Some more trans-cultural fusion

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:44 pm

I am very interested in how Chinese culture has interacted with its neighbors in the world of swords. One of my particular areas of interest is the China/Tibet border region.

Here is a saber I purchased from an extremely dubious source. The blade is done in a Tibetan style, but is heavier and longer than most sabers with the balance more to the tip, which makes me think it is a cavalry saber. There is an inserted edge (I think), and a very slight curve to the blade, both of which may be Chinese influences. The handle fittings are Chinese, and they are the only ones I am sure of being antique. The handle wood has certainly been replaced, and matches the scabbard wood, but the scabbard looks old, so I am not sure.

The blade has the unusual feature of a separately attached tip.
Josh

Josh
Whole thing:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion285.jpg

Handle:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion294.jpg

Tip
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion286.jpg

blade near tip:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion269.jpg

Pommel:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion266.jpg

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:48 pm

Some scabbard pics:

one side:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion265.jpg

other side:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion259.jpg

Chape:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion261.jpg

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion260.jpg

Old paint on fittings:
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion258.jpg

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 5:09 pm

An odd piece indeed!

The scabbard fittings do not really seem to fit well on the scabbard. I got the feeling that this is a composite piece and that the woodwork is fairly new while most parts are perhaps old but not of the same set. Also, the style of scabbard fittings appear rather atypical for both Chinese and Tibetan swords.

How does the scabbard mouth smell? And how does the end of the tang look? Does the patina on it look genuine? When a sword has been messed with it's often easy to see from the patina on that part. It's also good to compare patina from one part to another, provided they're from the same material. Also, check if the patina is very uniform.. these kinds of patina are often artificially made.

Another fangshi (angular style) mounted blade appears in Warrors of the Himalayas on page 168 but that piece makes more sense as it seems to be fitted to closely adhere to court regulations as in the 1759 Huangchao Liqi Tushi. Another "foreign import" blade, this one Japanese, also mounted in fittings and scabbard that are close to 18th century regulations can be found in Philip Tom's "Some notable sabers of the Qing dynasty".

Your hilt fittings would suggest a fairly economically made weapon, in which an import blade might prove too expensive unless the person lived in or close to Tibet.

-Peter

Philip Tom · Post by **Philip Tom** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:12 am

I agree with Peter in that this piece is likely a recent composite (given the relatively "fresh" appearance of the wood surfaces).

BLADE:
This is what the Chinese call "zhibeidao" or straight-back knife; it is analogous to the European backsword or pallasch: straight and single edged. Specifically, this blade is the characteristic type found on Tibetan and Bhutanese long swords. Note the wedge-shaped, un-grooved surfaces, and the rather obtuse angular point. It is undoubtedly a survival of the zhibeidao used by China's military from the Warring States period until well into the Song Dynasty. Most of the earliest swords brought to and made in Japan (after Chinese and Korean prototypes) were of this shape. These straight single-edged blades seem to have fallen out of fashion in China after the Yuan Dynasty.

HILT:
These plain iron fittings are the "fangshi" or angular style typical of Qing peidao hilts. Not the sort of thing that one normally sees on Tibetan-style backsword blades (although a sumptuous example utilizing a set of very fine Chinese gilt iron filigree mounts was exhibited last year at the "Warriors of the Himalayas" show at the Metropolitan Museum of Art).

SCABBARD FITTINGS:
I'm really stumped on these. They don't resemble anything Chinese or Tibetan (as the Chinese say, "neither horse nor cow") but they do show signs of age and wear, and are likely to be from one of the tribal peoples on the Tibet/China frontier. More research is needed on these.

Peter mentions some very useful points that should be considered when trying to evaluate whether a sword is original or reproduction, or perhaps a composite (an assemblage of unrelated or "associated") parts.

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:50 am

I haven’t wanted to disassemble the handle even though I can see the wood has been replaced. The closeup of the pommel shows where the tang was peened and it does not look recent so perhaps the wood was replaced sometime in the late twentieth century but not yesterday. There is a tiny bit of brass or gold decoration visible in the same close-up of the pommel that may match the quality of the blade. I also agree that the scabbard fittings don’t match the style of the hilt fittings but still look genuinely old. My very tentative guess is that the wood on the scabbard is also somewhat new, but still old enough to have oxidized together at the chape. At the scabbard mouth there is no sign of age on the wood where usually there is noticeable wear. The smell also is not the same as that of old pieces, but still not so new that there is a new wood smell or any smell of solvents or glue. Tibetan scabbards on the complete pieces I have don't only smell like old oil but also like wood smoke which there is no sign of on this piece. The scabbard fittings all show age and have tiny dots of a red lacquer indicating that they have stayed together with the chape and throat of the scabbard. There are no dots of red on the hilt fittings.

I would love to see anything even remotely like the scabbard fittings. Their origin is a complete mystery.

Also this is the only blade I have ever seen with a separately attached tip. Is this common?
Josh

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:36 am

This is the view down the scabbards throat. The wood looks old to me, just not very old.
Josh

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion296.jpg

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:47 am

Odd, I had replied to this post before but it seems to not be there!

