The Greatest Arms Shop - Something for Everyone.

[B.I]

some will be be familiar with the name and the catalogues. if ever there was a dealer that catered for EVERYONE on this forum, it was W.D.Oldman.
years ahead of his time, and holding great all round knowledge of the antiquities he dealt in.
george cameron stone was a regular visitor to his small shop in brixton, south london.

[B.I]

more.

[Aqtai]

Whoa!

I would love to walk into somewhere like that and just spend the afternoon browsing.

I don't suppose you get places like that anymore.

[Mark]

Beautiful stuff! Now I want some Oldman catalogues ....
FWIW, my take on the dha is below. I am starting to sort of veer off into the woods with the classification versus what’s been used so far, so others likely have a different view. I haven't made any changes to original classifications on my web site, so please forgive inconsistencies

In the first picture, between the axe and the buffalo head, left to right: a) Lanna style from northern Thailand (see, e.g., ## 71, 72 & C46 on the DRI, link below), b) Burman (the people specifically, not the country) style, with a Kachin influenced blade (this one may actually qualify as a dha-ma, i.e., a chopper rather than a sword; compare to ## 50, C9, C55 & C64) c) another Lanna style from northern Thailand, d) hard to tell, as the handle appears to be missing, I’ll venture a guess that it is Burman, based on the scabbard, e)this looks like a yatagan, not a dha, it must have snuck in from above, f) another Lanna style from northern Thailand, g) a bit hard to see, but it looks to me to be a “village” Shan style, but there might be a bit of a pommel, and metal ferrule, which might make it a Lanna style (I just can't tell from the picture whether it is a simple wrapped handle with glare around it, or something more elaborate).

In the second picture in the second post:
7)-10) Burman, based on the relatively straight blades and square tips of the scabbards [see, e.g., DRI ## C23 & C33, though 8)-10) could possibly be Shan, based on the somewhat longer grip, but I am sticking with Burman ];
12) dha-ma chopper that could be from just about anywhere in Burma or northern Thailand;
14)&15) dha-mauk utility knives that could be from just about anywhere in Burma or northern Thailand;
6) Burman [see, e.g., DRI ## 50, 51, C1, C4 & C64];
1) the handle looks like it broke in two and was repaired, the part closest to the blade looks to be Lanna style;
2)&3) Shan [see, e.g., DRI ## 70 & C52, and the scabbards of most of the daggers on the DRI];
4)&5) I believe this to be a Burman style [see DRI ## 62&65], 5) might possible be a Ratankosin era Thai dha, based on the unadorned silver covered scabbard, the pommel and flared ferrule, but overall the handle looks wrong – the pommel is a touch too big and it looks to have either wood or rattan wrapping in the middle;
13) Kachin [see DRI ## C27, C48 & C49], another possiblity for this one is a "double" sword where the blades are each sheathed in the handle of the other, such that when you grip the ends of the resulting staff and pull apart, you get a sword in each hand. Egerton describes and illustrates one, but I don't have a scan handly.

11) is a bit of a mystery, as the handle is broken and the down-turned blade is a bit unusual, I will hypothesize that it is a Lower Burmese style (maybe Burman, maybe Talaing (Mon)), influenced by Malaysia. Compare it to DRI # C62, which has the same type of blade, and a carved ivory handle of a style typical of southern Burma.

The Dha Research Index

[B.I]

hi mark,
whilst oldman was knowledgable in his own right, and privy to information about his pieces (having bought them indirectly from source), his descriptions were basic and of the 1900s (in the dha page - 1906). knowledge, obviously, has progressed since.
all the dha are classified as burmese on that page, with the following page classified as siamese (it has one dha and other items inc a war coat - i believe you have this image).
as its a catalogue, i'm sure there was more information that wasnt included in his short descriptions.
shame, eh!

[B.I]

mark,
the page refering to the dha.

[Mark]

I was inspecting the cartouche on the blade of Andrew's "Oldman" dha, and it struck me that it may well be a date written in Burmese numerals. They are very stretched out vertically, but I believe they read 1242 (if I am right, the first numeral should be a left-facing crescent, the second like the letter J without the cross at the top, the third sort of like a 9 but with an open loop, and the fourth again like a J). The Burmese calendar is based on the Chulasakarat Buddhist era, which adds 638 to the Western calendar. So if this is a date, it would be 1880.

It also looks vaguely like the Western date 1751, but I think it more likely is a Burmese date.

Do you have any close-ups of the cartouche, Andrew? I blew up a section of your picture, but it is pretty blurry.

[B.I]

hi mark,
until andrew replies, here is a poor, but clearer image

[Andrew]

I recall reading on Ashoka's website (where I first saw this sword) that the date translated to approximately 1800 C.E. My recollection is suspect, however. Here's a close-up of the cartouche:

[erlikhan]

Is there information about the prices of the items sold in that shop and period?

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Mark Bowditch

I was inspecting the cartouche on the blade of Andrew's "Oldman" dha, and it struck me that it may well be a date written in Burmese numerals. They are very stretched out vertically, but I believe they read 1242 (if I am right, the first numeral should be a left-facing crescent, the second like the letter J without the cross at the top, the third sort of like a 9 but with an open loop, and the fourth again like a J). The Burmese calendar is based on the Chulasakarat Buddhist era, which adds 638 to the Western calendar. So if this is a date, it would be 1880.

It also looks vaguely like the Western date 1751, but I think it more likely is a Burmese date.

Do you have any close-ups of the cartouche, Andrew? I blew up a section of your picture, but it is pretty blurry.

I agree Mark: 1242 Chulasakarat (1880 AD).

[B.I]

hi erlikhan,
these were catalogues and so everything was priced.
believe me, you really dont want to go down that road. 1906 prices should remain a thing of the past, as it will only lead to reminiscing and frustration. £30 will buy you all the turkish arms on that one page.

[Jens Nordlunde]

What does the catalogue text say about the kora at the bottom, shown on the last picture in mail #2?

Jens

[B.I]

hi jens,
i am not surprised you picked this one one, as it is very unusual and i think very early.
he doesnt off much past an overall description. - engraved full length, worn and inlaid with brass at the head. the back is engraved and inlaid with a band of brass. iron hilt, fluted, engraved and inlaid with brass. black leather covered sheath. length 27.75 inches. end width 3.25 inches. a 'very old specimen'.

he does list another, vitually identical a few years later, but without a scabbard (unless its the same one and he lost the scabbard :-)

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I agree Mark: 1242 Chulasakarat (1880 AD).

Yes, it is very clear in the close-up. I just noticed that there also is a numeral 2 stamped or engraved in the blade near the forte, and its almost identical in size and shape to the second 2 in the cartouche. This is such an interesting sword.

[zalmoxis]

What about this wall: The Ward collection 19th century, now at Smithsonian.

[zalmoxis]

The next room.