Unaltered "Nanbans"

[GRC]

Ian here's a few examples of tsuba made by Chinese smiths living and working in Nagasaki (Edo period).

I know of one "school" of these Chinese smiths, called "Kiyou-Toujin", and they had a very distinct style to them:

 

[GRC]

Oh and as Ian pointed out, there's definitely some influences from Tibet (and I'll add Vietnam as well) in some Nanban tsuba.

"Nanban" is referencing a giant cross-cultural meeting point and sharing of ideas. There are a quite a few tsuba examples that get really difficult to pin down to a specific area of production because there are elements of multiple cultural motifs and techniques all wrapped up in the same tsuba. There's tons to sort through and lots to learn about.

 

Here's a late Ming period (1500s-1600s), decorative horse saddle side plate:

more info on it here: https://mandarinmansion.com/item/tibetan-style-pierced-saddle-plate 

[Kurikata]

another exemple...

[Spartancrest]

A remarkably similar piece up for auction now- same subjects and layout to Bruno's example but within a different frame and same design as Glen's first two mokko examples [top of this page]

[GRC]

Here are some examples of what appear to be Japanese-made Katchushi and Tosho style tsuba which have added nanban nunome (overlay) patterns.

I can think of three possible explanations:

1- These could have been Muromachi period Japanese exports, that were decorated in continental Asia for use there, then ended up back in Japan at some point.

2- They could have been made entirely in continental Asia, and they just copied the Japanese Katchushi and Tosho tsuba shapes.

3- They could have been "decorated" at one of the ports like Hizen (possibly even at a much later date than the production of the tsuba plate itself).

 

There's no way to know for sure though...

It's also possible that all three hypotheses are correct, resulting in multiple avenues for producing a similar outcome, and making it really difficult to pin down any one of these "histories" on any particular tsuba.

 

The top and bottom pair of images show the omote and ura faces of one specific tsuba. It's interesting to note the difference in the treatment of the nunome outline of the seppa-dai on the opposing faces of the tsuba.

 

 

[GRC]

Bruno, that's a nice example of a Kiyou Toujin tsuba (is it yours?)

 

Dale, definitely from the same school. They did a lot of "phoenix" and dragon combinations

 

[Kurikata]

and what about this one ?

[GRC]

Another nice one Bruno,

 

Looks more like an Edo period piece because of the tsuba's shape, the heavy thickness, and the pretty good condition of the nunome.

However, the tsuba has been around long enough to have been mounted at least twice (there's a "double sekigane" at the top of the nakago-ana).

 

It's definitely made for the Japanese market and likely made in Japan (I would assume somewhere in the Hizen area):

The hitsu-ana appear to be original to the tsuba, or at least they were present before the application of the nunome.

The nunome design also properly contours the hitsu-ana, rather than being cut through by a "later modified nakago-ana".

 

I can't tell what the arcing design motifs are in the four corners on the ura side...

Any idea what they might be Bruno?

 

   

[GRC]

Does anyone have any other examples of this style of Nanban tsuba?

I can say with certainty that these were made in Japan for the Japanese market, but I have no idea by whom or where specifically.

Both appear to be unaltered (other than maybe the width of the nakago-ana, and the addition of sekigane on the second one)

 

They must be from the same "school" and probably even the same smith, but that's all I have found so far of this type... 

I'm wondering if there even was a whole "school" of smiths producing this style, or if the smith was an "independent" Edo period smith.

 

EXAMPLE 1:

EXAMPLE 2:

 

[Spartancrest]

This might fit in this thread- has anyone seem Kozuka and Kogai in nanban before? I just stumbled on this.-https://www.mandarinmansion.com/item/nanban-kogai-and-kozuka-set-futakoromono  

 

 

 

Now where were these made?     

[GRC]

Thanks for posting that Dale,

Mandarinmansion is a fantastic resource for Nanban related content and information.  

