. 

The Sword is attributed to Kaneyuki, the son, but probably younger brother of Kinju.

 

I studied Kinju intensively for some time. This way of working is typical for him and his environment. The yakiba is kept narrow, the character is retained in the kissaki, and the boshi forms the logical and harmonious conclusion.
This way of working remains identical, whether tanto, ko-waki, tachi/katana or naginata. The boshi is usually a ko-maru with a very short kaeri up to the yakizume. This basically follows the style of its Yamato (Senjuin) roots, in which a short kaeri up to the yakizume is common.

 

What I mean by this is that probably a whole series of naginata naoshi before the correction or change to katana/waki in the boshi region did not look significantly different, because the existing boshi corresponds to the style of the school/swordsmith.

A yakizume at a school/swordsmith who otherwise does not harden something like this naturally indicates a clear modification in the sugata in the case of a naoshi. It could be difficult with Kinju, because yakizume can also be applied.

 

And then we are back to the sugata and here we come full circle, which has already been mentioned here several times, that it was precisely because of this sugata that such naginata were particularly popularly modified into katana/waki, because the amount of work involved in the modification was correspondingly low and the original boshi remained largely intact.

 

Conclusion: @ Jaques, no, I can't say how the Kaneyuki Naginata (Naoshi) shown by me looked 100% in its origin. But I know quite well the working style of the school around Kinju and would say that no significant modification of the sugata was made here. Nevertheless, the blade is called a naginata naoshi katana because the blade has been modified from a naginata to a katana.

 

Well, a major point of contention here is obviously whether the example I showed was actually a naginata or nagamaki, or whether it was conceived from the beginning as a katana in this naginata-naoshi-tsukuri form.

 

But I don't think so. The Nanbokucho period is not a revival period. Forms considered typical of this period were developed here, such as the often-mentioned enbun/joji sugata. A sugata that also emerged due to changing war tactics favoring infantry. The Nanbokucho is the heyday of the naginata. The typical castle towns, where swordsmiths worked for local princes and warlords, emerged much later. In Nanbokucho, many swordsmiths worked on the grounds of Buddhist temples. This was also the case at Kinju. Or at Kaneuji. A tegai smith who first switched to the mino-kokubunji, and there were also large temple complexes in Shizu and Naoe. Alongside the samurai, the monasteries represented the second most important military force, intervening in the fighting on behalf of one side or the other, or even just for themselves.

It is also no secret that families of the court nobility supported monasteries or encouraged the establishment of monasteries on their lands, thus indirectly using their military power to achieve their goals. Morinaga, a son of Go Daigo, was the high priest of the Tendai-Shu on the Hiei and represented a significant military resource in his "reconstruction" against the Kamakura Bakufu. The naginata is also the standard weapon of the monastic military contingents.

In any case, the naginata must have been produced in large numbers at that time. It's simply logical that naginata were later modified into katana/waki, firstly because they were particularly well suited for this purpose, secondly because there were still sufficient resources for such weapons, and thirdly because modifying them into katana and waki was obviously cheaper than producing them from scratch.

 

The emergence of naginata naoshi zukuri, i.e. the deliberate copying of a shortened naginata, coincides, in my opinion, primarily with the copying of a specific forging style, such as the soshu style. Kaneuji, Naoe Shizu, Sue-Sa, Hasabe, and at the same time their typical sugata of the Nanbokucho were copied. This, in turn, is a Kantei characteristic of Keicho Shinto.

This, of course, does not rule out the possibility that such utsushi existed much earlier. There are always exceptions, and nothing is set in stone. But the essence is always the obvious.

 

[Jacques]

1. Quote

   NBTHK specifically says in the setsumei that it originated as a naginata that was shortened.

