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.

We conclude the chapter on sugata with the changes in the shapes of wakizashi.

*

1.32 Muromachi period (1394-1572)

The “typical” wakizashi as we know it, i.e. in shinogi-zukuri and showing about the same proportions as a katana, did not appear before the Muromachi period and shinogi-zukuri wakizashi remain very rare until the mid-Muromachi period as in early Muromachi times, the hira-zukuri wakizashi was prevailing. The Muromachi gave anyway rise to many different wakizashi forms: shinogi-zukuri wakizashi with a nagasa of 45~55 cm, a noticeable taper, a shallow sori with a tendency towards sakizori, and a chû-kissaki; hira-zukuri wakizashi with the about the same nagasa and with a noticeable sakizori; and wakizashi in shôbu-zukuri and unokubi-zukuri which usually stay under 50 cm in length. Virtually every Muromachi-era school and smith made wakizashi and it is difficult to forward a name being representative for a certain sugata. Also we must not forget that shinogi-zukuri blades with a nagasa of just a little under 2 shaku (60.6 cm) from before the early Edo period were intended as uchigatana or katata-uchi and are only today – because of their length – classified as wakizashi.

Picture 32: different wakizashi styles from the Muromachi period (from left to right):
mei “Morimitsu” (盛光), Ôei-Bizen, nagasa 52.9 cm
mei “Yoshisuke” (義助), Shimada, 2nd generation, nagasa 44.2 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Bizen no Kuni-jû Osafune Gorôzaemon Kiyomitsu” (備前国住長船五郎左衛門   清光), dated Tenbun eight (天文, 1539), nagasa 51.8 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Kanemune” (兼宗), Sue-Seki, around Tenbun (天文, 1532-1555), shôbu-zukuri, nagasa 52.1 cm, sori 1.2 cm

*

1.33 Momoyama to early Edo period (1572-1624)

With the Nanbokuchô revival trend of Momoyama times, there were still quite many hira-zukuri wakizashi and hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi made. That means the classic shinogi-zukuri wakizashi did not replace them in terms of quantity yet. But of course an increasing number of shinogi-zukuri wakizashi can be seen from about Tenshô (天正, 1573-1592) onwards.

Picture 33: wakizashi from the Momoyama to early Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Mutsu no Kami Daidô” (陸奥守大道), dated Tenshô 18 (天正, 1590), nagasa 43.9 cm, sori 0.3 cm
mei “Bushû Shitahara-jû Terushige saku” (武州下原住照重作), 2nd generation, around Tenshô, nagasa 44.5 cm, sori 0.8 cm
mei “Kanenobu saku” (兼信作), 1st generation, Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), nagasa 54.0 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Fuyuhiro saku” (冬広作), around Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), nagasa 46.2 cm, sori 1.5 cm

*

1.34 Advanced early Edo period (1652-1688)

Wakizashi from that time feature like their katana counterparts a Kanbun-shintô-sugata, that means they have a nagasa of about 45~50 cm, taper noticeably, and end in a compact chû-kissaki. All schools of that time made such wakizashi and it is hard to name any representative smith.

Picture 34: wakizashi from the advanced early Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Higo no Kami Kuniyasu” (肥後守国康), nagasa 54.8 cm, sori 0.6 cm
mei “Echizen no Kami Minamoto Sukehiro” (越前守源助広), 2nd generation, nagasa 45.4 cm, sori 0.6 cm
mei “Nagasone Okisato Nyûdô Kotetsu” (長曽祢興里入道乕徹), nagasa 45.4 cm, sori 1.0 cm
mei “Nagasone Okisato Nyûdô Kotetsu” (長曽祢興里入道乕徹), nagasa 49.8 cm, sori 0.8 cm

Certain renowned master smiths from the advanced early Edo period also made some flamboyant wakizashi. These were mostly made on special orders and are wide and impressive, that means they don´t follow the then Kanbun-shintô-sugata, and usually show elaborate horimono. Representative for this trend was for example Kotetsu.

Picture 35: elaborate wakizashi from the advanced early Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Dôsaku kore o horu – Nagasone Okisato Kotetsu Nyûdô” (同作彫之・長曽祢興里古鉄入道), nagasa 49.2 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Nagasone Okisato Kotetsu Nyûdô” (長曽祢興里虎徹入道), nagasa 47.8 cm, sori 1.0 cm (please note that this blade was mirrored due to reasons of uniformity in depiction in this kantei series)

*

1.35 Mid-Edo period (1688-1781)

Here virtually the same applies as to the changes in long swords, that is, the Kanbun­-shintô-sugata was given up in favor of an again more moderate sugata, the so-called Genroku-shintô-sugata. In other words, wakizashi curve more, show a harmonious taper, and end in a chû-kissaki. And this sugata was more or less kept unchangedly until kotô swords were revived in the late Edo period.

Picture 36: wakizashi from the mid-Edo period (from left to right):
mei "Awataguchi Ômi no Kami Tadatsuna" (粟田口近江守忠綱), nagasa 51.8 cm, sori 1.8 cm
mei "Sakakura Gonnoshin Terukane" (坂倉言之進照包) nagasa 58.3 cm, sori 1.4 cm

*

1.36 Late Edo to early Meiji period (1781-1876)

Sword production declined significantly with the transition to the 18^th century but was on the one hand revived by Suishinshi Masahide and was on the other hand again stimulated by the turmoils of the bakumatsu era. Thus also wakizashi appear in larger numbers from around Tenpô (天保, 1830-1844) onwards. Again we see the same trend to large mid-Nanbokuchô shapes in the bakumatsu era but with a thicker kasane. As so many different wakizashi were made at that time, it is hard to name any representative school or smith for specific interpretations but famous is the Kiyomaro school for their magnificent short swords which are often modelled on shortened nagamaki blades.

Picture 37: various wakizashi interpretations from the late Edo and early Meiji period (from left to right):
mei “Suishin-rōō Amahide + kaō” (水心老翁天秀), dated Bunsei two (文政, 1819), nagasa 45.4 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Minamoto Masayuki” (源正行), dated Kôka two (弘化, 1845), early name of Kiyomaro, nagasa 45.9 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Chôunsai Tsunatoshi” (長運斎綱俊), dated Tenpô eleven (天保, 1840), nagasa 46.2 cm, sori 1.0 cm
mei “Ôshû Shirakawa-shin Tegarayama Masashige” (奥州白川臣手柄山正繁), dated Kansei ten (寛政, 1798), nagasa 45.8 cm, sori 1.0 cm

And last but not least, the well-known brief overview of the chronological changes in sugata:

Now we continue with the changes in the shapes of tantô and hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi, that means blades that come under the category of a dagger and not of a short sword like the later developed and noticeably longer shinogi-zukuri wakizashi.

*

1.23 Late Heian to early Kamakura period (1000~1232)

Tantô from before the early Kamakura period are exceptionally rare, so rare that they can be ruled out again for our kantei descriptions. This changes with entering the Kamakura period, although early Kamakura-period tantô are still very rare. Thus we are facing the same problem as with tachi, that is to say the lack of references which greatly limits our insight in shorter blades made at that time. Those few extant early Kamakura tantô are in hira-zukuri, show a little uchizori, have a rather full fukura, and measure mostly less than 24 cm. But it must be noted that there are also noticeably longer early Kamakura-period tantô extant. For example the Kyôto smith Awataguchi Hisakuni from whom we know a tantô with a nagasa of 29.1 cm and one with a nagasa of just 20.1 cm. Also it is safe to assume that also noticeable longer daggers were made throughout all these earlu times but which just did not survive as being merely weapons and utilitarian objects.

Representative schools and smiths for early Kamakura period tantô are: The Awataguchi (粟田口) school (Kunitomo [国友], Hisakuni [久国]).

Picture 19: tantô from the early Kamakura period (from left to right):
mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 29.1 cm
mei “Hisakuni” (久国), nagasa 20.1 cm

*

1.24 Mid-Kamakura period (1232-1288)

With the mid-Kamakura period, tantô level off at a standard length (jôsun, 常寸) of 25~26 cm, although of course also some shorter and longer blades were made which measure around 20 or 29 cm respectively. They are in hira-zukuri, have uchizori, and mihaba, fukura, and kasane appear at the jôsun interpretations in a highly harmonious manner. Because of this, the mid-Kamakura period is regarded as the time of bringing forth the most aesthetical tantô-sugata. But also some noticeably tapering tantô were made in the mid-Kamakura period and so classifying Kamakura-era tantô can be as difficult as classifying Kamakura-era tachi.

Representative schools and smiths for mid-Kamakura period tantô are: The Awataguchi (粟田口) school (Norikuni [則国], Kuniyoshi [国吉], Yoshimitsu [吉光]), Rai Kunitoshi (来国俊), the Shintôgo (新藤五) school (Kunimitsu [国光], Kunihiro [国弘]).

Picture 20: tantô from the mid-Kamakura period (from left to right):
mei “Norikuni” (則国), nagasa 24.2 cm
kokuhô, mei “Kunimitsu” (国光), Shintôgo, nagasa 22.4 cm
mei “Rai Kunitoshi” (来国俊), nagasa 19.6 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Yoshimitsu” (吉光), nagasa 27.3 cm

*

1.25 Late Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period (1288-1336)

With the late Kamakura period it is as difficult as with the mid-Kamakura period, that means tantô maintain on the one hand the classic shapes, but grow on the other hand quite large. Accordingly there are tantô with a jôsun-nagasa, uchizori, and a very harmonious ratio of mihaba to nagasa, kasane, and fukura. Representative schools and smiths for these classic late Kamakura-period tantô are: The Rai (来) school (Kunimitsu [国光], Kunitsugu [国次]), Osafune Kagemitsu (長船景光), the Masamune (正宗) school (Yukimitsu [行光], Masamune [正宗]), Norishige (則重).

At the same time tantô with a nagasa of 27~32 cm, muzori or even a little sori, and a somewhat wider mihaba are seen. These were often made by Rai Kunimitsu (来国光), Rai Kunitsugu (来国次), the Hoshô (保昌) school, and Sadamune (貞宗) for example. And hira-zukuri tantô with a strikingly wide mihaba for their nagasa, the so-called Hôchô-style tantô (包丁, kitchen-knife tantô), were made among others by Masamune. Please note that Hôchô-style tantô were already made in the previous mid-Kamakura period, for example by Awataguchi Yoshimitsu.

