Quote:
|
Originally Posted by josh stout
I asked about that saber because while the willow leaf blade with a medial ridge, and the four lobed guard are Ming characteristics, the sword as a whole looks distinctly 19th century. The round pommel and the style of the decorations are all 19th century. This does not detract in any way from the saber's importance as a historical artifact and a work of art, but I don't want people to be mislead by the dating. It is easier for a 19th century piece to have some earlier characteristics than it is for an earlier piece to have stylistic elements that are hundreds of years later. Is it possible the blade had its fittings replaced?
Josh
|
Hi Josh,
I believe there is much more out there than whatever typology we know and want to classify and put a sword into. Why would a round pommel and four lobbed would be specific of the Qing Dynasty? Just because someone wrote it is?
I won't ever dare to say I am a specialist on Chinese swords, but I guarantee I have seen many in different places and even if I had studied Chinese swords for 10 years I would never classify as a specialist.
The thing is that one of the characteristics of Chinese swords is their emergence and then back to oblivion and again reemerging into use.
Take this example. I would say you have never seen one such sword. Would it be Ming or Qing?
This is surely a tricky one.
There were a couple of swords that were just bare blades, while the one you refer to was mounted and fortunately not restored.
We presented it as bare blades such as this one,
number 93
or this one,
number 94
Zhou had the good sense of not restoring anything except the handle of this one at my own request, because of the beautiful pommel,
number 99:
I would therefore doubt that Zhou would have made any restorations.
Furthermore I am sure that very few people know that ancient jian had a tip polish that originated the yokote?
An ancient jian tip restored to its former glory.
Cheers