Judging the hamon and the bôshi are the third step in kantei, the final step which allows one – in the ideal case – to identify the smith or at least the school. The hamon and bôshi are quite individual factors. Of course, this result of the Japanese approach in making blades that leaves a visible hardening pattern was initially purely functional but soon, the variations and activities that occur along this hardening pattern and which developed from technical improvements left scope for individuality. Again, as this series is on kantei, I want to leave out the metallurgical and technical aspect of the hamon and want to focus on what is visible. First of all, we distinguish between if the hardening is straight or undulating and refer thus to the two main types of a suguha (直刃) and a midareba (乱刃) respectively. According to the actual outline of the hamon, the latter type, i.e. the midareba, is further subdivided into a notareba (湾れ刃・のたれ刃, large waves), gunomeba (互の目刃, larger roundish elements), chôjiba (丁子刃, smaller clove/tassel-shaped elements), or tôranba (濤瀾刃, surging waves). Apart from that, there is the so-called hitatsura (皆焼) where large areas of the blade are hardened. A hitatsura can be based on a notareba, gunomeba, or even a chôjiba, so this term does not refer to a specific hamon outline. All these main and sub types are further differentiated and named according to their interpretation and these differentiations/names will be described later.

 *

3.1 Nie and nioi

I would like to start with another, quite important factor that must be taken into account, and that is the question of hardening, or to be precise, the question of what crystalline effect is left visible due to the hardening. Here too, we distinguish between two main types, nie (沸) and nioi (匂), which are identical from a metallurgical point of view (both being of martensite) but differ in terms of visible effect. In other words, a swordsmith can harden a blade in a way that leaves larger, i.e. visible martensite crystals, nie, or in a way where the martensite crystals are so fine that no individual particles can be made out, nioi. Of course, there is also an intermediate condition which is referred to as ko-nie (小沸). And if the visible, that means the nie crystals are large and rough, we speak of ara-nie (荒沸) (see picture below), or if there are really obvious patches of large nie also the term kazunoko-nie (鯑沸・数の子沸, lit “herring roe nie”) exists but which is mostly reserved to describe the visible nie activities of Satsuma-shintô smiths. And irregular accumulations of nie are called mura-nie (叢沸) whereas ara-nie and mura-nie as well as in some cases also kazunoko-nie might not be intended by the smith and testify to poor craftsmanship. Incidentally, there is also the term hadaka-nie (裸沸, lit. “naked nie”) which describes single, isolated and mostly dark and somewhat larger nie, a feature that is usually associated with Suishinshi Masahide (水心子正秀). Back to nie and nioi in general. To distinguish between these two basic kinds of hardening, the terms nie-deki (沸出来) and nioi-deki (匂出来), or nie-hon-i (沸本位) and nioi-hon-i (匂本位), respectively have become standardized vocabulary. Please note that the term “ko-nie-deki” is not much in use at all.

ara-nie

Next I want to focus on the border of the hamon, i.e. the area where the hardened edge (yakiba, 焼刃) ends and the unhardened ji (地) begins. This border is called habuchi (刃縁) or nioiguchi (匂口) regardless of if the hardening is in nioi or in nie-deki. Well, to be precise, habuchi is the more neutral term for the border of the hardened edge whereas the term nioiguchi was born from the fact that there are always nioi at the border of a hamon, i.e. there is no such thing that the hamon goes over to the ji with nie only. Or in other words, there might be plenty of nie but they are always embedded into nioi along the habuchi, thus the term nioiguchi. With this we arrive at how to address the amount of nie/nioi and the condition of the nioiguchi. Plenty of nie are usually described as nie-atsushi (沸厚し) or nie-fukai/fukashi (沸深い・沸深し), although the former is more used to refer to the presence of ji-nie. Please note that the term nie-atsushi means literally “thick nie” but it refers just to the amount and not to the size of the nie crystals. And thick nioi, what automatically means a wide or deep nioiguchi, are referred to as nioi-fukai/nioi-fukashi (匂深い・匂深し). The opposite of a wide nioiguchi is a tight nioiguchi for which the term nioi-shimaru (匂い締まる) is used. Apart from that, the nioiguchi can be bright (akarui, 明るい) and clear (saeru, 冴える) or be dull/hazy or subdued (shizumu, 沈む) or look soft (yawarakai, 柔らかい) or weak (yowai, 弱い) respectively. The brightness of the habuchi or nioiguchi alone can be a good indicator for the school or smith, for example the early Osafune mainline smiths like Nagamitsu (長光) and Kagemitsu (景光) or the Kanbun-shintô smith Kotetsu (虎徹) are known for hardening a very bright nioiguchi. And the other way round, a subdued nioiguchi might either point towards a rural school or smiths who stuck to an early, classical workmanship, e.g. earlier Kyûshû and Hokkoku smiths. A noticeably wide nioiguchi speaks for shintô in general, or for Ôsaka-shintô and Hizen in particular. But again, characteristic approaches in how the nioiguchi is interpreted will be pointed out in the later chapters. Not to forget, don’t mix up the nioiguchi with the hadori polish! That means you have to look at the blade under a proper light condition so that the actual border of the yakiba shows itself and you not only look at the (cosmetic) course of where the hadori was applied.

