A mysterious Transylvanian sword : a Sino-Japanese influence possible ?

Jim McDougall · 3rd May 2005, 03:43 AM

I have been detached from my computer for the past two days, and you guys have really been busy with this one!!! It really is a fascinating topic that Radu has brought up, not to mention what a fantastic sword this is. I did take along some books, and although everybody is hot on the trail already I wanted to add some material that may be pertinant.

The 18th century was in my opinion one of the most fascinating centuries for the development of swords, and considerable geopolitical activity between Asia and Europe. Obviously trade between the orient and occidental countries was long standing but during the 17th century became more pronounced especially with the Dutch East India Company. As has been mentioned, the Namban period in Japan led to more pronounced contact with many countries and one instance I found interesting in research some time ago, was the presence of a Sinhalese kastane in a Tokyo museum from the Keicho mission in 1613-1620. This example is one of the earliest examples of the familiar kastane known in present form. This Japanese diplomatic mission visited Mexico, Spain and Italy, then the Philippines. (Bulletin of Sendai Museum, Tokyo, 1998, #18, pp.28-62).

While the Transylvanian example certainly has an obvious resemblance to a Japanese katana or wakizashi, I do agree that this has profound European gestalt as an interpretation of an Oriental sabre. I am inclined to agree more with the likelihood of Chinese influence, and that this may be an interpretation of a Chinese peidao. It is important to note however that the disc shaped hand guard (tsuba) distinctive to the Japanese sword was adopted some time prior to the latter 15th c. During this and the 16th c. the Japanese imported many swords into China and the Chinese adopted this form guard (in China the huba or hu shou) almost exclusively by mid-Ming dynasty( "Introduction to Chinese Sabres:The Peidao of the Ming through Qing Dynasties", Philip Tom & Scott Rodell, 1999). By the 18th century, the Qianlong Emperor (1736-95) was expanding his frontiers to the west. It would seem quite likely that there would have been even more pronounced contact with Europe via Central Asia and the Silk Road than had been extant for many centuries.

In the 18th century there was also a great call for fashionable swords for the gentry and nobility with the development of smallswords and highly decorated court swords. One popular style applied to many of these was 'chinoiserie' (Fr. Chinese motif) which used techniques and decorative motif reflecting Chinese subjects.
In "The Smallsword in England" (London ,1945, p.57-58) J.D.Aylward notes that the smallswords decorated in Chinese style and often known as 'Tonquinese' were probably made for the Dutch East India Co. in Peking rather than in Tonquin c.1710-1750. It is noted that the company brought some Chinese workmen to Europe where they produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar smallsword character and were fitted with blades made in Holland and in Solingen. These hilts were of the typical 'Tonquinese' black shakudo bronze.

With the European fascination with the orient during these times, and with the competitive and ambitious efforts of Solingen in its rapidly evolving edged weapons industry, it does not seem unlikely that they could produce high quality blades much in the manner of swords of the orient. It seems quite likely that a Transylvanian maker such as Thomas Kapustran might well have produced a fashionable gentlemans sword in such oriental style, and might have been influenced by weapons that had come to Solingen via Chinese workers from Holland. Equally, the interest of the French courts in 'chinoiserie' motif certainly must have been apparant in Transylvanian courts with the alliance with Louis XIV, and an order for a superb weapon such as this would have made quite a fashion statement.

Very much looking forward to hearing more on Radu's query to the museum.

Best regards,
Jim

3rd May 2005, 03:43 AM	#17
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	I have been detached from my computer for the past two days, and you guys have really been busy with this one!!! It really is a fascinating topic that Radu has brought up, not to mention what a fantastic sword this is. I did take along some books, and although everybody is hot on the trail already I wanted to add some material that may be pertinant. The 18th century was in my opinion one of the most fascinating centuries for the development of swords, and considerable geopolitical activity between Asia and Europe. Obviously trade between the orient and occidental countries was long standing but during the 17th century became more pronounced especially with the Dutch East India Company. As has been mentioned, the Namban period in Japan led to more pronounced contact with many countries and one instance I found interesting in research some time ago, was the presence of a Sinhalese kastane in a Tokyo museum from the Keicho mission in 1613-1620. This example is one of the earliest examples of the familiar kastane known in present form. This Japanese diplomatic mission visited Mexico, Spain and Italy, then the Philippines. (Bulletin of Sendai Museum, Tokyo, 1998, #18, pp.28-62). While the Transylvanian example certainly has an obvious resemblance to a Japanese katana or wakizashi, I do agree that this has profound European gestalt as an interpretation of an Oriental sabre. I am inclined to agree more with the likelihood of Chinese influence, and that this may be an interpretation of a Chinese peidao. It is important to note however that the disc shaped hand guard (tsuba) distinctive to the Japanese sword was adopted some time prior to the latter 15th c. During this and the 16th c. the Japanese imported many swords into China and the Chinese adopted this form guard (in China the huba or hu shou) almost exclusively by mid-Ming dynasty( "Introduction to Chinese Sabres:The Peidao of the Ming through Qing Dynasties", Philip Tom & Scott Rodell, 1999). By the 18th century, the Qianlong Emperor (1736-95) was expanding his frontiers to the west. It would seem quite likely that there would have been even more pronounced contact with Europe via Central Asia and the Silk Road than had been extant for many centuries. In the 18th century there was also a great call for fashionable swords for the gentry and nobility with the development of smallswords and highly decorated court swords. One popular style applied to many of these was 'chinoiserie' (Fr. Chinese motif) which used techniques and decorative motif reflecting Chinese subjects. In "The Smallsword in England" (London ,1945, p.57-58) J.D.Aylward notes that the smallswords decorated in Chinese style and often known as 'Tonquinese' were probably made for the Dutch East India Co. in Peking rather than in Tonquin c.1710-1750. It is noted that the company brought some Chinese workmen to Europe where they produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar smallsword character and were fitted with blades made in Holland and in Solingen. These hilts were of the typical 'Tonquinese' black shakudo bronze. With the European fascination with the orient during these times, and with the competitive and ambitious efforts of Solingen in its rapidly evolving edged weapons industry, it does not seem unlikely that they could produce high quality blades much in the manner of swords of the orient. It seems quite likely that a Transylvanian maker such as Thomas Kapustran might well have produced a fashionable gentlemans sword in such oriental style, and might have been influenced by weapons that had come to Solingen via Chinese workers from Holland. Equally, the interest of the French courts in 'chinoiserie' motif certainly must have been apparant in Transylvanian courts with the alliance with Louis XIV, and an order for a superb weapon such as this would have made quite a fashion statement. Very much looking forward to hearing more on Radu's query to the museum. Best regards, Jim