Jump to content

Are Nihonto always Nihonto?


seattle1

Recommended Posts

The historical development of the Japanese sword led to a product optimized to cut, and thus disable or kill a human opponent. They can and have cut many other things, from dead bodies for tameshigiri, to water soaked bundles of straw, to plates of iron, even to well placed kabuto, but the ultimate "test" was use in battle. We consider a Nihonto to have been made of tamahagane, laminated in construction, differentially hardened and usually, but not always, to be of an equi-angular functional form (see, Saunders, Sam C., "Shape and Cutting Efficiency...", Newsletter, JSS/US, Vol. 33, No. 7 (Dec., 2001), pp.20-30).

Contemporary Nihonto made by licensed smiths in Japan, and usually referred to as shinsakuto, are constructed exactly like the older swords made at a time when battle use was the main criterion. However they are spoken of and considered only as "art swords" and not as weapons.

The question is, are they, like their Nihonto ancestors of the years prior to the end of WWII, true Nihonto? If the answer is yes, will, at sometime in the future, a maker of one of today's shinsakuto, have a sword designated a Juyo Token or will the highest accolade always be that the maker is designated, during his lifetime, a Living National Treasure?

Just curious.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This goes hand in hand with the previous topic about gendaito going juyo. As for a smith's blade going juyo during his lifetime- it won't happen. You need to be dead to have one of your blades papered. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

The question is not, as Josh replied to it, will a living smith get a Juyo Token designation for any of his output. The posed issue was the following (to paraphrase it): are currently made swords, which are by construction as much Nihonto as their earlier ancestors, given that they are not made for the primary purpose that Japanese swords were made for in the past, candidates for Juyo status sometime in the (distant?) future? If "yes", why; if "no", why not?

Still curious.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many wakizashi were made for merchants who never used them as swords. They are still considered to be nihonto in fact many are excellent nihonto. The potential to be used is all that is necessary - assuming all your other criteria are met. Would the same question been asked during the "quiet" times in Japanese history when swords were rarely used? So my answer is yes they are nihionto. To Josh yes someday some will get juyo papers or the equivalent of the day.

 

edited for spelling error

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes any sword made by traditional methods by a smith that is no longer living has the opportunity to go juyo etc. Seems that the nbthk is not quick to offer that status to young blades though. Might still need to let the clock run before we start seeing gendaito and shinsakuto go juyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We often discuss and claim that swords have to be functional above artistic merits to be called Nihonto. However when evaluating a sword, artistic aspects take higher preference over how it would cut, and the fact that tameshigiri is seldom done on shinsakuto made for collecting (as opposed to iai) means that the art aspect is surely valued higher nowdays than the function.

We can debate as much as we like, but a wonderful jigane, hamon and hatari is far more important than whether it will cut well.

Therefore I think the study of Nihonto has changed. The art aspect overrules the function aspect (which is not totally lost, just not as significant) and therefore any skilled smiths nowdays must surely be considering if their swords will oneday attain Juyo status.

I believe they will. In 100 years, when these are antiques, they will be highly prized, as will the top Gendaito. We are assured that there are fewer and fewer smiths, so it is not inconceivable that modern smithing will greatly diminish in the future, making these swords even more prized.

It's logical that it will take a long time, but a good sword remains a good sword, and will have to be recognized as such.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can debate as much as we like, but a wonderful jigane, hamon and hatari is far more important than whether it will cut well.

 

 

Brian

 

I think it bears keeping in mind that many of the criteria used to judge the quality of a sword (even, well forged jigane, bright hamon, active nie/hataraki) are based in functional performance. That is to say, what makes a sword "attractive" are many of the same things that make it a good sword from a practical standpoint. Being functionally excellent as well as artistically valuable are not necessarily mutually exclusive traits.

 

If you asked nearly any smith what their goal is in making a sword, none will tell you they want to make something beautiful, artistic or attractive. They will tell you they want to make something that cuts well and flexes without breaking. Most will tell you that no matter how physically attractive a sword may be, if it doesn't cut well, it isn't a good sword.

 

Clearly, collectors do not care how well a sword cuts, by and large- they care how it looks. It might be comforting to many to know that fortunately, what looks nice is also what makes them cut well, for the most part. While a generalization, I think that for the most part there is a great deal of truth to this long held belief. Of course, testing done in shinshinto era and wwii era has shown that certain construction methods can be less than ideal (large pattern hamon such as Sukehiro's odoranba said to make blades prone to breaking and thus the koto revival) but if one peruses the records of the Yamano family you will find many such blades performed well in their testing....one needs to factor in operator skill as well as target.

 

Of course none of this directly addresses Arnold's original inquiry....I firmly believe that the NBTHK will issue Juyo kantei-sho to blades made subsequent to the Haito-Rei, including those made today, at some future point (say 50-100 years hence). assuming there still is such a thing. I think there are several reasons for this:

 

-The NBTHK has long supported the craft and to not recognize these smiths at the higher levels would be a bit of a slap in the face.

