AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Differents of katana and o katana12/13/2023 Japanese great swords (odachi/nodachi) could not be worn on a belt and that's probably a factor in why they kept the tachi name.Īnother reason for "o-katana / daikatana" not really being used comes back to the kanji combination itself. However by the time katana and tachi became the standard names for Japanese long swords the only real difference between the two was really just ceremonial in the way they were supposed to be worn. Katana & Tou both just mean sword/blade and originally lacked any special classification. Uchi gatana (striking/hitting sword) referred to tachi intended for foot soldiers and much like European swords the infantry versions tended to be lighter than their mounted counterparts. The name tachi (thick/fat sword) was originally used for the heavier curved swords used by mounted warriors probably to distinguish the swords from the early straight ones used in the Yamato period. The difference between these sword types though is actually quite minor and certainly far less than the difference between various European arming and long swords. The main character (sword) is the same and can be read as "katana/gatana", "chi", or "to/tou" depending on the combination. Even though tachi, katana, and uchigatana may sound quite different they really only refer to slight variations of the same thing. I think a lot of the confusing terminology with Japanese swords comes from the Japanese writing system itself and the fact that they use both Japanese and Chinese propronuciationr characters (rreferredto as kun-yomi and on-yomi readings). Later when the naming conventions for Japanese swords were standardised the term nodachi lost it's more general meaning and was used specifically for the larger swords. While nodachi originally referred to most swords intended for battle the term seio-nodachi (back carried field sword) was another name for odachi and was used for larger swords that could not be worn on the hip. I wouldn't say that referring to an odachi (literally "big sword") as a nodachi ("field thick/fat sword") is a mistake. In the case of katana, there's no real need for the o- designation something longer would usually be made as a tachi, and something way longer would usually be made as or at least referred to as an odachi (commonly misnamed as "nodachi"). ![]() Posted: Sat 29 Sep, 2007 11:32 am Post subject: It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science." - Albert Einstein "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It actually goes quite beyond mountings in clarifying many of these points. ![]() Some nagamaki perhaps, and some martial arts call larger swords by other names ( choken in the case of the Kage Ryu), but really they're all pretty similar.Ī katana of 30"+ nagasa is usually just referred to as a "really long katana."Īnother essay on the finer points of semantics and nihonto taxonomy, I encourage you to check out Dr T and Guido Schiller's article: The Mountings of the Japanese Sword. Traditional Japanese smiths don't really push these boundaries with regard to form you're not likely to see something too difficult to classify as one of the above. T mentions that during the Edo period, the "o-" and "ko-" classifications did in fact have official and specific meanings regarding wakizashi lengths. Takeuchi's Historical Classification of Wakizashi and the Taxonomy of Nihonto Based on their Blade Length and Function/Purposes. katana (keep in mind tachi were usually longer than katana for functional reasons as well).įor a superb essay on exactly this topic, from which I shamelessly based most of that paragraph, please read Dr. ![]() Some terms, like sunnobi tanto or kodachi, on the other hand, do separate by function and are therefore more meaningful, or else separate by mounting/provenance as in the case of tachi vs. The "large" and "small" o- and ko- prefixes are often used by modern collectors as subjective adjective descriptors rather than strict academic classifications - they don't really separate weapons by function or cultural meaning very much. Posted: Fri 28 Sep, 2007 9:54 pm Post subject:
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |