Jump to content

nanban tsuba age?


Guest nickn

Recommended Posts

Mr. Reinhard said, "What I meant was: Depicting objects upside down on tsuba is a no-go before and after namban(-style) tsuba."

 

It is interesting that you raise this idea. Maybe I have never thought about this simple fact before! I think you are right in 99.5% of the non namban tsuba. We sometimes see inverted (upside down) birds in some sukashi tsuba designs, but rarely do we see any animal or beast head inverted / up-side down.

 

One counterproof tsuba came to mind very fast: Ginza-Choshuya Mag #3 of 2008.

#5 is a very distinct (and expensive) Yasuchika tsuba. I would not say it is 'auriculated', though some might view it that way. The dragon heads on bottom are inverted and maybe this is some Namban influence, but otherwise a very beautiful Japanese tsuba. Wish I could afford it, but $30,000 is champagne and caviar taste for my current frugal budget.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Curran - a very interestinng tsuba. I also agree that it cannot be labelled 'auriculate', although it clearly demonstrates a European influence which, considering its period of manufacture as early C18 to early C19, is not at all surprising. It is conceivable that, without the mei, the NBTHK might have classified this as 'Namban'!

 

John L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking of these imports, they seem to be incredibly rare

John L.

 

I wonder. Looking at "namban tsuba", I notice a deep misunderstanding in quite many of them what tsuba actually are. Quite often they seem to be made by people, who were not familiar with NihonTo and basic principles of tsuba. Seppa-dai should match fuchi and opening of saya when they are first mounted. Some "namban tsuba" appear to be made by people unfamiliar with the purpose of tsuba. Others seem to be copies made by Japanese craftsmen, being fully functional, and there are some in between; i.e. made outside of Japan and adopted later.

 

Illustrating my thoughts, I post this "namban tsuba" from the "permanent collection of the city of Birmingham museum and art gallery" (wonder if it still exists?). Seppa-dai is way beyond Japanese principles and hitsu-ana were cut out brutally. - Just for fun I add the cover of the catalogue as well. One shilling! What a time it was!

 

reinhard

post-1086-14196762783153_thumb.jpg

post-1086-14196762789152_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One shilling! Hahahaha.... lovely.

 

John L. thank you for taking the time to look at my tsuba on the previous page. I understand and agree with what you say. Incidentally, I missed what Barry was saying in his post about the removable seppa dai plate, but picked up on it when you mentioned it. An interesting feature indeed! :beer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 2001 I trawled through all of the Namban tsuba in the collection of the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery — as total of 53 by my calculation — and can reassure Reihard that ‘his’ tsuba, 687’30, is still there and is ex the Sir Charles Hyde, Bt collection. The notes that I made at the time state ‘solid, square rim; square seppa-dai, undecorated but with hammer marks; asymmetrical design of vegetation with leaves and tendrils (? vines) and foxes; later ryō-hitsu; uninscribed; 8.7 x 8.7 cm'.

 

I was clearly not very impressed by its age at that time, but would love to see it again.

 

John L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add a little more to this very interesting thread, but first, on Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:54 am Piers wrote:

 

> Some time ago, Barry asked me to post hi-res pics of this Namban tsuba,

> (the only one I have, likewise) and I did, but never found out why.

 

Piers, sorry about that. I just simply lost track of it in a busy life, but I certainly recall asking the question. It was simply to add a higher resolution image to my files on Namban tsuba.

 

Earlier, on Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:10 am Dr John L wrote in response to my statement that I thought the NBTHK had attributed my tsuba to 17th century:

 

> But C17? The concavo-convex profile that Barry describes indicates to me

> a European influence and a possibly rather later date of manufacture.

 

It only then struck me that with all the gold and quality could Genroku be a reasonable period to attribute its creation??? To add to the concavo-convex profile I submit images of a daisho tsuba. Probably not Namban, but almost certainly Hizen??? The images clearly show that the tsuba have been mounted on koshirae at some time, as 'normal shaped' seppa wear patterns are evident. How the front of the tsuba with the rectangular Namban-style seppa dai were fitted begs the question and harks to Reinhard's question about such tsuba being made by "...people who did not know Nihonto". I would suggest these tsuba are of the highest quality workmanship, which still leaves us with Reinhard's question...

 

Regards,

Barry Thomas.

post-1113-14196762795187_thumb.jpg

post-1113-14196762800362_thumb.jpg

post-1113-14196762805308_thumb.jpg

post-1113-14196762811693_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reinhard states that ‘quite often [Namban tsuba] seem to be made by people, who were not familiar with NihonTo and [the] basic principles of tsuba’. Hamilton made the same suggestion in 1975 (The Peabody Museum Collection of Japanese Sword Guards, pl. XXVII, no 1) when he suggested that decorative seppa-dai were ‘made outside Japan where the oval shape and function of the Seppa Dai were unknown’.

 

I cannot accept either of these statements. The Chinese were very familiar with the Japanese sword, it being claimed that almost 1,130,000 were exported to China during the 1450-1550 period (Fukasawa (1998). Ainu Archaeology as Ethnohistory, p. 64). And it is extremely unlikely that the Dutch East India Company undertook the manufacture of tsuba without being familiar with their market.

 

I would prefer to consider that it is we who are currently ‘not familiar' with the basic principles of this group of tsuba!

 

John L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Chinese were very familiar with the Japanese sword, it being claimed that almost 1,130,000 were exported to China during the 1450-1550 period (Fukasawa (1998). And it is extremely unlikely that the Dutch East India Company undertook the manufacture of tsuba without being familiar with their market. John L.

