15thC Burmese Sword

B.I · 17th April 2006, 06:06 PM

hi mark,
the warrior infantry at the front seem to be wearing a kind of armour cuirass, with a round plate at the front. the overall look is of a solid piece, as apposed to sewn onto fabric/leather (a common feature in mny cultures, inc ottoman and indian). is this the case? is there much info on early armour of this period?
also, a strange question, which i hope will not be taken the wrong way, but what religion were they? i definately dont want to steer this towards religion, but it has been summised that india never used body armour until the influence of islam, which i am not altogether convinced of. its an easy assumption, given the lack of 'factual' iconic evidence, with early hindu sculpture being leant too often towards mythology (and so mostly naked).

please answer quick in case i've sidetracked this into non-forum policy territory.

Mark · 18th April 2006, 06:46 PM

I think those are actually shields. Both a square shield and a round buckler were used at least by the Thai and the Burmese, and I think these guys are supposed to be Siamese troops. These shield look like both, but I am guessing they are supposed to be square shields with a round decoration on them.

The dominant religion in the Khmer Empire up to this period was Vaishnavite Hinduism, but Buddhism was gaining ground. Among the Burmese and Tai (including the Siamese), Buddhism was the religion that replace animism. In terms of material culture, there was an overwhelming Indian influence throughout the region, which in fact are referred to as the "Indianized" cultures of SEA, in distinction to the "Sinocised" culture of most of Vietnam.

Armor was little used in continental SEA. When used, it was most commonly just a padded jacket or leather brigandine. Higher-ranked people did wear mail or semi-plate armor in Indian styles. It looks like the cavalry guys in the Angkor relief are wearing either decorated cloth coats, or brigandine.

You have the same problem with SEA art as you have with Indian art -- it is overwhelmingly depicting religious themes, and so is both highly stylized and standardized. It is hard to discover historical or regional clues in the art, because the same styles were strongly maintained across time and region. Interestingly, it is mostly in the depiction of the "bad guys," like the army of Mara and these two ceramic raksha that started the thread, that you see more freedom of style and often recognizable ethnic and national dfress and weaponry. One that comes to mind is the inclusion in a Thai fresco of a Dutch soldier with plumed hat, long coat, and musket, among the demonic hordes attempting to stop Gautama's enlightenment.

Mark · 7th July 2006, 11:33 PM

B.I. - Did you take those photos of the tile yourself? In which museum are they?

On re-reading this thread, I realized that the King and temple were Peguan, and not Burmese. It is a distinction that isn't as important now, but historically Pegu in lower Burma had a quite distinct culture, and for many years was a completely separate kingdom from that of Pagan/Ava in the north. The Peguans were/are Mon, related to the Khmer, and not Mramma (Burman, a Tibeto-Burman people). I have been wondering if there is a stylistic and/or developmental distinction between dha of lower Burma - Mon dha - and dha of upper Burma - Mramma (Burman) dha. This tile might be a good clue.

Ian · 8th July 2006, 06:51 AM

Thanks Mark. I thought there was something "Cambodian" about these swords. The Mon linkage may account for the similarity to Cambodian blades of the same period.

So many small steps on the long march to find the source(s) of dha.

Ian.

B.I · 8th July 2006, 06:07 PM

hi mark,
yes, i did take the images and the pieces are in the victoria and albert museum. i do know the 'india' people there, but have no idea who oversees the tibetan or burmese departments, so i cannot judge the level of expertese.
from the accession records, these were aquired in 1966 by the museum.

Mark · 9th July 2006, 12:51 AM

1966? Interesting. I wonder how much of the original temple is still there? Another item on my list of things to go see if I ever can get to Myanmar.

The V&A (and Leeds) are definitely places I need to visit, and their curators are people to whom I need to ingratiate myself.

Thanks for the further info.

Titus Pullo · 14th July 2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

B.I. - Did you take those photos of the tile yourself? In which museum are they?

