True tachi or katana mounted as a tachi?

[estcrh]

This sword was for sale on Ebay, I have had this subject come up recently and I do not have enough knowledge to answer correctly. If anyone has any pointers, I have used this sword as an example since it is no longer listed. I am not looking for advice on this sword good or bad, I am just using it as an example of the type of sword that I have been asked about, in other words if someone with out a huge amount of nihonto knowledge were to see a sword in tachi mounts, with no mei, are there certain characteristics that some one can easy look look for that would differentiate a true tachi from a katana mounted as a tachi, thanks.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/250878771421?ss ... 1208wt_934

 

[leo]

Eric,

You cannot tell a tachi blade from a katana blade if it has no signature! You can only draw conclusions. If you have a long early koto blade which is unsigned and suriage, it is always safe to assume it is a tachi and was originally worn as one.

 

Theoretically any loose blade of any age without a signature could have been within a tachi koshirae but later blades were more likely mounted as katana.

 

Blades with tachi signature are tachi with the exception of most Hizen katana which were signed tachi style!

 

Primarily the definition whether tachi or katana is a matter of the koshirae: swords are commonly described as tachi if they are mounted as one and are worn cutting edge down.

 

The pictured sword from the bay: Koshirae dubious, if Japanese at all. the pictures of the blade are insufficient. If somebody buys it like that he would be better off buying lottery tickets!

 

Regards

[sanjuro]

Eric.

 

This sword as an example was not a tachi blade. A 700 yr old tachi blade would have a discernible taper, a degree of fumbari (PM me if you dont know what this is) and also would have a deeper sori than the example given. A koshi sori blade is usually a tachi, and all long blades prior to the introduction of the uchgatana would have been intended as tachi blades. Tachi, if classified by length alone are usually longer it is true, but there still has to be the above characteristics present. Later period tachi up to the Momoyama period tended to be heavier in the blade, have less taper and less fumbari but retained the sori. An Edo period tachi is really just a katana blade signed tachi mei. No more a real tachi than a gunto or showato signed tachi mei, unless it has been made deliberately in the style of the older gokaden. The signature is no real indication since there are koto tachi signed katana mei (and not just Hizen blades), as well as uchigatana signed tachi mei. Only a newbie who judges a blade by the presence and location of the signature would make a call based on koshirae alone or signature alone.

 

Leo.

"You cannot tell a tachi blade from a katana blade if it has no signature!" and "Primarily the definition whether tachi or katana is a matter of the koshirae"

What rubbish! Not true..... Check your facts before expressing an opinion like this!

[pcfarrar]

What rubbish! Not true..... Check your facts before expressing an opinion like this!

 

Martin is quite correct in all his statements.

[sanjuro]

Peter.

 

And what I say is not????? I'm not looking for an argument, but what Martin says is limited and non definitive, and also does not answer the question posed by Eric. If you cant tell a tachi blade from a katana blade without a signature to go by, then every mumei katana that is mounted as a tachi would be a tachi????? I dont think so........

[Tcat]

Yawn.... the above reminds me of the "is it a long tanto or a short waki" debate. Pretty much never ending and quite pointless.

 

Keith, I agree with your comment about fumbari typically being more obvious in tachi, but, Martin from what I understand, is right - without more knowlege of the blade, in many cases one can never really be sure whether it was originally mounted as a tachi or uchigatana.

 

When you (Keith) make comments like

An Edo period tachi is really just a katana blade signed tachi mei.

, you undermine your own argument. If it was intended to be a tachi, it is a tachi.

 

Alternatively

every mumei katana that is mounted as a tachi would be a tachi?

- More or less...yes.

If someone has mounted "a blade" as a tachi (with the intention of it performing as a tachi) it becomes a tachi.

In the same vain, if someone mounts what was originally a tachi as an uchigatana, it becomes an unchigatana.

 

From what I understand....

