Kodachi and uchigatana

[hxv]

Hi eveyone,

 

Is there a difference between Kodachi and uchigatana, or is the only difference the way they are mounted? Your expert opinions are valued as always.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Jean]

Try google, Hoanh, you are getting lazy. Furthermore I strongly suspect you don't read basic litterature as the Connoisseur's book of Japanese swords by Kokan Nagayama, otherwise you won't ask.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uchigatana

[hxv]

Hi Jean,

 

Thank you for the links. Sorry for giving you the impression that I'm not doing my homework. I actually came across the links you posted and had read up more on the internet. I also do have a copy of The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords by Nagayama and also have read the discussions therein regarding Kodachi and uchigatana. I'm still hazy on the differences between Kodachi and uchigatana, hence my original post. May be I'm not looking at it from the right perspective. I'd like to expand on why I asked the question so you can hit me over the head to clear up the fog

 

1. A lot of sources on the internet seem to use the terms Kodachi and uchigatana in the same breath, probably because the Kodachi & the uchigatana were both used as one-handed weapons.

2. The uchigatana started to appear during times when the tachi and kodachi were the primary weapons. The kodachi is (by definition) roughly 60cm long or less. The uchigatana happens (I suppose also by definition) to be between 50cm to 60cm. Since they exist during the same time frame, are of about the same length, and are both used as one-handed weapons, are they not the same, except for the way they are mounted and worn? This is where my mind went hazy and mushy.

 

Your analysis and opinions are desperately needed.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Jean]

Roughly

 

They were not forged at the same time.

 

Kodachi were produced mainly between Kamakura and Nambokucho, Uchigatana is typical Muromachi developped.

 

Kodachi means small tachi but don't be mislead its length could reach 65cm. Companion sword of the Tachi (alternative to Tanto)

 

Uchigatana was developped when in Muromachi, cavalry was replaced by infantry. a new sword pattern was to be developped for foot soldier. sword worn katana style (cutting edge upward in the sash), the sori was style was changed and so the buke zukuri mounting developped.

 

Uchigatana replaced Tachi and not the Kodachi

Kodachi could be catalogued as the wakizashi ancestor.

[Marius]

and what about the koshigatana?

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Just for fun, uchigatana 13th century (juyo Bunkasai) :

 

 

[hxv]

Thank you everyone for clarifying my confusion. To sum up,

 

1. Uchigatana generally appeared later (as in Muromachi) than kodachi, although there *CAN* be exceptions to this rule, as pointed out by Jacques.

2. Uchigatana and kodachi are different by the way they are mounted and worn.

3. Kodachi are tori sori while uchigatana are saki tori.

 

Did I leave anything out? Once again, thank you everyone for your valuable input,

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[cabowen]

kodachi would usually be signed tachi mei, uchigatana katana mei....

 

not sure you can generalize about the sori....

[hxv]

Got it! Thank you Chris.

 

Hoanh

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

1. Uchigatana generally appeared later (as in Muromachi) than kodachi, although there *CAN* be exceptions to this rule, as pointed out by Jacques.

 

I would say uchigatana can be more common in Kamakura era than we think. The detail of the Ban Dainagon ekotoba (12th century) below shows a lower class policeman (simobe) wearing an uchigatana.

 

 

According Kanzan Sato Sensei, Kodachi could have been confined to some areas or schools and to a fixed period of time. Nagasa must be less than 60cm.

[hxv]

Hi Jacques,

 

So, you are saying the difference between kodachi and uchigatana is more difficult to delineate clearly, even by the era in which they are forged. Then, is it correct to say that the differences are: 1) the way the mei are signed (tachi mei vs. katana mei), and 2) the way they are mounted and worn? I'm still confused. If no one is confused by all of this, please tell me I'm dense. Let me pose a question to the membership here.

 

If we were to come across a sword that's about 60cm in length with mumei ubu nakago, looks to be koto, in shirasaya, how can we tell if it's a kodachi or an uchigatana?

 

I find all of the discussions here very educational as usual. I really didn't think my original question had an obvious answer, and now I'm more convinced that this is so. Please post your answers to my theoretical question above as your discussions will be beneficial to all reading this thread.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Jean]

The Bunkasai sword shown is signed katana mei, wakizashi (the name) was not at this time used to call such a sword (or it would have been labelled such) reason why it is named uchigatana.

 

In the print block (I had already seen it) the name uchigatana is used by reference to the way it is worn, edge upward. It does not mean/refer to the way the sword is signed.

 

One must not confuse the name issue from the way of wearing a sword with the way its mei is chiselled.

 

Have a look at the Nihon To Koza, Koto volumes and just list the number of uchigatana belonging to Kamakura and Nambokucho period.

 

To go a bit in depth in the subject, Ko-dachi are not simply shorter version of the tachi, they are around 2 shaku (more or less), have less sori and no tapering. As Jacques stated rightly they were mainly encountered in Ko-Bizen/Bizen/Ko-Aoe and Kyoto schools.

