Burmese dha use question

[JeffS]

Thanks Peter. I enjoy your site and have learned much reading the articles.

The quote from Sir Charles Alexander Gordon (1877) from the link you posted indicates, at that time, the dha was anecdotally commonly used in local disputes. He seems to be including Burmese across the range of social status in the statment. In this case the "fancy" dha would continue to function as a weapon intended for use rather than just as a fashion or cultural prop. How much this would change from late 19th to early 20th C is not clear to me but perhaps the decline in dha quality follows a decline in the acceptability or stronger legal consequences for using dha as a weapon during disputes.

[Peter Dekker]

I do think that the production of high quality Burman dha with silver or gold koftgari (and occasional niello), while never highly prolific, reached its height in the mid-late 19th C perhaps due in part to an increased demand from affluent British residents. Most of the examples we see appear to have been made in the second half of the 19th C and early 20th C. Older examples are hard to identify conclusively, although there are probably well documented pieces in Myanmar.

I agree, those I've seen with dates on them all seem to be made circa 1880-1930. I've only had one such dha of which everything seemed to indicate it was a quite a bit older than the rest. Bicolor blade overlays, the handle completely made of iron (it was magnetic throughout). Also the hilt shape with its more pronounced b end in the hilt itself felt earlier. How early, I have no idea, but my gut says it could be late 18th to early 19th century. I add a photo.

What we are observing is perhaps survivor bias: Their manufacture was well known among the British by the last decades of the 19th century. Many were probably purchased or even commissioned by them to bring home as souvernirs. I've had one with the name of a British surgeon that served in Burma from at least 1882 to his retirement in 1908. Not coincidentally, almost all of these dha today can ultimately be traced back to the UK antique art market where they still keep turning up.

(Dha making was probably as prolific in neighboring Thailand but without as many foreigners working and residing there, very few were brought to the Western world and local humid climate and neglect probably did the rest.)

perhaps the decline in dha quality follows a decline in the acceptability or stronger legal consequences for using dha as a weapon during disputes.

Yes, quite possibly. Also, the use of large swords like that seemed to have declined throughout Asia with the coming of more affordable firearms.

[Peter Dekker]

Forgot to add the dha pic!
Here goes.

[kronckew]

That is a beautiful undamaged hi-status upper crust sword made to a high standard and quality for someone of sufficient rank that it was probably never used even if it's owner actually attended a battle, tho it could have been if his side was losing. He had people who did the sweaty work for him. Too rich for my humble self. Great for a Noble display of wealth and power of its owner.

I personally prefer the more mundane ones used by the front line troops, with maybe a little decoration.

On a similar note, regarding the apparently shortened blade with the fuller to the tip - During WW2 the Japanese acquired swords locally either by capture of stocks, surrendered weapons, or purchase from local collaborators. The Dutch klewang for instance, they acquired a number of these from various sources and cut the already short blades down even shorter, modified the guards, and issued them to their sergeants and military police. We call them Hei-ho.

I've heard that in Burma similar acquisitions of Dhas were sometimes cut down and even hand handles shortened, so they could be hung from a belt vertically without it poking them in the armpit when walking. They did that to their own katanas that were not samurai heirlooms as well.

This dha of mine, with a bit of koftgari decor at the forte of the un-fullered blade like the OP's above, was liberated by a Chindit in Burma from a Japanese Officer who didn't need it any more due to lead poisoning. The grip appears to have been redone with a large diameter rimmed cartridge, around 25mm dia. and the scabbard was in poor condition & field repaired. I aquired it from the Chindit who was in London. He figured it should go to someone who appreciated it, as his family didn't want it.

[Ian]

Hi Peter,

That's a very beautiful example!

I'm not sure that the iron hilt necessarily reflects greater age. I believe the hilt has niello work on it, and that was often done over iron. The niello process was nasty and smelly work, involving melting sulfur, copper, silver, and lead to create the black components. The lead fumes in particular were highly toxic to niello workers.