In conclusion it must be said that apart from merely recognizing the nioiguchi to draw conclusions on a possible school or smith, there is also the point of view of technical and artistical skill and quality. That means, a bright and clear and first of all consistent nioiguchi is desirable and shows that the smith was adequately skilled. So if the nioiguchi varies considerably and “unnaturally” in width and/or brightness, it is a sign that the smith lacked skill and that you are not facing a work of one of the top masters. The same applies as indicated above to an irregular, unnatural presence of nie. In the following, I want to do it the same way as with the jigane/jihada, that means as we are on the topic of nioiguchi, I first introduce in alphabetical order all major hamon hataraki and conditions as most of them anyway focus along the habuchi, before going over to the different outlines/interpretations of the hamon.

 *

3.2 Hataraki and conditions of the hamon

abu no me (虻の目) – Lit. “horsefly eyes.” Closely arranged, roundish yakigashira seen along certain gunome-midare interpretations of the 2^nd generation Hizen Tadahiro (忠広). The area resembles a pair of compound eyes, thus the name.

ashi (足) – A thin line of nioi that runs across the hamon towards the cutting edge. Ashi were first introduced to straight hamon patterns to limit the maximum size of a lateral crack of the yakiba to the distance between two ashi. In other words, a crack usually does not exceed an ashi because it is of a somewhat softer steel structure than the yakiba. According to the interpretation of ashi, a distinction is made between: nezumi-ashi (鼠足, lit. “rat’s legs”), very small ashi; ko-ashi (小足), small ashi; naga-ashi (長足), long ashi; chôji-ashi (丁子足), chōji-shaped ashi; gunome-ashi (互の目足), gunome or zigzag-shaped ashi; nie-ashi (沸足), ashi composed of nie; saka-ashi (逆足), ashi slanting upwards (i.e. towards the kissaki); and Kyô-saka-ashi (京逆足), ashi slanting downwards (i.e. towards the nakago).

fushi (節) – Lit. “bamboo node(s).” Pointed knot-like breaks in a straight hamon. Often seen on blades by Mino smiths.

ginsuji (銀筋) – Basicaly the same as kinsuji but slightly duller in color, thus the name ginsuji (silver line/string). However, the differentation of kinsuji and ginsuji is not clear but in old sword publications, ginsuji are often associated with Kagemitsu (景光).

hakikake (掃掛け) – Lit. “sweeping.” Similar to sunagashi, but much shorter and thinner and spilling into the ji. Can appear along the habuchi of a hamon and/or in a bōshi.

hotsure (ほつれ・解れ) – Arrangement of nie which make the habuchi look like a frayed piece of cloth. Also called nie-hotsure (沸ほつれ・沸解れ).

ika no atama (烏賊の頭) – Lit. “squid heads.” Wide and noticeably protruding elements, sometimes even up to the shinogi, along flamboyant and slanting hamon interpretations of the Fukuoka-Ishidō smiths Koretsugu (是次) and Moritsugu (定次) that remind of the head of a squid, thus the name.

imozuru (芋蔓) – Lit. “potato vines.” Thick and conspicious inzuma appearing in the habuchi and hamon which are a very typical feature of Satsuma-shintō and Satsuma-shinshintō blades.

inazuma (稲妻) – Lit. “lightning.” Crooked kinsuji which resembles a bolt of lightning.

kani no te (蟹の手) – Lit. “crab hands.” Special gunome-midare inter-pretation with split yakigashira that protrude alternatingly to the left and right and which remind thus of crab claws. Please note that the term kani no te is used to refer to this feature when seen on Sue-Seki blades. In the case of Sue-Bizen works, the term kani no tsume (蟹の爪, lit. “crab claws”) has become established even if the same feature is described.

kinsuji (金筋) – Lit. “gold line.” A short, straight, brilliant black line of nie that appears inside the hamon, usually near the habuchi. If crooked, the term nazuma (稲妻) is applied.

koshi (腰) – The “hip” (koshi) of a hamon element. Raising part that follows the tani (谷), the “valley” of a hamon element, ending in the “head,” the yakigashira (焼頭).

koshiba (腰刃) – A singular or a few high rising temper element(s) in the habaki area. A koshiba is sometimes also referred to as Mino-yakidashi (美濃焼出し).

kuichigai-ba (喰違い刃) – Area of a hamon where the habuchi splits with the upper habuchi running over a noticeable distance more or less parallel and with a gap to the lower habuchi.

kuwagata-ba (鍬形刃) – Hamon interpretation of for example the Yamashiro smith Nobukuni (信国) where two yakigashira protrude in a long manner to the left and to the right into the ji, remotely resembling the kuwagata crest on a samurai helmet.

kuzure (崩れ) – Crumbling, deformed part of a nie-based hamon, usually seen at a midareba. Also referred to as nie-kuzure (沸崩れ) or yaki-kuzure (焼き崩れ).

muneyaki (棟焼き) – Hardened areas along the back of a blade.

nie-sake (沸裂け) – Lit. “torn nie. ” Bright, black nie along a hamon which make the habuchi look like as if has been torn apart. This feature is similar to kuichigai-ba but shorter and more frayed.

nie-suji (沸筋) – Lines of nie running parallel to the hamon.

nijūba (二重刃) – Lit. “double ha.” A second habuchi line, consisting of nie or nioi, drawn parallel to the main habuchi.

sanjūba (三重刃) – Lit. “triple ha.” A habuchi with two additional habuchi lines, consisting of nie or nioi, drawn parallel to the main habuchi.

sunagashi (砂流し) – Lit. “stream of sand” or “flowing sand.” Accumulation of nie that resembles the marks left behind by a broom speeping over sand. Sunagashi usually appear inside the hamon and near and parallel to the habuchi.

tobiyaki (飛焼き) – Lit. “flying hardening (elements).” Hardened spots in the ji which are not connected to the hamon.

uchinoke (打除け) – A short nijūba directly over the habuchi that resembles a crescent moon. Usually seen on suguha-based hamon and/or blades forged in masame, e.g. on works of the Yamato Tegai school (手掻).

yakidashi (焼出し) – The beginning of a hamon around the ha-machi. At unshortened blades, the hamon usually runs a little bit into the tang. There are different interpretations of this starting of the hamon and we basically distinguish between the following forms: sugu-yakidashi (直刃焼出し), straight start which turns after a more or less short distance into the “actual” hamon; Ōsaka-yakidashi (大坂焼出し) (see picture below top), also starts straight or as gentle notare but the yakiba widens smoothly to turn into the “actual” hamon; Kyō-yakidashi (京焼出し) (see picture below bottom), the yakiba starts in suguha but turns then rather abruptly into the “actual” hamon; Mino-yakidashi (美濃焼出し), the yakiba starts with a koshi-ba (see koshi-ba); Satsuma-yakidashi (薩摩焼出し), term to refers to Satsuma-shintō blades where the hamon starts like at most kotō blades right away as midareba.

yakikomi (焼込み) – Prominent single hamon element right over the ha-machi or yokote.

yaki-otoshi (焼落し) – Lit. “fallen/dropped hardening.” Term to describe when a hamon does not start around the ha-machi but more or less noticeably later on the blade. It is often seen on very early blades and on blades that have been retempered.

yō (葉) – Lit. “leaf.” Ashi that is separate from the habuchi and that appears scattered inside the hamon. In past-Muromachi times, also the term nioi-kuzure (匂い崩れ) was used to describe this effect.

2.2 Jihada

After introducing the major points regarding jigane, we come to the different forms of jihada, i.e. visible forging structures.

