15thC Burmese Sword

B.I · 4th April 2006, 05:38 PM

hi mark,
a fantastic image!!
if the temple (?) was built in the 12thC, there must be a known date when it ceased to be added to. was this long past the 14thC?

Mark · 4th April 2006, 07:47 PM

I will have to go back and re-read my book. The carvings were done in two periods, one in Suryavarman's time, and the other a couple generations later. I'll get back to you on that.

Titus Pullo · 16th April 2006, 04:42 PM

One of the greatest warriors that had ever lived were probably the Burmese! They whoop the British arses with superior fire power several times before they could gain a foothold in Burma, and even then they always gave the British a very hard time and make them regret trying to subdue Burma. They were thinking of leaving Burma even before the Japanese took over. They thought they were more easy picking...large number of British and Indian soldiers were dying, I believe. But the greatest fighters that every live are probably the invincible Siamese fighters because he fought for his freedom, the country, the people and the king. He knows no fear...he is as cold as ice, and fighting is only his second nature.

Mark · 17th April 2006, 02:55 PM

While I thoroughly appreciate the sentiment, Titus Pullo, this post wanders off the subject of the weapons themselves, and into the area of potential conflict. Please keep to the topic.

And anyone inclined to start even 'friendly' debate on the open forum -- please don't.

B.I · 17th April 2006, 06:06 PM

hi mark,
the warrior infantry at the front seem to be wearing a kind of armour cuirass, with a round plate at the front. the overall look is of a solid piece, as apposed to sewn onto fabric/leather (a common feature in mny cultures, inc ottoman and indian). is this the case? is there much info on early armour of this period?
also, a strange question, which i hope will not be taken the wrong way, but what religion were they? i definately dont want to steer this towards religion, but it has been summised that india never used body armour until the influence of islam, which i am not altogether convinced of. its an easy assumption, given the lack of 'factual' iconic evidence, with early hindu sculpture being leant too often towards mythology (and so mostly naked).

please answer quick in case i've sidetracked this into non-forum policy territory.

Mark · 18th April 2006, 06:46 PM

I think those are actually shields. Both a square shield and a round buckler were used at least by the Thai and the Burmese, and I think these guys are supposed to be Siamese troops. These shield look like both, but I am guessing they are supposed to be square shields with a round decoration on them.

The dominant religion in the Khmer Empire up to this period was Vaishnavite Hinduism, but Buddhism was gaining ground. Among the Burmese and Tai (including the Siamese), Buddhism was the religion that replace animism. In terms of material culture, there was an overwhelming Indian influence throughout the region, which in fact are referred to as the "Indianized" cultures of SEA, in distinction to the "Sinocised" culture of most of Vietnam.

Armor was little used in continental SEA. When used, it was most commonly just a padded jacket or leather brigandine. Higher-ranked people did wear mail or semi-plate armor in Indian styles. It looks like the cavalry guys in the Angkor relief are wearing either decorated cloth coats, or brigandine.

You have the same problem with SEA art as you have with Indian art -- it is overwhelmingly depicting religious themes, and so is both highly stylized and standardized. It is hard to discover historical or regional clues in the art, because the same styles were strongly maintained across time and region. Interestingly, it is mostly in the depiction of the "bad guys," like the army of Mara and these two ceramic raksha that started the thread, that you see more freedom of style and often recognizable ethnic and national dfress and weaponry. One that comes to mind is the inclusion in a Thai fresco of a Dutch soldier with plumed hat, long coat, and musket, among the demonic hordes attempting to stop Gautama's enlightenment.

Mark · 7th July 2006, 11:33 PM

B.I. - Did you take those photos of the tile yourself? In which museum are they?

On re-reading this thread, I realized that the King and temple were Peguan, and not Burmese. It is a distinction that isn't as important now, but historically Pegu in lower Burma had a quite distinct culture, and for many years was a completely separate kingdom from that of Pagan/Ava in the north. The Peguans were/are Mon, related to the Khmer, and not Mramma (Burman, a Tibeto-Burman people). I have been wondering if there is a stylistic and/or developmental distinction between dha of lower Burma - Mon dha - and dha of upper Burma - Mramma (Burman) dha. This tile might be a good clue.