I agree with you about the survivor bias that we see in these swords that come to market in the West. British Victorian-era collectors were prolific and usually maintained their pieces in good condition. Not surprising that we see a lot of 19th C dha in good shape.

Ian.

[JeffS]

Originally Posted by kronckew

I've heard that in Burma similar acquisitions of Dhas were sometimes cut down and even hand handles shortened, so they could be hung from a belt vertically without it poking them in the armpit when walking. They did that to their own katanas that were not samurai heirlooms as well.

Interesting possibility. If you squint the dha I posted has a Japanese katana vibe.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by JeffS

... perhaps the decline in dha quality follows a decline in the acceptability or stronger legal consequences for using dha as a weapon during disputes.

Jeff, I don't think so. The "quality" of dha used for fighting is different from the"quality" we see in these high end, decorative examples. The blades of "fighting dha" vary widely, but are generally much lighter than these fancy decorative ones--particular care is given to tempering and sharpness of the blade, and the hilts are utilitarian aimed at the overall balance of the weapon and maintaining a good grip. Given a choice, someone engaged in a duel would choose a "fighting dha" rather than one of these beautiful pieces. That's not to say that these decorative examples are not usable for defense, but they are not what I would stake my life on if given a choice.

[Peter Dekker]

I would beg to differ in terms of usability.

These well-decorated dha come in several different classes and by the late period, a thinner, not so good blade is very often seen. We're talking about the 1920s onwards, mostly. The silver overlay also tends to become indifferent in this period.

Back to these earlier silver overlaid dha, quite a few of them are no less utilitarian than the average "fighting dha", they just have a better finish. Steel construction is usually an outer casing of high-carbon steel, much like the kobuse construction among Japanese swords, and also like Japanese swords they may exhibit a fine hamon when polished although they were never finished to show this aspect off traditionally.

As for weight it is a matter of personal preference. 600-900 grams is pretty much the weight range you see for sabers of all cultures, from Europe to Japan, and you also see this weight range among practical dha.

The dha I posted with silver, copper and brass inlays is a fully-fledged fighting piece. Here some numbers:
Overall length 86.9 cm / 34.2 inch
Blade length 62.2 cm / 24.5 inch
Blade thickness; forte 7 mm, middle 5 mm, near tip 4 mm.
Blade width; forte 35 mm, middle 33 mm, widest 35 mm, near tip 25 mm.
Weight; 816 grams

Well-tempered, with a gentle hum going through the piece when tapping the pommel.

[Ian]

Hi Peter,

It depends whose fighting and the style they use. We are talking about mainly foot soldiers, not mounted cavalry, and the dha was considered a lighter and faster sword than many European or Indopersian swords. That said there were heavier swords used by the Burmese, Thai, Cambodians, etc.

The issue, I think, is not so much one of weight as of balance. Dha have longer hilts than most European sabers. When the British and other Europeans adapted them for their own use, they often cut the hilt down to better conform with their notion of a comfortable hilt. A longer hilt helps move the balance point back towards the hilt, thereby giving the blade a lighter and quicker feel. Most dha were used in a single hand, gripped down towards the blade, although two-handed use was also possible. Many fighting dha were quite short, with blade lengths of 17–22 inches, although longer forms were used also. The shorter blades were advantageous for close quarter fighting and the short blades also reduced the overall mass of the sword. In some Thai martial arts a sword is used in each hand.

I'm no expert on the martial arts of mainland SE Asia, but I'm told the techniques and skills do not involve many heavy bladed swords.

When I have made note of the balance point of the beautifully decorated dha, some of which have been shown here, I have found the balance point to be several inches forward of the hilt--as much as 6-8 inches or more in some cases. This makes for a more "blade-heavy" weapon that necessitates a slightly different fighting style.

