Jump to content

Two Nanban Mask Tsuba


JohnTo

Recommended Posts

With all the recent correspondence regarding Nanban tsuba, I thought these two tsuba might interest NMB members.  They are virtually identical mokko shaped Nanban tsuba with dragon/lion masks the main difference being that one is brass and the other iron.  Both tsuba have the same basic design on the front and back, making it difficult to decide which is which.  Like all(?) Nanban tsuba they are unsigned. They were purchased as part of job lots from two separate auction houses a couple of years ago.

The first tsuba is brass (?) and the differences in colour indicate that it was once gilded, probably using gold amalgam.  It has two devil/lion/mythical beast masks at the top and bottom.  The Royal Armouries has a similar mask on the guard of the ‘Ming Sword’, dated 1402-24, but only describes the mask as a ‘monster’.  It therefore adds weight to my assumption that this tsuba is of Chinese, rather than Japanese origin.  The left and right central sections seem to be bounded by what is often referred to as drawer handles, but are actually stylised dragons holding a tama jewel between them.  Within each of these areas are two more conventional dragons, the upper ones with open mouths (talking females?, sorry) and the lower ones with whiskers (male?).  Eight dragons in all. The seppa dai is the usual grooved Nanban style and the nagako ana is an odd rectangular shape, modified to take a Japanese sword, utilising copper sekigane at each end.  I know nothing about Chinese swords and pole arms, but the little I have found out does not relate to the odd shaped nagako ana.  Any suggestions?  Finally, mention must be made of the shakudo hitsu ana plug.  It must have been difficult to shape and I would expect that this was a later Japanese addition.

This tsuba is very similar to one sold in the Compton Collection, Part I, Lot 100, at Christie’s on 31st March 1992.  The Compton tsuba was described as an early example imported from Canton into Nagasaki, ca. 1600.  Both are brass and have the same elements in the design, though in different proportions.  It is therefore likely that this tsuba is of similar origin.

Dimensions: Height: 7.5cm.  Width: 6.9 cm.  Thickness (rim):  0.5 cm.  Weight: 124 g

The second tsuba is virtually identical in design to the first, but is made of iron.  In this example the drawer handles, in gold nunome, are not part of dragons and a second pair of animal masks has been placed each side of the central horizontal axis of the tsuba.  The four dragons in the centre have the same open mouth pair at the top and closed mouth dragons at the bottom There is only one hitsu ana, the other one being replaced by a gilded tama jewel.  The gilding is another important difference, this time it is nunome hammered into criss-cross anchor lines.  This seems more like a Japanese influence to me.  Does this indicate that the tsuba was decorated in Japan, or maybe made in Nagasaki by Chinese and/or Japanese artisans?  As for a date, I’m guessing here, probably 1700?

Dimensions: Height:   7.3 cm.  Width:   7.1 cm.  Thickness:  0.6 cm (rim), 0.5 cm (nagako).

Weight: 114 g

 

I’m not a great lover of Nanban tsuba, too fiddly for my taste, I prefer the simplicity of Japanese sukashi of around 1600.  However, when I look at the undercut karakusa scrolls (fern fronds) in these and other Nanban tsuba, I’m inclined to say that there appears to be a higher skill level in the cutting than the straight through, vertical, piercings of the Kyoto and Akasaka workers, for example.  The karakusa on one side are only cut halfway through and then cut sideways to join up with the karakusa on the other side.  Have you seen the Chinese balls within balls in 19thC ivory work?  Amazing!

Despite being of two different metals the two tsuba look as if they could have been made in the same workshop, even by the same hand.  Interestingly (to me anyway), the three generations of Mitsuhiro in Yagami, Hizen, virtually next door to Nagasaki, are reported, in some sources, to have had training in the Nagasaki Nanban workshops.  They are famous for their 1000 monkey (senbikizaru) tsuba, carved in the round, which they also made in both iron and brass (claimed to be sentoku on the signatures).

Who were these tsuba originally intended for and when were they made?  The odd shaped nagako ana would indicate that they were not made for the Japanese market, either for swords or pole arms.  I can find no information regarding the shape of tangs of Asian (Chinese) or European (Spanish) swords.  These tsuba look as if they could have been made in China for Spanish rapiers, but look a bit heavy to me.  Perhaps they are not Chinese or Japanese at all, but originated elsewhere in Asia (I have seen mentioned Sri Lanka) and were imported by the Dutch VOC company.  The Compton tsuba has been assigned a date of early 1600’s, but that is ‘auction catalogue’ information.  Most references to Nanban tsuba seem to date them to around 1800, but this raises a question in my mind regarding the nagako ana.  If the Japanese had been importing these tsuba from China for about 200 years, surely the importer would have got round to asking the Chinese to change the shape of the nagako ana thus making them more suitable for Japanese swords.

Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions and trying to learn)

 

post-941-0-29956500-1583765557_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-92447500-1583765570_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-87067900-1583765597_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-44054300-1583765612_thumb.jpg

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

I, too, have enjoyed the recent burst of interest that has developed around Namban tsuba, EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT IS SAID!

A couple of years ago I published a paper in Man at Arms, hoping to generate some discussion. A scan is attached. Basically, I see these bilobed guards as Japanese versions of 18th Century small sword guards. I suppose they may have been made elsewhere in East Asia, but IMHO they are Japanese.

Peter

post-338-0-25622500-1583778208_thumb.jpg

post-338-0-78815400-1583778237_thumb.jpg

post-338-0-28940800-1583778257_thumb.jpg

post-338-0-74753400-1583778281_thumb.jpg

post-338-0-44040900-1583778310_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,

Good article, thanks for posting it.  Always useful to add to the knowledge base and discussion.  I see that there are several similar tsuba to mine illustrated therein.  I note that you feel that these tsuba are in fact Japanese made and that the masks are also a Japanese motif.  While I agree that many nanban tsuba were made in Nagasaki, probably by Chinese artisans and that the style spilled out to Japanese workers and out to the neighbouring Hizen region, I think that some tsuba, including my two, are probably Chinese.  The reason for this is two-fold.

1. The odd shaped nagako ana on these tsuba does not seem to correspond to any Japanese swords or pole arms that I know of.  I'm sure that if they were made in Japan someone (dealers and customers) would have got them to change the shape rather than have churn out thousands of ill fitting tsuba that need modification to fit on a Japanese blade.  .

2. The mask shapes on these particular tsuba seem to have been popular in Ming China.

 

Please note that my observations are not based upon any actual knowledge, just reading around the subject and drawing conclusions based upon limited evidence.  It seems to me that nanban tsuba were made by a number of nameless artisans (like most Momoyama sukashi tsuba), but had no real interest to later Japanese connoisseurs, hence the dearth of information.

 

Best regards, John 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Peter

I enjoyed reading your post and it is all information to build up on our understanding of Nanban tsuba

When I added my bit I was hoping it to be corrected and expand (which is helped by your pos

When you say you disagree with most of the previous attachments then it our knowledge can only move forward by stating those disagreements

Be nice to have a fuller picture that was more accurate as we have the knowledge here to do that

 

 

Grev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...