![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]() Quote:
Spiral |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,413
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]() Quote:
Hi Ian I am not offended. ![]() 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. ![]() 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. ![]() spiral Last edited by spiral; 17th September 2014 at 11:34 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 88
|
![]()
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.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]() Quote:
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 Last edited by spiral; 19th September 2014 at 08:37 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 88
|
![]()
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. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,712
|
![]() Quote:
spiral |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|