Dha handle from Leeds armoury

ariel · 28th May 2005, 04:02 PM

Have you seen anything like that before?

Andrew · 29th May 2005, 05:57 AM

I haven't. At least not on a dha. The proportions are off: too short for the weapon it's mounted on. Almost looks like a keris handle.

Some interesting stuff in that case. Got a pic of the text panel, Ariel?

ariel · 29th May 2005, 06:37 AM

No: the reflection in the glass was far too strong.
I agree, very short handle, but the sword was a dha, no doubt. Also look at the dancing figures at the base of the handle:typical Burmese. And the 'monkey" itself is holding a Dha!

B.I · 29th May 2005, 01:41 PM

not much help, as i think even Dr Quincy would have trouble deciphering the blur. bits can be made out if you squint enough.

tom hyle · 29th May 2005, 02:32 PM

I'm almost certain we discussed, if not this same object, then a different statue of the same figure on the old forum, but I can't remember more than that; I've definitely seen this guy before....

tom hyle · 29th May 2005, 02:45 PM

I didn't find it, but the old forum thread "dhax2" has an active link to a page that you scroll down a little bit and there's a mainland SE Asian handle depicting Hanuman that is of very similar overall size and shape; the same style handle, but a different subject.

B.I · 29th May 2005, 03:25 PM

tom,
it was the same 2 dha and i posted them under 'dhax2'. wish i could supply better images of the description but i had the smae trouble in the combination of glass and dim lighting

Ian · 29th May 2005, 04:19 PM

I recall our previous discussion also, in the old Forum. The image of Hanuman is not rare in Burmese culture. The handle does seem much shorter than usual, even for Burmese dha which often have shorter handles than their Thai neighbors. This example is closer to the length of hilt seen on knife length dha -- whose blade lengths are in the 10-16 inch range -- rather than on longer swords such as this one.

B.I.: Do you still have the original digital picture of the description at a higher resolution (pixels per inch)? If so, then Adobe Photoshop is a great program for manipulating images and it is amazing how a 300+ pixels per inch image can be encouraged to yield its hidden secrets. The photo you posted above is only 72 pixels per inch.

I can make out the heading and first line of text:

"Sword (dha)
Burmese (early 19th century)

The blade and scabbard of this dha ... "

and the rest is hard to decipher, with a few tantalizing references to "monkey."

If you have a larger file I'd be happy to work on it in Photoshop.

Ian.

B.I · 29th May 2005, 04:33 PM

hi ian,
unfortunately, i actually use photoshop for a living and the image i sent had been lightened and sharpened. i am more than happy to send it to you to try, but it was vey low resolution to start with, as it was cropped from a larger image. i hadnt intended to photograph the description, but had accidently included it in a larger shot.

Ian · 29th May 2005, 04:46 PM

B.I.: As you have already tried Photoshop, I doubt that I could decipher anything more.

I have taken to writing down the descriptions on cards in museums because cameras are usually not allowed. Takes longer, but I don't lose data on names, origins, lengths, etc.

BTW, I am pleasantly surprised that at least some British museums permit photography of their collections by the public. Is this common? In the US and Asia, it is almost always forbidden to photograph items on display.

Ian.

B.I · 29th May 2005, 04:54 PM

hi ian,
yes, we are very lucky. the only museum that doesnt is the wallace collection, as its not really a museum, more a private collection now owned by the country.
when i was in venice, not a single museum allowed photography but i managed to photograph everything to my taste. i got 'quick on the draw' due to enthusiastic guards, but this didnt allow much time to focus.
the BM/V&A/armouries allow cameras. windsor doesnt which is a crying shame. powis doesnt either, and neither does keddleston.

ariel · 1st June 2005, 07:38 PM

Archer asked me to post these images: a short Dha (a knife, actually) with the handle remarkably similar to the one from Leeds.
Judge for yourself.
Archer, thanks for the info!

Andrew · 2nd June 2005, 02:34 AM

Yup: looks like the same little guy to me.

Nice grab, Archer. I was really looking at this one, and decided not to bid. I now regret that decision.

Ariel, I still think the carved handle in the Leeds' collection is too small for the sword it's mounted on. I submit it's a remount from a dagger similar to Archer's. Many thanks for starting this thread, as I must have missed the first one.

I'm off to do some research....

VANDOO · 2nd June 2005, 04:11 AM

I REMEMBER SEEING SOMETHING ON THESE KNIVES THEY WERE REFERED TO AS PRIESTS KNIVES AND SOME HAD VERY WELL CARVED IVORY HANDLES AND SOME WERE PLAIN. THEY WERE ALL DAGGER SIZE AND THE HANDLES WERE IN PROPER PROPORTION, WISH I COULD REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN FORUM POSTS OR ELSEWHERE

I MAY HAVE SOME PICTURES SOMEWHERE IF I RUN ACROSS THEM I WILL PUT THEM IN.

Mark · 2nd June 2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

I REMEMBER SEEING SOMETHING ON THESE KNIVES THEY WERE REFERED TO AS PRIESTS KNIVES AND SOME HAD VERY WELL CARVED IVORY HANDLES AND SOME WERE PLAIN. THEY WERE ALL DAGGER SIZE AND THE HANDLES WERE IN PROPER PROPORTION, WISH I COULD REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN FORUM POSTS OR ELSEWHERE

I MAY HAVE SOME PICTURES SOMEWHERE IF I RUN ACROSS THEM I WILL PUT THEM IN.

