What kind of sword is this?
 

1635-40

I would say a dha

a dha too
and behind an Indian bow with quiver?

Henk, Kubur thanks!
What are the earliest accounts about dha we know?
May be it is Japanese tachi? :shrug:

I doubt it is a Japanese tachi. Wrong type of mounts, fittings and hanger.

Rich

At this time Japan was cut off from the western world but South East Asia was in contact with the Dutch, Portuguese, and English. It looks like a Dha to me too.

I am not sure of the title and origin of this painting, but it certainly appears of the Dutch masters schools and in accord with the period.
This is most certainly a dha, and by the squared chape style probably Burmese or Thai but these regions at that time were of course under different national headings.

It is interesting just how prevalent 'globalization ' was in these times, and Rembrandt was known for having quite a collection of arms and armour, often 'exotica' from these areas in the Dutch trade of the East Indies.
SE Asia, in particular Viet Nam was regarded as Cochin China, and contact with these contiguous countries via Dutch factories in many of them including China proper, India and the many archipelagos would account for such items.

Also interesting to see the dha and mounts in real time depiction establishing set period for the styling (though probably well established earlier).

I agree it is dha. However we know a lot of 19-20th swords "dha" and they are far different from the subject. Where are there such "dha" the same as on the picture?

The type of sword in the image reminds me of some swords in images posted on the forum some years ago from a European collection, which I won't try to pretend that I remember the name of.

However I repost those images here, which show dha and Japanese influenced swords likely made for high ranking members of a European court, or fops such as that in the image. So, it stands to reason that dhas did end up in Europe and both could have been worn and influence European sword design, though one would expect the decoration on the example in the painting to be more European influenced such as those examples in the images I post (though they seem to be composites of Asian origin blades and some fittings and mainly European fittings).

What is the origin of the painting? Polish?

Regards
LL

Some more images. I believe this Dresden...

The sword of Thomas Kapustran, Klauzenburg / Siebenbiurgen (Romania), 1674
Blade and scabbard, Japanese

Also to stress that these are not mine, but a forum member who posted these some years ago, here is the link as well:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=662

best
LL

Rembrandt ( 1606-1669) in his picture " Blinding of Samson" used Ceylonese spear and Balinese kris.
Dutchmen traveled far and wide and early on, and brought back a lot of exotic souvenirs.

Here

Dutch

Many thanks. I think the same. Many thanks. I think the same. Now the question the real SEA dha it is or some European stylized sword as mention above.

You guys are amazing!! How you always find perfect illustrations and pertinent posts is outstanding to carry the discussion
I'm glad you agree Mercenary that this is a Dutch painting. While I'm no art expert, it certainly has the 'feel' of Dutch masters .
As I mentioned earlier, Rembrandt had a nominal collection of exotic weaponry from Indonesian and Asian areas which had been brought back by Dutch VOC ships.
It would seem that his inclusion of these unusual weapons were placed in his works for 'effect', and it seems that other artists followed suit.

The interaction between Europe and these exotic ports of call with various material culture and of course weaponry is well established. As seen, there were European versions of various forms from China and other Asian locations in style and decoration. The decoration known as Tonquinese was used through the 18th century on court and smallswords. In many cases Chinese and other artisans were brought into European shops to work on many of the 'exotic' forms.

In the case of this dha, obviously we are looking at an artists conception of the sword, however in my opinion, this looks fully like an original item from Thailand (then Siam) as it carries the distinctive features usually seen on them. The only thing that would suggest it being a European example would be its size, dha usually smaller (but I have seen them this large).
Artists were usually quite accurate in their depictions of detail used in their work, however sometimes various prop or accent items may be out of context as seen in Rembrandt's Biblical works.

Does anyone know this actual painting?
Where it is located?
When it was painted?
By whom?

That would assist in settling some of the questions floating around.

Best
LL

Ferdinand Bol. Portrait of a young man with a sword, 1635-40, Dayton Art Institute, Ohio

Excellent information.

On the other painting posted, the sword wrap and style is very close to an example in the Smithsonian Institution, that was discussed here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4768

I have been watching this thread for the last day and doing some online research, most notably in relation to the events in Siam during the early 17th C. For various reasons, I doubt that this sword is a dha/daab (more on that when I get back home in a couple of days--traveling at the moment), but it might be. More likely, IMO, is that it comes from the area that is now northern Vietnam, i.e., Cochin China. There are some features to the hilt and scabbard that suggest SE Asia, but also several anomalies.

