newbie question on beauty

[Rivkin]

First a disclaimer - I am a complete newbie when it comes to Japanese swords. So pardon my arrogance, but could you help me out on a little philosophical question - what is the beauty of a true nihonto?

 

Every single book I've read says that the beauty of Japanese sword is inseparable from its functionality.

Disrespectfull as I am - it's hard to believe it is so. It never works this way in other cultures - beautiful patterns on the blade, gold furniture might still accompony a greatly capable weapon, but do not add any combat characteristics, sometimes even present a liability.

 

Similarly, I had a number of very artistic sukashi tsubas with the cuts that were uncomfortable enough to hurt when I pick up a sword. Shakudo reliefs on tsuba that probably would not last even 100 swings without starting to become dull.

 

I had a great honor of looking at the blades of Osafune Motoshige and Nagasone Kotetsu. I am just a newbie, so I am absolutely certain I did not understand them, but generally speaking these juyo-level blades of the highest wazamono ranking smiths did not impress me as supreme works of art. The shape is graceful, but I've seen more graceful ones. Hamon is not particularly startling with activity. Motoshige's hada was quite luminating, but Kotetsu's was not out of this world.

 

And on the other hand I've seen blades with amazingly graceful contours, with hamon literally changing from pitch black nie to milky whitish. With hada brilliantly reflecting in silky red or subtle blue. And those were highly ranking smiths, but I quite frankly don't know how highly irregular, artistic assemblies of nie are supposed to improve sword's cutting qualities.

 

So my question is, as a newbie - what should I be looking for in a sword to call it a true work of art?

Fantastic hada with lots of nicely shaped nie on a chouji hamon, with a thin, graceful blade with a deep sori and funbari?

Or there is something about those thikish shapes with simplistic hamon and tight hada with wazomono ratings that is a true Art (I don't dispute the artistic properties of many wazomono blades, but some of the most highly ranking ones are kind of not what I expected) and I am just foolish enough to not recognize it?

 

Or should I treat practicality and artistism as separate entities?

And if practicality is my goal, then another question comes to mind - would I really pick a very poorly balanced, heavy sword, which supposedly cuts very well over something lighter and more balanced, which may be does not cut as many bodies lumped over each other, but can move and strike way more faster and more precise?

 

Yours,

 

Kira R.

[Curran]

Kira,

 

Each person has their own relative answer, and a forum of people can evidence concentrations in those answers.

Don't treat it as a straight equation.

 

I still keep two swords.

One is clearly Art with a functional form, probably never intended to be used in combat.

The other is decidedly function, with what I consider pleasing Art in its workmanship. It is also what feels most comfortable to what I would take into a theoretical sword fight, if I can't do the Indiana Jones and take a gun.

 

There are some remarkable blades that are the best of both, but also are priced accordingly.

 

Curran

[John A Stuart]

Hi Kira, Your premise, "It never works this way in other cultures", is faulty. There is beauty in many types of weapons of various cultures and I don't mean only bladed weapons in any case. Sublime workmanship is the prime imperative. John

[chrisf]

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder'...

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Speaking about art, Wazamono ranking should not be a criteria because this one is very partial. Masamune, Sadamune or Go Yoshihiro and others artists were never tested.

 

Personally art begin with Jo saku ranking, that doesn't mean all swords made by these swordwmiths are masterpieces.

[sanjuro]

the sword at its inception was a weapon, and beauty if it was a consideration, was secondary to its purpose. As man progresses he sees beauty in both form and also the respect he holds for the efficiency of the weapon itself. Great respect seeks out beauty in that which inspires awe and possesses an inate elegance. Thus swords are weapons and swords are also art.

Man has ever invested great workmanship in the weapons he wields, both from a purely practical viewpoint and also to rob them of the ugliness, in at least a small measure, of their lethal purpose. It is in the nature of man to admire a weapon for what it is and also to justify and mitigate that admiration in some measure by elevating the object of his admiration to an art form. The nihonto has achieved this to a far greater degree than any other weapon in history. :D

[chrisf]

Tested?Do you mean in combat?The 'Kanze' Masamune has kiri komi...