On re-reading this thread, I realized that the King and temple were Peguan, and not Burmese. It is a distinction that isn't as important now, but historically Pegu in lower Burma had a quite distinct culture, and for many years was a completely separate kingdom from that of Pagan/Ava in the north. The Peguans were/are Mon, related to the Khmer, and not Mramma (Burman, a Tibeto-Burman people). I have been wondering if there is a stylistic and/or developmental distinction between dha of lower Burma - Mon dha - and dha of upper Burma - Mramma (Burman) dha. This tile might be a good clue.

I think maybe the Mon Dha is very similar to Thai daab/dha since the Thai fencing technique was influence by the Mon style, ending in one lethal blow where the fighters try to decapitate each other if possible.

Ian · 23rd July 2006, 12:35 AM

Compare the pictures here of what I think is a Thai darb (perhaps PUFF might confirm the blade inscription as Thai) with the rear horsemen's swords in the picture of the bas relief above that Mark B. posted.

This sword is interesting in that it is quite long, consistent with many cavalry swords, widens a little towards the tip, and the tip turns up slightly on what is otherwise a fairly straight blade. The hilt is a three-part construction and of oval rather than circular cross section. A sturdy iron ferrule adorns each end of the wooden handle, and there are iron plates covering the ends of the hilt, each secured by two nails.

There are engravings on the blade, with an inscription at forte that may be a person's name (help needed with translation please).

Based on the swords shown in the bas relief, this style seems to be quite old, perhaps dating to the 13th C or earlier.

Overall length = 88 cm
Length of blade = 58 cm
Length of hilt = 30 cm

Ian.

Titus Pullo · 23rd July 2006, 07:04 AM

I reconize the writing on the sword. It would appear the first two inscriptions are Thai alphabets, and the latters are Thai numerical symbols. Thai and Camobodian use the same numerical symbols if I'm not mistaken. The first alphabet looks like a W and the second one looks like an "h" that written backward with a tail on top. I'm not sure if this has any influence from the Romans, but I don't think so since Thai alphabets is based on Khmer and Mon alphabets, which in turn is influenced by Sankrit from India, I believe. Fascinating!

PUFF · 23rd July 2006, 11:28 AM

The blade shape might be old in design, But the inscription 's BE 2493 (Buddhist Era), which is AD 1950.

http://www.omniglot.com/writing/thai.htm (translation for Thai alphabets and numbers)

พ.ศ. or พ.ส. 's translated to BE (please enable Thai encoding in your page)

The final hint 's two masonary nails on the butt cap. The round head nail with hatch "#" on it 's considered modern, which 's consistant with the inscription.

8th July 2006, 06:51 AM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Good info Mark Thanks Mark. I thought there was something "Cambodian" about these swords. The Mon linkage may account for the similarity to Cambodian blades of the same period. So many small steps on the long march to find the source(s) of dha. Ian.

23rd July 2006, 12:35 AM	#8
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Old Thai Cavalry Sword ??? Compare the pictures here of what I think is a Thai darb (perhaps PUFF might confirm the blade inscription as Thai) with the rear horsemen's swords in the picture of the bas relief above that Mark B. posted. This sword is interesting in that it is quite long, consistent with many cavalry swords, widens a little towards the tip, and the tip turns up slightly on what is otherwise a fairly straight blade. The hilt is a three-part construction and of oval rather than circular cross section. A sturdy iron ferrule adorns each end of the wooden handle, and there are iron plates covering the ends of the hilt, each secured by two nails. There are engravings on the blade, with an inscription at forte that may be a person's name (help needed with translation please). Based on the swords shown in the bas relief, this style seems to be quite old, perhaps dating to the 13th C or earlier. Overall length = 88 cm Length of blade = 58 cm Length of hilt = 30 cm Ian. Last edited by Ian; 23rd July 2006 at 01:07 AM.

17th April 2006, 06:06 PM	#1
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi mark, the warrior infantry at the front seem to be wearing a kind of armour cuirass, with a round plate at the front. the overall look is of a solid piece, as apposed to sewn onto fabric/leather (a common feature in mny cultures, inc ottoman and indian). is this the case? is there much info on early armour of this period? also, a strange question, which i hope will not be taken the wrong way, but what religion were they? i definately dont want to steer this towards religion, but it has been summised that india never used body armour until the influence of islam, which i am not altogether convinced of. its an easy assumption, given the lack of 'factual' iconic evidence, with early hindu sculpture being leant too often towards mythology (and so mostly naked). please answer quick in case i've sidetracked this into non-forum policy territory.

