What kind of sword is this?
 

1635-40

I would say a dha

a dha too
and behind an Indian bow with quiver?

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

I doubt it is a Japanese tachi. Wrong type of mounts, fittings and hanger.

Rich

At this time Japan was cut off from the western world but South East Asia was in contact with the Dutch, Portuguese, and English. It looks like a Dha to me too.

I am not sure of the title and origin of this painting, but it certainly appears of the Dutch masters schools and in accord with the period.
This is most certainly a dha, and by the squared chape style probably Burmese or Thai but these regions at that time were of course under different national headings.

It is interesting just how prevalent 'globalization ' was in these times, and Rembrandt was known for having quite a collection of arms and armour, often 'exotica' from these areas in the Dutch trade of the East Indies.
SE Asia, in particular Viet Nam was regarded as Cochin China, and contact with these contiguous countries via Dutch factories in many of them including China proper, India and the many archipelagos would account for such items.

Also interesting to see the dha and mounts in real time depiction establishing set period for the styling (though probably well established earlier).

I agree it is dha. However we know a lot of 19-20th swords "dha" and they are far different from the subject. Where are there such "dha" the same as on the picture?

The type of sword in the image reminds me of some swords in images posted on the forum some years ago from a European collection, which I won't try to pretend that I remember the name of.

However I repost those images here, which show dha and Japanese influenced swords likely made for high ranking members of a European court, or fops such as that in the image. So, it stands to reason that dhas did end up in Europe and both could have been worn and influence European sword design, though one would expect the decoration on the example in the painting to be more European influenced such as those examples in the images I post (though they seem to be composites of Asian origin blades and some fittings and mainly European fittings).

What is the origin of the painting? Polish?

Regards
LL

Some more images. I believe this Dresden...

The sword of Thomas Kapustran, Klauzenburg / Siebenbiurgen (Romania), 1674
Blade and scabbard, Japanese

Also to stress that these are not mine, but a forum member who posted these some years ago, here is the link as well:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=662

best
LL

Rembrandt ( 1606-1669) in his picture " Blinding of Samson" used Ceylonese spear and Balinese kris.
Dutchmen traveled far and wide and early on, and brought back a lot of exotic souvenirs.

Here

Dutch

Many thanks. I think the same. Many thanks. I think the same. Now the question the real SEA dha it is or some European stylized sword as mention above.

You guys are amazing!! How you always find perfect illustrations and pertinent posts is outstanding to carry the discussion
I'm glad you agree Mercenary that this is a Dutch painting. While I'm no art expert, it certainly has the 'feel' of Dutch masters .
As I mentioned earlier, Rembrandt had a nominal collection of exotic weaponry from Indonesian and Asian areas which had been brought back by Dutch VOC ships.
It would seem that his inclusion of these unusual weapons were placed in his works for 'effect', and it seems that other artists followed suit.

The interaction between Europe and these exotic ports of call with various material culture and of course weaponry is well established. As seen, there were European versions of various forms from China and other Asian locations in style and decoration. The decoration known as Tonquinese was used through the 18th century on court and smallswords. In many cases Chinese and other artisans were brought into European shops to work on many of the 'exotic' forms.

In the case of this dha, obviously we are looking at an artists conception of the sword, however in my opinion, this looks fully like an original item from Thailand (then Siam) as it carries the distinctive features usually seen on them. The only thing that would suggest it being a European example would be its size, dha usually smaller (but I have seen them this large).
Artists were usually quite accurate in their depictions of detail used in their work, however sometimes various prop or accent items may be out of context as seen in Rembrandt's Biblical works.

Does anyone know this actual painting?
Where it is located?
When it was painted?
By whom?

That would assist in settling some of the questions floating around.

Best
LL

Ferdinand Bol. Portrait of a young man with a sword, 1635-40, Dayton Art Institute, Ohio

Excellent information.