In any event an individual's perception of art has NOTHING to do with rankings or expert opinions,it is precisely that:an individual perception.

[chrisf]

The nihonto has achieved this to a far greater degree than any other weapon in history. :D

I'm afraid that's a very narrow minded view as there are other weapons that have reached pinnacles of greatness,English flintlock duelling pistols,Spanish cup hilt rapiers,European wheellock pistols and tschinke,I'm sure other members can think of more.

Where form and function and art conjoin nihonto do not have exclusivity.

[cabowen]

Wow, many deep questions here....a proper reply might necessitate the penning of a small book....To find your answers may require quite a long journey.....

 

I will try to shed some light based on my 35 years of experiences with Japanese swords, including 13 or so in Japan....Please pardon the broad strokes......

 

First, as has been said, art is in the eye of the beholder. Each culture has their own standards of what constitutes art. Without a solid understanding of the Japanese aesthetic, you will struggle to appreciate why Nihon-to, in general, are held in such high esteem and what, in particular, makes a sword an artistic masterpiece.

 

Without knowledge of the metallurgical science behind the creation of a Nihon-to and the actual, practical usage of a fine sword, you will fall short in appreciating the height of the craft and the supreme excellence of function. Please be aware that Japanese swordsmiths were using metallurgical processes nearly 1000 years before Western science could explain them, and without any type of scientific instrumentation. Also be aware that the Japanese sword has changed little in 1000 years; it has, through usage over that period, gone through a process very similar to evolution; it has been perfected.

 

The Japanese sword is appreciated on many different levels; as a near perfect meeting of form and function, as the highest expression of the metal worker's craft, as a religious icon, and as a tool to reach enlightenment. When a boy was born to a samurai family, a sword was brought into the room; when a samurai died, if it wasn't with sword in hand, it was at his side. It was the giver and taker of life, a symbol of authority and responsibility. It was the means to atonement.

 

Focusing on only the artisitic or craft aspect of Nihon-to will leave you with a shallow grasp at best; to truly see it for all that it is requires understanding the cultural context that created, used, and appreciates it.

 

As I said, no short and easy path here......good luck....

[Rivkin]

If Art is purely subjective, then all my swords just got promoted to J.Tokubetsu...

 

When I look at a number of swords with different rankings and/or prices, I can't help but notice that the preference is typically given to swords with a very pleasing, illustrous hada (which means that it is highly non-uniform, if we believe western metallurgy - not the greatest accomplishment for a piece of steel), complex hamon (there are plenty high ranking swords with nioi suguha, but that's not what people tend to proudly display) with lots and lots of repeatative nie-based activity, and the shape which is pleasing to the eye.

 

From all of that, I can understand the abundance of nie as something that might relate to performance; regarding the shape I have troubles believing that most slender-fumbarish kamakure shapes would perform as well in test cuts as a typical "heroically proportioned" Bungo.

 

I do understand there is a number of weapons that are excellent cutters with great balance and great artistic looks. But, can we really rely on "this sword has a lot of activity and its very artistic, so it must cut very well, since Japanese art is extremely functional"? Or there are somewhat separate criteria of practicality and artistism?

 

P.S. Masamune swords were not tested (although there are some conflicting accounts on that if I am not mistaken), but were the swords that achieved such status during the smith's life really carried into battle, or the reason that so many survived is that besides occasional skirmish in the castle they really did not see any use?

 

P.P.S. Regarding the Western Science not being able to explain and the uniqueness of Japanese Smiths - sorry, I am not aware of a single technical solution that is unique to Japanese swords. Folding, differential tempering, ridge construction - all were well known from almost BC times.

[cabowen]

If Art is purely subjective, then all my swords just got promoted to J.Tokubetsu...

 

Once you understand what makes a sword worthy of that status, you will be able to make that determination......

