Dha for blah,blah,blah.

Tim Simmons · 27th March 2007, 06:33 PM

This came my way as part payment. You need your eyes peeled. Great blade, some pretty foil work, shame there is no scabbard. Could make an interesting project?
Anyway the blade is deadly and scary sharp as is the one I show next to it. There is some similarity possibly at the tip and overall shape. But they are two very different swords even though from the same stable. The handling is almost exactly opposite. The long one delivering more power to the distill end where as the shorter one delivers a cut from the base of the blade to the tip aided by the weight of the handle and a tighter curve. To me they are almost chalk and cheese and must come from different fighting traditions and cultures. Comments please.

Mark · 27th March 2007, 09:23 PM

Both are Burmese (Burman), the second considerably older than the first, I would say.

I can't comment on the possible diffence in styles, but I have seen some modern videos of a Kachin martial arts festival where some sword techniques were demonstrated, and I have a short contemporary book on Burmese dha forms. There are a lot of sweeps and blade spins involved, which I think would be easier with a point of balance further out on the blade. Balance closer to the hilt would suggest a style involving more direct strikes and blocks, such as are used in muay thai. In the latter the sword has a long handle and is held in one hand close to the hilt, moving exactly with the hand, which does not need the momentum from a weighted tip to carry it around. The power comes directly from the arm rather than from the momentum of the blade, in other words.

Maybe the second sword was designed for use in a Thai style of sword fighting?

fearn · 28th March 2007, 05:22 AM

Neat Dha!

I wonder if the bottom one (ivory handle) lost its tip and was reground?

~Alaung_Hpaya~ · 28th March 2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

Both are Burmese (Burman), the second considerably older than the first, I would say.

How old would you say they were Mark. Is shagreen mainly 2oth century ?

It's funny because although I've not ( until recently ) studied dha form or features I have , having been immersed in the culture since childhood , absorbed ( probably by osmosis

) a feel for what looks Bama ( Burman ) and what looks Shan and what looks Kachin . Not too familiar ( or have any opinion on what looks Karen though : plus I've always considered the Mon culture to be almost identical but have no idea what Mon swords look like

)

The style of these swords do seem Bama. Although outwardly the tip would suggest Kachin the curve does not . Neither do the decorations .

Interestingly in the pop culture of my youth the only guys who wielded these larger flat tipped dha were either baddies , forest rangers or real hard men

. The hero would always handle the elegant dha with silver trim and koftgari .

Mark · 28th March 2007, 09:02 PM

Fearn - I doubt the tip of the second one has been reground. It is a common shape.

Alaung Hpaya - I'm not really sure about a time period for shagree usage, actually. The ones I can think of off the top of my head do seem more recent, probably 20th C. That bears looking into. IBased on the refinement of the style and quality of the craftsmanship, would say that the second one is early 19th or late 18th century (i.e., before the British ban on weapons in 1868). Not later than around 1868, in any event.

I have the same "feel" you mention for Bama vs Shan and Kachin, and the same lack of a clue for Karen. Kachin dha do tend to be straighter, or completely straight, with that concave tip. I have also noticed that they rarely, if ever, have a fuller as these two do. What little I have read about the Karen, and admittedly I have hardly studied their culture and history, they are not sword makers or blacksmiths, but get their dha and other tools from the Bama or Shan. Among other sources, Ferrars & Ferrars say this, though I find their description of the Karen and their culture to be quite offensive, and rather at odds with ones I have read elsewhere. I would have to dig though my notes to see which other writers mention the Karen's lack of a bladesmithing tradition. Maybe it was Symes ...

I think for most purposes, the Mon and Bama material culture is indistinguishable at this point, and has been for some time. One question I keep trying to answer is, "What kind of swords did the Mon use before they were conquered by the Bama?" After Anawratha conquered Thaton in the 11th C, the Bama almost entirely adopted Mon "civilized" culture, such as art, architecture, and writing, as well as Theravada Buddhism. Mon artisans, craftsmen and scholars were deported whole-sale to Pagan (I found this link to a quicky history of Pagan: http://www.ancientbagan.com/bagan-history.htm, but Phayre, Hall, Cambridge, etc., are better sources from the academic point of view). I find no reference to an adoption of weapons technology, though, so I am left wondering if the present "Bama" dha in its various forms is an adaptation of a Mon style, or if it is the survival of the Bama style, the Mon weapon styles now being lost. On the one hand you would expect that a conquering people would keep the weapons with which they are familiar, and that brought them to power, but on the other hand if Mon bladesmiths were assimulated into the Bama culture it might be that their preferred style become the common one. I am hoping that the answer lies in the archeological literature & museum collections, sources which I haven't been able to effectively access yet.

Tim Simmons · 29th March 2007, 07:37 AM

Not being a specialist in these just quite keen on them, I think the the shark skin handle one is pretty certain 19th century. Some years ago I was in the Musee D'Homme Paris where many Dha weapons were labeled just as Indochina.

