PDA

View Full Version : Historic samurai sword returned to owner



John Lindsey
18th September 2003, 05:15
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030917-055338-2492r.htm


OXFORD, Miss., Sept. 17 (UPI) -- A 150-year-old samurai sword surrendered to U.S. Marines after the 1945 Battle of Iwo Jima is en route to Japan to be returned to its original owner.

After searching for more than two years to locate the sword's owner, the University of Mississippi has sent the antique and nearly priceless relic to 84-year-old Ushio Togami, a retired high-ranking Japanese naval officer.

The sword had been in Togami's family for generations, since the ruling Japanese samurai feudal rulers were in power.

The sword was given to 81-year-old Henry Mitchell Jr., a retired U.S. Marine who fought at Iwo Jima.

Mitchell, who retired as the University of Mississippi's architect in 1983, asked school officials to help him locate the owner of the sword, whose name was etched on the blade.

The university said Mitchell died Aug. 23, but the return of the sword was his "dying wish."

Togami told reporters: "You'll never know how happy I have been since the first notice of this matter. I am 84 years old now, and it is really nice that I could (have) the sword while I am still alive. I am looking forward to having it in my hand."

Mekugi
18th September 2003, 06:44
Wow. What a story.


-R

Joseph Svinth
20th September 2003, 21:11
If it's a 150-year-old sword, then it was manufactured between 1845 and 1855, right? In that case, "priceless" probably means "sentimental value only." I mean, I can't imagine that sword collectors and museums are falling all over themselves to acquire late Tokugawa cutlery modified to Imperial Naval standard.

Also, while the Tokugawa were still (barely) in power at the time of the sword's manufacture, "in the family for generations" strikes me as a bit hyperbolic. Think about it. The 84-year-old guy who lost it in 1945 would have been born around 1919-1920. (Remember, Japanese count age from conception.) Thus, that sword was only 65-75 years old when he was born. Consequently, the earliest possible purchaser would have been a great-grandfather. True, three generations is multiple generations, but it's hardly great antiquity, especially inasmuch as Japanese often live long lives.

Vapour
21st September 2003, 02:17
The market value of this particular sword is irrelevant in this case, IMO.

IchiRiKen1
21st September 2003, 04:59
That's the wonderful thing about young countries... They tag anything that is as old or nearly as old as they are as being old as dirt...

Given that the US is only 227 years old, a 150 year old sword would be a big deal. With Japanese history extending far beyond that, it makes a 150 year old sword just barely broken in...