Why Kamakura = best swords ever??

[Jacques D.]

According the Nihonto meikan, Shintogo Kunimitsu died in Koan 3 (1280), Masamune died in Koei 2 (1343) and Norishige died in Joji 5 (1366). 

[Gakusee]

52 minutes ago, Nihontocollector752 said:

So based on very little evidence, and considering Nanbokucho begins at 1330 AD, a blade you mention at 1328 AD...it's safe to say that perhaps Norishige and Masamune worked and taught during the period. A period (Nanbokucho) that saw many of the Soshu blades destroyed in battle at the time. 

We do not know how capable or healthy Masamune or Norishige were to continue forging past 1333 (theoretically, the official records prefer to start Nanbokucho at 1336 but I think 1333 is more appropriate as that is when the Godaigo-Takauji power struggle commenced). They might have continued into very earliest Nanbokucho. It is speculative as a lot of these dating attempts that our hobby tries to do. 
 

When one says that someone is a Nanbokucho smith, one usually means that someone’s most creative period, his /her development and budding and flourishing  and greatest masterpieces were created during that period. They started forging in that period, they learnt, they grew, peaked and perfected the craft and so on. 
That is why when you read Fujishiro and Sesko and Kanzan they talk of the typical eras in which smiths forged. They do not look at the bookends as determinants of the principal era to which they classify smiths. By that token, Masamune and Norishige are deemed Kamakura smiths. 
 

Examples of Nanbokucho smiths are Kanemitsu, Chogi, Kencho and so on. 
 

However, if someone wants to call Masamune and Norishige Nanbokucho smiths and speculate that perhaps they worked into that period, despite the latest dated examples and workmanship pointing to Kamakura, there is little point in arguing and contesting. 
 

It has been a useful discussion as with Jussi’s and Kiril’s help we are bottoming out some of these extreme dating examples (even if some of them are just historic oshigata-based). 

[Nihontocollector752]

You mean to say neither Masamune or Norishige have Nanbokucho sugata blades attributed to them? Not one....

[Rivkin]

The earliest signed and dated Shintogo is 1293.

Regarding sugata, "Den Masamune" and "Den Yukimitsu" have plenty of thin kasane/o kissaki blades, Norishige has a few, which do tend to be den Norishige, Go has some.

[Jacques D.]

As we don't have access to all the information about these smiths, this discussion has, to my eyes, no interest. 

[Gakusee]

In the spirit of sharing and furthering understanding of this complex smith,  Masamune does have some blades that “look Nanbokucho”, but also very often when one reads the setsumei of the Juyo certificate, it says “high-end Soshu work but more likely student work” or something like that. 
 

Some examples are below (translations courtesy of Markus Sesko). Note that the blades below are all Juyo and all have den Masamune on the front of the certificate. The important detail, however, is the setsumei. 
 

Again, in the spirit of fairness, there are a handful which are not questioned to be by Masamune and have the extended kissaki and wider mihaba than usual, eg a Naruse Masamune and the meibutsu Ikeda Masamune. 

 

Example 1.

“….although the interpretation of the jiba does show prominently the characteristic features of first-class early Sōshū works, we would not go as far as to attribute the blade straightforward to Masamune as this excellent work attributes at first glance rather to Sadamune (貞宗)”

 

Example 2. 

“….therefore we are in agreement that we are facing here a work from the Masamune School. The interpretation lacks some calmness, which rather suggests the hand of one of Masamune’s students. Throughout the Edo period, however, the blade was regarded as a work of Masamune himself…”

 

Example 3.

“….Masamune’s blades usually feature a mihaba and kissaki of normal dimensions. Thus, there remains some doubt if blades in such a shape are indeed works of Masamune or not. Also, the hamon [of this blade] is a more flamboyant and varied midareba, or in other words, of a more sophisticated approach than usually seen with Masamune, which adds the question whether from the point of view of interpretation, the ha can be aligned within Masamune’s known workmanships or not. However, the jiba is nie-laden and the chikei and kinsuji very beautiful and the blade is undoubtedly a Sōshū work of the highest rank….”

[Nihontocollector752]

Exactly and if we look at Markus's book MASAMUNE where on pg 153 it states:

 

"Some remained skeptical about its authenticity as they assumed that there were no blades extant by Masamune which showed an O-Kissaki and a wider mihaba. But this approach was later refuted as there are indeed some works from his later artistic period which show where the development was going, that is to a noticable increase in blade sizes forshadowing the grandeur of the Nanbokucho period"

 

Safe to assume Masamune and his school probably led the way in Nanbokucho sugata.

