Huawei - "Functional Kogarasu Maru Double Bo-hi Wak"
Apr 30, 2011 1:32:17 GMT
Post by Student of Sword on Apr 30, 2011 1:32:17 GMT
CSThundercat,
As Crimsoned noted, I apologized for my tone on page 4 because I realized my tone was detracting from what I was trying to say. I was tactless and condescending. I said thing without regard to your feeling. For that I apologize. As far as who is right and who is wrong. We were both wrong and right. Neither of us remember Nagayama-Sensei's works correctly. If we were his student, he would have scold both of us.
(1) I was wrong in saying that Shinogi Zukuri was the last incarnation. You are right on that part. It was the first true nihonto. This is because I consider the maru zukuri to be the first. Easy mistake since it is the first one that look nothing like a Chinese blade. I admit that my understanding of obscure blade profile is my weakest.
(2) I was mostly right on the definition of shinogi zukuri and the date. I miss one critical element, the placement of the shinogi in relation to the ha and mune. It has to be closer to the mune than the ha. That part you were wrong. Page 53, Sensei defines the blade profile and the date clearly. Even the kenukigata which Sensei said "clearly" shinogi zukuri is dated precisely in the late Heian Period. (Late Heian Period is commonly accepted as between 894-1186 )
It seem that we pick and choose which parts of the book to remember based on what interested us the most. We care more about the part that we are right than the part that we are wrong. I am far more interested in shinogi-zukuri, hence my memory of the pages mentioning shinogi-zukuri is the freshest and most corrected. I am least interested in other blade profile, hence my memory of them are poorest. It also probably has to do with which part of Japanse history we care the most about. My main interest is the Warring Period and the Period which lead to it, i.e. Late-Heian. Event of Mid-Heian Period and before does not interest me.
So let end this here. We both need to go back and read Sensei's book again, this time more carefully. Let think of this as an opportunity to re-learn and re-read what we both deeply care about. I again apologize for my rudeness and arrogance. I would like to thank James Gall for pointing out the error of my way and mediate this dispute. A dispute which would not had happen if I was less prideful.
As Crimsoned noted, I apologized for my tone on page 4 because I realized my tone was detracting from what I was trying to say. I was tactless and condescending. I said thing without regard to your feeling. For that I apologize. As far as who is right and who is wrong. We were both wrong and right. Neither of us remember Nagayama-Sensei's works correctly. If we were his student, he would have scold both of us.
(1) I was wrong in saying that Shinogi Zukuri was the last incarnation. You are right on that part. It was the first true nihonto. This is because I consider the maru zukuri to be the first. Easy mistake since it is the first one that look nothing like a Chinese blade. I admit that my understanding of obscure blade profile is my weakest.
(2) I was mostly right on the definition of shinogi zukuri and the date. I miss one critical element, the placement of the shinogi in relation to the ha and mune. It has to be closer to the mune than the ha. That part you were wrong. Page 53, Sensei defines the blade profile and the date clearly. Even the kenukigata which Sensei said "clearly" shinogi zukuri is dated precisely in the late Heian Period. (Late Heian Period is commonly accepted as between 894-1186 )
It seem that we pick and choose which parts of the book to remember based on what interested us the most. We care more about the part that we are right than the part that we are wrong. I am far more interested in shinogi-zukuri, hence my memory of the pages mentioning shinogi-zukuri is the freshest and most corrected. I am least interested in other blade profile, hence my memory of them are poorest. It also probably has to do with which part of Japanse history we care the most about. My main interest is the Warring Period and the Period which lead to it, i.e. Late-Heian. Event of Mid-Heian Period and before does not interest me.
So let end this here. We both need to go back and read Sensei's book again, this time more carefully. Let think of this as an opportunity to re-learn and re-read what we both deeply care about. I again apologize for my rudeness and arrogance. I would like to thank James Gall for pointing out the error of my way and mediate this dispute. A dispute which would not had happen if I was less prideful.