Shinsakuto ...... are they Nihonto?

[sanjuro]

This thought and question arises from a current thread on NMB which started me thinking.

 

In most quarters apparently, Shinsakuto are not strictly regarded as Nihonto. The nebulous difference seems to be that new swords are art swords and nihonto are weapons. How a sword (A weapon by any mans definition) suddenly becomes mysteriously deweaponised and reclassified as an art object truly defeats me, unless it is to satisfy some politically correct definition of what a tosho actually does, (which is to make swords...aka, weapons). Be that as it may, we seem to be in danger of losing sight of the fact that without modern tosho, the arts and skills of the swordsmith would have died out at the close of the second world war. Why then are shinsakuto not given the distiction of being true Japanese swords, which is what the term Nihonto actually means? It seems that on the surface at least, that the modern tosho strives to perfect an art for which he gets little kudos, or at least less kudos than he deserves.

 

My thinking here may be a little askew, and I am quite prepared for alternative opinions and possibly to be castigated, tarred and feathered or banished beyond the ninth wave.

 

A little clarification here, I'm well aware of the criteria for a nihonto and also the material and historical relevance differences between them and shinsakuto. My question for the sake of discussion, is why are shinsakuto not given the recognition they deserve , and are treated instead like a poor cousin to nihonto.

 

OK, go ahead and shoot me down now.

[cabowen]

This is the basis for a never ending debate without any absolute answer....

 

The main reasons, as I have been led to believe, that they are not paid a whole of attention by sword collectors in general comes down to:

 

-they are expensive. most collectors would rather spend the money on a sword with history.

 

-they are made to be admired rather than used.

 

Do not think though that they do not have their fans. I know that Tanobe san of the NBTHK has a large collection of shinsakuto.....And there are many others in Japan that admire and collect them.

 

After the war, in an effort to save swords, the Japanese authorities convinced the US occupation that swords were not simply weapons, but art. This was the beginning of the transformation. They have been "art" ever since.

 

In the early showa period there was an annual imperial art exhibition. In showa 9, if memory serves me, Kurihara Akihide successfully lobbied for the inclusion of swords along with the usual items. Due to the controversy that ensued, this was the first and last time swords would be included. This is the genesis of the independent yearly war-era shinsakuto exhibit promoted by Kurihara thereafter...

[tagonagy]

A few reasons why I think Shinsakuto may be a little neglected.

 

1)One thing to keep in mind about art, not just nihonto, it becomes more valuable after the artisan is dead. Van Gough sold two of his paintngs while he lived.

2) Many shinsakuto are copies old masterpieces. No matter how well make, a copy is a copy

3) There is a paucity of information, especially in English on post-war swordsmiths. While there are a number of good introductory books (The Craft of the Japanese Sword, The New Generation of Japanese Swordsmiths, Modern Japanese Swords and Swordsmithscome to mind) There are no books about shinsakuto that go into the depth of antiquite blades like Nagayama's Connoiseur's Book of Japanese Swords

4) There is something to be said about a sword's historical value. No shinsakuto was ever carried by a samurai, and that means something to alot of collectors.

 

Having said all that, I think that shinsakuto are wonderful. I own two post-war blades and they are the pride of my collection. I think that shinsakuto are of higher quality (i.e. stronger, sharper, more activity) than most blades made after sekigahara. Shinsakuto are made as weapons not as objects d'art. In fact,on http://www.e-sword.jp nearly all the shinsakuto for sale are marketed as being suitable for iai and tameshigiri. I know it's not thesame as being used in battle, but it is the closes nearly all of us are going to get.

[george trotter]

My understanding of shinsakuto is that they are art...and the reason they are art is that, as Chris outlined, this was the only category the US Occupational Govt. would consider as a legitimate reason to halt the indescriminate destruction of Japanese "war swords". The Japanese put forward a convincing argument that all these swords should be carefully examined prior to destruction, and only those of "no historic, artistic, cultural value" would proceed to the scrap heap. This saved the Nihonto.

