two jian shaped dao

[fearn]

I find these interesting, because when you look at Chinese weapons, the categories are well, kind of goofy and confining. Not quite as rigid as in modern Japanese swords, but you get the point.

Actually, the real point to me is that modern swords are not made for war. They're made for art's sake. They're not made for chopping up firewood, fighting in a tight alley, or what have you.

These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow, as opposed to the formalized weapons of wushu and their modern "combat steel" kin.

Great pieces.

Best,

F

[ariel]

Fearn:

"These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow"


And how do we know that? And, what difference does it make for our understanding of Chinese weapons? And let imagine a Khyber with a bent blade, how would it affect our understanding of Afghani martial arts or warfare, beyond saying " Hmmm, peculiar"? Y. Miller, in his book about Caucasian arms in the Hermitage, shows a khanda blade attached to a Georgian handle. How does it expand our understanding of the Caucasian martial tradition, besides accepting the fact that a khanda blade managed to find its way to the Caucasus?
I am not against posting it or liking it. But glaring exceptions are not informative. There are plenty of Frankenswords. They are curious, but not a "teachable moment". I just disagree that these examples prove "how much more there is to know about Chinese weaponry" .

[Neil]

In my anthropological studies in college I learned that the conclusions we draw on a subject of study are fluid relative to the process of gathering information over time. What may seem anomalous today could be the beginning of a trend that appears as time goes on. I personally have yet to read any extensive scholarship on these cruder pieces of Chinese weaponry from the 18th and 19th centuries. I think seeing pieces like these are exciting and believe every one available is valuable to broaden our perspective on the subject.

In regards to the following.
____________________________________
Fearn:

"These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow"


And how do we know that? And, what difference does it make for our understanding of Chinese weapons?

____________________________________


I too wish we had more information on who made these swords, who owned them, and in what context were they used. Certainly knowing these things is fundamental to any depth of knowledge of Chinese weapons. We have the old weapons in the present, but it seems their stories are still in the past, or maybe just overseas and spoken in Chinese. The best I have been able to do is scour the internet for information depots like this and read what little information there is available in English and draw my own conclusions. I have had a lot of personal insights through practicing my Chinese martial arts with my collection as well. I am enjoying the journey quit a bit.

[josh stout]

Originally Posted by ariel

....I am not against posting it or liking it. But glaring exceptions are not informative. There are plenty of Frankenswords. They are curious, but not a "teachable moment". I just disagree that these examples prove "how much more there is to know about Chinese weaponry" .

I originally posted these dao as examples of a type, not as curiosities. I understand that China is huge and thus even strange forms can often be seen more than once, but these belong to a fairly common type that has not been discussed. I have six in my collection, and have seen several more. They appear to be found largely in northern regions and have substantial age, most likely dating from the 18th century. In general they are very similar to the jian from the same apparent region and period and almost as common. Once they are recognized as a particular type, they appear to be found in roughly equal numbers to jian of the same type. They also share with the similar jian, the same balance, weight and feel, as well as similarities in construction and workmanship.

I wish I knew more about these dao, but other than recognizing them as a distinct and relatively common form, I know almost nothing. There are exceptions in form as with all Chinese weapons, making definitions problematic as usual. Some have wider blades, and function more like choppers, I have seen several with curved blades, and also several with blades very similar in shape to Tibetan blades. One apparently Tibetan influenced example from Qinghai province in my collection, has hairpin construction in the manner typical of Eastern Tibet but with a jian shaped dao form, including the clipped tip. I suspect that, like Tibetan sabers, these dao owe their form to the straight dao of the Tang dynasty and earlier. The clipped tip may be a later addition to the form, or may have been influenced by the small hooked tip found on some early sabers.
Josh