Sinhala / Sri Lankan Swords?

[Jim McDougall]

In order to better respond to the original query in this thread, I spent some time reviewing resources at hand to learn more about what types of swords were actually used in Sri Lanka from ancient times into more modern.
Turning to "Sinhala Weapons and Armour" (P.E.P. Deraniyagala, 1942, p.115) where he notes , "..it is interesting to note that among the 26 kinds of swords used by early Sinhalayans are those of Pandi, Vaduga, Malaya Telugu, Ayodhya and Java".

In his article Deraniyagala illustrates with line drawings a range of sword forms as seen primarily from iconographic sources such as friezes and frescoes with some as early as 6th ranging into the 12th, then again 16th and 17th. The earliest forms are described as leaf shaped, straight and double edged noted as being 'offensive' weapons.
Other types of blades including long straight single edged as well as wavy, saw edged and choppers are described, which of course would reflect the forms of many of the above listed regions.

With its importance in the export of fine steel in the trade networks of so many cultures and foreign powers it is not surprising that such diversity would be reflected in the armouries of then Sinhala in their swords .

Viewing many of the line drawings as well as examining some of the profiles of swords in "The Indian Sword" (P.Rawson, 1967) it is clear that there are distinct similarities in many of the forms to those of the Indian mainland.
Many of those with angular and lozenge shaped points resemble some of the Nair forms of India, as well as others from Andhra from Telugu speaking regions I believe . There are others which resemble forms seen in the iconography at Ajanta and Ellora from as early as 5th century, which profoundly reflects the connection via the Buddhist Faith in Sri Lanka and India.

Deraiyagala includes in the scope of his panoply of sword forms, the recognizable kasthane, which he feels begins in the 18th century with the influence of Arab sabres and he claims the lionhead comes into fashion.
Naturally it appears that this assessment is quite conservative, and it seems remarkable that the influence of Arab 'scimitars' as he calls them, would have taken this long to take hold.

Returning to the subject of the previously discussed kasthane alleged to provenance from the Hasekura mission which returned to Japan in 1620, in the article of November 15,1998, "Unique Kastane Sword in Japan" by Dr. P.H.D.H.DE Silva, there are interesting notes to another example .
It is claimed that two other examples of two other carved ivory 'simha head' hilts exist, one in the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, is believed to be a gift to the Chief of the Weerasinghe family by King Parakrama Bahu VI (1415-1467).

While this is tempting to accept this period as the earliest date for the noted lionhead hilt, as well as the example from the Hasekura mission c.1620, we must consider even these respected museum provenances as probabilities rather than conclusive evidence .

Returning to the spectrum of Sri Lankan swords from earlier periods and outside the prevalent kasthane analysis, we look to another article, "Two Old Sinhalese Swords", (by C.M.Fernando, 'Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Ceylon Branch, Vol.XVIII , 1905, p388-91).
There are two old swords said to have inscriptions from the Kotte period c.1374 AD These swords and the translations on the inscriptions were examined by authority P.E.Pieris who commended the translations, but felt the swords were much more recent, and 'European' about 300 years old.
Incredibly these are clearly Indian swords with dish pommel and knuckleguard resembling tulwars of probably 17th c.

This is what I mean about museum descriptions often optimistic if not in many cases, almost fanciful .

In the earlier part of this thread, we listed a number of references which pertain to the swords of Sinhala, and I hope this rather incomplete overview might give a least some perspective on the type of swords probably used in Sinhalese history. As indicated most of this can only be surmised as even iconographic sources may be imbued with a degree of artistic license, as well as our pervasive focus on the kasthane which carries a great deal of speculative analysis.

However these are the things which comprise discussion, and I fully believe that suggestions, observations and material presented must be regarded as evidence to be considered, and respectfully analyzed objectively.

For me, the subject of the esoterica of Sinhalese arms, particularly the swords, have long been a fascinating topic and often visited over the past 15-20 years. I very much admire the tenacity and knowledge of all who have participated in this thread, and sincerely hope we can all continue looking into these arms. There are so many questions yet.