   Yes, but they're talking about nakago. A naginata can be made in the naginata naoshi style, as Kanzan Sato says in his article. Once again, nothing can prove the contrary

 

[sabiji]

https://www.aoijapan.com/katanakatana-in-shirasaya-with-koshiraenbthk-hozon-tokennbthk-hozon-token/

Hi Jaques, 
I once owned a Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri by Kawai Hisayuki, clearly a Nanbokucho-Utsushi with a huge O-Kissaki. The Tokubetsu Hozon simply said “Wakizashi”.

Since I'm at work now and can't refer to my documents, here's a quick example of Tsuruta-San with a naginata-naoshi-tsukuri. Here, too, it simply says: “Wakizashi”.

I have yet to see an NBTHK paper that explicitly states “Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri-Wakizashi or Katana, if it is an Utsushi of a Naginata Naoshi.

But if it was a naginata, then the NBTHK notes it as a naginata naoshi katana or waki. I'm starting to lose sight of what the problem really is.

 

[Mikaveli]

30 minutes ago, sabiji said:

https://www.aoijapan.com/katanakatana-in-shirasaya-with-koshiraenbthk-hozon-tokennbthk-hozon-token/

Hi Jaques, 
I once owned a Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri by Kawai Hisayuki, clearly a Nanbokucho-Utsushi with a huge O-Kissaki. The Tokubetsu Hozon simply said “Wakizashi”.

Since I'm at work now and can't refer to my documents, here's a quick example of Tsuruta-San with a naginata-naoshi-tsukuri. Here, too, it simply says: “Wakizashi”.

I have yet to see an NBTHK paper that explicitly states “Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri-Wakizashi or Katana, if it is an Utsushi of a Naginata Naoshi.

But if it was a naginata, then the NBTHK notes it as a naginata naoshi katana or waki. I'm starting to lose sight of what the problem really is.

 

 

That's got both the kaeri and and ubu tang - so very much likely to be in its original configuration (made as a companion sword).

 

For me, the grey area is around suriage naginata-style blades - where it's not clear what the original style / form was.

 

Jacques posted one example with a very distinct mune-machi and orikaeshi mei.

 

In other cases, we've seen less clear examples. Jacques statement was something along the lines of a blade would have had to have lost its kaeri, to be a true naoshi (starting life as a polearm). Anything else could just be a blade made in a naginata style.

 

The counter was basically, the NBTHK says so - but that's only an appeal to authority.

[Scogg]

18 minutes ago, Mikaveli said:

Jacques posted one example with a very distinct mune-machi and orikaeshi mei.

It's my understanding that it's not a distinct mune-machi, but rather the oshigata showing what the style of mune is, by "unfolding" it on the illistration. See other example below:

 

 

[Mikaveli]

15 hours ago, Jacques said:

 

 

It doesn't look like that to me here, but it could be - I'm not sure, after you've said that?

 

22 minutes ago, Scogg said:

It's my understanding that it's not a distinct mune-machi, but rather the oshigata showing what the style of mune is, by "unfolding" it on the illistration. See other example below:

 

 

 

If so, it's a little misleading - as it has to either taper unnaturally towards the tip, or becomes asymmetrical?

 

I've seen examples where the mune is unfolded, but then the drawing of the mune stops after a inch or so (resolving the above problem).

[Franco]

 

Quote

 

AI Overview

Learn more

 

Naginata naoshi refers to a Japanese sword blade that has been transformed from a Naginata, a traditional Japanese polearm, into a smaller, sword-like weapon like a wakizashi or katana. This process involves shortening the blade and adjusting the tang for use as a sword, essentially repurposing a naginata for a different purpose. 

 

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Naginata:

  Naginata is a long-handled, curved blade mounted on a long pole, used in Japanese martial arts and warfare. 

   
• Naoshi:

  The term "naoshi" (直し) in Japanese means "to fix" or "to repair," but in this context, it signifies "to transform" or "to convert". 

   
• Naginata Naoshi:

  Therefore, Naginata Naoshi literally means "naginata converted" or "naginata transformed". It refers to the process where a naginata blade is repurposed into a shorter sword. 