On the other painting posted, the sword wrap and style is very close to an example in the Smithsonian Institution, that was discussed here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4768

I have been watching this thread for the last day and doing some online research, most notably in relation to the events in Siam during the early 17th C. For various reasons, I doubt that this sword is a dha/daab (more on that when I get back home in a couple of days--traveling at the moment), but it might be. More likely, IMO, is that it comes from the area that is now northern Vietnam, i.e., Cochin China. There are some features to the hilt and scabbard that suggest SE Asia, but also several anomalies.

I would also raise some questions about the authenticity of this picture as a work of Bol. Bol's paintings were often mistaken for works by Rembrandt, his master, in the 18th C, and I don't find the portrait shown here to be something that might be confused easily for a Rembrandt. In looking online at Bol's accredited works (which are said to be "rare"), this portrait does not appear. Also, the Dayton Museum of Art is not a prime location where one would expect such a work to show up. The attribution to Bol is important in dating the portrait, and that dating is key to where to look for the possible origin of this sword.

More research is needed and I will come back to this thread when I have time.

Ian

Ian, outstanding! and I really look forward to your input on this with your knowledge of the arms of these regions. Very well noted on Viet Nam, which was indeed known as Cochin China well through the 19th c. and the note on Tonquinese work of course refers to reference to Viet Nam as well.

I am far outside my usual fields here, but I am curious on that squared chape sleeve on the scabbard. I know I have seen this feature on Burmese dha (inscriptions in that language supporting that I.D.) though not as clear on whether on Siamese, nor Viet Namese for that matter.

It seems that type squared chape is on earlier Chinese dao scabbards in similar mounts which (if memory serves) was termed 'fang chloe' or words t that effect. Given the profound influence of China in these SE Asian regions, would that distinctive style have diffused there accordingly?

Interesting that this painting did indeed prove to be Dutch, in fact a student of Rembrandt, and perhaps Rembrandt's proclivity to using 'exotic' arms in his work so influenced this student, maybe even others. It seems that often works attributed to Rembrandt himself in recent times have proven to be actually by individuals in his school. ..for example "Man in the Golden Helmet".

You can view the painting here in very high resolution which shows the detail on the hilt and scabbard to very good effect.

http://www.daytonartinstitute.org/ar.../ferdinand-bol

The description of the painting is fascinating and notes that both Rembrandt and Bol used the same "props" and the same are found in a painting in the Hermitage. Though on viewing that example the sword is quite different. The description from the Dayton Art Institute is below:

"This full-length and larger-than-life-sized portrait of a young dandy, once thought to be a self-portrait, most certainly dates from Ferdinand Bol's years in Rembrandt van Rijn's studio. It would seem to be inspired by several of Rembrandt's self-portraits and other works of the same period. Rembrandt's Reconciliation of David and Absalom of 1642, in the collection of the Hermitage in St. Petersburg, uses almost identical objects to the ones found in Bol's portrait. In the aforementioned Rembrandt and in Bol's portrait, a quiver of arrows, a heavily embroidered velvet tunic, and a velvet scabbarded sword are the studio props evidently shared by master and pupil.

Bol also shared Rembrandt's fascination with unusual costumes and gear. The great sword, fashionable high-heeled leather boots, the richly embroidered clothes, velvet cloak, and plumed cap are far removed from the sober, black garb of most Dutch citizens. Rather, they have more in common with the brightly colored costumes of the subjects favored by Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio (1573 - 1610), a revolutionary and controversial Italian artist whose paintings influenced a generation of artists across Europe. Although grounded in a keen observation of detail, the sensuously depicted, exotic finery lends an air of fantasy to this portrait of an unknown friend or artist colleague of Bol's."

To my eye, the embossing on the middle part of the hilt does appear to have some aspects reminiscent of Thai swords.

http://www.arscives.com/historysteel.../257-mib05.jpg

http://www.arscives.com/historysteel.../256-ayw12.jpg

Regards
LL

I'm confused why you would make such a statement Ian. Do you have reason to believe that the museum is mistaken about what it has in its own collection.
I live about 40 minutes south of the Dayton Institute of Art. Its a fine and respected institution with a sizable collection that regularly also hosts world class traveling exhibitions. :shrug:

I was like you, shocked. A small Museum is not a bad Museum. I'm also shocked by the Art historian expertise. It's not because famous Museums did some mistakes with one or two daggers that the small museums are not able to identify a Dutch masterpiece!