 

When I look at a number of swords with different rankings and/or prices, I can't help but notice that the preference is typically given to swords with a very pleasing, illustrous hada (which means that it is highly non-uniform, if we believe western metallurgy - not the greatest accomplishment for a piece of steel), complex hamon (there are plenty high ranking swords with nioi suguha, but that's not what people tend to proudly display) with lots and lots of repeatative nie-based activity, and the shape which is pleasing to the eye.

 

Again, understanding the quality of forging, of the hamon, of the activity, on a practical level, will provide a lot of illumination....

 

From all of that, I can understand the abundance of nie as something that might relate to performance; regarding the shape I have troubles believing that most slender-fumbarish kamakure shapes would perform as well in test cuts as a typical "heroically proportioned" Bungo.

 

Again, knowing what is "good" and "bad" nie, hamon, forging, etc., is important....Understanding of the cultural and historical context would tell you why Kamakura blades are highly valued and why Bungo blades are not....

 

I do understand there is a number of weapons that are excellent cutters with great balance and great artistic looks. But, can we really rely on "this sword has a lot of activity and its very artistic, so it must cut very well, since Japanese art is extremely functional"? Or there are somewhat separate criteria of practicality and artistism?

 

A great sword is the nexus of top quality craftsmanship (without which there wouldn't be extreme functionality) and form. Some might argue that when the craft reaches a sublime level of perfection it has crossed over from craft to art......

 

 

 

P.P.S. Regarding the Western Science not being able to explain and the uniqueness of Japanese Smiths - sorry, I am not aware of a single technical solution that is unique to Japanese swords. Folding, differential tempering, ridge construction - all were well known from almost BC times.

 

Please read a bit more critically; I didn't say the process was unknown in practice, I said the scientific explanation and understanding of the process was unknown in the West ( until the 19th century).....Not only did the Japanese understand it, they knew how to control it to the point where they could paint pictures in martensite. Any other culture you can name that was able to do that?

[Rivkin]

Dear Chris,

 

Thank you very much for responding,

What you are saying is printed probably in every single book on nihonto - the reason behind the beauty of Japanese sword is its functionality.

 

I am quite sure that this is, frankly, far from truth. There is no reason for striking and valued Gassan hada to be more practical than a simple modern steel that has a very faint hada. There is no obvious reason why swords with gunome would cut better than those with suguha. In both cases, I see no reason, other than purely artistic, for an artisan to make these features.

 

Yes, I did not recieve Zen enlightment, but certainly there is a way to prove the practicality of such solutions without - sorry for saying this, but pretty cliche road of "1000s of years before Europeans", "uniqueness of Japanese spirit and culture", "after dozens of years of studying on the mountain with Dao sages" and so on?

 

Yours,

 

Kira R.

[Rivkin]

Please read a bit more critically; I didn't say the process was unknown in practice, I said the scientific explanation and understanding of the process was unknown in the West ( until the 19th century).....Not only did the Japanese understand it, they knew how to control it to the point where they could paint pictures in martensite. Any other culture you can name that was able to do that?

 

Well, there were not so many interested in painting pictures with specifically martensite, however every heat treated steel blade will have a picture made from martensite. There were cultures interested in painting pictures with carbides (Indians with their wootz come to mind), or in using very complex patterns, wielded from a combination of different steels (from late Roman times to everywhere in the world, i.e. "Damascus") and so on and so on.

It is like saying Japanese are unique because they have sanban sugi, and Europeans - do not.

[sanjuro]

Kira.

 

may I ask for the sake of the discussion, why you collect nihonto? If so many other swords are artistically, practically and technologically equal or superior to nihonto as you seem to suggest, then what makes specifically nihonto attractive to you? The answer to this may indicate where you are really coming from as opposed to the position of ignorance that you claim.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Tested?Do you mean in combat?The 'Kanze' Masamune has kiri komi....

 

 

That doesn't mean it cut very well

[cabowen]

Dear Chris,

 

Thank you very much for responding,

What you are saying is printed probably in every single book on nihonto - the reason behind the beauty of Japanese sword is its functionality.

