NAGAMAKI & NAGAMAKI NAOSHI

Gentlemen,

I was wondering if nagamaki(s) are frequently seen on the market and if nagamaki(s) naoshi are also quite frequent ? Are they popular among collectors ?

I understand from my readings that this type of blade were used mainly for combat in the 16th century and I will want to know if they were made like were made the swords (katanas) used at that time ? I mean with good quality tamahagane and made by well known swordsmiths ?

Sorry for my poor english and my clumsy questions but I will really need some answers on that topic.

They aren't rare and some collectors really like them. They were made using the same materials and basic techniques of all nihonto. John

I was wondering if nagamaki(s) are frequently seen on the market and if nagamaki(s) naoshi are also quite frequent ? Are they popular among collectors ?

I understand from my readings that this type of blade were used mainly for combat in the 16th century and I will want to know if they were made like were made the swords (katanas) used at that time ? I mean with good quality tamahagane and made by well known swordsmiths ?

Intact nagamaki are, to my understanding, not common at all. They were popular between the 12th and 14th century, and falling out of fashion after the 16th century. I've only ever seen one intact nagamaki, in koshirae, in a photograph.

A number were chopped down to make into swords; the same happened with naginata. There was also a fashion for nagamaki-naoshi and naginata-naoshi swords (pretty much the same thing) that were swords made to that pattern. The ones I've seen so far have been wakizashi sized. Pretty meaty weapons - you could use them for a good solid chopping action. Far more heft to them than the standard wakizashi. Quite nasty used in close quarters.

As for materials - tamahagane. Made by well-known smiths? Dunno. I'm sure some of the naginata and nagamaki were. As for the nagamaki-naoshi and naginata-naoshi blades - not sure. Not enough info yet.

Kevin

Kevin. I have photos of six that I saw in Japan if you would like to see them. John

Here are four. They were awesome weapons. John

Hi, All!

John, the matter of rareness is irrelevant, if you have sufficient funds. The really nice old unshortened Koto nagamaki you showed us, are of course extant , especially in Japan, but still hard to come by and quite expensive.

Gilles, there are three types of nagamaki blades found today:

1. Unshortened Originals, forged as polearms like the ones John showed us.

2. Nagamaki forged as polearms, but shortened later for use as tachi, katana or wakizashi.

3. Nagamaki style blades already forged as a sword

No. 2. and 3. became fashionable during the Nanbokuchyo period and eventually nagamaki naoshi sword blades were made througout the Muromachi and Edo periods. They are frequently found.

To order a sword blade in the nagamaki style was probably first of all a matter of fashion and personal taste, but off course these wide and long kissaki must have been very effective in combat, too.

I did not refer to Naginata, because they are not very rare and were made as polearms until the end of Edo. They were also usually not suitable to being converted into long swords.

By the way, most early nagamaki are usually moroha zukuri or shobu zukuri, so if you find a Koto nagamaki naoshi sword with a yokote or in the unokubi zuki shape, it was most probably made as a sword, not as a polearm, even if they are o-suriage. Off course there are exemptions.

Regards, Martin

What is the difference between a naginata and a nagamaki? Sato Kanzan, in "Token Bijutsu" English edition, #10, page 31, says that they are the same but with different styles of koshirae.

Grey

Hi Grey, I will quote R and P Knutsen. " It will be seen that the nagamaki differs from the naginata at two main points: at the topmost part near the hosaki, or tip, where the kissaki middle ridge continues on to meet the mune, or back of the blade, close to the hosaki, and sometimes actually terminates at the blade tip; and the second main difference is that the nagamaki lacks the destinctive blade modelling that allows the 'naginata-horimono' grooving.....Nagamaki lack these horimono grooves and the attendant modelling at this part of the mune. Expert Japanese opinion suggests that naginata nakago are nearly always longer than those of nagamaki, certainly after the Kamakura period." As for me, I had always noted that some naginata had wider blades and a more pronounced sori, being sometimes very swept back. John

Hi Grey, I will quote R and P Knutsen. " It will be seen that the nagamaki differs from the naginata at two main points: at the topmost part near the hosaki, or tip, where the kissaki middle ridge continues on to meet the mune, or back of the blade, close to the hosaki, and sometimes actually terminates at the blade tip; and the second main difference is that the nagamaki lacks the destinctive blade modelling that allows the 'naginata-horimono' grooving.....Nagamaki lack these horimono grooves and the attendant modelling at this part of the mune. Expert Japanese opinion suggests that naginata nakago are nearly always longer than those of nagamaki, certainly after the Kamakura period." As for me, I had always noted that some naginata had wider blades and a more pronounced sori, being sometimes very swept back. John

Hi John,

hmm, on both points made above someone will need to inform the NBTHK of these definitions, as they papered a sword I recently viewed with the ridge and groove features meeting the terms above as being a nagamaki, not as nagamaki naoshi, but as a "naginata naoshi" on the origami.