 

I have never seen another set of Kozuka and Kogai like those before.

Both are carved from a single piece of steel too, which seems to be genuinely "unique" (or at least extremely rare) for the kozuka, which typically "always" have a separate kogatana blade inserted into the kozuka handle.

 

1 hour ago, Spartancrest said:

Now where were these made?

 

The tsuba on the left:

Japanese features: Japanese style twin dragon motif; an ovoid Japanese seppa-dai; and purposeful hitsu-ana outlined by the dragon claw and cloud; also mokko shapes are not very common among the nanban tsuba and is generally a more common shape among Japanese tsuba. 

Chinese features: has only 2 directional cross hatching for the nunome; the piercings are mostly just drilled through holes with very little shaping and no undercutting to make a more 3D web.

The combination of these seemingly contradictory features suggest a Chinese smith living and working in Japan, like in the "Chinatown" area of Nagasaki, producing tsuba for the Japanese market.

I noticed the website's caption under the image also stated "Nagasaki" as the probably location  

 

The tsuba on the right:

100% Chinese: 2 way cross-hatching, Chinese style dragons; stylized Chinese Song-shan mountain motif below the seppa-dai; Chinese seppa-dai; no hitsu-ana; tsuba is bordered around the outside by a circle of lotus petals; the squared-round shape of the tsuba; the piercings are a bit rough and not meticulously undercut. 

 

Kogai & Kozuka set:

It has more in keeping with the dragon style and production cues of the tsuba on the left, so Nagasaki area makes the most sense for these as well.

[b.hennick]

I saw a set at the Chicago show 2018 I think. A member here had it on his table.

[GRC]

Spotted a few great examples of unaltered nanban:

 

These ones were all described as Chinese Hushou (tsuba), dated from the Qing Dynasty 1650-1700:

 

Not sure of the date on these ones, but they are also made outside Japan, somewhere on the continent (not just China)

Note the first one has purposeful, original hitsu-ana, so it was likely made for export to Japan:

 

These ones are definitely Japanese, also with purposeful hitsu-ana (mid to late Edo, post-1750 :

 

[Rivkin]

I would argue these are all Japanese knockoffs. Certain they were bought in Japan, used in Japan also.

[GRC]

Hi Kiril,

The Chinese attributions for the first four images were done by dedicated collectors of Chinese weapons and fittings, who also commented (with some noticeable "judgement", that these were wrongly described as Japanese nanban tsuba, as it was their opinion that these were clearly Chinese made).

 

I would agree with you that the first three eventually ended up in Japan because of the modified nakago-ana that come to a "V" point. 

However the fourth one looks completely unmodified, made in China for a Chinese blade that was slung from the hip with the cutting edge down, and never modified to fit a katana:

 

I would also point out two disctinctly Chinese (or more broadly "Sino-Tibetan" features:

1- The outer rim design with two parallel boarder rings, containing a ring of lotus petals. So far, I have only seen modifications of this outer rim decoration on known Japanese tsuba, and they never have the lotus petals specifically, always something "more Japanese" in its styling. 

2- The tapered rectangular box seppa-dai. 

 

Furthermore, the lack of hitsu-ana on these four tsuba, produced at a time when hitsu-ana of some type were on nearly every Japanese tsuba, also points to the notion that these tsuba were never intended to go to Japan (even though three of them got there eventually). 

 

I'm going to quote McElhinney from "Asian Export sword guards and Nanban tsuba" on Facebook, because I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment:

"If a guard looks Chinese in every way, and it cannot be proved to be Japanese, then we must assume that it is Chinese."

 

The middle set of three images certainly could have been made in Japan, but I can can't yet say for certain (either way).

My suggestion of a continental origin stems from the distinctly non-Japanese style dragons on two of the tsuba, which are more South-East Asian.

And, the one with the large circle around the seppa-dai, is a feature that is more commonly found in southern Chinese, Vietnamese, or possibly Korean guards, although the inner tapered rectangular seppa-dai (within the circle) is more Chinese or possibly Vietnamese.