 

I don't recall ever reading it put quite that way, and I have read quite a few volumes on Japanese swords...

 

I am quite sure that this is, frankly, far from truth. There is no reason for striking and valued Gassan hada to be more practical than a simple modern steel that has a very faint hada. There is no obvious reason why swords with gunome would cut better than those with suguha. In both cases, I see no reason, other than purely artistic, for an artisan to make these features.

 

No, the reasons are not obvious and require, as I said, study.....Do you know how ayasugi hada is made? Do you know why a visible hada, free of flaws, is valued over a faint hada? Do you know why the nearly perfect hada of Awataguchi is considered peerless? Besides the obvious physical perfection, it tells those that know what they are looking at they are looking at the work of a master smith. Anyone that can forge steel to that level of perfection has mastered the craft and it serves as a hallmark of sorts to indicate to those that know what to look for that here is a sword one can stake one's life on...Similarly, the color and texture of the hada can indicate the quality of the steel used. The brightness of the hamon, the size, consistency of the nie, etc., all indicate the quality of the heat treatment. The forging, steel color, and activity in a blade, if you know how to read them, are all indicators of the technical ability of the smith. There are practical reasons for ashi and other activities as well. While such things as a kikusui hamon and the like are clearly a technical tour de force, they are without any practical merit. Certainly there are features in later blades that were done strictly for aesthetic rather than practical reasons.

 

Yes, I did not recieve Zen enlightment, but certainly there is a way to prove the practicality of such solutions without - sorry for saying this, but pretty cliche road of "1000s of years before Europeans", "uniqueness of Japanese spirit and culture", "after dozens of years of studying on the mountain with Dao sages" and so on?

 

You came here claiming ignorance, asking questions about what makes a Japanese sword art....and tried to frame it in the context of what you know of other cultures.

 

I haven't stated that you need to receive zen enlightenment, or needed to study with Dao sages. I did say that if you want more than a superficial answer to your questions, you need to learn something about Japanese aesthetics for that is the operating arbiter. You also need to learn about Japanese culture as that is the context within which Japanese aesthetics live. I also mentioned educating yourself on the process and usage of the sword as this will address some of the technical questions you have asked. If that is too much work for you or beyond you intellectual curiosity, than move along to something simpler. Remember, you claimed ignorance and asked a question. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.....

[cabowen]

 

Well, there were not so many interested in painting pictures with specifically martensite, however every heat treated steel blade will have a picture made from martensite.

 

Not true. It depends on the carbon and alloying content, as well as the temperature and cooling rate.

 

It is entirely possible to heat and cool a blade and miss the nose of the TTT curve, thus ending up with pearlite instead of martensite....

 

 

It is like saying Japanese are unique because they have sanban sugi, and Europeans - do not.

 

Have you seen a European sword with sanbonsugi? It is not the hamon itself, but the mastering of the process to the extent that they could control it almost at will that sets the Japanese craft apart....

[rkg]

Hi,

 

Interesting questions.

 

First, on tsuba/other fittings, while they theoretically can all be used, they also served other purposes (connote rank, say something about the owner, remind the owner of something,

tell a story, psyche out potential opponents, etc in addition to supporting the user's fighting style). Also, as I understand it, usually the only time you hand is against the tsuba hard enough to notice what you're talking about is when you've

screwed up badly and its doing its job of keeping your hand from sliding down the blade... (though YMMV on that - I'm STILL trying to find an iai school near me so I can join and study this

further before I get too decrepit).

 

Second, you have to remember that these pieces we see now are the survivors, and a lot of older pieces are mere shadows of their former selves - so often a piece that gets called "light and quick in hand" is actually just mostly ground away (or is an utushi of another sword that was mostly ground away). You also get pieces that are

important because of who owned them and/or what they are where the state of the piece is kind of secondary (I've studied a Masamune that was a revered Tokugawa family piece that that

had no skin left, for example) - which is why you'll sometimes see pieces that have been awarded juyo with fatal flaws... They were also products of their times, so their shape when new over time

varied a lot depending on their usage (fighting from a horse, mass combat, having to chop through leather armor,primarily one-on-one duels with unarmored opponents, use as a

primary weapon vs. one of "last resort", etc.). If you haven't already read it I'd highly recommend getting Paul Martin's translation of Nakahara's book - it has good sections on how repeated polishing/damage repair/shortening/etc. changes the sword's shape over time.

