Late Kamakura Tachi (Katana) - Help for verifying descriptions and attribution

[Longbow1464]

Hello,

 

About 20 years ago, I acquired a few nihontos without shinsa certificates from Japan. For the documentation of my collection, I would like to verify the descriptions and attributions and hope to receive some assistance.

 

The first nihonto (late Kamakura ?) on which I would be interested to hear your opinion is one that I acquired to compare it’s steel structure with antique and medieval European welded steel blades. I am aware that the blade is not in good condition and has likely lost a significant amount of its original substance. I am still fascinated by its clearly visible welding structure, which reminded me of the refined bloomery iron/steel blades found in early Europe blades. The steel appears darkish and the blade “feels” very old.

 

In order not to influence your thoughts about this blade, I would prefer not to anticipate the original description of this blade in the first instance.

I would be very grateful if you could help me.

 

Below are a few measurements of the blade and accompanying photos of the blade.

 

Blade length (Cutting edge): 69.2cm, Sori : 0.8cm, Motohaba: 29 mm, Motokasane : 6.4 mm

 

Richard R.

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Welcome to the forum Richard. I think your photography looks very good, however I think for identification purposes I think you would need to post several of your pictures in higher resolution pictures so details can be seen.

 

Many members of forum are very good at identifying fine details in blades and can offer assistance on that. I am not that good at that but my focus is on blade size and shape. Your sword is extremely shallow in curvature, it being 0,8 cm. To me in overall I might go more towards possibly Muromachi period just looking at the shape of the sword. There are few late Kamakura shortened blades that have under 1 cm of curvature remaining but they are very few in number.

 

Posting lot more pictures would be very important for identification and guess the possible origin. There seems to be good looking hada on the middle blade picture for example, and seeing better pictures like that would be great.

[Rivkin]

The magnification/resolution is unfortunately not there. What is seen is that hada is masame dominated, hamon is ko nie to nie deki, suguha with a bit of gunome, midare. Definitely koto, but without high res pictures its hard to say something more specific. Nakago sustained significant damage which will scare a lot of people to think its saiha, but the work does not lean this way.

It can be Naminohira. Or Yamato shikkake. Finally, Uda is definitely worth consideration. The most optimistic outcome is Yamato Shizu.

Period can be later...

High resolution would be nice, also boshi [!]. If hamon widens towards yokote its a common Muromachi trait.

In general it feels like the photos are good enough to identify, they've just been downsized until not much is seen...

Edited December 23, 2025 by Rivkin

[Longbow1464]

Thanks for the feedback.

 

I will take additional detailed photos with higher resolution as soon as possible and then post them.

 

Richard R.

[klee]

Nice photos !

 

hard to tell but personally I would be concerned about the kissaki/Boshi more than the nakago. Looks like It s been tampered by someone unqualified. The mitzukado and yokote looks way off

[Longbow1464]

Until I can take more detailed photos, here to details of the blade.

 

 

 

[Rivkin]

With such strong nie Naminohira excluded. This is most likely Uda. I would say Yamato Shizu or Shikkake are distant, but possible. Timewise I would lean towards early Muromachi. There is also possibility its early Kaga Fujishima, which is basically other way to interpret Uda features.

Edited December 23, 2025 by Rivkin

[Longbow1464]

Tanto, supposedly late Kamakura period

 

Another blade, dated to the late Kamakura period, is mounted with a 18th-century koshirae. I acquired this tanto around 20 years ago and it is pictured below. The dimensions are:

 

 

Blade length (Cutting edge): 26.4cm, Sori: 0.0cm (Uchizori), Motohaba: 24.3mm, Motokasane: 6.2mm

 

I would also be interested to hear your opinion on the dating and classification of the Swordsmith School for this tanto. This would help me to verify the accuracy of the descriptions I received years ago, before including them in the collection catalogue.

 

Richard R.

 

[Rivkin]

Yamato Hosho, tegai (most likely) or naminohira. Not sure about kamakura. Could be Muromachi.

Edited December 30, 2025 by Rivkin

[Longbow1464]

Hello Jussi, Rivikin and Klee

 

Thank you very much for your comments and appraisal. Below are some more photos of the Tanto, been described as follows a good 20 years ago:

 

School (Den)

Yamato School, maybe Shikkake or Taima.

Production period	Late Kamakura period, 13th Century.
Jitetsu (Jigane)	Masame Hada, Chikei in jitetsu
Hamon (Temper line)	Suguha, Ko-Nie-deki. Kinsuji Sunagashi.

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Richard,

no SORI is MU ZORI, not UCHI ZORI. Otherwise a nice and elegant blade.

[Rivkin]

Taima would tend to have fine itame, here jigane is coarse masame and o itame. Shikkake would have periodic gunome, this one has none.

Nie activity in hamon is strong, which typically argues against Mihara, Hokke and other Yamato-derived schools.

Kaeri is quite short, which would argue against Muromachi period, sue-Tegai tends to have long kaeri. On the other hand if kasane is thick this could be Tosa Yoshimitsu, whose Muromachi generations can have shorter kaeri.

 

Maybe Yamato Tegai, earlier, or Tosa Yoshimitsu, later...

[O koumori]

Back to the katana...