:shrug:

I have never been to Dayton, but I know Toledo Art Museum quite well. These are cities of comparable size and wealth. They are both in NW Ohio, about hour and a half drive from each other.
The Toledo collection has works of Rembrandt, El Greco, Holbein, Rubens and a fantastic collection of French Impressionists.
Size, wealth and publicity do not always matter when we are talking about individual exponates.

I am sure that some of the items in our humble collections would be greedily snatched by Met, Hermitage and Walles:-)

David and Kubur:

Museums of all types frequently make mistakes in attribution of works of art. Unless the provenance is strong, there is always room for doubt. Larger museums obviously have more research staff than smaller ones, so can presumably do more in the way of research and establishing provenance.

Here, for example, is what the Metropolitan Museum of Art provides for one of its three works attributed to Ferdinand Bol:

Quote:

Petronella Elias (1648–1667) with a Basket of Fruit

This provenance appears to track all the way back to the creation of the painting by Bol, but the museum is not entirely sure about the early attributions, so its staff inserted "?" marks to indicate less than complete documentation. Nevertheless, it looks a pretty solid provenance.

For the subject of this thread, all we have for provenance is that it was "a gift of Mr and Mrs Elton F. McDonald, 1962." The museum may have more information, but they did not include it online. To learn anything more about the painting would mean contacting the museum. In looking at a blow up of the online photograph, I can see no signature or date that might help in identifying the artist.

The works of Ferdinand Bol are considered "rare." He does not seem to have been especially prolific and his career ended in 1669 when he remarried after the death of his first wife. He has been lumped in the group of "students and followers of Rembrandt," of which there may have been many, and later in his career he seems to have adopted a more Flemish style and moved away from that of his master somewhat.

Lastly, this portrait does not show up on a collected list of his works here.

I would suggest that we simply do not know the authenticity of the subject of this thread in regard to its attribution to Bol. The supplied provenance is sketchy (to say the least), and we do not know to what extent it has been vetted by experts in Dutch masters. Given the confusion in recent decades about the attribution of works to Rembrandt himself, the work of the Rembrandt Research Program not withstanding, it becomes even harder to know what can be attributed to his students and followers.

For the purposes of the present discussion, however, let's just go with what the Dayton Art Museum says, with the caveat that they could be wrong.

Extremely well said Ian!!
I understood your note to mean exactly as you have explained, and from what I understand about the study of art, there is often question as to attribution and many other aspects. It seems too often it is presumed that anything specified in museum documentation and cataloguing is taken by many to be the final word on the item or topic specified.
A good many decades ago I admit I was among that group, however in many experiences with museums, large and small, I have found inevitable inaccuracies which have usually inadvertently filtered into their literature.

This is not to discount the character or reputation of any of them, nor their very hard working personnel and staff. We all make 'misteakes'.......and they are not infallible.

As you say, while the evidence may be categorically compelling, we must always allow for the possibility that new evidence may reveal facts which may alter the key material used in support of other research. It is prudent to acknowledge and qualify comments and observations to allow for that possibility.

Ian, the portrait does appear on the website you provided:


A Young Man with a Sword, https://www.pubhist.com/w9562.

I couldn't find it in the paintings in the link Ian added either. How did you get to this, using search or other access?
In any case, I remember some time ago being intrigued by Rembrandt's works and all the fuss over 'The Polish Rider' and the actual character etc. Then "The Man in the Golden Helmet", how many years was that attributed to Rembrandt? Then it was discovered to be one of his students or school who had actually painted it.
It seems like reading various art study literature there are so many controversies and highly debated aspects of not only attribution, but of course the many deeply imbued allegories and symbolism in the works.

As one scholar once said, "the thing I like most about history, is how its always changing'! It would seem art history is well included.

Jim, the picture changes places, but the two last times it was in the last row (first page).

I agree. The painting was indeed in the list of acknowledged works by Bol. When i checked it was in the last row of the first page, second from the left. :shrug:

Thanks guys, found it!