Yi saber

dennee · 14th June 2007, 03:51 PM

Regarding Jim's point about distinctions between Bhutanese and Tibetan swords, it is often regarded as a convention, but I believe it to be more than conventional. Bhutanese swords generally have the "gubor" pommel and essentially no guard, their grips are typically of shagreen or braided wire or frog skin, they are shorter on average than are Tibetan zhibeidao but their blades at least as thick and as a consequence, have a more pronounced distal taper of the back of the blade. On average, the blade quality is probably better in extant examples, as there is a very wide range of qualities among Tibetan swords. Bhutanese swords were apparently sought after in Tibet (thus a Tibetan provenance would not be unusual--I have seen a couple in monasteries), and their quality was remarked upon by a couple of early twentieth-century Western observers. Historical photographs of Bhutanese show many of these swords (although their details are often obscured by the "modern" method of vertical suspension from a belt and just back of the right hip, one reason, I would think, for the persistence of the shorter form). The Bhutanese certainly consider these their national sword (see Phuntsho Rapten's paper online).

Dealers' or collectors' attributions to "Tibet or Bhutan" is probably indicative of a creditable reticence to seem certain when we are not certain, but it is based on the fact that so few swords have sound provenances. But to turn around a question like "why would we attribute one form to one place and another to another?" I would suggest that we would have a greater burden explaining the persistence of a distinct form if it were not largely related to geography and local culture. Sure, one could imagine that there would be a demand for shorter swords among those who had to carry them all the time and were perhaps not usually mounted, for instance. Thus, why couldn't a "Bhutanese" sword persist next to a "Tibetan" one. That is, I think, born out both by the fact that there are many single-edged Tibetan shortswords (with pointed tips and with the typical "oblique" tip) as well as the fact of importation of Bhutanese weapons (and armor, by the way). But it wouldn't explain all of the distinctively Bhutanese details of scabbards and fittings too.

Philip Tom has pointed out the similarity of Bhutanese swords, including pommels, to Chinese Tang and Song Dynasty pallasches. I'm guessing that the reason is related to the fact that Bhutan was largely settled by Khampas from eastern Tibet in the thirteenth century. As they had lived on the Chinese frontier, they may have brought Song-era sword-making technology largely intact to their new land. Being on the periphery of the Tibetan cultural area, more distant from the main locus of technological and cultural exchange on the Tibetan/Chinese frontier, sword manufacture may have remained quite conservative (one might also make guesses about the terrain of Bhutan versus that of Kham as well as the jungle character of southern Bhutan influencing a preference for shorter swords). "Tibetan" swords, the most prized of which were probably those that continued to be produced in Kham, particularly Derge and the Horpa states, also seem to show a lot of Chinese influence, but largely of the Ming period. The trilobate pommels; the idea of a thong or lanyard attached to the pommel in some fashion; U-frame scabbards, sometimes reinforced with a bar along the length of the flat of the blade (which, it seems, was frequently or eventually abstracted into a mere decorative strip); and the round, iron dished guard form all seem to be elements that do commonly appear on various Chinese and Tibetan swords around that time. So it may be that continued proximity to the Han culture influenced more rapid change among the cousins of the Bhutanese still in Kham. It's rather like language or many other traits in a culture that tend to change more rapidly in the populous "core" and more slowly on the periphery.

Where I imagine that typically Bhutanese and Tibetan forms overlap is likely in knives. There are certainly a number of modern knives of essentially the Bhutanese hilt form but without a distinct pommel, merely a rounded wood grip. These seem like a rather comfortable form for a working knife and may bleed over national boundaries.

14th June 2007, 03:51 PM	#9
dennee Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: College Park, MD Posts: 186	Regarding Jim's point about distinctions between Bhutanese and Tibetan swords, it is often regarded as a convention, but I believe it to be more than conventional. Bhutanese swords generally have the "gubor" pommel and essentially no guard, their grips are typically of shagreen or braided wire or frog skin, they are shorter on average than are Tibetan zhibeidao but their blades at least as thick and as a consequence, have a more pronounced distal taper of the back of the blade. On average, the blade quality is probably better in extant examples, as there is a very wide range of qualities among Tibetan swords. Bhutanese swords were apparently sought after in Tibet (thus a Tibetan provenance would not be unusual--I have seen a couple in monasteries), and their quality was remarked upon by a couple of early twentieth-century Western observers. Historical photographs of Bhutanese show many of these swords (although their details are often obscured by the "modern" method of vertical suspension from a belt and just back of the right hip, one reason, I would think, for the persistence of the shorter form). The Bhutanese certainly consider these their national sword (see Phuntsho Rapten's paper online). Dealers' or collectors' attributions to "Tibet or Bhutan" is probably indicative of a creditable reticence to seem certain when we are not certain, but it is based on the fact that so few swords have sound provenances. But to turn around a question like "why would we attribute one form to one place and another to another?" I would suggest that we would have a greater burden explaining the persistence of a distinct form if it were not largely related to geography and local culture. Sure, one could imagine that there would be a demand for shorter swords among those who had to carry them all the time and were perhaps not usually mounted, for instance. Thus, why couldn't a "Bhutanese" sword persist next to a "Tibetan" one. That is, I think, born out both by the fact that there are many single-edged Tibetan shortswords (with pointed tips and with the typical "oblique" tip) as well as the fact of importation of Bhutanese weapons (and armor, by the way). But it wouldn't explain all of the distinctively Bhutanese details of scabbards and fittings too. Philip Tom has pointed out the similarity of Bhutanese swords, including pommels, to Chinese Tang and Song Dynasty pallasches. I'm guessing that the reason is related to the fact that Bhutan was largely settled by Khampas from eastern Tibet in the thirteenth century. As they had lived on the Chinese frontier, they may have brought Song-era sword-making technology largely intact to their new land. Being on the periphery of the Tibetan cultural area, more distant from the main locus of technological and cultural exchange on the Tibetan/Chinese frontier, sword manufacture may have remained quite conservative (one might also make guesses about the terrain of Bhutan versus that of Kham as well as the jungle character of southern Bhutan influencing a preference for shorter swords). "Tibetan" swords, the most prized of which were probably those that continued to be produced in Kham, particularly Derge and the Horpa states, also seem to show a lot of Chinese influence, but largely of the Ming period. The trilobate pommels; the idea of a thong or lanyard attached to the pommel in some fashion; U-frame scabbards, sometimes reinforced with a bar along the length of the flat of the blade (which, it seems, was frequently or eventually abstracted into a mere decorative strip); and the round, iron dished guard form all seem to be elements that do commonly appear on various Chinese and Tibetan swords around that time. So it may be that continued proximity to the Han culture influenced more rapid change among the cousins of the Bhutanese still in Kham. It's rather like language or many other traits in a culture that tend to change more rapidly in the populous "core" and more slowly on the periphery. Where I imagine that typically Bhutanese and Tibetan forms overlap is likely in knives. There are certainly a number of modern knives of essentially the Bhutanese hilt form but without a distinct pommel, merely a rounded wood grip. These seem like a rather comfortable form for a working knife and may bleed over national boundaries.