I would also raise some questions about the authenticity of this picture as a work of Bol. Bol's paintings were often mistaken for works by Rembrandt, his master, in the 18th C, and I don't find the portrait shown here to be something that might be confused easily for a Rembrandt. In looking online at Bol's accredited works (which are said to be "rare"), this portrait does not appear. Also, the Dayton Museum of Art is not a prime location where one would expect such a work to show up. The attribution to Bol is important in dating the portrait, and that dating is key to where to look for the possible origin of this sword.

More research is needed and I will come back to this thread when I have time.

Ian

Ian, outstanding! and I really look forward to your input on this with your knowledge of the arms of these regions. Very well noted on Viet Nam, which was indeed known as Cochin China well through the 19th c. and the note on Tonquinese work of course refers to reference to Viet Nam as well.

I am far outside my usual fields here, but I am curious on that squared chape sleeve on the scabbard. I know I have seen this feature on Burmese dha (inscriptions in that language supporting that I.D.) though not as clear on whether on Siamese, nor Viet Namese for that matter.

It seems that type squared chape is on earlier Chinese dao scabbards in similar mounts which (if memory serves) was termed 'fang chloe' or words t that effect. Given the profound influence of China in these SE Asian regions, would that distinctive style have diffused there accordingly?

Interesting that this painting did indeed prove to be Dutch, in fact a student of Rembrandt, and perhaps Rembrandt's proclivity to using 'exotic' arms in his work so influenced this student, maybe even others. It seems that often works attributed to Rembrandt himself in recent times have proven to be actually by individuals in his school. ..for example "Man in the Golden Helmet".

You can view the painting here in very high resolution which shows the detail on the hilt and scabbard to very good effect.

http://www.daytonartinstitute.org/ar.../ferdinand-bol

The description of the painting is fascinating and notes that both Rembrandt and Bol used the same "props" and the same are found in a painting in the Hermitage. Though on viewing that example the sword is quite different. The description from the Dayton Art Institute is below:

"This full-length and larger-than-life-sized portrait of a young dandy, once thought to be a self-portrait, most certainly dates from Ferdinand Bol's years in Rembrandt van Rijn's studio. It would seem to be inspired by several of Rembrandt's self-portraits and other works of the same period. Rembrandt's Reconciliation of David and Absalom of 1642, in the collection of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, uses almost identical objects to the ones found in Bol's portrait. In the aforementioned Rembrandt and in Bol's portrait, a quiver of arrows, a heavily embroidered velvet tunic, and a velvet scabbarded sword are the studio props evidently shared by master and pupil.

Bol also shared Rembrandt's fascination with unusual costumes and gear. The great sword, fashionable high-heeled leather boots, the richly embroidered clothes, velvet cloak, and plumed cap are far removed from the sober, black garb of most Dutch citizens. Rather, they have more in common with the brightly colored costumes of the subjects favored by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1573 - 1610), a revolutionary and controversial Italian artist whose paintings influenced a generation of artists across Europe. Although grounded in a keen observation of detail, the sensuously depicted, exotic finery lends an air of fantasy to this portrait of an unknown friend or artist colleague of Bol's."

To my eye, the embossing on the middle part of the hilt does appear to have some aspects reminiscent of Thai swords.

http://www.arscives.com/historysteel.../257-mib05.jpg

http://www.arscives.com/historysteel.../256-ayw12.jpg

Regards
LL

I'm confused why you would make such a statement Ian. Do you have reason to believe that the museum is mistaken about what it has in its own collection.
I live about 40 minutes south of the Dayton Institute of Art. Its a fine and respected institution with a sizable collection that regularly also hosts world class traveling exhibitions. :shrug:

I was like you, shocked. A small Museum is not a bad Museum. I'm also shocked by the Art historian expertise. It's not because famous Museums did some mistakes with one or two daggers that the small museums are not able to identify a Dutch masterpiece!

:shrug:

I have never been to Dayton, but I know Toledo Art Museum quite well. These are cities of comparable size and wealth. They are both in NW Ohio, about hour and a half drive from each other.
The Toledo collection has works of Rembrandt, El Greco, Holbein, Rubens and a fantastic collection of French Impressionists.
Size, wealth and publicity do not always matter when we are talking about individual exponates.

I am sure that some of the items in our humble collections would be greedily snatched by Met, Hermitage and Walles:-)

David and Kubur:

Museums of all types frequently make mistakes in attribution of works of art. Unless the provenance is strong, there is always room for doubt. Larger museums obviously have more research staff than smaller ones, so can presumably do more in the way of research and establishing provenance.