   
• Purpose:

  Naginata Naoshi blades were often created during times of peace, as the naginata itself was a more combat-focused weapon. Shortening and converting them into swords allowed them to be used for more practical purposes, such as self-defense or in martial arts practices. 

   
• Appearance:

  Naginata Naoshi blades typically have the curved shape and characteristics of a naginata blade, but they are shortened to fit the dimensions of a wakizashi or katana. 

   

In essence, Naginata Naoshi refers to a specific type of Japanese sword blade that has been redesigned from a naginata, creating a unique and historically interesting form of sword. 

 

 

Generative AI is experimental.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords (Markus Sesko)

 

naginta-naoshi (薙刀直し) – When a naginata was later reshaped into a sword, i.e. the tang cut off and the blade thinned, we speak of a naginata-naoshi.

naginta-naoshi-zukuri (薙刀直し造) – Blade that is made in the style of a remodeled naginta-naoshi.

 

 

Note to self: follow established (published) definitions.  

 

Note to Jacques: you have been citing Kanzan Sato over and over, time and time again, in order to define and support your positions and thoughts. But, having read through the very pages that you posted written by Kanzan Sato, they clearly state something different than what you are saying.

 

And, in fact, Sato supports the NBTHK's position and practice. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

On 4/17/2025 at 4:04 PM, CSM101 said:

 

This picture shows what I was thinking - I don't think the oshigata depicts the flattened net of the mune?

 

My thinking / assumption was this is a nakago reshaping, so that the wielder isn't left with a tsuka too wide for their hands?

[Mikaveli]

1 hour ago, sabiji said:

I once owned a Naginata-Naoshi-Tsukuri by Kawai Hisayuki, clearly a Nanbokucho-Utsushi with a huge O-Kissaki. The Tokubetsu Hozon simply said “Wakizashi”.

Since I'm at work now and can't refer to my documents, here's a quick example of Tsuruta-San with a naginata-naoshi-tsukuri. Here, too, it simply says: “Wakizashi”.

 

8 minutes ago, Franco said:

Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords (Markus Sesko)

 

naginta-naoshi (薙刀直し) – When a naginata was later reshaped into a sword, i.e. the tang cut off and the blade thinned, we speak of a naginata-naoshi.

naginta-naoshi-zukuri (薙刀直し造) – Blade that is made in the style of a remodeled naginta-naosh

 

Note to self: follow established (published) definitions.  

 

This is helpful / timely - as I think the nuance / convention has been missed (by some).

 

So, where we have zukuri/tsukuri (造り), following Sesko's definition, it's really stating "in the style of". Hence sabiji's examples being labelled wakizashi.

 

Trouble is, naginata naoshi tends to be used without the suffix, as a short hand term for either.

 

So, back to the start 😅 where the example with the kaeri intact cited as naginata naoshi tsukuri - or as true naginta-naoshi (polearm conversions)?

[Mikaveli]

And (to reply to myself), looking back at the start of this thread, there were a few true naginta-naoshi (not tsukuri) with retained kaeri.

 

After all that, I'm back at "both ends need to be reviewed" and very few absolute rules? 🤠 

[Jussi Ekholm]

While I agree that 100% totality of data will be impossible task but we can try to get as close as we can. That is what I aim for on my personal project and have been doing it for 10+ years now. The thing is that surviving pre-Mid Muromachi naginata are extremely rare, as I said earlier in this thread so far I have uncovered 124 of them. They are so rare that now that I've gone through the major references, museums and shrines, getting one to pop up from somewhere is always a huge moment for me. Yes I do in general still find several of them each year but the number of them adds up slowly. The naoshi are much more common and I do find few dozens of new ones every year.

 

Now as some might not know ōdachi and old naginata are my thing. When I travel to Japan each summer my goal in sword study is to see ōdachi and old naginata, I don't care that much about National treasures or other highly appreciated swords. I want to see big battlefield stuff. So far I have seen 27 ōdachi and 25 of these old naginata.