Picture 21: tantô from the late Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period (from left to right):
meibutsu “Kuwana-Hoshô” (桑山保昌), mei “Takaichi-jû Kingo Fuji Sadayoshi”, dated Genkô four (元享, 1324), nagasa 25.8 cm
meibutsu “Hyûga-Masamune” (日向正宗), nagasa 24.9 cm
kokuhô, mei “Yukimitsu” (行光), nagasa 26.2 cm
kokuhô, mei “Norishige” (則重), nagasa 24.8 cm

Picture 22: wider tantô from the late Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period (from left to right):
meibutsu “Hôchô-Masamune” (包丁正宗), nagasa 21.5 cm, sori 0.3 cm
meibutsu “Tokuzen´in-Sadamune” (徳善院貞宗), nagasa 35.3 cm, sori 0.7 cm
meibutsu “Ikeda-Sadamune” (池田貞宗), nagasa 30.9 cm, sori 0.5 cm
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Bishû Osafune-jû Kagemitsu” (備州長船住景光), dated Genkô three   (元享, 1323), katakiriba-zukuri, nagasa 25.6 cm

Also relative many kanmuri-otoshi or unokubi-zukuri tantô with a thin kasane and muzori were made in the late Kamakura period, mainly by the Taima (当麻) school, Ryôkai (了戒), Ryôsai (良西), or Shikkake Norinaga (尻懸則長). And towards the very end of the Kamakura period certain smiths like Sadamune (貞宗), Takagi Sadamune (高木貞宗), Osafune Kagemitsu (長船景光), or Kanro Toshinaga (甘露俊長) started to make tantô in katakiriba-zukuri which can come without sori or with a very shallow sori.

Picture 23: tantô in kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri from the late Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period (from left to right):
mei “Ryôsai” (良西), nagasa 22.1 cm
meibutsu “Akita-Ryôkai” (秋田了戒), mei “Ryôkai” (了戒), nagasa 27.2 cm
meibutsu “Ikeda-Rai Kunimitsu” (池田来国光), mei “Rai Kunimitsu” (来国光), nagasa 26.3 cm

*

1.26 Mid-Nanbokuchô period (1336-1375)

When it comes to tantô, the mid-Nanbokuchô period brought the same trend towards oversized blades as it was the case for tachi. Please note that according to our present-day nomenclature, all “dagger” blades that measure over 1 shaku in nagasa are classified as wakizashi. Also the term sunnobi-tantô (寸延短刀) is in use to refer to refer to tantô which measure just a little bit more than 1 shaku. For oversized mid-Nanbokuchô period also the term Enbun-Jôji-sugata is in use which has the following features: Long nagasa of 30~40 cm, wider mihaba, full fukura, thin kasane, noticeable sakizori.

Representative schools and smiths for mid-Nanbokuchô tantô in Enbun-Jôji-sugata are: For Kyô-mono the Hasebe (長谷部) school (Kunishige [国重], Kuninobu [国信]) and the Nobukuni (信国) masters of that time; the next generation of Sôshû smiths (Hiromitsu [広光], Akihiro [秋広]); the Kanemitsu (兼光) school (Kanemitsu [兼光], Tomomitsu [倫光], Yoshimitsu [義光]); the Chû-Aoe (中青江) school (Tsugunao [次直], Tsuguyoshi [次吉]); Kinjû (金重), the Naoe-Shizu (直江志津) school (Kanetomo [兼友], Kanetsugu [兼次]).

Picture 24: tantô in Enbon-Jôji-sugata from the mid-Nanbokuchô period (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Sagami no Kuni-jûnin Hiromitsu” (相模国住人広光), dated Bunna five (文和, 1356), nagasa 32.1 cm, sori 0.4 cm
mei “Kinjû” (金重), nagasa 29.7 cm, sori 0.3 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Bitchû no Kuni Tsugunao saku” (備中国次直作), dated Enbun three   (延文, 1358), nagasa 33.6 cm, sori 0.5 cm
jūyō-bijutsuhin, mei “Kanetomo” (兼友), nagasa 28.1 cm, sori 0.3 cm

Parallel to the trend to extra large tantô or hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi, there were certain mid-Nanbokuchô smiths who remained faithful to more classic tantô shapes, for example Shizu Saburô Kaneuji (志津三郎兼氏), Osafune Chôgi (長義), Osafune Tomomitsu (倫光), or Ô-Sa (大左). Their tantô have a normal to just a little elongated nagasa, muzori or just a hint of a sori, and a moderate mihaba.

Picture 25: more classic tantô from the mid-Nanbokuchô period (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kaneuji” (兼氏), nagasa 20 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Chikushû-jû – Sa” (筑州住・左), nagasa 25.5 cm, sori 0.2 cm
mei “Chikushû-jû – Sa” (筑州住・左)
mei “Bishû Osafune Tomomitsu” (備州長船倫光), dated Kôan one (康安, 1361), nagasa 25.3 cm, sori 0,2 cm

*

1.27 Late Nanbokuchô to early Muromachi period (1375-1428)

Tantô and hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi did not stop growing towards the end of the Nanbokuchô and antering the Muromachi period. That means, the mid-Nanbokuchô period already brought rather large Enbun-Jôji-style dagger blades but with entering Muromachi times, the classical tantô decreases in number and the ko-wakizashi occasionally even reaches wakizashi lenghts. The sori is due to the length more noticeable and appears as sakizori but we observe that the wide mihaba of the previous period gradually disappears.

Representative schools and smiths for such long hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi are: The Ôei-Bizen (応永備前) school (Morimitsu [盛光], Yasumitsu [康光]) or the 3^rd generation Nobukuni (信国). But we must bear in mind that most of these smiths made at the same time also still classical tantô with a nagasa of slightly less than 30 cm and muzori. Also kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri tantô were continuously made in the early Muromachi period and representative for such blades and for that time are: Tegai Kanezane (手掻包真) and the Niô (二王) school (Kiyonaga [清永], Kiyokage [清景]). Anyway, we learn that tantô generally decrease in number with entering the Muromachi period.

Picture 26: tantô from the late Nanbokuchô and early Muromachi period (from left to right):
mei “Nobukuni” (信国), Ôei-Nobukuni, nagasa 23.5 cm
mumei, attributed to Ôei-Nobukuni, nagasa 28.6 cm
mei “Bishû Osafune Morimitsu” (備州長船盛光), dated Ôei 30 (応永, 1423), nagasa 26.8 cm
mei “Bishû Osafune Morikage” (備州長船盛景), dated Eikyô seven (永享, 1435), nagasa 27.4 cm

*

1.28 Mid to late Muromachi period (1428-1572)

From the mid to the late Muromachi period we see how the wakizashi in general and the shinogi-zukuri wakizashi in particular gradually replaces the hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi but blades of the latter category were still made. They show a wide mihaba, no longer a thin but an appropriate kasane for the length, a full fukura, and a deep sakizori. Representative schools and smiths for hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi of that kind are: The Sue-Seki (末関) school (Kanefusa [兼房], Kanehisa [兼久], Kanemura [兼村]), Sengo Muramasa (千子村正), Tsunahiro (綱広), or Shimada Yoshisuke (島田義助).

In late Muromachi times, classic Kamakura-period tantô with a short nagasa of about 23~26 cm and with uchizori experienced a revival. Such blades were often made by the Sue-Seki (末関) school (Kanesada [兼定], Kanetsune [兼常]), Osafune Sukesada (長船祐定), Shimada Yoshisuke (島田義助), or Sue-Tegai Kanekiyo (末手掻包清).

Parallel to that a new tantô styles appears, the moroha-zukuri tantô, that has mostly a rather short nagasa of about 20~23 cm and a shallow sori and that was often made by the Sue-Bizen (末備前), the Sue-Seki (末関), and the Sue-Mihara (末三原) school.

Picture 27: different tantô styles from the mid to late Muromachi period (from left to right):
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Sôshû-jû Tsunahiro” (相州住綱広), 1st generation, nagasa 36.7 cm, sori 0.9 cm
mei “Kanetsune” (兼常), around Eiroku (永禄, 1558-1570), nagasa 29.1 cm, sori 0.1 cm   
mei “Sukemune” (助宗), Shimada, nagasa 38.4 cm, sori 0.9 cm
mei “Bishû Osafune Sukemitsu” (備州長船祐光), dated Bunmei ten (文明, 1478), nagasa 33.8 cm, sori 0.6 cm

Picture 28: moroha-zukuri tantô from the mid to late Muromachi period (from left to right):
mei “Bishû Osafune Harumitsu” (備州長船春光), nagasa 18.75 cm
mei “Bishû Osafune Tadayuki” (備州長船忠行), dated Bunmei three (文明, 1471), nagasa 17.7 cm

*

1.29 Momoyama to early Edo period (1572-1624)

The same way as the Enbun-Jôji-sugata was revived at that time for tachi, it was also revived for tantô. That means we see again longer hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi or sunnobi-tantô with a wide mihaba but this time with a sakizori (a remnant of the previous late Muromachi period), a fuller fukura, and a thicker kasane. Please note that most of these Momoyama to early Edo period blades are, due to their nagasa, today classified as wakizashi. But they were intended as copies of mid-Nanbokuchô blades where the classic wakizashi was yet not introduced.

Representative schools and smiths for a Momoyama period sugata or a Keichô-shintô-sugata are: Umetada Myôju (埋忠明寿); the Horikawa (堀川) school (Kunihiro [国弘], Kunimichi [国路], Kuniyasu [国安]); the Mishina (三品) school (Etchû no Kami Masatoshi [越中守正俊], Iga no Kami Kinmichi [伊賀守金道], Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi [丹波守吉道]); Echizen Yasutsugu (越前康継), Higo no Daijô Sadakuni (肥後大掾貞国), Hankei (繁慶), Nanki Shigekuni (南紀重国), Hizen Tadayoshi (忠吉), Kashû Kanewaka (加州兼若).

Parallel to that, some of the above mentioned smiths like Umetada Myôju, Horikawa Kunihiro, Horikawa Kuniyasu, Hizen Tadayoshi, Echizen Yasutsugu, or Higo no Daijô Sadakuni made also tantô in katakiriba-zukuri with a wide mihaba, a nagasa of about 30 cm, and either with a little sori or with uchizori.