 

-It will be financially advantageous.

 

-There are smiths simply making blades today that are of extremely high quality, regardless of period and they deserve to be recognized.

 

-they have already issued TH to modern (Showa) era blades. I see nothing in their present criteria that preclude awarding juto to modern blades.

 

I don't believe that a modern made blade is not nihon-to. It isn't whether or not a blade has been used, it is whether or not a blade can be used. Besides, as far fetched and unimaginable as it may be today, who knows if at some point in the future Japan will have men at arms and again they will carry their family blades...Stranger things have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All:

I thought Chris Bowen's remarks were right on the money. I have no really firm personal views on the questions posed as only time will tell. Its just fun to kick around ideas. Perhaps someone more familiar with parallel treatment of the works of modern tsuba makers, for example, who make tsuba with no intent of them protecting a hand, or modern armor craftsmen who never expect their works to have to withstand a sword, could tell us: are they papered by supporting organizations?

Finally, Chris could not be more right on the relation between what we see as beauty and the blended functional characteristics of the sword. It reminds me of a statement the late Albert Yamanaka made in his Nihonto News-Letter, when he said no smith ever intended to make a beautiful blade (or words to that effect). He of course was talking about swords made for use as swords. I can dig up the exact quotation if anyone is interested.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally, Chris could not be more right on the relation between what we see as beauty and the blended functional characteristics of the sword.

 

And there will be the dilemma facing future collection of modern Juyo, "is it live, or is it memorex?"

Of course swordsmiths make their swords to cut, otherwise what do they make!

But, untested, as swords of the past, the collector will be faced with the possiblitlity of only having collected art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many modern smiths who test their blades from time to time. Of course, not all of them are tested, but then, neither were swords made in the past...Actually, on a percentage basis, relatively few swords made after Sekigahara were ever tested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many modern smiths who test their blades from time to time. Of course, not all of them are tested, but then, neither were swords made in the past...Actually, on a percentage basis, relatively few swords made after Sekigahara were ever tested.

 

You mean battle tested??? I recently had a 400 year old sword in my hands, where the shop owner was telling me that it was certified to have cut through four bodies clean. He seemed kind of shocked at my remark, that they were most likely prisoners and not volunteers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle or otherwise. I am speaking on a percentage basis. After Sekigahara, there were relatively few opportunities for battle testing. Cutting tests were usually done only for upper level samurai (expensive) on better quality blades, and the rarity of surviving examples likely indicates that it was not done to a large percentage of swords.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battle or otherwise. I am speaking on a percentage basis. After Sekigahara, there were relatively few opportunities for battle testing. Cutting tests were usually done only for upper level samurai (expensive) on better quality blades, and the rarity of surviving examples likely indicates that it was not done to a large percentage of swords.

I have to agree with Chris.

reading Ohmura's site (and elsewhere) where he quotes the test results of Edo period blades during the war years, the number of failures is interesting. It must bear some relationship to the lack (expense?) of testing by a smith in Edo times - failing to ensure a regular testing regime means that quality attainment would be "unknown" due to a lack of ongoing practical testing data at the time? (how can you improve your product if you don't already know its quality?). In fact, if I remember correctly it was stated that shinto blades were a poor choice for the battlefield as their sugata, especially "thinness" went against them, to the extent that they were avoided by soldiers.

Dare I say it...shinto blades, like shinsakuto are from eras of peace and artistry...maybe if someone was willing to test shinsakuto we could know more about their quality...it would be interesting to know how they rate against shinto blades.

 

Again, dare I say it ...since Sekigahara, only RJT and Yasukuni blades of 1933-1945 are the product of battlefield feedback and were regularly quality controlled and tested to ensure performance.

I know I am being cheeky, but this points to the OP question...in terms of the reason a sword is made - to cut well...then no, nihonto aren't always (good) nihonto.

Hope this helps,

 

PS edit to add: I just thought...one way of knowing whether a shinto blade is "tested" is to note the koshirae...in logic, if it is mounted in gunto mounts of Meiji-Taisho-Showa, then it has more "actual use" credibility than a nice Edo buke zukuri mounted example. Indeed, one could say, in logic, that it should ALWAYS be kept together with its gunto mounts as these are a sign of real field use credibility (rather than just poncing up and down the Ginza in Edo drag haha) :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

Further to Mr. Trotter's comment about post-koto blades, I think it is not just the almost complete lack of battle during those times but also the typical Shinto model, admired so much for its newness and looks, namely a construction of a tight jihada combined with a yakiba that is nie dominated, is a recipe for a blade more prone to breakage in use. Testing was a smart device to assure reliability.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue with breakage of shinto blades served as the primary impetus for the research and resurrection of koto blade making seen in shinshinto, initiated by Suishinshi Masahide (fukkoto). He did extensive research and concluded that the wide hamon popular in many shinto led to breakage and quit making this type of blade himself thereafter.

