Thai "katana"

Andrew · 20th June 2007, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

I have a problem with this sword. If the they wanted to copy a Japanese katana why would they etch the blade so dark or at all? Mark is there any examples of Burmese or Siamese swords being etched in this way? The blade seems more Indonesian to me as far as etching and pamor is concerned. Sorry but it just does not strike me as old or Siamese. The overall fit and finish is not that good. I would think if you were going to give a gift to a President or king of another country it would be of finer quality than what is pictured.

Lew

The etch is highly unusual for Thai or Burmese swords, in my experience, Lew.

Mark · 21st June 2007, 12:33 AM

I’m not sure what you mean by “problem,” Lew. If you mean that the sword does not seem genuine, the only answer I can give is to state again that the provenance is unquestioned. I completely agree that the fittings are surprisingly poor, especially for a presidential gift, but given the clear provenance, we just have to accept that oddity.

As I noted before, the blade does appear to have been made using the Malaysian/Indonesian smithing traditions normally used for keris. I am not by any means an expert in the art of keris bladesmithing, but examining the blade in detail showed it to be very well-made from the point of view of geometry (even taper, crisp lines, even surfaces, etc.). I did not see any forging flaws, cracks, or other irregularities (other than the patterns in the steel itself).

Why would a Siamese blade be made to look like a katana, but done using layered & etched pamor? I have explained the reason for the katana shape - Japanese swords were very much in vogue in Siam, and Siamese smiths often imitated them in basic form. I did not mean to imply that the Siamese copied (or tried to copy) Japanese swords in an exact way, but rather that Japanese swords served as a stylistic inspiration for Thai interpretations of the style. There are many examples of katana, or katana-like, blades mounted in a uniquely Thai style. Some examples are in this thread (photos from Punjabhan, "Silverware in Thailand," Rengrom Publishing, Bangkok (1991) ISBN 9748869563); the one in the fifth photo appears to be etched, but it is hard to be sure from the small photos. Other examples are seen in Michael Nguyen's photos of the National Museum in Bangkok.

I have to speculate as to why the blade was done in pamor, but there are several facts which, I think, makes speculation possible. First, the use of pamor would have been well-known in Siam just by virtue of the proximity to Malaysia & cultural and trade contacts with Islandic Southeast Asia (and remember that southern Thailand comprises a part of the Malay Peninsula even today, as it did in the past). Second, keris in fact were common as a part of Siamese court attire, and given by the King as a sign of his favor (see de la Laubere, "A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam" (1693), pages 100 & 168), making it reasonable to conclude that the esthetics of pamor where appreciated in Thailand. Third, other edged weapons in the Malaysian tradition were also known and used, for example the badik (see, for example, Dan Wilke's photos from the Grand Palace in Bangkok. From these it is not very unreasonable to think that a Thai bladesmith would have combined the popular katana blade form with the beauty of pamor, and come up with a sword such as this one. Etching the blade would not be at all unusual in this circumstance. The Thai, like the rest of the dha-using people of SEA, were (and still are) endlessly creative in making and decorating their swords, and there is a bewildering variety of forms and styles (including katana-like swords made according to Thai bladesmithing traditions, and dha/daab clearly made using Japanese swordmaking traditions such as folded steel and the use of refractory clay to selectively harden the edge – see this one, for example). This appears to be just one more.

Lew · 21st June 2007, 02:15 AM

I completely agree that the fittings are surprisingly poor, especially for a presidential gift, but given the clear provenance, we just have to accept that oddity. Sorry Mark but I have to play the devil's advocate here.

Mark as you say this sword is documented but to me it still looks strange there is no real patina on the scabbard considering it's 160 yrs old. I do not find it attractive or well made compared to other higher end swords from that region of course this is my personal opinion. Is there a photo of the sword with President Franklin Pierce receiving it? How did the museum verify it's authenticity?

The Doubting Thomas

Lew

ariel · 21st June 2007, 02:42 AM

I do not doubt the fact that the Museum provenanced the sword.
But...
Lew has a point: presidential gifts are , as a rule, lavish and overdecorated, often to the point of being garish. This one is cheap, cheap, cheap!
It is carelessly executed, with the scabbard made of plain wood, and with a primitive handle with a new-looking fabric( rayon?

). What was going on? Couldn't they scramble for a touch of ivory? Rubies are dirt cheap there, and silver is also not that expensive. I saw dozens of swords in the Palace Museum in Bangkok that were orders of magnitude better and more lavish. Heck, Mark's Index has much better swords!
Presenting something like that to the President of the US is almost an insult, unless this sword has an intrinsic historical value. Anything of that nature mentioned in the museum papers?
Something is whispering in my ear that all is not well with this story.
The nastiest scenario that comes to mind is that somebody swiped the original sword for a Chinese "eximious yataghan of military affairs with a rosewood vagina" and nobody paid attention. This sword was in storage and travelled from museum to museum...Any pictures or documented detailed descriptions of this sword on arrival to the US?
Sorry, Mark....