It is interesting however, that IMHO, while the classification as art was a "necessary construct" to save the swords...the swords rapidly took on the embodiment of "art" in their postwar continuation, in that within 15 years, they had grown long and heavy....more a visual thing than a useable thing. A cursory glance through Ono 1971, 1977 and many other illustrated references show that swords rapidly grew from the Meiji/Taisho/Showa average of 67cm (27 ins) to c.75-80 cm (29-31 ins). Weight went from an ave 825 grams to close to a kilo...I can't imagine carrying and wielding such a sword. I am 188 cm tall (6'2'') and find a WWII sword I own at 69.8 cm (the longest size allowed under the RJT scheme) as too long to be handy for dismounted infantry use...therefore, since most Japanese males are far shorter than me, I am of the opinion that these shinsakuto weights and lengths preclude them from practical use, perhaps even for Iai and Tameshi purposes, but as I am not a practical swordsman I stand to be corrected. It seems to me that for practical purposes, the shinsakuto has outgrown its practical useability dimensions.

Taken together, I would say that "it could be said" the art classification has become the actual reality of the shinsakuto. The beauty of the postwar workmanship and polishing speaks for itself and is outside the sphere of practical use characteristics.

I make these comments as a contribution to the discussion, and not to be provocative.

Regards,

George.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Many shinsakuto are copies old masterpieces. No matter how well make, a copy is a copy

 

Ach, I was under the impression that copying ancient masterpieces was something already seen in other periods when "real NihonTo" ruled...

 

-they are expensive. most collectors would rather spend the money on a sword with history.

 

Good point, but what about quality ? Not all Shinsakuto are the same nor older Nihonto are. An Ono Yoshimitsu (or others) overwelm *a lot* of ancient blades. I concur that at the same price the factor "age" is a plus, but only after quality considerations. After 1650 very, very few swords achieved any historical value and Samurai were well into their "sunset boulevard". Even before I can't see how a Kazuuchimono used by a Jisamurai can beat with its history a well done Shinsakuto.

Better to say that you can get a better old sword for the same amount of money a Shinsakuto would cost you. This can effectively happen, but IMHO all boils down to quality here too.

 

-they are made to be admired rather than used.

 

But they're surely healty and possibly safer then old ones which you can't say how much abused they were.

Quality standards today are quite strict and IMHO matches the ones used for good blades in the past (just the smith doesn't lose his head in case of catastrophic failure. )

 

Not sure about the real difference in practicality and usability. Of course westerner are taller then Japanese but the average pre-Meiji Samurai (which the "real NihonTo" were made for) was much smaller than a present day sarariman. Try to put on an early Edo Katchu to make a comparison. This changes the ratio sword weight and lenght versus man's tall you're considering making them closer to present-day situation. BTW any modern tosho worth his salt will make a sword in any length/shape/weight you'll ask for.

 

If, in the age of Desert eagle and Glock, somebody needs a sword to play "Resident Evil", better to contact "O-mimi" Clark for an L6 superkatana rather than bother a good Tosho. Had the IJA spent the amount of money it spent in studing and producing swords in research and production of automatic rifles and machine guns instead, it would have been much better for the average WWII soldier (even if absolutely of no consequence for the final outcome of the war).

 

My comments too are for the sake of the topic and not meant to be provocative.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

My opinion on this matter, until the end of WW2 nihonto were made for warriors, and not Shinsakuto.

This is to my eyes th only difference between them.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

My opinion on this matter, until the end of WW2 nihonto were made for warriors,

 

This would rule out Wakizashi and Tanto, which possession was allowed to non-warriors and still remains NihonTo. Would we guess that this permission has merely been extended to Daito as well in modern times ?

 

And how much an Edo Samurai can still be considered a warrior ?

 

A couple hundred years of no-wars history tells us that Samurai were mere "duelers" at best.

 

"If your only skill is to kill but is left noone to kill, is really to kill a useful skill" ?

[cabowen]

Perhaps one important difference is that swords are no longer able to be worn in public nor are they able to be used for their intended purpose.....by anyone....

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

I Generalized. Maybe i should say weapons.

 

 

And how much an Edo Samurai can still be considered a warrior

 

A warrior is a warrior even in peace time, samurai were warriors.

[sanjuro]

Given that the difference between nihonto and shinsakuto really is the difference between a sword made for a warrior or an 'art' sword. Then I ask since the art sword appelation is only a convenient construct, a politically correct term that allowed the sword to be made following the second world war, why is that appelation still necessary? The occupation of Japan has ended but the pretence of swords being art objects still goes on.......?

In answer to the warrior argument then it would be well to remember that the Nihonto we see still extant today probably never actually belonged to warriors at all. They were mostly possessions of those that were far from the actual fighting or were taken as trophies. The wakizashi we are all familiar with are mostly Edo period as are the swords and tanto. many were deliberately limited in length so as to be suitable for wear by townsmen, samurai and merchants alike in an era when war was minimal. Therefore the koto blades still extant are really the only ones that can lay claim to being the swords of warriors. A shinsakuto is surely as worthy as a sword ,as is a merchants wakizashi of the Edo period. Yet the Edo period wakizashi is a nihonto and a shinsakuto is by comparison a lesser blade?

 

Like everyone else these observations are made for the sake of discussion.

[sanjuro]

Jacques.

 

The so called warriors of the Edo period were warriors in name only. it was a title rather than a description of their function in society.

[Eric H]

Preservation of an old Craft

Thank God that the late Dr. Junji Honma could convince General Mc Arthur on the artistic merits of the old Japanese sword and thus saving many hundreds of thousands of swords before destruction. Thereupon 1948 the NBTHK was founded by Dr. Honma and Dr. Sato.

 

It is also true that on the background of Japans history it has been a honest ambition to make survive the old crafts like pottery, lacquer, weaving, dying, metalwork and so on... and in particular swordsmithing and the related crafts are logically involved.

 

Shinsakuto are made by highly skilled craftsmen. These swords are made to be admired and appreciated as well as the old swords once worn by the Samurai, although the old swords are in the aura of the foretime and this makes them perhaps more attractive for a collector. Not any of them should be used except perhaps by qualified swordsmen.

 

It is pathbreaking that Tanobe san has a large collection of shinsakuto. 50 years in the future or even earlier they will be much sought-after...and for sure... sword lovers will not die out.

 

Shinsakuto are Nihonto, an art object as well as a weapon.

This is the basis for a never ending debate without any absolute answer....

Yes

 

Eric

[Ford Hallam]

Tony,

 

With reference to your comment,

"1)One thing to keep in mind about art, not just nihonto, it becomes more valuable after the artisan is dead. Van Gough sold two of his paintngs while he lived. "

 

I think this may be something of a popular misconception. There are indeed many examples of artists who's work was not appreciated nor valued while they were alive but on the whole, of the artists who were actually what we now consider to be good.relevant/whatever term we might apply I would suggest far more did in fact enjoy success in their own lifetimes.

 

The example you cite, as many do, is quite an extreme one and generally applies where an artist takes his art way beyond the bounds of accepted convention. This places him "ahead of his time" and it remains for future generations to perhaps recognise something of value in his work.

 

From what we know, many of the greatest smiths we know today were equally well regarded in their own time.

 

The notion of the struggling artists doomed to obscurity only to have his work recognised as genius after his tragic lonely death is almost a cliché but the reality is far more mundane I think. The vast majority of artists who do struggle all their lives without achieving critical success are not posthumously "discovered" by the art world.

 

With regard to the functionality of old vs new blades I think it fair to say that in both areas you can find examples that are impressively effective as weapons and examples that are clearly ungainly and likely awkward to use effectively. The aesthetic aspect of the blade has been a major aspect of it's appeal and value from the earliest times. As an example, other that it's obvious lack of history, how does a blade by Matsuda Tsugiyasu differ from an unused ( in battle) blade by say, Tadayoshi I ?

 

The history and age of blades is an extremely potent facet of the sword but in reality it has little baring on the artistic and practical aspects, imo.

 

regards,

 

ford

[Jacques D.]

Jacques.

 

The so called warriors of the Edo period were warriors in name only. it was a title rather than a description of their function in society.

 

 

Bushi (warriors in Japanese) was a caste, the superior caste, with a right on the life of all Japanese people (merchants, peasants etc....). In peace time samurai must train kentjutsu and others weapons. Bearing a daisho was not only a right but also an obligation.

 

Please read Buke shohatto.

[george trotter]

I think shinsakuto are beautiful nihonto and am happy the craft continues also, but for the sake of the debate about the question asked "shinsakuto...are they Nihonto?", it is reasonable to further discuss shinsakuto/nihonto: art vs functionality. An indicator of the difference between what makes a sword a nihonto and and what makes it art is the source of the influences that change the shape/weight/length etc etc over time.

Would it be fair to ask why shinsakuto grew long (up to 80 cm) and heavy (over 850 grams) in a short 15 years after 1953? Was it in response to the influences of a new practical need of weapon users, or from preferences of the art buyers?