[Prasanna Weerakkody]

Vandoo,
Regarding the images; The mudellier ( SINHALESE CHRISTIAN INTERPRETER) never saw battle and the kasthane was only a rank symbol and often was of little value as weapon within that context. The images of Kasthana I included in my posts #25 #62 #89 illustrate Kasthana swords known to have a warrior past and most probably seen battle (fighting Kasthana types) More over the image of a Kasthana wielding Sinhala warrior would be more like the #139 “Nilame” painting I added rather than the long coated mudelliers working for the Dutch and British companies.

Post #87 include a reference to a historic text that confirms the use of Kasthana in the battlefields as early as mid 16th Century to the Mulleriyawela battle(1559).

I believe that it is important to identify what truly define a Kasthana sword- the makara headed and the Elephant headed arms shown in my mind do not qualify as Kasthana as they lack many of the features (including the typical arrangement of quillons, ricasso, “langet”, presentation of beast forms on guards and pommel, scabbard form etc.) that are particular to and define Kasthana apart from many other types of swords.

It is also important to identify the “type” weapons and deviants properly to avoid confusions.

Regards
Prasanna

[VANDOO]

I AGREE THE TWO SWORDS ARE NOT KASTANE AND MIGHT EVEN BE MADE IN SOUTHERN INDIA BUT BOTH WERE SOLD AS FROM SIRI LANKA AND THE ONE DOES AT LEAST HAVE WHAT CERTIANLY APPEARS TO BE A MAKARA POMMEL SO I INCLUDED IT FOR DISCUSSION. THE BRASS HANDLE WITH ELEPHANT HEAD IS LIKELY THE MOST RECENT AND POORLY MADE AND MAY HAVE ONLY BEEN MADE AS A SOUVINEER. THE ONE WITH THE MAKARA HANDLE LOOKS LIKE A REAL DRESS, CEREMONIAL OR PERHAPS PRESENTATION ITEM. IT REMINDS ME OF SOME DUTCH PRESENTATION SWORD FOR SOME REASON. AT LEAST WE HAVE SOMETHING WITH A MAKARA POMMEL. THE SPEARS WERE LISTED AS FROM CEYLON BUT NO DOUBT WERE PRESENT IN SOUTHERN INDIA AS WELL.
THE ANCIENT RULERS OF CEYLON WERE NOT STRANGERS TO WAR SO I AM SURE THERE WAS AT LEAST AS WIDE A RANGE OF WEAPONS AS THERE WAS IN SOUTHERN INDIA. LOOKING AT THE GLOBE THERE IS THE LIKELYHOOD OF INFLUENCE FROM MANY COUNTRYS WHERE TRADE BY SEA WAS THE NORM.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All~ In my next post as indicated a while ago I shall compare the Popham Armour sword with the Japanese Museum sword since they are two of the oldest existing records available. I will also introduce fresh evidence as to the Japanese blades ownership and a probable provenance. I hope readers may be patient whilst I organize my notes around this particular puzzle.

Kind regards to Vandoo for the interesting picture of the Makara hilt which I shall also comment upon based on the comparison and hopefully I shall illustrate the more complete reason for there being two hilts; The Lion and The Makara.

Of course this is only a hypothesis based upon 400 year old samples (one which is artwork and the other a museum exhibit) but it beams a light... so to speak.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Jim McDougall]

Vandoo, very interesting perspective as always, and thank you for adding these images which show some interesting variations of swords with somewhat similar theme to kastane. As Prasanna well notes, it is important to remember that these kinds of swords are quite apart from the kastane 'proper' which have the distinct elements in that particular classification.
Still, it is fascinating to see the cross diffusion of these swords which utilize the monster or 'grotesgue' (in European parlance) theme.