Here, for example, is what the Metropolitan Museum of Art provides for one of its three works attributed to Ferdinand Bol:

Quote:

Petronella Elias (1648–1667) with a Basket of Fruit

This provenance appears to track all the way back to the creation of the painting by Bol, but the museum is not entirely sure about the early attributions, so its staff inserted "?" marks to indicate less than complete documentation. Nevertheless, it looks a pretty solid provenance.

For the subject of this thread, all we have for provenance is that it was "a gift of Mr and Mrs Elton F. McDonald, 1962." The museum may have more information, but they did not include it online. To learn anything more about the painting would mean contacting the museum. In looking at a blow up of the online photograph, I can see no signature or date that might help in identifying the artist.

The works of Ferdinand Bol are considered "rare." He does not seem to have been especially prolific and his career ended in 1669 when he remarried after the death of his first wife. He has been lumped in the group of "students and followers of Rembrandt," of which there may have been many, and later in his career he seems to have adopted a more Flemish style and moved away from that of his master somewhat.

Lastly, this portrait does not show up on a collected list of his works here.

I would suggest that we simply do not know the authenticity of the subject of this thread in regard to its attribution to Bol. The supplied provenance is sketchy (to say the least), and we do not know to what extent it has been vetted by experts in Dutch masters. Given the confusion in recent decades about the attribution of works to Rembrandt himself, the work of the Rembrandt Research Program not withstanding, it becomes even harder to know what can be attributed to his students and followers.

For the purposes of the present discussion, however, let's just go with what the Dayton Art Museum says, with the caveat that they could be wrong.

Extremely well said Ian!!
I understood your note to mean exactly as you have explained, and from what I understand about the study of art, there is often question as to attribution and many other aspects. It seems too often it is presumed that anything specified in museum documentation and cataloguing is taken by many to be the final word on the item or topic specified.
A good many decades ago I admit I was among that group, however in many experiences with museums, large and small, I have found inevitable inaccuracies which have usually inadvertently filtered into their literature.

This is not to discount the character or reputation of any of them, nor their very hard working personnel and staff. We all make 'misteakes'.......and they are not infallible.

As you say, while the evidence may be categorically compelling, we must always allow for the possibility that new evidence may reveal facts which may alter the key material used in support of other research. It is prudent to acknowledge and qualify comments and observations to allow for that possibility.

Ian, the portrait does appear on the website you provided:


A Young Man with a Sword, https://www.pubhist.com/w9562.

I couldn't find it in the paintings in the link Ian added either. How did you get to this, using search or other access?
In any case, I remember some time ago being intrigued by Rembrandt's works and all the fuss over 'The Polish Rider' and the actual character etc. Then "The Man in the Golden Helmet", how many years was that attributed to Rembrandt? Then it was discovered to be one of his students or school who had actually painted it.
It seems like reading various art study literature there are so many controversies and highly debated aspects of not only attribution, but of course the many deeply imbued allegories and symbolism in the works.

As one scholar once said, "the thing I like most about history, is how its always changing'! It would seem art history is well included.

Jim, the picture changes places, but the two last times it was in the last row (first page).

I agree. The painting was indeed in the list of acknowledged works by Bol. When i checked it was in the last row of the first page, second from the left. :shrug:

Thanks guys, found it!

The question of provenance is important for establishing time period, and the Dayton Museum's description which notes that the painting in the Hermitage uses the same prop sword is not accurate, at least from the example I was able to find which I post below and has a cross shaped guard quite different from the example in the Bol painting, so that does cast some doubt on their description and perhaps on provenance also, though I wouldn't conflate inaccurate descriptions with a lack of documented provenance. However, the scabbard does have some similar features which perhaps may indicate that these were made in a studio perhaps specifically for paintings.

However, the discussion here is about the sword, so the question remains as to what does provenance in a painting have to do with attributing the props used in that painting. I see it two ways.

If it can be established that a 17th C. painting is a copy, or a later forgery, what does that say about the origin of the props, let say a sword or armor or dagger used in the painting. That to me is still an interesting question, depending on when and where the forgery was made. But the more interesting question is the second, at least for those of us interested in cross-cultural movements of artifacts between Europe and Asia in the early modern period (admittedly, maybe a small group ).