The nakago looks dry and flakey to me - could it have been in a fire?

[ROKUJURO]

Unlikely as the HAMON is still perfectly intact. But you are correct, the NAKAGO surface is deeply pitted from corrosion.

[reinhard]

Hello Richard,

 

As far as the tanto is concerned:

The jihada makes a rough and rustic appearance in hadadachi-style.

With this lack of elegance I would not consider it an old Yamato-work.

The jigane is open and flowing itame with some mokume interspersed.

Masame is basically visible in the point-area.

 

Without seeing the blade in hand and shooting from the hip I recommend to search further in the area of Etchu Uda.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

Edited January 2 by reinhard

[Longbow1464]

Wakizashi - supposedly late Kamakura period to Nanbokucho period

 

All your input and expertise show me that it is justified to review the original descriptions before questionable descriptions are entered into the collection catalogue. I am truly grateful for your comments.

 

The next nihonto in question is a wakizashi, which was also dated to the late Kamakura or Nanbokucho period at the time. Below are the corresponding dimensions and photos. Blade probably shortend in a old polsh.

 

Jitetsu (Jigane)	Mokume and utsuri and chikei in jitetsu.
Hamon (Temper line)	Choji midare, Ko-Nie-deki, Kinsuji Sunagashi.

Boshi

Midarekomi Komaru

Blade length (Cutting edge)	47.4 cm
Sori	1.7 cm
Motohaba	28.0 mm
Motokasane	6.7 mm

 

Thank you !

Edited January 2 by Longbow1464

[Longbow1464]

Here are two additional photos of the wakizashi (Nihonto Nr. 3).

[Rivkin]

For the tanto I agree with Reinhard that jigane has more rough Muromachi appearance and Uda is worth considering, even though I would prefer long to see long kaeri on Uda. Still think Tosa Yoshimitsu is a good option, and it might be that in hands the blade looks better which would open more appreciate possibilities.

On the last blade the main problem it has a lot of sori, so it can't be daito Kamakura blade cut down to waki. It can theoretically be slightly shortened kodachi, but those usually retain sori in nakago, this one does not. It has some interesting utsuri, well formed nioi-guchi... It might be early Bizen, but I am much more comfortable with very end of Kozori, early Muromachi, or frankly - Kaga, Muromachi.

Edited January 2 by Rivkin

[Jacques]

Because of the bohi, which shows that this sword is ubu, I think the wakizashi is Muromachi, as there were no shinogi zukuri wakizashi before this period.

 

ps take what Rivkin says with two grains of salt.

[Longbow1464]

Hello,

Below is the original description and attribution of the presented Nihonto No. 1 (Katana, late Kamakura) for discussion.

 

School, Era	Yamato Senjuin School Late Kamakura era.
Era	Late Kamakura era.
Jitetsu (Jigane)	Itame and Masame Hada.
Hamon (Temper line)	Ko-midare, Nie-deki. Sunagashi.

 

Richard R.

[klee]

Im not good at analyzing small details but that hamon definitely doesnt seem kamakura Senjuin at all

[CSM101]

THIS is Kamakura Senjuin. Masame hada mixed in and a suguha hamon. Two things I really find suspicious: the condition of the tang and the two holes at the bottom seems to be drilled.   

[Rawa]

51 minutes ago, CSM101 said:

THIS is Kamakura Senjuin. Masame hada mixed in and a suguha hamon. Two things I really find suspicious: the condition of the tang and the two holes at the bottom seems to be drilled.   

Juyo token from 1983

[Longbow1464]

Wakizashi - supposedly late Muromachi period - Bizen Kozori School (Nihonto Nr. 4)

 

The next nihonto is a wakizashi, which has been dated to the late Muromachi period. Here, too, I would be grateful if you could review the following former description and attribution.

 

School : Bizen Kozori

Jitetsu (Jigane) : Itame Hada and utsuri and chikei in jitetsu. 
Hamon (Temper line) : Gunome midare, Nie-deki. Kinsuji, Sunagashi.
Boshi : Komaru
Polish : The blade is old polished.
 

Blade length (Cutting edge) : 52,8 cm
Sori : 1,8 cm
Motohaba : 27,3 mm
Motokasane : 6,7 mm

 

[CSM101]

Just some very few  infos  about Kozori:

 

1

[CSM101]

3

[CSM101]

[CSM101]

Dear Richard,

 

I find the limitations for photos here annoying, but your photos are confusing.

 

Okay, you use Photoshop with layers, masks, cutout and other stuff.  But because of the cutout you got two different boshi. The length doesn't match. Very confusing.

 

Best

 

Uwe

[Longbow1464]

Hello Uwe,

 

Thank you for your remark, I understand your point. I have reproduced the photos as they appear in the catalogue for the collection, which is currently in progress. Due to the difficulty of obtaining images with minimal reflection, I took pictures from different angles, resulting in some optical distortion.

 

Below are undistorted views of the boshi and the overall view of the blade. The overall view images on the left was photographed, while the two on the right were scanned. However, a certain distortion is evident here too. The white mark on the Boshi (left image) is a loose thread that was overlooked before the photograph.

 

The Boshi photo at the bottom right is again taken from a side angle, distorted, but showing more details.