Suriage

[Subayai Kitsune]

When a sword underwent shortening, why didn’t the swordsmith reshape the nakago jiri so it looked like an unshortened nakago? Why just snip it off at a less aesthetic right angle

[klee]

Hi @Subayai Kitsune

 

Funny you mention this bc I just came accross this on a Japanese nihonto chanel on youtube and they briefly hit this topic.

 

Based on what the translation said, suriage during the koto period was somewhat frowned upon and a lot of effort was put into shaping the nakago to as close to it s original shape when suriage was done. 

 

In shinto times however, suriage of old swords was very much the norm and the nakago was simply cut to fit whatever length. 

 

[Natichu]

Useful article here from Markus Sesko on Tensho vs Keicho suriage:

 

https://markussesko.com/2018/04/25/tensho-suriage-and-keicho-suriage/

[Subayai Kitsune]

1 hour ago, klee said:

Hi @Subayai Kitsune

 

Funny you mention this bc I just came accross this on a Japanese nihonto chanel on youtube and they briefly hit this topic.

I think we all watch too many videos about Japanese swords!

1 hour ago, klee said:

 

Based on what the translation said, suriage during the koto period was somewhat frowned upon and a lot of effort was put into shaping the nakago to as close to it s original shape when suriage was done. 

I wonder why it was frowned upon? The repurposing of blades kept them in use, but reduced new orders, I suppose…

1 hour ago, klee said:

 

In shinto times however, suriage of old swords was very much the norm and the nakago was simply cut to fit whatever length. 

 

I’d still expect the meticulous Japanese to do it ‘beautifully’.

[Subayai Kitsune]

47 minutes ago, Natichu said:

Useful article here from Markus Sesko on Tensho vs Keicho suriage:

 

https://markussesko.com/2018/04/25/tensho-suriage-and-keicho-suriage/

An interesting idea, but I’m not convinced by the thesis. After all, can you tell a blade has been shortened without removing the tsuka and inspecting the nakago? It doesn’t seem so thus who’d know other than the owner of the shortened sword and thus make a shortened sword widely ‘taboo’? It’d take very little effort to reshape the nakago jiri into an aesthetically pleasing form so it seems more likely it was a conscious choice, but why? Is a new tsuka easier to fashion with a cut-off jiri? I don’t think so. Is the balance of cut-off jiri more advantageous. I can’t see how such a tiny length difference would be perceptible in the hand. Could it just be lazy swordsmiths who simply couldn’t be bothered refiling the nakago’s shape after the careful rejigging of the ha/mune machi especially when very few would actually see the nakago? Having a bit of an understanding of human nature, I think this is a more likely, albeit disappointing, scenario!

 

[klee]

Im not exactly sure of the reason why it was frowned upon. Swords and swordsmithing have always been considered sacred so perhaps the altering of it was considered a bit tabboo.

 

I dont think shinto suriage/osuriage is unattractive most of the time but they certainly stand out and looks obviously altered. We have to also consider that a lot of koto swords were probably suriage in a very short amount of time due to the edict restricting the length of blades during the edo period.

 

Edit:

 

Great article by Mr Sessko as always and basically answers this in his own view which I always trust.

Edited Saturday at 10:18 PM by klee

[klee]

And yes when a koto blade undergoes suriage, a lot of time it is very obvious from a mile away without removing the tsuka.

 

This is my biggest problem when purchasing a late kamakura/nanbokucho blade. Their sugata is greatly altered and many of them just looks strange 

[PNSSHOGUN]

2 hours ago, Subayai Kitsune said:

An interesting idea, but I’m not convinced by the thesis. After all, can you tell a blade has been shortened without removing the tsuka and inspecting the nakago? It doesn’t seem so thus who’d know other than the owner of the shortened sword and thus make a shortened sword widely ‘taboo’? It’d take very little effort to reshape the nakago jiri into an aesthetically pleasing form so it seems more likely it was a conscious choice, but why? Is a new tsuka easier to fashion with a cut-off jiri? I don’t think so. Is the balance of cut-off jiri more advantageous. I can’t see how such a tiny length difference would be perceptible in the hand. Could it just be lazy swordsmiths who simply couldn’t be bothered refiling the nakago’s shape after the careful rejigging of the ha/mune machi especially when very few would actually see the nakago? Having a bit of an understanding of human nature, I think this is a more likely, albeit disappointing, scenario!

