Muromachi Period Namban Tsuba Refernces...

[Brian]

Shoami?

 

Brian

[christianmalterre]

they but hopefully did confirm you:

"Yes!-indeed an Tsuba!"

LOL!

(Happy New Year to you David )

 

Christian

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

This was a dual hozon/tokubetsu hozon submission because it was coming into the tosogu shinsa process unpapered. I was told the tsuba only made it to Hozon level with a "Namban" or similar attribution. Part of me is hoping for a cool new attribution like "Ko-Namban (古南葵)" or something similar. :lol: I am not completely surprised as a high-end collector friend told me either via PM or email that he has never seen a tokubetsu hozon level Namban tsuba. Well not having the paper yet in hand I don't have all the important details in terms of the attribution. I hope to have the tsuba and possibly the paper back by next month. I will post more information and a photo of the paper when possible. Feel free to make comments or ask any questions about this tsuba.

[Fred Geyer]

Dave,

 

You just need to keep looking as I have seen at least 7 Namban tsuba with Tokubetsu papers, will post a few for you today.

 

Fred Geyer

[Peter Bleed]

David,

Thank you for this wonderful discussion of “early Chinese Namban tsuba .” As a recovering Namban collector I found it very interesting. I would like to add to the discussion of Namban tsuba chronology.

It seems pretty clear that at least by the Muromachi period, samurai liked to embellish their swords with diverse, even unusual, tsuba. Active trade into and across the East China Sea provided ample opportunities for exotic sword fittings to enter Japan by the mid-16th century. That trade continued through the 19th century. As a result of this trade, there might be Chinese guards that were modified for use in pre-Edo Japan, but I don’t know how we could be sure of that since the evolution of Chinese sword fittings seems very poorly known. Judgments of your tsuba seem based on intuitive assessments that it “looks” old. I don’t necessarily disagree with that point of view, I’d just like some supporting information.

There is a good literature on European swords that we can use to date sword fittings made in European style. European swords did not feature closed counterguards until well into the 17th century. Dished or flat guards became standard on European swords with development of the smallsword in - let’s say - the 18th century.

The bilobed tsuba that John Lissenden taught us to call “auriculate” are certainly inspired by European smallsword shells. The placement of grotesque faces at 12:00 and 6:00 echos many smallsword hilts. J. D. Aylward offered the attached chronology of smallsword shells. It suggests that bilobed tsuba – even those classified as “Early Namban” date from no earlier than the mid-1700s.

Peter

[Soshin]

Although I have never previously seen one, I am fairly confident in my attribution of David’s tsuba as Namban of the Momoyama period. I do not subscribe to his Azuchi-Momoyama label since there is no justification for drawing a line at 1603 on the importation of these tsuba into Japan. My reasons for this attribution are as follows:

• The dote mimi – a form seldom seen on later tsuba of this group.

• The polishes surface of the mimi, which may simply be the result of many years of handling.

• The very fine, delicate nature of the karakusa-moyo.

• The rather bizarre and impractical form of the seppa-dai.

• The unusually large size: most tsuba of this group measure 7.2 cm – 7.0 cm.

• The absence of original hitsu-ana.

 

Hi Peter B.,

 

Here are earlier set of observations made by John L. some concurrently with Curran in dating my particular tsuba which is not bilobed in shape but oval and bear no direct relation to the European smallsword. The raised rim itself as pointed by John L. just isn't seen on later Nanban tsuba of the middle to late Edo Period. The fine delicate openwork shows signs of being carved and not cast like some late Edo Period Namban tsuba often are.

 

Hi Fred G.,

 

If you get to it having a few examples would be always helpful. Are you going to the Tampa show this year? I want to have a custom made box for this tsuba as this one is a keeper regardless of it failing tokubetsu hozon.

[IanB]

Peter, Although not definitive proof, note how the technique and design of namban tsuba resembles ironwork from the Himalayan regions and associated parts of China. I attach two examples from pen-cases and a view of a saddle front. The latter example is in gilded copper but they also occur in iron, generally in layers to build up a 3D effect. Some also have some elements of the design gilded.

Ian Bottomley

[Fred Geyer]

This one has tokubetsu papers

[Fred Geyer]

here is one more

 

Fred

[Peter Bleed]

This thread just keeps getting better.

I think there must have been international trade in Chinese sword fittings and related metal objects. But I bet that the makers of those things didn't care if their produce ended up in Japan or Tibet. In Japan, the imports had to be adjusted with ryo-hitsu etc which made them "Nanban."

David's Hozon guard is one of those imports. I respect John's assessment of the age of that guard, but I would still like some hard evidence.

But what about the difference between David Hozon tsuba and Fred's Tokubetsu Hozon pieces. Fred's guards are nice and the VOC auriculate guard is a classic. I believe, however, that both of Fred tsubas were made in Japan in a style that Edo period Japanese saw as "foreign". And I just suspect that is why they were considered "Special". Making an imported piece TBH might be difficult for a Shinsa team.

Tampa will be great fun!

Peter

[Soshin]

This thread just keeps getting better.

David's Hozon guard is one of those imports. I respect John's assessment of the age of that guard, but I would still like some hard evidence.

But what about the difference between David Hozon tsuba and Fred's Tokubetsu Hozon pieces. Fred's guards are nice and the VOC auriculate guard is a classic. I believe, however, that both of Fred tsubas were made in Japan in a style that Edo period Japanese saw as "foreign". And I just suspect that is why they were considered "Special". Making an imported piece TBH might be difficult for a Shinsa team.

