Greaves-Winston typology

Nathaniel · 3rd April 2018, 01:59 AM

*** Also of important note, I know both Andrew W. and Ian G. had stated that this general classification they put together was meant to be the start of a discussion, which they hoped and expected would be in time corrected and built upon.

Nathaniel · 3rd April 2018, 02:00 AM

Example: Greaves-Winston typology

1. Bama/bamar - Ethnic majority of Myanmar, which the swords hand a short handle and curved blade

http://dharesearch.bowditch.us/0050.htm

Nathaniel · 3rd April 2018, 02:02 AM

Example: Greaves-Winston typology

2. Kachin - northern minority group, whose dha featured a short hand, straight blade with square tip

http://dharesearch.bowditch.us/C0034.htm

Nathaniel · 3rd April 2018, 02:19 AM

Example: Greaves-Winston typology

3. Shan - northern minority whose dha, featured lotus bud pommel, medium size handle and curved blade

Nathaniel · 3rd April 2018, 02:23 AM

Also a more detailed article was written by Ian, Mark & Andrew for the History of Steel in Eastern Asia exhibition in Macao in 2006.

Thankfully the website for the exhibition is still working, it is a great reference.

THE SWORDS OF CONTINENTAL SOUTHEAST ASIA
Ian A. Greaves, Mark I. Bowditch & Andrew Y. Winston
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...ea.article.htm

Sword list:
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel....swordlist.htm

Glossary:
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...a.glossary.htm

Peter Dekker · 3rd April 2018, 09:20 AM

Thanks Nathaniel, very useful!

Bowditch on his website, last updated July 28, 2007;

"One significant change that has been made is the phasing out of the now-obsolete Greaves-Winston typing system. We have learned a lot since this was first developed, and we are able now to define types more appropriately along ethnic lines. "

But he continues "As noted, not all of the pages have been updated with the new typology"

I like to get a handle on the old and new typology and would be most interested in the primary sources that helped the typologies. There must be either:

1. Period accounts
2. Period drawings
3. Early photographs
4. Benchmark pieces with markings and/or sound provenance

Unfortunately, no list of these seems to have been left.

The Kachin type is mentioned in Egerton, 1880.

I quite like Bell's little paper which is a welcome oasis in the overall lack of sources. But he too only described local conditions for smiths and not so much the types of swords made.

Ian · 3rd April 2018, 01:29 PM

Hello Peter:

As already noted by Nathaniel, the G-W classification was an attempt by Andrew and myself to describe different types of Burmese dha. This had been attempted earlier by Carter Rila, a former contributor on this Forum, who had written an article in Blade magazine in the 1970s on the "Kachin" and "Shan" styles of blades. We expanded these and subsequently added a Burmese category, or what Andrew and Mark labeled the "metro" style.

Although never really explicitly stated, our classification was focused on swords of Burma because these seemed easier to understand than the more varied Thai/Lao/Cambodian daab (not to mention the similar swords made in Yunnan). Not surprisingly, the rather simplistic approach we took was soon found wanting. One of the earliest concerns was the "Kachin" designation, which needed to address both the traditional Kachin dao in its open-faced scabbard and the more sword-like, square-ended dha that we were labeling as "Kachin" style. When we learned that many of the Kachin-style dha were made by the Shan as well as other groups in Yunnan, to be sold on to the Kachin, then the classification fell apart. As an aside, there are comments from Europeans studying the Kachin people in the 19th C. that indicate the Kachin largely changed from their traditional dao to the Shan swords during the second half of the 19th C. Why they did so is an unanswered question.

In rethinking the subject of classifying dha/daab, I believe we need to consider a mix of ethnic and geographic features and the time periods in which these weapons were produced.

One particularly interesting ethno-geographic area is the confluence of Shan/Thai/Lao/Southern Yunnan groups located in parts of Burma, Thailand, Laos and China that is often referred to as the Golden Triangle and renowned for its opium production. This area is a melting pot for dha/daab enthusiasts and continues to produce high quality blades.

Peter, I'm pleased to hear your interest in dha and their classification. The real knowledge of these weapons lies within the various cultures and I think there is often a reluctance to share that cultural information with outsiders. I know of a couple of people who have penetrated local Thai groups and learned a great deal, but it is a rare event.

If you have some specific questions then please post them here and perhaps we can all improve our collective knowledge.

Regards,

Ian.

