A few questions

[Kronos]

Hello,

 

I've had a long fascination with Japanese swords and have finally decided to take the interest further and purchase my first Nihonto (after a long time of saving which will also give me time to read up and research as much as possible so I have a better idea of what I'm doing).

 

However since reading alot in the last few days I still have alot of burning questions that I can't find easy answers for. Maybe because they're stupid questions who knows, but here are the things I'd most like to know that I feel will give me a much better general overview of the subject.

 

Firstly what makes a good sword from a practical point of view?

For example if I was dropped into the Sengoku jidai why would I want a Masamune blade over another. Now this may be rather ambiguous but I feel having a better idea of what makes a good weapon first and foremost will give me a good base to start from in my studies. Added to that I find something special about a tool that is the best at what it is designed to do so would be one of the primary characteristics I look for when I eventually decide to purchase.

 

Secondly in regards to the artistic side, how does this relate to performance? is it simply that a nice hamon, abundant nie etc was originally a sign of a well made blade and it evolved from there, or alternatrively a completely artistic endeavour set aside from performance? Although I feel the answer will be a combination of both.

 

Finally I've read that during the Kamakura period was the height of excellence for swordmaking, but I have only been able to find a little on this. What differentiated these swords from other time periods? Was it just an abundance of swordsmiths that created a generally overall larger pool of master smiths? better workmanship for various social and/or political reasons? (Minamoto and the Taira, but if so why didn't the same happen during the sengoku?) Or simply techniques created that have since been lost because of the experimentation and differences between the dens?

 

Any links to more information about the Kamakura period and swordsmithing at this time particularly would be most helpful.

 

Thankyou for your time.

[John A Stuart]

Swords of all time periods can be of superb craftmanship and art. Two factors are, in my view, neccessary to reach an uncommonly well made sword. The first is a particular talent and smiths that had this are well documented. The second is having quality steel, or resources in general combined with the time and effort being allowed to make the sword. Liker things have always been, if mass production is required the product suffers as well as when material is scarce, perhaps because of demand or war has stopped movement of higher quality materials, ore, smelted steel, even charcoal. I also believe that the combination of efficacy as a weapon and industrial artwork is an important aspect as well. John

[paulb]

James,

To offer comprehensive answers to your questions would require volumes and each could become the subject of great debate. I would offer the following as at least starting points:

1. What makes a good sword from a practical perspective; ability to cut and ability to withstand shock in use. This is achieved through a combination of shape and structure. What makes the Japanese sword stand out in this regard is the complex structure employing hard and softer steels in a way that enables them to maintain an edge but withstand trauma.

 

2. The old statement that form follows function is true of Japanese swords as it is for many other things. The points that are appreciated most in Nihon-To are shape ,hada, hamon and Nakago. The form and structure of these were all originally developed to enhance performance. the resultant features became appreciated for their aesthetic qualities and were further enhanced by some to try and add to their artistic merit (there is considerable debate as to whether that was actually achieved but I think largely comes down to indvidual taste)

 

3. The reason that many (I confess me included) regard the mid to late kamakura as the "Golden age" is that it represents the peak performance of the five traditions of koto period manufacture. After that changes in the political situation, logisitcs and demand resulted in to much of the differences becoming blurred and dare I say bastardised. As a result much of what was regarded as of value almost dissappeared.

Having said that there were and are many fine smiths who produce beautiful work through the Edo period and up to the present day. For some while coming close it does not reach the standard of excellence achieved in the kamakura.

I am, sure others will offer other opinions and ideas

good luck

Paul

[Grey Doffin]

Hi James,

So the Zen Buddhist monk walks into a burger joint and says, "Make me one with everything".

It isn't that easy. You're asking us to condense decades of reading and experience into a few paragraphs and it just isn't possible.

You want to buy a good sword? Study.

Grey

[kusunokimasahige]

From a practical viewpoint, this sword would probably have been perfect in the eyes of a samurai :

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Daido-Katana-Two-Bo ... 53e60e030e

 

A cutting test done on two bodies would for many samurai have proof of quality in the blade.

 

KM

[sanjuro]

PaulB and Grey. I would not, indeed cannot, add anything to what you have said, with which I agree fully.

 

Henk-Jan . I doubt that you know enough about nihonto to give advice to anybody, and what you have said here is ill informed rubbish. Yes a sword that cuts two static and unarmoured bodies is an efficient cutting tool, much in the same way a meat axe or a flensing knife is an efficient cutting tool. It does not however address many other criteria of an efficient practical sword. For that, as it has been said, is the subject of volumes even without the personal preferences of the individual warrior being brought into account, not to mention the time period in which he lived. Since the sword has evolved apace of the requirements placed upon it, a sword of the Kamakura does not have the same (either greater or lesser) practical efficiency as a sword of the Edo period. Neither could most swords of the Kamakura period cope with the leather armour of the Mongol and Korean warriors. The sword of the mid 14th century was much more efficient as a slashing weapon due to its evolution post Mongol invasion etc... etc. Such is the nature of the sword that it responds to the changing fighting methods and therefore the changing demands upon it, throughout its evolution. Yet there were and are good practical swords for all of these periods of history regardless of their differences. Not a simple matter of good or bad but more of good or bad at what point in history.

[kusunokimasahige]

Ill informed rubbish?

 

I stated merely what in my historian's opinion would be considered a good practical sword by a Samurai, not adhering to any present day practical convention, but seen in that specific time period.

