Burnt

[Justin Grant]

Looking for a continued education here.

 

In my travels into the land of nihonto, I have seen and owned blades that were rumored to have been burnt.

 

I can see the one off blade that was in a major fire, but in my limited travels in this land, I have owned two blades that are supposable blades that were in a fire and then re-tempered to bring new use out of them. I have seen several posts here about blades that are burnt and re-tempered.

 

How common was this (blades being burned up in fires)? The fire would have to have some serious heat to do real damage, would it not?

 

My journey has been short, but the use of the term “burnt” has been prevalent, so either this is a quick assessment to explain poor initial craftsmanship or the Samuari/Ashigaru were pyromaniacs.

 

Thanks for any feedback.

 

Justin

[nagamaki - Franco]

use 'search' at the top of the page and enter the word 'saiha', you'll find much to read on this subject.

[sanjuro]

Quick military tactical lesson..... Your last guess was fairly close. Samurai or more accurately their commanders learned fairly early that if someone was forted up in a building that was predominantly wood, then fire had certain advantages as a means of either flushing them out or just simply charcoal broiling them where they stood. The use of fire in warfare is relatively widespread among civilisations that built largely in wood as is the case in old Japan.

 

A burning building generates enough heat for a sword to be detempered and hence burned. It was actually quite common. As far back as the eleventh century and probably before, fire was a weapon used by many commanders in the field, and most particularly in built up areas.

[Grey Doffin]

Also, Japanese cities have always been tightly packed, the buildings are built of wood and paper, and cooking and lighting were done with fire. Toss in the occasional earthquake, and out of control fires are common. You can remove a hamon with a cigarette lighter; a sword doesn't stand a chance in a house fire.

After fires many of the burned blades were gathered and retempered, a few to preserve whatever importance was left in a previously important sword, some to fool the unsuspecting into buying a less than perfect swords, and most just to make them into usable weapons again.

Retempered swords are very common.

Grey

[Justin Grant]

Thanks for the information.

 

I realize the "burn them out" tactic was used, and still is today. Just seems that the burnt blades are very prevalent in the market. Seems for every 1/2 dozen that are not re-tempered, you find several that were. I don't know, just seems odd to me that a large number of these are in the market place in terms of percentage of the whole.

[kusunokimasahige]

People often forget that these swords were meant as weapons, and not as art.

 

KM

[Lorenzo]

If so, there was no need at all to strive to get hataraki, shape of the tempering line, type of hada and so on; not to talk about the mountings.

[kusunokimasahige]

Not really, the Japanese culture always has combined practicality with looks. So even swords were regarded as objects which apart from the practical use as a weapon also needed to be pleasing to the eye. The practical use came first, then the beauty. Retempering for practical re use was not such a bad thing, it only shows that they attached value to the use of their weapons.

 

KM

[Mark]

as far as seeing a lot of retempered swords, it could be the "market" - good swords are bought and kept, retempered are passed or bought and then resold, so you get a higher percentage on the market, especially as collectors gain knowledge and try and sell mistakes, same for market in Japan, they try and market the mediocre stuff where they can (outside Japan), and keep the better swords

[sanjuro]

Lorenzo.

 

All civilizations have in times gone by lavished great care and fine art upon their weaponry. In Japan where aesthetics play a large part in all aspects of art and decoration even to common household items, one would expect that their weapons would also be imbued with these same values and moreso given the great respect historically given to the sword in Japan. You forget also that at least some of the features you cite as being unnecessary in a purely practical weapon were in fact considered practical components of the sword. For example the hamon and the hada whilst being a product of the forging and tempering process, contained in themselves the practical aspects of providing a fine cutting edge on the one hand and an homogenous steel blade on the other.

As far as many koto blades are concerned the hada has only become an artistic component with the advancement of the polishing techniques that have revealed it. Initially, swords were not as highly polished as they are now and the hada was merely the product of the smiths forging techniques which were designed to add strength to the steel itself by folding and thereby purifying the material from which the blade was forged. The hamon progressed from the initial sugaha types to the more complex hamon of the various schools and was a sort of signature of many of the old Gokaden.

[Lorenzo]

Keith, I was being sarcastic.

 

To say that Japanese sword were meant as weapons, and not as art, sounds just plain wrong to me. Of course those swords were swords, how can them not be? But ultimately there was art on each of them.

[sanjuro]

Lorenzo.

 

Sorry... I missed the sarcasm. Its not like you to be sarcastic........ Oh well, I guess it was a wasted argument.

 

However, swords were not art in themselves. They incorporated art yes, but primarily they were weapons. However we may view them today, they were created as tools to kill with. That however is possibly a subject and a viewpoint for quite a different debate.