 

Time and especially number of these exports differ greatly. Ogawa Morihiro states in "Japanese swords and sword furniture in the museum of fine arts Boston":

 

"The licensed trade between Japan and Ming China was inaugurated in 1404 and continued until 1554. According to the Daijo-in Jisha Zojiki and the Zenrin Kokuho-ki written during the middle of the Muromachi period, the principal products exported from Japan to Ming China included swordBLADES, sulphur, maki-e lacquerware, and folding fans. A vast number of swords, estimated at around 300'000 over a 150-year period, was exported."

 

This leaves me with some questions: Did the Japanese export fully mounted swords or just blades to be mounted by the Chinese? Since hardly any examples survived from these exports, the Chinese probably imported just the blades and didn't know about sword care nor Japanese koshirae. Even if they did, the knowledge was probably lost after one or two generations. - Looking at genuine Chinese swords makes me stick to the theory of cheap import ware in the case of some "namban" tsuba.

 

Illustrating what I'm talking talking about, I would like to show you an example, described as: "Sino-Tibetan dao sword, possibly 19th century.....". - Apart from the inserted coral, this guard looks very "namban-style" to me. Why not take some of these and sell them to the Japanese? Somebody might like it. This could have been the point of view of the VOC.

 

reinhard

post-1086-14196762847955_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Illustrating what I'm talking talking about, I would like to show you an example, described as: "Sino-Tibetan dao sword, possibly 19th century.....". - Apart from the inserted coral, this guard looks very "namban-style" to me. Why not take some of these and sell them to the Japanese? Somebody might like it. This could have been the point of view of the VOC.

I'm staggered by the similarity to my Namban tsuba already presented. The 'proof of the pudding' would be in the shape of the nakago ana and there is no doubt that my tsuba is Japanese in that regard. I would speculate that the Tibetan sword (a friend once owned a very good one) would have a rectangular tang - is there then any connection between a Tibetan rectangular tang and the rectangular seppa dai on a Namban tsuba?? I imagine Tibetan 'Namban' tsuba would be very rare in Japan, so perhaps they inspired copies more in the Japanese style for katana???

 

Regards,

Barry Thomas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to the pics, I'm posting this piece on behalf of Roger Robertshaw.

 

The ball is floating and there are several 'through cuts' where the overlapping tendrils actually have space between them inside the tsuba. Excellent quality carving, imo, anyway.

A 'proper' shaped seppa dai, lead seki-gane and a Chinese(I'm assuming) kanji at the bottom.

 

tsubafiligree.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an outstanding example of the genre, with very high quality undercutting and is ubu, without added ryō-hitsu. The seppa-dai is of the conventional Japanese type. Placing these tsuba in a timescale is always very difficult, and the conceit of the ‘floating ball’ suggests that it may not be quite as early as I would have otherwise thought. Improved metalworking techniques means that the quality of later work is often quite high.

 

John L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All, The image Reinhard has posted is very, very significant as is the point that it was blades the Japanese were exporting to China. Note the shape of the hilt and especially that of the Chinese equivalent of the fuchi. It is rectangular, exactly the right shape to snuggle up to the 'seppa dai' of so many namban tsuba. Also the decoration on the blade, in the place that would be occupied by an habaki on a Japanese one, means that the lower face of the tsuba will be visible right up to the hole for the tang - hence the decoration on these rectangular 'seppa dai'. As for the concave, convex (or should that really be 'dished' ) tsuba. Quite often dao have such a tsuba, with the concave side towards the blade acting as a cover, so to speak, over the mouth of the scabbard. I have an image in maind of one in the Armouries collection, in brass, consisting of a flat plate that has the outer edges turned down at about 60 degrees - in fact it looks like a small, upside down pie dish with sloping sides. That one isn't decorated but it is a very utilitarian sword. The tsuba illustrated by Barry is of this type, Highly decorated on top, visible when the sword is being worn, and notionally decorated underneath, only visible when worn.

Ian B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can readily accept that the rectangular form of seppa-dai on some Namban tsuba may have its origin in the rectangular shape of the hilt of the Chinese sword. One can also accept the possibility that this ‘quaint’ feature persisted on those tsuba that were made in the C18 for sale to Europeans. But this does not explain why so many ‘made in Japan’ tsuba of this group, clearly intended for the local market and for mounting on Japanese blades, persisted with this impractical anachronism.

 

John L.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe more research should be put into who used rectangular "fuchi/ferrule".

The vast majority of Chinese swords that I've seen used an oval or circular shape in that area.

At least with dao and jian.

 

http://www.northernwu.com/Swordgrp.htm

 

duan3.JPG

 

Perhaps there is more influence from Tibet, as per Rheinhard' post/picture, than initially meets the eye?

Perhaps the Japanese lumped Tibet in with the rest of China without making much, if any, distinction?

Tibetan artwork has always looked very 'jumbled' and 'busy' to me, much like namban tsuba.

The work I see on everyday Chinese swords is generally not as intricate as a standard namban tsuba. Always the exceptions though, and especially with swords for the higher ranked and the big boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Some details on those pieces, Guido.

 

Here's a thought, perhaps not a good one, but...

Given the swords we are seeing with rectangular 'fuchi' look to be very high ranking swords (I very much doubt foot soldiers are taking ruby studded blades into combat) maybe that is a sign, to the Chinese, of a higher level of craftsmanship?

Would it have been easier to create an oval fuchi or a rectangular one?

Then when the Chinese received high quality Japanese blades, they thought them worthy of high level fittings and so the rectangular form was used.

 

Perhaps the Japanese tsubako saw these extreme examples of workmanship and made their own versions.

Japanese 'copies', as it were, to sell on the local Japanese market as very valuable 'Chinese' sword guards.

They were forging their own stuff, why not forge top quality fittings from the Chinese market and try to pass them off as such?

 

Kind of a reversal of what we see today with the Chinese copying Japanese blades.

 

Just a thought... :freak:

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...