![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
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....
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,399
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,399
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|