Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

dennee · 29th July 2006, 03:44 PM

Ian is, of course, correct. The bottom one is Naga as suggested by the longer haft and its consistent section--usually round, sometimes rounded square, etc., but while the Naga haft may taper, there is usually no pronounced flare or distinct pommel--except for on some Kalyo-Kengyu and Chang almost-all-steel examples. Naga hafts are usually longer than the blade or head, although there are later examples in which the reverse is true. Naga hafts may be decorated with dyed goat hair, but they usually don't have a distinct, wrapped grip as do the Kachin type (although one of the photos in Jacobs's book shows a Naga dao haft with a pair of plaited rings at the grip). Naga daos simply have a rattan wrapping to hold the haft around the base/tang of the blade. I have sometimes thought that while the Kachin/Khamti type might rightly be called "dao" ("sword"), perhaps we should refer to Naga edged weapons as simply axes because of the differences between them. Lew's Naga example is perhaps the closest in form to the Kachin/Khamti type and yet there are all the differences cited above as well as in the blade shape. The latter has a pronounced concave back to the blade and more or less straight edge and the former typically has curved edge and spine (and often a raised bead near and parallel to the spine on the same side of the blade as the ground edge). And while both are clearly chopping weapons, Lew's Naga weapon really shows that these were both weapons and, even more important, tools. There are a lot that have clearly been used a great deal and re-sharpened. I have seen the Kachin/Khamti type with dings in the blade, but I haven't seen one with such signs of use, suggesting that some of these, at least, were closer to pure weapons and status symbols (as might be suggested by the more fragile ivory pieces on some), at least within, say, the past century and a half. Of course, Naga blades are deeper to begin with, with the edge representing a smaller proportion of the depth of the blade. The chisel-ground edge of the Kachin dao, while it varies somewhat from blade to blade and within the length of a single blade, can be nearly half the width (or depth) of the blade, but is generally about a full third.

Sorry, I am trying to really qualify all my statements because of the many variations and undoubtedly changes over time--and because of the severe limits of my knowledge and observations.

29th July 2006, 03:44 PM	#8
dennee Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: College Park, MD Posts: 186	Ian is, of course, correct. The bottom one is Naga as suggested by the longer haft and its consistent section--usually round, sometimes rounded square, etc., but while the Naga haft may taper, there is usually no pronounced flare or distinct pommel--except for on some Kalyo-Kengyu and Chang almost-all-steel examples. Naga hafts are usually longer than the blade or head, although there are later examples in which the reverse is true. Naga hafts may be decorated with dyed goat hair, but they usually don't have a distinct, wrapped grip as do the Kachin type (although one of the photos in Jacobs's book shows a Naga dao haft with a pair of plaited rings at the grip). Naga daos simply have a rattan wrapping to hold the haft around the base/tang of the blade. I have sometimes thought that while the Kachin/Khamti type might rightly be called "dao" ("sword"), perhaps we should refer to Naga edged weapons as simply axes because of the differences between them. Lew's Naga example is perhaps the closest in form to the Kachin/Khamti type and yet there are all the differences cited above as well as in the blade shape. The latter has a pronounced concave back to the blade and more or less straight edge and the former typically has curved edge and spine (and often a raised bead near and parallel to the spine on the same side of the blade as the ground edge). And while both are clearly chopping weapons, Lew's Naga weapon really shows that these were both weapons and, even more important, tools. There are a lot that have clearly been used a great deal and re-sharpened. I have seen the Kachin/Khamti type with dings in the blade, but I haven't seen one with such signs of use, suggesting that some of these, at least, were closer to pure weapons and status symbols (as might be suggested by the more fragile ivory pieces on some), at least within, say, the past century and a half. Of course, Naga blades are deeper to begin with, with the edge representing a smaller proportion of the depth of the blade. The chisel-ground edge of the Kachin dao, while it varies somewhat from blade to blade and within the length of a single blade, can be nearly half the width (or depth) of the blade, but is generally about a full third. Sorry, I am trying to really qualify all my statements because of the many variations and undoubtedly changes over time--and because of the severe limits of my knowledge and observations.