Talk:Japanese swordsmithing

Introduction
The intro is a bit over-broad. That material is mostly covered in Katana, like the discussion of daisho fittings; it should be a bit more focused on the contruction article that follows. Just an area that needs a little work. jesup 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what a daisho is and it's not explicitly explained. Don't you think the article is a bit nerdy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.79.207 (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You can easily find out by clicking on the link provided, but a daisho is a pair of swords, one large and one small. The long sword, or katana, was used for outdoor combat, while the short sword, or wakizashi, was used while fighting indoors, or in close quarters. And, while I think the article could use a little improvement, I think it is very useful to those of us who actually use and construct these fantastic weapons, and also for those who are merely interested. Zaereth (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Rework, repros
I greatly rewrote the section on repros; it should probably be moved to lower in the page, and could use a little more work. jesup 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Polishing section expansion
I've written a major revision of the polishing section, using summarized information gleaned from my latest purchase. I was wondering how it could be improved further before being formally appended into the main article, if or when it becomes good enough to be added. CABAL 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to insert the content soon. If there are no violent objections, I'll take that as a yes. CABAL 11:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No Source Is Quoted For This Controversial Statement
The article says: "however, the belief that the layered structure provides enhanced mechanical properties of the steel is false, as layers act as weld points which can only serve to weaken the integrity of the blade".

I have read quite the contrary on that point. By interposing a layer of slippery graphite between each pair of layers of steel, the steel layers can slide relative to one another (only by a molecular distance, but it adds up). This makes the blade flexible and not brittle, while still allowing it to be very sharp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for that claim? It doesn't sound too plausible.--Caliburnis (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * While neither are exactly accurate, I have addressed this issue below under the heading "Construction - Folded Steel", and provided an excellent reference. Please read the book, "A History of Metallography". It has a greatly detailed description of the forging process with illustrations.


 * 1) Forge welding is very different from electric or flame welding in that there is no "heat affected zone". (The circle of rainbow colors that surround a modern weld, where the heated metal was in contact with cold metal, causing very rapid cooling, and thus an extremely brittle zone.) Any porosity in forge welding is squeezed out by the hammering, so the common defects found in modern welding are non-existant. The welded layers in a katana are homogenous and the cooling rate btween them is even, so the blade is in fact one solid piece of steel.


 * 2)Graphite that couldn't be squeezed out by the forge welding would only combine with steel to increase its surface carbon content, but the ancients new nothing of carbon. The Japanese smith would coat the steel with clay before each heating, to prevent oxidization and over-carburation, (ie:the carbon and slag contents are carefully controlled). The steel blocks are welded together by pounding in the center, and working outward to squeeze out the clay. The clay in turn acts as a flux, pulling impurities out of the metal with it, leaving a highly pure metal unheard of in ancient times. (In modern forging Borax is often used instead.) The increase in strength is caused by alternating layers of differing hardenability, which I have expanded upon further below.Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Certification
I really know little about this topic, but I read that blades were certified according to how well they could cut a man. The highest certification was when a blade was tested on a live subject and was able to slice him hip to hip. Is there any truth to this and how could we add it to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.129.196 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Blades were known to be tested and "certified" based on how many cadavers they could cut through. Cutting a single body hip to hip would have been no great achievement. There are records of swords that could cut four or five bodies in a single stroke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drosera99 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A "Three Body Blade" was considered good. A "Five Body Blade" was considered excellent. A "Seven Body Blade" is something of a legend. It should be noted that this gruesome ancient tradition was performed by a fully trained samuri, (without proper technique, good luck cutting through one), and often combined this testing with the execution of live prisoners. Nowadays, swords are tested using "Iaido". This is the cutting of bamboo wrapped in heavy matting, to simulate cutting through a body part. It should also be noted that this is not the only test for "certifying a sword", and entire books, (perhaps even libraries), have been written in Japan on the subject since ancient times.