 

On the construction techniques, I'm sure somebody else will answer this better than I can, but there's all kinds of bits of wisdom about what makes a "good" sword - classically it was one

that didn't break when you used it. There were lots of solutions to this used, so you get different construction techniques, hamon shapes, hada types, nie vs. nioi deki, etc. On what other cultures did, you're right - I think you've seen other cultures

do differential tempering, combine different sorts of irons/steels together though I'm not sure they did it quite like the Japanese where they would stick metals with different structural properties

in specific geometries to perform specific tasks (hard metal for edge, bonded some kind of core metal to absorb the blow/be flexible, differentially temper the completed package, etc.).

 

I assume you saw this cluster of articles where somebody was polishing old viking swords:

 

http://www.schwertbruecken.de/english/starte.htm

 

Another difference is the conservation aesthetic -The Japanese have no problems with periodically polishing pieces to see this grain structure, whereas most other people "conserve" old

weapons by just letting them sit as-is... Almost makes the pieces slow motion performance art as eventually they will be gone...

 

And realistically, for combat/cutting, pieces made from modern steels are LOTS better - the amazing part is what they did with what they had at the time..

 

As to what you "should" like, that's up to you - what activities in a sword/sword shape/type/etc. you like is kind of an acquired taste, and what you find important in a sword's history/rarity/etc. is kind of an individual thing as well... Often you're well advised to go look at a LOT of swords alternating with book study to figure out what you saw before buying anything. (Another thing

I liked about Nakahara's book was that he talked a lot about what makes a "good" sword - I wish I had that book available in english when I started out - I'd have a LOT more money

in my pocket ).

 

Good Luck,

 

rkg

(Richard George)

[Rivkin]

Dear Chris,

 

I appreciate your answer. However, I have no doubts that in some cases the beauty is accomponied, or even serves as an indirect measure of the sword's function. And I have no doubts that there are quite a few swords that have "peerless" artistic qualities and superior functionality.

 

The question I am raising is that there a lot of artistic developments in Japanese sword, as well in that of any other culture, that have nothing to do with functionality. The most prized artistic swords can be mediocre cutters and very simple swords with absolutely no artistic value can still be superior cutters. And the most prized cutters can have weight/balance issues that would make their use prohibitative under certain circumstances.

 

Regarding European use of martensite - I think every single work of Williams will show some examples. I.e.:

"METHODS OF MANUFACTURE OF SWORDS IN MEDIEVAL EUROPE: ILLUSTRATED BY THE METALLOGRAPHY OF SOME EXAMPLES", (Sword Ea 92. Leiden Wapenmuseum, SWORD No. 4) etc. The use of martensite is hardly unique to Japanese, although there were cultures that (by choise) preferred to see rather different properties in their swords and therefore did not heat treated at the temperatures that would lead to the appearance of martensite.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Kira R.

[Rivkin]

If you haven't already read it I'd highly recommend getting Paul Martin's translation of Nakahara's book - it has good sections on how repeated polishing/damage repair/shortening/etc. changes the sword's shape over time.

 

And as far as I could understand, one of his main points is that the superior grace of many Kamakura tachis is the rest of horrific overpolishing, rather than a designed occurance...

And that's precisely what I am trying to ask here - are there some greatly valued Juyo level swords that certainly do not cut well, and probably never were meant to be cutters above all else, while there are very utilitarian and plain swords with very little that visually distinguishes them from hundreds of other swords, that are much better cutters?

[Rivkin]

Have you seen a European sword with sanbonsugi? It is not the hamon itself, but the mastering of the process to the extent that they could control it almost at will that sets the Japanese craft apart....