16th April 2006, 04:42 PM	#3
Titus Pullo Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 123	One of the greatest warriors that had ever lived were probably the Burmese! They whoop the British arses with superior fire power several times before they could gain a foothold in Burma, and even then they always gave the British a very hard time and make them regret trying to subdue Burma. They were thinking of leaving Burma even before the Japanese took over. They thought they were more easy picking...large number of British and Indian soldiers were dying, I believe. But the greatest fighters that every live are probably the invincible Siamese fighters because he fought for his freedom, the country, the people and the king. He knows no fear...he is as cold as ice, and fighting is only his second nature. Last edited by Titus Pullo; 16th April 2006 at 06:03 PM.

17th April 2006, 02:55 PM	#4
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	While I thoroughly appreciate the sentiment, Titus Pullo, this post wanders off the subject of the weapons themselves, and into the area of potential conflict. Please keep to the topic. And anyone inclined to start even 'friendly' debate on the open forum -- please don't. Last edited by Mark Bowditch; 18th April 2006 at 06:47 PM.

4th April 2006, 05:38 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi mark, a fantastic image!! if the temple (?) was built in the 12thC, there must be a known date when it ceased to be added to. was this long past the 14thC?

4th April 2006, 07:47 PM	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I will have to go back and re-read my book. The carvings were done in two periods, one in Suryavarman's time, and the other a couple generations later. I'll get back to you on that.

17th April 2006, 06:06 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi mark, the warrior infantry at the front seem to be wearing a kind of armour cuirass, with a round plate at the front. the overall look is of a solid piece, as apposed to sewn onto fabric/leather (a common feature in mny cultures, inc ottoman and indian). is this the case? is there much info on early armour of this period? also, a strange question, which i hope will not be taken the wrong way, but what religion were they? i definately dont want to steer this towards religion, but it has been summised that india never used body armour until the influence of islam, which i am not altogether convinced of. its an easy assumption, given the lack of 'factual' iconic evidence, with early hindu sculpture being leant too often towards mythology (and so mostly naked). please answer quick in case i've sidetracked this into non-forum policy territory.

18th April 2006, 06:46 PM	#6
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I think those are actually shields. Both a square shield and a round buckler were used at least by the Thai and the Burmese, and I think these guys are supposed to be Siamese troops. These shield look like both, but I am guessing they are supposed to be square shields with a round decoration on them. The dominant religion in the Khmer Empire up to this period was Vaishnavite Hinduism, but Buddhism was gaining ground. Among the Burmese and Tai (including the Siamese), Buddhism was the religion that replace animism. In terms of material culture, there was an overwhelming Indian influence throughout the region, which in fact are referred to as the "Indianized" cultures of SEA, in distinction to the "Sinocised" culture of most of Vietnam. Armor was little used in continental SEA. When used, it was most commonly just a padded jacket or leather brigandine. Higher-ranked people did wear mail or semi-plate armor in Indian styles. It looks like the cavalry guys in the Angkor relief are wearing either decorated cloth coats, or brigandine. You have the same problem with SEA art as you have with Indian art -- it is overwhelmingly depicting religious themes, and so is both highly stylized and standardized. It is hard to discover historical or regional clues in the art, because the same styles were strongly maintained across time and region. Interestingly, it is mostly in the depiction of the "bad guys," like the army of Mara and these two ceramic raksha that started the thread, that you see more freedom of style and often recognizable ethnic and national dfress and weaponry. One that comes to mind is the inclusion in a Thai fresco of a Dutch soldier with plumed hat, long coat, and musket, among the demonic hordes attempting to stop Gautama's enlightenment.

7th July 2006, 11:33 PM	#7
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	B.I. - Did you take those photos of the tile yourself? In which museum are they? On re-reading this thread, I realized that the King and temple were Peguan, and not Burmese. It is a distinction that isn't as important now, but historically Pegu in lower Burma had a quite distinct culture, and for many years was a completely separate kingdom from that of Pagan/Ava in the north. The Peguans were/are Mon, related to the Khmer, and not Mramma (Burman, a Tibeto-Burman people). I have been wondering if there is a stylistic and/or developmental distinction between dha of lower Burma - Mon dha - and dha of upper Burma - Mramma (Burman) dha. This tile might be a good clue.