 

I am not an academic person, and I don't care about that stuff at all. However I do dig up some statistical stuff as I want to always have proof to backup the things I write. Now as I mentioned in other thread I do have data of 14,000+ pre Mid-Muromachi blades and yes I do have measurements and pictures for pretty much all of them. What I haven't mentioned at NMB yet is that I recently did some calculations about tōrokushō (登録証) [sword registration licence in Japan] numbers. Now I did go through 4,000-5,000 NBTHK papered Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon swords for this and I do have put out the data in excel about the findings. Now I could have aimed for 10,000 swords (or even a lot more) for more accurate results but as this already took few days and I didn't really care about this too much, it gives a rough idea.

 

 

Now you can see that there have been 2,600,000+ sword licences that have been issued in Japan. As you can see I am unfortunately totally missing Ehime as I couldn't find a sword licence that would have been registered in there (of course there are swords being registered in there). For Aomori and Tottori last item I found was in 1970's... Now I do not know how many licences are reissues (new number as the old one was lost) etc. but for the sake of simplicity lets say that 600,000 of them are for doubles for already excisting sword licences. That would leave about 2,000,000 Japanese swords in Japan, pretty big number.

 

Now as I have so far found 552 naoshi blades that are pre Mid-Muromachi. You can 4x that number (as I for sure havent yet found all of them) and be at roughly 2,200 very old naoshi blades. Now if my math is correct this 2,200 would just be 0,11% out of 2,000,000 blades in Japan. By logically thinking I do not believe it is too far stretch to think that there have been few thousand repurposed very old naginata blades. After all when you look at the extremely tiny number of actual naginata of that age remaining to this day.

 

Then some general thoughts about the thread. I think there is too much focus on the term naginata-naoshi zukuri. I feel in general it is just made as a guideline for people to make them realize that there are ubu blades made to resemble reworked naginata. Personally I would just call these unokubi/kanmuri-otoshi/shōbu/shinogi zukuri katana/wakizashi depending on their blade style and length. I just feel like focusing on this very small detail is making things a lot more complicated. In general I feel all the references will use the term naginata-naoshi on actually what they see and consider as reworked naginata.

 

The naginata-naoshi that Jacques posted by Yoshikage passed NBTHK Jūyō 23 session. It was also sold by Aoi Art 14 years ago: https://web.archive.org/web/20110913055258/http:/www.aoi-art.com:80/sword/sale/11237.html

 

I am bit puzzled how naginata-naoshi is seen as it would be extremely rare occurrence, I mean to me it makes a lot more sense trying to rework thousands of naginata that were used, than just to trash them totally. Personally I would be much more curious about how there are so many 70cm+ mumei ō-suriage katana that have been attributed from the same period, yet extremely few actual ōdachi remaining to this day, and tachi from most of the makers for whom the blades are attributed towards. Of course that is another completely different topic where people might have varying views too.

[Mikaveli]

24 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

 

I am bit puzzled how naginata-naoshi is seen as it would be extremely rare occurrence, I mean to me it makes a lot more sense trying to rework thousands of naginata that were used, than just to trash them totally. Personally I would be much more curious about how there are so many 70cm+ mumei ō-suriage katana that have been attributed from the same period, yet extremely few actual ōdachi remaining to this day, and tachi from most of the makers for whom the blades are attributed towards. Of course that is another completely different topic where people might have varying views too.

 

I don't really understand this either. I don't suppose we have any stats on how much naginata were produced from muromachi on?

 

I'd also be interested to see there usage stats over time. From battlefield, to ceremonial, "home defence" and I'm sure I read somewhere that it became a custom to give a naginata as part of a dowry at one point too.

 

With all the extant nihonto, what would compel a conversion (which can't have been cheap) rather than just purchasing a new or old katana/wakizashi?

 

Was there ever a surplus of quality naginata, suited to naoshi?

 

Do we know when the last known (non-tsukuri) naginata naoshi dates from?

[Jacques]

That's bother me, it's named as tachi and it has a typical naginata naoshi sugata. If Jussy could check ?  