I mean, history tells us koto swords were 75-80 cmm long and light because they were demanded by samurai who used them on horseback with one hand . When all the horses had been killed off in continual warfare 1460-1600, and these swords were too long to use on foot, they demanded shorter uchigatana size swords of about 67 cm. During the 250 years of Edo they became very varied in lengths, straightness and weights...because they were adhering to various preferences of duelling schools and romantic beliefs about efficiency. In Modern times from 1868-1945 they immediately returned to the infantry soldiers' practical preference for a uchigatana length c.67 cm. To me, this proves that around 67 cm is the practical length for foot combat, and, since the sword must be carried by the soldier for many months for every 1 hour it is used in combat, it should be of a lightness comparable with the necessary strength...ie, not heavy.

Is there a "test" to determine whether a sword is "practical" or "impractical"? IMHO, only use. Perhaps the following is relevent....?

Now, like Edo, Japan is in a time of peace. Swords are only used in a special field of practical use: Iai and Tameshigiri. There must be a preferred length, sori, weight of blade for use in this by practical swordsmen...what is this preferred length, weight, sori? Is it different from the long heavy shinsakuto mentioned? If so, why? Maybe the answer to this, from some practical swordsmen will answer the question, which may shed light on whether there are some shinsakuto made for practical ideals (nihonto?) and some for artistic ideals (shinsakuto?). If some are made for purely artistic ideals, are these pure art rather than swords (nihonto)?

Regards,

Geo.

[sanjuro]

Jacques.

Thanks for the reference, I read it or at least a translation of it, some time ago.

And the reality was far more mundane. In the later Edo period , the vast majority of samurai were heavily in debt to the merchant class, having presold their stipends of rice. They were quite simply living beyond their means. Many turned to handcrafts to supplement their income and many were also carrying not a sword in their obi, but the koshirae. As a class they were notorious for having sold the blades or pawned them. They were in effect an effete outdated class just as the Tokugawa regime had planned they would be.

We are not here discussing the samurai however, but the Nihonto and shinsakuto. The plight of the samurai as a class under the Tokugawa is quite another subject.

[Stephen]

whos going to clean up all these split hairs? not me.

[Ford Hallam]

Please read Buke shohatto.

 

isn't that what the shogunate kept telling them?,,,,and yet still the warrior class lost it's martial vigour.

 

Bushi (warriors in Japanese) was a caste, the superior caste

I assume you mean the warrior class were in a senior position in the hierarchy of Japanese society. I can't imagine you're making a value judgement on the relative value of different groups of human beings because that would be akin to racism.

[Jacques D.]

I assume you mean the warrior class were in a senior position in the hierarchy of Japanese society

 

Of course.

[Brian]

Interesting that this whole topic is based on the statement that "...Shinsakuto are not strictly regarded as Nihonto"

For me, the whole issue is cleared up by saying "that is not necessarily true" and asking "by whom?"

For me, and many others, Shinsakuto are just as much Nihonto as any other Japanese swords. Some may feel that earlier blades are "more valid" or something like that, but I really don't see a movement where these swords are not considered Nihonto.

Yes, many prefer older blades. Doesn't mean they look down at modern blades. Just that they prefer older blades with more "romanticism"

Just how I see it.

 

Brian

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Bearing a daisho was not only a right but also an obligation.

 

This right and obligation of wearing a daisho is *exactly* an Edo invention (as Gohatto), to give someting to be proud of to all those useless "warrirors". Again, a political strumentalization of the weapon never needed before as the restrictions of the use of guns.

 

For me, and many others, Shinsakuto are just as much Nihonto as any other Japanese swords.

 

 

Dixit. And now let's go to bar

[loui]

I'd like to see someone tell a Licensed Japanese swordsmith today that his sword isn't Nihonto:)

[Kevin]

A cursory glance through Ono 1971, 1977 and many other illustrated references show that swords rapidly grew from the Meiji/Taisho/Showa average of 67cm (27 ins) to c.75-80 cm (29-31 ins). Weight went from an ave 825 grams to close to a kilo...I can't imagine carrying and wielding such a sword. I am 188 cm tall (6'2'') and find a WWII sword I own at 69.8 cm (the longest size allowed under the RJT scheme) as too long to be handy for dismounted infantry use...therefore . . . I am of the opinion that these shinsakuto weights and lengths preclude them from practical use.

 

Historically there were much longer blades, the most obvious example being nodachi. However, as I recall, there was a law under the Tokugawas restricting the maximum length of blades so 'overlong' blades were cut down. However, to judge from swords I've seen, longer blades became a bit more common just before the Meiji restoration. BTW Elizabeth I passed a similar law restricting blade lengths.