 * This info can be found in a PBS special, documenting katana manufacture, and is available on the PBS website.Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is also interesting to note that only the blades certified for actual combat were signed by the smith, (under the handle), to attest that it was made in the correct manner Zaereth (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I think that this article doesn't need an article of its own. Frankly, the Katana article is shorter.
 * Support HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support that. --Will Decay (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Katana making is a long and intricate process and wikipedia should have seperate page to elaberate on its process, merging it would be like merging an article on film directing with the motion picture page. 209.244.31.42 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with 209.244.31.42. This article does merit its own. The methods used in manufacturing a katana are as intricate as they are brilliant. There is far too much involved in the process to detail it in the main katana article. This information is interesting to many people, not just from a historical standpoint, but also from a metallurgical point of view. This article should be summerized in the main article, but this should definitely remain a separate article. Zaereth (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, i've browsed many other forms of weaponry on here, and none of them have a seperate link describing the process of making them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.150.4 (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they should. The processes used to make some of the greatest weapons of the ancient world are often extremely intricate. The damascus swords, which is produced from the wootz method, could be discussed more, which are a great interest to many, since the ancient patterns in the steel, like the 'Jacob's ladder', have never been produced in modern times. Or the Merovingian blades, which get their pattern from piecing together whatever bits of scavenged or pillaged steel they could find. I'd also like to see more on the construction of the mongolian bow, whose intricate intralamellular structure, like the katana, made it one of the supreme weapons of its time. Like damascus steel, unless we document it, it may become lost forever.Zaereth (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I will concede that there is a lot of information in this article which is unrelated to the construction, and would be better suited if moved to the Katana article.Zaereth (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the main reasons I think this article should not be merged is because this construction method is not just for the katana, but also for wakizashi and tantos, as well as a multitude of other swords. Renaming it to "Japanese sword construction" seemed very appropriate, and the article should probably be altered slightly to include these other types. Zaereth (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Having said that, I'm not sure that "construction" is necessarily the best term.  I would think that something like "Japanese swordsmithing" would be more natural, at least for the creation of the blade itself.  I'm not sure whether the polishing would be best presented on its own—as it is something that can be done independently of the creation of the blade—or as part of the creation, but one might conceptually see a set of four articles if it is split out:
 * Japanese sword (with "Construction" section)
 * Japanese swordsmithing
 * Japanese sword polishing
 * Japanese sword mountings
 * Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, interesting ideas. I like the idea of using separate articles when information becomes too detailed, to maintain the average reader's interest. A good example is the articles dogfight, air combat maneuvering, and basic fighter maneuvers. All cover different aspects of the same subject, one being more historical, the other more technical, and the third describes individual maneuvers. This helps make articles more interesting to readers who want, say, the history without all the technical, but still keeps the deeper information readily accessible.
 * I think, however, that care must be taken to provide summaries. The swordsmithing article should be summarized in the katana, (or wakizashi, etc ...), article and linked instad of just providing a link, (which often happens). Similarly, the polishing article shoud be summarized in the swordsmithing article, etc...
 * On the whole, though, I think your ideas are very good ones. Zaereth (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - No merge, but both articles need cleaning up and better sourcing. I like Kirill's idea of four separate pieces, myself.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree - merging these two articles would make it too long. When a section of an article becomes too big it's advised that it should have an article of its own, so you'd end up as we are now. One more thing though, should this article not be named "Katana construction", it only seems to mention Katanas anyway (or will other swords be added? or maybe I missed those? ) 84.196.58.242 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, this article should be less focused on the katana. I think some simple changes can fix that. I'll try to get on that soon, unless someone beats me to it. Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Construction - Folded Steel
I think it should be noted that one of the main purposes for folding the steel, other than purification, is to provide alternating layers of steel with different hardenability. Typically, a block of extremely high carbon steel is welded to a block of medium carbon steel, then folded from there. The number and method of folding determines the grain direction and courseness. Typically, 10 to 14 folds are used, (number and method depending on what part of the blade the steel will be used). After 16, (65,536 individual layers), the act of folding no longer gives any benefit to the steel. The alternating layers back each other up, which combines hardness with ductility to create toughness. A good book on the subject is called "A History of Metallography", by Cyril Smith. Or check out this detailed website: http://www.samuraisword.com/REFERENCE/making/japanse_swordmaking_process.htmZaereth (talk) 22:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is also interesting, but not necessary, to note that the drop-forging used in things like pry-bars and jackhammer-bits is very similar to the ancient folding tecniques, (which is why a steel bar can easily be bent, but good luck bending that pry-bar of the same size). Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Katana_-_showing_alternating_layers.JPG Here is a photo I took of my sword, (very hard to capture on film), showing the alternating layers. The layers of darker color have less carbon content, while the layers of lighter color, (those that closely match the hamon), have a higher carbon content. Close inspection shows that these layers extend past the hamon into the hardened edge. I don't know how to upload this picture here, but it's free to use in this or any other article.Zaereth (talk) 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Polishing
It might be helpful to note in this section, especially for those of us who actually own a shin ken, (real sword), that one should never polish the tang. Doing so will extremely devalue the sword.Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Tamahagane

 * The following discussion is fromk the Tamahagane talk page. I am posting it here also, as I believe the information contained here can help to improve this article as well. There is a lot of mystique and myth surrounding katana construction, and it is one story where truth is far more complex than fiction. Zaereth (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken tamahagane is not formed by folding kawagane and shingane together. In fact, I believe kawagane and shingane are folded seperately and then later pieced together to form the chunk of metal that will eventually become the katana. Tamahagane is merely the kind of steel that is used in constuction of the katana. Also, what is the source for tamahagane meaning "soul of the sword edge steel?" The parsing of tamahagane in the article to get that meaning does not match the usual characters given for the word ("tama" and "hagane,") but it is possible that different classical characters were used in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.102.61.204 (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You may be right. After doing some further research, it appears the high carbon steel retrieved from the kera is called Nabe-Gane, and the lower carbon steel is called Hocho-Tetsu, but I'm not an expert on Japanese language. No source I've found is very clear on whether Tamahagane refers to the raw, unrefined steel, or the refined steel, ready for assembly, but it is very clear that the raw steel is very impure, and does not reach any level of quality until the folding process. And it is also clear that the folding incorporates two different kinds of steel, as quoted from "A History of Metallography": "By the introduction of layers of steel of different hardenability and combining this with useful shaping of the coating to give varying local gradients of cooling, very intricately shaped and shaded hard zones can be produced." "The center metal is made of soft steel, indeed often of nearly pure iron, folded upon itself and forged about a dozen times." "The metal that is to form the cutting edge and the adjacent sides is made by taking fragments of very high carbon steel, or perhaps cast iron (previously quenched in water and broken into small pieces to free it from slag), stacking these on a previously made steel plate, forging the whole into a compact flat bar, notching, welding, reforging to the original size, notching and refolding at right angles to the previous folding, and so continuing for about 15 to 20 foldings and weldings." This is a variation of the Chinese method of melting cast iron in a crucible, stacking wrought iron plates in the crucible until almost melted, then folding and forging the metal. To quote from Shen Kua (ca. A.D. 1065) "Ancient people use chi kang, (combined steel), for the edge, and jou thieh (soft iron) for the back, otherwise it would often break. Too strong a weapon will cut and destroy its own edge; that is why it is advisable to use nothing but combined steel."


 * I will do some more research on the subject to find a clearer definition. As for the translation, I have removed it from the article.Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please check your source on the folding process again; it sounds as if the quotes are taken out of order or from non-related areas. Mikami Sadanao describes the folding process in "The Art of Iron: Forging Japanese Swords" as a process by which the high carbon content kawagane is folded upon itself and then the lower carbon content shingane is folded seperately but in the same fashion. Then the two pieces are pieced together with the harder kawagane bent into a u-shape and the shingane put inside of the u-shape. They are then forged together (but not folded) to make the sunobe that will become the blade. Shingane means something like "core steel" and is used as the center of the blade to prevent breaking, and kawagane (something like "skin steel") is used on the outside because it is better for keeping an edge. If they were further folded together it would undermine the very principle behind making a katana; in essence by making the sword having a uniform make-up none of the benefits of the high carbon and low carbon steels are retained. This may be further explaining in one of the other Wikipedia articles pertaining to katana.