itame-hada (板目肌): Itame is by far the most common forging structure seen on Japanese swords. There is the traditional approach to merely associate itame-hada with the Sôshû tradition but I think this rigid system of thinking, i.e. Sôshû equals itame and Bizen equals mokume should be taken with a grain of salt. That means from my experience as a translator, and I think I have translated blade descriptions way in the four digits over the last decade, the vast majority of kitae descriptions either start with “itame mixed with…” or “ko-itame mixed with…” This is just about itame/mokume as the traditional associations with masame, nashiji and so on are still very much valid. My tip: It is itame unless you really see some obvious burls, i.e. mokume. If it is a few burls here and there, it is probably itame mixed with mokume and I would only say “this blade has a mokume-hada” if the entire jihada or most of it consists more or less uniformly of mokume burls. As mentioned in the last chapter, we distinguish between ko-itame and ô-itame. The former, i.e. ko-itame, is quasi the “default hada” of the shintô era as there was a significant trend towards refinement throughout the early Edo period (culminating in the Ôsaka-shintô style for example). But it is also common for higher-quality Sue-Bizen blades (i.e. chûmon-uchi) where it might be even so tight that it looks like muji at a glance. A good way to identify a shintô is to check if there is masame in the shinogi-ji (see bottom picture below). So if this is the case, it is safe to concentrate on shintô. But please bear in mind that itame along the hira-ji and masame in the shinogi-ji is also a typical feature of Sue-Seki blades so you might check first if something speaks for Sue-Seki (i.e. sugata with sakizori, togari or fushi elements, shirake) before taking the shintô road on the basis of the masame in the shinogi-ji. Incidentally, it is said that the shintô masame in the shinogi-ji actually goes back to Sue-Seki as the majority of early shintô smiths had Mino roots. That means at the end of the kotô era, Bizen was literally wiped off the map as largest sword production site by the devastating flood of the Yoshii river and this left Mino, and Seki in particular, as leading manufacturer of blades. In short, the early shintô smiths who were hired from there by the newly established domains just continued to work on the basis of their scholastic Mino background. Their successors adjusted to the trend to refinement but by keeping basic elements like masame in the shinogi-ji. And that is why this Sue-Seki element “survived” in shintô times. An ô-itame is typically seen on early Sôshû blades, e.g. Masamune (正宗), Sadamune (貞宗), Hiromitsu (広光), Akihiro (秋広), but also on Ko-Hôki-mono (Yasutsuna [安綱], Sanemori [真守). Well, as there are burls seen on Ko-Hôki blades, they are also described the other way round, i.e. as showing ô-mokume but mixed with ô-itame. Anyay, a hada mix is almost always the case when it comes to kotô and as indicated in my tip above, you just name the dominating hada if you want to nail it down to a single forging structure.

itame-nagare (板目流れ): An itame mixed with flowing or running nagare (流れ) structures is, when it comes to earlier kotô, a typical feature of schools that operated far from the then centers, for example the northern Hôju (宝寿) school or the southern Kyûshû schools and smiths like Jitsu’a (実阿), Miike (三池), Enju (延寿), and Naminohira (波平).

itame mixed with masame (板目に柾目まじり): Well, some kind of nagare is seen at many schools and if the running structures tend to appear in a more linear manner, we usually speak no longer of nagare but of “mixed with masame.” So the above mentioned northern and southern schools are typical for a conspicuous itame-nagare that is the dominating forging structure of the entire blade. A mixed-in masame in turn is typical for all Yamato and Yamato-related schools (e.h. Mihara [三原] and Niô [二王]), but also for early Mino-mono (Kaneuji [兼氏], Kinjû [金重], Kaneyuki [金行]) and the Yamashiro Hasebe (長谷部) school where the masame appears towards the mune and towards the ha. At Sue-Seki schools that are not classically inspired and densely forged, the nagare towards the mune often appears as masame and this feature goes back to the same approach in forging as the aforementioned masame in the shinogi-ji. So what is nagare-masame towards the mune at a hira-zukuri blade is masame in the shinogi-ji at a shinogi-zukuri blade, to put it in a nutshell.

mokume-hada (木目肌): As mentioned above, mokume is when you see true burls. They might appear as larger ô-mokume or as smaller ko-mokume burls. An obvious ô-mokume can be seen for example at Ôei-Bizen blades (e.g. Morimitsu [盛光], Yasumitsu [康光], Moromitsu [師光]) but there is some kind of confusion when it comes to associate mokume in general and ko-mokume in particular as the Hon’ami school of thought seems to apply these terms to what others refer to as itame or ko-itame respectively. (Accordingly, most of the blades show for them variations of mokume instead of itame.) Again, I for my part say for the time being that a hada is itame unless there are some obvious burls and then it might be itame mixed with mokume. So please don’t get too much confused about when it is itame and when it is mokume as it is in many cases a mix anyway. (See bottom picture below which shows an itame mixed with mokume and nagare-masame.) By the way, conspicuous burls themselves are – depending on how you see them – referred to as uzumaki (渦巻, “whirlpools”) or nenrin (年輪) or jorin (如輪), the latter two terms both meaning “annual tree rings.”

masame-hada (柾目肌): A masame-hada is usually associated with the Yamato tradition and indeed blades by the initial Yamato schools and those made by their offshoots and later smiths who worked in Yamato style indeed show in most of the cases some kind of masame. The most obvious masame is found on Hoshô (保昌) blades and on blades by the shintô Sendai Kunikane (仙台国包) lineage. But many other smiths worked in masame, for example the Mito smiths Norichika (徳鄰) and Norikatsu (徳勝), Sa Yukihide (左行秀), Dewa no Daijô Kunimichi (出羽大掾国路), Etchû no Kami Masatoshi (越中守正俊), Tsuguhira (継平), Kashû Kanewaka (加州兼若), and Ogasawara Nagamune (小笠原長旨), just to name a few.