It seems well established that many sword and weapon forms were represented in Sri Lanka just as described by Deriniyagala, and suggested by Vandoo. As earlier mentioned, this extremely broad subject in most cases is of course speculated in considering the arms of other cultures and colonial and trade powers.
It would seem that in this quite international climate that there might be a degree of variation in the motif of the kastane in certain instances, but most references I have encountered have been described as sinha (lion) head and with makara heads on the quillons.
The instances where examples of traditionally configured kastane carry an unusual form in the creature on the pommel it is fascinating to consider that these may reflect origin in circumstances in region or ethnicity outside the typically seen sinha head examples.

Deraniyagala does note that the traditional form kasthane was a fighting sword, but the much more profusely embellished royal swords were of course outside such use , and Prasanna thank you for recalling those entries of yours where these battle related examples are described .

In threads which have reached this volume it is often the case that material presented some time ago is either not revisited, forgotten or simply out of reach as the discourse has developed for so long. It is much appreciated to bring some of these details back to the fore.

Best regards,
Jim

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All. The thread moves apace and new detail continues to squeeze out of this conundrum.. The Kastane, its history and the variable hilt styles commonly referred to as Lion or Makara hilt.

Great care is advised in focussing upon the correct time frame as little may be gleaned in examining the Dutch or English period in this respect. The weapon clearly tumbled through drastic changes and even became a badge of rank marker reportedly in about 1804.

To examine its potential origins, if the supposition is right about the Portuguese joint design, the earlier period is vastly more significant..thus any weapons or drawings of such examples from that time should perhaps be fully scrutinized.

Therefor, I have chosen the Popham Kastane and The Japanese Museum Kastane for comparison since they are the two known extant examples and whereas the other noted pieces are perhaps wrongly placed in the timeline of this weapon for now they may be set aside until a more positive proof is made of their accuracy in dating.

Forum is advised that though these are early examples that one is artwork and the other is a sword of as yet "uncertain provenance" and that it has been moved in and out of Japanese official ownership several times (private collection/museum) thus placing some doubt as to its authenticity.

I hope to show that the weapon was not only presented "as is"... to Hasekura Tsunenaga but that the owner and his stamp can be named even though the pictures at thread are a little grainy...

It may be known that the sword was presented on behalf of the King of Spain(actually according to Gustavs #187
Quote "Sasaki Kazuhiro has the oppinion, both keris and kastane are presented to Hasekura Tsunenaga by Philip III.) whilst the Japanese delegation was in the Philippines prior to their final return leg of their journey to Japan".Unquote.

See below the blade stamp and the coat of arms of the Japanese ambassador...(Hasekura Tsunenaga) Originally he was Buddhist but converted to Christianity during his trip...and before arriving at the Philippines. This was no mean feat since Christians in Japan were being persecuted at the time...Also shown below are the blade stamps/engravings. It may be noted also that silver and gold and presumably exotic and rich weapons etc were forbidden to be imported to Japan thus if the sword could be presented to an individual rather than a country it perhaps skirted around that order?

Thus I suggest that the blade mark belongs to Hasekura Tsunenaga and was altered before being struck onto his sword.. and therefor the Museum weapon was actually presented and is real, genuine and actual for that timescale.

There is a powerful lobby to indicate Chinese blade provenance and that is well received, however, it is my view that the blade having been presented from the Spanish Royal Household at embassy level that it must have been a genuine piece of steel and more likely to be Spanish than anything else...It is certainly not a Kastane blade... and has the deep multiple grooves of the Spanish blade (see below)...and the shape, apparent balance and visual feel of "The Storta". Readers may be quick to realise that since the Popham is art... I cannot anyway compare blades. My point is that the time line is accurate on this style of hilt; The Lionhead style. I show for ease of viewing the Lionhead type below.

The Popham is intriguing but illustrates a remarkable fact... That at the same time as the Japanese weapon another was being carried on the armour shown. This is not any old armour but the highly respected and very elaborate private armour of a VIP; not an artists prop thus the Kastane must have been an original ...but vitally in the same time period as the Japanese variant. The hilt can perhaps be seen to be serpent/ makara/ gargoyle in fashion and with accompanying deities quite unlike the very recognizable Lion type.

