Dha from Bassein

[Peter Dekker]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Thanks Peter, actualy it is only Stu who keeps insisting that is end of 20th c.
I agreed with Ian about mid 20th c.

In your very nice website, you rely a lot on inscriptions on blades and scabbards, and you are right. Why not keep in consideration the inscription on mine? When Bassein's name changed for Pathein? mid 50ties or late 40ties?

Thanks for your kind words!

The name change happened pretty late, 1989, so that doesn't help a lot in pushing the date back, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Kubur

Correct, plus, I need to post some photos of the silver work, it is not top quality as what you mentionned but it is very descent and much better than the temple dha from 1900.

Looking forward to seeing more.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Peter Dekker

Thanks for your kind words!

The name change happened pretty late, 1989, so that doesn't help a lot in pushing the date back, unfortunately.
.

Its worth noting that many cities and districts were renamed post 1989, at times these name changes reflect an effort to make the names more Burmese rather than the local language version. A good example is Hsipaw becoming Thibaw. In essence I would not be surprised if locals used both versions somewhat interchangeably.

[Kubur]

Thank you both
Well I abdicate about Bassein...
But I still think that the sword is too nice to be late 20thc.
I will accept mid 20th c.
I'm surprised that no one commented the similarity with Kronkwe sword, the same hilt.
I can see the British peacock on the hilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Seal_of_Myanmar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_in_Burma

I can see 2 inscriptions on the hilt, one on the guard like mine and another just above the peacock's head. It would be nice to have a translation...

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Thank you both
Well I abdicate about Bassein...
But I still think that the sword is too nice to be late 20thc.
I will accept mid 20th c.
I'm surprised that no one commented the similarity with Kronkwe sword, the same hilt.
I can see the British peacock on the hilt

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Seal_of_Myanmar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_rule_in_Burma

I can see 2 inscriptions on the hilt, one on the guard like mine and another just above the peacock's head. It would be nice to have a translation...

Both swords are obviously from either the same workshop or a similar point of origin. I think nobody commented because it was quite clear?

The peacock is not British, it was used by the Konbaung dynasty the British defeated. The British simply assumed similar trappings of state during the colonial period.

[kronckew]

The peacock on my sword has the same lettering arched above the head as the royal seal of the Konbaung royal era 1752–1885, I'd thus guess mine was made sometime in that area of time.


Kubur, does yours have a peacock? It's not evident in the photos. If it does, is the lettering similar? Without the peacock, I'd suspect it was somewhat newer.

[Kubur]

Ah now I’m laughing. We have similar swords from the end of the 19th c. or from the end of the 20th c.

Not laughing at you Kronkew, and I like your sword as I like mine, and I don’t care if my sword is mid 20th c. But it is important for all the forum members to take what is written here (on this forum) as opinions and just opinions, from collectors and dealers. There is no self-proclaimed experts. Ariel wrote something very right in another thread, I’ll probably quote him about the takouba that I posted one day.

Originally Posted by kronckew

The peacock on my sword has the same lettering arched above the head as the royal seal of the Konbaung royal era 1752–1885, I'd thus guess mine was made sometime in that area of time.

Kubur, does yours have a peacock? It's not evident in the photos. If it does, is the lettering similar? Without the peacock, I'd suspect it was somewhat newer.

Are you sure, do you have the translation for both inscriptions?

How do you know that the inscription is original from the 19thc. and not memorabilia? I haven’t seen any date mentioned in the post related to your sword.

I sincerely will be very happy if you were right, it will mean that the other assessments about 20th C. were wrong and just based on “feelings”.

I also liked the discussion from Peter about suspension rings and shows that “we” have a lot of cliches in mind.

My sword has no peacock, but it doesn’t mean anything, just the decoration on the grip is different.

But the same hilt, I think - like Ian - that is extremely clear and obvious.

I had the feeling that my sword was 20th c., early 1920-30. Then after Ian /Peter comments I was convinced that my sword was from mid 20thc. Pre 1948.

But after Peter comments (on suspension), I started to think, oh well maybe this sword is old after all…

Now I think that our swords are probably 1920-1950ties.

[kronckew]

I conclude that our swords are both 20th Century, and both likely from the same area, if not the same bladesmithy.

I gather my sword scabbard is probably inter-war - between WWI and WWII, ie. 1930's, as is the sword, even considering the use of the peacock - which was probably copied up to the end in 1978 on these type.

The 'silver' metal on both swords is probably a lower grade silver alloy, and the central part the local version of bronze.

I also have found that the fancy Dhas/Daab are often given for wedding wear by the groom, and then hung in their silver alloy scabbards on the wall, like temple dha, and much like brides save their wedding dresses. The suspension on yours is the norm for a wedding dha.

Your blade is likely post WWII and is a proper fighting blade like mine, just a bit more modern and more decorated. 1950's IS likely. I suspect the custom of hanging on the wall is also justincase they need a bit of home defence - as is still common in more remote and wilder areas.

And wedding dhas are still sold there. Just not as high a quality as yours.

The inscriptions on the grip near the blade junction are still a mystery tho, which hopefully we will be given an answer in future.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by Iain

Both swords are obviously from either the same workshop or a similar point of origin. I think nobody commented because it was quite clear?

The peacock is not British, it was used by the Konbaung dynasty the British defeated. The British simply assumed similar trappings of state during the colonial period.

Sorry, I should have been more precise, the Burmese peacock reused by the British during the colonial period until 1948.

Yes, these swords are identical, for the hilts at 95% I’ve seen only 2 dha like that on the web.

Blades are different. I believe mine is of a better construction. I wish to see better photos of Kronkew’s blade.

Kronkew has a more “ethnic” scabbard, again better photos will be helpful. Ethnic doesn’t mean old. Finally, I have to do better photos of my scabbard, the whole sword was overcleaned with bits of brasso everywhere. I guess the shinny aspect can fool some members, as the ethnic scabbard from Kronkew can fool others...