Primarily the definition whether tachi or katana is a matter of the koshirae: swords are commonly described as tachi if they are mounted as one and are worn cutting edge down.

Is correct.....

 

 

But........I am no expert....and expect some kind of flaming for this....

[sanjuro]

Yawn.... the above reminds me of the "is it a long tanto or a short waki" debate. Pretty much never ending and quite pointless.

Firstly I guess I should point out that I'm speaking of real tachi here not the largely gingerbread rubbish mounted as tachi during the Edo period. No offense to collectors of shinto, shin shinto etc but as soon as the gun was adopted in Japanese warfare, the tachi and the naginata became largely redundant. So...there is more than mere blade length at issue here. A koto tachi blade is quite distinctive, and the definition of a tachi blade goes way beyond how it is mounted. Although the description of a tachi relies partly on its koshirae, a katana blade mounted as a tachi is just a mismounted or remounted katana. An uchigatana cut down from a tachi blade is on the other hand an uchigatana because it has been physically altered to be an uchigatana rather than being simply remounted.

Given that anything mounted as a tachi after the mid Edo period was not seriously intended for use on the field of battle, and was in effect either a court or dress sword, a katana style blade in a tachi mounting was adequate but not in the true sense a functional tachi. The naval swords of WW2 were mounted as tachi but being stainless steel were not nihonto.

 

OK... Be that as it may, let's put it this way.

 

Bearing in mind that form follows function and a tachi is used in a very different fashion to a katana or uchigatana; If I were to hand you a typical mid Momoyama mumei ubu blade in full polish, mounted in shirasaya, would you be able to tell if it was originally intended as a tachi, katana or uchigatana blade?

[estcrh]

Bearing in mind that form follows function and a tachi is used in a very different fashion to a katana or uchigatana; If I were to hand you a typical mid Momoyama mumei ubu blade in full polish, mounted in shirasaya, would you be able to tell if it was originally intended as a tachi, katana or uchigatana blade?

Keith, I think you stripped it down to the essentials, I was not referring to more modern tachi copies but blades of the appropriate period which from what I have read......tachi, uchigatana, and what we now refer to as katana were each distinctly different from each other due to how they were meant to be used. I was just wondering if there were some obvious clues that the average person could spot.

[sanjuro]

Eric.

I love that phrase "Blades from an appropriate period".

Koto then........ These blades were meant to be used against an armoured opponent. They usually have fumbari in order to withstand the strain of impacting against armour but also because the extra width at the base of the blade places the weight of the sword closer to the hand holding it (sometimes only one hand). More often than not, they have an overall taper ending in a ko kissaki. They are (if ubu) longer than a katana or uchigatana because the older ones were used from horseback. Many older tachi were koshi sori, and this is always a giveaway.They usually have a deeper sori than a katana. Often the nakago is fairly long compared to a katana etc. Tachi of the sengoku jidai still have the sori but are more robust and have a larger kissaki to enable a more telling sliced cut. They were meant to be used from either horseback or on foot and in a two handed fashion, hence the difference.) Basically they look more like a deeply curved heavy bladed version of a katana in appearance, but the blade is still longer than a later katana.

O suriage blades are harder to distinguish because firstly they have been remounted as katana, have probably had some of their sori reduced and the fumbari cut away to reshape the nakago. The shinto katana curvature and general appearance was developed from these cut down tachi blades, hence the lesser sori, the heavier blade etc.

 

I'll email you a section of unfinished manuscript that describes all the developments and styles throughout the various historical periods. Its way too big to reproduce here.

[David Flynn]

Isn't Fumbari found in Heian to Mid- late Kamakura blades? Late Kamakura blades had little or no Fumbari? and Nambokucho blades, definately didn't have Fumbari. However, they were tachi.

[Jacques D.]

Hin

 

Mid Kamakura tachi had yet little/no fumbari, and tori-sori can be found as well koshi-sori.

[sanjuro]

David.