 * I will look some more into the tamahagane creation process myself. I must admit I'm not an expert on the difference between what unrefined and refined steel are so I'm a bit lost on how that distinction is determined. -Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.157.191 (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I did omit some paragraphs in between, not to be misleading, but because I did not want to quote three entire pages of material, but the vital information is presented in order. The book is worth a read, as it provides very detalied information on the forging process, including illustations from the famous artist Morikawa Chikashige, (done in the late 1800s), which clearly shows the process I've described. The book gives a look at katanas which is presented from a metallurgist's point of view, and as someone who forges katanas, the process described works to provide a sword with a great deal more toughness than a sword in which the kawagane is made from high carbon steel alone. The assembly method you've cited is also described in great detail, to quote: "The carefully prepared steel thus forged was assembled in various ways with the other steel to form the center and back of the blade. Some of the assemblies are shown in Figure 36, although there was almost endless variety possible in the disposition of the different components. The high carbon cover metal was usually folded around the core to avoid a weld intersecting the cutting edge." Zaereth (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it might also be worthy to note here that not all katanas are forged with the same level of intricacy, and the price of a blade is often determined by the level of craftsmanship that was put into the blade. A blade with kawagane made of one carbon content shows very little mokume, (wood grain pattern), and produces a smooth nioi, (a thin line about a millimeter wide surrounding the hardened edge of the yakiba), which is made up of niye, (or clusters of bright spots barely visible without a lens, made from the martensitic remnants of single austenite crystals surrounded by pearlite, and thus forms the boundery between the pearlitic blade and the martensitic edge). Instead, the differing layeres of carbon steel will make a nioi that tends to follow the mokume as well as the hamon, which makes a nioi with a 'whispy' sort of appearance, (as seen in the photo), showing that the higher carbon metal was able to achieve a greater level of hardness extending slightly underneath the clay that insulated it during the quenching. A katana forged in this manner will usually cost you over $3000.00. Katanas assembled in the Masamune style, (5 part blade construction, with a soft iron core, but high carbon edge, sides, and back), can cost in the neighborhood of $50,000.00. In this method, steel for the edge is forged with the grain parallel in each layer, but steel for the back is forged with grain in each layer running perpendicular to the next layer, and the sides are forged with the grain running diagonally to the next layer. Zaereth (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, by the way. What I mean by raw, (unrefined), steel, is that kera is full of impurities such as slag, (oxidized iron), phosphorous, silicon, manganese, and such. Also, the carbon content is extremely non-uniform, being higher on the surface, (where it was in contact with the charcoal), and lower in the middle. Steel is usually only formed in the thin branches of molten metal that branch off from the main blob, and thus, could soak up more carbon in the tatara. The steel is refined in the folding by evenly distributing the carbon content, and the mixture of water, clay, and straw applied to the to each plate before the folding acts as a flux, which draws impurities out of the metal with each consecutive welding. As stated in the PBS-Nova special which is referenced in the article, a metallurgical study of the blade shows a level of purity in the refined metal that was unheard of in ancient times. I hope that helps, and any help you could give to improve this article would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems interesting to me that Google's translation for the symbols used to spell Tamahagane comes out as "Steel Ball". I found this on a Japanese site, which seems to say that Tamahagane refers to the raw steel. " Steel ball [たまはがね] [It's a once in a while] 砂鉄を原料にして、たたら製鉄でつくられる不純物の少ない鋼のこと. The raw iron sand, steel made in steel lean TATARA. 日本刀の材料になる.  The material will be a Japanese sword." But, obviously Google's translation leaves much to be desired. I'll keep researching myself. Zaereth (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think that you are trying to be misleading; my apologies if my comments came across like I was. Looking at the page again and some of the sources I'm wondering if the word "folding" isn't getting used in two different senses. One would be the process by which a block of steel is repeatedly folded upon itself, usually around 10 to 14 times. The other sense might be the process by which some smiths used to wrap or "fold" the kawagane around the shingane. It is the idea that the shingane and kawagane are folded upon each other numerous times to make numerous alternating layers that I believe is incorrect.
 * The character for tama (玉) can mean both jewel and ball, but I think due to the artistic nature of katana-smithing that jewel may be the preferred translation for the term.
 * This translation may be a bit literal but, 砂鉄を原料にして、たたら製鉄でつくられる不純物の少ない鋼のこと → "A type of steel with few impurities made in a tatara, using satetsu as the raw (base) material." 日本刀の材料になる → "The material with which japanese swords are made." -Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.154.3.10 (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the info. I do believe you're right, that I have used the terms shingane and kawagane incorrectly, and the book can be confusing without the illustrations to clarify what he's talking about. Yes, when talking about the final assembly of the skin and the core, for Amakuni's method, the term 'wrapping' would certainly fit better, (although this is also not the only way, and the book illustrates 5 different possibilities, such as Kunimitsu's and Masamune's method of assembly). But the fact that the skin steel was forged out of two different kinds is clearly described, with pictures. I think again it would be worthy to say that the process described is not the only way to make a katana, and the swords studied in the book are old, (forged between the 1300's and the 1600's). Most modern forging techniques are different. Also, there were several schools in old Japan, (such as the Uda School, and the Hosho School), each one with it's own methods, and each one rather secretive about their own processes. I will quote another paragraph from the book:


 * "The earliest swords had a straight edge to the yakiba, [talking about the Hamon here], but even before the twelfth century irregular interfaces were produced which had both mechanical and decorative merit. Thereafter appeared a profusion of variants with indentations shaped like cedars, pill boxes, cloves, arrowheads, teeth, rat's feet, etc ., some of which are shown in Figure 39. In the eighteenth century extremely intricate designs became common, with veritable pictures of mountains, (sometimes with snowfields, rivers, and clouds), chrysanthemum flowers, breaking waves with spray, and a hundred others - all protrayed in the metallographer's martensite, in various grains against a background of pearlite! Though the principle means of achieving the effect was the shaping of the clay coat to give local variations in the cooling rate during quenching, [here's the part I described earlier, on the whispy look to the nioi, which can easily be seen in the photo], the incorporation during the forging of streaks of steel of different hardenability in the zone of the temperature gradient was also important, for many fine details are on a scale finer than could be achieved by any possible local variations in thickness or contour of the superficial insulating layer. Lines and streaks of niye away from the hard zone, such as those in Figure 40, clearly result from forged in layers of different metal." 