[kusunokimasahige]

Lorenzo, you wrote:

To say that Japanese sword were meant as weapons, and not as art, sounds just plain wrong to me. Of course those swords were swords, how can them not be? But ultimately there was art on each of them.

 

I have to disagree with you.

 

Did you know that the way of polishing we have today with those intricate hamon was actually discovered in the late Edo period ?

 

Before that, this new form of polishing was not used.

 

Art swords as we call them today, had a practical value and esthetical value back then, but not the same esthetic value we add to them these days. It is comparing apples with pears, its a comparison, but of different subjects.

 

http://kobuse.blogspot.com/2009/02/hist ... g-and.html :

 

"History of Sword Polishing And Polishing

 

(Before the completion of the Japanese sword)

A description of sword polishing is seen in a document called 'Engi-shiki' was written in 905 for the first time. Meanwhile, the oldest recognisable polishing on a Tanto (or dagger) was discovered from inside the body of a Buddha image made in 1274. The Tanto was polished with one of the finishing stones called Uchigumori and Migaki or a kind of burnishing was done on a part of the blade. In this case, Tsuya (or finger polishing with thin and tiny pieces of finishing stone called 'Narutaki') and Nugui ( or polishing powder) seem not to have been employed. But it is speculated that there was already a similar method to modern finishing work in that period.

 

(Completion of sword polishing)

It seems that the traditional sword polishing we can see today was completed by the mid 10th Century. In a history book called 'Kanchi-in Bon' which describes the history of the early 14th Century, sword polishers' name were seen for the first time.

In the book there are two polishers' name called 'Kunihiro' and 'Tamesada' who were chosen by the ex-Emperor Gotoba in order to polish the swords made by Goban-kaji who were designated the monthly smiths who worked for the ex-Emperor. Incidentally the ex-Emperor Gotoba had a profound knowledge of the Japanese sword and was an expert of sword appreciation. The description proves that the sword polishing which makes the sword appreciation, possible had been completed by then.

Since then the word 'Polishing' began to be used for sword polishing, thus it definitely had a different meaning from grinding or sharpening of edged tools. It is now thought that three stages of sword polishing already existed in the early Heian period of the mid 9th Century.

 

(Sword polishing and artistic value of the Japanese sword)

From the previous description we can speculate that they already had a recognition that the Japanese is not only an excellent weapon but also one of fine arts in the early 13th Century.

When we talk about the practical aspect of a sword, finishing work with extremely fine stone is not necessarily needed and the stage of a middle grain stone called Nagura would be ideal to make the sword work practically. Furthermore, polishing stages after the Nagura stone were developed in order to enhance the artistic value and expose mysterious beauty of the Japanese sword.

The unique finishing work using Uchigumori and Narutaki stones is the only way to bring out the patterns of the Jihada and the Hamon properly. In fact, we have no other option. In a sense, it might be said that the artistic value of the Japanese sword was established and has been appreciated highly because of this exceptional sword polishing.

 

(Appearance of the Hon-ami family and the Edo period)

It is said that the basis of the modern sword polishing was established by Hon-ami Kotoku of the Momoyama period of the late 16th Century. Since then, the Hon-ami family had been retained by the Tokugawa Shogun and worked for the Tokugawa family and fuedal lords for generations. Meanwhile the Hon-ami family had eleven branch families during the Edo period and had been the most authorised connoisseur of the Japanese sword and issued certificates. The old certificates of the Hon-ami family are highly praised by sword collectors even now.

Sashikomi polish had been practised by the Hon-ami family until a new Kanahada polished was developed in the early Meiji era.

Actually I am a sword polisher belong to the Hom-ami school as my teacher Nagayama Kokan learnt sword polishing from Hon-ami Koson who succeeded as head of one of the Hon-ami families.

 

(Downfall of the Tokugawa shogunate and the Meiji Restoration)

In 1867 the Tokugawa shogunate was replaced by the Royalist government and the government introduced Western style military and banned wearing Japanese swords in 1876. Many people believed that they didn't need the Japanese sword anymore and its mission as weapon had ceased. At that time one of the Hon-ami sword polishers, called Hon-ami Heijuro, tried to increase the artistic value of the Japanese sword by renovating finishing work which enhanced the beauty of the Japanese sword and enlightened many people.

The Japanese sword managed to survive the Meiji Restoration with the tremendous efforts of craftsmen like Hon-ami Heijuro and enthusiastic collectors. The new life of the Japanese sword just started after the end of the Samurai's period that had lasted 700 years.

