Borneo Parang Nabur or Visayan Bolo?

[VVV]

Hi all,

This beauty arrived today.
According to Stone p.482 this is supposed to be a variation of the Parang Nabur.
Tirri p. 429 says the same.
In Charles Buttin pict 898 there is a slightly resembling sabre (mix of this one and a "traditional" Nabur) that he describes as a Malay demi-sabre, probably Borneo Dayak.
I haven't found any references to this variation of Nabur in any of the Indonesian or Borneo weapon articles and books?
In the huge collections of f.i. Leiden there are lots of different Nabur, but none even slightly resembling this one.
To me it looks much more Visayan than Borneo.
Could this be a mistake by Stone?
Does any of the Filipino specialists recognise this sword?

Michael

PS The scabbard also looks more Visayan than Borneo to me?

[Tim Simmons]

Yummy, how old is this. It looks as if there is a lot of European hanger influence. Tim

[Robert]

Greetings Michael,
Now I know who it was that out bid me on this. Congratulations on your win!!! :D I'm just glad that it was someone from the forum that got it.(That way I get to see more pictures of it) My vote is that it is a Parang Nabur probable dating from the 19th century. Could the animal depicted on the hilt possibly be a bat?



Robert

[VVV]

My guesstimate is also 19th C - early/mid.
I have no idea what kind of animal it is on the hilt?

I revisited this great reference thread on PI weapons in Spanish Museums.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=324&highlight=Spanish+Museum

What's interesting is that this kind of sword is part of the Filipino collections of the two Madrid museums together with other Visayan weapons.

I have enclosed the relevant pictures below.

Michael

[LabanTayo]

michael,
you make my head hurt. :):)

[Bill]

Great sword. Is there anywhere in the Visayan Islands that peaned the tang? Is that a coin the tang goes through? Can we see a picture of the engraving on the guard cup?

[VVV]

Bill,

Here is a close up of the guard cup.
Probably the piece on the top once was a coin but as you can see there
is nothing left of any identification on it.

Michael

PS Sorry about messing up with your head Shelley.
Next time you meet "Uncle" you can ask him... ;)

[Bill]

quite sure that is Picasso's work on the guard.

[Tim Simmons]

Ahhhhh!!

[Dajak]

Hi this is not from borneo it is a malay weapon the parang nabur is also a malay weapon that was also used by the seadayaks so not (home made)from borneo

[VVV]

Ben,

By "Malay weapon" do you also include the Philippines as a possible place of origin?
I fully agree that it doesn't look like made in Borneo.
But I don't think it looks like made in other parts of Indonesia or Malaysia either.

Michael

[BSMStar]

This just arrived today :)

[Battara]

I have been confused by these puppies. However, Erik Farrow has this to say about this type being Visayan:

http://www.eriksedge.com/PH189.html

[BSMStar]

I agree with Erik that these swords are made in the Philippines, but looking at the blade profile... is it Visayan? I do not believe that Erik makes a direct reference to the sword being Visayan.

If indeed it is Visayan, there should be many other examples of this blade type in the Visayan region... I have not seen any. The closest examples to this sword are Parang Naburs. I think the sword presents a bit of a puzzle.

[Battara]

YOu have a good point BSMStar (like the on top of my head :D ). I don't know. I would like to see more evidence on this.

[VVV]

The discussion of this sword actually continued in this thread.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1792&page=3

Batangas was brought up as a probable origin of this, by Stone, incorrect labeled sword.

Michael

[BSMStar]

Hi Michael,

(You have an awesome collection!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) :)

I think if you compare the sword that Spunjer had, with mine and yours... you will see some similarities, but many more differences.

Spunjer's blade is very different (not the same profile at all).

The hilts look similar (like the ears and the rings on the grip)... but you compare them in detail, the hilts are very different by design (not just due to variation in manufacture). Yours and mine are different because of normal variation, but they are the same hilt (minus the D-guard and clam shell - the only variation of this sword that I have seen) Our swords have the same blade profile.

Spunjer's sword may be a cousin (or 2nd gen), but it is not the same sword.

[VVV]

Hi BSM Star,

I agree that the blade and hilt of Spunjer's bolo is a bit different but I still think they are from around the same area.
It also seems like Ian thinks so in the other thread?
After this thread started I found another one of those bolos and that scabbard (haven't had time to fix it yet) also seems to be of Filipino origin.
Unfortunately I don't know enough to be sure from what region.

Michael

[Spunjer]

VVV,

how sure are you that the scabbard is original with the sword? i.e., does it fit well? i'm assuming if you remove the white rattan (j/k) you could clearly see the form where the blade rest.

if this is original to the blade, well, another bleeping monkey wrench... :confused:

[VVV]

Spunjer,

You are correct that the scabbard isn't original.
I removed the rubber rattan and checked.
Sorry for posting it before I had time to go through it properly.

Where do you think this bolo comes from?
No scabbard, with a resembling hilt made of rhino(!?).