It is thus respectfully proposed that possibly...two different hilts were in fashion; Lion and Makara and at the same time ... early in proceedings thus perhaps it may be possible to accommodate both designs exuding even from the same Royal Workshops or different schools of designers favouring one style or the other or a specific style being commissioned by different clients. It is envisaged that an artisans workshop working in such materials would have various designs and drawings and could offer clients a number of fine embelishments.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Notes and attachments;

For interest I illustrate below;
1. A Karava flag with Makara design.
2. A triple picture showing the original style swastika Buddhist design on the Hasekura Tsunenaga coat of arms..and Ships pennant.. to compare with the blade stamp/ engraving on the Japanese Museum blade.
3. A Malaya/Javanese hilt with Makara design.
4. The Popham Armour picture.
5. Hasekura Tsunenaga with ship detail...and in a sketch with his coat of Arms..easily seen with a crossed arrow form which would perhaps be simple to make into the letter N..and inscribe above it a cross...
6. Various other examples for ease of viewing..
7. The lions head design on the Japanese variant.
8. The more Lizardly, Serpent like, Gargoyle or Makara on a blue background of the Popham Armour type.
9. The Japanese Museum Blade from the work by Gustav on this thread #187.
10. Old "Taprobana" Sri Lanka Map... From the Ptolomy.

[fernando]

The Island ...
Let me show here, with number # 884, the map titled INSULA ZEILAN OLIM TAPOBRANA NUNE INCOLIS TENARISIM, made in 1676, by Casparus & Lootsman, including various cartouches, five naus (carraks) and the compass rose.
Luis de Camões in his epic Lusiadas (1556) in his first verse, has mentioned the men that passed beyond the Taprobana. The name of this island has been a symbol of mistery, of "the end of the world", a untrespassable wall. Already Ptolomeus (II century AD) has established the Taprobana as "the end of all navigation".
In image #886 we can see a map of Ceilão made by Sebastian Munster (1489-1552) a cosmograph from Bale, contemporary of Camões.

The weapons ...
Among the Cingalese weapons, the so called Pia-Kaeta, according to certain sources, descends from an arm of Indo-European Arian race, of the second millenium BC, which also happened to be used in today's Portuguese territory, the famous Falcata Lusitana. The farthest regions reached by the Arian race were precisely the Lusitânea and Ceilão. As life in the isolation of an island maintains the same standards during long time periods, the use of these falcata type knives was kept until recent centuries. Example #892 has handle with the typical breaking waves, which are also found in Cingalo-Portuguese sculptures, as shown in the ivory baby Jesus (XVI-XVII century), image #899.
Example #893 should be regarded as a 1500's specimen, with its 46 cms length (incl. scabbard), the grip in style of XVI century Portuguese processional crosses; a ritual weapon illustrating Luso-Cingalese history.

Curious ...
Also interesting is the XVI-XVII century ivory lace bilro shown in image #897, a craft introduced in Ceilão by Portuguese, contrary to the concept that this fashion was implemented there by the British.

-

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting recap on the Hasekura example Ibrahiim! and nice layout on the elements which need to be considered in analysis of this kastane held in the Sendai Museum in Tokyo. Actually I had not realized that this mission was in the Phllippines for two years before return to Japan in 1620 .

The nature of the blade profile does seem to have storta characteristics, at least in certain examples of those North Italian swords which of course had varying forms. Then there is the case of the creatures head on the peak of the blade at the back nearing the point, which resembles various 'oriental style mythical beasts.

The presence of that creature on the blade of course defines this blade as not North Italian made, yet as discussed there seems some semblance between the markings on the blade to markings actually used in Italy.
It seems they are made 'in the style of', which leads us back to, 'where was this blade made?.

As I was looking at the piha kaetta (#894) in Fernandos most interesting post in the illustration groupings, look at the channeled double fullers on the blade. For some reason there seems a similarity to those on the 'Hasekura' blade, at least it would seem so.