 * But, please read the book yourself, as I do not wish to quote it all here. It should be available at your local liabrary. It also gives a good look at Damascus Steel, and the Mergovian blades, and other "pattern welded steels", all of which result from using steels of different carbon content.Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the process described from a different site, which is sourced in the article: http://www.hitachi-metals.co.jp/e/tatara/nnp0109.htm . It gives the following description of forging of the Kawagane:


 * "To create a Japanese sword, you start with tama-hagane as the source material and run it through the lapel forging process (shita-kitae). This involves pounding the tama-hagane with a hammer into a flat shape (the mizu-herashi process). The pieces are then piled up, forge welded, and formed into a single block. Next, it is folded lengthwise and forged, and also elongated, cut, lapeled, and then forged again (the shita-kitae process). The iron slag inside is squeezed out during this process, while the remaining slag is broken up into small pieces and spread out. Simultaneously, organic impurities such as phosphorous and sulfur are also extracted.
 * "Next is the age-kitae (side steel-forging) stage. The tama-hagane, the re-melted pig iron, and the re-melted hocho-iron are folded lengthwise and forged, and also elongated, cut, lapeled, and then forged again to create masses in which the three materials are stacked in grouped and parallel layers (tansatsu-kitae), or in which they are stacked up in alternating and parallel layers (kashigi-kitae), or in which they are stacked in groups and at right angles to each other (konoha-kitae). The metal will be folded dozens of times to go with the shita-kitae process. This produces the side steel, into which the shin-gane(body steel, made up of hocho iron) will be fitted. There are numerous ways of going about this fitting in process as well."


 * So, it would appear by this the very low carbon steel, (hocho-gane), is very nearly pure iron, and that tamahagane is high quality, medium carbon steel, and that pig iron, (nabe-gane), is extremely high carbon, poor quality steel, (probably very nearly cast-iron), all of which are retrieved from the kera and used for seperate parts of the blade. Hocho-gane is folded several times by itself, to purify it, and is used for the core, where as tamahagane and nabe-gane is forged and folded together to form the skin steel. (Apparently Kawagane and Shingane simply refer to which part of the blade the material is to be used.) Also described here is the different methods for arranging the grain in different layers, as used for different parts of the blade like I have described above.


 * Much of my info also comes from talking to swordsmiths, and learning the trade, but I'll only present here what I have found verified in books or on respectable internet sites. Here is another site which gives definitions to katana terminology: http://www.samuraisword.com/glossary/index.htm Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have edited this article to represent the process discussed here. Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Heat treating, temp vs. time
The following lines in the "Construction" section are not entirely accurate. "If steel cools quickly, from a hot temperature, it becomes martensite, which is very hard but brittle. Slower, from a lower temperature, and it becomes pearlite, which bends easily and does not hold an edge."

To harden steel, it must be heated above the austenite transformation temperature, (1400 to 1500 degrees F). At this temp, austenite crystals form, and grow larger as temperature increases. (Smaller crystals make stronger metal, so the steel is not usually heated much beyond the A1 temp, although katanas were often heated to as much as 1600oF. Also, before quenching the steel also needs to be annealed, or better yet, spheroidized, to ensure crystal growth from the smallest possible size.) Controlling crystal size helps to increase the shear and tensile strength of the metal.

The hardness of the steel is solely a function of cooling time. The faster the metal is cooled from the A1 temp, the harder it becomes. Crystal size, on the other hand, is largely unaffected by cooling rate and will be the same in the edge or the back. According to A History of Metallography, and a PBS special referenced in the article, the thickness of the clay coating on the edge and the back, and even the temperature of the quenching water, were often carefully guarded secrets, fine tuned by the various schools to produce the correct hardness without any further need of tempering!

I am removing the temperature info from the sentences so as not to confuse the issue. The new sentences will read: "If steel cools quickly it becomes martensite, which is very hard but brittle. Slower and it becomes pearlite, which bends easily and does not hold an edge."

If there are any questions or comments please leave them here. Zaereth (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Assembly forging diagram
I found diagram on the French wikipedia. It looks to me to be far mor accurate at depicting the different methods of assembling the different steels during the final forging. I think we should replace the one we have with this one. Does anyone agree/disagree? Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Kirill [talk] [pf] 00:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Great, then I'll make the change, although I will need to alter some of the japanese words in the text to match. It might be worth noting, as stated in A History of Metallography that there are almost an infinite number of ways that the steel can be assembled, such as drawing the steel out, folding the kawagane into a 'U' shaped trough, and inserting the shingane, (as depicted in the PBS special). Or, the steels could be assmebled in their right locations as a steel block, and then drawn out into the sword shape so that the correct steel ends up in the right place, as depicted here. Give me a couple more days to go over my sources and I'll work out some appropriate changes. Zaereth (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no opposition, I have implimented the suggested changes. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

New information unsourced, and a strange contradiction
The information added today, to an entirely unsourced section, is also completely unsourced: "The pupose rather, for the grooves, is in the instance of stabbing an opponent the blade could get stuck due to the fact that the inside of the torso is like a vacuum, so the grooves allow air to flow freely into the torso eliminating the vacuum effect making easier to pull the blade of of the opponent."

I have never heard of such a thing, as it sounds more like urban legend. The small surface area, shape of the sword, and physical structure of the body seem to negate this, (a body is under pressure, not vacuum). It also directly contradicts the sentence just prior: "It leads to no demonstrable difference in ease withdrawing a blade nor reduce the sucking sound that many people believe was the reason for including such a feature in commando knives in World War II."

I'll see if I can find sources for this information, but I believe the only purpose for the grooves, as far as I've read, is that they lower the weight which allows for faster movement. This is also expressed in the sentence: "The grooves are analogous in structure to an I beam, lessening the weight of the sword yet keeping structural integrity and strength."

If anyone has any sources to confirm any of this info, it would be appreciated. Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According the the fuller article and the source located here,the "blood groove" section of the article is complete bunk. Removing sentence. --Anima Rytak (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm never surprised by the crap some of these whackjobs try to put in these articles either because they're bored or just morons! Thanks for fixing it!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for that. I have added the reference you provided to the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Differential tempering versus differential hardening
There is often much confusion between the terms "tempering" and "hardening." Even Roberts-Austen, (for whom austenite was named after), was known to comment on this confusion. In a speech given in 1889, Roberts-Austen said, ""There is still so much confusion between the words "temper," "tempering," and "hardening," in the writings of even eminent authorities, that it is well to keep these old definitions carefully in mind. I shall employ the word tempering in the same sense as softening." In blacksmithing as well as the field of metallurgy, this is what tempering refers to, that is, the softening of steel after hardening, but not the hardening process itself. Hardening is referred to as "quenching."

The differential process used for heat treating a Japanese sword is done during the quenching, or hardening phase. In this process, more accurately referred to as "differential hardening" or "differential quenching," the sword is cooled at different rates during quenching, producing the difference in hardness. The back of the blade becomes pearlite, while the edge is transformed into martensite. If done correctly, (ie: using the proper clay thickness and water temperature to control the cooling speed), the proper hardness can be achieved without the need for further tempering, although, more often, some traditional tempering will be required after quenching.