 

Kiril, do you have any details you can share about why you think any one of the first 7 tsuba shown might be Japanese copies of Chinese guards? 

I'm definitely interested in hearing your views. 

[Rivkin]

The point is very simple - I have exactly zero interest in opinions of prominent or less so Chinese dealers who buy 100% of such tsuba from yahoo Japan and then attribute them with certainty as "early Qing" or "late Ming". Why so old? Why Chinese?? there are very many examples still on Chinese blades, found in the ground or with solid provenance to the Continent. They do exhibit significant differences against these. Yes, the style is definitely continental, and the boundary between Chinese and Japanese works in the style is admittedly shaky and hard to be drawn with absolute certainty. But the fact is that whether a sample is Chinese or not in my mind can be ascertained (with high uncertainty) only by direct comparison with solidly established examples from Chinese (blades, earth, provenance). The one you pointed out in the last message might be on the fence and there is a possibility its quite uncommon but still Chinese example. Even more "maybe" - second on the right, first row. The rest are - identical work is not at all common in any continental sources, but yahoo Japan is flooded with them.

 

I am even less interested in McEhinney's opinions. I am sure he is a social guy and thus considered an expert in something... Maybe even Vice President at NBTHK-AB? 

"Sino-Tibetian" does sound Academic, but I have to admit seeing even fewer more or less similar Tibetian examples. Tibetian dragons is soft metal is something even more remote.

 

[Rivkin]

I will even add that in absolutely every single arms and armor field I always ran into the same three problems:

 

a. People always try to replace the need to work with a large, hard to reach dataset of more or less well understood items (signatures, provenance, archeology etc.) by Opinions. Very soon everyone repeats the same story and is convinced its true - because everyone repeats it. By comparison dealing with dugouts, museums and so on is just painful and difficult.

There are hundreds of items described as "made by Armenians from Lviv" etc. etc. simply because someone published an article noting a similarity of motifs - without knowing that the motif in question was used by basically everybody.

I know half a dozen people who did considerable study on Continental guards and none of them was ever approached by any of the nihonto's "thinkers".

Indeed, why bother. One can instead look at the webpages in perfect comfort and say "I think its Chinese".

And that's the reason I genuinely dislike these people.

 

b. Somehow everyone is always convinced that an expert can produce a certain understanding of what the item is... I never saw a medieval objects for which signatures are unknown and whose purpose is utilitarian to be datable and attributable with absolute certainty. People don't want a story, they don't want a sliding scale, they want certainty. Which in reality can't exist.

 

3. The devil is in details.

From space all swords look alike, and all motifs are the same.

Everyone did dragons, and everyone copied Chinese now and then... 

The only way to dig deeper is basically write a book. 20 pages showing solidly identifiable continental types, 20 pages showing signed or otherwise solid Japanese types - and then deal with the stuff in the middle, which most likely will be more of a guess. There is no substitute for that. Its a delusion that someone is smart enough to just look at a tsuba and say "Well, I thiiink its Chinese and John agrees, and he saw many things"... 

Our opinions don't matter. 

"There was a lot of trade so they must have bought Chinese guards" - does not matter. Its so indirect it does not amount to anything.

Either one does all the steps - establishing the goalposts, identifying the features, providing the timescale and then say "here how I personally define these ...", or its just a confusion.

 

[Bazza]

Gents,

Here is my Namban tsuba that I put up on the Board many years ago (ca 2013?) and as it seems to fit into this discussion here it is again.  This has an 'old green' NBTHK paper from one of the USA Shinsa many years ago.  A visiting togishi from Japan held it one day, also many years ago, and said "A real one".

BaZZa.

 

   

[GRC]

Kiril, I agree with your key points, especially that evidence is the key and opinion doesn't matter until it is supported by evidence.

