Jian Sword Buddha

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Philip

And contrary to what you state, it's not all that difficult to distinguish pieces made for the 19th cent. curio trade from those of earlier periods, there are notable qualitative and design differences.

I agree at 100%. I have several Chinese swords and they are all in between 1850 and 1920. The 1900-1920 swords and the so-called boxer rebellion are not difficult to find. The problem is when people don't know they mix everything. Look at the post 36:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...3&postcount=36

Two swords completely different, but they "look" the same of course...
Plus don't rely on museums, they do huge mistakes (Royal armouries museum for example)...

[kronckew]

After many Oops's here and elsewhere, I've learned:

1. Always take Museum and Auction House item descriptions with a grain of salt. Their source may have just repeated a label he was given by a previous owner, or 'Improved' on it to make the item more attractive. Or the 'expert' just guessed.
2. If it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't.
3. Caveat Emptor.
4. Many 'Experts' aren't.
5. Google is not your friend.
6.If an Item has been inventoried, photographed and shown publicly for over a century and well documented, and other examples exist from reputable sources, it just might really be an antique.
7.They made 'replicas' well over a hundred years ago for collectors and those who travel.
7a. Sightseeing has been a popular sport from millennia or longer.
7b. People also commissioned copies of stuff they admired. Especially if they were unlikely to actually be used when the fit hits the shan, like French (& English) senior officers 'Mameluke' sabres and US Marine officers.
7c. Some fakes are better made with better steel than the originals.
8. The blurrier the photo the more likely it's a fake.
9. Always carry a knife. (Gibb's rule #9)
10. Sometimes I forget to read my own rules.
10a. There are more numbers to add to this list I haven't found yet.

[mariusgmioc]

The opinion I posted above is what I learned from a Chinese curator.

A few years ago, I wanted to sell two "19th century" jian swords, and I thought I can fetch a better price selling them in China with a Chinese auction house.

So I contacted one of the largest auction houses in Beijing, and one in Hong Kong asking them if they would like to take my swords. They both declined, citing problems with authenticity. So I asked for details and the guy from Beijing (who was also working with a big museum there) explained me what I essentially summarised above.

So I ended selling them with an European auction house.

Boxer Rebellion took place in 1899-1901... and their main weapon of choice was the dao.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

The opinion I posted above is what I learned from a Chinese expert.



So I contacted one of the largest auction houses in Beijing, and one in Hong Kong asking them if they would like to take my swords. They both declined, citing problems with authenticity. So I asked for details and the guy from Beijing (who was also working with a big museum there) explained me what I essentially summarised above.

Yes indeed. The two posts just previous, by Kubur and Kronckew, aptly point out the hazards of relying on "experts". Relying on Chinese auction "experts" has special shortcomings. The antiques collecting and trade in the PRC is a comparatively recent revival after having been decimated by the fanaticism of the Mao years. Destruction of the "Four Olds", including both things and ideas. (Have you seen the movie "The Red Violin"? The China segment of the story is as close to history as cinema can get.) Keep in mind that this is a country with a regime that limits access to knowledge and tries to control the historical narrative.

When I mentioned my decades-long research into this field (others too like early firearms ) it did not involve just looking at pictures and going through catalog cards in museums. It took getting permission to handle all this stuff in person, lots of it, taking a ton of notes and photos. Discussing with curators, and also looking at depiction in period photos, art work, etc. Comparing styles and craftsmanship with that in analogous applied arts of various periods. Working with colleagues who read the lingo a lot better than I, determining in the process that there are such documents as gazetteers, palace inventories, military production specs, and so forth. Getting the "big picture" from the historical narrative -- about trade, conquest, fashion. Looking at developments in fields such as the metalworking and furniture industries going back to Ming times and even before for an insight into raw materials production and procurement. A lot of geek stuff like this. You find out soon that the Boxer Rebellion is not the huge benchmark that most collectors seem to think it is.

Just look at Donald LaRocca's magisterial book on Tibetan arms, Warriors of the Himalayas... Before this was published, the comment from most collectors was, "is there any info to be had about this field?", having known only Stone's Glossary and perhaps Egerton's Handbook of Indian Arms. Think about the amount of digging that Mr LaRocca had to do to pull this off.