 

Thats very true. The demarkation point was actually the Mongol invasions. After which tachi became more robust and had larger kissaki. This was simply because the older style of tachi had been found to be less effective against the leather armour of the mongols than it was against the lamellar armour of the samurai. Remember this was the first foreign enemy that the samurai had faced since their initial conquest of the Emishi.

There was however still more koshi sori blades than tori sori and the blades were generally quite deeply curved. As time progressed, the tachi changed in small increments and the fumbari disappeared when the samurai began fighting on foot. Like everything nihonto, its never straightforward. Bear in mind also that whilst one development was taking place, it existed alongside the version of tachi that was being replaced by it. Similarly, there were tachi being produced after the Mongol invasion that were done in the old way. So in effect one cannot say that after a certain date that tachi were made a certain way or to a certain style with absolute accuracy. Old tachi were still in use and the newer more robust tachi were being made, but on any battlefield you would find examples of both types for quite a few years after the development had been adopted.

 

Jacques.

What you say is true, and I think what I have said to David covers this as well. Theres no sharp time line that we can point to.

 

Guys.

This is a fairly involved subject, and there are few absolutes that we can point to and base a definitive argument upon. I doubt that we are really in disagreement over any of this. It does make for a good discussion though. I have no problem being disagreed with at all. As long as we are on the same page with the same points of reference, all viewpoints on that basis are valid. One cannot however apply these same values to shinto, shin shinto and afterward since all the influences of practical use are largely lost, and developments of the tachi were based more on fashion than practical necessity.

[Mark]

I would refer to a Koto unsigned "blade" (over 24") as a Daito and then describe it "in koshirae" as a tachi or katana. If the blade was ubu and clearly could be ascribed to a certain time period (say Kamakura vs. sue-Koto) then i would go further and call it a tachi or katana blade, but where there is doubt Daito seems to cover it.

[estcrh]

Thanks for the replies, I will bookmark this post and refer to it the next time this subject comes up.

[Toryu2020]

Keith -

With all due respect I have to say that you are wrong on several points. I will start with this;

 

"Given that anything mounted as a tachi after the mid Edo period was not seriously intended for use on the field of battle, and was in effect either a court or dress sword, a katana style blade in a tachi mounting was adequate but not in the true sense a functional tachi."

 

Guaranteed when a sword comes out of a scabbard it is functional, against armour or silk, and it does not matter that the saya is curving up or down.If I wear a katana on horseback am I defenseless? Though there were few major engagements after 1600 Shinto swords were used and were decidely functional. Still are. Style of usage is a factor but not the deciding factor. Absent a signature the things that make a tachi are shape, age and mounts. Absent mounts, and great age the shape can give us clues but in cases where the answer is not clear organizations like the NBTHK, and NTHK call the blade a katana.

 

"Tachi largely as fashion" It is not clear from your post but one assumes you are speaking of Shinto period swords mounted as tachi. The mounts may have been fashion but the blades were real weapons.They did not get much use it is true but they were seen as valid weapons otherwise we would not see schools of their use preserved to this day.

 

"Funbari" A much misused and misunderstood term. It is a spreading of the blade just at the base in the area of the habaki-moto and machi. It is a very delicate thing to see and is present on the oldest blades, including early tanto. It has absolutely nothing to do with the kind of cutting one was doing. Funbari is a hold-over trait from the earliest days of sword construction where the smith made the machi a little more robust to better weather the tempering process.

 

I feel certain we have done this all before but think of it like this;

 

Swords signed tachi-mei are tachi

Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords signed katana-mei are tachi

ubu mumei Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords are tachi

suriage swords signed tachi-mei are tachi

Osuriage mumei Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords are katana (but one must always image them as tachi)

Muromachi blades are more difficult absent all other factors a blade may be called tachi if the length and sugata suggest it but in most cases would be conservatively termed a katana

 

If any blade was mounted as a tachi prior to 1868 it was "used" as a tachi and can correctly be called such - there is no Japanese term for a "mismounted katana". One needs to be prepared to think of these terms as addressing the blade alone and the blade when mounted.

