Rivkin

its hard to say much with the images but it looks like shirake utsuri. nie utsuri is generally not indicative of yamato. there is no strong nie within hamon, nioiguchi is wide and hazy. can be second generation zenjo, for example. nio, naminohira are options but certain things are a bit off. not that i know much and the images are unfortunately not truly informative, but still it appears to be enough information to make a general guess.

Late Bronze Age swords were generally forged; forged bronze with proper chemical combination outperforms iron but not steel. There is a question whether these were first cast and then forged, and many argue they were. Generally, casting of a large utilitarian object is difficult, cavities and other defects plentiful, even in bronze if its just left as is after casting, the hardness and overall practicality is quite limited. This being said, for some reason Chinese publications on bronze weapons always emphasized casting and downplayed the consequent forging. I am not at all familiar with Chinese bronze weapons to make any comment on why is it the case and whether Chinese bronze age technology was that much different from everybody else's. It is also worthy of note that European non-specialized (i.e. not archaeometallurgy or specialized metallurgy, but rather those of generic archaeologists) publications can simply say "cast sword", and in general it is not sufficiently correct. Moving to iron, for a very long time there was a popular theory of "transitional metal". The notion is that processing iron ore requires much higher temperature compared to bronze, and obtaining cast iron - exceptionally high temperatures (whether it was actually used to produce weapons is another story; for example, in tatara about 5% of output is cast iron), so it is not clear how one would transition from bronze to iron overcoming the need to invest in a high temperature (and larger in size) setup, especially as aside from steel, iron products are generally not superior to well forged bronze. The notion was that there must have been iron which did not require the ore, and/or could be melted at very low temperatures. Meteriote ore is quite pure and does not need much refinement; somebody in the 1960s looked up high Nickel alloys, guessed they have a lower melting point, and postulated that meteorites can contain those (being a Professor of history he did not check with meteorite people), and thus not only meteorite iron could be used as is, it can also be "cast" into weapons. So until very recently any pre-1000 BC iron item was automatically given a description "meteorite iron", and sometimes it was also "cast". Today both are in doubt, as you do need to actually test an item whether its meteorite, and most things tested are not, and certainly "casting" a typical meteorite iron does require very high temperatures. Moving forward to the possibility of having "regular iron" cast weapon. First it would require great sophistication to acheive the temperatures needed. High carbon content can help, and for a while high carbon steels like wootz were believed to have been "cast", which was since then generally disproven. Even with >3% carbon we are way in the upper portion of what is achievable unless there is a massive blast furnace and a significant effort expanded specifically to cast something out of iron. Second, casting would require forgetting that bronze weapons need to be forged to be of quality. If an iron sword is cast and not forged, it leaves you most likely with an object having significant defects, and certainly sub-par performance compared to any decent bronze. Third, there has not been an iron blade which was studied destructively to definitively confirm that it is indeed was cast, not forged. Everytime the use of high carbon steel was identified, somebody always said "it must have been cast", but the consequent tests always showed it was not. So if there is a definitive proof that there is a cast sword, its quite a big thing. If its another guess, then its definitely not. Chinese literature generally uses the word "cast" quite often, and by itself its a very long discussion why, what it means and how its justified.

Japanese is a hard language for me to read, but what I am seeing is that it assumes that its made from cast iron rather than cast as a blade. I might be greatly mistaken, but at least this would make sense. It has been traditional Chinese position that their early steel was produced by going all the way to pig iron(??) and then decarburizing it. It stems from one of their early publications on the subject. Thus the source of the steel would be called in their literature "cast iron", which is then decarburized. It is being questioned by modern writers: though there are some indications of ancient pig iron in China, even then it is still a big question whether it was actually (ever) decarburized to be used as steel. On the internet, there is a relevant discussion here: https://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/iss/kap_a/advanced/aa_2_2.html Yes, modern Chinese sources do often use "cast iron", "cast sword", "wrought iron" and even "cast sword from wrought iron" as synonyms. The question - how is it discerned that its sourced from a cast iron? Even to state that a particular blade is made from cast iron is intriguing and asks for a question - what is it based upon? What is the proof that something was made from decarburized "cast iron" source? If its cast from iron, its even more intriguing, and begs even more the question how its proven. Does it have very high, >4% carbon content? Admittedly the last time I've read such discussion was from 10 years ago, but there was a lot of scepticism regarding any "cast historical sword" claims, and there was nothing I ever seen characterized as definitive proof that this item was cast. Yes, in Chinese sources the definitions like "cast iron" and even at times "cast sword" were sort of common.