Picture 29: tantô from the Momoyama to early Edo period (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Yamashiro no Kuni Nishijin-jûnin Umetada Myôju” (山城国西陣住人埋忠明寿), dated Keichô 13 (慶長, 1608), katakiriba-zukuri, nagasa 28.2 cm
mei “Kuniyasu” (国安), Horikawa, ko-wakizashi in katakiriba-zukuri, nagasa 43.6 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Nisshû Furuya-jû Kunihiro saku” (日州古屋住国広作), dated Tenshô 14 (天正, 1586), nagasa 45.4 cm, sori 0.6 cm
mei “Dewa no Daijô Fujiwara Kunimichi” (出羽大掾藤原国路), dated Keichô 20 (慶長, 1615), nagasa 31.7 cm, sori 0.7 cm

*

1.30 Early to  late Edo period (1624-1781)

The production of tantô decreases significantly from the early Edo period onwards and those found are often copies of old kotô pieces, for example of the great early Sôshû masters like Masamune or Sadamune. And this means as mentioned in the last section that they show a longer nagasa and are therefore today classified as wakizashi. Occasionally tantô can be found from the following smiths: Kotetsu (虎徹), Mino no Kami Masatsune (美濃守政常), Harima no Kami Tadakuni (播磨守忠国), certain Hizen smiths, Ise no Daijô Tsunahiro (伊勢大掾綱広), and the later generations Yasutsugu (康継).

Picture 30: tantô from early Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Ôsaka-jû Izumi no Kami Fujiwara Kunisada” (大坂住和泉守藤原国貞), made around Kan´ei 19~20 (寛永, 1642~43), nagasa 31.4 cm, sori 0.5 cm
mei “Sôshû-jû Ise no Daijô Tsunahiro” (相州住伊勢大掾綱広), 5th generation, around Manji (万治, 1658-1661), nagasa 31.3 cm, sori 0.2 cm
mei “[kikumon] Mishina Iga no Kami – Nihon-kaji-sôshô Fujiwara Kinmichi” (三品伊賀守・日本鍛冶宗匠藤原金道), 3rd generation, around Hôei (宝永, 1704-1711), nagasa 25.5 cm
mei “Kashû-jû Kanewaka” (賀州住兼若), 2nd generation, around Meireki (明暦,1655-1658), nagasa 29.8 cm

*

1.31 Late Edo to early Meiji period (1781-1876)

The same Nanbokuchô revival as for long swords is seen at that time at tantô, i.e. hira-zukuri ko-wakizashi with a nagasa of 39~43 cm and a wide mihaba came again in fashion, although this time with a thicker kasane and with sakizori what distinguishes them from the “originals.” Representative smiths for these Enbun-Jôji revival blades are: Taikei Naotane (大慶直胤), Kiyomaro (清麿), Saitô Kiyondo (斎藤清人), Sa Yukihide (左行秀), Kurihara Nobuhide (栗原信秀), Hôki no Kami Masayoshi (伯耆守正幸), Oku Motohira (奥元平).

Many different dagger forms were taken up again in late shinshintô times, for example stout and thick yoroidôshi, ko-wakizashi in shôbu-zukuri, or osoraku-zukuri, kissaki-moroha-zukuri, and kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri blades. But we must not forget that still classic Kamakura-style tantô were made towards the end of the Edo period although with an important feature which most of the shinshintô-era tantô have in common, that is to say the somewhat thicker kasane.

Picture 31: different tantô styles from the late Edo to early Meiji period (from left to right):
mei “Minamoto Hidetoshi” (源秀寿), early mei of Kiyomaro, dated Tenpô five (天保, 1834), nagasa 23.0 cm
mei “Minamoto Kiyomaro” (源清麿), dated Kaei five (嘉永, 1852), nagasa 36.8 cm, sori 0.15 cm
mei “Chikuzen no Kami Nobuhide” (筑前守信秀), nagasa 24.6 cm
mei “Kiyondo saku” (清人作), dated Ansei seven (安政, 1860), nagasa 31.6 cm, sori 0.4 cm

I don’t want to let too much time go by between the two long sword parts of sugata-kantei so here we go with part two.

*

1.14 Mid-Muromachi period (1428-1467)

The mid-Muromachi period basically keeps the “Kamakura-revival” sugata of the early Muromachi period but what we can see is a decreasing nagasa, a more noticeable taper, a thicker kasane, and an increasing sakizori. These are all features connected to the shift from tachi to katana, a topic that well deserves a chapter on its own and should therefore omitted here.

Representative schools and smiths for a mid-Muromachi period sugata are: The Eikyô Bizen (永享備前) school (Norimitsu [則光], Sukemitsu [祐光], Toshimitsu [利光], Yoshimitsu [賀光], Hisamitsu [久光]); the founders or early generations of the later flourishing Seki schools (Zenjô Kaneyoshi [善定兼吉]); the early Ôishi-Sa (大石左) school (Ienaga [家永])

Picture 9: typical mid-Muromachi period katana:
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Bizen no Kuni Osafune-jû Saemon no Jô Fujiwara Ason Norimitsu” (備前国長船住左衛門尉藤原朝臣則光), dated Chôroku three (長禄, 1459) nagasa 71.6 cm, sori 1.9 cm

*

1.15 Late Muromachi period (1467-1555)

By the late Muromachi period, the classic tachi had been pushed into the background and mostly katana were produced when it comes to long swords. They have a noticeably shorter nagasa of 60~65 cm, a slightly elongated chû-kissaki (often with a pronounced fukura), a wide mihaba which does not taper that much, a thick kasane, and a deep sakizori. Those blades with a really short nagasa of around 60 cm were made for single-handed use and are referred to as katate-uchi (片手打ち).

Representative schools and smiths for a late Muromachi period sugata are: The Sue-Bizen (末備前) school (Sukesada [祐定], Katsumitsu [長船勝光], Munemitsu [宗光], Kiyomitsu [清光], Tadamitsu [忠光]); for Kyô-mono Sanjô Yoshinori (三条吉則), Heianjô Nagayoshi (平安城長吉), and Kurama Yoshitsugu (鞍馬吉次); for Yamato the Sue-Tegai (末手掻) school; the Sue-Sôshû (末相州) school (Masahiro [正広], Tsunahiro [綱広], Yasuharu [康春]); the Shimada (島田) school (Sukemune [助宗], Yoshisuke [義助], Hirosuke [広助]); the Sengo (千子) school (Muramasa [村正], Masashige [正重]); the Sue-Seki (末関) school (Kanesada [兼定], Kanemoto [兼元]); Kaga smiths (Kashû Ietsugu [加州家次], Kashû Kiyomitsu [加州清光]); later generations Fujishima Tomoshige (藤島友重) and Uda (宇多); the 2^nd generation Yamamura Yasunobu (山村安信); the 3^rd generation Momokawa Nagayoshi (桃川長吉); the Gassan (月山) school; the Kai-Mihara (貝三原) school and the other offshoots of Bingo´s Mihara school; the Hiroyoshi (広賀) lineage of Hôki province; and for Kyûshû the Taira-Takada (高田) school (Taira Nagamori [平長盛], Shizumasa [鎮政], Muneyuki [統行], Shizunori [鎮教], Shizutada [鎮忠], Munemasa [統正]); the Tsukushi-Ryôkai (筑紫了戒) school; the Kongôbyôe (金剛兵衛) school; the Ôishi-Sa (大石左) school.

Picture 10: late Muromachi period katana (from left to right):
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Bizen no Kuni-jû Osafune Jirôzaemon no Jô Fujiwara Katsumitsu” (備前国住長船二郎左衛門尉藤原勝光), dated Eishô one (永正, 1504), nagasa 60.6 cm, sori 1.8 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Bizen no Kuni-jû Osafune Yosaemon no Jô Sukesada” (備前国住長船与三右衛門尉祐定), dated Eishô 18 (永正, 1521), nagasa 64.8 cm, sori 1.9 cm
mei “Momokawa saku Nagayoshi” (桃川作長吉), 3rd generation, nagasa 72.5 cm
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Muramasa – Myôhô Renge Kyô” (村正・妙法蓮華経), dated Eishô ten (永正, 1513), nagasa 66.4 cm, sori 1.6 cm

*

1.16 End of Muromachi period (1555-1572)

Blades increased again in length towards the end of the Muromachi period. Normal for that time is a nagasa of about 73~75 cm, a rather wide mihaba, a thick kasane, a chû-kissaki or a slightly elongated chû-kissaki, and a pronounced sakizori but which is no longer as strong as seen on the previous katate-uchi.

Representative schools and smiths for a sugata from the end of the Muromachi period are: The subsequent Sue-Bizen (末備前) generations (Sukesada [祐定], Katsumitsu [勝光], Norimitsu [則光]); the Sue-Sôshû (末相州) school; the Sue-Seki (末関) school (Kanetsune [兼常], Kanenobu [兼延], Wakasa no Kami Ujifusa [若狭守氏房], Daidô [大道]); for Yamato the Kanabô (金房) school (Masatsugu [政次], Masashige [政重], Masazane [正真]); the Shitahara (下原) school (Yasushige [康重], Terushige [照重]); the Taira-Takada school; the Dôtanuki (同田貫) school (Hyōbu [兵部], Kiyokuni [清国], Masakuni [正国], Matahachi [又八], Kunikatsu [国勝]).

Picture 11: typical katana from the end of the Muromachi period:
mei “Bushû Shitahara-jû Yasushige” (武州下原住康重), nagasa 73.0 cm, sori 2.3 cm

*

1.17 Momoyama to early Edo period (1572-1624)

Apart from continuing with the late Muromachi period sugata, a trend started in the Momoyama period which revived the oversized mid-Nanbokuchô blade shapes, but in their shortened condition. That means smiths from that time made katana with a wide mihaba, scarce taper and niku, a shallow sori, and an elongated chû-kissaki or an ô-kissaki, but with a nagasa of about 70~75 cm. Also the kasane of the Momoyama-era revival blades is a hint thicker than at the mid-Nanbokuchô period originals. As the climax of this revival trend was reached during the Keichô era (慶長, 1596-1615), we refer to such a sugata as Keichô-shintô-sugata (慶長新刀姿) Another term we find for sugata from that time is Keigen-shintô-sugata (慶元新刀姿) which refers to blades made from the Keichô to the Genna era (元和, 1615-1624). This term refers to the transition from kotô to shintô and includes the wide Nanbokuchô-revival blades made in the Keichô era and the beginning of the trend back to more classical shapes during the Genna era.

Representative schools and smiths for a Momoyama period sugata or a Keichô-shintô-sugata are: Umetada Myôju (埋忠明寿); the Horikawa (堀川) school (Kunihiro [国弘], Kunimichi [国路], Kuniyasu [国安], Kunitomo [国儔], Kunikiyo [国清]); the Mishina (三品) school (Etchû no Kami Masatoshi [越中守正俊], Iga no Kami Kinmichi [伊賀守金道], Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi [丹波守吉道]); Echizen Yasutsugu (越前康継), Higo no Daijô Sadakuni (肥後大掾貞国), Yamato no Daijô Masanori (大和大掾正則), Hankei (繁慶), Nanki Shigekuni (南紀重国), Sagami no Kami Masatsune (相模守政常), Hida no Kami Ujifusa (飛騨守氏房), Higo no Kami Teruhiro (肥後守輝広), Hizen Tadayoshi (忠吉), Izu no Kami Masafusa (伊豆守正房).

