Unaltered "Nanbans"

[Rivkin]

No one can see in the past to determine whether a tsuba is Ming or Qing, whether its Japanese or Chinese.

What can be done is a full review detailing the existing provenanced objects, using them to identify period/region specific features. With a study of Chinese objects being widely copied and adopted, Japan included, often at a much later date, and how the copies can or cannot be (definitevely?) distinguished from the "originals".

Then it can be applied to non-provenanced objects with a statement that this tsuba has this feature which is unique to Ming Chinese examples and is not encountered anywhere else. 

An attribution "Ming dynasty, China" is then understood in a context "according to the classification presented in .... this tsuba belongs to the cathegory identified as Ming". Possibly with a note that in the future this very same category can shift to  something else like Qing or Vietnam if the argument is redefined by future data.

 

There is no such text available to m knowledge. "There is something similar on Chinese sword" is not an in depth study and does not present a proof - East Asian items are similar, the devil is in details.

 

There is however a flood of recent, definitive, single line attributions "17th century Vietnam", "Ming China" and so on, applied to tsubas purchased on yahoo Japan and now being resold at 100 times the purchase price. Then these offers are being referenced by collectors who are discovering their 100$ Namban tsuba is in fact a "Ming China" example from a court workshop of the Forbidden city, which generates the next wave of similar attributions and so on.

The tree is massive already.

The root analysis is yet to be presented, the first attribution is yet to be proven.

Troubling trend since the numbers of primary sources or provenanced examples which have established Ming dating is miniscule to say the least.

 

There are issues with kunstkammerren is that while in later registers its entirety was often automatically attributed to the Emperor, there are proven instances when these are in fact ater 18th century items. The most famous example in the Russian literature is "Peter the Ist shashka" which was long described as a tribute by a Circassian chief, yet turned out to have been received if I remember correctly in 1767 from a (mostly) unknown source.

 

Russian restrictions on photographs are peculiar, but are generally avoided by "artistically reproducing" the images as drawings.

 

[Peter D]

You're moving the goalposts. First, you state there are no Chinese swords with such guards, and when I show them, you say just because they look similar, they don't need to be.

 

The Japanese copies can, in many cases, be clearly distinguished from the originals by the manner of carving, application of the gold, etc. There is also a group that defies classification, which is exactly what makes this a fun and interesting field of research. The devil is indeed in the details, but you don't seem interested in a constructive discussion on those specifics. Instead, you're making broad statements as to why non-Japanese classification could be untrue.

 

When you think these tsubas are sold for 100 times the purchase price, you have a crooked idea of the market. I wish! They really don't sell like hotcakes. A Vietnamese attribution raising the price? No way; almost nobody collects Vietnamese arms unless they are complete and really good. On top of that, there is hardly any market for separate parts, Chinese or Vietnamese, with the exception of really good imperial Qing guards.

 

-Peter

[Peter D]

If the Japanese were so involved in copying these Chinese designs, and little to no actual Chinese designs made it to Japan, what did they base all these designs on?

And with such a market for Chinese-inspired copies, is it logical that Chinese traders just stopped supplying their popular goods because now the Japanese just copied them? It makes no sense, really.

 

Ok. Let's treat just one Chinese-made group I think I have identified:

 

"...there was a third type derived from, or mixed with, Chinese influences. During the whole period of Portuguese and Dutch intercourse with Japan, the Chinese carried on a more or less uninterrupted trade with Kiushu ports, and, side by side with the purely Chinese· influence thus exerted, mixtures of European and Chinese styles, probably originating in Canton, are commonly found. Sword-guards of this class are generally termed Canton tsuba or Kagonami tsuba, presumably because this style originated in the city of Hanis, or was imported thence by the Celestial traders."

 

-C.R. Boxer; European influence on Japanese fittings

 

Canton was one of the main Asian cities of both production and trade. Anything could be made there if there was a market for it, and in Japan, a market for foreign-inspired tsuba existed. There is a group of such tsuba that combine a number of features that bring it home to Canton, from where most Chinese trade ships headed to Japan left.

 

Undercutting: Undercut ironwork was produced in Beijing, Derge, and probably some other production centers. Canton was probably the most famous for its work in undercutting in various materials. The pinnacle of this art were the devil's work balls made of ivory. Many of the Canton tsuba feature balls or other elements that are completely cut loose from their surroundings.