As far as I know, McElhinney is writing a book about nanban and asian export tsuba, with some collaboration with Peter Dekker.

He has already published several articles on the matter and is actively researching the subject.

 

I'm not aware of his methods or examples that he is basing his statements off of, but I respect that he is attempting to sort out the details (with research) that the NBTHK is so sorely neglecting with regards to their categorization of "nanban" tsuba.

My impression of his efforts is that they are based on evidence, and that he is trying to correct the standard "opinions" that already exist among the Japanese nihonto group because they are built with heavy bias and have many flaws (especially in the nanban category).

 

You are 100% correct that an "expert" is only as good as their evidence.

The danger is always when ego enters into the picture and some people allow their own legitimate expertise to cloud their judgement and allow them to turn some of their suppositions into statements of fact.

I think that's why many people seem to have a certain disdain for experts these days...

 

However, my impression of McElhinney's posts on his facebook thread on the subject, is that he is not closed-minded and recognizes where some guards have influences from many areas and cultures, making it nearly impossible to pin down a point of origin. With other guards like these Chinese-styled ones, he seems fairly certain and often makes reference to having, or having seen, a base of comparison.  

 

At a certain point, you still have to trust that actively researching experts, for the most part, are genuinely trying to their best to research a topic and present the best possible conclusions. The whole point of research is to build a better understanding and to continue to refine or restructure their conclusions over time, as new evidence comes to light.

 

I would make the case that, as you pointed out, it is possible that some of these Chinese-looking guards were made as direct copies in Japan, but I would suggest that there is more weight on the side that suggests the guards were made on the continent:

1-It is very difficult to find examples that have not been mangled and altered to fit a Japanese blade, as almost every example on YahooJ has had hitsu-ana added is such a way that it butchers the original design.

2-Almost every example has had a much longer and larger nakago-ana cut into the seppa-dai (usually going in the opposite direction to fit a katana rather than a slung Chinese sword).

 

So let me float these questions:

1-Why would the Japanese make a faithful copy of a Chinese or continental motif, including a Chinese style tapered rectangular seppa-dai that does not fit an ovoid Japanese koshirae?

2-Why make a nakago-ana that would then need to be altered to have the opposite orientation and have a point and a blunt end to fit a katana, rather than having two blunt ends like a Chinese style hushou guard that is meant to be worn, slung from the hip?    

3-Where is the evidence that the Japanese were making direct copies of Chinese and continental sword guards? It seems that in almost every Japanese form of artistry, they took the initial influences from other cultures and then immediately made it "their own" by doing it in their own style.

Making exact copies of another culture's work would seem to be a departure from the norm for the Japanese.

 

So in my mind, there are multiple reasons to think the guards were made on the continent, vs only the thought that they could have been made in Japan (although it is still a possibility!).

Personally, I'm going to favor "made on the continent" unless better evidence comes along, but I will always keep an open mind. 

 

And, as you point out Kiril, I would also like to see the comparisons McElhinney is using to justify the dates that he is proposing.

 

Regardless, I think it's great that these ideas and questions are being floated and discussed, because the entire nanban category is in dire need of more research. 

[GRC]

By the way, I did a bit of digging myself and found these Tibetan comparisons at the Met Museum...

 

Here's a decorative horse saddle plate from Tibet that is in the Met Museum, and it has the same dragons that are on some of the tsuba I posted as being continental (although I should have stated "most likely" or "probably" because I can't be 100% certain... I let my own brain turn it into a statement rather than a likelihood):

 

 

And, the mask that is on the guard on the left looks a lot like these earlier 15th-17th Century Tibetan mask-shaped sword guards in Met Museum:

 

So everything about these is saying Tibetan (every aspect of the motifs, the seppa-dai shapes, the sukashi is drilled or simply carved with no undercutting, the nunome on the 2nd one is done with Chinese-style cross-hatching), so it makes it far more likely that these were one of the following:

1-made on the continent for use on the continent (but ended up in Japan at some point where the nakago-ana was modified)

2-made on the continent but intended for export (Asian export guard)

3-made by a Chinese smith living in Japan (Nagasaki area had a large community of such smiths and artisans)

 

I have a hard time seeing how these could have been made by a Japanese smith (although again, it is possible, but it seems like a pretty slim chance).