Picture 12: katana from the Momoyama and early Edo period (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kyûshû Hyûga-jû Kunihiro saku” (九州日向住国広作), dated Tenshô 18 (天正, 1590), nagasa 70.5 cm, sori 2.8 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kuniyasu” (国安), Horikawa, nagasa 75.8 cm, sori 1.5 cm
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Kanewaka” (兼若), dated Keichô nine (慶長, 1604), nagasa 65 cm, sori 0.4 cm
jûyô-bijutsuhin, mei “Nanban-tetsu o motte Bushû Edo ni oite Echizen Yasutsugu” (以南蛮鉄於武州江戸越前康継), dated Keichô 19 (慶長, 1614), nagasa 69.3 cm, sori 1.5 cm

*

1.18 Early Edo period (1624-1652)

After the Momoyama-era trend back to mid-Nanbokuchô shapes, again a more classic sugata arrived on the scene. These blades have a nagasa of about 70 cm, a noticeable but not very strong sori, do taper, and show a chû-kissaki or a slightly elongated chû-kissaki. As this moderate shape started to appear with the Kan´ei era (寛永, 1624-1644), such a sugata is also referred to as Kan´ei-shintô-sugata (寛永新刀姿).

Representative schools and smiths for an early Edo period sugata are: The Ôsaka-shintô (大坂新刀) masters (Oya-Kunisada [親国貞], 1^st generation Kawachi no Kami Kunisuke [河内守国助]); Dewa no Daijô Kunimichi (出羽大掾国路), the next generation of the Mishina (三品) smiths, Soboro Sukehiro (そぼろ助広), Hidari Mutsu Kaneyasu (左陸奥包保), 1^st generation Ôsaka-Ishidô Tameyasu (為康), the 2^nd generation Ôsaka-Ishidô Yasuhiro (康広), the early Edo-period Shitahara generations (1^st generation Chikashige [周重], 3^rd generation Yasushige [康重], 3^rd generation Terushige [照重]), the 2^nd generation Hizen Tadahiro (忠広).

Picture 13: of katana from the early Edo period (from left to right):
Izumi no Kami Fujiwara Kunisada (和泉守藤原国貞), nagasa 64.8 cm, sori 2.1 cm
Kawachi no Kami Fujiwara Kunisuke (河内守藤原国助), nagasa 69.7 cm, sori 1.5 cm
Yamashiro no Daijô Fujiwara Yôkei Kunikane (山城大掾藤原用恵国包), nagasa 75 cm, sori 1.5 cm
Yamashiro no Kami Fujiwara Kunhikiyo (山城守藤原国清), nagasa 74.2 cm, sori 1.8 cm

*

1.19 Advanced early Edo period (1652-1688)

From about the mid-17^th century onwards, blade shapes change significantly. The nagasa measures still around 70 cm but the blades taper strongly, have a shallow sori, and end in a compact chû-kissaki which even tend to a ko-kissaki in certain cases. It is assumed that this change was due to new preferences in swordsmanship for thrusts rather than for cuts but if this is the only reason remains to be seen. Anyway, as this new blade geometry appears with the Kanbun era (寛文, 1661-1673) it is also referred to as Kanbun-shintô-sugata (寛文新刀姿). If one knows about the characteristics of a Kanbun-shintô-sugata, it is usually not that hard to recognize that a blade was made somewhere around Kanbun. In other words, a Kanbun-shintô-sugata is one of the more easier recognizable sugata. Please note that there are some Kanbun-shintô-sugata that have all Kanbun-shintô characteristics except for the shallow sori (for example third blade in picture 14).

Representative schools and smiths for a Kanbun-shintô-sugata are: The next generation of the Ôsaka-shintô smiths (Inoue Shinkai [井上真改], Naka-Kawachi Kunisuke [国助], 2^nd generation Sukehiro [助広], Echigo no Kami Kanesada [越後守包貞], Gonnoshin Terukane [言之進照包]); Edo-shintô smiths like Kazusa no Suke Kaneshige (上総介兼重), Yamato no Kami Yasusada (大和守安定), schools like the Nagasone (長曾禰) school (Kotetsu [虎徹], Okimasa [興正]); the Hôjôji (法城寺) school (Masahiro [正弘], Yoshitsugu [吉次]); the 2^nd generation Sendai Kunikane (国包), Miyoshi Nagamichi (三善長道).

Picture 14: katana in Kanbun-shintô-sugata from the avanced early Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Tsuda Echizen no Kami Sukehiro” (津田越前守助広), dated Kanbun seven (寛文, 1667), nagasa 71.0 cm, sori 1.0 cm
mei “Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi” (丹波守吉道), dated Kanbun six (寛文, 1666), nagasa 68.6 cm, sori 1.7 cm
mei “Jû Tôeizan Shinobigaoka no hotori Nagasone Okisato saku – Enpô ninen rokugatsu kichijônichi” (住東叡山忍岡辺長曽祢興里作), dated Enpô two (延宝, 1674), nagasa 69.7 cm, sori 2.1 cm
mei “Ôshû Sendai-jû Fujiwara Kunikane” (奥州仙台住藤原国包), dated Kanbun five (寛文, 1665), nagasa 63.6 cm, sori 1-3 cm

*

1.20 Mid-Edo period (1688-1781)

The mid-Edo period faced about the same changes as the early Edo period. That means a peculiar shape, in this case Kanbun-shintô-sugata, was given up in favor of an again more moderate and what we would describe as a “typical katana” sugata. Thus the blades curve more, show a harmonious taper, and end in a chû-kissaki. As the Genroku era (元禄, 1688-1704) marks about the turning point back to “normal” katana shapes, the term Genroku-shintô-sugata (元禄新刀姿) is used to refer to blades made in that style. Representative schools and smiths for the mid-Edo period are: Tatara Nagayuki (多々良長幸), Ikkanshi Tadatsuna (一竿子忠綱), Nobukuni Yoshikane (信国吉包), Nobukuni Shigekane (信国重包), Musashi Tarô Yasukuni (武蔵太郎安国).

Well, we must bear in mind that certain schools and smiths did not follow each and every new trend in blade shapes. For example the Hizen Tadayoshi school maintained from the early Edo period onwards the very same sugata. Their sugata is strong and impressive and might best be descibed in a nutshell as intermediate between Keichô-shintô and Genroku-shintô-sugata. Also the Satsuma-shintô smiths basically remained in terms of sugata in the Keichô-shintô era, although with an elongated chû-kissaki instead of an ô-kissaki.

Picture 15: katana from the mid-Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Ikkanshi Tadatsuna hori-dôsaku” (一竿子忠綱・彫同作), dated Genroku twelve (元禄, 1699), nagasa 63.3 cm, sori 2.1 cm
mei “Chikuzen-jū Minamoto Nobukuni Yoshikane” (筑前住源信国吉包), nagasa 68.4 cm, sori 2.0 cm
mei “Shinano no Daijō Fujiwara Tadakuni” (信濃大掾藤原忠国), nagasa 69.7 cm, sori 2.6 cm
mei “Bandōtarō Bakusei Nyūdō Bokuden“ (坂東太郎鏌正入道卜伝), dated Enpô eight (延宝, 1680), nagasa 66.3 cm, sori 2.1 cm

*

1.21 Late Edo period (1781-1844)

The craft of sword forging faced a strong decline after the turn to the 18^th century. Basically the Genroku-shintô-sugata was kept until the appearance of master swordsmith Suishinshi Masahide (水心子正秀) who tried to revive the old kotô forging traditions, a trend known as fukkotô (復古刀), which also brought along a return to classic Kamakura-period blade shapes. That means in concrete terms the typical late-Edo period katana has a nagasa of about 70~75 cm, a little wider mihaba which tapers smoothly, a deep sori, and a chû-kissaki.

Representative for the late Edo period, or if you want the early shinshintô era, are the smiths in the vicinity of Suishinshi Masahide like Taikei Naotane (大慶直胤), Hosokawa Masayoshi (細川正義), and Nankai Tarô Tomotaka (南海太郎朝尊).

Picture 16: katana from the late Edo period (from left to right):
mei “Kaji-chōja Mutsu no Suke Hiromoto” (鍛冶長者陸奥介弘元), dated Bunsei nine (文政, 1826), nagasa 71.0 cm, sori 2.0 cm
mei “Matsumura Masanao” (松村昌直), dated Kansei nine (寛政, 1797), nagasa 71.3 cm, sori 1.6 cm
mei “Dewa no Kuni-jū Taikei Shōji Naotane + kaō” (出羽国住大慶庄司直胤), dated Bunsei three (文政, 1820), nagasa 62.2 cm, sori 1.1 cm
mei “Dewa no Kuni Taikei Shôji Naotane + kaô” (出羽国大慶庄司直胤), dated Bunka 15 (文化, 1818), nagasa 76.0 cm, sori 2.2 cm

*

1.22 Bakumatsu to early Meiji era (1844-1876)

The bakumatsu era brought another revival, that is to say back to the impressive mid-Nanbokuchô shapes what means wide mihaba, scarce tapering and scarce hira-niku, a shallow sori, and either an elongated chû-kissaki or an ô-kissaki. Some of them are even interpreted as nagamaki-naoshi, i.e. with extreme long ô-kissaki and hardly and sori. But the kasane is usually a bit thicker than at the mid-Nanbokuchô originals.

Representative schools and smiths for impressive, mid-Nanbokuchô-oriented bakumatsu-era sugata are: The Kiyomaro (清麿) school (Kiyomaro [清麿], Masao [真雄], Masao [正雄], Kurihara Nobuhide [栗原信秀], Saitô Kiyondo [斎藤清人], Kanetora [兼虎]); Koyama Munetsugu (固山宗次), Sa Yukihide (左行秀), Gassan Sadakazu (月山貞一).