Good call, Barry. Archer's knife is what I would call a priest knife, which I theorize is actually as much related to the piha kaetta as to the dha. I agree with Andrew that the handle on the Leeds dha is likely a transplant from a knife.

28th May 2005, 04:02 PM	#1
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Dha handle from Leeds armoury Have you seen anything like that before? Attached Images

29th May 2005, 01:41 PM	#4
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	not much help, as i think even Dr Quincy would have trouble deciphering the blur. bits can be made out if you squint enough. Attached Images

29th May 2005, 04:19 PM	#8
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,031	I recall our previous discussion also, in the old Forum. The image of Hanuman is not rare in Burmese culture. The handle does seem much shorter than usual, even for Burmese dha which often have shorter handles than their Thai neighbors. This example is closer to the length of hilt seen on knife length dha -- whose blade lengths are in the 10-16 inch range -- rather than on longer swords such as this one. B.I.: Do you still have the original digital picture of the description at a higher resolution (pixels per inch)? If so, then Adobe Photoshop is a great program for manipulating images and it is amazing how a 300+ pixels per inch image can be encouraged to yield its hidden secrets. The photo you posted above is only 72 pixels per inch. I can make out the heading and first line of text: *"Sword (dha)* Burmese (early 19th century) The blade and scabbard of this dha ... " and the rest is hard to decipher, with a few tantalizing references to "monkey." If you have a larger file I'd be happy to work on it in Photoshop. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 29th May 2005 at 04:41 PM.

1st June 2005, 07:38 PM	#12
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Archer asked me to post these images: a short Dha (a knife, actually) with the handle remarkably similar to the one from Leeds. Judge for yourself. Archer, thanks for the info! Attached Images

29th May 2005, 05:57 AM	#2
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I haven't. At least not on a dha. The proportions are off: too short for the weapon it's mounted on. Almost looks like a keris handle. Some interesting stuff in that case. Got a pic of the text panel, Ariel?

29th May 2005, 06:37 AM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	No: the reflection in the glass was far too strong. I agree, very short handle, but the sword was a dha, no doubt. Also look at the dancing figures at the base of the handle:typical Burmese. And the 'monkey" itself is holding a Dha!

29th May 2005, 02:32 PM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I'm almost certain we discussed, if not this same object, then a different statue of the same figure on the old forum, but I can't remember more than that; I've definitely seen this guy before....

29th May 2005, 02:45 PM	#6
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I didn't find it, but the old forum thread "dhax2" has an active link to a page that you scroll down a little bit and there's a mainland SE Asian handle depicting Hanuman that is of very similar overall size and shape; the same style handle, but a different subject.

29th May 2005, 03:25 PM	#7
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	tom, it was the same 2 dha and i posted them under 'dhax2'. wish i could supply better images of the description but i had the smae trouble in the combination of glass and dim lighting

29th May 2005, 04:33 PM	#9
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi ian, unfortunately, i actually use photoshop for a living and the image i sent had been lightened and sharpened. i am more than happy to send it to you to try, but it was vey low resolution to start with, as it was cropped from a larger image. i hadnt intended to photograph the description, but had accidently included it in a larger shot.

29th May 2005, 04:46 PM	#10
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,031	B.I.: As you have already tried Photoshop, I doubt that I could decipher anything more. I have taken to writing down the descriptions on cards in museums because cameras are usually not allowed. Takes longer, but I don't lose data on names, origins, lengths, etc. BTW, I am pleasantly surprised that at least some British museums permit photography of their collections by the public. Is this common? In the US and Asia, it is almost always forbidden to photograph items on display. Ian.

29th May 2005, 04:54 PM	#11
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi ian, yes, we are very lucky. the only museum that doesnt is the wallace collection, as its not really a museum, more a private collection now owned by the country. when i was in venice, not a single museum allowed photography but i managed to photograph everything to my taste. i got 'quick on the draw' due to enthusiastic guards, but this didnt allow much time to focus. the BM/V&A/armouries allow cameras. windsor doesnt which is a crying shame. powis doesnt either, and neither does keddleston.

2nd June 2005, 02:34 AM	#13
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	Yup: looks like the same little guy to me. Nice grab, Archer. I was really looking at this one, and decided not to bid. I now regret that decision. Ariel, I still think the carved handle in the Leeds' collection is too small for the sword it's mounted on. I submit it's a remount from a dagger similar to Archer's. Many thanks for starting this thread, as I must have missed the first one. I'm off to do some research....

2nd June 2005, 04:11 AM	#14
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I REMEMBER SEEING SOMETHING ON THESE KNIVES THEY WERE REFERED TO AS PRIESTS KNIVES AND SOME HAD VERY WELL CARVED IVORY HANDLES AND SOME WERE PLAIN. THEY WERE ALL DAGGER SIZE AND THE HANDLES WERE IN PROPER PROPORTION, WISH I COULD REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN FORUM POSTS OR ELSEWHERE I MAY HAVE SOME PICTURES SOMEWHERE IF I RUN ACROSS THEM I WILL PUT THEM IN.