 

The question is : were they worn in the same way as the uchi-gatana? Not enough data to statute.

 

The problem is always the same with Nihonto:

 

How must you name a blade? By the way it is signed or by the way it is worn?

 

Best case in Shinto times is Hizen school.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Have a look at the Nihon To Koza, Koto volumes and just list the number of uchigatana belonging to Kamakura and Nambokucho period.

 

 

Answer by Kanzan Sato sensei : "The word uchigatana can be found in literary works as early as Kamakura period, but at that time the blade was used only by people of low status and privates in the rank. Most uchigatana produced at this early date were very roughly made and because they were regarded as disposable virtually no examples survived today. It was not until the Muromachi period when generals and samurai began to use them to supplement their tachi, that uchigatana of high quality were made."

[runagmc]

Any good pics of Kodachi?

[hxv]

Funny you should ask at the right time I just saw this on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221025253621?ss ... 725wt_1392

 

Have fun!

 

Hoanh

[Jean]

Hoang,

 

The distinction between kodachi and uchigatana is very simple.

 

Uchigatana=main sword

Kodachi=companion sword

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

A better example made by Rai Kunitoshi : Nagasa : 54.4cm, sori : 1.70cm with a nice taper and a little funbari.

 

 

 

Kodachi=companion sword

 

Still according Kanzan Sato sensei Kodachi could have been made for adolescent bushi too.

[hxv]

Jacques: *NICE* example!

 

Jean: Thank you!

 

I just bought a sword from a collector in WA near the Seattle area. The seller told me it's a wakizashi circa 1600s. To make the long story short, just as luck would have it, the measurements and the look of the sword look suspiciously like those of a kodachi/uchigatana. The hamon is very flamboyant and reaches all the way up to the shinogi throughout the length of the sword, but it's in old polish and hard to photograph. I have to turn the sword at just the right angle to see the details. I would stick my neck out and say it looks hitatsura. The nakago is mumei, ubu with 1 mekugi ana. Here are the stats:

 

Nagasa: 23.5" (59.7cm)

Sori: 5/8" (1.6cm)

Motokasane: 0.225" (5.7mm)

Motohaba: 1.1" (2.8cm)

Sakihaba:0.73" (1.9cm)

Kissaki: 1.42" (3.6cm)

Nakago: 8" (20.3cm)

 

I wonder why the nakago is so long .... Anyhow, any thought you have on this sword's provenance, especially in relation to the discussion of kodachi vs. uchigatana, is much appreciated. I have pretty much convinced myself that this sword is either an uchigatana or a kodachi, but which one???? If you want pictures of the hada, I can take it outside tomorrow for better lightning. My roofers are going nuts outside. In the mean time, these are the pics I can provide at the moment. Sorry for the picture quality, but without my usual set up and a tripod, it's hard to take sharp pictures.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[runagmc]

When I see a kodachi like the Rai Kunitoshi Jacques posted, I'm not that convinced that it was intended as a companion or secondary sword to a longer tachi. Is there any real evidence (I can't remember seeing any) that they were companions to a larger sword, or is this just a theory? To me it seems more likely that some people just prefered a shorter sword for whatever reason, or that they were made for someone not full grown like Kanzan suggests.

 

PS, Hoanh, I would say uchigatana

[hxv]

Hi Adam,

 

Why do you think my sword is an uchigatana and not a kodachi? If you can give me your rationale, it would shed a lot of light on what I have been getting at: kodachi vs. uchigatana. I don't have a strong opinion either way. I just want to learn. This discussion of kodachi vs. uchigatana is turning out similar to what (former) Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said about hardcore pornography. He couldn't define it, but "I know it when I see it." It's just my attempt at humor. I hope no one is offended at my remark. On with nihonto - please join this thread if you have opinions to add!

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[sanjuro]

Surely, purely on a percentage basis, there were very few kodachi produced and they are specific to a fairly narrow time frame compared to the much more prolific and generally poorer quality uchigatana produced for the general soldiery. Higher quality uchigatana such as those in use by the higher ranking samurai, are fairly rare. Kodachi are even rarer and (at least those I have come into contact with and those posted in this thread), are relatively higher quality blades.

[runagmc]

No, I understand your confusion. This is similar to the discussion we had not too long ago about the characteristics that seperate tachi from uchigatana when a daito is mumei, mounted in shirasaya, and where the date of manufacture is uncertain.

 

Of all the swords I've seen, very few can definitively be classified as kodachi. So, considering the rarity of kodachi... and for your sword - the overall shape, measurements, and quality (especially the nakago)... the fact that it's only slightly shorter than the average uchigatana, and just a gut feeling, would all cause me to lean toward the more likely and conservative possibility, which would be an uchigatana. Also the fact that it appears to be ubu and mumei comes into play... not so much because an ubu kodachi HAS to be signed, but just because a tachi mei would be a key characteristic in labeling it a kodachi. For me to call a sword like yours a kodachi, it would need to have a tachi mei, or I would need to be certain that it was manufactured before uchigatana became popular.