Anyway:

I agree with you Josh.. it certainly does look old. I'm guessing it is a composite piece, but put together quite a while ago.

Do you have any good pictures of that odd tip you mentioned?

-Peter

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:23 am

In this picture of the tip you can see where the "hairpin" rods end, then the lines make a sort of wasp waist and there is a faint forge line running diagonally across the tip looking sort of like a fish gill. This marks where the tip was attached. I have seen references in old posts to tips being attached separately, but I don't think it is common as this is the only example I have seen.
Josh

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/p ... ion275.jpg

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:34 am

Very odd, I don't really know what to make of it. Perhaps it was a way of saving the very best steel for the tip? But it doesn't strike me as a very serviceable tip in thrusting so why go through all the effort?

Another thing might be that there was a "wave" of contamination in the steel at the tip which now shows but had no real purpose. This is just a wild guess though..

Thanks for the pic, I'll certainly keep my eyes open for anything resembling this. In the mean time, you might consider contacting the Guinness book of records for owning the strangest zhibeidao known to the Western world.

How is the temper, is it much more wobbly than other antiques you've handled?

-Peter

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:11 pm

The blade is on the thick and heavy side, and generally larger than similar blades. The blade alone is just under 31 inches if I remember correctly and it weighs in at about 1k. As far as I can tell the temper is good with a high frequency to the vibration when I hit the pommel. If the hairpin rods had formed the blade alone it would be about the normal length and weight, but the added tip makes it something different. This is why I was guessing it might be a cavalry saber. It is as if the smith had standard length rods for making sabers but this one was an extra long custom job. There is certainly no way the tip could have been added at a later date. The work looks too nice and of a uniform quality. It is fun having such an interesting piece, but I am finding out the problems of dubious provenance. I have no idea where it is from (the dealer is from Hong Kong), every part is questionable, and it is difficult to say what belongs together. In some ways this is the norm for Chinese collecting, but as the dealer is one who routinely makes fakes and composites, the problem is greatly exacerbated. The dealer could have gotten ten times what I paid for it, but chooses instead to cast doubt on everything in exchange for a reliable trade in fakes.
Josh

Peter Dekker · Post by **Peter Dekker** » Tue Mar 13, 2007 9:37 pm

Hi,

Your theory on the smith having standard length rods is interesting, and I think it's very plausible too.

It appears that many people were involved in making a single sword and there was quite a production-line thing going on with many people making standardized parts.

The thing is indeed large and heavy for a zhibeidao. I think I might have handled some 10 Tibetan and Yi zhibeidao, but none were quite as long and heavy as yours.

I'm sorry to hear about that dealer. Such indeed seems often to be the case in China. I've also came across increasingly well faked patina lately too so perhaps the hilt was replaced afterall. But replacing the hilt on this one in fangshi fittings appears odd to me, since these parts are more rare than Tibetan hilt parts and you'd therefore think they'd keep it to fit an 18th century saber if they find one. There's a great bunch of umounted Chinese saber blades out there that could have used these fittings instead.

I recently picket up a frankenstein Tibetan belt as well. It has four plates of very nice pierced ironwork, but I think one is missing because Larocca's catalog shows a very similar belt with five plates. All other parts like the buckle and some rings are all genuinely old but out of place on the belt. It is now impossible for me to know if it's a recent mismatch or that the parts had been replaced a long time ago.

-Peter

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:33 am

Well I had the chance to check the stats on the saber and it does indeed have a 31-inch blade and a six-inch handle (sorry about the non-metric numbers, but that is how they make tape measures here). The weight was slightly less than I remembered at 940g (my scale is from Germany). Still that is heavier than other Tibetan sabers. Another one I have is 565g with a 25.5-inch blade. I think 25-26 inches is a usual length. The balance point on these things is way out. The long saber balances at 8 3/4 inches from the guard, and the shorter one balances at 7 1/4 inches from the guard. These are definitely chopping weapons.
Josh

dennee · Post by **dennee** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:53 pm

I have found that Tibetan blade tangs are not necessarily peened. Not that I have ever felt an overwhelming urge to take apart any of my swords, but I have seen a couple of old blades in a Tibetan monastery with relatively short, triangular tangs, rounded at the end, rather like those of Burmese dhas. (dhas are also sometimes peened but usually not; I posted a photo on the Ethnographic Edged Weapons forum a while back). One blade was 69.5 cm plus the 9.8 cm tang. The other tang was 7.5 cm, on a blade whose end was broken off but was in other respects proportionally smaller than the first. Although neither blade was especially long, both were of the typical Tibetan backsword form.

On a small sample of Tibetan swords, I have measured a fairly consistent point of balance falling about 45 percent down the length of each weapon from the end of the pommel (or 55 percent of the way up from the tip)--i.e., as Josh says, generally well out from the guard.

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:39 am

I have not seen Tibetan tangs like the ones you mention. All the ones I have seen (not too many in the flesh) have a peened tang. Can you post some pictures of what you describe or post a link to the discussion you mention? I tried to find it using the search function on "Tibetan Tang", but found nothing applicable.
Josh

josh stout · Post by **josh stout** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:04 am

OK, I found the thread.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthrea ... ght=bhutan

Those are some nice photos, but not what I expected for a tang.
Jodh