Then, http://japantrip.tripod.com/Japan/osafune2.html , have a look at the 4th blade down with clearly a naginata hi, being described as a "nagamaki naoshi".

Sato Kanzan, in "Token Bijutsu" English edition, #10, page 31, says that they are the same but with different styles of koshirae.

Grey

, however, does the statement above strictly apply to the early Koto period pole arms or is it inclusive of the Nambokucho and Muromachi period naginata and nagamaki?

Yes, one naginata naoshi and one nagamaki naoshi. You guys are just trying to confuse me, eh? Why have two names if there is no difference? If you can't trust the info in books purported to be by educated researchers then aiiieeee!!! What is the truth? John

Hi

Naga maki means with long wrappings. According Kanzan Sato sensei this expression applies to the long strip of material wrapped around the handle and not to the blade itself.

Do not worry, John, as the pictures are indeed confusing and we are getting into a process of hairsplitting right now.

Lets simply not mix 2 different questions.

1.What defines a nagamaki(naginata)?

2.What makes a sword blade nagamaki(naginata) naoshi?

All the blades shown by Franco were made as sword blades. The 2 swords with grooves could as well both be called "nagamaki naoshi" The absence of grooves does not define a nagamaki, because any engraver could have added grooves to a nagamaki in order to add to its beauty.

IMHO I would say a unokubi zukuri shape with its typical hi rather defines a Naginata naoshi sword and a rather shinogi zukuri type blade with long kissaki where motohaba and sakihaba are roughly the same and thickness towards the mune is strongly reduced.

The difference between naginata and nagamaki polearms is easier to define:

Naginata: usually shorter, more sori, nakago long in relation to blade, unokubi zukuri shape is most common, poles are long, up to 4meters.

Nagamaki: longer and therefore straighter looking blades, nakago shorter in relation to blade, usually kanmuri otoshi, honzukuri, shobu zukuri, poles are much shorter and wrapped with band like a extremely long tsuka. Hence the name "Nagamaki"

This is a rather simple definition and there are plenty of exeptions. But in order to stay sane, I rather would not start asking: what is the difference between a long naginata and a short nagamaki?

Good luck, Martin

In order

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/naginata.html

Dear John, Kevin, Martin, Grey and Franco,

Thank you very much for your explanations. I understand that there is only a thin line between the naginata naoshi and the nagamaki naoshi. Yet, as they haven't the same name they are supposed to be different.

Thank you again for the time you spent on this very interesting topic.

One last question please. Are the full tang koto nagamaki always signed (the non shortened ones or ubu ) ? I've heard something like that, is it just a tale ?

Sorry for my poor english.

Gilles, The four I posted are mumei. John

I understand that there is only a thin line between the naginata naoshi and the nagamaki naoshi.

Hi Gilles. Don't know if this statement is on purpose or not, but you might well be right.

A thing not mentioned yet (seems to me) is that Nagamaki has a Yokote, Naginata hasn't.

hmm, on both points made above someone will need to inform the NBTHK of these definitions, as they papered a sword I recently viewed with the ridge and groove features meeting the terms above as being a nagamaki, not as nagamaki naoshi, but as a "naginata naoshi" on the origami.

Gilles,

To answer one of your questions in short: nagamaki or naginata, cut-down to katana- or wakizashi-size, are common, but not very popular on (Japanese) market. If quality is the only thing you care about, you can get a masterpiece for half of the price you have to pay for a tachi by the same smith, but it will be difficult to sell it again.

reinhard

Gilles, The four I posted are mumei. John

Hi,

This does not come as a surprise. Nagamaki were weapons favored by the Buddhist warrior monks that would have used these pole arms in service to protect and guard the Temples and surrounding land, which were under constant pressure by neighboring warring clans attempting to jockey for power and expansion. To this end the sword smiths supplying weapons to this warrior class would have been very mindful to Buddhist beliefs of remaining unattached to material possessions, which explains why many of these weapons were never signed. This is especially true of Yamato sword smiths which held a close affiliation with these Temples.

Since Nagamaki is indeed first and foremost a style of Koshirae (although certain blade types are more common in this mounting), the NBTHK papers the blades always as Naginata(naoshi).

Hi Guido. I need some input on this.

I wonder if this is a modern approach only or if the supposed genesis of the two weapons is

indeed wrong.