"Differential tempering," on the other hand, more accurately refers to the process used after quenching. Tempering refers to the subsequent heating to around 400 degrees F, to soften the martensite and provide some elasticity and ductility. In this method, the fully hardened steel is heated in a localized area, so that the spine of the blade gets hotter than the edge, providing different amounts of softening across the blade. In this method, the entire blade is transformed into martensite, and then differentially heated to form different degrees of "tempered martensite" across the blade.

The book Knife Talk II: The high performance blade, by Ed Fowler, has a whole chapter describing the differences between differential tempering and differential hardening. A History of Metallography, by Cyril Smith, is also an excellent book about katana, their manufacture, and their metallurgical qualities. This website also gives a pretty good description. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but there is a ton of confusion out there about the meaning of the word "tempering," and how it differs from "quenching," so I prefer to be as accurate as possible in the choice of wording that is used in this article. Zaereth (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * if you have references that accurately describe the process feel free to use them, the information needs to be verifiable, the current reference uses the term "differential tempering", do you have a suitable reference that shows the process being described in a more correct manner as "differential quenching"?Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sure, if more sources is what you need, I can easily provide them. I think the four sources I provided already are good, but I am always happy to provide more. Quotes too. However, I think, since this is one of those cases where sources may vary in description, (many of the writers of sword books are not blacksmiths or metallurgists), I think it is also worth looking at books on both blacksmithing and metallurgy, and using a bit of editorial judgement in deciding which term best suits the process. Here, for example, is an excerpt from A History of Metallography: "An even more interesting feature of the blades is the hamon, or outline of the yakiba, the hard martensite area produced by local quenching. To produce the desired local hardness of the cutting edge while leaving the body of the blade soft, the latter is coated with a thermally-insulating layer which remains in place during quenching, and causes the metal beneath it cool slowly while the exposed edge is rapidly cooled. For this purpose a mixture is used of clay, polishing stone powder, charcoal, and sometimes fusible salt. The coating at the edge is then cut away (or it was previously thinly applied) to give the desired contour to the yakiba. After the coating has dried, the blade is heated over a charcoal fire to the proper heat as judged by the color, and quenched in water of such temperature that the edge of the blade is the correct hardness without tempering."


 * For more sources, how about: Master Bladesmith: Advanced studies in steel by Jim Hrisoulas, or Spirit of the Sword by Steve Shackelford. There is also Metal Progress, volume 68, byt the American Society for Metals (ASM). The Source Book for Failure Analysis. Iron Age, volume 154. Stereology: proceedings of the Second International Congress for Stereology Chicago. Kurikara: The Sword and the Serpent. Transactions of the American Society for Steel Treating: Volume 9 by the ASM.


 * Some sources on diferential tempering, (as I've described it), include: The Medieval Sword in the Modern World, and The Metallurgist and materials technologist: Volume 11. Zaereth (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course it's differential hardening for Japanese work. Leon Kapp's "Craft of the Japanese Sword" is perhaps the most obvious ref for the actual process, although I'm not sure what word he uses for it. The old "tempering as hardening or softening" confusion is obscure, but it's still a possible explanation of how this arose. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I mean is if you feel strongly that you are right on this change the wording and add a verifiable inline citation to the edit, a quote is good to if it helps to differentiate between the terms. I do not think any editor will have a problem with this change as long as it is properly referenced in the article. As you know a lot of the article has not been properly referenced.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy, I am not sure that Kapp's book actually uses the word 'differential" when discussing tempering or hardening, but differential quenching or hardening seems to be the correct term rather than tempering.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I seem snippy. It's extremely late where I'm at, and I have yet to get some sleep. (I should know better than to edit while tired and cranky. In reading back at what I've weitten, I could've phrased tings a bit nicer.) I usually like to bring things up on talk pages rather than delve into edit wars. I have serious thoughts about expanding the differential hardening/tempering article, (which is part of the reason I already have so much research at hand), simply because there are two different techniques, but one is sometimes called by both names. But, like i say, it's late and i'm finally going home for the day. I thank you foer your advice. I'll sleep on it, and come back with a fresh outlook in the morning. Zaereth (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, actually after checking out what you said I realized that some sources (including the one I used) seem to be using the wrong term for the process being discussed, but when I edited your edit there was no reference for me to check and when I did a search I found what you see now, thats why I think the best way to get the proper information across in the article would be to change to a more appropriate term and also provide a reference or two that future editors can read, also any quote if there is one what would help convey the terms properly to a reader.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Samuriantiqueworld. Having gotten a few hours sleep, I feel much better today. I fully understand your concerns about proper citing of the terms. I am also prepared to do just that. However, I am very patient and often work rather slowly, (I'm lucky if I spend 10 to 15 minutes a day on the computer.) I think the best place to give detailed explanations of the differences in the techniques is at the differential hardening article, so I will probably work on expanding that one first. For this article, I think a much briefer explanation is in order, which I will work on later. However, since you asked for quotes, I can leave a couple right here for now. This one is from Knife Talk II: The High Performance Blade by Ed Fowler, page 114 (chapter titled: "Differential hardening versus Differential Tempering):


 * There seems to be some confusion concerning the distinction between differential hardening and differential tempering. First I'll define the terms, then I'll discuss my opinion concerning the merits of the two methods of developing a blade of variable hardness. The following discussion applies 'only to 5160 and 52100 steels. Other steels may respond differently.


 * Definitions
 * The three main terms to define are tempering, differential tempering and differential hardening.


 * 1) Tempering a Blade: This procedeure consists of heating a hardened blade to the desired temperature to make it more resilient to stress.


 * 2) Differential tempering: Starting with a blade that has been fully hardened, the bladesmith heats the spine or back of the blade to make it softer than the cutting edge. The object is to provide greater toughness to the blade.


 * 3) Differential hardening: In this procedure, only part of the blade is hardened, then the entire blade is usually tempered.