 

"Lazy" openwork through a multitude of drilled holes. Tsuba from the Canton group often are perforated with a large number of round holes. On the better work, each hole is filed out so that it is not obviously drilled anymore, but when mass production caught on in probably the 18th century, workers started to cut corners. This "lazy openwork" is very non-Japanese and is seen in all mediums in Southern China, including ivory, wood, and brass sword mounts for the local market.

 

Lastly, surrounding the tang opening are often cloud or lingzhi forms that you also see on Cantonese sword mounts for the local market. Among Chinese swords, its a feature only seen among a group of them that often have Cantonese provenance so it really was a staple of that area.

 

Here is an example of such work, combining these features. Even the application of the gold, over a two-directional crosshatched background, is typically Chinese. On Japanese work, generally three directions were used.

 

The attribution of this tsuba from Japanese mass-produced item to Chinese mass-produced item for the Japanese market has no notable impact on the perceived value. Chinese collectors are not interested in goods made for export to Japan.

 

 

 

 

[vajo]

Nice Tsuba for mounting

[Rivkin]

I will be honest in saying I can't remember everything I ever said, unfortunately or which tsubas exactly I stated were never on Chinese swords, but yes the point it - there are many Namban tsubas which look very Chinese but no one ever demonstrated this identical type on a Chinese sword. Now it might that fully mounted Chinese swords of this level are not common, maybe they did not survive, but how we can be convinced its certainly Chinese - well...

 

I am pretty sure I was always convinced in one thing: without first publishing detailed analysis which includes statistics on all provenanced (by record, archeology or otherwise), clearly Chinese (on chinese swords?), clearly Japanese and so on and so on, without then identifying distinguishing features separating those groups - it is impossible to state a definitive attribution that this one is Vietnamese and this one is Ming. 

If there are no provenanced and signed examples, I don't think anyone should rush forward with being very specific in naming either date or place. There can be conjectures based on specific features, even should be! but it all requires a very detailed writeup and even then it will remain a conjecture, possibly a good guess. 

 

There have been dozens of cases even during my lifetime when someone published an article saying look - this element is executed exactly as it is on a known sword made in Damascus, and a decade later the argument iwas rejected completely because we realized its a common design, or its a much more common technique than previously thought, or for some reason it was specifically imitated in a specific place at a specific time. I am not even talking about relying on comparison of decorative work on swords with utilitarian items and jewerly - quite popular arguments 30 years ago but resulting in 70% cases in failures.

And with conjectures like "Ming" it is expected to be (very) weak simply there is not much to compare with.

 

I don't have a temporary vision which allows me to look at 100 unsigned, unprovenanced objects with really nothing signed to directly compare to and say - well those are certainly Japanese and those are certainly Chinese, Beijing, third street to the right since well they were famous for their metalwork down there. The next person will come over and say - no, if there are extra ana, its certainly Japanese, I don't care about any other argument - I'll just say Japanese did a good imitation.

 

Unfortunately in the past decade I've seen waaay too many >2,500$ tsubas priced such because the seller became convinced its certainly Korean or Vietnamese or Chinese and its 16th century because "Japanese could not do this work" and "There is a photograph on met's site of a Chinese 16th century dragon that looks this way" or a similar one is sold on website with such description or another argument which I just don't find convincing.

Its certainly fun to discover new things and its well earned money if one does, but when these categories are being invented one after another backed by great certainty and very few definitive facts its not my cup of tea at all.

 

[Peter D]

34 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I am pretty sure I was always convinced in one thing: without first publishing detailed analysis which includes statistics on all provenanced (by record, archeology or otherwise), clearly Chinese (on chinese swords?), clearly Japanese and so on and so on, without then identifying distinguishing features separating those groups - it is impossible to state a definitive attribution that this one is Vietnamese and this one is Ming. 

 

I just did! I have identified those features in all genres I have written about.

 

34 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

If there are no provenanced and signed examples, I don't think anyone should rush forward with being very specific in naming either date or place.

 

But there are...

 

We have provenanced 17th century material from Vietnam, well provenanced Chinese sabers and signed tsuba by Chinese makers working in Nagasaki Chinatown.

Again you are making very broad statements because something annoys you, but you seem to willingly ignore all the work that has been done on the subject.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I don't not mean the conjecture can't be made, but in some cases such as "Ming" it is expected to be weak simply there is not much to compare with.