[GRC]

Also, here's an example of one of those rounded-square nanban tsuba mounted on a sword in the Ningbo Museum in China.

Dated to the Kangxi era (1661-1722).

Main difference: the seppa-dai on this one looks more like a flattened round, rather than the tapered rectangle.

 

[roger dundas]

Am really enjoying the strong discussion between Kirill (Rivkin) and Glen (GRC). There has been a lot of discussion over time about 'Namban tsuba'- this one seems to be distilling things a lot more- or has the potential to do so.

Plus the wonderful examples posted including your beauty BaZZa !

Roger j

[Rivkin]

Very personal opinion:

If it looks like Chinese its Chinese is something that excludes tremendous percentage of Japanese paintings etc. which are one to one copies of Chinese items. 

Sino-Tibetian is a term seldom used in arms and armor for a number of reasons, one of them is that Tibetian is often thought as a part of Mongol culture and overall more a recipient rather than an originator.

Yes, there are considerably more 19th century Tibetian objects preserved than anything of truly Mongol association, but it brings yet another point:

comparing with internet based photos will force one to study often 17th century Japanese Namban tsubas against almost exlclusively 19th century and at times 18th century continental items.

As much as there is continuous effort to pull the dating on the continental side further into 17th and possibly 16th century, the attempts seldom hold.

The problem is then is that when one compares Tibetian, Chinese, Japanese etc. etc. items limiting oneself to 15th-16th century and earlier items certain things might become much more accented: what was the original foundation of the style (which typically leads one to acknoledge that its Chinese, and whether in Tibet or somewhere else the elaborate Chinese designs replaced rather utilitarian tsubas actually quite late... 14th century is a possibility) and what are the differences in execution (they tend to be much more apparent on early work).

Overall continentals did not really like to fine cut the iron and usually you can see that the nature of cuts and the density of cuts on a tsuba taken from a Chinese sword will be different (though also extremely similar) compared to what one can buy from yahoo Japan. 

 

One can then say - its just a normal fluctuation between makers and its still Chinese. Its possible. I don't believe it. I think its in 99% of cases is that Japanese imitations were done on a massive scale and that's why we find by far more of such tsubas today on a Japanese market, while 99% of what we find on a Chinese market is rather different. 

But the answer could never be provided with certainty. These are unsigned items in purposefully made in a distinctively China-based style.

[Spartancrest]

2 hours ago, Rivkin said:

I think its in 99% of cases is that Japanese imitations were done on a massive scale and that's why we find by far more of such tsubas today on a Japanese market, while 99% of what we find on a Chinese market is rather different. 

I have to say there is a discrepancy here - was it the practice of the Chinese to "switch out" their guards when fashions changed like the Japanese did? I have always assumed a Chinese sword came with it's guard and could not be changed due to the handle construction. But the Japanese sword was in fact designed so that the guards could be switched. So there would be many more Japanese namban tsuba available than Chinese if for no other reason than the Chinese swords did not survive and hence the guards as well. Reasonable assumption or not?

[GRC]

Dale, I think you're probably right in thinking that in Japan, there was more than one tsuba made per blade, given that they were switched out for different tsuba so regularly. But maybe, that number might be offset by the shear number of people and weapons that would have been in China, just from a demographic standpoint.

 

I have read another explanation for the higher number of Chinese guards being found in Japan:

the explanation was linked to the Chinese cultural revolution, which facilitated the purge of anything that was either capitalistic or traditional. So it would be more likely that traditionally designed hushou guards would be found wherever they were exported to, prior to this purge within China.