 * There is also this quote from The Medieval Sword in the Modern World By Michael 'Tinker' Pearce, page 39:


 * "Typically modern swords are through-tempered, i.e. the same hardness all the way through. These swords ideally range between HRc50 to HRc54. This usually provides good compromise hardness for edge retention, shock resistance and flexibility. Some swords are selectively hardened like Japanese swords-- these will be around HRc56-60 at the cutting edge, but the spine of the blade will be quite soft. This isn't ideal for European swords, as they can easily bend if the blow is a little off when striking a target or parrying an opponent's attack. A third method I often use is called differential tempering.The whole blade is brought to a temper that is quite high for a sword blade (HRc58-60) and then selected areas of the sword, the spine and tang, are tempered to a low hardness (HRc45-48) leaving the cutting edge at the higher hardness.


 * I hope that helps. I'll work on the other article for now, and get back to this one soon. Zaereth (talk) 22:09, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've pretty much finished with the differential heat treatment article ... for now. I see that you've already made the clarification here, so thanks for all your help, Samuraiantiqueworld. I'll probably get back to working on this article, (adding refs, etc...) sometime in the near future. Thanks again for your input everybody. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Error in modern swordsmithing section
Murray Carter is an excellent bladesmith, but he makes knives, not swords. He is not a licensed swordsmith, nor does the article cited assert this. Yoshimoto is the family lineage of knife smiths of which he is the successor. This is not the same as being a licensed swordsmith by the Japanese government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.98.76 (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Elemental composition?
The article stated: ''The composition of steel used for the Japanese sword varied from smith to smith and lode to lode of iron ore. One formula from World War II shin guntō production was as follows:''

There is no source, and the range in carbon content is too wide to make any sense. This is not steel used for swordmaking. Further, a carbon content of 3% is far too high, and I do not believe the cobalt content either. -- Zz (talk) 11:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The carbon sounds about right, but it's unhelpful to describe Japanese sword steels in this manner. Tamahagane steel is a highly inhomogeneous cemented carbon steel, so the carbon content of a completed sword varies across the metal. Some parts will be 0.3% low carbon, others 3% high carbon. Yet it doesn't explain much to simply quote this as a range, as if it were a homogenous steel where the precise content was unimportant.
 * Also WWII shin gunto were nearly all homogeneous factory steel, not tamahagane, so these numbers don't fit for swords of that description. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree with Andy in that the carbon content is probably about dead on. Give me a day or so to go through my sources, but I'm know I have it around here somewhere...


 * The thing to understand about the Japanese swords is that they were made from different kinds of steel --all assembled together in the same sword. The smiths were very careful in choosing the correct steel from the kera. The hocho iron typically contains about 0.00 to .05% carbon. The tamahagane contains about 1.0 to 1.5% carbon (not a very high-carbon steel) and the nabe-gane is cast-iron at between 3 and 4% carbon. The final product is produce by combining the nabe-gane with the tamahagane, to increase its carbon content through diffusion. Depending on how much carbon was added to the tamahagane, and how much diffusion (folding) occurred, the final, refined steel could range from pure iron for the core to very high cartbon steel for the edge. Even the WWII swords were often made by forging both high and low carbon steels together, resulting in a visible mokume (wood-grain) pattern. They used regular mill steel for this, not tamahagane. The Japanese farmed out this work to forgers all over the country, but I believe as much as 80% of the WWII swords were made in the town of Seki. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's important to be clear what a "WWII" sword is and where we're drawing the line. Quality goes down a lot over time, from the start of the "China Incident" to Pearl Harbour, to the period of shortages and bombings. Very few of these swords were still hand-forged or welded, let alone made from traditional steels. Even for officer's swords (i.e. standard patterns but without serials) the quality was falling and the enlisted men's or serial-numbered swords were (AFAIR) never made from anything more than a single piece. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. Yes, I agree completely. Even the ones forged with patterns were merely done for symbolic reasons, and, if I recall correctly, they were never folded but made by merely stacking thin strips of steel and forging them together. Still, somewhere around here I have a source which lists the actual steels the Japanese military specified for use in their constuction. Give me some time and I'm sure I can definitely provide sources for the compositions of both traditional and WWII swords ... at least as they were specified at the beginning of the war. Zaereth (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Fuller & Gregory (AFAICS) don't describe metal composition, but they are pretty much the canonical history for wartime and what was hand or machine made. Kapp (1987) goes to 1.7% max for hand-forging, as anything more is to hot-short for welding. I haven't dug through any of the magazines or short articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I found a source about the composition of Tamahagane in Japanese.
 * The table shows from the top 安来鋼（青紙スーパー）(Yasuki-hagane (Aogami Super)), 玉鋼一級(Tamahagane First Class), JIS S45C. The source of these data is indicated as www.hitatchi-metals.co.jp (sic) (www.hitachi-metals.co.jp).―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a site about Tatara at Hitachi Metals. It says the Tamahagane contains 1 to 1,5%, Sage-hagane 0.7%, knife steel (Hocho steel) 0.1-0.3%. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a site about Tatara at Hitachi Metals. It says the Tamahagane contains 1 to 1,5%, Sage-hagane 0.7%, knife steel (Hocho steel) 0.1-0.3%. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yes, Hitachi provides some wonderful information, not only on the tamahagane, but also the hocho and nabe-gane, not to mention the smelting and forging processes. Cyril Stanley Smith also provides a very good account in his book, with detailed drawings by Chikashige (dating from the 1600s, I believe). There is a source in this article which gives a detailed, photographic documentation of the process, from start to finish. It says in the beginning (along with others I've read) that even ancient swords were often made from whatever steel was available at the time, such as a broken plow or kettle, and not always tamahagane. PBS did two great shows about it. One is referenced in the article, but the other is not. it follows an American who moved to Japan to learn the trade, and you can see exactly how his teacher forges it. He used tamahagane, but also added some broken-up pieces of cast iron he had lying around.


 * I have more sources around here somewhere, but am too busy at the moment to look for them. (It's been a while.) I don't have any of Andy's sources, but will try to look them up when I get some spare time. Thanks again for your assistance, and if you find any more, please let us know. Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I might also add (and Smith discusses this a lot) that the ancient swordsmiths had no idea about carbon or diffusion. Everything was learned by trial and error. The Japanese were often fascinated by the internal macrostructure of metals, and creating a structure that was superior to previous ones. Smith called these the "bones" of the metal, although today we call them imperfections or inhomogeneity. These imperfections actually provided mechanical benefits, and the Japanese were very proud of displaying these imperfections, even on other parts like the guard or the little knife that fits into the scabbard. Zaereth (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I took some time to search through my sources. I cannot find the source on the WWII swords. For clarification, to differentiate them from traditionally made swords, the Japanese term for factory -made swords for military use is "gunto." I'm not sure these need to be detailed in this article.