 

Europeans knew how to do pretty amazing things with their steel before Japanese sword was born as it is. But they had no interest in painting a fancy looking hamon on the blade, then polish it out to perfection, and then have the picture completely ruined after couple of engagements and rough sharpening in the field.

They had their own ways to do something fancy, which required no less skill by any means.

[Rivkin]

Kira.

 

may I ask for the sake of the discussion, why you collect nihonto? If so many other swords are artistically, practically and technologically equal or superior to nihonto as you seem to suggest, then what makes specifically nihonto attractive to you? The answer to this may indicate where you are really coming from as opposed to the position of ignorance that you claim.

 

Dear Sanjuro,

 

It has a style of its own. With its own sence of beauty. As politically correct as it sounds, I would not estimate it as "superior" or "inferior" to say Indian (as ghastly loud the Indian styles appear to me), and quite frankly I would not evaluate Japanese swords very highly on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill, compared to, say, Indian work, especially when it comes to producing steel per se. Not like Asians were very keen on importing tamahagane.

 

Japanese work is different, with its own set of rules of what makes a good sword, and the Japanese concept just appeals more to may more than, for example, European or Chinese.

 

Yet I am a little perplexed every time I am out to acquire a new sword. This one has a fantastic nie work, great ratings, but it feels in hand like an axe. This one is very plain and quite, but the worksmanship is high, the balance is correct and the shape is more consistent with good cuts. But its some averaged rated Echizen smith. And I like wild, blackish nie on the third sword, with a loud gunome hamon, but the hamon work is uneven enough to question whether this thing (as stunning as it is) will cut well.

Are these contradictions real, or I am missing something?

 

Yours,

 

Kira R.

[jamesicus]

The following is actually the content of the Introduction page of my little Nihontô web site. It just reflects my own subjective views unsupported by any in-depth technical or scientific investigation. I have collected various items of antiquity (mostly military associated arms and accoutrements) for some seventy years now and after all that time I still admire the beauty and craftsmanship of Nihontô the most:

 

I first became enamored wih Japanese swords -- handmade in the ancient traditional way -- when I was stationed at Yokota AFB (approx. 30 miles north of Tokyo) as a member of the United States Air Force in the early 1960s.

 

There was very little research material relating to them in those days -- no internet or published research papers and only two books written in English -- and so I spent much of my off-duty time visiting Tokyo sword shops (in particular the Japan Sword Co. shop) in order to further my Nihontô education.

 

Why all that time and effort to study swords? Once you have gleaned even a little knowledge about them -- and if you own just one specimen of Nihontô -- you will understand. They are, in my opinion, the finest swords ever made. The self evident quality of their blade construction, their superb design and their incomparable polish bespeake their excellence. Just a blade itself in a plain wood scabbard (shirasaya) is a treasure. And if you own a sword replete with its exquisite fittings (koshirae) you will own a magnificent work of art that will rival any other and surpass most.

 

If you delve deeper into the history of Nihontô you will discover the unique part they have played in the history of Japan and why they are so eagerly sought after by admirers of consummate craftsmanship throughout the world.

 

My own love for Nihontô has persisted over the years. Now, in my twilight years, I am once again building a modest collection of Nihontô -- a few blades and fittinngs (koshirae) -- in order to admire and cherish them.

 

James

[Jean]

That doesn't mean it cut very well

 

Neither the opposite, Jacques

 

Collecting something because it is supposed to be art and questionning it as being art indicates that somewhere, there is a casting (movie) mistake.

 

Only solution, to change collecting interest...

[doug e lewis]

and the cutting ability of the blade is much a function of the skill of the tester as the sharpness of the ha.

 

And I suppose the reason we have so many "great swords from great smiths" is that they were not used in battle much. even in the day the Masumune or, Muramasa or Kotetsu, etc, were relatively costly to the average samurai, much less the ashigaru. That is why i was surprised that my brother's common, late Edo katana that I posted here [uda or not Uda} some time back, survived even a 150 yrs. should have been scraped long ago or been destroyed in battle. but NO... was kept, re-mounted, and even some repairs made. somebody liked this Bizen style imitation. and, despite or maybe even because of its commonality, so do I. Brother Brad -- give it back. Please!! i

 

great discussion. thanks all.