If the painting is either by Bol or Rembrandt, and neither origin seems to matter much for our purposes to try to identify "what kind of sword is this" then our initial poster's question is unanswered, though questions about provenance in American museums have been raised.

The attribution to Cochin is interesting but the Rijksmuseum has examples of arms brought back from VOC concessions in that exact region, or otherwise acquired by Cornelis Tromp during the same period of the Bol painting, and those swords look dissimilar to the example in the painting. In fact some interesting work has been done by other forum members at dissecting the Viet sabres in the Rijksmuseum and they're referenced here, basically noting that the blades of those swords were Japanese but were mounted indigenously (nothing new even in Europe at the time considering the Dresden examples referenced earlier).

https://daivietcophong.wordpress.com...ornelis-tromp/

From Aylward, ("The Smallsword in England", 1945, p.57):
"...at the very opposite pole to brass hilts are the most beautiful ones commonly known as 'Tonquinese' . Made originally in the Far East between 1710 and 1750 to the order of the Dutch East India Company, it would seem that the ascription of the work to Tonquinese artists is hardly correct, for while Dampier , for instance, in his 'Voyages', describes all the then manufacturers of Tonquin most closely, he says nothing at all about swords being made there, and it is a historical fact that the Dutch withdrew their factory from Tonquin in 1707. It is most likely that these weapons were first made for the Dutch factory in Pekin, and it is known that, afterwards, the Company brought over some Chinese workmen to Europe, who produced in Amsterdam hilts of similar character which were fitted with blades made in Holland and Solingen".

While this excerpt clearly is from much later than the subject of the painting and sword of our discussion, and is regarding small sword hilts, it does illustrate the presence of the VOC in both Tonkin (North Vietnam) and China in the 17th century as well as the importation of Chinese artisans to Europe.
I would point out here that Cochin, when referred to in Dutch context, seems to refer to the Malabar coast of India, not Viet Nam (indeed normally termed Cochin in the south). The southern or Cochin part of Vietnam was termed 'Quinam' by the Dutch, and was primarily a French concern.

Dutch VOC trading posts were in Hoi An and Pho Hien in northern Viet Nam or Tonkin.

Having noted the Tonkin/Cochin aspects and European use of Chinese artisans brought into Europe, I would like to return to the distinct (in my opinion) Siamese character of the sword in this painting, regardless of artist, which is clearly Dutch and of first half of 17th c.
It seems that the VOC was well established in the Kingdom of Ayuttlaya (Siam) through the 17th c. from about 1608, though trading posts were somewhat intermittently open.

That the aspects of foreign artisans and makers brought into Europe seem to have focused more on fashioning hilts of European style, while applying Oriental or Asian motifs and decorative techniques (such as shakudo or Tonquinese), it seems that the sword in question would more likely be a dha from Siam and as traditionally produced there. As throughout the 17th century, the Dutch sent various embassies to Siam with these trading posts, certainly these weapons may have been obtained either diplomatically or as souveniers by VOC.

I think that the painting, regardless if attributed to Bol or not, is of the Dutch masters style of the first half of the 17th century, and depicts an individual holding what appears to be a Siamese dha in characteristic high relief silvered motif seen traditionally on these type swords. Given the significant presence of the VOC in Siam as noted, and other items brought back to Holland by VOC factors, it seems likely this sword became a prop among others used by Rembrandt and others in his circle using this convention in their work.

A Lan Chang sword via Tonkin/Cochin
 

Although the dating of the painting that is the subject of this thread, and its attribution, may be uncertain, let’s take for now that the mid-17th century C.E. is approximately accurate for its completion. This means that the sword would likely have been made, at the latest, sometime in the first half of the 17th C.

Several people have already commented that the sword and scabbard look Asian, possibly a dha/daab from mainland SE Asia. The sword bears no resemblance to Burmese dha of that period, so I will focus on Siam (now Thailand) and areas north and east.

I have blown up part of the original picture to show just the sword, and further enlarged its hilt and the throat area of the scabbard to get some clues about its origin (see attached images). The first thing to notice about the fittings is that they appear to be gold, or perhaps a gold wash over silver; they might also be a copper alloy, notably samrit, (gold-copper alloy), brass or bronze. If gold or silver were used on the fittings then this would signify a high quality piece for someone of distinction.