 

The so called battle ready swords we see today are also a buch of crap. Same with some of the swords back then. There were many, all of differing quality and prices.

 

The practical use a Samurai would have considered when buying a sword would have been:

1: cutting power

2: Strength of the blade, as was posted before.

3: Estethic appearance.

 

So by no means i was advising on which sword to buy, or what sword to consider in present day society following present day collecting conventions.

 

I was merely stating a point about one of the practical views a Samurai would have adhered to during the Sengoku as well as the Edo period. With your points of evolution and differing viewpoints on practicality during the ages I fully agree.

 

Btw, and dont get me wrong here, i have met people having great authority on armour and weapons subjects who did not have a clue about the historical time frame the weapons and armour belonged to, let alone about society, culture. religion, politics and other historically important knowledge on that particular era.

 

KM

[sanjuro]

Sorry Henk-Jan

 

I did not write the post in order to belittle you at all, but merely to illustrate a point to the OP. That point being that a cutting test performed against a restrained (Often dead) inanimate and unarmoured target proves that the blade will cut a human body (basically a bag of meat full of bony bits). It proves nothing more than that. An animated, partially or fully armoured opponent is quite a different target and constitutes different and greater strains on a blade directed at it (quite apart from the fact that the person in the armour isnt thrilled about the prospect of being dismembered, will do all in his power to prevent it, and would like to do the same thing to his antagonist). A good practical sword is required to be extraordinarily strong and robust in many ways quite apart from having a keen edge.

[kusunokimasahige]

No offense taken Keith, I agree with your remarks on the inanimate and unarmoured subjects not being proof of quality in battle. It may well be that part of the cutting ability could also have been appreciated when used on the lacing of specific parts of the Gusoku, rendering it useless for protection. I know that in Katori for instance the less protected areas of a gusoku wearing opponent are always the main target, using thrusts in stead of always using full out slashing motions.

 

KM

[sanjuro]

Preferential targeting is often not possible in the extremes of battle. The sword must be able to cut not only the man but his armour also if called upon to do so. We cringe now at the possibility of using or misusing a sword in such a way but Pre Edo period, that is what they were built to do, and no other steel sword in the world has ever done it as efficiently as the nihonto.

[Kronos]

Thanks for the replies, some have been very insightful, yet it has the inevitability of more questions. I suppose I shouldn't of posted them all in one topic as they're rather big subjects in there own right.

 

John, I agree with alot of what you've said. Quality materials and time would of played a major role, yet it leaves me wondering about the quality of Shinsakuto as they have the materials and all the time in the world given the ease of modern life in comparison. Maybe it is just waiting for a particularly talented Kaji, but as I have seen with other skills that are no longer needed to the extent they once were with traditional tools such as stone masonry, there's a massive void between then and modern practitioners.

 

Paul, I must yield that the first question was a poor choice. It may of been more prudent to ask something more specific such as the merits of different Kissaki, but from my understanding these things changed alot due to different needs for different periods, so it's hard to put my finger on something that has remained constant yet there's a noticeable difference between a good and simply average blade except overall build quality which would require volumes :D

 

It could be argued that the differences becoming blurred could improve the overall manufacture with more uniformity towards a more ideal product, this clearly wasn't the case but it is interesting to me as that has happened with many different things. I suppose that would also destroy the "art" aspect thast is so varied and wonderful, much like the pop music I so detest that now all sounds the same but sells.

[paulb]

James,

I think it is fair to say that changes in shape throughout history were the result of different requirements (real or imagined) for changing modes of fighting. the most obvious being the move from fighting on horseback to fighting on foot. later fighting methods required shorter straighter blades (not my area so all heresay)

The construction changes I would venture had more to do with ease of manufacture and the standardisation of raw material. As differences in steel quality became less and hada more unified in appearance in the Edo period my favourite theory is that more and more showy and complex hamons were produced to differentiate workmanship between schools. How valid some of these changes were in relation to improved performance is open to debate.

Regarding kissaki, the lengthening form ko to chu to o-kissaki in the 14th century was, I understand, to improve the repairability of the kissaki. If you chip a large pointthere is more meat left ot reshape if you damage ko-kissaki your are stuffed to use an English technical term!

[nagamaki - Franco]

  Kronos said:

Finally I've read that during the Kamakura period was the height of excellence for swordmaking, but I have only been able to find a little on this. What differentiated these swords from other time periods?

 

There were several notable factors among others, 1) the factor of uninterupted teacher student relationships that allowed for the direct passing on of knowledge and technical expertise, which had been accumulating for centuries, and, 2) a high quality of materials available, combined with the smiths of these earlier times having a direct hand involved with every step of the process from the gathering of the sand iron all the way through to forging, truly custom work, plus, 3) these swordsmiths would have had direct feedback on the performance of their swords.

[xxlotus8xx]

  Kronos said:

Thanks for the replies, some have been very insightful, yet it has the inevitability of more questions. I suppose I shouldn't of posted them all in one topic as they're rather big subjects in there own right.

 

James,

These is an excellent DVD out that might provide some insight to some of your questions.

Here is the link.

 

http://thejapanesesword.com/DVD

[chrisf]

The autobiographical notes of Taisaburo Nakamura (forgive my not knowing his correct title),founder of Nakamura Ryu make fascinating reading on the subject of practical swords.