The suggestion by Ibrahiim that these markings were fashioned for alignment to Hasekura and the mission is interesting, and in looking at them the one which is a curious configuration of lines resembling an oriental ideograph in fashion, in one perspective (Rohrschach view) may be a ship of carrack form with a pennant atop ??

Both remain open to interpretation, but as I noted I have found nothing corresponding in European makers marks. The cross above on the N is of course well known in merchant marks, particularly the East India Company balemark , a quartered heart with cross atop. Many other marks used this cross above in similar manner of the familiar cross and orb.

The scope of this discussion is notably complex, particularly with the analysis of the notably well established identity of the zoomorphic pommel head on the true kasthane. It seems quite the bane of all analysis of mythical and heraldic beasts to properly identify exactly what they are, especially as many are artistic interpretations of myth, allegorical descriptions and often totemic symbolism.

It would seem that focus on what creature is represented on the true kasthane pommel is quite well established as the sinha or lionhead, and that corresponds to long venerated history of Sinhala and its people. It does seem possible however that some alteration of the dominant figure on some examples might be adjusted if in certain circumstances. These would be variants, and historically interesting as they may represent particular groups or regions.

These grotesgue creature heads seem to have been most appealing to Europeans artistically and a brass hilt hanger recalling kasthane design is seen described as English c1700 (A North, 1989, p.85) and "...the pommel is in the form of an exotic lion remarkably similar to the beast found on some carved wood and ivory Sinhalese hilts imported into Europe by the Dutch in the 1700s. There seem to have been a number of forms outside the kasthane configuration but still with mythical beasts carved in ivory by Sinhalese craftsmen for the VOC in the 1660s and earller .

There would appear to have been profound parallels between European heraldic beasts and East Indies mythological creatures, and sometimes it seems there have been disagreements even on the identity of the heads on pommels of European swords of 17th into 18th c and even later whether eagle or griffin head etc.

Although the identity issue on the pommel head creature on kasthane has certain interest and importance, so too remain the other questions:

What is the earliest corroborating evidence for the use of the zoomorphic heads and motif on the kasthane sword , and about what period would transition have occurred?

I know I have always been curious about the kasthanes which exist having VOC blades. Most I have seen seem to have large dates stamped from 1730s to 1760s. Would these have been used by Dutch forces using their hanger blades, or supplied blades to Sinhalese? Obviously colonial conflicts were in place, but would those allied to Dutch have used these?

When did the distinct multi quillon system arrive in Sinhala . It seems apparent on European swords from 16th century. Again, earliest use of these kinds on hilts.

All these questions and more, even extending to the piha kaetta and its development as well as any other Sri Lankan arms with specific questions toward their history of use there are open to discussion.

[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.

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Forum is advised that though these are early examples that one is artwork and the other is a sword of as yet "uncertain provenance" and that it has been moved in and out of Japanese official ownership several times (private collection/museum) thus placing some doubt as to its authenticity.

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.

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

I hope to show that the weapon was not only presented "as is"... to Hasekura Tsunenaga but that the owner and his stamp can be named even though the pictures at thread are a little grainy...

It may be known that the sword was presented on behalf of the King of Spain(actually according to Gustavs #187
Quote "Sasaki Kazuhiro has the oppinion, both keris and kastane are presented to Hasekura Tsunenaga by Philip III.) whilst the Japanese delegation was in the Philippines prior to their final return leg of their journey to Japan".Unquote.

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.

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

See below the blade stamp and the coat of arms of the Japanese ambassador...(Hasekura Tsunenaga) Originally he was Buddhist but converted to Christianity during his trip...and before arriving at the Philippines. This was no mean feat since Christians in Japan were being persecuted at the time...Also shown below are the blade stamps/engravings. It may be noted also that silver and gold and presumably exotic and rich weapons etc were forbidden to be imported to Japan thus if the sword could be presented to an individual rather than a country it perhaps skirted around that order?

Thus I suggest that the blade mark belongs to Hasekura Tsunenaga and was altered before being struck onto his sword.. and therefor the Museum weapon was actually presented and is real, genuine and actual for that timescale.

