Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gustav
Dear Ibrahiim,
I am forced to respond to this, becouse you "quoted" my post #187 in this, according to Jim, "Interesting recap on the Hasekura example", #237.
Since the return of Hasekura Tsunenaga in Japan, the Kastane was stored by Date clan in Sendai until 1951, when an amount of artifacts were donated to the state, since then in a rang of National Treasure. These artifacts are the reason for foundation of Sendai City Museum and the stock of it. The provenance is as impeccable as it could be for an 17th century object in a curiosity chamber collection in Renaissance Europe. Actually it's the best possible provenance.
I (or better Sasaki Kazuhiro) never have said, that the weapons were presented to the delegation in Philippines. The opinion of Sasaki Kazuhiro is the absolute contrary of it. Here oncemore the passage of question from my post #187:
"Sasaki Kazuhiro has the opinion, both keris and kastane are presented to Hasekura Tsunenaga by Philip III. Here in short he's points and other interesting details:
Among the 52 mementos that Hasekura brought to Japan, only three were presented to Date clan: portrait of Pope Paul V, kastane and keris.
Date Masamune drafted official letters only to Pope, the mayor of Sevilla and King Philipp III.
Masamune allowed Hasekura to take care of all official contacts with dignitaries in other countries.
Masamune obviously had great interest in the messages and gifts these figures bestoved on Hasekura.
Then Sasaki Kazuhiro writes:
"If we suppose Masamune requested only the articles from the three men he deemed most critical, then the two swords should have come from one of these three men. (...) it seems much more likely the Namban swords were a gift from Philipp III. This would also explain the reason these gifts made their way to the Masamune collection, while presents from dignitaries in other locales were allowed to remain in the Hasekura collection."
End of the quote.
Actually in his article Sasaki Kazuhiro represents the opinion (and it's a scholar oppinion), the weapons are presented to Hasekura Tsunenaga in Madrid, possibly in one of the two audiences he had with the King of Spain.
Please, when you are quoting your favorite source of knowledge Wikipedia (there:"and a set of Ceylonese and Indonesian daggers acquired in the Philippines"), don't mingle it with a contrary opinion of a scholar. The dish resulting of this is unpalatable.
Sorry, but I don't see the slightest resemblance between the blade stamp and the coat of arms of Hasekura Tsunenaga.
In your post #201 you say, the blade stamp is an M, now it supposedly is an H (as in an earlier version of your #237). The literate people in this world see it as N.
Anyway, bringing the personal stamp on an artifact, which is to be presented to this persons feudal lord is absolutely unthinkable in medieval Japan. Oncemore - this sword belongs not to the Hasekura's collection. It belongs to the Date's collection and was one of the three artifacts (out of a total of 52) officially presented to Date.
As I already wrote in my post #187, the presentation of Spanish arms to a foreigner was then prohibited by law.
All handles presented in your outstanding post #237 are lionheads of different carving schools, with the sole exception of the Makara hilted hilt from Malay Peninsula from the very end of 19 cent./beg. 20. cent., described in your post as "A Malaya/Javanese hilt".
Dear Jim, sorry, but to call #237, besides a lot of harmless wishful thinking containing also a false quotation, an interesting recap on Hasekura example is quite an indecent joke.
Regards,
Gustav
|
Salaams Gustav, Your input earlier was very useful to forum exploration and research. The fact is...we don't know... that is why I have used plentiful "maybe" and "possibly" and "perhaps"... largely since many reports are conflicting but of course if you have some more details then we shall naturally soak them up into the discussion and there is no need to take offence...I maen hang on Gustav we are trying our best here...but are only human. Sometimes in supposition I make mistakes...but its a forum and very little is carved in stone.
The crossed arrows and swastika with the cross above make a very interesting discussion so it is only a well aimed possibility... maybe we ought to get the page you placed translated? It could help... as would perhaps be better photographs. I am a little far from Japan but would relish a visIt to the Museum..
I continue to absorb volumes of detail about the famous Japanese tour and shall continue to do so. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT MY FAVOURITE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE.. FORUM IS.
When you state categorically;
All handles presented in your outstanding post #237 are lionheads of different carving schools, what evidence do you place for that please? Have you details on the Sri Lankan carving schools within the Royal Workshops? Are you saying that proof exists of a time based solution to Makara heads versus Lion Heads...? (I insert here the caution that insofar as the potential of the two styles there is always the chance that "PERHAPS" there is only one... and that the final shape was down to artisan freedom of expression/client choice and that history is playing a joke on all of us..
Sometimes probing and detective work uncover more questions than they solve ... this may be a case in point but we work together actually and the final product is a Forum one. Some would say its like making an omelet...and you know? ... we have to break a few eggs along the way. Either way you ought never to feel forced to enter a thread discussion as always input is sought from all... The ink is free.
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.