 

-t

[sanjuro]

Thomas.

 

Like I said, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me.

I'm not trying to say that a katana style blade mounted as a tachi is not a functional weapon. Of course a drawn blade, no matter how it is mounted is functional as a weapon, no argument there. Validity as a weapon was never an issue.

 

It is not clear from your post but one assumes you are speaking of Shinto period swords mounted as tachi.

 

In my post I clearly state Shinto and shin shinto in this respect. Valid as a weapon yes, but not a tachi in the sense of a koto tachi by comparison. I guess this is a personal view and I dont expect it to be a universally accepted one.

 

"Funbari" A much misused and misunderstood term.

 

I couldn't agree more and the purpose of 'funbari' that you cite, is an equally valid one that I omitted. We may want to discuss our remaining differences on this aspect of the subject. Incidentally, I apologise for repeatedly mis spelling Funbari. I keep belting the m instead of the n. I often have to backspace to correct this particular miskey.

 

Swords signed tachi-mei are tachi

Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords signed katana-mei are tachi

ubu mumei Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords are tachi

suriage swords signed tachi-mei are tachi

Osuriage mumei Kamakura/Nanboku-cho swords are katana (but one must always image them as tachi)

Muromachi blades are more difficult absent all other factors a blade may be called tachi if the length and sugata suggest it but in most cases would be conservatively termed a katana.

 

This is common usage and I have no problem with it. Where I may differ in my posts refers to the distinction between Tachi and Uchigatana/katana blades in the koto sword period. Blades of the shinto sword period and later became less distinctive for all the reasons stated prior, and the katana style of blade became adopted with very little distinction between tachi and katana, (with the exception of length in some cases), as a universal nihonto style. I would actually have preferred to leave references to later blades out of the discussion, since they are to some extent a different beast altogether. Eric was in the first place asking about Koto blades in particular. The inclusion of shinto and shin shinto blades has clouded the issue somewhat.

[David Flynn]

And when it all comes down to it, who really cares?

[Toryu2020]

Fair enough -

Speaking strictly of Koto blades then absent a signature the length and shape are the only indicators. In which case I would defer to the Japanese and I think we'll find that in times where the two (tachi,uchi-gatana) were used in large numbers concurrently most are designated katana.

 

As for the funbari question, I think this also would seem to be your personal opinion since I hold that the accepted theory for the existance of funbari is just as I stated and there is no other. and since we are writing in English we are basically "misspelling" all the Japanese words anyway so I wouldn't worry about it too much...

 

-t

 

David, you and I and Keith may have a good grasp on the subject but all of us have an obligation to new students of the sword to dispel myth and misinformation. It is for them that we care.

[Henry Wilson]

I can't be arsed reading through the threads above but just to reiterate if that has not been done before:

Primarily the definition whether tachi or katana is a matter of the koshirae.

This is not true. It might be the case when defining koshigatana, chiisagatana, uchigatana and handachi but NOT tachi.

[sanjuro]

Thomas.

As for the funbari question, I think this also would seem to be your personal opinion since I hold that the accepted theory for the existance of funbari is just as I stated and there is no other.

True, it is a personal opinion but not formed in isolation or originally without reference to authority. The fact is however that there are comparatively few extant examples of funbari if I may borrow a phrase "of an appropriate period", and Funbari as a blade feature was limited to a fairly short period in history, disappearing as has been observed, somewhat prior to the Nanbokucho period. We may be forgiven in the scarcity of information available from that time, for speculating in relative ignorance concerning the motivations of both Tosho and warriors alike in favouring the feature in a period of history some several centuries removed.

