Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11th October 2005, 09:20 PM   #14
Andrew
Member
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch
I am going to go against the tide of opinion and say that it is Burman (as in the tribe after which Burma is named). The wide fuller and floral lotus pommel say Burma to me. Compare it to this one, which I am certain is Burman based on the presence of koftgari (plus the Burmese script is a dead give-away ).

Hi Mark.

Notice I hedged my bets on the pommel?

Have we seen many Burman swords with handles of this length? I know this is not a "cast in stone" feature, but lotus-bud pommels do appear on Thai swords as well, and if the handle was shorter and three-sectioned like your example, you'd have complete agreement from me. Perhaps an example of cross-polination?

The struck marks at the forte are interesting. I suspect a smith's mark (no great guess).

Andrew
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.