matsukawa-hada (松皮肌): A matsukawa-hada is either an ô-itame or ô-mokume that comes with thick chikei along the layers of the forging structures and that appears as large burls which remind of the bark (kawa) of a pine tree (matsu), thus the name. Such a forging structure is mostly seen on blades of Norishige (則重) and locally related smiths, e.g. Ko-Uda (古宇多) and Kashû Sanekage (加州真景) and later on blades by smiths who tried to emulate Norishige, e.g. Nakayama Shigehiro (中山重弘) and Mito Noritoshi (則利). Also Hankei (繁慶) tried to emulate Norishige although in his particular case we no longer speak of matsukawa but of hijiki-hada (鹿尾菜肌・羊栖菜肌) as his aproach reminds more of the brown edible sea algae of the same name.

yakumo-hada (八雲肌): A very peculiar jihada that is created by a combination of steels with different carbon content, an approach that results in thick and standing-out chikei-like structures. This kind of hada is mostly seen on blades by Mito Rekkô (烈公) and is not very common.

Shitahara-hada (下原肌): A Shitahara-hada shows conspicious uzumaki burls along the center of the blade, i.e. along the shinogi-ji or the center of the ji if in hira-zukuri. But these burls might also appear more towards the ha or in an irregular manner, that means as isolated large burls in places. As the kotô-era Shitahara school followed an approach in forging that resulted in such about centrally aligned burls, the term Shitahara-hada was coined to refer to their most characteristic feature.

ayasugi-hada (綾杉肌): An ayasugi-hada appears as large regular waves and as such a forging structure was the trademark of the Gassan school, it is also referred to as Gassan-hada (月山肌). It was later revived by the shinshintô and gendaitô era Gassan smiths. But an ayasugi-hada or tendencies to ayasugi can also be seen at the Hôju (宝寿), Môgusa (舞草), and Naminohira schools and other early Kyûshû smiths like Gunshô (軍勝), Sairen (西蓮), and Jitsu’a (実阿), or at very early Yamato blades (but also at later Shikkake [尻懸] smiths) and at Momokawa Nagayoshi (桃川長吉).

nashiji-hada (梨子地肌): A nashiji-hada is essentially a very fine and dense ko-mokume that is harmoniously covered with ji-nie all over. A “true” nashiji-hada is mostly seen at earlier Yamashiro schools like Sanjô (三条) and Awataguchi (粟田口) but sometimes the very finely forged jihada of certain Ôsaka-shintô masters like Tsuda Sukehiro (津田助広), Ozaki Suketaka (津田助広), Ikkanshi Tadatsuna (一竿子忠綱), and Shinkai (真改) is also referred to as nashiji or tending to nashiji, mostly when it is an edge case between super fine and uniform ko-itame and muji.

konuka-hada (粉糠肌・小糠肌): It is assumed that konuka-hada is a result of the Hizen smiths trying to emulate the nashiji-hada of the great Yamashiro masterpieces. As their approach turned out to bring forth quite a peculiar result, the terms konuka-hada or Hizen-hada (肥前肌) were coined to refer to these works. That means you should avoid using the term konuka-hada in any other context than Hizen as this just might cause confusion. Incidentally, this kind of hada reminds of rice bran (konuka), thus the name. Konuka-hada is hard to capture on pictures but you might be able to grasp the fineness and first of all the uniformity of the jigane of the 1^st gen. Hizen Tadayoshi’s (忠吉) sunnobi-tantô that is shown below (which is by the way one of my most favourite blades, not mine though).

chirimen-hada (縮緬肌): Like at nashiji and konuka, we are facing with chirimen-hada the attempt to introduce school-specific differentiations of what is basically a very fine and uniform ko-mokume that is harmoniously covered with ji-nie all over. That means, nashiji, konuka, and chirimen-hada have basically the same technical background but they are not the same appearances (with just different names). A chirimen-hada is now the “result” that is seen on Aoe blades. It is named that way because the smooth and uniformly ji-nie covered special Aoe forging structure reminds of silk crepe (chirimen).