 

In some sense, it would be similar to the mass exodus of Japanese weapons and tsuba at the end of the Edo period, beginning of the Meiji period, when the samurai class was abolished. The main difference is (to my understanding), that no Japanese were actively going around trying to destroy their own cultural objects at the time that they went through that period of cultural change.     

[GRC]

Rivkin,

I do recognize and support your making the case for ambiguity and uncertainty, especially for the ones that are more Japanese in form and/or have purposeful hitsu-ana. 

 

However, stating that 99% of the Chinese or continental looking Nanban guards were made in Japan just doesn't seem to hold up to the fact that they were so blatantly modified from an original form that fitted a Chinese sword (rather than a Japanese sword).

I think you'd have to have some evidence to show that these one-to-one copies of Chinese guards were actively being produced in Japan (which I suspect would be next to impossible to find...). You'd also have to find an explanation for why the seppa-dai and nakago-ana were originally made to fit a Chinese weapon then modified later.

These are the biggest hurdles for your argument.

So although it is possible that they were mostly made in Japan, there's really no evidence for it... just the idea that it is a possibility.

Whereas, given the physical objects and the nature of the modifications, so far it makes more sense that they originated outside of Japan. 

  

5 hours ago, Rivkin said:

and what are the differences in execution (they tend to be much more apparent on early work).

Overall continentals did not really like to fine cut the iron and usually you can see that the nature of cuts and the density of cuts on a tsuba taken from a Chinese sword will be different (though also extremely similar) compared to what one can buy from yahoo Japan. 

Could you provide some visuals for these? It would help a lot.

 

 

I also see that you really dislike the term "Sino-Tibetan".

To me, it's just a term that suggests a mix of influences between the Chinese and Mongol empires (from the general area we now call Tibet) that becomes difficult to separate cleanly because of the heavy mutual influence. I don't have a horse in the race so it doesn't matter to me at all if the word Tibetan is in there. I'm just repeating the terminology that is currently being written on the topic.

 

Regardless of approval/disapproval of the specific term itself, it still doesn't give any weight to dismissing the concept of a mixing of influences between these areas, or that they could have been the origin of some of these Nanban tsuba motifs, and even the tsuba themselves. Especially when there are such similar motif examples (as posted above) that have dates ascribed by the Met Museum and the Ningbo Museum.

 

Rivkin, do you have some evidence to suggest that these items should be dated to a more recent date? Are you suggesting that these museum dates and attributions are not correct? That is the impression that I'm getting from your last post and I just wanted to get some clarification.

Thanks. 

[Rivkin]

There are many guards (for example modeled after the European sword guards) which have rectangular holes - yet one has yet to find non-Japanese sword ever mounted on them. There are indeed Asian made guards for European small swords, but they are usually soft metal and three dimensional rather than flat. Here is a great example of a guard where the hole's shape is just part of imitation rather than functionality. Kara mono and Namban mono were powerful fashions in Japan.

Met's attributions are mostly from the 19th century and were not ever retyped. You have to consider them on a one by one basis. Some are good, like those that were used in LaRocca's book, so it covers a lot of Tibetian. Then again these items are often identified by him as 18th and 19th century, so its mostly conservative in the first place.

Everything Chinese dated before 18th century should be treated with suspicion.

I remember 10 years ago Kofun Japanese items at the Met carried an attribution to Chinese Imperial tomb - and even had a supposed provenance to the actual person who got them from the said tomb... Never mind that the particular shapes were never found in Chinese digs at all, and these tomb remains semi-legendary today.

I wonder if this attribution is still there.

I do dislike Sino-Tibetian. It emphasizes the prevalence of 19th century Tibetian items, while ignoring the 14th-15th century Chinese-Mongol tradition.

 

One can blame a cataclism; for example for a long time Japanese textbooks blamed the absense of early netsuke and inro on earthquakes and fires... still, archaeology will remain an issue. There are many people with metal detectors in China today who do decent job of sifting 16th-19th century material.

