What makes a dha a dha

wilked aka Khun Deng · 17th December 2004, 08:03 AM

Mark,
Excellent concise explainations. Thanks for putting all this down in one place.

tom hyle · 20th December 2004, 01:28 AM

I'm still gonna raise a voice over the validity of excluding the short wide workswords of the rural people; dha mauk? which sounds similar to mak, which is the name of the tanged axe that mounts through an angled root-ball at the end of a stick.
In my experience the tangs tend to be around 2 1/2 inches (about 7 cm), which seems short to the modern/western conception, but is fairly typical of such tangs, and quite solid when well-fitted and well-fixed.

Andrew · 20th December 2004, 03:58 AM

I've been giving this some thought since we last discussed it, Tom. I'm drifting away from this line of reasoning.

The category "dha" covers a broad range of weapons from an area large in both geography as well as culture. Uniting the weapons we think of as "dha" are elements lacking in the knives you refer to. They are, in my mind, too wide and lack the cylindrical handle common to dha.

Also, while I'm sure they make fine weapons (so do kitchen cleavers) I believe them to be tools first. Dha are usually weapons first, with the line blurring especially when one starts to consider the machete-like dhas of the kachin and "Montagnards".

What do you think. I've got a few of these (including a cool mak I got from you, thanks

) and they remind me of the old yard tools I've got from my grandfather in Pennsylvania.

tom hyle · 25th December 2004, 03:05 AM

I suppose that's just the crux of the biscuit; I tend to view the dha as a sword of worklike capabilities and intent; I don't see any sharp division in intent between the warrior's sword that might be used for work and the farmer's sword which is certainly intended for self-defence, among other uses. I also don't see any sharp division in design or construction. The handles on the farm swords actually are often cylindrical, often with a front and back ferule, and the other common form to my experience is nearly cylindrical, with a trailing rear tip that reminds me of the tip of a whale's tooth. There does seem to be a division of width somewhat along the lines of what is being divided off at the edge of the word "dha", but I'm not sure what the real meaning of that division is, or whether it would not be more valid to think of it as a division within an overall class, rather than two truly distinct types of sword.

Andrew · 25th December 2004, 05:53 AM

All valid points. The existence of common characteristics ("familial", even?) does support your argument. However, such things are to be expected I think, given the environmental factors.

We're just speculating unnecessarily, really. Someone local could easily confirm if these knives are considered to be "dha", or in the same family of weapons/tools we generally use the term to refer to.

Any thoughts, Dan?

dennee · 5th January 2005, 04:01 AM

In case anyone is interested. Not terribly high quality photo, I'm afraid; unfamiliar camera, dark museum, and they were mounted on a wall overhead in a stairway.

These are in the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford. The label reads "Varieties of the Burmese da for various uses. Pres[ente]d by Capt. R.C. Temple R.E., 1889."

I have some shots of Naga daos and spears and some other Asian miscellany from the same museum, if anyone is interested.

Spunjer · 5th January 2005, 04:04 AM

dennee,

all swords are welcome! please feel free to post your other pics. looking forward to seeing it...

25th December 2004, 03:05 AM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I suppose that's just the crux of the biscuit; I tend to view the dha as a sword of worklike capabilities and intent; I don't see any sharp division in intent between the warrior's sword that might be used for work and the farmer's sword which is certainly intended for self-defence, among other uses. I also don't see any sharp division in design or construction. The handles on the farm swords actually are often cylindrical, often with a front and back ferule, and the other common form to my experience is nearly cylindrical, with a trailing rear tip that reminds me of the tip of a whale's tooth. There does seem to be a division of width somewhat along the lines of what is being divided off at the edge of the word "dha", but I'm not sure what the real meaning of that division is, or whether it would not be more valid to think of it as a division within an overall class, rather than two truly distinct types of sword. Last edited by tom hyle; 25th December 2004 at 03:07 AM. Reason: adding/clarifying

5th January 2005, 04:01 AM	#6
dennee Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: College Park, MD Posts: 186	Some pre-1889 working dhas from Burma In case anyone is interested. Not terribly high quality photo, I'm afraid; unfamiliar camera, dark museum, and they were mounted on a wall overhead in a stairway. These are in the Pitt-Rivers Museum in Oxford. The label reads "Varieties of the Burmese da for various uses. Pres[ente]d by Capt. R.C. Temple R.E., 1889." I have some shots of Naga daos and spears and some other Asian miscellany from the same museum, if anyone is interested. Attached Images

17th December 2004, 08:03 AM	#1
wilked aka Khun Deng Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oahu, Hawaii Posts: 166	Mark, Excellent concise explainations. Thanks for putting all this down in one place.

20th December 2004, 01:28 AM	#2
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I'm still gonna raise a voice over the validity of excluding the short wide workswords of the rural people; dha mauk? which sounds similar to mak, which is the name of the tanged axe that mounts through an angled root-ball at the end of a stick. In my experience the tangs tend to be around 2 1/2 inches (about 7 cm), which seems short to the modern/western conception, but is fairly typical of such tangs, and quite solid when well-fitted and well-fixed.

20th December 2004, 03:58 AM	#3
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I've been giving this some thought since we last discussed it, Tom. I'm drifting away from this line of reasoning. The category "dha" covers a broad range of weapons from an area large in both geography as well as culture. Uniting the weapons we think of as "dha" are elements lacking in the knives you refer to. They are, in my mind, too wide and lack the cylindrical handle common to dha. Also, while I'm sure they make fine weapons (so do kitchen cleavers) I believe them to be tools first. Dha are usually weapons first, with the line blurring especially when one starts to consider the machete-like dhas of the kachin and "Montagnards". What do you think. I've got a few of these (including a cool mak I got from you, thanks ) and they remind me of the old yard tools I've got from my grandfather in Pennsylvania.

25th December 2004, 05:53 AM	#5
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	All valid points. The existence of common characteristics ("familial", even?) does support your argument. However, such things are to be expected I think, given the environmental factors. We're just speculating unnecessarily, really. Someone local could easily confirm if these knives are considered to be "dha", or in the same family of weapons/tools we generally use the term to refer to. Any thoughts, Dan?

5th January 2005, 04:04 AM	#7
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	dennee, all swords are welcome! please feel free to post your other pics. looking forward to seeing it...