muji-hada (無地肌): The term muji-hada is used when a jihada is not discernible because it is so tightly forged, mostly in reference to shinshintô or gendaitô blades. The steel is not actually grainless but until more recent times it was very difficult to bring out such a jihada, even after careful polishing. However, details of blades described formerly as muji can now be brought out because of improved polishing techniques. And as muji-hada is actually an oxymoron, i.e. meaning about “no–structure/hada hada,” more and more the term muji-fû (無地風), lit. “tending to show no structure,” has become established to refer to the fact that the steel technically has a hada but which is just indistinguishable.

ha-hada (刃肌): Last but not least I want to introduce the term ha-hada which is used, as the name suggests, to refer to a forging structure that is very visible in the hardened part of the cutting edge, in short in the hamon. The picture below shows a Ko-Hôki blade, a school where you always can expect to see ha-hada. In this context it must be said that the course, border, and/or appearance of the hamon is actually influenced by the “underlying” forging structure. That means a smith just can’t apply any kind of hamon to any kind of jigane, or at least the result will be very difficult to foresee if these two elements are not going hand in hand. The intention behind and control of the smith in the interplay between steel and hardening is actually a highly sophisticated subject and an important factor when it comes to draw conclusions on his skill and (artistic) aim. As mentioned before, it takes a while to comprehend what is natural and unaffected, what is an excellent recreation of naturalness, what is a decent try to do so, and what is just incoherent. And for this you have to hold the blade in hands, that means it is impossible or next to impossible to draw such conclusions on the basis of a few pictures.

*

This was now an overview of the most common forging structures and I will point out characteristic features, peculiarities, and similarities later in the individual chapters on the schools. A third jigane part will follow soon that introduces the different forms of utsuri before we go over to the introductory chapter on hamon .

With this post, we are entering the second step in kantei, following the traditional approach indicated at the very beginning of the series (i.e. sugata → jigane → hamon). As mentioned back then, the steel – jigane (地鉄) – allows us in the ideal case to identify the area of production and/or the school. Well, things are of course fluid, that means everything from so “featureless” that it is even hard to tell if kotô, shintô, or shinshinto to a very characteristic steel or forging structure that allows you right away to name the smith who made the blade is possible. This brings us to the point where I have to mention that the chapter jigane actually consists of two chapters, that is to say the already mentioned steel, the jigane, and the forging structure, the jihada (地肌), or short just hada.

*

2.1 Jigane

Before we start, we have to address a crucial point when it comes to jigane, namely the polish. Depending on factos like the age of the polish, the skill of the polisher, and the use of various ways to finish the ji, the appearance of the jigane can vary greatly, even if you are comparing two indentically interpreted blades from the same smith side by side. So my tip is, try to focus on what should be recognisable regardless of the finish of the polish, and that is the density and the pattern of the forging structure. Well, this tip does not work when the polish is too old or bad, and if you can’t see any details in the steel, you have to skip this step anyway. Rule of the thumb is: The more uniform the jihada, the better the skill of the smith. That means a jihada might be mixed with areas of different forging structure but these areas should never stand out in an unnatural manner. So if you have a blade with a tight hada all over that shows very coarse, rough, or inhomogeneous structures just in one area, you can assume that this was not intended, i.e. that the smith lacked skill. Another possibility is that you recognize areas that don’t show any visible forging structure at all or areas without a visible forging structure that are surrounded by rougher, standing-out areas. If so, it is very likely that the core steel (shingane) comes through and that the blade had seen some polishes in its life. Please note that certain similar appearances might actually be characteristic features of a certain school or smith but this will be pointed out below or in the individual chapters. A quality feature that mostly goes hand in hand with the uniformity is the fineness of the hada but that does not mean that a larger structured hada is of a lesser quality. In other words, a swordsmith was “embedded” into his scholastic background what means that a Yamashiro man followed a different approach in forging than a Sôshû man. So the outcome, i.e. the degree of uniformity and constant quality speaks for the skill of a smith and not the technical approach in general.