 

doug e

[doug e lewis]

and thanks again, Jean, for sending back to the books and blade for more research .... good education and fun!!

 

doug

[cabowen]

I would not estimate it as "superior" or "inferior" to say Indian (as ghastly loud the Indian styles appear to me), and quite frankly I would not evaluate Japanese swords very highly on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill, compared to, say, Indian work, especially when it comes to producing steel per se.

 

What other cultures were making differentially hardened, folded, forge welded, composite blades in the year 900?

 

Not very high on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill???? How much more complex could it be? Have you ever tried to differentially harden a 28 inch long blade? Somehow I doubt it.....

 

The best swords are both works of art and excellent cutting instruments. There are many practical swords that cut very well that do not reach the level where they are considered art. There are many swords made after the 1600's when swords were not used on the scale they had been earlier and many makers began embellishing them with fancy hamon that was simply done for decoration rather than practical reasons....If you take the time to read some of the basic texts you will find this mentioned frequently....

 

Why are my troll sensors tingling?

[Rivkin]

What other cultures were making differentially hardened, folded, forge welded, composite blades in the year 900?

 

Not very high on the scale of metallurgical complexity or skill???? How much more complex could it be? Have you ever tried to differentially harden a 28 inch long blade? Somehow I doubt it.....

 

The best swords are both works of art and excellent cutting instruments. There are many practical swords that cut very well that do not reach the level where they are considered art. There are many swords made after the 1600's when swords were not used on the scale they had been earlier and many makers began embellishing them with fancy hamon that was simply done for decoration rather than practical reasons....If you take the time to read some of the basic texts you will find this mentioned frequently....

 

To a possible surprise of many on this board - almost every single well developed metallurgical culture from Central Asia to Europe by 900 AD already had folded blades, with iron for the core and steel for the edge, with differential heat treatment...

Take a number of "viking" blade from XIth century - you'll find hardness going from 20 to 45, lots of martensite, twisted core, folded steel edges.

Outside of Japan (a relatively backward country, overall importer when it comes to produsing steel itself, not to be mistaken with swords), already for 500 years people experimented with crucible steel and other complex steel making technologists, which modern (and XIXth century European) metallurgy holds in high esteem.

So if you are looking for something really stunning - look at XIIIth century "Islamic" sword. Inserted edge, folded, crucible steel, differential tempering. Full array of stunning metallurgy.

Dear Chris, I know quite well what I am talking about.

 

And differential hardening is much simpler than it seems. Just doing it in a Japanese way (with clay) is one of a more different tricks. Any thick blade will differentially harden by itself, just because of different rates of cooling. If one goes for oil-based heat treatment, one can just dunk one edge into it - resulting in a very pronounced hamon (no nie obviously).

Again if you read any articles by Williams - most European swords until say XVIth century (by memory) have drastically varying hardness and are differentially hardened.

 

And I don't think that the flashy hamon for the sake of it is a post 1600 feature, to say mildly .

[cabowen]

Sorry, I though you were "a complete newbie when it comes to Japanese swords". It seems you are in fact a well read and experienced expert. My mistake.....

 

I have yet to see any European blade that shows anywhere near the craftsmanship and skill shown in even the most pedestrian of Japanese swords....There is a world of difference in the activity in the forged steel and hardened edge. There are differentially hardened edges, like those we see in WWII oil quenched gunto, then there are differentially hardened edges such as those we see in Soshu, Bizen, Yamashiro, and the like. ....Have never seen utsuri in a European or Indian sword either....Haven't ever run across anyone with a thorough knowledge of both that would even make this argument. First for everything I suppose....

[Rivkin]

Historical metallurgy. Not Japanese swords. Except the latter are stripped, chopped and metallographied.