Picture 17: mid-Nanbokuchô-style katana from the bakumatsu era (from left to right):
mei “Minamoto Kiyomaro” (源清麿), dated Kai one (嘉永, 1848), nagasa 68.4 cm, sori 2.2 cm
mei “Yûshaken Masao” (遊射軒真雄), dated Bunkyû three (文久, 1863), nagasa 71.0 cm, sori 1.7 cm
mei “Tôbu Tokigaoka-Hachimangû hokuhen ni oite Sa Yukihide” (於東武富賀岡八幡宮北辺左行秀), dated Keiô two (慶応, 1866), nagasa 73.4 cm, sori 1.2 cm
mei “Naniwa-jû Gassan Yagorô Sadakazu seitan hori-dôsaku” (浪華住・月山弥五郎貞一精鍛彫同作), dated Meiji four (明治, 1871), nagasa 78.2 cm, sori 1.4 cm

Not all smiths carried the mid-Nanbokuchô revival to its extreme. Well, although still some classic Kamakura-period sugata were made at that time, there was a general and evident trend to more massive blades which remind of Keichô-shintô at a glance. Representative smiths for such “moderate” mid-Nanbokuchô inspired shapes are: Kurihara Nobuhide (栗原信秀), Takahashi Naganobu (高橋長信), Koyama Munetsugu (固山宗次), Tairyûsai Sôkan (泰龍斎宗寛), the 7^th generation Korekazu (是一), certain Mito smiths (Ichige Norichika [市毛徳鄰], Naoe Sukemasa [直江助政]), Hôki no Kami Masayoshi (伯耆守正幸), Oku Motohira (奥元平), Gassan Sadakazu (月山貞一).

A peculiar blade interpretation that appeared in bakumatsu times is the so-called kinnôtô (勤王刀, lit. “royalist´s sword”) with an overlong nagasa of around 85 cm, hardly any sori, and a chû-kissaki. But it has to be noted that also shorter blades with the same geometry but measuring just around 65~75 cm, are referred to as kinnôtô. Representative for such kind of blades are for example Sa Yukihide and Saitô Kiyondo.

Picture 18: moderate mid-Nanbokuchô-style katana from the bakumatsu era (from left to right) and far right, picture of a kinnôtô:
mei “Koyama Sôbei Munetsugu” (固山宗兵衛宗次), dated Tenpô eight (天保, 1837), nagasa 70.8 cm, sori 2.1 cm
mei “Suifu-jû Naoe Sukemasa” (水府住直江助政), dated Bunsei eight (文政, 1825), nagasa 69.8 cm, sori 2.0 cm
mei “Hôki no Kami Taira Ason Masayoshi” (伯耆守平朝臣正幸), dated Kansei nine (寛政, 1797), nagasa 75.4 cm, sori 2.0 cm
mei “Heianjô-jû Môri Hayato Ôe Kanetoshi” (平安城住毛利隼人大江兼寿), nagasa 86.5 cm, sori 0.6 cm

A few weeks ago, we have ended the basics when it comes to the sugata of a Japanese sword, that means the names and characteristics of the different elements of a blade. Now and over the next few chapters, I want to introduce on a chronological basis the differences in blade shapes, or in other words, doing the actual sugata-kantei.

*

1.8 Heian period (794-1184)

The Japanese sword got its curvature somewhere around the mid-Heian period, i.e. around the 9^th and 10^th century BC. As these earliest nihontô are an utmost rarity and virtually to impossible to handle and find on the market, they shall be ruled out for our considerations on sugata. So we start with the earliest “tangible” time what is the late Heian period, i.e. the 11^th and 12^th centuries. It goes without saying that even from those times it is very rare to study and purchase blades in their original condition as most of them either hold a status like kokuhô or jûyô-bunkazai and are thus only accessible in Japan and at special occasions, or were shortened and/or are polished down. What makes now a typical late Heian-period sugata? Blades from that time are slender, taper noticeably, have a deep koshizori, funbari, and a ko-kissaki, an interpretation which makes them look highly elegant, noble, or graceful, depending on what term you want to use to classify such a shape. In Japanese you will find terms and formulations like yasashii (優しい), yûbi (優美), yûga (優雅), kôshô (高尚), koten-teki (古典的), or hinkaku ga takai (品格が高い) to refer to a classic late-Heian period sugata. Another Japanese term which might be found in preferrably older publications is in no tachi (陰の太刀). It means “slender tachi,” or “unobtrusive tachi” if you want, but has to be understood as the opposite of the yô no tachi (陽の太刀), the “magnificent” or “powerful tachi,” as here the yin and yang (Japanese in and yô) terminology was used to distinguish between two fundamentally different tachi shapes. In late-Heian times, the classical tachi was the weapon of higher-ranking bushi and was thus wielded from horseback. Accordingly, unshortened blades from that time have a somewhat longer nagasa of about 80 to 85 cm. Again, I don’t want to go too much into historic details in this series on kantei so please forgive me for the lack of differentation here and there.

Let us stay with the sori for a while. I have mentioned that blades from that time show mostly a koshizori, that means the center of the curvature is towards the base, often right at the area of the habaki. But not only that, we can also observe that the curvature continues into the tang, i.e. also the nakago curves gently. An additional way to describe a koshizori which is relative often found in Japanese sources and which had been mentioned above is to say that the sori “bends down” towards the tip, saki ni itte fusaru (先に行って伏さる) or saki ni itte utsumuku (先に行って俯く). This just means that the sori does not increase again as it would be the case at a toriizori but runs out gently from the deepest curvature, the base, towards the tip.

Representative schools and smiths for a classic late-Heian period sugata are: Early Kyô-mono like the Sanjô (三条) school (Munechika [宗近], Yoshiie [吉家], Arikuni [有国], Arinari [有成]), Gojô (五条) school (Kanenaga [兼永], Kuninaga [国永]), or Awataguchi (粟田口) school (Kuniie [国家], Kunitomo [国友]); for Yamato the early Senju´in (千手院) school (Yukinobu [行信], Yukiyoshi [行吉]); the Ko-Bizen (古備前) school (Tomonari [友成], Masatsune [正恒], Takahira [高平], Kanehira [包平], Sukenari [介成], Sukehira [助平]); the Ko-Aoe (古青江) school (Yasutsugu [安次], Moritsugu [守次], Masatsune [正恒]); the Ko-Hôki (古伯耆) school (Yasutsuna [安綱], Ôhara Sanemori [大原真守], Moritsuna [守綱]); early northern Ôshû-mono like the Môgusa (舞草) school (Yasufusa [安房], Takeyasu [雄安], Morifusa [森房], Arimasa [有正]); the Ko-Kyûshû smiths like Sô Sadahide (僧定秀), , Chôen (長円), Ryôsai (良西); and the Ko-Naminohira (古波平) school (Masakuni [正国], Yukiyasu [行安], Yukimasa [行正]).

But it has to be mentioned that even if all these smiths are dated to the late or end of Heian period, we can see certain differences when it comes to their sugata. In other words, not all of these smiths focused solely on slender classic late-Heian period tachi shapes. For example Ko-Hôki Yasutsuna was known for making somewhat more robust and wider blades. And an extreme example is the Kyûshû Chikugo smith Miike “Tenta” Mitsuyo (三池典太光世) who made noticeably stout tachi for his time. These differences in shape might go back to the different production sites and the different clientel but what must not be forgotten is that we hardly have any reliable dates when it comes to such early smiths. For example, old sword documents date Sanjô Munechika traditionally around Ei´en (永延, 987-989) but more recent and comparative studies suggest that he was rather active at least a century later. The same applies to Yasutsuna who is listed as being active around Daidō (大同, 806-810) or Kōnin (弘仁, 810-824), eras when the Japanese sword was still in its uncurved chokutô phase. Or Miike Tenta Mitsuyo who is listed, depending on the source, around Kōhei (康平, 1058-1065), Jōhō (承保, 1074-1077), or Heiji (平治, 1159-1160).

In the following I would like to introduce pictures of blades from that time. Please take your time and internalize their elegance and gracefulness and also take a look at the nagasa. Although chances to handle blades like these in their original condition are as mentioned very rare, you will recognize them when holding a noticeable long but slender, elegantly curved blade with quite a smallish kissaki in hand. That means, with such a blade you know that you might be in the realm of the late Heian period or that you are facing a later work that tries to reproduce such a very classical sword. And in the latter case, i.e. when just the sugata suggests late Heian but everything else shintô or shinshintô for example, you might be able narrow down the kantei via remembering who was known in this or that time for making copies of very classical blades. But I will point out such “peculiarities” in the chapters on the schools and smiths.

Picture 1: late-Heian period tachi (from left to right):
meibutsu Mikazuki-Munechika (三日月宗近), mei “Sanjô” (三条), nagasa 80.0 cm, sori 2.7 cm
meibutsu Tsurumaru-Kuninaga (鶴丸国永), mei “Kuninaga” (国永), nagasa 78.8 cm, sori 2.7 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Aritsuna” (有綱), Ko-Hôki, nagasa 83.4 cm, sori 3.2 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Yukiyasu” (行安), Ko-Naminohira, nagasa 73.9 cm, sori 2.7 cm

Picture 2: late-Heian period tachi (from left to right):
kokuho, mei “Tomonari saku” (友成作), nagasa 80.0 cm, sori 2.9 cm
kokuhô, mei “Sanetsune” (真恒), Ko-Bizen, nagasa 89.7 cm, sori 3.7 cm
meibutsu Dôjigiri-Yasutsuna (童子切安綱), mei “Yasutsuna” (安綱), nagasa 80.0 cm, sori 2.7 cm
kokuhô, mei “Sanemori tsukuru” (真守造), Ko-Hôki, nagasa 76.7 cm, sori 1.9 cm

Picture 3: atypical late-Heian period tachi (from left to right):
meibutsu Ô-Kanehira (大包平), mei “Bizen no Kuni Kanehira saku” (備前国包平作), nagasa 89.2 cm, sori 3.4 cm
meibutsu Ôtenta-Mitsuyo (大典太光世), mei “Mitsuyo saku” (光世作), nagasa 66.1 cm, sori 2.7 cm
meibutsu Sohaya no tsurugi (ソハヤノツルキ), mei “Myōjun-denji sohaya no tsurugi - utsusu-nari” (妙純傅持ソハヤノツルキ・ウツスナリ), attributed to Miike Tenta Mitsuyo, nagasa 67.9 cm, sori 2.4 cm

*

1.9 Early Kamakura period (1185-1232)

The general sugata did not change drastically or suddenly with the transition from the Heian to the Kamakura period but what we can observe is a slight increase in width and kissaki size and a little lesser tapering. The pronounced koshizori remains and the changes in shape reflect about the changes in time: The warrior class had just gained supremacy but the aristocracy was still strong, to put it in a nutshell. So these early Kamakura shapes are often described with wordings like “elegant but strong,” in Japanese yûbi de chikarazuyoi (優美で力強い) or yûsô (優壮), but often they are still referred to as “classic” (koten-teki, 古典的).