 

[GRC]

Thanks for clarifying your position a bit more Rivkin.

I'll try to share my thoughts in the same order.

 

On 8/22/2022 at 2:35 AM, Rivkin said:

Here is a great example of a guard where the hole's shape is just part of imitation rather than functionality. Kara mono and Namban mono were powerful fashions in Japan.

I agree that the square hole types are still very questionable as to both their origin and their usage.

I think the various permutations of the nakago-ana shapes of this particular style of nanban guard was already illustrated in the "square hole namban" thread, but can be summed up as one of the following:

1- no square present (just a typical triangular nakago-ana... although they usually seem to curve and bow outward at the sides of the triangle)

 

2- a square that appears to be cut-in, going across the middle of the triangle

 

3- both an original square and triangle that have an outlining border around them

  

 

However, I don't think you can use these as an example to state that the rectangular nakago-ana on the Chinese-style guards that I posted earlier, are simply for show or a "fashionable" form of "imitation".

These square holes may or may not have been useless in their function, and one could possibly argue they were put there to evoke the "idea of European-ness". However these square holes did not need to be modified in order to the fit a Japanese blade shape to the guards they were on... they are simply "extra" features.

 

However the rectangular nakago-ana shapes in the Chinese-style guards required modification in order to be fitted to a Japanese blade (both elongation and widening of one end) that sometimes required nearly cutting almost to the outer edges of the seppa-dai.

So again, it just doesn't make sense for a Japanese smith to make a Chinese style nakago-ana that would not fit a Japanese blade to begin with.

Comparing these square ones on the "mask" style guards to the rounded-square shaped Chinese-style guards is simply a non-starter... they are so different that is like comparing "apples and rocks" so to speak.

 

 

As for the dates:

On 8/22/2022 at 2:35 AM, Rivkin said:

Everything Chinese dated before 18th century should be treated with suspicion.

I personally can't verify the dates in the museum collection, so I will keep those in mind with the proverbial "grain of salt".

However, the fact that at least one set of dates is also stated by a Chinese museum, lends a certain degree of corroboration of the dates that are being proposed for those Chinese-style guards.

 

I will say that from my observations, a lot of the information about Japanese sword guards in western museums is sometimes correct, but mostly vague, elusive and sometimes downright false.

However, I don't have enough background to make the same observations about the Chinese guards they have in their collections, so I am placing a certain degree of trust in what they are writing. Unfortunately I am "stuck" with what is available until something better comes along, once new information comes to light to make a better claim (like in the scientific method and the continual refinement of scientific theories).

 

But I don't think it helps advance any understanding, or support any additional inquiries if we were all to just throw our hands up in the air and take an approach of "we can't trust anything because they were wrong in this particular case over here", like the example of the artifacts that were all claimed to be from a mystery tomb by one donor, because it simply doesn't apply to all the other items in the museum. Although it certainly may apply to some other objects in the museum that could also have been attempts at deception or deliberate falsification of information. 

Back to the science analogy, just because one author falsifies their data for personal gain, doesn't mean you just throw out all the other publications from all the other authors. 

Regardless, you are 100% correct in saying that museum information cannot be viewed as "absolutely correct", but it's what we've got so far.

And as you pointed out, sometimes that information hasn't been updated in a long time and may already be out of date. 

 

So I think we're better off saying that "so far" scholars/researchers/museums (whatever) are leaning toward "date X" for whatever items. And just stay open and receptive to any changes in those dates. 

 

 

 

About the term Sino-Tibetan:

You won me over on that one, and I completely agree that it is misleading.

"Chinese & Mongol" is the better way to go, since it is accurately describing what it intends to.

  

 

 

About the "cataclysm" explanation:

Your cataclysm comparison is not quite the same and certainly not on the same scale... 

Earthquakes and fires don't deliberately seek out and target old sword guards across an entire nation, but a purposeful cultural purge sure would...