The new sword polish is called Kanahada (Iron oxide) polish or Kesho (Cosmetic) polish. In this polish, inside the Hamon is whitened along the tempered line and the pattern of Jihada and the activities are exposed conspicuously after all. In the Samurai's period, the Japanese sword had been monopolised by Samurai but in this period the Japanese sword begun to be collected and appreciated not only by former Samurai but also by civilians.

 

(After World War II)

After Japan's defeat of World War II, all activities concerning the Japanese sword were suspended by the Allied Forces. But the activities were gradually resumed in the wake of Japan's independence in 1950 and the beauty of the Japanese sword is appreciated by many people both in and outside of Japan nowadays.

It seems that the sword polishing has reached the highest level in technique but there are not so many top-level polishers because it requires a long and hard apprenticeship. The Japanese government understands that the sword polishing is one of the most important traditional techniques and it must be succeeded to by the next generation. Therefore it has designated three sword polishers as Living National Treasure by now."

 

And:

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/togishi.htm

 

"During the Muromachi (1338 ~ 1573) and [especially] the Warring States [sengoku] (1470 ~ 1570) periods, swords were not polished like they are today. There was no time. The nicks and battle scars were removed, and the blade was returned to its original shape. Except for those of the great Daimyô or those specifically kept as art objects, most Nihontô only received a Shiratôgi, or white polish. I think that they often stopped with the Komanagura. With the advent of peace in the Edo period (1603 ~ 1867), more swords began to receive a highly artistic polish as there was time and money for such work.

 

But the high level of technology today (particularly in the Shiage) evolved during the Meiji era (1868 ~ 1912). During the Meiji era a law was passed that prohibited people from wearing swords, but allowed them to own them as works of art [Hatôrei edict]. That was a drastic change from the Edo period, when the common people were more or less not allowed to own swords. Thus, on account of the new leading to an overall improvement in polishing techniques.

 

Another, and more important, reason for the improvement in sword polishing technology during the Meiji era was the invention of the electric light bulb, which enabled the Tôgishi to work at all hours of the day and allowed him to more clearly see the details of the Jihada and Ha. In particular, it accelerated the development of the Hadôri style because the Hamon is much more visible under an electric light than it is under candlelight.

 

Sword polishing is very demanding physically and emotionally. A Tôgishi usually has little time for anything outside of his work. It takes years of his best efforts to reach the point at which he can produce a fine, flawless polish; it is impossible to fake a quality polish. A Tôgishi's deficiencies are apparent to himself as well as to his fellow Tôgishi. But the satisfaction of doing a good job and preserving the art form for future generations to enjoy is very great.

 

Nihontô collectors and study groups are increasing all the time as the Nihontô gradually takes its place among the world's great art forms. Unfortunately, many Nihontô, especially in foreign collections [i. e. outside Japan], are not receiving proper care. This author hopes that collectors everywhere will join groups, who will gladly instruct them in the proper care and handling of the Nihontô. The Nihontô is very durable, but without proper care is vulnerable to irreparable damage in a short time, making it unavailable for future generations. "

 

 

 

Tell me that the polishing methods were different, as well as the appraisal.

 

KM

[Brian]

Henk Jan,

You have just posted a whole essay which perfectly illustrates exactly why you are wrong.

Polishing existed way back then for the reason that they saw these swords as more than just weapons. They recognised the spiritual and artistic merits of the sword in the 13th centuty already. This cannot be debated. They have always been more than just weapons. Not really something that can be debated.

 

Brian

[kusunokimasahige]

Brian I am sorry but i think you miss my point.

 

I am not talking about swords not being an art form or not having been considered art by the Samurai and HonAmi family, i am talking about retempered swords which in those days were retempered for the exact reason i stated, namely that they were useful in battle.

 

The same goes for O-suriage swords, Yari reverted to Tanto and Naginata converted to Naoshi swords. They were re-used for a reason, and that reason was not always Art.

 

It is the point that burnt swords as well as retempered swords are useless and do not have much value i am not agreeing with.

 

I already replied in an earlier post that of course Samurai swords were also viewed esthetically and would have been considered as such by the Samurai, I merely added the comment that their primary use was as a functional weapon, and the esthethic appraisal was secondary thing. It is part of Samurai history, and that was my only point.

 

That these swords are given a substantially different esthetical value these days than in the days of the Samurai is a fact, and not fiction.

 

KM

[gtstcactus]

People often forget that these swords were meant as weapons, and not as art.

 

KM

 

Quite right!!!! Over time the art factor has become more and more important. Of course there have always been swords produced that are unquestionably pieces of art, but more often than not they are weapons, intended to kill. The fact that they can be appreciated is a bonus. I suppose it would depend on the state of the nation so to speak.... During the warring states periods many swords that I'm sure wouldn't be deemed worthy of study and preservation (as Brian put it in another thread) as art. They certainly were weapons tho....

