What kind of sword is this?

[ArmsAndAntiques]

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/

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[Ian]

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.

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

In 1601, Jacob Corneliszoon van Neck arrived with the ships "Amsterdam" and "Gouda" as first Dutchman in Patani in order to buy pepper and other merchandise. In December 1602 another two ships of the Old East-India Company came. In the same year two "comptoirs" were set up, an Amsterdam and a Zeeland. In Songkhla (called Sangora at that time) a "comptoir" was set up in 1607. The important trading posts of Patani and Songkhla, in the south of Siam at the east coast, were left around 1623, when Governor-General Jan Pieterszoon Coen tried to concentrate all trade at Batavia. goods such as porcelain and silk were ready available. In 1608 King Ekathotsarot allowed the company to establish their first trading post in his capital and Siamese ambassadors were sent to Holland and were received in audience by Prince Maurice of the Netherlands. Lambert Jacosz Heijn set up a VOC (Verenigde Oost-indische Compagnie) settlement in Ayutthaya the same year.

Following the Siamese embassy of 1608, a treaty was concluded between Holland and Siam in 1617. The trade post was temporarily closed in 1622 because trade was not profitable. In 1624 the trading post was set up again because Batavia was fearful that the Dutch position in Siam would be lost. It closed again in 1629.

Several Dutch vessels were dispatched to Siam in 1630 and 1632 to assist King Prasat Thong against the Portuguese and Cambodians. Batavia decided in 1633 to make a greater trade investment in Siam as Japan lifted the ban on foreign trade. Siam exports such as deer hides, ray skins and sappan wood, could improve largely the trade with Japan in return for silver and copper.

In April 1633 the Chief-of-Mission Joost Schouten was instructed to build a permanent trading post at Ayutthaya. The Dutch received land and a permission to construct. One year later in 1634, a two-storey brick building enclosed by a stockade, in total costing over 10,000 guilders, was ready. The building was called "de logie" or in English "the lodge" (locally called Tuek Daeng, the red building ). The lodge was a kind of special because it was a stone construction, which gave it a "high-status" as in Ayutthaya only the monasteries and palaces were made of stone. The expenses to build the lodge were very high for that period, estimated at a value of approximately US$750,000 in present times. The company's operations were moved from the temporary site in Ayutthaya to the new compound south of the city.

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

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.

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. …

The hilt of your sword has been reattached at some time and set upside down, this may have been done long ago in the native country or later after collection; when made it would have curved with the shape of the blade in one gentle curve.

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).

.

[Jim McDougall]

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

[ArmsAndAntiques]

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

[Ian]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

[Sajen]

Very well done Ian!

[Gavin Nugent]

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

[Gavin Nugent]

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

[Ian]

Gavin:

That's an interesting sword. The hilt is in the Ayutthaya style, but the hilt:blade ratio is still greater than 0.3 by my measurements of the pic. It's interesting to see the lattice design also on this Siamese sword. That design does not appear in any of my references of Thai silverware, so it seems that this Chinese form may have been quite widely used.

The hilt of our mystery sword is obviously not from Ayutthaya, but there are similarities in the scabbard to the sword you show.

Ian

[ausjulius]

Originally Posted by Mercenary

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

there was in this time large numbers of both europeans and japanee living in both burma and various kingdoms in thailand and there is dah from this time with japanese style fittings. tsuba. ect a. also japanese produced quantities for export of blades sold in south east asia and china.
additionally the japanese made court sword handles for sale to the dutch. mostly of copper or silver but with japanese style decorations.
i believe there was even chinese made handles sold in poland/lithuanian in the 16th century.

the whole "samurai sword" thing in south east asia well predates ww2.. there is examples of 16th century swords used in the philipines . thailand and java with japanese blades.
europeans were no different .. if something looks interesting people will buy it and use it .. just like the sri lankan kastane swords taken to europe in that time.

[Jim McDougall]

Well noted Ausjulius,
The sword hilts fashioned in Japanese style in those alloys were termed 'shakudo' as described in Aylward (1945). I do believe that Chinese craftsmen were also brought into Polish workshops, I think Lvov, but need to find the reference (perhaps Ostrolski). Absolutely right, the European fascination with weapons exotica was prevalent in 17th and 18th centuries via the trade networks of the East Indies companies.

[Gavin Nugent]

An image worth noting in this link;

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...39&postcount=4

Most swords were kept within the Royal House so perhaps by design it could predate the ruler... artist licence or a good effort as showing what it was in the day???

Gavin