Thai daab often have hilts longer than Burmese dha, but these are still primarily single handed weapons. The balance point for many Thai daab would be even closer to the junction of hilt and blade, depending on the composition of the hilt.

[Peter Dekker]

Hi,

Hmmm... in my observations, it’s the Shan dha that’s typically the light one, it even appears as “a light form of dha” in some of the earliest Burmese-English dictionaries and this is in accordance to what I’m used to seeing among them.

Many Burmese seem to have preferred a heavier dha, regardless their class. Look at this one, exact same blade as the fancy ones, 12.5mm at forte. I recall some 900 grams total and in no way very different in size, weight, blade construction, temper and balance from the more fancy, well-decorated pieces:


Now Shan dha, are mostly in a different class. Lighter, more nimble, balanced as you describe.

Also, it would strike me as odd to use a heavier but not really useful "weapon" as regalia, as normally a weapon gets lighter as it loses function, not heavier. You can put the exact same amount of decoration on each flat of a thinner blade, which is exactly what happened in the 1920s and 1930s when adorned, but light and untempered blades were mounted in silver repousse scabbards of the highest order.

[Ian]

Hi Peter,

Quite so. The *Shan dha are shorter and lighter than the Burman swords to which you refer. Shan dha were considered by many to be among the best fighting swords in SE Asia, with excellent blades. That some Burman preferred a heavier style or a longer blade may simply be preference, but the Shan provided dha for many ethnic groups throughout Burma, including Burmans, Kachin, and Karens, as well as into northern Thailand and Laos, and even as far north as Assam and neighboring states in NE India.

My personal preference would be a good Shan dha over one of the fancy Mandalay dha if I had to pick one to fight with. But then I know little about actual sword fighting.

*Strictly speaking, the Shan are Burmese since most of them live in the Shan States within the old Kingdom of Burma (now Myanmar). Of course, they are not ethnically Burman (Bama). Shan did fight with the Burmese forces raised by the King for various wars.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Peter Dekker

... Also, it would strike me as odd to use a heavier but not really useful "weapon" as regalia, as normally a weapon gets lighter as it loses function, not heavier. ...

What about the "bearing swords" of Europe--those monsters that were carried in procession? Moro datus do a similar thing with large ornate kampilan. "Mine is bigger than yours" can play out in various settings as a display of wealth and superiority, just as lots of gold and silver finery can. Why not combine the two, and go big with lots of bling?

[kronckew]

In the more distant past, armies wore a bewildering array of styles of clothing, armours, and weapons from plain to ornate, for a variety of economic and personal reasons. Bling was a sign of your rank and status.

In the following age of gunpowder the armies started to standardize, wear uniforms issued by their governments, this provided not only a way to distinguish who was on your side in a melee but offered a form of camouflage in that when everyone looked the same at a distance, no one soldier would receive 'inordinate' attention for his bling.

Officers thru history however were expected to buy their own gear, often if not usually more ornate as they rose in rank. Rules of war provided that Officers were not to receive undo attention as that was ungentlemanly. Col. Ferguson, the famed rifle man & sniper, refused to shoot George Washington in the back for this reason.

This practice continued into the early 19c, when us dastardly colonials figured out that shooting officers, and NCOs worked really well. Fancy bling officers tended to die first. At Chalmette (New Orleans) A well-disciplined Scots regiment lost all its officers as it approached the US line, and just stood there at attention and not firing back, getting shot to pieces until an officer showed up who told them to get the heck outta there. At the end, the Brits didn't have any officers to pursue the battle and surrendered.

By the time of the American war between the states, this 'gentlemanly armour' was completely gone. As one Union General found when visiting the front lines stated eloquently when asked to keep his head down, "Don't worry, they couldn't hit an elephant at this dist.." and dropped dead with a bullet thru his forehead.

Fancy silver/gold rank badges on shoulders and collars/hats started either being removed before battle, or replaced with 'subdued' versions. Now it is the poor slob with a visible antenna who gets shot first.