 

During times of piece the "art sword" grew as smiths experimented with new techniques, tricks and methods etc.

[reinhard]

Polishing existed way back then for the reason that they saw these swords as more than just weapons. They recognised the spiritual and artistic merits of the sword in the 13th centuty already. This cannot be debated. They have always been more than just weapons.

 

That's correct and that's about all there is to say.

 

The usual suspects will try and bring this silly topic up again and again, but it won't change a thing: Japanese swords were considered works of art TOO for many centuries and the art-factor defines the price. Silly attempts of reducing NihonTo to mere weapons have been made before. They are not worth discussing. Western pinheads trying to break down a intellectually demanding topic to their limited capacities.

 

reinhard

[sanjuro]

My response to Lorenzo was made in the same vein (sarcasm) that he wrote his comment, knowing how often this point had been debated. I am sorry now that I seem to have been at least a part of the catalyst for this new upsurge of an old debate. Newcomers to the nihonto world seem to want in the early stages to reduce the nihonto to a mere weapon, and this argument that we have seen a number of times before raises its head once again.

Reinhard has a valid point as does Brian in that the Japanese sword cannot be quantified as either mere weapon or alternatively as purely art . The proclivity of Westerners to classify in terms of black or white do not apply here at all. A nihonto is art there is no doubt, yet it is art that embraces its practicality in a way that many westerners find outside of their cultural/religious/social frame of reference. There is no mystery at all and the nihonto is and always has been for a number of reasons, firmly lodged in the realm of art regardless and perhaps also because of, its grim practicality.

[kusunokimasahige]

I of course agree with the statements that the Samurai swords were seen as part artform, part practical weapon, a combination of both, the same as Sanjuro just posted. Of course value back then was not only considered from the practical quality of a sword alone.

 

I do however dislike Reinhards unsubstantiated remark:

 

"Western pinheads trying to break down a intellectually demanding topic to their limited capacities."

 

He obviousely dislikes the differing viewpoints coming out of scholarly historical research, and not only by Western pinheads, but also by Japanese historians like Kondo Shigekazu.

 

The following excerpt from one of dr.Turnbulls books obviousely shows the reverence for the sword as a form of art by the Samurai... not.

 

"Clever use was also made of discarded swords and daggers, because Yu Songyong noted that 'The spears and swords that the Japanese had set up on the battlements, pointed at the Chinese soldiers, looked like the needles of a pocupine'

(siege of Mount Morabong, Imjin wars, (The samurai invasion of Korea, Turnbull, P.58)

 

And dont say that they were all Korean swords and spears because excavations have proved otherwise.

 

There are other voices criticising the viewpoints of several collectors and experts on the art and appreciation of the Japanese sword in the Samurai era:

 

"The Soul of the Samurai?

Misconceptions of the Japanese Sword

 

By A. Knowles

 

The Japanese sword has acquired mystical significance in the wake of Samurai history, but to what extent is this image justified? This article will attempt to shatter a few myths surrounding both the use and omnipotence of the sword in the samurai arsenal. Tokugawa Ieyasu's famous remark that the sword was the 'soul of the samurai' should not be taken at face value. This was most likely a comment made reflecting the relatively peaceful years of Sekigahara (1600) to Osaka (1614) when battlefield weapons (i.e. firearms, spears and bows) were being pushed to the back of samurai life and the sword as the weapon of everyday life.

 

It is necessary to look at both the use and importance of other samurai weapons in relation to the sword in order to discover whether it would have been valued and utilised above all else. The comment made by Ieyasu (1543-1616) was more than likely aimed at samurai (including the lowly ashigaru) in the wake of Hideyoshi's Separation Edicts of 1587 and 1591. This edict sought to ensure that the vast armies of the Sengoku period would never be raised again; by providing a clear distinction between peasant and samurai. It should be noted that the ashigaru were not completely integrated into the samurai caste until the Edo period, forming the lower echelons thereof. As a result, I will be paying far more attention to the weapons used by the samurai, as opposed to the sohei (warrior monks) or ashigaru.

 

The Japanese sword in all its forms - the tachi, katana, wakizashi and no-dachi - has acquired mythical status largely due to its portrayal in films, books and theatre; not necessarily factual in content. The image of the lone sword-wielding samurai fending off gangs of other sword-brandishing lesser warriors is one born of the Edo period. As the Edo period (1603-1867) was a relatively peaceful one for the samurai it will be regarded with far less importance when seeking the 'favourite' (so to speak) samurai weapon.