I expect the Naginata to be an evolution of a tool (hence the lack of Yokote) and the

"Nagamaki" an evolution of a sword (hence the presence of Yokote), streched to the limit of both lenght and mount till to resemble a Naginata (quite like dolphins and fishes).

The mix-up of styles of blades and mounting leading us to the present day-confusion, possibly with the need of clearing up the matter under a single category, "Naginata".

Is indeed the genealogy wrong and everything born as Naginata with the Yokote added only

with later polishing ?

Guido Schiller once wrote :

To distinguish between a Naginata and a Nagamaki by judging the blade alone is very difficult, since Naginata and Nagamaki are actually certain styles of pole arm mountings, and don't give any clue as to the blade itself. However, generally it can be said that a Naginata is forged Kanmuri-otoshi with Naginata-hi and widening Mono-uchi. A Nagamaki is usually longer, slimmer, Shobu-zukuri without Hi. There are exceptions, of course, but as a rule of thumb it should work.

Eric

Carlo, Eric saved me from quoting myself . But to answer your question: a blade with a Yokote is probably more often seen with a Nagamaki mounting, but not all Nagamaki blades have it.

Sometimes the "Western" need to put everything into a neat little drawer stands in the way of appreciating Japanese art. There actually is no definite answer, and in my experience Japanese collectors don't have a real problem with that (including me, who by no stretch of the imagination could be called "Japanese" ). Calling a blade Naginata or Nagamaki is more or less just semantics, and shouldn't detract from our ultimate goal of judging the quality and not the label. Sorry for this short rant, but as a dear friend of mine once said: "Appreciating Nihontô is like a glass wall: some don't realize that there's a wall, look through it, and think they understand everything. Some (actually a few) realize the obstacle, and either give up or are able to climb the wall into the promised land". I don't really know if I climbed the wall, am still looking through it while thinking I left it behind, or just tore it down but obviously I don't get hung up with the desire to carve rules into stone.

But be this all as it may, monetary considerations do play an important role (as Reinhard rightfully pointed out), like it or not. Some time ago Ted had a Jûyô Nagamaki/Naginata-naoshi Katana by Masamitsu for sale on his website. I had seen it in Japan a couple of months before he got a hold of it, and it was/is an amazing blade with so many activities that it'll last you a lifetime to study. I, too, own a Masamitsu Jûyô, and it's a Katana. To be totally honest, my blade is a phantastic piece, and I paid considerably more for it, but it's not as good as the Naoshi blade. However, I probably will be able to sell it with a substantial profit if I decide to do so (however unlikely), while Ted's piece won't appreciate in value due to the rules of the market. No, it isn't fair, but a reality. But whoever bought it got a great bargain if he's into art and not investment.

Well, I thinky I'm now at the point where I don't really remember anymore which point I tried to to make , so please view my post in the tradition of the typical Japanese "random thought" contribution.

Thanks Guido.

Here are four. They were awesome weapons. John

I'd love to have any of those in my collection. :-) When I've got a bit more money I shall have to get one. :-)

Kevin

I am afraid that I fall into that category of placing things in neatly defined niches. Must be my classical education , needing to have a definitive taxonomy of everything. It is good to be squeezed out of the box sometimes. This thread has caused me to re-evaluate the definition of nagamaki and naginata. That is a good thing. John

I am afraid that I fall into that category of placing things in neatly defined niches. Must be my classical education , needing to have a definitive taxonomy of everything.

Hmm! Possibly off-topic. However, I found that amongst some archaeologists in the Celtic and Romano-Celtic field had a tendency to pigeonhole things in antiquity according to Classical ideas that they'd been educated in. I came at the same data differently - though familiar with the Classics, I hadn't been educated in them, and was just as familiar (if not more) with Celtic literature, and saw no reason why the ideas, and boxes, of one culture should apply to another. Any attempt to do so was, in my view, trying to fit a very round peg into a star-shaped hole - something that was only achieved by the use of very large mallets! :-) My dissertation therefore forensically dismantled the standard view (a familiarity with the Classics is good) and offered an entirely different perspective.

Seems to me a similar approach is needed in dealing with Japanese perceptions. It could be the case - and almost certainly is - that all the cultural assumptions we take for granted get in the way of understanding.

Kevin

Dear Guido, Reinhard, Franco, Eric, Kevin, John, Martin and Jacques.

Thank you all for those explanations and details. To answer to Carlo, I did not make this statement on purpose, I am not that clever :lol: . I fully agree with you Guido, we can't always classify everything. About your glass wall example, I am still stuck on the wrong side.

Anyway, I've learnt a lot with this topic and I wish to express my thanks to all of you.

Gilles

Kevin. I have photos of six that I saw in Japan if you would like to see them. John

John,

I would like to see them : )

/Martin