There is a Harvard PhD, H H Kang, whose thesis on Korean matchlocks is groundbreaking. Surviving examples of the guns are relatively few, thanks to disarmament of the country by the Japanese and the massive losses of the Korean War. But by means of broad-ranging and thorough research he has come up with an amazing body of info, and I can say from personal correspondence that he isn't done yet.

[kronckew]

Another thought on context; I've read that the Jian was a 'scholars' sword, for their self-defence. Presumably this was a subject they also studied to be effective with it.

...But what else did 'Scholars' study, aside from learning the tens of thousands of characters and combinations of them.

The Chinese Government was based on Confucianism. The system required testing, written and oral exams, not only for entry, but for advancement to the next higher level. If you didn't pass the exam, you stayed at your current level. No rising to your level of incompetence, you stayed at your last level of competence. The study of the Jian was considered to take a lifetime. The Military preferred the Dao, which you learned fast, or died in battle. The Dao was also part of a weapons system with shields, armour, pole arms, artillery, missile weapons, strategy and tactics, not needed by civilians who liked to dance in well regulated patterns, the Dao was for killing, the Jian for showing off.

[JoeCanada42]

Kronckew, I dunno if I would agree, I would argue for fun that the Jian is More deadly. If you were going to encounter a person with any armor at all, picking out a spot and puncturing would probably work better than cutting. the tapered blade makes the jian look more effective at blocking than a saber, the jian has a larger range for defense and a larger amount of movement for attack , it is also double edged. The Jian may need more education and skill which in turn would also make it more deadly, I would say its the smart choice, not showing off. maybe the Dao was more suitable for the militia because as you said it was easier to use etc.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Another thought on context; I've read that the Jian was a 'scholars' sword, for their self-defence. Presumably this was a subject they also studied to be effective with it.

...But what else did 'Scholars' study, aside from learning the tens of thousands of characters and combinations of them.

The Chinese Government was based on Confucianism. The system required testing, written and oral exams, not only for entry, but for advancement to the next higher level. If you didn't pass the exam, you stayed at your current level. No rising to your level of incompetence, you stayed at your last level of competence. The study of the Jian was considered to take a lifetime. The Military preferred the Dao, which you learned fast, or died in battle. The Dao was also part of a weapons system with shields, armour, pole arms, artillery, missile weapons, strategy and tactics, not needed by civilians who liked to dance in well regulated patterns, the Dao was for killing, the Jian for showing off.

Well, the foray into Confucious and the Chinese civil service is quite a stretch, isn't it? What the examination system had to do with the jian and its use isn't exactly clear, but let me think about it.

What this does sound like is the sort of thing I've heard over many years of gun shows, collectors' meetings, and auction previews. Folks taking a bit of knowledge and extrapolating willy-nilly. Have heard earfuls regarding European swords and swordsmanship. People whose only exposure to traditional Western armed combat is Olympic fencing and Hollywood costume dramas expounding on eight centuries of swordplay in Europe. And how the sword in Europe essentially became irrelevant with the steady improvement of firearms. Irrelevant? I would recommend J. C. Amberger's The Secret History of the Sword for its analysis of how the use of cold steel has remained a vital and serious field of study and training down to the 20th cent.

Another case is the understanding of the small-sword in relation to its predecessor, the rapier. It is true that small-swords as part of a diplomat's formal dress and the regalia of the Académie Française are symbolic props, but to dismiss these weapons as fashion statements or "all for show" misses the point that they originated well back into the 17th cent. when swordsmanship was an important skill for civilians of a certain class. And that it is the result of a few decades' worth of transition from the true rapier, which would imply that functional parameters connected with fighting styles were at play. Funny thing, I remember a heated discussion I had with a gent who claimed that the smallsword was not a real weapon, it was only a piece of male attire like cufflinks or a tie-clip. And that European swordfighting techniques couldn't hold a candle to Japanese since in the West, it was mainly a sport and not real combat. Oh, I should mention that the "expert" who was lecturing me was a kendo practitioner (and a weekend duffer, at that). Last I checked, these guys do their thing with fasciculated strips of bamboo, not steel blades. Sport or combat?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Philip

Well, the foray into Confucious and the Chinese civil service is quite a stretch, isn't it? What the examination system had to do with the jian and its use isn't exactly clear, but let me think about it. ...

Thanks Philip. Much appreciated if you can bring Confucius, the Chinese civil service, and the examination system into focus with regard to the jian and its use. Wayne's comments are a bit "fuzzy" to me.