Spiral:

Work is keeping me very busy at the moment and I have not been able to spend as much time here as I would like.

Your detailed responses to some of my comments would suggest that you are bothered by them, and I apologize if I have offended you in any way.

I do not have the time to give your detailed replies the necessary attention they deserve right now, so I shall get back to you later this week. BTW, the photo link to which you refer seems to be working OK on my screen, so I'm not sure what the problem is.

Ian.

Hi Ian I am not offended. ;) Quite understand your busy. No problem.No apologies needed & sorry if my step by step approach caused you any concern. Alls fine & its just chatting about bits of stuff on a forum after all.

Its just you drew so many points into your reason to distrust Oldman to enhance you stance & reinforce your statement that no such tool resembling the Burma Dha made by Brades was traditionally used in Burma.

So I thought I would deal with each point as best I could. :shrug:

That's not an unusual thing for me to do....Ive done it before.

So I was just trying to point out it seems from other evidence on the forum that the Brades style is a "traditional Burma dha"

Although obviously should it be called the Dha-ma. It seems to me , it certainly existed in Burma long ago.

So what with Marks comments & with your past comments re. the Dennee examples from the Pitt rivers collection which at least for the shorter handled "Burma dha handled" ones you accepted as Burmese rather than Thai. I thought that presented a good case? So I presented it..

Sorry if the detailed response to the numerous aside points you had drawn together, came across rude. I would have much rather just discussed the Kachin & Burma style designs , but as you drew others in to add weight to your argument I thought I should reply in full to each of those points.

Re. your pic, it is just a red x for me. :shrug:

spiral

Some of the Shan States are not part of China due to colonial agreements between the British and Chinese. I'd also point out that the map does not show the Shan States or State singular these days, but a very generalized map of ethnic regions in Burma.

Thank you Aiontay!

Would the map have been more accurate tribally speaking 50 or 100 years ago?

If not can provide a more accurate map particularilary of around 1900?

Although for sake of knowledge a currant map would also be interesting to compare, how things have changed.

Spiral

Spiral,

I know enough about cartography and the bewildering complexity that is/was/shall be Burma's ethnic mixture to know that vouching for the accuracy of any map, especially without explicit parameters laid out, is a fool's errand.

Take for example the Shan States. Sounds easy enough to define but...well, like I said, a fool's errand. If you really are serious, I would suggest finding a copy of Martin Smith's "Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity" and read and chapters 2,3,5 and 16. It certainly won't answer your questions, but it is certainly more concise and informed answer than I'll ever be able to give you.

Thank you Aiontay, I understand what you mean, my questions were serious but I don't intend to spend hours on it particularly given your explanation, that in truth any such map will include massive generalisations etc.

spiral

in the contrary, wages are much worse in burma since the time in was a british colony.. you must consider india was far far poorer than burma at the time..
you are confusing the amount fo wage earning people with.. increae in wages.. burma in the 1900s a burmese bureaucrat would have had a reasonably good income by local standards. far superior that what he same job would pay in today's standards. maybe 5 or 6 times higher.. so the beaurcracy and the upper classes had money to spend things were not all doom and gloo as the situation has been there slice 1948... rememebr burma was one of the most production portion of the british empire and the larges food producer in aisa.. so considering there were very few europeans living there the profit form a lot of the trade did go to local persons.. who would purchase things as they do..


now also consider something- people did full well understand that european blade steel was far superior to their own.. by virtue of correct hardening and heat treatment and lack of flaws in the blade.. correct steel ect..
so just as we like to buy new or interesting things or something different im sure then there would have been a customer or two as well.. if your a rich local and you see a native style of blade in a catalog but made in english.. why maybe youd be curious to try it..

and they did actually buy these things... i had in the past parang blades form 2 different british makers of a very high quality..

iim more than sure the volume would have been tiny.. as the purchase of european styles was in vouge with the rich, sabres .. small swords.. ect.. they had their local products made to their specific requirments......... being that mostly the european style weapons were by this time decorations.. unsuted for use as a real weapon.. more a status symbol to wear when you got a foto taken. im sure some fo these more functional native style tools were made... .. so im sure if we were able to find the records from these producers well see that they did indeed sell some of these.. im sure a small quantity but rich people liked to buy weapons in those days to arm their guards.. for them selves to collect ect.
if you look at many catalogs form the 19th and 20th century form british india youll find a lot of this stuff in there.. marketed to all the rajahs .. and ill be sur ein burma malaya ect.. it was like that too... just on a small scale..

Ausjulius:

You are essentially making the same point that I was making. If you look at the last sentence that you quoted from my earlier post,

"Even so, it is apparent that the cost of William Hunt & Sons' products would have been outside the range affordable for the average Burmese/Kachin consumer in 1900 or today"

I was simply saying that the cost of these "luxury" items was way more than an ordinary Burmese person could afford in 1900 or today. That a few may have been sold to wealthier locals is certainly possible.

I think the price is per dozen...

Hi Stephen:

Yes, the price is per dozen, but if one does the calculation of cost per item (including shipping to Burma from England), we come out with a number that would have been beyond that affordable by the average Burmese in the early 1900s or today. I did the calculations in post #13 of this thread.

Ian.

Excellent & concise post Ausjulius!

spiral

I think your still missing a major point Ian.

The massive Burmah oil, the teak, rubber, opium, sugar, tea, ruby, gold, silver, sapphire & rice industry,imports & exports were all English run & the major employment base in Burma. Many were among some of the largest company's in the world at that time.

Such industry's were I believe highly likely to buy English goods, after all many Naga axe dha are clearly made from imported British hoe blades... so it seems likely that many other such tools would also be imported.

spiral

Ausjulius and Spiral:

I really think we are agreed on the possible place these luxury goods might have had in Burmese society of 1900. As I noted in my original post:

So who would have bought these expensive quality items in the colonies? Perhaps ex-patriots for employees on their plantations. Perhaps wealthy locals who had the money to buy them. But I doubt many would have found their way to the hill country where the largely untamed Kachin lived.

I suppose poorer people in that time could have obtained these tools in much the same way the Naga obtained English-made hoes to create their dao, by appropriating them in the dark of night.

Ian.