Comparison of Japanese and Chinese tangs

[josh stout]

I went to the Met to be amazed by the recent exhibit of Japanese swords. If anything, the exhibit exceeded my expectations, but I found my preconceptions of how to date a sword severely challenged. Many people had suggested using a study of Japanese tangs, which are signed and dated, to help develop my ability to date Chinese weapons, so I went with this in mind. I had already formed a set of criteria that I use to date Chinese swords and I wanted to test it against known Japanese dates.

My age estimates were off by 400 years or more for the older things, and 200 to 300 years for the younger things. Something is very different between Chinese and Japanese tangs, and/or many proposed dates for Chinese weapons are quite far off.

Below is a list of conditions that I use to date tangs, and my estimate of the dates for Chinese swords paired with the actual dates of Japanese tangs with similar conditions.

Josh



Tang condition:
Uniformly dark and stony with deep pitting and rounded edges.

Chinese: 17th c. or earlier.
Japanese: 13c. or earlier.

Deep pitting and rounded edges with some reddish color.
Chinese: Early 18th c.
Japanese: 13-14th c.

Surface with complete oxidation, some pits and slightly rounded edges.

Chinese: Late 18thc.
Japanese: 15-16th c.

Small portions of original tang surface/mill scale showing with a few small pits and relatively sharp edges.

Chinese: Early 19th c
Japanese: 16th-17th c.

Large areas of the original tang surface intact with minor oxidation and crisp edges.

Chinese: Late 19th-early 20th c.
Japanese: 17th-18thc.

Surface of the tang intact with little or no oxidation and possible bright steel showing.

Chinese: Mid 20th c. or later
Japanese: 18th-19thc.

[Nik]

That may be the result of different weather conditions, and different treatment of the blades. If the japanese ever cleaned their blades periodically, oiled them carefully, and held them in high regards in dry places, while the chinese owners would do so very seldomly or not at all, the japanese blades would age much slower than their chinese counterparts of similar make. Don't know about typical weather parameters like humidity, of the typical areas in Japan vs. China (big relevant centres).

BTW, what is the correct chinese term for "tang" ?

[bond_fan]

Photos to show the differences would be nice.

[Peter Dekker]

I think the most plausible explanation is that of maintenance. Weather conditions in Japan are not much different than of some coastal regions in China, but differences within China itself are vast. Items from the Tibetan plateau hardly age because of the dry climate and low levels of oxygen.

Japanese hilts were made so that they easily come apart. Chinese hilts were peened at the pommel and their tangs inaccesible for extended periods of time. For example I bought a seventeenth-century peidao once of which the handle hadn't been loose since. That means at no point in its 300 years someone cleaned off the active rust on the tang.

BTW tangs are often referred to as "wei" in Chinese, the word used for "tail". A saber tang is then a daowei, a jian tang a jianwei. I'm not sure whether the name stayed the same for a long period of time, they don't generally speak of tangs at all in old texts as only assembled weapons are mentioned.

-Peter

[josh stout]

I suspect that Peter is on the right track with differing age estimates being attributable to differing treatment. I have read that as part of the process of polishing Japanese swords, at the end, the polisher wipes his slightly oily fingers on the tang. This goes against the usual understanding that the tang of Japanese swords is never interfered with. The practice would slow down the oxidation process considerably.

With Japanese swords treatment defines the signs of aging, but it seams that many variables affect the aging of Chinese tangs. Clearly climate is a factor, but handle construction and materials may well have large influences.

I have based my age estimates on a large sample of village weapons, and a few bare blades of more refined manufacture. So far, the results have been fairly consistent with a few exceptions. Notably a Chinese sai (gen Hakka dialect? cabang Indonesian) with a good provenance from ~1890 in northern Sumatra that looks much older due to the exposure to very high humidity. Also a set of hudiedao dated 1868 that was collected from Shanghai with an age patina that would be consistent with a much older weapon.

Nonetheless, I consider the list of tang dating techniques to be fairly consistent. One way to check the effects of weather is to look at the rest of the piece. If the blade fittings and tang are all roughly uniformly aged, then excellerated aging due to high humidity should be considered. In high humidity, a short period of neglect will age a sword quickly, but the effects are uniform, not just on the tang.

One group that I am particularly interested in are the village jian and straight dao with triangular pommels slightly larger than a quarter. They appear to all be 18th c. according to the dating system I have developed. However, they seem to mostly come from northern regions, so I have to consider the possibility that they may represent a longer period that ended in the 18th c.. In northern more arid regions, the reduced signs of aging may lead to significant underestimates. Peter sold one a few years ago that he said was likely from the Ming/Qing transition in the 17th c., and he may well have been correct.

So my conclusion is that Japanese tangs are useful for Chinese collectors as an indication of what age looks like, but not for specific dates. I think the list of dates and characteristics I have posted for Chinese weapons is useful and generally errs on the conservative side. Nevertheless, aging of the tang should be seen as a relative not absolute guideline, and should be considered with the totality of information regarding a particular sword.

I would love to see comments on aspects of dating that others have developed. The study of Chinese swords is still in its beginnings, and we have very few reliable signposts

Josh

[Scott M. Rodell]

That may be the result of different weather conditions, and different treatment of the blades... ?