For traditionally-made swords, Hitach Steel provides a good source for the composition of the raw materials. However, for the composition of the final, refined steel, Dr. Tawara seems to be the foremost expert, but I do not have access to his research. Cyril Smith, on the other hand, did an analysis of his own, on four different swords. The results are arranged by the age of the particular sword, and do not account for local variations in hardenability. These results are as follows:


 * ca. 1940s -- Carbon (at the edge) 1.02%, Carbon (at the body) 1.02%, Manganese .37%, Silicon .18%, Phosphorous .015%, Copper .21%


 * ca. 1800s -- Carbon (at the edge) .62%%, Carbon (at the body) .1%, Manganese .01%, Silicon .07%, Phosphorous .046%, Copper .01%


 * ca. 1700s -- Carbon (edge) .69%, Carbon (body) .43%, Manganese .005%, Silicon .02%, Phosphorous .075%, Copper .01%


 * ca. 1500s -- Carbon (edge) .5%, Carbon (body) .5%, Manganese .005%, Silicon .04%, Phosphorous .034%, Copper .01%

As you can see, there is little variation in these numbers, and the levels of impurities like silicon and phosphorous is lower than most modern steels. piaskowski also did a study by sectioning a sword, revealing an average of .6 to .8% carbon at the edge and skin, but only .2% at the core.

I hope that helps provide a more accurate chart. This info can be found in the book, The Sword and the Crucible: A History of the metallurgy of European swords up to the 16th century by Alan Williams, page 42--43. I'm not good with charts, so someone else will need to change the numbers. Zaereth (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I might also add, the book The Yasukuni-to Sword by Tom kishida pretty much agrees exactly with what Andy said about the gunto degrading in quality throughout the war. I also found another bit of information interesting: In a traditional katana, the steel block, from the beginning of folding to the end, will typically lose 700 to 1000 grams of weight from not oly the loss of impurities but also carbon as well. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Yasukuni swords are interesting, as they're just about the only traditional swords made in mainland Japan through the war period (there was another swordsmith operating in China too). These are very much the exception to the norm of the period.
 * As to weight loss, then most of the weight loss is as iron, coming off as hammer scale during the welding stages.
 * BTW - "gunto" isn't a term for "factory made". The term (read Fuller & Gregory) literally means "military sword" but it was first applied to the Western style swords that appeared in the early Meiji period (1870-) in that period's spirit of modernisation and Westernisation. The term kyu-gunto is also used for these specifically. Some of these were not only factory made, but they were made in Sheffield! (There's one in Sunderland that was presented to a shipyard in the 1920s, having travelled back and forth to Japan. Maybe they just wanted rid of it.) The term could become associated with factory manufacture, but its literal meaning is to do with these new Western styles that were adopted by the military.
 * Later swords, in the 1930s period of resurgent nationalism, return to a derivation of traditional Japanese styles. These are termed the "shin-gunto" (new military sword), not just "gunto". Nippon no Gunso describes them more fully as 'Rikugun-no-gunto'. There are other related variations, such as the differently slung Naval kai-gunto.
 * Some shin-gunto were hundreds of years old: family blades, in modern military mounts. The point is, for manufacture and metallurgy, that the kyu-gunto had cut its traditions from Japanese swordmaking. There was no point in writing poetry about the hamon of a new sword when it was such a Modern device in a Western mount. Why not make them in factories after all? These swords were decorated as finely as any had been, but they never had the same attention to their blades (and they saw combat in 1904 too, so they weren't just for show). Only with the nationalist resurgence and the return to the shin-gunto did the idea of the spirit of the blade really return to its classical status. Shin-gunto in the 1930s were as traditionally well-forged as anything available, although of course this depended on the budget of the officer. With expansion of the military the increased demand, and the demand for cheap blades, also grew a market for several forms of "factory" blade (Fulller & Gregory again describe the different grades, distinguishing the forging, the steel source, and whether they were oil- (abura yaki-ire) or water-quenched (gendaito)). Then during the war there's a shift of styles that is not just about an expanding army with middle-class officers, but about coping with material shortages too.
 * If you're discussing swords, gunto alone is not a useful term. Shin-gunto is much better, at least it's clear that we're talking about the well-known, stick-handled swords. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with everything you've said here completely. I don't speak Japanese (often I'll use European terminology for parts of the blade, even when I know the Japanese term), but Kishida discusses all of this nicely. Our own article on gunto provides a decent description as well. However, my primary interest has always been the ancient swords, their metallurgical properties, and the consciousness that led to a particular design. I'm still trying to find a copy of Tawara Kuni-ichi's work, as he apparently (according to many books I've read) did one of the most detailed analyses available, even today. I don't have ready access to your sources either, but will try to look them up as well, because it really interests me.


 * I'm wondering, however, if you think the shin-gunto or kai-gunto, etc... should be dealt with in this particular article. More precisely, as far as any type of "gunto" is concerned, should we draw the line with traditional manufacture, or also include "factory made" processes as well? Zaereth (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(From the Wizard of Oz) Hocho-tetsu, Tamahagane, and Nabe-gane, oh my!
Right now the article has

"The high carbon steel, called tamahagane, and the remelted pig iron, called nabe-gane, are combined..."

Followed later by

"The nabe-gane is heated, quenched in water, and then broken into small pieces to help free it from slag. The tamahagane is then forged into a single plate, and the pieces of nabe-gane are piled on top..."

I found this hard to follow. I think that this would be better:

"The pig iron is heated, quenched in water, and then broken into small pieces to help free it from slag. The high carbon steel is then forged into a single plate, and the pieces of pig iron are piled on top..."

