Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fearn
Hi Andrew,
About the dog....
I guess I'm puzzled about the assumption that all of this came from somewhere in the mountains of northern Burma. There's no real reason to think it came from there, or that the scabbard and the dha were made in the same place or at the same time.
Personally, I'd guess that the jaw, assuming it is a dog, came from a dead dog at the side of a road somewhere in southeast Asia. I'll admit that it's possible that it's some sort of hunting trophy (i.e. I misidentified it), but personally, I think it was made for sale to someone who was, shall we say, less than discriminating about authenticity.
F
|
Hi Fearn. My response to Ariel was largely tongue-in-cheek, so please don't mistake my intent. I have no idea what animal that jaw came from, and I've admitted the possiblity this is a combination piece in my first post.
For the reasons I set forth in my first post, and those supplied by Mark and Ian above, I feel comfortable opining that this weapon is Kachin in form. The style of scabbard carving and the guard are unusual, but explicable. Everything else is consistent with Kachin weapons.
Is it possible this was made in some other region for the tourist trade? Certainly. But Occam's Razor would refute this. It would be much easier to produce and market a cheap version of the weapons native to the maker's own region.
The subject sword certainly could have been made for the tourist trade, and could be a combination of odds and ends thrown together. However, my personal opinion is this is a "real" weapon, albeit one of recent manufacture which has seen little use. I own several swords of similar form featuring machine-made blades and fittings. They are newer, crude and not particularly interesting, but still very effective weapons and tools.
The Kachin still carry swords like this today.
Best,
Andrew