ROKUJURO

Tom, the use of meteoritic iron is known from some cultures on earth (Inuit, Malay, probably Celtic people as well). No probability of having been 'made in Space'.

Conny, hardening and work hardening are not the same as sharpness. You can bring an iron knife to very good sharpness, but it will not hold the edge. Harder metals or alloys allow for a longer lasting edge. The Egyptians had bronze razor knives, and they were work hardened just as you describe it.

Tang Yi, water quenching is done on traditionally forged blades from TAMAHAGANE. Industrially made blades from modern steel require oil quenching to prevent cracks.

Fred, please see the parallel thread: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/29558-interesting-sword-just-sold/?do=findComment&comment=300500

John, thank you for the link! I read there: "....However, in the 1980s strong doubts developed after suggestions from archaeo-metallurgists that some early examples of nickel rich iron were produced by the use of terrestrial nickel rich iron ores. To establish meteorite provenance more refined analysis was needed....." Well, I have my own strong doubts in this respect, as all early iron producing methods are very close to each other and they all lack the necessary high temperatures to produce nickel, even when present in the ore. Bloomery furnaces cannot provide alloys as a liquid (molten) state of the metals would be necessary for this task. A bloomery furnace can reach temperatures as high as 1.300°C, while iron melts at 1.538°C and nickel at 1.455°C. Therefore we can assume that the "Metal sent from the Gods" was indeed meteoritic iron and not produced by man. Iron production from iron ore started in some cultures as early as 1.500 B.C.

Chris, this dagger was forged long before the iron age, and thus the techniques of heat-treatment of steel were not known. We can assume that the meteoritic iron was heated and forged roughly into the desired shape as cold forging would have probably caused the iron to crack. The rest of the shaping was certainly a long grinding process. Meteorites can have very different composition, but they usually don't contain carbon in a form that makes a steel alloy. The high nickel content is difficult to handle and requires some homogenization. So all in all, most (if not all) meteoritc iron cannot be hardened if used in a pure form. This is of course different if you use meteoritic iron together with a high-carbon steel in a damascus billet.

A modern TSUBA with a Western approach? Interesting!

What is your name please?

Motive is certainly JURÔJIN, but JOI is questionable. He is known to work very detailed faces. But that may be the photo.

David, I am waiting also for the experts to chime in. Like Ed, I think I can read BIZEN KUNISADA MINAMOTO no KAMI.......This is probably the master who formed the new NAKAGO in MEIJI JIDAI. The blade is perhaps the front part of a broken NAGINATA or NAGAMAKI, if I consider the strong SORI, and the maker of the original blade could have been a SADAKUNI (difficult for me to read the first KANJI). The MEI had been removed from the old NAKAGO and carefully inserted into the new NAKAGO (GAKU-MEI). That is what we believe, but of course there is no guarantee of authenticity unless a SHINSA panel confirms it. The new NAKAGO looks artificially aged/patinated to me.

m41700, please sign all posts with your first name plus an initial as is requested here. Your blade could have been shortened; perhaps MACHI OKURI from a KOTO sword. Unfortunately, I cannot read the paper (YOSHIOKA attribution?) The YASURIME looks KIRI to me. Last picture is upside-down.

François, that seems correct! Start reading on the left side: BUSHU no JU MASAYOSHI. You can find most of the KANJI (no plural) for NIHONTO and TOSOGU in the 'Research' section. Compare https://collections.mfa.org/objects/10017

David, so then it might indeed have started its life as a YOROI-DOSHI, now a bit polished down. The whole appearance is more that of a thrusting weapon and not so much of a cutting one, at least in my eyes..

David, the length of your TANTO (22 cm) is quite right for a YOROI-DOSHI, but those are quite hefty and can have a thickness between 9 and 12 mm (at the MUNE). A SUNNOBI TANTO is slightly longer (about 1 SUN) than 1 SHAKU, if I am not mistaken.

David, this SUGATA is called HIRA-ZUKURI. It is a standard form for TANTO and also often seen in KO-WAKIZASHI. SADAMITSU seems to fit.

Phil, it could be a MUMEI GENDAITO, but the photos and the condition do not allow to see if there is HADA. The blade might have been water-quenched, and in this case you should show the blade to an expert near you (or on a sword show).

83,2 cm NAGASA or overall length?

Flat Highfield

http://www.jp-sword.com/files/meito/meito.html

Krystian, I was probably wrong. Please see the parallel thread in the translation section!

Thank you for the clarification, Steve!

Steve, I always thought a KAO was a general term for a seal. What is the difference between a KAO and a KIN'IN - except the material?

There were makers from the SAITO family in the EDO HAMANO school, but I don't read MASAYOSHI on your TSUBA. I think I can read ZANE- (with one horizontal stroke missing); the last KANJI before the KAO could indeed be a 'reduced' YOSHI. But that may be my lack of Japanese.

tbonesullivan, please sign all posts with your first name plus an initial so we may address you politely. The book 'The Samurai Sword': A Handbook (English) by John M. Yumoto shows a number of KANJI in their handwritten appearance. The first KANJI might be KANE.

Leon, it is a KAO. Difficult to read.