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.

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

There is a powerful lobby to indicate Chinese blade provenance and that is well received, however, it is my view that the blade having been presented from the Spanish Royal Household at embassy level that it must have been a genuine piece of steel and more likely to be Spanish than anything else...It is certainly not a Kastane blade... and has the deep multiple grooves of the Spanish blade (see below)....

As I already wrote in my post #187, the presentation of Spanish arms to a foreigner was then prohibited by law.

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

The Popham is intriguing but illustrates a remarkable fact... That at the same time as the Japanese weapon another was being carried on the armour shown. This is not any old armour but the highly respected and very elaborate private armour of a VIP; not an artists prop thus the Kastane must have been an original ...but vitally in the same time period as the Japanese variant. The hilt can perhaps be seen to be serpent/ makara/ gargoyle in fashion and with accompanying deities quite unlike the very recognizable Lion type.

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

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

Gustav, thank you so much for your thorough and edifying clarifications on these previous entries by myself and Ibrahiim. I am not sure where we fell off course with thinking this intriguing sword was somehow obtained in the Philippines, but clearly that assumption is incorrect as you have gratefully noted that the Hasekura mission indeed was present in Madrid. I admit I relied unfortunately on memory from research some time ago and this I fear may have given traction to that assumption. Thank you so much for this correction. It is so important of course to reconfirm and verify facts and evidence, and I failed to do that.

Can you detail the article by Kazuhiro so that I may obtain a copy? clearly I need to reread it

I think the reference to the provenance referred to the questions surrounding the peculiar nature of the elements of this example as opposed to more familiar blades and other features of kasthane, that is, toward where the sword may have been produced. One of the key points in examining this sword was originally to establish a terminus ante quem for the lionhead kasthane hilt . Any impunity toward the Sendai Museum was not intended and apologies for that perception.

I would also respond to my post terming the 'recap' on the Hasekura example, and explain that I meant this as a reference to reviewing the material previously posted . While I admit that I often extend ideas and observations which are admittedly sometimes fanciful in degree or by analogous description, and I often respond to other posts which are in kind, I would respectfully disagree that my efforts are any kind of indecent joke, and aside from that unfortunate remark, I very much appreciate your beautifully written and extremely helpful post.

Now, returning to some of the questions I have, I had wondered about the interesting guard configuration and discovered that similar exist on forms of the 'spada schiavonesca' from c. 1480-1500 (Boccia & Coelho, 1975, p.345) in the early hilts of schiavona. The basic guard and quillon structure is of that and of course other European forms which later developed into the often more complex guards.
It is interesting to consider these hilt systems in their influence on those of the 'nimcha' as well as of course, the kasthane (as discussed in A. North, 1975, "A Late 15th Century Italian Sword, 'The Connoisseur'). In another article by the late Mr. North in 1989 ("17th and 18th Century Europe", Ed, M. Coe p.68-69) he notes with regard to the wares brought to Europe by Dutch traders from the Far East, "...they included some extraordinary sword hilts based on contemporary European forms- local craftsmen clearly had European hilts to copy from but decorated and constructed them in local and traditional styles".

It is clear that many features of European swords, particularly from North Italy filtered through trade routes from the late 15th century onward, and that that these often profoundly influenced the indigenous weapons of many ports of call. It seems that perhaps, conversely some features of weapons or material culture in these 'exotic' ports indeed influenced that of many other visited ports as well of course as their destined European trade centers.

There are a good number of European hangers which have lionheads and other grotesque creatures in their theme which date around 17th and 18th centuries clearly reflecting these influences. Some of the 'makara' head example swords often mistaken for Sinhalese are actually from Malaya, Thailand, Viet Nam and other SE Asian regions, but these reflect usually their own traditional symbolism..it is primarily the zoomorphic pommel concept which is notable toward comparison.

Great discussion here, and Gustav, thank you again for the clarification and extremely helpful notes.

All best regards,
Jim