So first of all, let me introduce the standard terms that have become established to refer to the different appearances of the jigane and the jihada. Basically we use the prefixes ko (小) and ô (大) to say if a forging pattern is noticeably smaller or larger strictured respectively. For example, an itame-hada can appear as ko-itame, as itame, or as ô-itame, that means here it got common to refer to a medium-sized forging structure just by its name and not to as by the prefix chû. There are of course schools of thought, like for example at the Hon’ami school, where they explicitly speak of a chû-itame or chû-mokume but today, most drop the prefix chû in this respect. Apart from distinguishing between a ko, normal-sized (chû), or ô forging structure, we also speak of a fine or dense hada, in Japanese komakai (細かい) or tsunda (詰んだ). Or also terms like seibi (精美) are in use to refer to a hada that is very fine and beautiful. Well, I am aware of the fact that there are subtle differences between a “fine” and a “dense” hada but I don’t want to overcomplicate it for the moment. The opposite of a fine hada is a rough (arai, 荒い・粗い) or standing-out (tatsu, 立つ) hada. That means in such a case, the individual layers of the steel are clearly visible. Again, a “rough” hada is not the same as a “standing-out” hada as the former term is more used to describe an “unnaturally” rough hada and the latter to refer to something that was intended by the smith, i.e. a result of his approach in forging the steel. Besides of that and not addressing the forging structure but the steel itself, we also speak of a strong (tsuyoi, 強い) jigane when the jihada is very visible at a glance and accompanied by plenty of ji-nie. A strong jigane is usually associated with blades made in the Sôshû tradition where the large amount of ji-nie and chikei result in very present features. The opposite of that is a weak (yowai, 弱い) jigane where the jihada is hardly visible and shows no or only very little ji-nie. Basically, and with the exception of certain schools (e.g. the Kiyomaro school that revived the strong Sôshû jigane), shinshintô blades are described as having a weak jigane as not much is visible in their steel. But there is more when it comes to describe the appearance of the jigane. The steel can also be either clear (saeru, 冴える) or subdued (shizunda, 沈んだ) whereas in the latter case we also speak of a “dull” or “cloudy” (nibui [鈍い] or nigotta [濁った]) jigane. Dull or cloudy means that a steel remains to be matt in larger areas even if polished. Or in other words, even if it is tried to enchance the ji with certain polishing methods, a dull or cloudy steel will never turn out to be super bright. And when the steel looks “wet,” i.e. kind of moisty even if perfectly freed from oil, we speak of uruoi (潤い). And last but not least we distinguish between a noticably dark or blackish (kuroi, 黒い) or whitish (shirake, 白け) steel. The former is typical for blades from the farther north or south regions, that means from the so-called Hokkoku region (北国, production sites along the Hokurikudô) or Kyûshû respectively. Accordingly, also the term hokkoku-gane (北国鉄) is in use to refer to a darker, “northern-style” jigane. As for shirake, basically later Mino, i.e. Sue-Seki blades are known for showing much shirake but a little shirake is seen at many other schools and this will be pointed out in the individual chapters. By the way, shirake is often a way to distinguish offshoots from the schools they came from. That means, if you have for example a blade that looks like Rai at a glance but that just shows too much whitish shirake in the ji, think about a school that derived from Rai, e.g. Enju or Ryôkai. And the overall quality of the work should tell you how far away you are from the “real thing,” i.e. are you facing a direct student of one of the great masters? Or is the workmanship already that inferior to assume that it is a work of a student of this student or of an even later smith from a local offshoot?

In direct continuation of talking about the steel, I want to introduce first the features, the hataraki that can occur in the jigane before introducing the different forging structures. Well, strictly speaking, some of them might be associated with the jihada but they should be introduced here too for reasons of clarity and convenience.

ji-nie (地沸): Ji-nie is probably the most common feature in the jigane and seen to some extent in any sword. As the term suggests, we are talking about visible martensite particles (nie) that occur in the ji. Ji-nie can be pretty fine and evenly distributed over the blade or concentrate in certain areas and if these areas appear in a connected manner over a certain distance (or along the entire ji for example), i.e. in a way to recognize a certain “unity” or patch, we speak of a nie-utsuri (but please see section utsuri for more details on this term). As for ji-nie, the same rule applies as for the jigane, that means we speak of a high-quality ji-nie when it is fine and uniform or when it was deliberately applied, i.e. when for example a partially rough and accumulating ji-nie was the style in which the smith worked. Also we must distinguish between if a sword was intended as mere weapon or if there was a real artistic approach behind making that blade. So if you have a late Muromachi-era blade from one of the then sword centers that shows rough and unnaturally accumulating ji-nie, it is safe to assume that smith was just lacking skill. But if you have a shinshintô blade with a rough and unnaturally accumulating ji-nie that should somehow represent a work from one of the great Sôshû masters, the element “lack of skill” has a slightly different connotation. In other words, the smith might had been indeed very skilled but than Sôshû was not his thing or he just started to experiment towards Sôshû. So depending on what the intention of making a blade was we have here different standards of appreciation. Just one example, very rough and obvious ji-nie is “accepted” for the Satsuma smiths because this was their style.