 

Perhaps the most obvious fact about the use of the Japanese sword is that it has always been used. For example, whilst fashion and necessity dictated many changes in primary weapon use (i.e. bow - spear - gun), the sword has been a constant. It has existed since the birth of the samurai caste as a secondary weapon, but one that is of vital importance nevertheless. This importance is exemplified by the tendency for the primary weapon to break during combat, despite impressive manufacturing methods. The bow would be of little use in hand-to-hand combat, the spear could break or the firearm could become inoperable.

 

Therefore despite the romance of the Edo period, both the practicality and use of the sword has not been entirely blown out of proportion by subsequent artistic licence. The first swords used by the some semblance of a Japanese 'army' were straight bladed weapons, sharing far more similarities with the Chinese and Korean swords than the curved katana we know and love today. The curvature of all (except ninja-type) incarnations of the Japanese sword was adopted after government battles with the emishi (native Japanese 'barbarians') and recognition of the curved sword they utilised. A curved blade could be used for thrusting and slashing, and is superior to a straight blade when used from horseback.

 

The tachi (long sword) was then born, which became an ideal secondary weapon to the preferred bow during the Gempei Wars (1180-5) till the time of the Onin War (1467-77). This then evolved into the katana, most noticeably through the difference in hilt and the widespread adoption of silk cord to provide a secure grip. The manufacturing process of a good quality sword could take up to a year, and the blade forging and tempering process is far too lengthy and complex to be discussed in detail here. Suffice to say, not all swords made were of sublime quality (Turnbull, 2004 p150), which meant swordsmiths could trade quality for the advantages of mass production. Besides which, swords were often given as gifts or commissioned by daimyo, therefore a certain extra degree of elbow grease would be expected for such prestigious customers.

 

The basic design of the sword had various applications, usually relating to the size of the weapon itself; for instance - the tanto (dagger), wakizashi (short sword), katana (long sword) and no-dachi (extra-long sword) all have the same design characteristics in common; but with modifications that allowed them to specialise in different circumstances of combat. For example, the tanto (as we shall see later) was perfect for grappling with the enemy in single combat. Therefore while the flexibility of the sword design and variations in quality allowed it to be used by all samurai and ashigaru, it was not necessarily the preferred weapon for common battle situations.

 

The myth of the lone samurai honouring the bushido code with his bloodstained blade held aloft is just that - a myth. While there were a number of notable sword masters during the Edo period when the sword and its legends became popular, the samurai class had fallen from grace somewhat. More than a few samurai were reduced to selling their sword blades to survive, or found work as seedy bouncers, hired thugs or highwaymen. This stood in sharp contrast to the glory days of the Sengoku period (1467-1603), as the opportunities of peace brought prosperity to the Japanese merchant class and courtier bureaucrats. Therefore while there were a number of schools of swordsmanship and masters thereof, the Edo period was largely one of peace and the sword saw little use outside circumstances of petty revenge or crime.

 

As previously noted, the Edo period was the age of sword; mainly due to its constant civilian wear and the lack of warfare that demanded the length of a spear or the raw power of an arquebus. Because of an absence of battle deeds, other sword-swinging tales of revenge that would have been eclipsed during the Sengoku era were written about and celebrated instead. Therefore the sword, while commonplace in the Japanese battlefield since time immemorial, only became the primary samurai weapon once all wars had ceased; and although an excellent flexible weapon to fall back upon on the battlefield, it was more suited to gaining honour through civilian vendetta than when charging towards the enemy host in the true bushido way. I will now look at which weapons were considered of primary use during each era of samurai history, in order to discover which were most preferred by the samurai and when.

 

The term 'samurai' (from a defunct Japanese verb meaning 'to serve') stems from the soldiers who were given the task of serving at the Emperor's Palace in Kyoto, but they had not arisen as a class until a short while before the Gempei Wars (1180-5) so I shall begin my investigation with that conflict. For the reader who wishes me to cut to the chase as-it-were, I will begin by saying that the samurai weapon of choice, both on and off the battlefield during this time, was the bow. Indeed, the martial way of the samurai was known as 'kyuba-no-michi', or the Way of the Horse and Bow. The design of the bow remained similar, if not identical throughout samurai history, but while it would be used by foot soldiers in later centuries it was primarily used from horseback during these turbulent years. While the sword was always carried by samurai as an invaluable secondary weapon, battles were won and lost by use of the bow. In fact, even duels between samurai were carried out with the bow; in the style of medieval jousting with a flying arrow instead of a lance.