18th April 2006, 06:46 PM	#2
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	I think those are actually shields. Both a square shield and a round buckler were used at least by the Thai and the Burmese, and I think these guys are supposed to be Siamese troops. These shield look like both, but I am guessing they are supposed to be square shields with a round decoration on them. The dominant religion in the Khmer Empire up to this period was Vaishnavite Hinduism, but Buddhism was gaining ground. Among the Burmese and Tai (including the Siamese), Buddhism was the religion that replace animism. In terms of material culture, there was an overwhelming Indian influence throughout the region, which in fact are referred to as the "Indianized" cultures of SEA, in distinction to the "Sinocised" culture of most of Vietnam. Armor was little used in continental SEA. When used, it was most commonly just a padded jacket or leather brigandine. Higher-ranked people did wear mail or semi-plate armor in Indian styles. It looks like the cavalry guys in the Angkor relief are wearing either decorated cloth coats, or brigandine. You have the same problem with SEA art as you have with Indian art -- it is overwhelmingly depicting religious themes, and so is both highly stylized and standardized. It is hard to discover historical or regional clues in the art, because the same styles were strongly maintained across time and region. Interestingly, it is mostly in the depiction of the "bad guys," like the army of Mara and these two ceramic raksha that started the thread, that you see more freedom of style and often recognizable ethnic and national dfress and weaponry. One that comes to mind is the inclusion in a Thai fresco of a Dutch soldier with plumed hat, long coat, and musket, among the demonic hordes attempting to stop Gautama's enlightenment.

7th July 2006, 11:33 PM	#3
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	B.I. - Did you take those photos of the tile yourself? In which museum are they? On re-reading this thread, I realized that the King and temple were Peguan, and not Burmese. It is a distinction that isn't as important now, but historically Pegu in lower Burma had a quite distinct culture, and for many years was a completely separate kingdom from that of Pagan/Ava in the north. The Peguans were/are Mon, related to the Khmer, and not Mramma (Burman, a Tibeto-Burman people). I have been wondering if there is a stylistic and/or developmental distinction between dha of lower Burma - Mon dha - and dha of upper Burma - Mramma (Burman) dha. This tile might be a good clue.

8th July 2006, 06:07 PM	#5
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	hi mark, yes, i did take the images and the pieces are in the victoria and albert museum. i do know the 'india' people there, but have no idea who oversees the tibetan or burmese departments, so i cannot judge the level of expertese. from the accession records, these were aquired in 1966 by the museum.

9th July 2006, 12:51 AM	#6
Mark Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 987	1966? Interesting. I wonder how much of the original temple is still there? Another item on my list of things to go see if I ever can get to Myanmar. The V&A (and Leeds) are definitely places I need to visit, and their curators are people to whom I need to ingratiate myself. Thanks for the further info.

23rd July 2006, 07:04 AM	#9
Titus Pullo Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 123	I reconize the writing on the sword. It would appear the first two inscriptions are Thai alphabets, and the latters are Thai numerical symbols. Thai and Camobodian use the same numerical symbols if I'm not mistaken. The first alphabet looks like a W and the second one looks like an "h" that written backward with a tail on top. I'm not sure if this has any influence from the Romans, but I don't think so since Thai alphabets is based on Khmer and Mon alphabets, which in turn is influenced by Sankrit from India, I believe. Fascinating!

23rd July 2006, 11:28 AM	#10
PUFF Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 30 miles north of Bangkok, 20 miles south of Ayuthaya, Thailand Posts: 224	The blade shape might be old in design, But the inscription 's BE 2493 (Buddhist Era), which is AD 1950. http://www.omniglot.com/writing/thai.htm (translation for Thai alphabets and numbers) พ.ศ. or พ.ส. 's translated to BE (please enable Thai encoding in your page) The final hint 's two masonary nails on the butt cap. The round head nail with hatch "#" on it 's considered modern, which 's consistant with the inscription.