A Japanese national can fillout a simple form on a website of Fuji, TNM, KNM, Tokugawa and a half a dozen of other museums, registering to see in hand specific blades and study them. You have to have a Japanese passport and some minimal standing, though I assume there are exceptions. With Japanese passport and minimal connections at NBTHK you can view in hand swords at MFA Boston. Why on Earth would someone from Japan strive to inspect "Ise Sengo" behind a glass in London???

They are corrosion engineers who cite a non-peer review provincial report as their single source on everything related to sword's attribution. To understand why casting from tamahagane is a bit difficult and quite a bit unproductive, or why dating of archaeological finds is always imprecise one does need a basic knowledge of the subject. There have been long discussions regarding whether the earliest swords from meteorite iron might have been cast - a difficult subject, which might have inspired some archaeologists to rather aggressive conclusions. "Theoretically", 2000 years old attribution is possible. Its very hard to argue for or against any exact dates in Japanese archaeology specifically. Practically speaking, its an aggressive side of possible interpretations and using it for article's title makes it a clickbait. Today there are overall almost no people with semblance of broad education. Archaeologists know how to dig, but copy wikipedia about the weapons they dug out, corrosion metallurgists know how to record numbers from their measurement device, but have zero perception of traditional iron techniques, nihonto luminaries have no cognition of everything and anything besides how to distinguish Awataguchi Kunitsuna from Hisakuni.

I have a tendency to forcibly broaden the aspects of the topic, the point was - there is not much to see in western museums unless its tosogu, which is often first class, or select items from the 16th century, when Japan was more active abroad. I am not a rich man, very far from it. I am in a gutter, collection-wise: a dumpster diver who papers swords, which means I'll unlikely will have a first rate collection. I am also not as "lucky" (whatever enters this term) as some dumpster divers I know. Yet even for me neither of the names mentioned on this page is something "unknown", put it this way. These are not per se exceptionally rare items, many hundreds of examples to each attribution. "Ko Bizen" is frankly nowhere close to Awataguchi Hisakuni or signed Yasutsuna, which is the top rate collector stuff and practically impossible to "discover". You can see at any American sword show probably 1,000 blades. Does it enrich one's knowledge? Sometimes, and only because you can actually hold them in hands. Mumei attributed to Unju or Kaneuji, behind glass... Why on earth this would be seen as an attraction worthy of a special visit? Whether to own Masamune or not for the first tier Soshu collector is often a choice. Many do not believe in the name, for them its like buying Go with some traditional pedigree with a significant price multiplier.

The article's title I am afraid suggests its unprofessional in everything except the corrosion. You can't date an excavated sword with a given precision and its unlikely to be that old. Cast swords are (mostly) nonsense. There are old swords made from pure iron though. Next thing we'll see photographs comparing the sword's size to a pack of cigarettes.

Actually upon checking the tropheys from 1807 Russian raid are still identifiable, here are a few cannons:

The only first tier collection of swords in Western Museums, in my unhumble opinion, is MFA Boston. Western collectors in 1900s were fittings (soft metal especially) afficionado and were guided in this direction by Japanese dealers. There are a few good blades here and there, but overall its unimpressive and a first tier private collector (Dmitry Pechalov as an example) will have a notch better set of blades. With Boston, Ogawa Morihiro de facto handled (handles?) the access and despite it being an American museum, the collection is typically not open to non-Japanese, and even with Japanese women there are issues. Before 1900s, the presence of Japanese blades in the West (or the East) was sporadic. Chinese sources are surprisingly silent until 16th century, at which time the units armed in Japanese fashion were acknowledged and openly discussed even in military "manuals" of sorts, and overall between Amur, Kurils and Korea you find a lot of Japanese blades and imitations from 16-17th century specifically. Mostly its hirazukuri ko wakizashi, there are also a lot of tsuba. Vietnam preferred daito Japanese blades in about the same period as well, some made their way from there further to western collections. Since export of blades was prohibited during Edo, this popularity basically came to abrupt end. There were exceptions. For example, Russian trade and raids on Hokkaido from 1779 till 1807 yielded a number of low grade blades, which were sent to what today is St.Petersburg's "Kunstkamera". There are very early (before 16th century) events, but unfortunately those survived as influences rather than specific Japanese pieces. Tsuba and habaki were likely brought over from Japan, tsuba probably twice, as until 14-15th century continental tsuba can be rather rudimental in design, and then we see a sudden transition to a more round, symmetric form with decorations.