[Jacques D.]

Jimmy,

 

From the same book page 58 

 

 

Quote

For example, the Hōjō Godai Ki (北条五代記) compiled in the Genna era (元和, 1615-1624) writes that when Miura Yoshioki (三浦義意, 1496-1516) was fighting his last battle he was wearing a Masamune blade, or more precisely an ōdachi, measuring 5 shaku 8 sun (~ 175.7 cm) in length. And the Saigoku Taihei Ki (西国太平記) states that when Reizei Takamori (冷泉隆豊, 1513-1551) fought his last battle, he took seven warriors with him into death with his Masamune ōdachi measuring 3 shaku 2 sun (~ 96.0 cm).

 

Occam's razor is not useless in  these cases

[Ken-Hawaii]

I really wish that everyone would remember that the periods we call Kamakura, Nanbokucho, Muromachi, etc., weren't called that, at the time! Dates are based on nengo, or who reigned as the Emperor, and the periods were named much later by historians, who were trying to simplify complex records. People living through those times might not realize that a different emperor was in power, for several years, because of the slow communications.

 

So, it doesn't make sense to split hairs (or hares!) over whether someone was working in late Kamakura or Nanbokucho, if it was 1330 or 1333. They certainly didn't know, or care!

[Ken-Hawaii]

Sorry to get off-topic, Nicolas.

 

There are quite a number of NMB members who study & train in martial arts that use Nihonto. Not that we use them to actually fight, but once you handle a Kamakura blade, it just doesn't feel like any other. But having one in hand to study, is the best way to decide for yourself why they are so superior. I have a few Kamakura & Nanbokucho blades that I have studied, in great detail, for several years. But just last night, I picked up my favorite, & noticed a major feature that I would have sworm wasn't there! I think Kirill put it best: "Best mid-Kamakura steel has a unique appearance. Its like a smoke, ever changing at every possible angle, very bright yet at the same time obscure. You don't really see it ever again at later times. No one can replicate this period's utsuri or even the hamon. Its just very different."

 

My sword mentor has a large collection of blades, from early Kamakura to Azuchi-Momoyama. When we met a few months ago, he had me handle six bare blades, without being able to see them. He asked me to choose which of them I would bring to a battle, & the two I chose, sight unseen, were mid-Kamakura & Nanbokucho.

[Jacques D.]

10 hours ago, Ken-Hawaii said:

I really wish that everyone would remember that the periods we call Kamakura, Nanbokucho, Muromachi, etc., weren't called that, at the time! Dates are based on nengo, or who reigned as the Emperor, and the periods were named much later by historians, who were trying to simplify complex records. People living through those times might not realize that a different emperor was in power, for several years, because of the slow communications.

 

So, it doesn't make sense to split hairs (or hares!) over whether someone was working in late Kamakura or Nanbokucho, if it was 1330 or 1333. They certainly didn't know, or care!

It is true as well as the fact that the Nanbokucho period does not exist in Japanese history (it is part of the Muromachi period) but it is not the subject. The point is to know if nowadays we can classify these smiths as kamakura smiths, Nanbokucho smiths or both. For me it's the last solution and frankly it doesn't matter at all.

[ROKUJURO]

As someone who looks at blades from a more metallurgical angle, I am quite fascinated by this thread.

 

Collectors seem to agree that KAMAKURA JIDAI blades are of better quality, different from later ones, have special steel, look, feel, and 'behave' differently. 

 

I wondered if a special steel could be the cause of so many features! And I wonder what most of you think about the nature of this KAMAKURA JIDAI steel? Considering the same manufacturing process, could it indeed be technically different? No, I don't think so. The TATARA process - be that a small or a big TATARA - will always yield a comparable material. Don't forget, there are no alloying metals added, it is mainly rather impure iron or steel that comes out of the furnace! After refining, the very small amounts of imputities have little or no influence on the potential performance of the steel.

 

The question arises, what facts actually make the realistic difference between a KAMAKURA era blade and another one of a different time?

 

Assuming that the TAMAHAGANE was the same, influencing factors like refining techniques (very important), composite construction of the blade (very important), precision forging and fire-welding (most important), hardening (YAKIIRE) and tempering (YAKIMODOSHI) remain. Shaping: The SUGATA was more or less dictated by the necessity of warfare of that era, and that means the way the sword was used (by riders or on foot). The construction of armour was corresponding and vice-versa influenced the properties of the blades.