This could turn into a Dha fest. This one is pre ww2. Still a good piece of steel but the finish is not the same or is the colour and staining. Also it is thicker and heavier blade, the pointed tip has to some degree compromised the effect of cut from the distill end but it does have the ability to thrust. The older weapons shown here are flexible, the newer one is more or less rigid. The old ones do seem to be much finer steel and work which has given then some delicacy but all in better edged and handling weapons. The one with the ivory handle, the acute angle cut to the tip does give some thrust ability.

27th March 2007, 06:33 PM	#1
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,739	Dha for blah,blah,blah. This came my way as part payment. You need your eyes peeled. Great blade, some pretty foil work, shame there is no scabbard. Could make an interesting project? Anyway the blade is deadly and scary sharp as is the one I show next to it. There is some similarity possibly at the tip and overall shape. But they are two very different swords even though from the same stable. The handling is almost exactly opposite. The long one delivering more power to the distill end where as the shorter one delivers a cut from the base of the blade to the tip aided by the weight of the handle and a tighter curve. To me they are almost chalk and cheese and must come from different fighting traditions and cultures. Comments please.

29th March 2007, 07:37 AM	#6
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,739	Not being a specialist in these just quite keen on them, I think the the shark skin handle one is pretty certain 19th century. Some years ago I was in the Musee D'Homme Paris where many Dha weapons were labeled just as Indochina. This could turn into a Dha fest. This one is pre ww2. Still a good piece of steel but the finish is not the same or is the colour and staining. Also it is thicker and heavier blade, the pointed tip has to some degree compromised the effect of cut from the distill end but it does have the ability to thrust. The older weapons shown here are flexible, the newer one is more or less rigid. The old ones do seem to be much finer steel and work which has given then some delicacy but all in better edged and handling weapons. The one with the ivory handle, the acute angle cut to the tip does give some thrust ability. Last edited by Tim Simmons; 29th March 2007 at 09:31 AM.

27th March 2007, 09:23 PM	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Both are Burmese (Burman), the second considerably older than the first, I would say. I can't comment on the possible diffence in styles, but I have seen some modern videos of a Kachin martial arts festival where some sword techniques were demonstrated, and I have a short contemporary book on Burmese dha forms. There are a lot of sweeps and blade spins involved, which I think would be easier with a point of balance further out on the blade. Balance closer to the hilt would suggest a style involving more direct strikes and blocks, such as are used in muay thai. In the latter the sword has a long handle and is held in one hand close to the hilt, moving exactly with the hand, which does not need the momentum from a weighted tip to carry it around. The power comes directly from the arm rather than from the momentum of the blade, in other words. Maybe the second sword was designed for use in a Thai style of sword fighting?

28th March 2007, 05:22 AM	#3
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	Neat Dha! I wonder if the bottom one (ivory handle) lost its tip and was reground?

28th March 2007, 09:02 PM	#5
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	Fearn - I doubt the tip of the second one has been reground. It is a common shape. Alaung Hpaya - I'm not really sure about a time period for shagree usage, actually. The ones I can think of off the top of my head do seem more recent, probably 20th C. That bears looking into. IBased on the refinement of the style and quality of the craftsmanship, would say that the second one is early 19th or late 18th century (i.e., before the British ban on weapons in 1868). Not later than around 1868, in any event. I have the same "feel" you mention for Bama vs Shan and Kachin, and the same lack of a clue for Karen. Kachin dha do tend to be straighter, or completely straight, with that concave tip. I have also noticed that they rarely, if ever, have a fuller as these two do. What little I have read about the Karen, and admittedly I have hardly studied their culture and history, they are not sword makers or blacksmiths, but get their dha and other tools from the Bama or Shan. Among other sources, Ferrars & Ferrars say this, though I find their description of the Karen and their culture to be quite offensive, and rather at odds with ones I have read elsewhere. I would have to dig though my notes to see which other writers mention the Karen's lack of a bladesmithing tradition. Maybe it was Symes ... I think for most purposes, the Mon and Bama material culture is indistinguishable at this point, and has been for some time. One question I keep trying to answer is, "What kind of swords did the Mon use before they were conquered by the Bama?" After Anawratha conquered Thaton in the 11th C, the Bama almost entirely adopted Mon "civilized" culture, such as art, architecture, and writing, as well as Theravada Buddhism. Mon artisans, craftsmen and scholars were deported whole-sale to Pagan (I found this link to a quicky history of Pagan: http://www.ancientbagan.com/bagan-history.htm, but Phayre, Hall, Cambridge, etc., are better sources from the academic point of view). I find no reference to an adoption of weapons technology, though, so I am left wondering if the present "Bama" dha in its various forms is an adaptation of a Mon style, or if it is the survival of the Bama style, the Mon weapon styles now being lost. On the one hand you would expect that a conquering people would keep the weapons with which they are familiar, and that brought them to power, but on the other hand if Mon bladesmiths were assimulated into the Bama culture it might be that their preferred style become the common one. I am hoping that the answer lies in the archeological literature & museum collections, sources which I haven't been able to effectively access yet.