 

Now I am aware that there is a general rule of thumb along the lines that the taller the swordsman, the longer the sword should be. Whether this is applied or not depends upon the strictures of the school, the style used and the preference of the swordsman. Nevertheless, there appears to be a demand amongst Western students for slightly longer swords - 28-30". I gather that there's also something of a demand amongst those students of the sword who can afford it for getting a shinsakuto. As for weight - there's plenty of exercises aimed at beefing up the appropriate muscles. Weight itself isn't actually a problem - its balance that matters. It is, for example, quite possible to handle a massive sword like a medieval claidh mor very quickly as long as it is balanced right and the user has the right technique.

 

Kevin

[Kevin]

banished beyond the ninth wave.

 

An interesting phrase - of Irish origin and relating to the Brehon Laws.

 

Kevin

[sanjuro]

Kevin.

 

Begorrah! 'Tis me heritage showin' don't y'know. I've somethin' of a Celtic background ye might say.

[george trotter]

Hi Kevin, Thanks for those comments on length and weight of Shinsakuto...very interesting that this increase has a place among users of swords today...I suppose I was thinking more of everyday carrying and use as in military campaigning, not thinking about a "weekly swing" and then back in the closet (just joking!). maybe what you say does have a bearing on this strange (to me) growth in length and weight...personally I just can't get comfortable with swords this size, based on my own handling of a 69.8 cm blade and my own 188 cm height....but I suppose it makes sense: long arm and long blade keeps angry man away!

 

As for the ninth wave...I thought that was a surfing legend? I didn't know the Celts surfed (just joking!).

My own heritage is Anglo-Celt from the Scottish Borders...my direct ancestor George Trotter of Prentonan fell in the battle of Flodden in Northumberland at 4.30pm on Friday 9th September 1513, as did a cousin William Trotter of Catchelraw. My people were border lairds and rode small horses, carrying spears...not being highlanders they did not use large two handed claidh mors. They often dismounted to fight, as at Flodden.

Regards

George (sorry to digress, but Celts love to chat!).

[sanjuro]

I suppose a Scot could be called a Celt, at least as much a Shinsakuto could be called a Nihonto.

(See how cleverly I brought this back on topic? And managed a little dig at the Gaels as well).

[Kevin]

Hi Kevin, Thanks for those comments on length and weight of Shinsakuto...very interesting that this increase has a place among users of swords today...I suppose I was thinking more of everyday carrying and use as in military campaigning, not thinking about a "weekly swing" and then back in the closet (just joking!).

 

Well, nodachi were used in military campaigns and their blades were about 4 feet long. If you mastered it, it was a valuable weapon in the field. Folks who did this for a living were also likely to be remarkably fit, and quite capable of handling large blades. One might, by comparison, note that, in Europe, the commander of the garrison during the Siege of Malta in 1565 , Jean de la Valette, wore plate armour for the entire duration of the siege, even during sleep, even at the height of the Maltese summer. He was 80 at the time. These were fit, strong folk who had been doing this all their lives, and were thus likely to be considerably fitter than a lot of modern martial artists. Carrying and use in military campaigns weren't going to be a problem. I don't think a 30" katana would therefore really present much of a problem for carrying and use to someone who had been training hardfor several years. Come to that, as I recall one of Musashi's opponents was known for using an ovesize sword.

 

I must admit to having tried some katana with 29-30" nagasa. They weren't a problem to use, though personally I prefer a 26" blade or even a wakizashi.

 

As for the ninth wave...I thought that was a surfing legend? I didn't know the Celts surfed (just joking!).

 

The ninth wave was the limit of the land. If you banished someone, you sent them past the ninth wave. Their fate was thus in the hands of the gods or God, depending on your viewpoint.

 

My own heritage is Anglo-Celt from the Scottish Borders...my direct ancestor George Trotter of Prentonan fell in the battle of Flodden in Northumberland

 

Ah, mine's a little more complex, though one branch of the family appears in history, sometimes exhibiting spectacular chutzpah in tweaking the tail of the English authorities and getting away with it. :-)

 

Kevin

[sanjuro]

Ah well....... There goes the thread of this topic.

[Lee Bray]

...easily fixed.

 

"Shinsakuto ...... are they Nihonto?"

 

Yes.