Much of pre-Muromachi history and attributions is Edo period's convention, understanding that however is one of the most complex subjects. I believe Sanjo Munechika was active 1070-1100, as per 13th century books, but then you'll see different (usually 10th century) dates in every single modern text on the subject. For the basics all of it is frankly irrelevant. Terminology, sugata, periods, that's about as much as one needs to learn first. Whichever the first book one reads is irrelevant in the long term scheme. Everything else comes after extensive practical experience with blades. Connesuers is rather dry and advanced reference text, to really use which one needs advanced knowledge. Its quite good for kantei, and is roughly at the same level as more basic kantei texts. "Facts and fundamentals...." is really a bad choice as the first book. It shifts people into conspiracy mode when they look at Juyo blade and say "oh, but it has this change of sori which "Facts and fundamentals...." warns us is ....". Its a really complex stuff which actually seldom works in practice. Trust me, even without "Facts and fundamentals...." 99% of nihonto collectors are in permanent state of hysteria - "what if something is wrong with the papers? What if something is wrong with the sword?".

This question comes up often and unfortunately the answer is, paradoxally perhaps, there are no good books for beginners. Any classic textbook will spend pages on what is Awataguchi and what is ko Ichimonji. You'll learn a lot about matters you'll never see and nothing about (crap) you'll see all the time. What's more important there is no book that teaches you how to separate crap from Awataguchi level. Such is life. I would buy any basic book like the one by Kanzan Sato and then jump immedeately to everything by Markus Sesko. Like his kantei series.

My guess would be shinto, certainly no earlier than Momoyama, but probably shinto. Not the most typical shape for the period, but you see them now and then. Very broad on the school. One can say something like "Owari" but it does not matter that much. Unfortunately with such information its all guesswork.

The market is the most depressed compared to the past 10 years.

Showa, not the highest quality, Mino style.

I think big issue with koto attributions is they deny most major smiths a "formative" period. The comparison is made to a few signed, prized blades which retained ubu form since they were collectibles from the day one, anything of lesser quality is got to be "the second generation". If we look at modern smiths... Nabuhira, the American smith, first blades (made in Japan) are above the level of early Showa's production. Latest blades are good and look nothing like the early ones. For a koto smith such story is unthinkable. Part is that all their early work was signed by the father, part is the early blades are nowhere to be used for comparison, and even if they appear, they'll be called gimei...

I think many collectors traverse the same evolutionary tree. At one time they have a blade that everyone around tells them is Ichimonji, they submit it and get "Bungo". "Aaa, this is because I am a Gaijin". Some stick to things which are 100% provable, which is not uncommon among Shinto and Bizen collectors. If one collects pretty much anything in daito form outside of these areas, one has to get used to mumei. I personally accepted uncertainty. Within my typical interests I think I have a good grasp of what these opinions are based upon... And comfortable with making my own choices and enjoying (very few) blades I really like.

I feel the field is just too complex for 100% certain single line answers. I will trump my usual trumpet that I papered a considerable number of blades (probably 200?) in a lifetime, and not a single judgement received was completely impossible... Even if later every other judge in the field gave an opposite opinion. You sort of get a feeling "oh, they must have relied on how hamon behaves here". There are some judges "married" to sugata, others to nioi-guchi, ir other features which they value extraordinary high. The big issue is that with early koto very often the categories are completely invented in a sense that there is a miniscule (if any) number of signed examples. So you have a judge A who says "I define it as Houju" and a judge B who says "No, its ko Uda", or maybe "Hokke". And a simple reality that there is no signed/dated or even just signed sword with this set of features. Interestingly enough when people who are really good at this visit someone and look at stuff, they seldom say "This is X". "A very good item, can be this or that".

Wow! Congratulations!

With Juyo the process is subjective and explaining it is difficult. The funner part is that papers don't even have to identify the smith, they just confirm the item is worthy of preservation. They don't have to identify the province (though usually do), the generation or the date. They typically do make a note of sorts, if the difference in period involves serious money, but by default they don't have to. The system helps beginner collectors who would be lost without papers and dealers who get "security" backing for their offerings. No wonder they and their agents always get hysterically violent on the forums when someone challenges the papers - "well, issue you own", etc.. Its not an educational or discourse tool per se, not intended to be one, not setup to be one. Its also a huge stream of money for a few days of work per session. I just got papered Kamakura ko dachi (NBTHK) and thought the school attribution seemed weird (atypical hamon, borderline atypical boshi). One of the alternative shinsa gave it late Muromachi Kaga. Both are understandable - suriage ko dachi with its toriizori, wide mihaba with little taper can be easily confused with late Muromachi. Nie utsuri can be at times reinterpreted as shirakke. etc.etc.etc. So both are not insane attributions, but they rely on specific interpretations. If you take a major Juyo or even TJ blade which is "weird" (suriage ko dachi are difficult, and there are plenty of others) and submit to NBTHK for Hozon... You'll often be surprised with a result. More so if its NTHK, where the standards of judgement are different to begin with. Their statistics of names issued is very much divergent from each other (NTHK NPO vs. NTHK) and from NBTHK. Its also divergent between shinsa generations. Everytime someone important departs (surprisingly there is only one way it happens) you look at the pile of judgment sheets (even NBTHK issues them, they are just small), and its a different world... And no one wants to have to explain why its different.