I also attended that exhibition* at the Met & it was an amazing collection of sword blades, including some very, very early blades some of which were the same period & style as Tang blades. And I also noticed that these really early blades did not have tang with coloration I expected for a sword of such an early period. But as both Nik & Peter make explain, these sword were very likely not stored or used on the same conditions as regular trooper blades. I've often thought that the world has a quite skewed view of Japanese swords. The reason for this is that we are not presented with the entire spectrum of swords that were made in Japan, from the finest blades to those hammered out for some rural country samurai who was a front line soldier. We are present with the best of the best that have likely never been drawn in conflict & have been stored under unique circumstances. I mean just the fact that they have steel artifacts 500+ years of age in such great condition demonstrates that very special care was taken to keep them that way. In other words, we can use these unique examples from Japanese collections to study the coloration of tang with an eye to learning how to date swords. If we are going to use Japanese swords to learn this art, & I think this is a good idea given that the grips of Japanese katana can be rather easily removed, then I suggest attending Japanese sword shows & looking at the low end swords, the ones that saw combat & were carried day to day & not stored away in a temple.

*For those interested, here's a link to the exhibition catalog, "Art of the Samurai: Japanese Arms and Armor, 1156-1868"-
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Samurai-Japan ... =1-1-spell

[alfanator]

Generally speaking, dating of J-swords just from the rust on the tang by itself is not very reliable. Weather conditions play a role as pointed out and many swords were shortened from the tang end. J-smiths also filed their tangs in distinct patterns, shortened tangs are usually not filed or filed in a different pattern, the amount of wear on these file marks, the wear on the edge and ridge of the tang, combined with the rust is a better indicator of age than the rust itself. And yes, you could and should oil an old tang lightly from time to time to prevent red and spider rust from pitting it.

The most reliable dating method is to look at the grain and the activity in the temper. Old J-steel looks different from newer J-steel, hard to describe but the activity is deeper and more subtle. Sort of like looking at new damascus and old damascus blades i guess.

[Peter Dekker]

Thanks for this detailed explanation. Very interesting. Has there been done any research as to why the patterning on older swords looks deeper and more subtle? Is it the age that does something with the steel, or had it to do with steels / methods used that changed over time?

As for looking at the grain, this is hard for Chinese swords as the forging methods and steels used were by no means uniform, not even in the same time in the same place.

The most striking example of difference in forging from one piece to another that comes to mind were two paidao* from the same military depot. Tongzhi era markings pointed to a manufacture date of around 1863, and they were of the Guang series, probably referring to Guangdong which was under attack by the Taipings that very year. The serial numbers of these were just 11 digits apart, but the forging was very different from piece to piece. One had a very dramatic pattern resembling burling water while the other only showed faint hints to a straight grain, even after etching. Both handles were of carved hardwood, but the wood types were not the same. One was the prized huanghuali.

Because of the practical nature of Chinese military weapons, at least of the late imperial era, I think they just used what they had. The hardwoods could have been scrap pieces from furniture makers and perhaps they just collected a large number of billets or just random pieces of metal of varying quality to forge out these weapons. Other than the differences in steel and wood, overall shape and size of these were very uniform.

-Peter

*Basically long, single hudiedao that are to be used with a shield.

[alfanator]

Thanks for this detailed explanation. Very interesting. Has there been done any research as to why the patterning on older swords looks deeper and more subtle? Is it the age that does something with the steel, or had it to do with steels / methods used that changed over time?

Probably both but i think the latter had a greater infuence.
The older (pre-Edo) swords were polished more and thus the steel you see is from the deeper areas. Post Edo period swords did not see much, if any, battle use and were not polished as much.

The unification of Japan in the Edo period brought about the disruption of major sword making centers. Steel production was more centralized and the use of locally refined steel started to decline. Smiths generally focused on astethics more in this period, where you would find swords that were typically tempered harder and displayed more flamboyant temperlines and grain.

[alfanator]

The Japanese also treated the tang of the sword with great care both in the construction and maintainence of it. I have not found this behavior in other swords.

Swordsmiths spend hours if not days shaping the tang as part of their signature. Owners took time to maintain the tang, making sure to nuture the rust to grow without pitting as part of regular maintainence. You could often tell the quality of a sword's forging on how well the tang was finished and preserved. Helps when the handle slips off with the removal of one single peg.

[alfanator]

Here is a J-sword of mine from the 800s=Tang Dynasty. It is one of the earliest documented standard raised ridge curved saber style J-swords. The bottom hole is original and so is the rust in the bottom part of the tang. No pitting, just very deep black-brown even rust. It was shortened about 6 inches, so the top part of the tang, starting from around the third hole shows newer rust and different file markings. Although the 'new' rust is probably >500 years old. It does look different.

However, to Scott's point, this was probably owned by some big wigs through the years that did not use this to fight too often, the blade body is very healthy and is incredibly well preserved for steel so old. One could find mass produced J-swords at shows, most were made in the 1500s to ramp up the armies for the civil wars, they tended to have thinner blades, skinner poorly finished tangs and sloppy forging. Often refered to as waki-mono or side-made, often unsigned and in not so good fittings. You could dig through the sold list on http://www.JapaneseSword.com to check out the pictures there.

In contrast, here is piece of an excavated sword from the Han period. It is pretty much a stick of rust. But granted it was in the ground for a very long time...

[Nik]

Here is a J-sword of mine from the 800s=Tang Dynasty.

You have a sword from the 9th century in that condition ??? Is your forename "Bill" ?