 

Just for the sake of interest, I'm fortunate in the stewardship of a tachi that has this feature along with a quite rare ikari O kissaki. As you know, this style of kissaki does not lend itself at all well to a blade mounted as a katana. It is not however a blade 'of an appropriate period', (at least I dont think it is), and having unfortunately suffered its mumei nakago being 'cleaned' by a well-meaning idiot.

[chrisf]

The change in blade design post Mongol Invasion was not to improve cutting efficiency but to prevent the total loss of a sword if damaged in combat.

The change to less or no fumbari and larger kissaki meant that a battle damaged sword could be repolished for continued use rather than scrapped.

[Guido]

Nice summary, Tom! I'd just like to add that the NBTHK classifies all Mumei and/or Ô-Suriage Mumei Daitô as "Katana", no matter what period they were made in.

[cabowen]

Funbari is a hold-over trait from the earliest days of sword construction where the smith made the machi a little more robust to better weather the tempering process.

 

Since we are taking care here to be precise with our terminology, "tempering", like funbari, is an oft misused term.

 

The hardening process that produces the hamon is called "quenching", yaki-ire 焼き入れ.

 

The stress relieving process done afterwards is called "tempering", or yaki-modoshi　焼き戻し.

 

I believe Tom is referring to the quenching process/yaki-ire above...

[runagmc]

Is it correct to say that funbari can only be found on swords prior to Nambokucho period? I have never heard this. I thought it was more common on late heian/early koto era blades, but not exclusive to them.

 

Here are a few pictures for consideration...

 

without funbari:_____________________________

 

 

Shinto blades with funbari:_________________________________________

 

 

[leo]

Hi folks,

as this discussion involves a lot of individual interpretation anyway and is getting a bit cramped now and then, I would like to hear your opininon on the following:

 

Years ago I aquired a nice woodblock-print by Kuniyoshi depicting Nakamura Bunkasai(Heroic Stories of the Taiheki).

 

 

The picture description by the auction house was: "Samurai in full armour, on the ground his helmet and tachi-sword"

 

Now after all the input accompanying this thread, I am contemplating sending them a request to strictly change their descriptons in the future: "......., on the ground his helmet and tachi-sword, which might contain a katana-blade"!!! :lol:

 

What do you think?

 

(Not too serious)comments welcome,

[drbvac]

Should insist on proper terminology :lol:

 

Back to the topic of funbari and the pic of the mino blade with "no funbari" so that I may compare and see what I "think" you are talking about if the blade were shortened as it appears to be would the area where it is slightly wider not be eliminated? :?

[Grey Doffin]

Some confusion may be resulting because there are 2 different meanings/usages of the word fumbari. One refers to a large difference in the widths of a blade at the machi and at the yokote (start of the kissaki), the moto-haba and saki-haba. The other use refers to a noticeable widening of a blade at the very bottom of the ha, the last couple inches down to the ha-machi. This is often described as being like a man standing with his legs apart. This second usage is, I believe, found only on very early tachi (and on later blades that have been improperly polished).

Grey

[cabowen]

The second meaning, the man standing with his legs apart, is the correct one, at least that is the definition given to me at kantei kai at the NBTHK many years ago...

[sanjuro]

Actually there is only ONE meaning of the term funbari. There is however much misinterpretation of the meaning and equally much misunderstanding and misuse of the term. The Usagiya site has an excellent diagram and explanation of the term for those who are not familiar with it.

 

drbvac.

 

Yes. A sword that is heavily polished and/or shortened would lose a degree if not all of the characteristic widening at the area above the original ha machi. That is part of the problem in identifying the feature on early blades. Unfortunately, there are very few 'brand new' ubu blades from the Kamakura period available on which we can see the feature as it was first produced. (if anybody finds one, I'll be glad to negotiate its purchase). :D

[Henry Wilson]

新橋 Shimbashi or Shinbashi?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=shimba ... 29,r:2,s:0

 

天ぷら Tempura or Tenpura?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=tempur ... =105&ty=50