 

The colour of the steel can be influenced by polishing techniques. When NUGUI is done with KANAHADA, it will result in a darker colour.

 

Another point: The blades were made very close to combat necessities which made them very effective. We would call that perhaps "deadly beauty".   

 

So, my resumée is that most of the features of a KAMAKURA era blade are a result of the craft, not the material.

 

 

[Jacques D.]

Quote

The TATARA process - be that a small or a big TATARA - will always yield a comparable material.

I kindly disagree because it is necessary to take into account the mass effect; the more the tatara is big, the more there is matter in the tatara, the more the temperature will be high and the rate of carbon will be higher. When the other components they remain present but their quantity is negligible and are not to be confused with the impurities which will be eliminated by the folding process. A too high carbon content is bad because it makes the quenched steel too brittle. This is why in Shinshinto it is folded more to decarbonize it and it's why we obtain the famous muji hada

 

[Alex A]

For me,  to get my head a bit more around this subject i have had to go back to what Ray said about Shibita Ka.

 

To be honest i had never heard of him but just looked into him a little.

 

Compare smiths over the centuries that had to make a living, sell swords with the materials they had and compare their way of producing swords to that of SHOWA period Shabata Ka.

 

Rather than repeat, here, info on the smith.

https://yakiba.com/shibata-ka/

 

As mentioned, subjective. Smiths that mastered from Konuka to Muji or whatever tradition may well of thought their blades were the best in history and felt little need to replicate anything.

 

 

 

 

[DoTanuki yokai]

Isn’t Konuka a (failed) attempt in recreating nashiji hada ? 
 

Edit:

I want to add that my conclusion about the appearance of Hada has less to do with the Tamahagane used but more with the quenching process after reading the interviews with the masters in “Modern Japanese swords and swordsmiths”. 
 

[Alex A]

If thats the case Christian, they failed an awful lot for a long time, those guys just didn't know when to quit 

[ROKUJURO]

8 hours ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

.....I want to add that my conclusion about the appearance of Hada has less to do with the Tamahagane used but more with the quenching process after reading the interviews with the masters in “Modern Japanese swords and swordsmiths”. ..

HADA has ONLY to do with the work of the smith. It is a result of the repeated folding and fire-welding of the billet.

[Paz]

On 9/2/2022 at 4:14 AM, Ken-Hawaii said:

I really wish that everyone would remember that the periods we call Kamakura, Nanbokucho, Muromachi, etc., weren't called that, at the time! Dates are based on nengo, or who reigned as the Emperor, and the periods were named much later by historians, who were trying to simplify complex records. People living through those times might not realize that a different emperor was in power, for several years, because of the slow communications.

 

So, it doesn't make sense to split hairs (or hares!) over whether someone was working in late Kamakura or Nanbokucho, if it was 1330 or 1333. They certainly didn't know, or care!

This. 

 

OK I'm going to ask a stupid/question statement. And I don't care for looking stupid  because I'm young and want to learn and that's why I joined. 

 

Smiths who were worked in the Nanbokucho era were trained by Kamakura smiths. Aswell Kamakura smiths who worked into the Nanbokucho era. 

How much of a difference could this actually be ?? 

These guys watched their "Kamakura " teachers and probably continued to forge In the same way, trying their best to replicate their works. The only difference I know is the size/length  of blades changed later in Nanbokucho. 

 

So in fact why not   stick Nanbokucho blades in with late Kamakura. I know the emperors changed. But were talking about smiths who lived and learnt with each other passed down in intensive environments. 

For example blades and smiths quality change in the muromachi era due to increase demand, that we can tell is a substantial changed in quality. 

 

Regards 

[Gakusee]

2 hours ago, Paz said:

This. 

 

OK I'm going to ask a stupid/question statement. And I don't care for looking stupid  because I'm young and want to learn and that's why I joined. 

 

Smiths who were worked in the Nanbokucho era were trained by Kamakura smiths. Aswell Kamakura smiths who worked into the Nanbokucho era. 

How much of a difference could this actually be ?? 

These guys watched their "Kamakura " teachers and probably continued to forge In the same way, trying their best to replicate their works. The only difference I know is the size/length  of blades changed later in Nanbokucho. 

 

So in fact why not   stick Nanbokucho blades in with late Kamakura. I know the emperors changed. But were talking about smiths who lived and learnt with each other passed down in intensive environments. 

For example blades and smiths quality change in the muromachi era due to increase demand, that we can tell is a substantial changed in quality. 