Representative schools and smiths for a classic early Kamakura period sugata are: Kyô-mono like the Awataguchi (粟田口) school (Kunitomo [国友], Hisakuni [久国], Kuniyasu [国安], Kunikiyo [国清]); the Ko-Ichimonji (古一文字) as connecting link from the Ko-Bizen to the Fukuoka and other Ichimonji schools (Norimune [則宗], Sukemune [助宗], Nobufusa [延房], Muneyoshi [宗吉], Nobukane [信包], Narimune [成宗], Sukeshige [助茂]); the Ko-Aoe (古青江) school (Sadatsugu [貞次], Suketsugu [助次], Tsunetsugu [恒次], Masatsune [正恒], Yasutsugu [康次], Nobutsugu [延次]); subsequent Ko-Kyûshû and Ko-Naminohira smiths like Bungo Yukihira (豊後行平).

Picture 4: early Kamakura period tachi (from left to right):
meibutsu Kitsunegasaki (狐ケ崎), mei “Tametsugu” (為次), Ko-Aoe, nagasa 78.8 cm, sori 3.3 cm
kokuhô, mei “Bungo no Kuni Yukihira saku” (豊後国行平作), nagasa 80.1 cm, sori 2.8 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), Ko-Niô, nagasa 79.7 cm, sori 2.3 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Hôju” (宝寿・寶壽), nagasa 74.8 cm, sori 3.7 cm

*

1.10 Mid-Kamakura period (1232-1288)

The increase in length and width continuously proceeded in the mid-Kamakura period and tachi became now noticeably more magnificent than their early-Kamakura or late-Heian predecessors. The mihaba gets wider, the tapering decreases, the sori shifts more from a koshizori to a toriizori, we can see plenty of hira-niku – and a variant of that, the hamaguriba – and the kissaki appears as a full chû-kissaki. But at about the same time, a blade shape appears which is even bigger, shows less taper, a somewhat thicker kasane and higher shinogi, a narrow shinogiji, and which ends in a stubby ikubi-kissaki. The mid-Kamakura period shape is mostly circumscribed as “magnificent,” or gôsô (豪壮) in Japanese.

Representative schools and smiths for a mid-Kamakura period sugata are: Kyô-mono like the Awataguchi (粟田口) school (Kuniyoshi [国吉], Kunitsuna [国綱], Yoshimitsu [吉光]); the Rai (来) school (Kuniyuki [国行], Niji Kunitoshi [二字国俊]); the Ayanokôji (綾小路) school (Sadatoshi [定利], Sadaie [定家]); for Yamato certain Senju´in-based smiths (Rikiô [力王], Sadashige [定重]); very early Sôshû smiths like Shintôgo Kunimitsu (新藤五国光), Shintôgo Kunihiro (国広), Daishinbô (大進坊); the Fukuoka-Ichimonji school (Yoshifusa [吉房], Sukezane [助真], Suketsuna [助綱], Norifusa [則房], Munetada [宗忠], Yoshimochi [吉用], Yoshimoto [吉元]); the Ko-Osafune (古長船) school (Mitsutada [光忠], Nagamitsu [長光], Junkei [順慶], Kagehide [景秀], Sanenaga [真長]); other Bizen-mono like Saburô Kunimune (三郎国宗) or Hatakeda Moriie (畠田守家); the Katayama-Ichimonji school (Norifusa [則房]); the Chû-Aoe (中青江) school (Suketsugu [助次], Shigetsugu [重次], Sadatsugu [貞次], Moritsugu [守次]); and the latest Ko-Kyûshû smiths like Sairen (西蓮) or Naminohira Yukiyasu (行安) or Yasuyuki (安行). And representative smiths for making tachi in the “other,” the massive ikubi-kissaki-style sugata were for example Niji-Kunitoshi, Osafune Mitsutada, or several Ichimonji smiths.

Before we continue with the Kamakura period it must be pointed out that classifying Kamakura-period sugata is not as easy as it seems. One problem is the pure lack of extant unshortened blades and another problem, which is connected to problem number one, is that basically only those blades are extant in an unaltered condition which were made by noted smiths for a high-ranking clientel. Also we have to distinguish between war swords (hyôjô no tachi, 兵仗太刀) and ceremonial swords (gijô no tachi, 儀仗太刀) and this differentiation is as important as the realization that we are facing just the tip of the iceberg. To visualize the complexity of these problems: Blades from that time can be made to be worn as ceremonial sword by courtiers (kuge), as war sword for courtiers (nodachi, 野太刀, not to be confused with the overlong field swords of the same name), as war sword of the military aristocracy (buke), as treasure sword for both buke or kuge, or as war sword for the common warriors. The blades of all these swords show more or less subtle differences according to their use. Though we have to recognize that all we have is a small window through which we can peek into the Kamakura-era sword world and we have to be careful when it comes to sugata from that time. To learn more about the difficulties when it comes to classifying Kamakura-period sword shapes, please read the blog post I wrote a while ago.

Picture 5: mid-Kamakura period tachi (from left to right):
kokuhô, mei “Yoshihira” (吉平), nagasa 73.8 cm
kokuhô, mei “Kunimune” (国宗), Bizen-Saburô, nagasa 72.7 cm, sori 2.4 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kuniyuki” (国行), Rai, nagasa 69.6 cm, sori 2.7 cm
kokuhô, mei “Yoshifusa” (吉房), Ichimonji, nagasa 81.4 cm, sori 3.0 cm

*

1.11 Late Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period (1288-1336)

Tachi continuously increase in size and length towards the end of the Kamakura and early Nanbokuchô period but what is now most conspicious is the increase in kissaki size and the giving-up of the koshizori in favor of a toriizori. Apart from that, the kasane starts to get thinner and the abundance of niku disappears again. Tachi-sugata from that time are large and magnificent but yet not exaggerated or strikingly oversized.

Representative schools and smiths for a late Kamakura to early Nanbokuchô period sugata are: Kyô-mono like the Rai (来) school (Kunimitsu [国光], Kunitsugu [国次], Mitsunake [光包], Ryôkai [了戒]); the Senju´in (千手院) school (Yoshihiro [義弘]), the Shikkake (尻懸) school (Norinaga [則長], Norihiro [則弘]); the Taima (当麻) school (Kuniyuki [国行], Kunikiyo [国清], Chô Aritoshi [長有俊]); the Hoshô (保昌) school (Sadamune [貞宗], Sadayoshi [貞吉]); the Tegai (手掻) school (Kanenaga [包永]); for the Sôshû tradition (Masamune [正宗], Yukimitsu [行光], Sadamune [貞宗], Shizu Saburô Kaneuji [志津三郎兼氏], Kinjû [金重], Gô Yoshihiro [郷義弘], Norishige [則重]); the Yoshioka-Ichimonji (吉岡一文字) school (Sukeyoshi [助吉], Sukemitsu [助光], Sukeyoshi [助義], Sukeshige [助茂]); the Iwato or Shôchû-Ichimonji (岩戸・正中一文字) school (Yoshiuji [吉氏], Yoshimori [吉守]); the Osafune school (Kagemitsu [景光], Chikakage [近景], 1^st generation Kanemitsu [兼光]); the Hatakeda (畠田) school (Sanemori [真守], Morishige [守重]); the Un (雲類) group (Unshô [雲生], Unji [雲次]); other Bizen smiths like Kokubunji Sukekuni (国分寺助国) or Wake no Shô Shigesuke (和気庄重助); the Chû-Aoe school (Yoshitsugu [吉次], Tsuguyoshi [次吉], Nobutsugu [信次], Naotsugu [直次], Hidetsugu [秀次]); the Katayama-Ichimonji school (Sanetoshi [真利], Tsugunao [次直], Chikatsugu [近次]); and for Kyûshû for example Jitsu´a (実阿), Ô-Sa (大左), Sa Kunihiro (左国弘), the Enju (延寿) school (Kunisuke [国資], Kuninobu [国信], Kunitoki [国時], Kuniyoshi [国吉], Kuniyasu [国泰]), or for the Naminohira school Yasumitsu (安光).

Picture 6: late Kamakura early Nanbokuchô period tachi (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), Rai, nagasa 75.5 cm, sori 2.4 cm
kokuhô, mei “Kunitoshi” (国俊), Rai, nagasa 72.2 cm, sori 2.3 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Sahyôe no Jô Fujiwara Kunitomo” (左兵衛尉藤原国友), Enju, dated Shôchû one (正中, 1324), nagasa 89.1 cm, sori 3.9 cm
kokuhô, mei “Bizen no Kuni Yoshioka-jû Sakon Shôgen Ki no Sukemitsu” (備前国吉岡住左近将監紀助光), dated Genkô two (元享, 1322), nagasa 82.1 cm, sori 3.6 cm

*

1.12 Mid-Nanbokuchô period (1336-1375)

The mid-Nanbokuchô period marked the height of the length and overall size growth of the tachi. Blades from that time measure up to 90 cm and even some longer ôdachi with a nagasa of 120 cm were produced in considerable numbers. There is not much taper, a scarce niku, a thin kasane, a narrow shinogi-ji, a shallow toriizori, and an ô-kissaki with not much fukura. The vast majority of these oversized tachi have been shortened but the large kissaki, the thin kasane, and the wide mihaba identifies them, with some experience, rather easy as mid-Nanbokuchô even if they show the same, about 70~75 cm measuring nagasa of a tachi or katana. Please note that sometimes and due to later polishings and alterations, an ô-kissaki is not that large and elongated as you might think. Or in other words, certain mid-Nanbokuchô tachi are described with having an ô-kissaki but which is in fact only slightly larger than a chû-kissaki. Mid-Nanbokuchô tachi-sugata are described as “magnificent” or “exaggerated,” and in Japanese we find terms like gôsô (剛壮) or yûdai (雄大). And as the climax of this trend in size growth was reached in the eras Enbun (延文, 1356-1361) and Jôji (貞治, 1362-1368), the term Enbun-Jôji-sugata (延文・貞治姿) has become established to refer to oversized mid-Nanbokuchô blades.