 

Hi Peter B.,

 

I agree with your observations that both of Fred's very nice tsuba where Edo Period products made by Japanese artisans in a "foreign" style. The first example likely dating from the time period the VOC was still trading in Japan between 1639 (founding of Dejima) to 1799 (bankruptcy of the VOC).

The thinness of the ji(地) and the degree of change in thickness between the plate and rim edge is also not something commonly found in Edo Period tsuba. I began this topic by thinking my tsuba was a imported early Namban tsuba possibility from China or some where else along the Silk Road from the Muromachi Period when there was more direct trade between the Ming Dynasty of China and the Ashikaga Shogun of Japan. I have since came across a nice reference discussing the sword trade between Japan and China during this historical period: http://markussesko.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/Japanese-sword-trade-with-ming-china/. The similarities of design elements on my tsuba out side of the karakusa pattern to that of a Latin Cross used by Portuguese and Spanish traders and missionaries explains Skip's original notes about the design. Well right now I have more questions then answers and I am sure more will be raised when I get the hozon papers. :lol:

[docliss]

Speaking personally. I am not surprised that David’s Namban tsuba failed its TH certification – possibly because of its condition. For me, the most interest part of this exercise will be to see the date attributed to it by the panel. John L.

[Pete Klein]

I seriously doubt there will be any date attribution as it would have been made attached to the 'Namban' kanji (shoki Edo, etc.) and therefore on the result invoice from the NBTHK. I could be wrong of course.

[Soshin]

Hi Pete K.,

 

I didn't get a result invoice just a short email from Bob saying my Namban tsuba only went to hozon certification in the Oct. tosogu shinsa. Having age information on NTHK and NTHK-NPO papers is standard but I have came across a few NBTHK papers with date information on them so it is a possibility. See below for two examples. I have seen a few more as well. When I get the hozon paper I will post photos of it with the full attribution.

 

Katchushi Tsuba with NBTHK Hozon Paper with Age Information

http://www.nihonto.us/KATCHUSHI%20SPOOL%20TSUBA.htm

 

Owari Sukashi Tsuba with NBTHK Hozon Paper with Age Information

http://e-sword.jp/sale/2010/1010_6003syousai.htm

[IanB]

One thing I didn't add to my previous email is that fact that relations between China and Japan during the Momoyama were strained to put it mildly. This was why the Portuguese managed to make big profits shipping brocades and raw silk from their base in Macao to kyushu. The one source that the Japanese did have for Chinese 'sword guards' during this period was the Korean invasions. There are plenty of Japanese armours that incorporate Korean and Chinese helmet bowls in their construction so why wouldn't a Japanese vet bring back a Chinese sword guard as a trophy, wearing it to show he had fought in those campaigns? Notice how the 'seppa dai' of the tsuba has raised decoration - not very sensible if you are going use seppa. Notice also how the decorative lumps have been almost cut away by the present nakago ana. I would suggest this tsuba started life on a Chinese sword, which often have neither seppa nor habaki. It has then had the rim added in Japan and the nakago ana re-cut to fit a Japanese blade with a wider tang.

Ian Bottomley

[Soshin]

The one source that the Japanese did have for Chinese 'sword guards' during this period was the Korean invasions. There are plenty of Japanese armours that incorporate Korean and Chinese helmet bowls in their construction so why wouldn't a Japanese vet bring back a Chinese sword guard as a trophy, wearing it to show he had fought in those campaign?

 

Hi Ian B.,

 

Andy M. a expert in Japanese armor associated with the Yamabushi website once showed me a Korean helmet with a very similar floral pattern.

[Bugyotsuji]

How could I have missed this thread? Dang.

[Spartancrest]

3 hours ago, Bugyotsuji said:

How could I have missed this thread?

 We were ten years younger and a lot less attentive! - [you know - just like the Millennials, Gen X and Gen Y are now!  ]

[Bugyotsuji]

On 9/26/2012 at 10:59 PM, docliss said:

Early descriptions of such Momoyama tsuba are very unsatisfactory. Joly (1914) describes them as having ‘a purely Chinese design with symmetrical components’, thus equating them with Kantō tsuba with their origin in Eastern China. Interestingly, he illustrates one example ‘avec capsules destinées à recevoir des émaux ou des pierres’. Are the circular apertures in your tsuba intended for a similar function? A single tsuba, 695’30, is described on p.114 and illustrated on p.XXI of the City of Birmingham Catalogue. This is dated to the 17th century, and also has a dote mimi.

John L.

 

Rather large Namban here, 8.7 x 8.2 cm., with dragons and flower bases ('capsules'?) set with 7 (4+3) small amber cabochons. Silver fukurin. Attractive but I wonder what the story behind this might be…(?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bugyotsuji]

As to David's interesting example, rather than an obvious cross, I see rounded stained glass windows, Roman Catholic.

[ROKUJURO]

As we are just at it: Could anything helpful be said about this TSUBA? Does it look cast to the NAMBAN experts? Is there a way to guess provenance or age? 

[Robert S]

Having done some casting, my first instinct is that this is cast - looks like they didn't bother chasing and polishing down in the voids, where-as if it was carved all the surfaces would start with the same treatment.  However, that could be just corrosion fooling me.

 

[ROKUJURO]

Thank you, Robert!

An expert opinion is always helpful!