 

Regards 

Paz

Somehow there was loss of knowledge, skill and material during the transition from late Kamakura into “mature” or late Nanbokucho. Yes, Norishige might have worked during some of Nanbokucho (depending on which texts you believe) but some texts state he was a fellow student alongside Masamune of Shintogo. So these “greats” of late Kamakura such as Shintogo, Masamune, Yukimitsu, Norishige,  and also of very late Kamakura / early (up to mid-) Nanbokucho such as Go and Sadamune, Kaneuji, Sa, etc. 
 

So, it is perhaps fair to assume that into the first half of Nanbokucho there were still great smiths and great swords.  But in the latter half of Nanbokucho and into Muromachi the drop in quality is too big when compared to the peak in Kamakura. 
 

For instance, there are amazing Go and Shizu swords (some of them better than some of the Masamune) but when you look at rather late Soshu (Akihiro, Hiromitsu etc), while nice, it is nowhere as good as the Kamakura or early Nanbokucho Soshu. 
 

Similarly in Bizen. The greats of Kamakura such as Mitsutada, Moriie, Yoshifusa etc produced swords that were much better than the late Nanbokucho /Oei  smiths. 
 

I agree that +/-20 years either side of the cut-off it probably does not make much of a difference. It is probably more of a generational difference: the smiths working at the beginning of Nanbokucho having learnt from the Kamakura greats simply could not pass it on to their own students at the end of Nanbokucho. 
 

The factors and reasons are not well established for this rapid effervescence. Working in a centralised workshop, be it in Osafune or Kamakura, could have helped catalyse knowledge and skill and then with the dispersal of smiths to different parts of Japan those might have diminished. Of course the increasing intensity of warfare later on exacerbated the trend. 
 

 

[Nihontocollector752]

Please also note that as Ken has mentioned correctly the classifications we are using now for swords are recent date segregations. There is a clear reason for that as you will notice that when the sugata changes so does the classification in date. This is intentional in our system so we can identify based on the shape. Its not a show or descripton of quality directly because in every period there were good and bad smiths but in periods of war smiths were working forges full time and learning for new smiths was more accelerated than during peaceful periods. Nanbokucho blades sugata is also born from the experiences in the Mongol invasions (Soshu was also a proponentof those experiences). The elongated Kissaki is intentionally done so. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Possibly I have a bit controversial opinion but I do admit I don't know as I feel personally I have no way of measuring quality of the sword. In my opinion much of it has to also do with historical and romantical appreciation. Some of the legendary smiths were famed (most likely for the right reasons) for hundreds of years in the past and some cases they were even seen above cutting tests etc., as their legendary fame should be enough. Also I believe the generational appreciation in Japanese culture is also very strong and surpassing the previous generations is in my view often seen as extremely difficult.

 

I like very much what Jean C. wrote above about metallurigical point of view. I do not understand that well but I enjoyed reading his explanation. So I am wondering how would quality be measured, how much difference in performance would be if a master smith vs. average smith will make a sword with same measurements and geometry and it is finished to similar initial sharpness... I would suspect the swords would be pretty much equal in performance.

 

I do think the innovations of late Kamakura smiths after the Mongol Invasions in sword making might not have been perfect for later Nanbokuchō and Muromachi period warfare against other Japanese opponents as the protective gear was also evolving during the warfare. Of course the well made swords performed well as there are legends of famous warriors using swords made by famous smiths. Of course still you cannot cut a warrior in full armor in half with a sword regardless if it was one of various low level Sukesada or the Masamune making the sword. I do believe the swords of each era were most fitting to the use during that era. So for example late Nanbokuchō smiths made fitting swords for use during that period, likewise for example smiths during Ōnin wars etc.

 

For me, I cannot measure the quality so I often just repeat the same thing that is said in traditional sword appreciation and there are certain smiths who are accepted as being the famed masters.

[Valric]

Anyone knows why smiths changed sugata after the mongol invasion? I know of third hand written reports of old swords being inadequate against mongol armour.

 

I'm curious. They have must taken mongol gear, tested somehow, and decided they needed a longer kissaki / change in sword geometry. Curious if there is any experimental archeology on the topic. 

[Jacques D.]

14 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

HADA has ONLY to do with the work of the smith. It is a result of the repeated folding and fire-welding of the billet.

 

Yes but the future hada is mainly determined during the making of the kit (tsumiwakashi), it is the assembly of pieces of different hardness that will give the hada, if you fold and refold a totally homogeneous steel you will not see any hada. 