chikei (地景): Chikei are black gleaming lines in the ji that are basically layers of steel with a different, higher carbon content. So chikei follow the layer structure of the jihada and are virtually the same as kinsuji, just with the difference that they occur in the ji and not in the ha. As a rule of thumb: The more chikei are present the more it is likely that a blade was made following the Sôshû tradition of sword forging, i.e. deliberately mixing steels of different carbon content. Please note that there is also another way the term chikei can be used and that does not refer to layers of steel but to a hardening effect. In other words, it is used to refer to ji-nie that forms formations similar to mokume-like burls but which are not tied to the layer structures of the jihada. Well, some say that they actually are tied to the layers and we are speaking here of the same thing, i.e. the former explanation of chikei used to refer to the “obvious” layers of different carbon content in the steel and the latter to much finer layers which are not recognizable for the naked eye as layer structures and thus seem not to be connected to the structures of the jihada. But I don’t want to split hairs here (the subject of chikei might fill a blog entry itself) and when I refer to chikei, I mean black gleaming lines in the ji, period. (Please click on pic below to get a larger and clearer image).

yubashiri (湯走り): Yubashiri are isolated spots or patches of ji-nie that remind of water droplets. They are similar to tobiyaki as they occur detached from the hamon but as they consist of nie and are not embedded into a cloud of nioi, they have a more transparent look and not so clear borders as nioi-based tobiyaki. Due to the fact they consist of nie, yubashiri are of course seen on blades that are hardened in nie-deki or at least with much nie. So they are similar to tobiyaki but not the same. Yubashiri often concentrate along the habuchi and create there more linear appearances that remind of nijûba. We see them on Kamakura-era Yamato, Yamashiro, or Sôshû works or at later blades aiming at such works.

jifu (地斑): Jifu are areas where ji-nie occurs as a “closed mass,” i.e. as patch or stain. For example, we find descriptions like “plenty of ji-nie that tends to jifu in places” what basically means that these areas full of concentrated ji-nie give the blade a spotted appearance. But the term jifu, lit. “spot/splotches on the ji,” is rather ambiguous and different scholars use it to refer to different features. For example, some refer with it to areas of exposed shingane, for which in turn the special term ji-zukare (地疲れ) exists. And the “showing through” (sunda, 澄んだ) shingane in turn resulted in the creation of the term sumigane (澄鉄) or sumihada (澄肌). Another term for the same feature is, in special context of the Aoe school, namazu-hada (鯰肌) as these patches remind of the slimy, scaleless, smooth and dark skin of a catfish (namazu). And also the term Rai-hada (来肌) is in use when it comes to Rai blades with this characteristic feature. In other words, these terms were born from the necessity to name similar features differently depending on which school it occurs so that you have a more sophisticated nomenclature to work with. In a nutshell, when someone talks about “dark spots in the ji” it might be difficult to know what is meant but when this person uses the terms namazu-hada, or Rai-hada, everybody knowns right away that he or she is talking about Aoe or Rai blades respectively. It is assumed that the feature sumigane, namazu-hada, or Rai-hada goes back to the fact that the corresponding schools made blades with a relative thin kawagane what exposes the shingane core steel rather quickly. Well, there is still discussion about if these features, or Rai-hada in particular, are exposed core steel or just inhomogeneous but in itself homogeneous and darker parts of the steel but from my subjective point of view, I think they might be shingane but with the difference that we are talking here about top quality blades what in turn leads me to think that even their core steel was of better quality and looks thus slightly finer when exposed and not at a glance like ji-zukare for example seen on a Sue-Seki blade. Anyway, this feature, i.e. sumigane, is also found on blades of the Un group (雲), the Enju school (延寿), the Mihara school (三原), of Osafune Motoshige (元重), and on early Echizen blades like for example of Chiyozuru Kuniyasu (千代鶴国安) and Hashizume Kunitsugu (橋爪国次).

*

In conclusion it must be repeated that the jigane is a pretty sensitive subject and it needs some experience to be able to disregard or block out the condition of the polish and draw conclusions on what you would see with a perfect polish. That means certain features like yubashiri or finer ji-nie might just not be visible at an older polish. In other words, and this might make me sound like captain obvious, you should focus on what you see, i.e. you should not get lost in trying to figure out if a certain stain is yubashiri or jifu when the condition of the blade just does not allow such a conclusion. Also there are kind of preferences when it comes to judging Japanese swords: Some (like me) attach great importance to the sugata whilst others have a natural access to the steel and just need to look at the jigane and jihada to say which school or smith made the blade. And last but not least it turned out at our local sword meetings that light from a fluorescent tube is very good to see the steel (but not certain details of the hamon) but also sunlight does a pretty good job.

In the next part (2.1) we continue with the different forms of jihada, followed by a chapter on utsuri, before we end part 2, the steel, and go over to part 3, the hardening.