 

In fact, there are only two references to use of the sword in the entire Shomonki (war chronicle dealing with the revolt of Taira Masakado). Therefore the sword was not only considered secondary by the fighting samurai, but of little importance to the war chroniclers themselves. Although the bow became more of a ceremonial weapon for samurai (as opposed to ashigaru archer squads) in later samurai periods, skill with the bow was still valued on both the battlefield (Turnbull, 2004, p121). Therefore, the weapon par excellence of many samurai (especially those mounted) until the Sengoku Jidai (1467-1603) was most definitely the bow, with the sword coming into play at close-close quarters or if the bow became in some way inoperable.

 

During the Gempei Wars, the naginata (glaive) was also an important weapon, mainly through its use with foot soldiers, although there were a number of instances where naginata were used from the saddle - from a stationary position standing up in the stirrups. The naginata was the weapon of an individualist, as its strength was through slashing (rather than the tightly-knit thrust of the spear) it required enough space to be manoeuvred effectively. As a result use of the naginata largely died away during the Sengoku Era, except in the hands of many sohei (warrior monks); but this is due to the lack of cohesion in sohei armies when compared to those of disciplined samurai. However, while during the Sengoku Era the spear was the common weapon of choice for mounted and foot soldiers; times before this turbulent period saw the naginata - and definitely not the sword - as the favoured weapon of Pre-Sengoku infantry.

 

Therefore; in conclusion of Pre-Sengoku times I would have to state that the preferred and tactically decisive weapon of almost all mounted samurai was the bow. The foot soldiers of the Gempei War, during the Mongol Invasions and the Nanbokucho Wars (1331-92) generally chose the naginata. While it would be foolhardy to conclude that the sword was neither used nor revered during the above period (approximately 950-1400 AD), it could be said that it was for five hundred years considered a secondary weapon and only used in battlefield emergencies - such as if one's bowstring suddenly snapped or the enemy was uncommonly close. To conclude the first part of my study into the use of the Japanese sword; widespread use of the bow (and to some extent the naginata) in days before the Sengoku Era mean that the sword during these times was definitely not the 'soul of the samurai' as put by Ieyasu, but a back-up weapon of comparatively little battlefield or civilian importance.

 

With the Onin War in central Japan (1467-77) any semblance of central government became a shambles; although provincial daimyo paid respect to the office of the Shogun, they did not respect his authority. Therein began the Sengoku Jidai (much like the Chinese Warring States Period) whereby various warlords grabbed at land, or in some cases attempt unification of Japan. The beginning of the Sengoku Era (1467-1603) marked a change in samurai warfare; the primary weapon changed (evolved if you will) from the bow to the spear. This evolution stemmed from advancements in armour and weapons technology and adaptation to more practical battlefield tactics. Another differentiation from warfare pre-Sengoku times was that armies could now be much larger. War was no longer a honourable pastime of the aristocracy, but became an opportunity, if not a necessity for many.

 

This is marked most pointedly by two changes - the employment of massed ranks of low-class ashigaru and the emergence of peasant Ikko Ikki armies. In fact, one daimyo is noted as commenting that if a thousand spears can be purchased for the price of one sublime sword then get the spears! (Turnbull, 2003 p96) Although the samurai were still the most respected warriors in an army and given a primary role on the battlefield, the worth of superiority in numbers and specialised ashigaru squads were also recognised. The use of the spear thus became widespread. As the bow slipped into foot-soldier's hands, the mochi-yari (held-spear) fell into cavalry hands to help them charge effectively. Therefore extra-long spears (nagai-yari) were required to protect the missile troops on foot; being given to ashigaru squads to hold the cavalry at bay while the arquebusiers reload.

 

The spear was the weapon par excellence of samurai throughout this era, though other weapons could be seen throughout the battlefield also. Again, while the spear prevailed on the Sengoku battlefield the sword remained a secondary weapon as before; the sword usually only being drawn if one's spear shaft had been broken. Although the yoroi (box) armour of pre-Sengoku times prevented the sword being used effectively, the new more flexible styles of armour (i.e. do-maru) did not enable the sword to become the samurai weapon of choice either. It could be noted with hindsight that if Japanese armies had taken the direction of the tightly wedged 'press of pike' formations of European warfare at this time, then perhaps use of the sword would have died out altogether; being limited to cavalry and officer class.

 

Arquebus technology came to Japanese shores with the Chinese during the early Sixteenth Century, but came into widespread and pivotal use soon after Portuguese sailors were shipwrecked on the island of Tanegashima in 1543. Their firearms technology would start a revolution in samurai warfare - if used correctly, this weapon had the power to annihilate one's enemies and even unite Japan. Oda Nobunaga for example was an early exponent of the use of guns, using them successfully against the Ikko Ikki and at Nagashino in 1575; failing to unite Japan only through his betrayal and murder in 1582. The daimyo who failed to make use of this new innovation either quickly changed their ways or were crushed by those less idealistic (Bryant, 1989 p25). By the mid to late Sixteenth Century the strength of armies was now counted in guns, particularly proving their worth in defensive situations.