Mark · 21st June 2007, 02:54 AM

Well, not having personally examined the information in the National Archives, I can't really say with 100% certainty that the sword is what it is purported to be. However, every gift to a U.S. President should have been cataloged and inventoried, so I assume that the error in the Natural History Museum's records attributing it to the Matthew Perry collection was discovered by comparing the sword & its description to the National Archive records.

It is something that bears investigation. I would like to find the original records, just to get the full history of the thing. I want to track down the other sword referred to in the catalog entry, so perhaps I can find the original records on this one as well, and confirm or disprove the stated provenance. It would be interesting to learn the context of the gift, such as whether it was a single gift on some special occasion, or one of several things given at once. For example, there are a number of items in the Smithsonian's collection from Thailand that were given to the US government after an exposition marking the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase.

As for condition, patina would come from handling and exposure to the elements, but since it has been in either a drawer in a controlled climate or in a display case in a museum, I don't find it surprising that it is in so good a shape. Of course, there is no telling what color the wood of the scabbard was originally, so the darkish orange color it is now actually could be the result of some amount of patination. The blade is, in my opinion, quite well-made, so it is not complete trash. The fittings pass the "squint test," as they don't look bad from a distance (I never noticed the flaws on the several occasions I observed it on display at the Museum of American History). Its just up close that you see the shoddy workmanship, so maybe it was deemed adequate for a display/presentation piece.

Something else that just occurred to me is that the bad cleaning/"restoration" of the sword that removed the enamel, referred to in the catalog, might have screwed things up. If the fittings were made to be covered in enamel, they might not have been made so finely. The scabbard might even have been stripped. It sounds from the catalog entry that it was pretty badly treated.

PUFF · 22nd June 2007, 03:01 PM

Mark, first of all, I would like to pay my sincerely thanks to you for sharing such a rare photo (at least, for Thai people like us).

Indeed, King Rama IV has order a number (which is unknown to us) of Kris-method-Japanese-style-dahb. One of them was showed at EXPO in UK. We just recognized that some of them made their way to US (many thanks, Mark).

Etching 's not common for ordinary dahb. But there 's a number of dahb were made with Kris/Keris method like this (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4046)

For partination, I guess that the original wood might be in genus of Ervatamia sp. or other light-color wood.

For example (newly made e-hnep knife)

Even well patinated oiled wood will be very light in color.

21st June 2007, 12:33 AM	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I’m not sure what you mean by “problem,” Lew. If you mean that the sword does not seem genuine, the only answer I can give is to state again that the provenance is unquestioned. I completely agree that the fittings are surprisingly poor, especially for a presidential gift, but given the clear provenance, we just have to accept that oddity. As I noted before, the blade does appear to have been made using the Malaysian/Indonesian smithing traditions normally used for keris. I am not by any means an expert in the art of keris bladesmithing, but examining the blade in detail showed it to be very well-made from the point of view of geometry (even taper, crisp lines, even surfaces, etc.). I did not see any forging flaws, cracks, or other irregularities (other than the patterns in the steel itself). Why would a Siamese blade be made to look like a katana, but done using layered & etched pamor? I have explained the reason for the katana shape - Japanese swords were very much in vogue in Siam, and Siamese smiths often imitated them in basic form. I did not mean to imply that the Siamese copied (or tried to copy) Japanese swords in an exact way, but rather that Japanese swords served as a stylistic inspiration for Thai interpretations of the style. There are many examples of katana, or katana-like, blades mounted in a uniquely Thai style. Some examples are in this thread (photos from Punjabhan, "Silverware in Thailand," Rengrom Publishing, Bangkok (1991) ISBN 9748869563); the one in the fifth photo appears to be etched, but it is hard to be sure from the small photos. Other examples are seen in Michael Nguyen's photos of the National Museum in Bangkok. I have to speculate as to why the blade was done in pamor, but there are several facts which, I think, makes speculation possible. First, the use of pamor would have been well-known in Siam just by virtue of the proximity to Malaysia & cultural and trade contacts with Islandic Southeast Asia (and remember that southern Thailand comprises a part of the Malay Peninsula even today, as it did in the past). Second, keris in fact were common as a part of Siamese court attire, and given by the King as a sign of his favor (see de la Laubere, "A New Historical Relation of the Kingdom of Siam" (1693), pages 100 & 168), making it reasonable to conclude that the esthetics of pamor where appreciated in Thailand. Third, other edged weapons in the Malaysian tradition were also known and used, for example the badik (see, for example, Dan Wilke's photos from the Grand Palace in Bangkok. From these it is not very unreasonable to think that a Thai bladesmith would have combined the popular katana blade form with the beauty of pamor, and come up with a sword such as this one. Etching the blade would not be at all unusual in this circumstance. The Thai, like the rest of the dha-using people of SEA, were (and still are) endlessly creative in making and decorating their swords, and there is a bewildering variety of forms and styles (including katana-like swords made according to Thai bladesmithing traditions, and dha/daab clearly made using Japanese swordmaking traditions such as folded steel and the use of refractory clay to selectively harden the edge – see this one, for example). This appears to be just one more.