 

Undoubtedly, as mentioned, there were small skirmished, insurrections, minor battles, etc., throughout the Edo era. However, as I mentioned above, the number of swords actually tested in this battles, in comparison to all the swords made, was small.

 

George raises a very good point: the last swords made that were subjected to a comprehensive and severe testing regimen were undeniably those made by RJT and the Yasukuni Tenrankai. Thus, in addition to their use of traditional materials and manufacturing techniques, we know they passed the first and most critical requirement for what makes a good sword: they performed their intended function well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the living smiths can try to obtain the "Ningen Kokuho" level which is a super high honor - perhaps such makers swords in the future may achieve Juyo status. Also interestingly enough some smiths like Matsuba Kunimasa test thier blades on Bamboo - he just won a major award for his sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

Well, as pondered earlier, I wonder if there is any parallel evidence of craftsmen who work in other areas than swords, for example tosogu, katchu, weaving, pottery, maki-e, yuzen, bamboo weaving, woodworking, etc. and who have received Ningen Kokuho status, as Mike says, a very great honor indeed, also being awarded something by their special admiring organizations, similar to Juyo designations for their great skill and aesthetic taste? Modern tosogu such as tsuba are not intended to be used, ever, other than part of a koshirae, and I suppose the same is true for armor makers, however the products of the others have the same uses today that they had in antiquity. When the "use" connection is broken, does something qualitative happen?

The social purpose of all the Ningen Kokuho designations is to encourage and perpetuate skills that might be "forgotten" or at least not practiced, and we all value that. The Ningen Kokuho status and the appreciation of swords as art objects alone, is sufficient to assure the craft of the swordsmith. What would Juyo status mean? Just curious.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as great swords with great age and history are fairly prevalent, newer swords of the highest quality will obviously be at a huge disadvantage (as far as importance of preservation and status within society is concerned)... but as time passes, modern swordsmiths of the highest caliber will have their names and stories 'added to the history books', and eventually they will be recognized for their greatness. You can see certain 'modern' smiths who's names are growing in importance as we speak. Eventually, they will be the Minamoto Kiyomaro's and Suishinshi Masahide's of tomorrow, I'm sure...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the "use" connection is broken, does something qualitative happen?

 

Hi Arnold, it could be said that it does.

In the time of peace 1600 - 1868 the quality of swords appears to have declined as their "use" waned and "show" became more important. This was mentioned as a practical outcome of the WWII testing. As a significant number failed, it must have indicated a qualiatative decline in "artistic" swords. It may also indicate that unless a sword was essentially of uchigatana dimensions (about 62cm, thick kasane, mediom hamon), it would be more likely to fail in ground combat conditions.

 

Now that we are in the second time of peace and swords are officially "art", we can expect them to emphasise art and this "ideal" often reverts to the golden age of koto tachi used from horseback (74-78cm, thin kasane, flamboyant hamon). Personally, I don't know if each sword, or occasional swords are tested, so while we can't say the quality has declined (unless we test a good sample of them), we can say that prior evidence will continue to assert that the extreme length seen now and the amazingly artistic hamon now applied will result in the same outcome under "use" conditions.

 

As for the other part of your comment, I have no doubt that there are now, as there were in shinto times, very excellent swordmakers. These need to be rocognised and others encouraged to become so. There is one danger here of course and the same exists in the West...some famous artists/artisans are made so by politics/connections/wealth etc and "interested parties" who stand to make money from it. Just look at the junk the chattering classes all proclaim as great art....while art (pictures, sculptures) etc are subjective in assessment, swords should not be...a tosho should not be great because of a popularity competition. Really, for swords, it is my opinion that a sword should pass a utilitarian test before it is signed and sold...or awarded a prize. "How well does his work cut" should be the criterion, not "how nice does it look?".

Just thinkin' out loud (no offence meant to anyone).

regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If I am not mistaken, many modern swordsmiths (if not all) make shinsakuto for use in martial arts, correct? From what I understand the only difference between an "art sword" and one made for martial arts is the polish. They're both perfectly capable of the task but only the one without the full fancy-pants polish is used for tameshigiri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, there is quite a bit of difference between blades made for iai/tameshigiri and those made primarily for appreciation. Different materials, different construction methods, etc. There is a marked difference in price between the two, before the polish....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After hunting around for a bit I found a thread where it was discussed. Looks like in addition to differing levels of polish swords made for martial arts are made with lesser quality materials, and the smiths take shortcuts to speed up the process presumably to make the sword more affordable. The art swords on the other hand are made with high quality materials and the smith avoids shortcuts (I wonder if that includes not using power tools of any kind?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...