 

Edit, Keith basically gave my answer for me while I was writing this... only he was better at getting to the point :D

[hxv]

Hi Adam and Keith,

 

Thank you both for your opinions. What you guys said resonate with each other and with the fact that generally, uchigatana are more abundant and are of lower quality than kodachi. I understand your logic well. So, to follow with your logic (and to expand for my own edification), since kodachi were meant for the upper class, so to speak, they were of higher quality and therefore were more likely to be signed. So, if the nakago is ubu, one would likely expect to see a tachi mei. In the absence of a tachi mei for an ubu nakago, the safe assumption would be that it's an uchigatana. If it's signed katana mei, then there is clearly no confusion. Correct? Wheeeew!! Finally something I can sink my teeth into. I like your logic and explanation. Thank you guys again.

 

Now, I have a different question. From the point of view of a martial artist, which I am, since the kodachi and the uchigatana are so similar in shape, the only *FUNCTIONAL* difference between them is in how one mounts and wears them. Kodachi: edge down, draws then cuts in two separate motions. Uchigatana: edge up, draws and cuts in one motion. Why on earth would they call them different names to confuse us poor souls? May be the answer is in the idiosyncrasies of the Japanese language (my speculation)? This question probably should be referred to a linguist. It may not be fair to pose questions of this nature to the membership here.

 

Thanks to everyone who has helped me this far in my struggle with this issue. I don't understand it completely, but I do understand it more than when I started this thread. For me, that's real progress.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[sanjuro]

Kodachi: edge down, draws then cuts in two separate motions. Uchigatana: edge up, draws and cuts in one motion.

 

Just a small side issue here if I may be forgiven the comment. From the above statement, my guess would be that you are probably an Iaidoka. :D If so, dont allow your particular martial discipline to limit your perspective on how these weapons were deployed. Think 'battlefield' and all that Iai theory goes out the window. Swanning around on a battlefield with a sword in its saya doesn't generally lead to an elongated life expectancy. Both swords once in hand would be employed in the same or similar ways since the physical difference between them was primarily the way in which they were mounted and worn. There was no simultaneous 'draw and cut' when kodachi and uchigatana were both in vogue. Iai techniques were a slightly later addition to the swordsman's art. Both a Tachi and a Daito can be used Iai fashion so the shorter Uchigatana and Kodachi could also have been used this way had the techniques existed at that point in history.

[hxv]

Hi Keith,

 

No offense is taken at all. Your comment is noted and understood. :lol: As far as the name kodachi vs. uchigatana goes, I have come to an internal resolution. I am speculating that upper class samurai didn't want their weapons, the kodachi, to be associated with weapons of soldiers of low status, so a new word, uchigatana, had to be invented. Kind of like how Lexus are basically Toyota, but with higher quality. Same thing with Acura and Honda. Before the membership comes down on me here, I beg for leniency :lol: Like I said, this is just my way of internalizing the different angles I have been given between kodachi and uchigatana.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[runagmc]

I think it's important to remember that the evolution of Japanese swords was "organic", meaning there were many swordsmiths who developed many styles and ideas... it was always evolving. The guidelines you hear about sword styles and charateristics in certain periods are just very basic guidelines, and pretty much always have many contradictions with reality. Exceptions are the norm. As you learn more and more, you will realize that most of the things you thought you had figured out weren't totally accurate, or were only part of the story.

 

With things like confusing terminology - as all these terms were being adopted, they weren't thinking "Wow, I hope this doesn't confuse sword collectors hundreds of years in the future". Unfortunantly, most of us are handicapped from the beginning, since the culture and language of Japan are foreign to us. The best way to get an understanding of all these confusing things is to look at as many good swords as possible -online, in books, in person, however you can... and don't just look at them, but study the information that goes with them. Anyway, I need to go to bed... :lol:

[Jean]

I have got a problem with your sword, Hoan, munemachi and hamachi are not aligned on your picture

[sanjuro]

 

Without subscribing to the Lexus/Toyota, Honda/Acura theory of distinction and evolution, and possibly getting both of us ridden out of town on a rail, as far as uchigatana and Kodachi are concerned, the names alone indicate their relativity to oneanother. Uchigatana means basically 'strike sword' and Kodachi means 'small tachi' surely that is difference enough, and description enough to separate them.

[hxv]

Thank you Keith! I'm glad you found my analogy humorous!

 

Jean: You are right about the munemachi and the hamachi not lining up. I am not too proficient with Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Illustrator. On top of that, I'm not too good of a photographer. The (deadly) combination shows in the first picture. I took two different photographs, one of the omote and one of the ura side. Then I cropped each one, inserted the cropped pictures into an Adobe Illustrator canvas and resize them and move them around until they approximately match up. I don't know of a way to do it precisely. Any suggestions on how I can do a better job would be much appreciated as always.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[NihontoEurope]

Hello,

 

An Uchigatana with a nakago of 20.3 cm?

 

/Martin