[Alex A]

Its heading into that Art V Weapon territory again.

 

I was under the impression we were talking art.

 

 

[Gakusee]

2 hours ago, Valric said:

Anyone knows why smiths changed sugata after the mongol invasion? I know of third hand written reports of old swords being inadequate against mongol armour.

 

I'm curious. They have must taken mongol gear, tested somehow, and decided they needed a longer kissaki / change in sword geometry. Curious if there is any experimental archeology on the topic. 

Hi Chris

 

Time and again we hear the Mongol invasion argument for the transition of Kamakura sugata to Nanbokucho sugata. What people fail to realise or pay attention to is that the Mongol invasions happened in the 1270s-1280s. So some 50 years before we deem the typical “Nanbokucho” sugata. If the Kamakura swords were so ineffective against Mongol armour, the change would have been much faster, almost instantaneous, and not measured in 5 decades. Mongol armour consisted of chainmail covering a thick chemise and on top you could have further leather armour. It is true that swords with a lot of haniku could get stuck in disparate media but this needs more analysis. 
 

It is more likely evolution of warfare in Japan itself, the transition of armour (from o-yoroi to haramaki and gusoki) and so on. 
 

One last point: numerous of the Nanbokucho swords actually have normal mihaba and chu-kissaki. It is not that all of the Nanabokucho swords are the monsters with 3-3.5 cm mihaba and 6-8cm o-kissaki. So, again, food for thought….

[Shugyosha]

It’s also worth noting that swords with a slim elegant sugata were not the only type of blades produced in the Kamakura period.

 

Ieyasu’s favourite sword by Ichimonji Sukezane is very robust and looks almost stubby: 

https://emuseum.nich.go.jp/detail?langId=en&webView=&content_base_id=100190&content_part_id=0&content_pict_id=0

[Alex A]

There would be only one way to truly get to the point, all else is purely speculation and off on a tangent talk.

 

That is , speak directly to someone that made a blade to match and ask him.

 

It has been done, again, back to the likes of Rays post.

 

Anyone know a modern smith with a take on it ?

 

If not, then little to add, for me anyways.

[Jussi Ekholm]

For me swords are historical weapons and that is the fascination I have for them. I believe modern Japanese craftsmen have various views on things. I just read interviews on the Modern Japanese Swordsmiths book, although it is 20 years old it shows that there are few craftsmen out of the 20+ interviewed who stand against the view that swordmaking was at it's high point during Kamakura period.

 

I admit I am not as well versed in history of battles in Japan so I will have to rely on wikipedia article on this one (as I do not have any books specific on this subject). Hopefully someone might have more complete list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_battles

 

When you look at the list from 1250 - 1330 (the perhaps supposed golden age of swordmaking) only major battles were the 2 mongol invasions 1274 and 1281, also to be noted that both invasions happened at Hakata bay in Southern part of Japan. Where were these best swords tested in battle during the lifetime of the smiths? I admit I haven't given too much thought about this before. I just assumed there were lot more major battles going on during mid-late Kamakura...

 

Then from 1330's onwards there are few battles as end of Kamakura starts to close in. Then there were multiple clashes onwards through the 1400's as well and when 1500's started the number of battles started to skyrocket.

[Alex A]

I do like the weapon aspect too, Jussi, doing my best not to start talking about reliable Sengoku clunkers like Dotanuki.

 

Dam, i said it.

 

Now backing out haha

 

 

[Rivkin]

I have to admit to not knowing of any major changes in daito sugata in late Kamakura, it seems continuous to me. Its unclear when Nambokucho sugata came to be, since almost all signed and dated blades aside from Bizen, Aoe and Yamashiro are tanto. Noting that they (wide mihaba, thin kasane, o kissaki) are a small minority of Norishige's, the late date (1330-1340) appears to be more plausible.

Kamakura period violence was mostly in terms of raids on neighboring estates with the purpose of adjudicating tax and border disputes. They seldom involved killing (which would immideately escalate the conflict) but more burning villages and intimidation... though reports of such akuto activities, admittedly written as a cliche, near always insist children were raped... War used to be fun.

The problem of nihonto is not sugata, its chipping and scratching like crazy with any contact. I once split and air conditioner (don't ask) with an 18th century middle eastern sword and the only noticably impact was the respective area on the blade looked a bit fresh. I can wack a yataghan into my table with no effect. A month ago I photographed a Kamakura blade and literally touched a lens when picking it up from the table... About a mm sized chip.

Frankly its a single big battle weapon.