Representative schools and smiths for a mid-Nanbokuchô period sugata are: For Kyôto the Hasebe (長谷部) school (Kunishige [国重], Kuninobu [国信], Kunihira [国平]); the early Nobukuni (信国) smiths; the later Rai smiths (Tomokuni [倫国], Kunizane [国真]); Daruma Shigemitsu (達磨重光); for Yamato the Tegai (手掻) school (Kanetsugu [包次]); the Hoshô (保昌) school (Sadakiyo [貞清], Sadayuki [貞行]); for Sôshû masters like Hiromitsu (広光), Akihiro (秋広), and Hiromasa (広正); for Mino the Sôshû-influenced Naoe Shizu (直江志津) school (2^nd generation Kaneuji [兼氏], Kanetsugu [兼次], Kanetomo [兼友], Kanenobu [兼信], 2^nd generation Kinjû [金重], Kaneyuki [金行], Tametsugu [為継]); the Sôden-Bizen (相伝備前) school (2^nd generation Kanemitsu [兼光], Tomomitsu [倫光], Masamitsu [政光], Motomitsu [基光], Yoshimitsu [義光], Motoshige [元重], Chôgi [長義], Yoshikage [義景]); the Ômiya (大宮) school (Morikage [盛景], Sukemori [助盛], Morokage [師景]); the Un (雲類) group (2^nd generation Unji [雲次], Unjû [雲重]); the Chû-Aoe (中青江) school (Tsuguyoshi [次吉], Tsugunao [次直], Moritsugu [守次], later generations Sadatsugu [貞次]); the Ko-Mihara (古三原) school (Masaie [正家], Masahiro [正広], Masamitsu [正光]); the Uda (宇多) school (Kunimitsu [国光], Kunimune [国宗], Kunifusa [国房]); Kashû Sanekage (真景); the Sekishû-Naotsuna (石州直綱) school (Naotsuna [直綱], Sadatsuna [貞綱]); Hôjôji Kunimitsu (法城寺国光); the Niô (二王) school (Kiyotsuna [清綱], Kiyosada [清貞]); for Kyûshû the Sa (左) school (Yasuyoshi [安吉], Yoshisada [吉貞], Kunihiro [国弘], Hiroyuki [弘行],); Tosa Yoshimitsu (土佐吉光).

Also we must not forget that up to the mid-Nanbokuchô period there were some smiths who worked in two blade shapes, that is to say on the one hand in a tachi-sugata that followed the style of their times, and on the other hand in a classical slender tachi-sugata which remind of the late Heian or early Kamakura period. Representative for these “reminiscence of classic tachi-sugata” were Rai Kunitoshi (来国俊), Rai Kunimitsu (来国光), Ryôkai (了戒), for the Osafune school Nagamitsu (長光), Kagemitsu (景光), Sanenaga (真長), and the 1^st generation Kanemitsu (兼光), Kanro Toshinaga (甘呂俊長), and certain Enju smiths like Kunimura (国村) or Kunitomo (国友).

Picture 7: mid-Nanbokuchô period tachi (from left to right):
kokuhô, mei “Bishû Osafune Tomomitsu” (備州長船倫光), dated Jôji five (1366), nagasa 126.0 cm, sori 5.8 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Bizen no Kuni Osafune-jû Yoshikage” (備前国長船住義景), suriage, nagasa 74.4 cm, sori 0.9 cm
kokuhô, mei “Senju´in Nagayoshi” (千手院長吉), dated Jôji five (1336), nagasa 135.7 cm
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Kaneuji” (兼氏), suriage, nagasa 66.7 cm

*

1.13 Late Nanbokuchô and early Muromachi period (1375-1428)

The late Nanbokuchô period brought a turning away from the exaggerated mid-Nanbokuchô blade shapes. That means tachi still have a rather long nagasa and a shallow toriizori but the kasane increases a bit, the blades taper again, and the tip returns to a chû-kissaki. And towards the end of the Ôei era (応永, 1394-1428) we are back at classical Kamakura-period tachi but now interpreted with a hint of a sakizori and a somewhat shorter nagasa. Well, it is difficult to recognize this sakizori as it is really just a hint but at an ubu blade from that time, you might just “feel” a somewhat different toriizori, i.e. with its deepest point slightly more towards the tip than usual.

Representative schools and smiths for a late Nanbokuchô and early Muromachi period sugata are: For Kyô-mono the the Sanjô (三条) school (Yoshinori [吉則]), the later Nobukuni (信国) masters; for Bizen the Kozori (小反) and Yoshii (吉井) school and for early Muromachi the Ôei-Bizen (応永備前) school (Morimitsu [盛光], Yasumitsu [康光]); for Mino the Akasaka-Senju´in (赤坂千手院) school; the Fujishima (藤島) school; the Uda (宇多) school.

Picture 8: late Nanbokuchô and early Muromachi period tachi (from left to right):
jûyô-bunkazai, mei “Bishû Osafune Morimitsu” (備州長船盛光), dated Ôei 23 (1416), nagasa 76.1 cm, sori 1.1 cm
mei “Bishû Osafune Tsuguyuki” (備州長船次行), Kozori, suriage, nagasa 78.4 cm, sori 2.3 cm

1.7.2 Horimono (engravings)

Let us continue with the engravings that are usually found on a Japanese sword. As mentioned at the very beginning, I will skip historic background as much as possible and focus on what you see on blades and what is essential for kantei. As for horimono, an excellent and detailed overview in terms of terminology and religious significance had been written by Gabriel Lebec just last year and is available as PDF here. So if you want additional and background info on this subject, this is where you go. Important for kantei conclusions drawn on the basis of horimono is to know that engravings other than hi basically follow two approaches: The one is the belief that certain religious symbols provide good luck, offer protection from evil or harm, and/or underline what the sword wearer beliefs, and the other one is to personalize and decorate a blade. Well, it can be said hat virtually all horimono have some kind of religious background and that over time just the degree of detail and repertoire increased. In short, deities were in the beginning often justrepresented by their bonji (Sanskrit character) but were later on fully “carved out” in a picturesque manner. And the detail of such engravings can be truly amazing! And stylized religious symbols were later in time no longer interpreted in an abstract and abbreviated but in a full and more “realistic” manner. When it comes to Japanese depictions, we differentiate between three degrees of elaboration or abbreviation: 1. shin (真): “formal,” “full,” or “most elaborate;” 2. gyô (行): “semi-formal” or “intermediate degree of elaboration;” and 3. sô (草): “informal,” “free,” or “abbreviated.” For the definition of horimono (and other Japanese arts as well), these terms are used as prefixes, e.g. shin no …, gyô no …, and sô no …

An important aspect of horimono is the fact that hey do not necessarily had to be added at the time the blade was forged. That means, every later owner of a blade was able to decide to have it enlarged by whatever engraving (or groove). This was sometimes done to hide certain flaws, for example open fukure blisters in the shinogi-ji, or to “push” an unsigned blade into a certain direction. For example, a blade whose workmanship suggests Nanbokuchô Sôshû might have better chances to receive an attribution to the great Sadamune if enlarged with futasuji-hi as several blades of this master show this kind of grooves. Also important to know is that as far as swords are concerned, classicism had always been a choice. So a smith or client from whatever period, let’s say late Muromachi or mid-Edo could have made or ordered a blade that models on classical Kamakura masterworks, including their horimono, or if not modelled on a concrete example, made or ordered an elegant blade that got a classic touch by adding an ancient-looking engraving at its base. And with this, we arrive at the question of what was/is considered as classical? As a rule of thumb it can be said that classical horimono are those that had emerged before the end of the Kamakura period. Often quoted examples of what is thought to be the oldest horimono are a suken as relief in a hi on a blade of Bizen Tomonari (友成), the bonji for Fudô-Myôô on top of a suken on a blade of Ko-Hôki Ôhara Sanemori (大原真守), and the relief of a kurikara, a bonji and the a deity as relief (experts argue on what deity is depicted), or a crane that bites into a pine cone on blades by Bungo Yukuhira (行平) (see picture below). That means we are as early as in the late Heian or very beginning of the Kamakura period with these smiths. What is obvious at these earliest horimono is that they focus pretty much at just the base of the blade and that they are quite simple.

From left to right: Tomonari, Sanemori, Yukihira.

Before I introduce one by one the most common engravings, I want to address the question of which blades from which schools or smiths are likeliest to show horimono? And in this case I mean horimono in terms of more elaborate decorations and not just suken. Well, chronologically speaking, more elaborate horimono are very often seen at the Nobukuni (信国) school followed by the Hasebe (長谷部) school and the Bizen Osafune smiths from master Kagemitsu (景光) onwards. That means we basically start not before the mid to late Nanbokuchô period with elaborate engravings. The Bizen smiths in general are known for adding relative often horimono what applies to the Kozori group (小反) that emerged towards the end of the Nanbokuchô period as well as to the Ôei-Bizen, Eikyô-Bizen, and Sue-Bizen groups. The Sôshû smiths too are famous for their horimono and that concerns the master smiths after Masamune, i.e. Hiromitsu (広光) and Akihiro (秋広), as well as the entire Sue-Sôshû group. Another candidate whose blades show almost always any kind of horimono is Heianjo Nagayoshi (平安城長吉), or to be precise the later smith who was active around Eishô (永正, 1504-1521). When it comes to the end of the Muromachi period, we find – apart from the Sue-Bizen and Sue-Sôshû smiths – relative many elaborate horimono on works of the Yamato Kanabô (金房) and Shitahara (下原) school. And at the transitional time to the shintô era, we find many engravings on blades made in the vicinity of the supposed “founder” of the shintô, Umetada Myôju (埋忠明寿), e.g. at Horikawa Kunihiro (堀川国広) and Hizen Tadayoshi (肥前忠吉) and on blades of their immediate successors like Dewa no Daijô Kunimichi (出羽大掾国路) and his Mishina colleague Etchû no Kami Masatoshi (越中守正俊). Not to forget Echizen Yasutsugu (康継) and the Shimosaka (下坂) school where he came from. Somewhat later in shintô times, Kotetsu (虎徹) and Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna (粟田口一竿子忠綱) are famous for adding elaborate horimono, stating that proudly on the tang via the phrase hori-dôsaku (彫同作) what means “horimono by the smith” in contrast to horimono engraved by a specialized horimono artist like it was often the case at the earliest Hizen smiths. And as for shinshintô times, first and foremost Hosokawa Masayoshi (細川正義) and Taikei Naotane (大慶直胤) must be named. But I would like to repeat that this “list” concerns schools and smiths that are known for adding elaborate horimono. That means, more simple and classical engravings are found throughout all periods and schools. Anyway, if a certain school or smith is famous for a certain horimono or certain horimono interpretation, I will point that out again in the corresponding chapters. Having that said, let me now introduce in alphabetical order the most common horimono. And not to make this blog post disproportionally long, I will add comparisons of individual horimono interpretations as PDFs.

bonji (梵字) – Sanskrit character(s). Might be used alone or in combination with other engravings, for example on top of a groove or suken or in between two grooves that have been “interrupted” for the purpose of adding a bonji. It is almost impossible to point out a certain school or smith that is very famous for adding bonji but I would say Nobukuni, Heianjô Nagayoshi, Hiromitsu, Akihiro, the Sue-Sôshû school, the Osafune school, the Ôei-Bizen school, the Sue-Bizen school, Umetada Myôju, the Horikawa school, Dewa no Daijô Kunimichi, Etchû no Kami Masatoshi, Hizen Tadayoshi, Echizen Yasutsugu, Higo no Daijô Sadakuni (肥後大掾貞国), Kotetsu, Suishinshi Masahide (水心子正秀), and Taikei Naotane.