This avoids having to go back to a previous paragraph to find out what the Japanese words mean. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. With the exception of a few words, like "hamon" (which is widely known and not as misleading as "temper line), or "nioi" and "yakiba" (which have no English counterpart), I'm all in favor of using English terms whenever possible. Why say "tsuba" when "guard" works more effectively, or "saya" when "sheath" will do just fine? I have no time to work on it right now, but may in the future, unless you want to do it first. Zaereth (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, but I finally had a chance to get back to this. I changed most of the metal terminology to English, but have only done those sections I've helped with. I'll have to get back to some of the other sections later. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Japanese swordsmithing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110090537/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/164604943/Seminar-on-Japanese-swords to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/164604943/Seminar-on-Japanese-swords
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121211031027/http://schoolofswords.com/japanese-sword-education/what-makes-a-japanese-katana-real/ to http://schoolofswords.com/japanese-sword-education/what-makes-a-japanese-katana-real/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Japanese swordsmithing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130105033550/http://www.thejapanesesword.com/tatara/ to http://www.thejapanesesword.com/tatara/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Error in section Construction > Forging ?
One of the bullet points of the benefits of folding claims that it homogenizes the steel. I am confident that it is simply NOT TRUE that the layers are compositionally identical. In fact, what I've read directly contradicts this, claiming that the layers ARE of different composition (different ratio of elements). One other thing I didn't see is the difference between Japanese swordsmithing, and of the specific ("traditional") way the katana and similar blades were/are made. It isn't plausible, imho, that every single sword made in Japan - ever - followed the process described here. I suggest a discussion is in order about what this article is really about, which is a specific type (school?) of Japanese swordsmithing.98.21.221.175 (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with you ... to a certain extent. The purpose was not to completely homogenize the steel, but some homogenization was necessary, because steel from the bloom was far too inhomogeneous to be of any use. The process was not that different from making shear-steel, but the Europeans never thought to coat the steel in clay, to protect it from too much decarburization. However, like most Asian steel, the focus was not on homogenization but in combining different steels to make a composite steel. The Japanese, by using clay to protect the steel from oxygen, were fully capable of homogenizing the steel --after about 20 folding that is what you have, but deliberately kept from folding their steel to that extent, as it would destroy the composite properties.


 * The first thing to understand is that iron-making technology was invented in Turkey, and as it spread both East and West, the technology developed differently due to the different ideologies found in each direction, or visa-versa. (There is strong evidence to suggest that the development of technology and ideology went hand-in-hand. We often tend to impose our own, European ideology on the history of other cultures as a point of reference (ie: we "Europeans" value this goal, then so must other cultures; which is an obvious logical fallacy), but forget that, without understanding their culture, we fail to rationally understand their technological developments. While European ideology was almost always --with few exceptions-- based upon purity and homogenization, Asian ideology was very different, often valuing the combined properties of two extremes. This is evident is things like Mongolian bows, the religious concepts such as Chi (literally meaning "combined"), and even steel making found in steels like the Wootz steel used to make Damascus swords or the Chi-Kang (combined steel) used in Chinese swords.


 * Iron working (and for that matter, mining in general) were not practiced in Japan until the 700s. Before that, all metals were imported into Japan from China, through Korea. The Chinese used swords made of crucible steel, and the early Japanese swords were an obvious attempt to reproduce that form of composite steel. Not knowing how it was produced, the Japanese came up with their own method, and over the course of about 600 years, produced a steel superior in quality to the Chinese swords.


 * The article is not based upon any one school, but on multiple reliable sources on the subject, touching on the common factors found in every school. Naturally, each school has their own way of doing things, but each developed from a common source, which, if you believe the legends, was the smith Amakuni in 700 AD. There has been much evolution from beginning to end, but the basic principle is the same, and much of this is likely due to the lack of any real iron ore deposits in Japan, some of course due to flat-out industrial espionage (of which is owed most technological leaps in steel making), and the rest moved forward/held back by tradition. (Not only did they have to come up with their own method of sword making, but also of smelting ironsand, which was impossible to smelt using common methods of steel production.) Zaereth (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Cutting edge
At what point does the blade get its cutting edge and how is it sharpened? Is this part of the 'polishing'? Absolutely no mention is made of this either in this article or the one on polishing which is odd given that the whole purpose of a sword is to support a cutting edge. 212.159.76.165 (talk) 15:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The sword is heat treated without an edge. The reason being that, when quenching in water, carbon is rapidly removed (blasted) from the surface of the steel during the quenching process. Traditionally, after quenching and "tempering" the smith would give the blade a rough edge with a draw knife to create the bevel, and then send the blade to a polisher for sharpening and polishing. (I put the word "tempering" in quotes because there's little evidence that tempering was actually used on ancient swords. Usually, the quench was done with just the right amount of insulation to ensure the blade would reach the proper hardness upon quenching without the need for tempering, but that takes a lot of practice and trial-and-error to perfect. Modern swords are usually tempered after quenching.) In the modern age, the smith will often use a belt sander instead of a draw knife to apply the bevel before sending it to the polisher. This is described in the differential heat treatment article, but perhaps a short description should be added here as well. Zaereth (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I might add that, Japanese swords do not really have a lot of impact resistance in the way European blades do. They actually bend and chip quite easily, but they're deigned for completely different styles of fighting. In the Japanese style blade-to-blade contact is avoided as much as possible but rather the swordsman goes directly for the kill, in stark contrast to the sword-and-buckler style of Europeans. This promoted the development of an edge with a high degree of sharpness and hardness, allowing the sword to hold that edge for long periods of time if properly used and maintained. The superior cutting ability comes from the shape of the edge. If you examine most swords, razors, and knives you'll notice there are two angles; one for the bevel and a slightly shallower but much narrower angle for the edge itself. In the Japanese sword, there is only one angle; the bevel and the edge are sharpened and polished as one. This steeper angle give a superior cutting ability while the excessive hardness allows it to hold that edge for a long time, even after cutting through bone and flesh, or bamboo. (I have one I use when I go out for firewood or need to cut down small cottonwood trees in my yard. When it comes to removing limbs there's no better tool; I can de-limb a 30 foot spruce in under a minute, about 5 times faster than with a chainsaw. And I've only had to resharpen it once after 10 years ... mostly from missing my mark and hitting rocks and dirt.) This also means sharpening and polishing are one, and the entire process can take longer than the forging did, which is why it's usually done by a specialist. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you that's very informative. You're right it is in the differential heat treatment article (which I hadn't read) but I think it would be a useful addition to this article too. 212.159.76.165 (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. (Come to think of it, I only had to sharpen that sword because I cut down a 4 inch thick cottonwood tree that happened to be right next to a metal sign post. Aiming for the ground between them, I sliced down at a steep angle, trying to use just enough force to cut down the tree, but it went through the soft wood like a hot knife through butter and sunk about 1/4 inch into that steel post. Chipped the hell out of the edge and warped the blade, but I was able to bend it back into shape and put on a new edge for another decade of heavy use.) Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)