[Jacques]

Quote

Note to Jacques: you have been citing Kanzan Sato over and over, time and time again, in order to define and support your positions and thoughts. But, having read through the very pages that you posted written by Kanzan Sato, they clearly state something different than what you are saying.

That's because you haven't understood it, even though it's very clear.

[Franco]

3 hours ago, Jacques said:

That's because you haven't understood it, even though it's very clear.

 

You're right, Jacques, it is very clear.

 

Which is probably why the NBTHK, Mr. Tanobe, and Kanzan Sato all agree with each other. And don't agree with you.

 

First, Sato writes that "nagamaki" refers to the way these swords were mounted. Followed by "Therefore, nagamaki  should properly be called naginata."  Which blows the copies claim theory out of the water. Why? Because despite the marked differences in shape, they are still "naginata."  

 

Further, anyone reading Sato's article should realize that Sato is talking about blades made over multiple time periods encompassing a number of different shapes. To that point, when being reconfigured to other uses, katana, wakizashi, modifications would be adapted and customized to the individual sword. It was not a one cut fits all. Which accounts for the differences we now see in the boshi between the different types of naginata-naoshi. 

 

On the subject of "impossible to know." Again, Jacques, you are mistaken. When naginata-naoshi underwent a shape change there was a narrowing. That narrowing changed the appearance of the sword. When properly restored by today's polishers, excellent polishers will recognize this distortion and reconfigure the shinogi to give the sword more of the original appearance, as the maker intended. 

 

When it comes to nihonto, it's just when you begin to think you know something that you find out how little you know.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited Wednesday at 07:14 PM by Franco

[Rayhan]

Learned something there! Thank you @Franco. So it's akin to tachi, nagamaki is about the koshirae and less the suguta of the blade? So Jussi pinned it as Nagato which is the right terminology?

[CSM101]

Fujishiro classified the blade as naginata naoshi.

 

 

[Jacques]

Thanks, just goes to show that you should always check whether what you read or are told is relevant or not.

[Jacques]

Quote

On the subject of "impossible to know." Again, Jacques, you are mistaken. When naginata-naoshi underwent a shape change there was a narrowing. That narrowing changed the appearance of the sword. When properly restored by today's polishers, excellent polishers will recognize this distortion and reconfigure the shinogi to give the sword more of the original appearance, as the maker intended. 

And how does he do it?

[Franco]

8 hours ago, Jacques said:

And how does he do it?

 

That is a great question. I wish I knew the answer. 

[Franco]

10 hours ago, Rayhan said:

nagamaki is about the koshirae and less the suguta of the blade?

 

It's all about the koshirae.

[Jacques]

2 hours ago, Franco said:

 

That is a great question. I wish I knew the answer. 

How can you say he can reconfigure the shinogi if you don't know how? It's like saying there are green giraffes but I've never seen one.... 

[Jacques]

13 hours ago, Franco said:

 

You're right, Jacques, it is very clear.

 

Which is probably why the NBTHK, Mr. Tanobe, and Kanzan Sato all agree with each other. And don't agree with you.

 

First, Sato writes that "nagamaki" refers to the way these swords were mounted. Followed by "Therefore, nagamaki  should properly be called naginata."  Which blows the copies claim theory out of the water. Why? Because despite the marked differences in shape, they are still "naginata."  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Except that I never mentioned nagamaki...

 

Quote

Further, anyone reading Sato's article should realize that Sato is talking about blades made over multiple time periods encompassing a number of different shapes. To that point, when being reconfigured to other uses, katana, wakizashi, modifications would be adapted and customized to the individual sword. It was not a one cut fits all. Which accounts for the differences we now see in the boshi between the different types of naginata-naoshi. 

You're putting words in his mouth 

I'll give you an indice : fukura.

[Bugyotsuji]

6 minutes ago, Jacques said:

How can you say he can reconfigure the shinogi if you don't know how? It's like saying there are green giraffes but I've never seen one....