Daikokuten (大黒天) – One of the Seven Lucky Gods associated with wealth and prosperity. Sometimes also just referred to as Daikoku. He is usually interpreted as relief and depicted standing on two bales of rice. Usually seen on blades of Horikawa Kunihiro, Dewa no Daijô Kunimichi, and Kotetsu. A Daikokuten horimono is sometimes also soon at Hiroyoshi (広賀) from Hôki. ComparisonDaikokuten.

dokko (独鈷) – A single-prong vajra hilt. Such a vajra hilt is a weapon which is used as a ritual object to symbolize both the properties of a diamond (indestructibility) and a thunderbolt (irresistible force). The dokko can be found as horimono itself or with one prong elongated to a ken sword, an interpretation which is referred to as dokko-ken (独鈷剣) or short dokken (独剣) (see bottom picture below). This kind of horimono is for example sometimes found at blades of the Sue-Sôshû school but is much lesser seen than its “famous” counterpart, the sankozuka-ken, i.e. the three-pronged vajra hilt. ComparisonDokko.

Fudô-Myôô (不動明王) – Guardian deity primarily revered in Vajrayana Buddhism or in Japan respectively in the Shingo, Tendai, Yen, and Nichiren sects. He is usually depicted in a fierce manner, holding a sankozuka-ken or kurikara, a sword with a dragon coiled around it in the one hand, and a kensaku (羂索) rope in the other hand. The flaming nimbus or halo behind the statue is known as the karura (迦楼羅) flame, after a mythical firebreathing birdlike creature, the Garuda (jap. Karura). His seat, the banjakuza (盤石座 , lit. “huge rock base”), is considered an appropriate iconographic symbol to demonstrate the steadfastness of Fudô-Myôô. A Fudô-Myôô engraving is also seen at quite many schools and throughout all times so it is hard to name any name here. ComparisonFudoMyoo.

hatahoko (幡鉾・旗鉾) – Lit. “banner spear.” Symbolic weapon used in esoteric Buddhism to decorate an altar place. The spear or lance is sometimes also referred to as Bishamon-ken (毘沙門剣, lit. “Sword of Bishamon”) or just hoko (鉾). A hatahoko engraving is pretty rare. The one shown below is found on a Hizen Tadayoshi blade and was added by the horimono-shi Munenaga (宗長) who had refined his craft under Umetada Myôju.

kensaku (羂索) – Rope of Fudô-Myôô and other guardian deities which symbolizes the keeping at distance of enemies of the Buddhist teachings and the catching of new believers.

kurikara (倶梨伽羅) – According to legend, the guardian deity Fudô-Myôô (不動明王) once had to fight a deity from another religion, the dragon king Kurikara, written with the same characters as stated above. He changed himself into a flaming sword but Kurikara did the same and the fighting went on without a winner. But then Fudô-Myôô transformed into the dragon Kurikara, wound himself around the opponent’s sword, and ate it from the top. Also referred to as kenmaki-ryû (剣巻龍, lit. “dragon winding around a sword”). There are quite many kurikara interpretations but basically we differentiate between three approaches that follow the shin-gyô-sô mentioned at the beginning, i.t. shin no kurikara (真の倶梨伽羅, “full” or “realistic kurikara”), gyô no kurikara (行の倶梨伽羅, “more or less abbreviated kurikara”), and sô no kurikara (草の倶梨伽羅, “abbreviated,” “stylized,” or “abstrac kurikara”). A shin no kurikara is often seen on blades of Nobukuni, Heianjô Nagayoshi, of the Sue-Bizen school, at Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna, Hizen Tadayoshi, Echizen Yasutsugu, Higo no Daijô Sadakuni, Suishinshi Masamune, Hosokawa Masayoshi, Taikei Naotane, and at the shinshintô and gendai Gassan school. A gyô no kurikara can be found on Nobukuni and Heianjô Nagayoshi blades, at Kagemitsu, the Sue-Bizen and Sue-Sôshû schools, Echizen Yasutsugu, Kotetsu, Hizen Tadayoshi, Taikei Naotane, and Tairyûsai Sôkan (泰龍斎宗寛). And a stylized sô no kurikara is typical for the Hasebe school, Nobukuni, Heianjô Nagayoshi, the Kanabô school, the Sue-Sôshû and Sue-Bizen school, the smiths around Osafune Kanemitsu, Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna, Echizen Yatsuugu, Hizen Tadayoshi, the shintô Hôjôji school, Ômi no Kami Tsuguhira (近江守継平), Harima no Daijô Shigetaka (播磨大掾重高), Yamashiro no Kami Kunikiyo (山城守国清), and Taikei Naotane. And please note that Heianjô Nagayoshi often combined a gyô no kurikara and a sô no kurikara or two differently stylized sô no kurikara distributed on the two sides of one blade. The same peculiarity is seen at the Kanabô school. But it has to be pointed out that sometimes it is hard to say if a kurikara is shin or already gyô or gyô tending to sô. A variant or certain characteristic interpretation of a kurikara is the so-called harami-ryû (孕龍, lit. “pregnant dragon”). Here, the body of the dragon is somewhat at distance from the sword and with a curve of the thigh which makes it look like as if the dragon is pregnant. Such a harami-ryū is often found on swords by Nagamitsu and his Osafune main line successors. ComparisonKurikara.

 shin no kurikara

gyô no kurikara

sô no kurikara

harami-ryû

myôgô (名号) – Names of deities engraved onto sword blades, for example of Hachiman-Daibosatsu (八幡大菩薩) oder Marishiten (摩利支天). Known for engraving myôgô are for example Kagemitsu, Kanemitsu, the Sue-Bizen smiths, Heianjô Nagayoshi, Horikawa Kunihiro, Echizen Yasutsugu, and Yamato no Kami Yasusada (大和守安定).

rendai (蓮台) – The rendai is the lotus-shaped platform or lotus blossom seat beneath a Buddha image. A rendai was engraved to sword blades by itself or in combination with other horimono, for example a suken or bonji.

ryû (龍・竜) – Plain dragon that do not wind around a ken. A very common variant of the “plain” dragon is the horimono subject tamaôi-ryû (玉追い龍), the lit. “gem hunting dragon” (see picture below). According to Japanese mythology, the god of the sea in the shape of a dragon (ryûjin, 龍神) had two magical gems – the “ebb stone” kanju (干珠) and the “tide stone” manju (満珠) – with which he controlled the tide. Later he presented them to his son the demigod Hoori no mikoto (火遠理命). A legend says that later empress Jingû (神功天皇, 201-269) was in the possession of the two gems and as she was not able to control the tide, she crossed the sea, had her enemies drowned and conquered Korea. Historians assume that already back then elements of the Indian Cintāmaṇi (Jap. nyoi-ju, 如意珠) were adopted, a wish-fulfilling jewel equivalent to the philosopher´s stone in Western alchemy. A tamaôi-ryû is for example relative often seen on blades of Kurihara Nobuhide (栗原信秀) and of the shinshintô/gendaitô Gassan school. And dragons in general are typical for Nobukuni, Umetada Myôju, Horikawa Kunihiro, Hizen Tadayoshi, Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna, Kotetsu, Taikei Naotane, Tairyûsai Sôken, as well as for the mentioned Kurihara Nobuhide and the shinshintô/gendaitô Gassan school. Another characteristic dragon horimono has to be mentioned, that is that of a jôge-ryû or nobori-kudari-ryû (上下龍) where two dragons are egraved on each side of the blade, one facing upwards (jô or nobori), i.e. towards the tip, and the other one facing downwards (ge or kudari), i.e. towards the habaki. A nobori-kudari-ryû might be found on blades of Umetada Myôju, Horikawa Kunihiro, Hizen Tadayoshi, Echizen Yasutsugu, Kotetsu, Awataguchi Ikkanshi Tadatsuna, Nanki Shigekuni, and at the shinshintô/gendaitô Gassan school.

sankozuka (三鈷柄) – Trident vajra hilt. Such a vajra hilt is a weapon which is used as a ritual object to symbolize both the properties of a diamond (indestructibility) and a thunderbolt (irresistible force). The vajra is essentially a type of club with a ribbed spherical head. The ribs may meet in a ball-shaped top, or they may be separate and end in sharp points with which to stab. The sankozuka has now three ribs unlike the dokko which has one rib or prong. A ritual ken sword with such trident vajra hilt is referred to as sankozuka-ken (三鈷柄剣) accordingly. A sankozuka-ken horimono comes in many different interpretations. As a rule of thumb it can be said that at the Nobukuni smiths, the tip of the sakozuka-ken is quite deeply cut and the engraving is often combined with a bonji on top. At the Sue-Sôshû school, the tip of the ken is rather pointed whereas it is more roundish at the Sue-Bizen, Sue-Mihara, and Sue-Seki schools.

santai-butsu (三体仏) – Also referred to as sanzon (三尊). Buddha triumvirate with Buddha in the middle accompanied by two Boddhisattva. On paintings the triumvirate is usually depicted side by side but on a narrow sword blade the figures are engraved below of each other.

shiketsu (四橛) – A shiketsu is a utensil used in esoteric Buddhism. It is a kind of post, mostly of copper, which symbolically encloses the four sides of an elevated platform on which religious and/or ascetic practices are performed. The shiketsu is a rather rarely seen horimono and might be found on the opposite side of a kurikara, for example on Sue-Bizen blades.

suken (素剣) – Lit. “plain ken.” Simplified horimono of a ritualistic ken sword which just depicts the outlines of the blade. Suken can come alone but are often accompanied by other engravings like a sankozuka hilt, tsume claws (see tsume-ken), a rendai base, or a bonji. Also it can be interpreted as relief in a hitsu. A suken is one of the classical horimono and thus also found on pretty early kotô. As it was very common, it is again hard to name any particular school or smith who was “famous” for adding a suken. Noticeably wide suken with an obtuse-angled tip or two such wide suken arranged in takekurabe manner are for example seen on blades of Nanki Shigekuni (南紀重国) (see bottom two pictures below).

tsume (爪) – Lit. “claw.” The claw-shaped protrusion often seen on suken. But a tsume can also come by itself or in combination with other horimono, e.g. gomabashi.

tsume-ken (爪剣) – A suken with a tsume claw at its base.

In conclusion I want to say that horimono-kantei is a field of reseach on its own and I have to admit, I haven’t been into engravings that much to elaborate on the subtle differences of the claws and scales of kurikara dragons of the depth of suken for example. But that is on my list of future studies to do and I will present results of research of course here on my blog.