 

Many sword-smiths now branched out into gun manufacture, and skilled gunsmiths were inundated with orders and beneficial patronage. In fact, one smith is recorded as exchanging his daughter for a series of lessons in arquebus manufacture! Such were the avaricious days of the Sengoku Era. The invasions of Korea in 1592 and 1597 saw yet more primary use of firearms - Shimazu Yoshihiro asked for further supplies of them to be sent above all else. However, while guns were primarily put in the hands of trained ashigaru squads (see the battle of Nagashino - 1575), spears were incredibly important to samurai. The sword therefore retained its role as a secondary, but flexible weapon; becoming out-scored and out-gored by the bow, spear and arquebus. Painted screens, some of which are still maintained today, provide further evidence of this practice during the Sengoku period. Something that can be noticed straight away is that samurai often brandish spears, and firearms used by ashigaru. While all carry swords, very few are seen to use them out of choice.

 

The tanto or aikuchi (Japanese dagger) was created much in the style of the katana, but being far shorter and often dispensing with the tsuba (sword guard). Although their advantages are obvious for carrying out clandestine missions or in confined conditions, many samurai carried them into battle, thrust through their obi (sash-like belt). The wakizashi was often discarded in favour of the katana and tanto. There is considerable evidence to suggest that extreme close-quarters conflicts between samurai were often ended with the tanto, a good case in point is that between Etchu Zenji Moritoshi and Inomata Noritsuna at the battle of Ichi-no-Tani in 1184 (Turnbull, 1996 p28). This example and many others outline the reality of samurai warfare throughout its history - that mass-conflicts and single combat could be messy, desperate affairs; wholly removed from the graceful sword duels of movie and legend.

 

From studying the use of other weapons in samurai history, I have discovered what no Hollywood director would admit - that the sword was always a secondary weapon on the samurai battlefield, and that first bows, then spears and firearms were favoured more so. Even in close quarters or confined spaces, the dagger would often prove more appropriate. The sword only came into its own once all wars had ceased; the few conflicts of the Edo period (i.e. Osaka or the Shimabara Rebellion) saw samurai reverting to the spear and the arquebus. The Japanese sword has perhaps gained only such a reputation through sheer volume of Edo period movies that have been filmed; romantic tales of revenge and intrigue during civilian life stand out as good movie plots, rather than the constant conflict of the Sengoku period. One more important reason why the sword has gained such significance throughout the world is that of its nature; it is beautiful yet deadly, strong yet graceful.

 

In conclusion, in the harsh reality of samurai warfare the Japanese sword was never that highly regarded (Turnbull, 2003 p95). First the bow, then the spear and arquebus was a samurai's primary weapon of choice - the sword being utilised in cramped conditions or when the primary weapon became inoperable. For example, bowstrings were easily split, spear shafts easily broken and use of the arquebus often dictated by the weather. Therefore; one could proclaim the sword as a pretender to the samurai throne, and considerably more reverence should be paid to the bow, the spear and even the arquebus when discussing samurai conflict and the martial values of samurai themselves. Though the sword is undoubtedly a masterpiece of weapons manufacture, its present veneration is somewhat undeserved if it is merely because of its association with the power of the samurai; the noble bow, rugged spear and deadly arquebus are often sadly overlooked.

 

While the quick-eyed amongst you will notice that Turnbull appears in almost all of my quotes, this is because I have used his extensive work to provide me with facts or likelihoods; while I provide the analysis. The reader must forgive me for being unable to read Japanese, and having limited access to complete translations, therefore I have found Turnbull's work to be the most accessible.

 

 

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bryant, A.J. The Samurai (1989) / Osprey Publishing Ltd.

 

Turnbull, S. The Samurai Sourcebook 2nd Edition (2004) / Cassell.

 

Turnbull, S. Samurai - The Story of Japan's Noble Warriors (2004) / Collins & Brown.

 

Turnbull, S. Samurai Warfare (1996) / Cassell.

 

Turnbull, S. Samurai - The World of the Warrior (2003) / Osprey Publishing Ltd."

 

Source : http://www.samurai-archives.com

 

So indeed, as Reinhard states, we Western pinheads who actually specialise in historical research and then are so bold to voice a different opinion seeing the Samurai sword as a weapon rather than an art form or combine both views while researching the way the Japanese Samurai themselves perceived their swords and weaponry are of course, dead wrong and have limited intellectual capacities.