21st June 2007, 02:15 AM	#3
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	I completely agree that the fittings are surprisingly poor, especially for a presidential gift, but given the clear provenance, we just have to accept that oddity. Sorry Mark but I have to play the devil's advocate here. Mark as you say this sword is documented but to me it still looks strange there is no real patina on the scabbard considering it's 160 yrs old. I do not find it attractive or well made compared to other higher end swords from that region of course this is my personal opinion. Is there a photo of the sword with President Franklin Pierce receiving it? How did the museum verify it's authenticity? The Doubting Thomas Lew

21st June 2007, 02:42 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I do not doubt the fact that the Museum provenanced the sword. But... Lew has a point: presidential gifts are , as a rule, lavish and overdecorated, often to the point of being garish. This one is cheap, cheap, cheap! It is carelessly executed, with the scabbard made of plain wood, and with a primitive handle with a new-looking fabric( rayon? ). What was going on? Couldn't they scramble for a touch of ivory? Rubies are dirt cheap there, and silver is also not that expensive. I saw dozens of swords in the Palace Museum in Bangkok that were orders of magnitude better and more lavish. Heck, Mark's Index has much better swords! Presenting something like that to the President of the US is almost an insult, unless this sword has an intrinsic historical value. Anything of that nature mentioned in the museum papers? Something is whispering in my ear that all is not well with this story. The nastiest scenario that comes to mind is that somebody swiped the original sword for a Chinese "eximious yataghan of military affairs with a rosewood vagina" and nobody paid attention. This sword was in storage and travelled from museum to museum...Any pictures or documented detailed descriptions of this sword on arrival to the US? Sorry, Mark....

21st June 2007, 02:54 AM	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Well, not having personally examined the information in the National Archives, I can't really say with 100% certainty that the sword is what it is purported to be. However, every gift to a U.S. President should have been cataloged and inventoried, so I assume that the error in the Natural History Museum's records attributing it to the Matthew Perry collection was discovered by comparing the sword & its description to the National Archive records. It is something that bears investigation. I would like to find the original records, just to get the full history of the thing. I want to track down the other sword referred to in the catalog entry, so perhaps I can find the original records on this one as well, and confirm or disprove the stated provenance. It would be interesting to learn the context of the gift, such as whether it was a single gift on some special occasion, or one of several things given at once. For example, there are a number of items in the Smithsonian's collection from Thailand that were given to the US government after an exposition marking the 100th anniversary of the Louisiana Purchase. As for condition, patina would come from handling and exposure to the elements, but since it has been in either a drawer in a controlled climate or in a display case in a museum, I don't find it surprising that it is in so good a shape. Of course, there is no telling what color the wood of the scabbard was originally, so the darkish orange color it is now actually could be the result of some amount of patination. The blade is, in my opinion, quite well-made, so it is not complete trash. The fittings pass the "squint test," as they don't look bad from a distance (I never noticed the flaws on the several occasions I observed it on display at the Museum of American History). Its just up close that you see the shoddy workmanship, so maybe it was deemed adequate for a display/presentation piece. Something else that just occurred to me is that the bad cleaning/"restoration" of the sword that removed the enamel, referred to in the catalog, might have screwed things up. If the fittings were made to be covered in enamel, they might not have been made so finely. The scabbard might even have been stripped. It sounds from the catalog entry that it was pretty badly treated.

22nd June 2007, 03:01 PM	#6
PUFF Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 30 miles north of Bangkok, 20 miles south of Ayuthaya, Thailand Posts: 224	Mark, first of all, I would like to pay my sincerely thanks to you for sharing such a rare photo (at least, for Thai people like us). Indeed, King Rama IV has order a number (which is unknown to us) of Kris-method-Japanese-style-dahb. One of them was showed at EXPO in UK. We just recognized that some of them made their way to US (many thanks, Mark). Etching 's not common for ordinary dahb. But there 's a number of dahb were made with Kris/Keris method like this (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4046) For partination, I guess that the original wood might be in genus of Ervatamia sp. or other light-color wood. For example (newly made e-hnep knife) Even well patinated oiled wood will be very light in color.