So again, the reasoning of a cultural purge being largely responsible for a lack of Chinese guards being found within China, cannot be so easily dismissed. Of course It can't be an absolute certainty, but it sure seems reasonable.

[Peter D]

Sorry guys, I'm late to the party!

I only just recently found out about this thread.

 

 

On 8/13/2022 at 11:08 PM, Rivkin said:

"The point is very simple - I have exactly zero interest in opinions of prominent or less so Chinese dealers who buy 100% of such tsuba from yahoo Japan and then attribute them with certainty as "early Qing" or "late Ming". Why so old? Why Chinese?? there are very many examples still on Chinese blades, found in the ground or with solid provenance to the Continent. They do exhibit significant differences against these."

 

The Hermitage in St. Petersburg has a sizeable collection of Chinese sabers with iron openwork mounts, mostly dating from the 17th century. The Palace Museum of Shenyang has the saber that belonged to Hong Taiji (1592-1642), and another large two-hander is in the Metropolitan Museum.

 

They all exhibit the exact style of guard that sometimes turns up in Japan. From the overall style, to workmanship, to the method of applying the gold (which slightly differed from Japanese overlay), they are identical. And yes, sometimes one gets lucky and finds one on Yahoo Japan. The Japanese obviously had quite a taste for them; why else produce so many local varieties inspired by them.

 

Studying these is quite difficult because Japanese artists were very good copiers. The field still requires a lot of pioneering and I may well be wrong on many attributions. But I have a reasoning behind each and every attribution I have made on my site. I encourage you to pick one out and try my methods. I'll follow up with why I think it is so.

 

I do agree with you that 99% of the ones on the market are Japanese-made. This is not reflected on my website for the simple reason that I am usually specifically looking for the Chinese ones. So yes you will find a disproportionate amount of Chinese attributed pieces on my site and in my writings, because that is where my interest is.

 

And no, it is not, as you insinuate, just a ploy to make money. This is just a personal interest. Nothing I ever wrote or said about Nanban Tsuba will ever get close to paying my bills. Furthermore, I have no need whatsoever to taint my reputation by overselling relatively cheap sword guards. What I write about them is what I think, and what I think is based on lots of study, contemplation, and discussion. Still, they are preliminary conclusions.

 

[Peter D]

Here is a large two-hander in the Metropolitan Museum. I made this photo in the depot, it's not in their online accessible database. 

Accession number 36.25.1628 A-B. From the Max Dreger collection, sold in 1925.

 

 

Here is the saber of Hong Taiji (1592-1643) in the Shenyang Palace Museum:

 

 

The Hermitage in St. Petersburg also has a number of these, probably the largest collection of them in the world. Most were obtained by tribute and trade with the Qing, and some were collected by Czar Peter. I have photos of the depot but, unfortunately, do not have permission to share them widely. Some of the pieces were published recently in a Russian language book on Czar Peter.

 

The reason why so few survive in China are the very effective purge on metalwork during the cultural revolution. Another reason is that the Chinese switched to soft metals by the late 18th century, almost entirely replacing pierced iron. This was gilt brass or copper for high-end pieces and plain brass for mid ranking officers and lower.

 

Pierced iron only seems to have survived in Southern China. I think this because of a small group of rather similar mounts, with simplistic pierced work, that appear to have been made in Canton but with export to Japan in mind where earlier Chinese openwork had caught on and was produced by makers such as the Yagami school of Hizen. These Chinese pieces probably made it to Nagasaki by trade and it seems this continued for the 18th and perhaps well into the 19th century. Typical Cantonese features of this group are cloud shapes around the tang opening, elements like pearls that were cut loose, and on the lower end of these "lazy" piercing that consists of a series of round, drilled holes that are seen in the same way on brass mounts for the local Chinese market.

For more on this group, see: https://www.mandarin...n-tsuba-canton-group

 

-Peter