 

...but there is. Changes in the execution of dragons and clouds, in particular, have been very well documented through many mediums, from ironwork to silk robes and porcelain. One can certainly put a tentative and fair date range on a certain execution of such elements. Once one has a good grasp on all forms of Ming art, Ming stylistic metalwork starts to stand out. There is quite a consensus in the international scholar community on these stylistic changes.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

Unfortunately in the past decade I've seen too many >2,500$ tsubas because the seller suddenly became convinced its certainly Korean or Vietnamese or Chinese and its 16th century because "Japanese did not this work" and "There is a photograph on met's site of a Chinese 16th century dragon that looks this way" or a similar one is sold on website with such description or another argument which I just don't find convincing.

 

Earlier, you mentioned 100 as the price, so do you believe these were bought for $25?

Anyway. Let's treat a specific one. give me a link and let's dissect a particular argument.

 

And yes the Japanese did have VERY specific ways of working. That is exactly why unsigned swords and fittings can still often be attributed to specific schools, sometimes even individual makers. And interestingly, many nanban tsuba fall completely outside of any of these known schools. And, lo and behold, are identical to the ones I've seen on Chinese swords in which I have traded for over 20 years now.

 

Moreover, didn't the Japanese need Chinese prototypes to copy to begin with? Would the Chinese have stopped their export of guards the moment Japanese makers also started to do them? Finding Chinese sword guards among tsuba on the Japanese market today is really not as big of a stretch as you so tenaciously try to make it seem.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

Its certainly fun to discover new things and its well earned money if one does, but when these categories are being invented one after another with great certainty and very few definitive facts its troublesome.

 

I think it's you who comes with very few definitive facts so far for your hypothesis that all are Japanese.

 

-Peter

 

[Rivkin]

39 minutes ago, Peter D said:

I think it's you who comes with very few definitive facts so far for your hypothesis that all are Japanese.

I did not live in 18th century Japan or China, so unfortunately - I don't really know which are Japanese and which are Chinese. There are types which I have not seen shown on Chinese swords and for other reasons I believe to be Japanese "copies". Maybe tomorrow there will be a signed example showing its Chinese and I will believe then this type is Chinese or at least most of it. I have not been to 18th century Canton nor have I seen these tsubas with Cantonese signatures, nor have I seen them with provenance being trade items to Japan, so I really can't be 100% sure. 

 

When one deals with a generic subject which was copied over and over, and was understood as imitation subject with a very conservative form, its very difficult to separate them into well defined piles - Chinese, Canton, Vietnam, Japan. There are some provenanced examples which can serve as guidance, but they are generally late, and sparse covering maybe 20%, maybe 30% of these types. And even then it can be counter-argued - well its not Vietnamese provenance, its Japanese export tsuba on a Vietnamese sword. Its mounted on a Japanese styled weapon, has design elements not really suitable to Vietnamese etc. etc. etc. It ends up basically unproveable. And btw its usually really the same five-six blades that were published and I personally know dozens more that somehow "scholars" on the subject never refer to.

 

If you could direct me to a book which demonstrates clearly 200 provenanced examples, separates provenanced types from those for which we have no signatures, no provenances, then identifies distinctive features, I would be very happy to read it. I  am not aware of such text. What I awlays heard instead - there is 18th century sword in such collection, and I really believe the tsuba there is 16th century, and its not exactly like this, yes this one has Japanese anas, and its not egg shaped, but it sort of like it. It can be a good argument, but ...

 

I don't believe in generic arguments like "There is a Ming image like that and this tsuba is also like that" are sufficient to date things to Ming period. When deals with real life objects it simply does not work. I've seen made thousands of times only to be rolled back a decade later - no its 19th century, well, they just did it this way.

I would not have a problem with thousands of dollars price if the description would say look it might be early, it might be Chinese and here is my argument for it.

But that's not the dealer's speak. Dealer's speak is "Ming Dynasty, Beijing Imperial workshop" and its not something I feel comfortable even, possibly more so if it comes with "international scholars consensus". Yes, it does tick me off.

 

And it ticks me off exactly as when I deal with Japanese and they show me an absolutely Indian work and say - no, this is kin zogan, and that's the Japanese school that made it, and it must be therefore Christian Daimyo from 16th century who ordered it made in Namban style. And well you show them Indian items and they keep saying - no, Japanese work is very specific, this is how the line goes, and this is how that goes. No, its still 19th century Indian. Yes its very similar, if we would not have tons of signed examples I might have even believed you.

[Peter D]

Time and time you fail to get into the nitty-gritty details you state are so important. I do, but you ignore those arguments.

