two jian shaped dao

[josh stout]

These are examples of one of my favorite styles of Chinese swords.

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1077.jpg

The slightly larger one of the two is about 30 inches with a 24 inch blade. It has a triangular pierced pommel that I associate with 18th c. village pieces, and what I think is a stylized bat for the guard. The blade has a high carbon back as well as the usual high carbon edge. I am beginning to think that this is common among village pieces.

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1078.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1080.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1081.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1087.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1088.jpg

The slightly smaller one has a pommel form that I assonate with 17th c. things. The thick oxidation on the tang seems to support this. The pattern welding is very fine in this piece, giving it a very three dimensional look. I am particularly puzzled by the small nodules of steel seemingly stuck to the blade like crumbs, and I would love to know more about how this was achieved. This one also clearly shows signs of a hard steel back having been welded on using a piled construction.

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1079.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1082.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1083.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1084.jpg

These last two pictures show the blade with the back oriented down showing a forge flaw in the separately applied back.

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1085.jpg

http://s77.photobucket.com/albums/j6...t=DSC_1086.jpg

Both blades arrived in polished condition but showed no activity in the steel. I soaked them both overnight in warm vinegar next to the furnace, and then polished then some more with 4000 grit.
I am interested in the bulge near the tip and the slightly hooked tip. It is a characteristic many of these jian shaped dao seem to have. It reminds me of a dragon head.
Josh

[KuKulzA28]

I think it's a shame no one has responded to this... FOR TWO YEARS!

I've NEVER seen nor heard of jian-shaped dao... so this is amazing for me. I wonder why this blade was made, it does not have the double edge of the jian, and doesn't have the slicing curve of conventional dao... maybe it was the commissioner's personal preference? More knowledge to add to the mind of this amateur Chinese weapon aficionado!

[Neil]

Thanks for digging up this thread. Those are very interesting swords. I like that they are not exactly the norm. Examples like these remind me that not everything fits in our tidy categories, and that there is still much to learn. No doubt that's the fun of it.

[KuKulzA28]

Originally Posted by Neil

Thanks for digging up this thread. Those are very interesting swords. I like that they are not exactly the norm. Examples like these remind me that not everything fits in our tidy categories, and that there is still much to learn. No doubt that's the fun of it.

That's right, the more you see the more you find that forms are fluid. For example there are qoose-quill sabers with fattened stips like ox-tails. There are skinnier ox-tails that resemble willow-leafs with slightly widened tips. There are da-kan-dao with clip-points. Some dao look almost like Turkish kilij. In societies that aren't strictly controlled by government regulation weapons and conformity, the weapon categorizations are at best just trends and guidelines... I'm excited to see how much more there is to know about Chinese weaponry since I'm just a novice in the field

Even today with factory produced firearms, one can find numerous renditions of the M16/M4 and the AK47... while they may vary less in shape and performance, variation still exists, and that makes learning about this stuff more interesting

[ariel]

I fail to get excited. Obviously, when weapons are produced for an individual buyer, by individual blacksmiths, in small workshops, and with no governmental specifications, there will be a wide range of variations: length, curvature, fullers, point etc, etc, etc. There are straight tulwars, yataghans with straight or saber-like blades, and I remember seeing a kilij blade with an oversized yataghan handle ( should have bought it!). Other Forumites can extend this list ad infinitum.
These are just curiosities, some within the confines of a given classical pattern, some clearly being outside the 2 standard deviation range. We can be amused by them and shake our collective heads, but there is nothing, IMHO, to learn.

[fearn]

I find these interesting, because when you look at Chinese weapons, the categories are well, kind of goofy and confining. Not quite as rigid as in modern Japanese swords, but you get the point.

Actually, the real point to me is that modern swords are not made for war. They're made for art's sake. They're not made for chopping up firewood, fighting in a tight alley, or what have you.

These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow, as opposed to the formalized weapons of wushu and their modern "combat steel" kin.

Great pieces.

Best,

F

[ariel]

Fearn:

"These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow"


And how do we know that? And, what difference does it make for our understanding of Chinese weapons? And let imagine a Khyber with a bent blade, how would it affect our understanding of Afghani martial arts or warfare, beyond saying " Hmmm, peculiar"? Y. Miller, in his book about Caucasian arms in the Hermitage, shows a khanda blade attached to a Georgian handle. How does it expand our understanding of the Caucasian martial tradition, besides accepting the fact that a khanda blade managed to find its way to the Caucasus?
I am not against posting it or liking it. But glaring exceptions are not informative. There are plenty of Frankenswords. They are curious, but not a "teachable moment". I just disagree that these examples prove "how much more there is to know about Chinese weaponry" .

[Neil]

In my anthropological studies in college I learned that the conclusions we draw on a subject of study are fluid relative to the process of gathering information over time. What may seem anomalous today could be the beginning of a trend that appears as time goes on. I personally have yet to read any extensive scholarship on these cruder pieces of Chinese weaponry from the 18th and 19th centuries. I think seeing pieces like these are exciting and believe every one available is valuable to broaden our perspective on the subject.

In regards to the following.
____________________________________
Fearn:

"These blades were made by a smith, either for a local security guard, a bandit, or (most likely) a militia armory, and this is the kind of thing that some foot-soldier actually carried and used with his bow"


And how do we know that? And, what difference does it make for our understanding of Chinese weapons?

____________________________________


I too wish we had more information on who made these swords, who owned them, and in what context were they used. Certainly knowing these things is fundamental to any depth of knowledge of Chinese weapons. We have the old weapons in the present, but it seems their stories are still in the past, or maybe just overseas and spoken in Chinese. The best I have been able to do is scour the internet for information depots like this and read what little information there is available in English and draw my own conclusions. I have had a lot of personal insights through practicing my Chinese martial arts with my collection as well. I am enjoying the journey quit a bit.

[josh stout]

Originally Posted by ariel

....I am not against posting it or liking it. But glaring exceptions are not informative. There are plenty of Frankenswords. They are curious, but not a "teachable moment". I just disagree that these examples prove "how much more there is to know about Chinese weaponry" .

I originally posted these dao as examples of a type, not as curiosities. I understand that China is huge and thus even strange forms can often be seen more than once, but these belong to a fairly common type that has not been discussed. I have six in my collection, and have seen several more. They appear to be found largely in northern regions and have substantial age, most likely dating from the 18th century. In general they are very similar to the jian from the same apparent region and period and almost as common. Once they are recognized as a particular type, they appear to be found in roughly equal numbers to jian of the same type. They also share with the similar jian, the same balance, weight and feel, as well as similarities in construction and workmanship.

I wish I knew more about these dao, but other than recognizing them as a distinct and relatively common form, I know almost nothing. There are exceptions in form as with all Chinese weapons, making definitions problematic as usual. Some have wider blades, and function more like choppers, I have seen several with curved blades, and also several with blades very similar in shape to Tibetan blades. One apparently Tibetan influenced example from Qinghai province in my collection, has hairpin construction in the manner typical of Eastern Tibet but with a jian shaped dao form, including the clipped tip. I suspect that, like Tibetan sabers, these dao owe their form to the straight dao of the Tang dynasty and earlier. The clipped tip may be a later addition to the form, or may have been influenced by the small hooked tip found on some early sabers.
Josh