It is unfortunate that we do not see the blade itself in this painting, which would have been informative, but the shape of the scabbard indicates that it was curved and probably of a general saber form. The ratio of the length of the handle to the presumed length of the blade (assuming the blade extended to within an inch or so of the end of the scabbard) is roughly 0.26. This ratio is unusually low for many dha/daab, especially those from Thailand at that time (the Ayutthaya period) when the ratio of the hilt:blade length was usually greater than 0.3. I have included some examples of Ayutthaya period daab (Figure 1A,B) as well as an early Rattanakosin daab (Figure 1C) made in the older Ayutthaya style. In addition to being longer, the Ayutthaya hilts are quite different from the one seen in the painting.

A Brief History of Ayutthaya in the 17th Century and Its Relations with European Countries

Ayutthaya was a major city in the first part of the 17th C, and had sections of the city that it ceded to foreigners, including the Portuguese (who had a longstanding relationship since 1511 with the Siamese royal family for whom they worked as mercenaries as well as traders), the Dutch (a treaty from 1592), the Japanese, and the French and British. Because we are dealing with a Dutch artist’s work, I will focus on the involvement of Holland in the early 17th C.

Quote:

From http://www.ayutthaya-history.com/Settlements_Dutch.html

Of some possible interest, also, is the existence of a Japanese community in Ayutthaya during the early 17th C.

Quote:

From: http://www.ayutthaya-history.com/Set..._Japanese.html The Japanese settlement was situated on the east bank of the Chao Phraya River in an area called Ko Rian. It was located opposite the Portuguese settlement and was separated from the English and Dutch settlement by the Suan Phlu Canal to the north. The Japanese village ran one km along the river, and extended about half a kilometer inland. The settlement was surrounded by canals on the three sides. Its population numbered at the peak of the Siamese-Japanese trade in the first part of the 17th century around 1,500. Trade export consisted of sappan wood, used as dye, lead, tin, forest products and deer hides, used by Japanese warriors to make coats, gloves and firearm cases.

Thus, we have some mention of a Japanese presence in Ayutthaya around the same time as this sword was likely produced. I know of only one example of a Japanese-influenced daab from the Ayutthaya period and it resides in the National Museum, Bangkok (see discussion here: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002442.html ).

If not Siam, then where?

In looking at other mainland SE Asian possibilities, we have Chiang Mai to the north of Siam, Laos to the northeast, and Cambodia to the east. These areas were not highly frequented by the Dutch or other Europeans in the early 17th C. It would fall mainly to the French to open these up to European trade, and they were rather late to the scene, arriving with a significant presence in Siam in the late 17th C. and involved with neighboring countries subsequently (therefore after the time of interest with respect to our mystery sword).

The Siamese were engaged in intermittent wars with Chiang Mai in the early 17th C., so for a European in Ayutthaya to acquire a sword from that region seems unlikely. Siam did have trade arrangements with Laos and Cambodia at the time, but I have not been able to determine if Europeans were also involved.

Nevertheless, it’s worth looking at a sword that I have that dates from the early 18th C. (Figure 3; hilt:blade ratio = 0.33). It is from the Lan Chang period, and I am indebted to an English dealer for the following information about this sword.

Quote:

The sword is … from Laos and it is very old. It is from Lan Chang (Lan Xang) or The Lao Kingdom of Lan Xang Hom Khao. Its date would be 18th C, and the early part to middle 18th C as Lan Chang did not exist after c 1717, although the sword style did carry on after that date and the samrit bronze fittings were replaced as the style evolved into the more flamboyant hilts and scabbard fittings in repousse silver that often had velvet-wrapped scabbards … [as] seen on many swords from Laos onward into the 19th C and early 20th C. They are still being made today in this style in Laos and … in northern Thailand I have been offered modern ones but the blades are of no quality. The style is not Thai, and although are often thought to be, they are all from Laos in Lan Chang style, including the silver repousse ones in the BKK museum which are actually marked Lan Chang in Thai in the museum. Many of those types that come around for sale have the guards missing and … this guard type is a Chinese influence as many were made by migrant smiths from China and were often removed for comfort. …

Imitation of the Lan Chang style had somewhat of a revival in the 19th C. A number of these swords can be seen in the National Museum in Bangkok (see here for prior discussion: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002442.html ). These swords were designated Lan Chang by the museum, and appear to have been meant for nobility and as a sign of prestige. There are also examples of similar swords from the 19th C. Rattanakosin period that reflect a Japanese influence, with imitations of the tsuba and habaki, but these are found 200 years after the sword of this topic.

What can the hilt of the sword in the portrait tell us?