You're asking for tons of signed examples that you very well know do not exist.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I would not have a problem with thousands of dollars price if the description would say look it might be early, it might be Chinese and here is my argument for it.

But that's not the dealer's speak. Dealer's speak is "Ming Dynasty, Beijing Imperial workshop" and its not something I feel comfortable even, possibly more so if it comes with "international scholars consensus". Yes, it does tick me off.

 

You must be referring to this piece: https://www.mandarin...-loukong-saber-guard

 

I 100% stand by this assessment. Look at the center, a recess on one side for the angular ferrule of such sabers of which I posted a number previously. The other side has the typical ribbed design that shows on the blade side of these, always. The tang opening was cut open to accommodate a Japanese Nakano, now upside down because the Japanese would wear them edge-up. Style, workmanship, everything here is Chinese, 17th century. The swirling tendrils got more formalized in the later period, and were already more stiff during the Kangxi period. As exemplified by Kangxi to Qianlong period sabers of the style in Chinese government collections.

 

Japanese copies skipped the recess for the square ferrule because it just wasn't practical, and also made the orientation of the nakago ana right from the get-go. It takes a lot of stubbornness to keep looking at this as "definitely Japanese." when everything about it points away from that.

 

 

With other pieces, where an attribution is less straightforward, I express my uncertainties:

 

https://www.mandarin...unusual-nanban-tsuba

 

"The fineness of carving and the fact that much of the overlay is done over a cross-hatched background that is cut in three directions suggests the work is most likely done in Japan. If I had to guess, my mind goes towards the Nanban-style carvers in Yamashiro."

 

 

https://www.mandarin...pierced-nanban-tsuba

 

"This is a tough one to pinpoint but when looking solely at the fine carving in iron, the Yagami carvers of the 18th century come to mind, headed by Mitsuhiro, inventor of the "thousand monkeys" designs. However, they tended to finish the seppa-dai in a smooth manner while this one was carved with dragons."

 

 

https://www.mandarin...-school-nanban-tsuba

 

"In this case the finishing of the seppa-dai (washer plate) and both hitsu-ana (openings left and right) which are lined with a thin metal strip, plus the style and manner of carving, all point to Yagami school. Possibly the 2nd generation Mitsuhiro, the best of the three generations. One of his hallmarks was a complex rim where designs did not repeat itself, as seen here."

 

 

 

[Rivkin]

If a request is for me to go to someone's website, find a namban tsuba there and begin to argue its Japanese, why would I do that?

I am sorry for repeating myself, but I am not aware of any work which would take the subject "Namban tsuba", separate it into types based on geometry, worksmanship etc., then crossreference with signed examples, then with provenanced (origin, date, something else) examples, then determine which appear on Chinese (Vietnamese, Japanese, Korean) swords and for which such instances are (currently) unknown. What is the first time this type of tsuba appears in images? Referenced in books? Described in texts? 200 images detailing signatures and provenanced pieces... does sound about right. 

 

Without such admittedly monumental contribution I don't know what I can be arguing against.

"This tsuba was done in Beijing where around 10th of November workers started to cut corners and steal copper, with their very un-Japanese behavior, which confirms it was never Japanese in the first place".

Ok. Must be getting really old and missing something. Maybe every single part of every single statement like that has been proven over and over again. A short summary suffices. More point for me not to argue.

 

One is tempted to add to the list the analysis based on similarities in style to other objects in my experience those do not work. It was common in 2000s to compare sword decoration with say tombstones or jewelry and then draw conclusions regarding when and when those were manufactured. Failure, but we learned that sword makers could suddenly copy style which died out a few centuries earlier, and tombstone engravers could simply lag artistic development in other, more dynamic fields by couple of centuries. I personally question how useful this method is for dating.

 

Finally, I don't want to point to particular cases, names, prices. Those willing can google search for tsuba with "Muromachi", "Ming", "Chinese", "Korean", "Vietnam", "Sino-Tibetian". I've seen them at shows and at meetings. What I don't see is... well don't want to repeat myself for like the fifth time. 

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Iron with lacquer, gold, silver, brass and copper zogan. One hitsu ana surrounded in silver.

What thoughts does this tsuba trigger?

Three birds and three sea creatures on obverse, two birds and two sea creatures on reverse.

(Two friends said they felt influence from Kyushu, possibly Nagasaki... from shape of the netted sidepods?)