 

 

You're leaping to some pretty tenuous conclusions without demonstrating basic knowledge about Japanese swords.

[noneed2hate]

3 hours ago, Subayai Kitsune said:

An interesting idea, but I’m not convinced by the thesis. After all, can you tell a blade has been shortened without removing the tsuka and inspecting the nakago? It doesn’t seem so thus who’d know other than the owner of the shortened sword and thus make a shortened sword widely ‘taboo’? It’d take very little effort to reshape the nakago jiri into an aesthetically pleasing form so it seems more likely it was a conscious choice, but why? Is a new tsuka easier to fashion with a cut-off jiri? I don’t think so. Is the balance of cut-off jiri more advantageous. I can’t see how such a tiny length difference would be perceptible in the hand. Could it just be lazy swordsmiths who simply couldn’t be bothered refiling the nakago’s shape after the careful rejigging of the ha/mune machi especially when very few would actually see the nakago? Having a bit of an understanding of human nature, I think this is a more likely, albeit disappointing, scenario!

 

You can usually tell a sword has been shortened without removing the tsuka and inspecting the nakago, the geometries/measurements/overall sugata will be strange compared to what is expected for a given school or line of smiths IMO

[Subayai Kitsune]

8 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

 

You're leaping to some pretty tenuous conclusions without demonstrating basic knowledge about Japanese swords.

Would you care to elaborate?

[Subayai Kitsune]

7 hours ago, noneed2hate said:

You can usually tell a sword has been shortened without removing the tsuka and inspecting the nakago, the geometries/measurements/overall sugata will be strange compared to what is expected for a given school or line of smiths IMO

Ah OK. My assumption was that simply moving the ha/mune machi position forward by a few centimetres might produce geometry changes that might be indistinguishable from a smith’s ‘individual preferences’.

[Subayai Kitsune]

I am, indeed, a beginner which is why I’m here on this board; hoping that more experienced people will impart their knowledge to me and others like me and pretty much, most people have been very kind in sharing their knowledge rather than just unhelpfully pointing out the blatantly obvious fact, that I am a beginner.

 

Politely challenging other people’s ideas is part of the Western process of education and in the context of a forum, initiating debate. If you object to this, for whatever reasons, please block my posts or at least don’t respond to them.

[nulldevice]

6 hours ago, Subayai Kitsune said:

I am, indeed, a beginner which is why I’m here on this board; hoping that more experienced people will impart their knowledge to me and others like me and pretty much, most people have been very kind in sharing their knowledge rather than just unhelpfully pointing out the blatantly obvious fact, that I am a beginner.

 

Politely challenging other people’s ideas is part of the Western process of education and in the context of a forum, initiating debate. If you object to this, for whatever reasons, please block my posts or at least don’t respond to them.

I would recommend re-reading and studying the concepts in the Sesko article again. And I’d avoid jumping to conclusions of laziness on the part of swordsmiths without studying a lot more on the subject of suriage and anything nihonto. 

[Jacques]

The length of swords has always followed the evolution of combat techniques (tachi versus katana) and the regulations issued by the shoguns. The vast majority of tachi were suriage so that they could be used as katana. Indeed, given the price of these weapons, it was better to shorten them than to make new ones. 

[Robert S]

On 1/11/2026 at 9:14 AM, nulldevice said:

I would recommend re-reading and studying the concepts in the Sesko article again. And I’d avoid jumping to conclusions of laziness on the part of swordsmiths without studying a lot more on the subject of suriage and anything nihonto. 

While more study is always warranted, I'm not seeing a clear alternate suggestion for why suriage would have been done the way it was.  The one possibility that I can see is not that suriage was frowned upon - the tendency there would have been to hide it by imitating the original shape (although I agree that i many cases it would still have been obvious in the overall geometry).  It's rather that there was considered to be an ethical issue about trying to hide suriage - that the suriage had to be honestly displayed.  While that's an interesting theory, I'm not aware of any evidence for it... and given the prevalence of gimei, deceptive practices seem to have a substantial history.  So the way the tsuka was shaped does remain a bit of a mystery to me.  I have a suspicion that it may just have been one of those "that's the way it is done" things, where original reasons - honesty about the suriage, a swordsmith in a hurry, or ??? are long lost.