Makes sense if one compares Yukimitsu with Tametsugu, but if I remember correctly (oshigata included) has 1357 and 1369 signed as Etchu and 1374 as Mino. He has to be compared to contemporaries from 1360-1370. Late Sadamune, Takagi, Hasebe, Hiromitsu, Nobukuni, shodai Masahiro, Etchu school like Kaneyuki. The only way to believe they don't have masame is to employ an old trick - its nagare, kinsuji or chikei when its the first class school. If papers say Yamato we don't have to call it nagare. Shintogo has ayasugi-masame going through the entire blade, that's kinsuji. Sadamune can have similar kinsuji 50+cm long, and these blades usually do have "straight segments" in shinogi ji... One also will need to call Hasebe "Yamashiro", since masame is his kantei trait, discard in a similar way Nobukuni, forget about shodai Masahiro, believe that the entire Etchu group centered around Tametsugu is not Soshu. Quite honestly a lot of work. I much rather just call it masame if its long and straight.

I don't know where it all goes. Whether the province, artistry or the age is used for classification is always a question since no single criteria is a perfect fit. There is also no clear separation on practice of the type we read in NBTHK journal. "There were some bids on Tomogochi, but with tomogachi we expect hotsure to be more zanguri". These statements are important but they are from the world of "competitive kantei", which presumes careful selection of but a handful of singed blades which are the very definition of respective swordsmith's style. Alas, in real world such blades do not exist; an acclaimed kantei champion who drills for months the differences between Awataguchi Hisakuni and Norikuni is often lost outside of the space defined by 300 or so blades deemed proper for a "real kantei". The real life's examples are a mixture of this and that, and appraisal depends on how much value is given to specific features. There are plenty of blades migrating between Mino Kanenobu, Sue Sa and Naotsuna. If gunome in sunagashi is Mino trait, it is also typical for Kaga Fujishima and Kinju's and of many others. There is a question whether a periodic gunome evolved from Shizu's style or it actually came with Kinju and others, and it all depends on how one interprets signatures and generations. In Nambokucho the additional problem is the lack of signed examples which affects absolutely all daito schools (maybe except Bizen), Yamato included. A lot of attributions are modern agreements. There are plenty of o-kissaki (Den) Yukimitsu daito, and one is left wondering why the school was still prospering making daito in half burned Kamakura, where everyone else switched to signed ko wakizashi. Its a convention. Its a convention that Houju was made at Hiraizumi, though it peaked in production late Nambokucho to Oei, when Hiraizumi was 200 years as completely destroyed. These conventions are probably not too far off though, and the gap is closing fast in Muromachi.

Its signed Echizen Yasutsugu. I am one of the worst when it comes to reading Japanese, but the way the signature carved looks very suspicious to me - its not like a stylish signature of this group. And big enough name to be faked.

Deep, highly slanted yasurime I also think screams shinshinto, as do a few other points. Horimono is not too bad, there is a chance its ok tanto. The signature is hm... Its difficult to say. Katsushige is not a bit name, but I could not easily find a nijimei example that late. This is probably a later, unrecorded generation of Harima Katsushige or unknown signature of Owari Katsushige (early Meiji).

Kambun shinto, the work has strong Yamato flavor but I don't think its anywhere close to Shigekuni school. Owari did a lot of Yamato stuff.

I am getting this question multiple times for every blade I sell. On practice fake papers do not exist. In 25 years of collecting I've seen one fake jubi paper, two or three TH (there was a time those were circulating) and one Juyo paper. There is no point in making fake NBTHK papers. You can't produce them en masse without people quickly catching on what you do and tracing the sales back to you. There is no deniability factor. By comparison I can buy old paper, old typewriter and knowing the format of pre-torokusho police permits produce a decent fake attributing the blade to Marquies Kuroda. And nobody will ever prove with 100% certainty its a fake or that I am the one who made it.