Quote:
|
Originally Posted by josh stout
Thank you for the detailed reply. I was not saying that Zhou made a restoration, I am wondering if one had been done sometime in the 19th c. and whether the Ming attribution was for the blade, which could be Ming, or for the whole piece, whose fittings look more 19th century. It is not just the round pommel that is usually but not necessarily 19th century; it is also the way the patterns are cut into the fittings. I freely admit I am a beginner at this, and my experience is only with the more commonly seen things. That is why I am so curious about what appears to me as Qing being labeled Ming. I would like to know what makes it Ming so I can see those characteristics in the future on other pieces. Dating by style is a very uncertain technique but the only one available for many pieces. I need every clue I can get.
Thanks,
Josh
|
You're welcome
I have no clue if those fittings were added at a later stage. The sword was classified as Ming, so we went with what was on Zhou's own Museum. To my Chinese culture experience, things are often repeated as I said before.
Chinese Song painters imitated Tang masters, Ming artists imitated Song Masters and so forth. We see the same confucianist inspired approach in Japan, in that there are only 5 sword schools until today, so it is very difficult to define when a pattern really appeared but it can suddenly sprout to fashion
.
An example is the fact that Tang Dynasty women
and their headress and clothes with a cut and a ribbon like Josephine would wear many centuries later
Have definitely influenced Korean national dress and as the ribbon got wider and wider, it gave birth to the Kimono.
This is what makes history and swords so interesting as one can extrapolate into other areas.
Sorry about my rants, but I love this kind of connections.