What kind of sword is this?

[Mercenary]

Originally Posted by ArmsAndAntiques

What is the origin of the painting? Polish?
LL

Dutch

Dutchmen traveled far and wide and early on, and brought back a lot of exotic souvenirs.

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[ArmsAndAntiques]

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

[Mercenary]

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

Ferdinand Bol may have been a pupil in Dordrecht of Jacob Gerritsz. Cuyp. He is recorded still in Dordrecht in 1635. He moved to Amsterdam in the late 1630's where be became a pupil of Rembrandt. About 1642 be established himself as an independent artist and remained in Amsterdam until the end of his lift. He was one of Rernbrandt's ablest pupils and also a great favorite with the master.His earliest works are close in style to Rembrandt's but front about 1650 be turned more to the example of Bartholomeus van der HeIst in portraiture although his subject pictures remain indebted to Rembrandt. He was successful in Amsterdam as a portraitist throughout his life.

[ArmsAndAntiques]

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

[Ian]

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

[Jim McDougall]

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".

[ArmsAndAntiques]

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

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

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.

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.

[Kubur]

Originally Posted by David

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.

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!