 

KM

[sanjuro]

Well..... One can only reflect upon the fact that it is in the light of these latterday insights, unfortunate that over the centuries so many samurai spent so much time perfecting their swordsmanship. All they had to do was go out and buy an arquebus!

 

I was fascinated to read in the quote from Mr Knowles article that there apparently is or was a specific ninja type sword....News to me and I suspect also to a number of ninja. There are some apparent innaccuracies and rather hasty generalisations in what Mr Knowles is saying.

 

The sword only came into its own once all wars had ceased;

 

What utter and complete nonsense!!!!!!

[kusunokimasahige]

Oh i will be the first to admit that there are certain dreadful inconsistencies as well as that there are some points which can be considered utter nonsense in what mr Knowles is adhering to, especially the ninja sword story as well as the quote you posted.

 

I think that what he partly meant by swords coming into their own, even though it be far fetched because the sword was never let go as a weapon (which is only proved by the UK sword ban as well as images of sword wielding Egyptians and other people still using it as such), was that after the Sengoku period, with a few exceptions during the boshin war 戊辰戦争 as well as several rebellions, there was more time to appraise the sword for its art merits. That does not mean that the honing of sword skill was not performed with utter discipline during earlier and later eras than the sengoku jidai of course, nor does it entail that the swords art merits were never appraised and admired and should not count.

 

I posted his article just to show that there are dissenting views, some better than others, and that it is not about proving something or about scoring points with negative remarks on the limited intellectual capacities of the people debating this topic as our learned collegue put it so eloquently.

 

Historical and scholarly debate on this matter is only a way to move forward in our understanding of the sword and its place in Japanese history, and it might provide a deeper understanding on some of the possible views on the Samurai mindset regarding these swords.

 

That is also why i am not at all sure about the demerits of burnt or retempered swords.

As i said in an earlier post, that was done for a reason. The Japanese could as well have broken these damaged swords in pieces, mix them with more tamahagane and use that to forge a totally new sword of equal beauty.

It probably even was done in some instances.

 

From a historic standpoint each and every original sword, koshirae, tsuba and fuchi/kashira, how battered, rusty, burnt or damaged at all has its own historical merit.

 

The best examples will be collected at high prices, but that does not mean the worst examples should not be preserved somehow. If you would find a bronze Roman helmet in the field for instance, totally battered and bent but still partly recognisable as one, would you discard or bin it ?

 

I think not.

 

But since this thread was basically about the burning of swords and retempering of swords i would like to post a link to a scientific experiment with a computer model of quenching and tempering:

 

http://www.shibuiswords.com/tatsuoinoue.htm

 

KM

[reinhard]

Turnbull appears in almost all of my quotes, this is because I have used his extensive work to provide me with facts or likelihoods; while I provide the analysis. The reader must forgive me for being unable to read Japanese, therefore I have found Turnbull's work to be the most accessible.

 

i.e. delete and empty trash

 

reinhard

[sanjuro]

Reinhard

 

I dont think curt arrogant dismissal is really very instructive and serves only to reinforce the impression of a lofty self important attitude on the part of the poster. In this case you have spared KM your usual insulting remarks, for which he is I am sure profoundly grateful. However, perhaps if you explained your opinion of Turnbull's books (or at least the meaning of the oblique remark) he and others may learn a great deal more than from mere pointless denegration.

[kusunokimasahige]

Keith, I know full well that Dr. Turnbull is not that widely accepted for his views on the Samurai, even though he is regarded by many as one of the leading authorities on this subject in the West.

 

Not all of his works were accepted with acclaim by his peers, and that is part of the attraction of the Academic system and ongoing debate on Samurai history as well as swords and their meaning in Samurai culture.

 

There are a lot of scholars and a lot of opinions. Having read both Japanese books on this subject by noteworthy Japanese professors as well as the books of dr. Turnbull, and professor E.O. Reischauer, now deceased, it only became clear to me that there still is much research to do.

 

The "trash" remark our learned collegue just posted on the article by mr. Knowles without further explanation, having contributed no useful addition to this topic leads me to believe that the best option is to ignore his remarks for the time being, and not even react to them.

 

I need not concern myself with those who do not wish to see or even acknowledge the fleeting world below from the heights of their self made throne.

 

Qui ex errore imperitae multitudinis pendet, hic in magnis viris non est habendus.

De Officiis (I, 19)

 

 

Back on Topic i would say.

 

KM

[Brian]

No..not back on topic.

The topic has become a mindless meander through dodgy quotes and incorrect assertions, combined with some useful info that is long lost among a heap of dead words.

This is giving me a headache. Nuff.

 

Brian