3rd April 2018, 02:00 AM	#2
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Example: Greaves-Winston typology 1. Bama/bamar - Ethnic majority of Myanmar, which the swords hand a short handle and curved blade http://dharesearch.bowditch.us/0050.htm Attached Images

3rd April 2018, 02:02 AM	#3
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Example: Greaves-Winston typology 2. Kachin - northern minority group, whose dha featured a short hand, straight blade with square tip http://dharesearch.bowditch.us/C0034.htm Attached Images

3rd April 2018, 02:19 AM	#4
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Example: Greaves-Winston typology 3. Shan - northern minority whose dha, featured lotus bud pommel, medium size handle and curved blade Attached Images

3rd April 2018, 01:59 AM	#1
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	*** Also of important note, I know both Andrew W. and Ian G. had stated that this general classification they put together was meant to be the start of a discussion, which they hoped and expected would be in time corrected and built upon.

3rd April 2018, 02:23 AM	#5
Nathaniel Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 865	Also a more detailed article was written by Ian, Mark & Andrew for the History of Steel in Eastern Asia exhibition in Macao in 2006. Thankfully the website for the exhibition is still working, it is a great reference. THE SWORDS OF CONTINENTAL SOUTHEAST ASIA Ian A. Greaves, Mark I. Bowditch & Andrew Y. Winston http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...ea.article.htm Sword list: http://www.arscives.com/historysteel....swordlist.htm Glossary: http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...a.glossary.htm

3rd April 2018, 09:20 AM	#6
Peter Dekker Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Kingdom of the Netherlands Posts: 63	Thanks Nathaniel, very useful! Bowditch on his website, last updated July 28, 2007; "One significant change that has been made is the phasing out of the now-obsolete Greaves-Winston typing system. We have learned a lot since this was first developed, and we are able now to define types more appropriately along ethnic lines. " But he continues "As noted, not all of the pages have been updated with the new typology" I like to get a handle on the old and new typology and would be most interested in the primary sources that helped the typologies. There must be either: 1. Period accounts 2. Period drawings 3. Early photographs 4. Benchmark pieces with markings and/or sound provenance Unfortunately, no list of these seems to have been left. The Kachin type is mentioned in Egerton, 1880. I quite like Bell's little paper which is a welcome oasis in the overall lack of sources. But he too only described local conditions for smiths and not so much the types of swords made.

3rd April 2018, 01:29 PM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,044	Hello Peter: As already noted by Nathaniel, the G-W classification was an attempt by Andrew and myself to describe different types of Burmese dha. This had been attempted earlier by Carter Rila, a former contributor on this Forum, who had written an article in Blade magazine in the 1970s on the "Kachin" and "Shan" styles of blades. We expanded these and subsequently added a Burmese category, or what Andrew and Mark labeled the "metro" style. Although never really explicitly stated, our classification was focused on swords of Burma because these seemed easier to understand than the more varied Thai/Lao/Cambodian daab (not to mention the similar swords made in Yunnan). Not surprisingly, the rather simplistic approach we took was soon found wanting. One of the earliest concerns was the "Kachin" designation, which needed to address both the traditional Kachin dao in its open-faced scabbard and the more sword-like, square-ended dha that we were labeling as "Kachin" style. When we learned that many of the Kachin-style dha were made by the Shan as well as other groups in Yunnan, to be sold on to the Kachin, then the classification fell apart. As an aside, there are comments from Europeans studying the Kachin people in the 19th C. that indicate the Kachin largely changed from their traditional dao to the Shan swords during the second half of the 19th C. Why they did so is an unanswered question. In rethinking the subject of classifying dha/daab, I believe we need to consider a mix of ethnic and geographic features and the time periods in which these weapons were produced. One particularly interesting ethno-geographic area is the confluence of Shan/Thai/Lao/Southern Yunnan groups located in parts of Burma, Thailand, Laos and China that is often referred to as the Golden Triangle and renowned for its opium production. This area is a melting pot for dha/daab enthusiasts and continues to produce high quality blades. Peter, I'm pleased to hear your interest in dha and their classification. The real knowledge of these weapons lies within the various cultures and I think there is often a reluctance to share that cultural information with outsiders. I know of a couple of people who have penetrated local Thai groups and learned a great deal, but it is a rare event. If you have some specific questions then please post them here and perhaps we can all improve our collective knowledge. Regards, Ian.