Hi,
I agree with most people's assessment that it looks like rather late work, like the second half of the 20th century. It is not bad, compared to what normally was produced during this period, but it's probably not an item that was made "for the culture".
However, on the type of suspension:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
It is the scabbard suspension that also gives this away as less than high quality work, most likely designed for a foreigner. A thin cord sling attached widely apart on the scabbard is not how it should be mounted; the traditional mount (and what would be expected by an owner within the culture) is a loop of thicker cotton cord that is wrapped multiple times around the top of the scabbard and fixed with ends tucked into the wrapping. The loop should be long enough to suspend the sword from a shoulder or slung across the chest.
|
This widely spaced layout of two rings to hold a cord or strap does seem to be part of a somewhat older tradition. It is seen on a number of large presentation dha from the late 19th to the first decades of the 20th century.
Among the ones I have had were at least two that were made for locals, by virtue of their inscriptions. The first had references on the blade to a general that fought the British fiercely, another the name of Maung Po Min, a Shan aristocrat. Both swords were probably from the 1920s or 1930s, exhibiting the typical high-level silver repousse work also seen on bowls from that period.
A last one (bottom) is somewhat earlier and indeed made for a foreigner, Sir Owen Tudor Burne (1837–1909). This one, oddly, only has the ring at the top.
I am not sure why the suspension method on this type differs, but just to illustrate it's not a fantasy feature only seen on low-grade items. I think it was perhaps because these were meant to be carried by someone other than their user, and thus not worn "at the ready" like someone would wear his own sword. But that's just speculation.