A distinguishing feature of this hilt is the small disc guard. A comment from my English contact may be helpful, “this guard type is a Chinese influence as many [of these swords] were made by migrant smiths from China and were often removed for comfort.” Dha/daab typically have no guard, and the presence of such a disc guard on dha/daab appears to reflect Chinese influence.

The cross-section of the hilt may also be relevant. Most dha/daab have circular cross-sections. The hilt on my Lan Chang daab is not circular, but elliptical, with the sides quit flat. This is unusual for mainland SE Asian swords. However, the sword in the painting appears to have a cylindrical hilt, although it is hard to say for sure.

Lastly is the handle itself. It may be metal over wood or it could be solid cast metal—there is really no way to tell from the pictures. What is apparent, however, is that the section of the hilt adjacent to the guard does not flare out into a bell shape as seen in the Ayutthaya swords (Figure 1), and to a lesser degree on my Lan Chang sword (Figure 3).

What can the scabbard tell us?

This scabbard presents some mysteries. Part of it appears to be wrapped in velvet, which is unusual for mainland SE Asian swords of the 17th C., while the throat has an extensive metal embellishment that shows a criss-crossed, lattice pattern. That same pattern can be generated by a series of overlapping diamond designs, and such a pattern seems to reflect Chinese influence again. This overlapping diamond design can be seen on the scabbard of a 19th C. sword thought to be from Yunnan/Northern Thailand (Figure 2B). Interestingly, it can also be seen on the hilt of my 18th C. Lan Chang sword (Figure 3).

To further add to the Chinese influence in this sword, the suspension system for the scabbard is not typical of mainland SE Asia, where the sword is usually worn suspended from a cord baldric wrapped around the upper scabbard. The painting shows a metal chain passing through two eyelets on the upper scabbard. The arrangement suggests that the sword was worn with the edge of the blade upward—an odd configuration in SE Asia—although this might reflect an alteration of the original scabbard configuration on the part of the artist, in order to balance the picture better.

Summing up

The appearance of this sword is most consistent with a 17th C. Lan Chang daab from what is now Laos. Against this identification are two main anomalies: (1) the hilt is short for the apparent length of the blade, and (2) the suspension system on the scabbard is highly atypical. In addition, we see Chinese influence in the presence of a small disc guard and in the metal decorations on the scabbard.

So where would a Dutch merchant have found such a sword? Ayutthaya is a possibility. However, the Dutch also had trade relations with Tonkin/Cochin China, which share a considerable length of border with the Kingdom of Lan Chang. Tonkin/Cochin had major trading centers, with trading partners as far as the western coast of India (Kerala and the Malabar coast).

I think it is more likely that this sword was obtained in a major trading center such as found in Tonkin/Cochin, rather than a much smaller trading center such as Ayutthaya.

---------------Attachments----------------

Detailed views of sword in the painting by Ferdinand Bol. The hilt guard and scabbard decorations are highlighted.

Figure 1. A,B swords of Ayutthaya period. C. A sword from the early Rattanokosin period, in the earlier Ayutthaya atyle.

Figure 2. Two swords attributed to Yunnan. A. Northern Burma/Yunnan. B. Northern Thailand/Yunnan (note scabbard decoration). Both swords have small guards and cylindrical hilts.

Figure 3. An early 18th C. sword, with detail of hilt, from the Lan Chang period (Laos).

.

Ian, ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!!!
This is the finest investigative dissertation I have seen on the study of a specific sword depicted in a work of art! The late AVB (Nick) Norman would be proud, as this was the focus of his venerable work "The Rapier and Smallsword", the study of sword hilts in art.

Thank you for this great work,

With highest respect,
Jim

I too would certainly second the previous remark and I would say this is one of the finest examples of why this is the best place to truly delve into some of the more interesting problems that arise when trying to identify arms of interesting and indeterminate origin.

Great stuff!

Best
LL

Thanks to Jim and LL for the kind words. I'm sorry my research took a few days longer than I originally intended. Cross-checking sources takes some time. Ian

It was most certainly worth waiting for, and your responsible approach to providing this insightful look into this is exemplary. Thank you again.

Very well done Ian! :) :cool:

Ian,

That is a fine and well supported assessment of influence for the sword within the painting, a painting created with much artistic licence I feel...the suspension and suspension points being one such artistic aspect.

Gavin

I forgot to add, this Thai sword from the Ayuddhaya period is more akin to the type you are searching for, right down to the motifs on the silver work, 3 segment scabbard covering, small disc guard and the short hilt.

Gavin