Michael

[kai]

Hello Michael,

Where do you think this bolo comes from?
No scabbard, with a resembling hilt made of rhino(!?).
These nice hilts seem to be all related regardless of some stylistic differences.

Does the horn show the rhino microstructure? I'd have guessed at aged carabao from the pics but you can verify with a magnifying glass... ;)

Regards,
Kai

[Spunjer]

michael,

it's really hard to say where it's from. i could guess, but what's the point? this class of swords has been the brown belt sudoku version of the filipino sundangs, or indos for that matter. the jury is still out on this one. like kai said; u sure it's rhino??? :confused:

[VVV]

Hi Kai and Ron,

I only do blackbelt Sudoku boards so that's why I would like to give it a try. :D
Riddles are supposed to be solved.

So far two forum members has mailed me that they think the last one could be from Bicol.
The only thing I am sure on is that it isn't from Borneo, an area where I feel more comfortable having an opinion about the different sword variations. And that none of the bolos in this thread are Malay Parang Nabur.

On the rhino hilt I don't have the bolo around at the moment.
But Fred, who most of you probably know, described it as rhino when he sold it to me.
I assume he has some experience in evaluating this?
But I also found it strange and will have a closer look at it later this week.
I suggest we ignore that part and focus on the hilt and blade.
Does anyone have any bolo from Bicol that resembles this one?

Michael

[BSMStar]

Michael,

The second "Parang Nabur" that you posted... does the hilt appear to have been replaced? The "style" seems a bit different.

[VVV]

Michael,

The second "Parang Nabur" that you posted... does the hilt appear to have been replaced? The "style" seems a bit different.

Not what I can remember.
I don't have the bolo here at the moment.
Only the pictures of it in my computer.
What specifically do you want me to check?

Michael

[Ian]

Michael:

I was hoping that some of our Visayan experts would comment on swords of this style, but they have been quiet for some time and it appears that they're not going to reply to your questions.

A Visayan attribution seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. The bat or dog head pommel is not a typical Visayan form (at least not in this representation) -- more commonly seen in S. Luzon (e.g., Batangas). The full length, peened over tang is an unusual construction in the Visayas -- more typical of Luzon. The short octagonal ferrule is more typical of Batangas than Visayas, although that is not a strong distinction IMO. The V-ground blade (rather than a chisel-grind) is unusual in the Visayas -- more common in Luzon and elsewhere. The scabbard has some general features of a Visayan scabbarb, especially from the eastern areas -- the drilled-through "hanger" being common -- but again the style and carving are dissimilar from most Visayan work.

Erik has suggested a Batangas origin. I think S. Luzon is a good guess, and Batangas is one area that deserves consideration. Another is the Bicol region, and it seems that some suggestions about that area have also been offered to you.

If this sword is from the Philippines, and I think it is, then S. Luzon would fit most closely. Batangas or Bicol? I can't take it any further than that I'm afraid. But Visayas seems unlikely.

Ian.

[VVV]

Ian,

Thanks for your comments and sharing your experience!

Michael

[BSMStar]

Not what I can remember.
I don't have the bolo here at the moment.
Only the pictures of it in my computer.
What specifically do you want me to check?

Michael

Michael,

Carefully look at your original sword (D-guard clam shell) and my sword... at the hilts. Also look at the one like yours in the Madrid Museum. The details are amazingly similar.

Look at how they are peened.

Look at the second example that you posted... the detail of the face are a bit more crude (it does not show the same level of craftsmanship)... the peen appears to be a redo. I have seen "modern" Luzon peens that are done the same way, but none of the "original" examples (of this type sword) look like this. But I can not hold the sword in my hand to tell for 100% certain. It is possible that the original hilt was damaged and replaced... which is not a real big deal if true. It is still a great sword! :)

Also check to see, what is the hilt made from (it should be horn)...

[BSMStar]

Can we agree to call this sword a Parang Nabur?

This is how the Spanish identified it in the Museum...

[tom hyle]

To me this is the "bat-head parang nabur" of whose origins I've wondered. I once saw a chrome plated one marked "Phillipines"; not much help, I guess. It doesn't always have a full length tang, or something verrrry similar to it does not have a full length tang.

[VVV]

Can we agree to call this sword a Parang Nabur?

This is how the Spanish identified it in the Museum...

I don't know how it is in the US but here in Europe it's still a problem that both museums, as well as auction houses, most often classify their ethnographic swords wrong. That was one of the reasons that Shelford wrote his classic article on Sarawak swords and he brings it up already in the first sentence of his study.
I assume that this museum in recent time have used Stone as a reference (note also f.i. the spelling Campilan)?
The only sources that are useful here are collection notes, like those in Leiden.

Michael

[Marc]

"Campilán" is the Spanish term for "kampilan". Sometimes is used popularly to describe simply a sword of long blade from insular south east asia/north oceania, but in this context it is used properly.

[Ian]

I don't know what the term for these swords would be in Batangas or Bicol, but parang nabur, a Malay word, is most unlikely. Probably Southern Luzon bolo would be a good generic term until the actual local word surfaces. This one is too far north to call it a sundang ad probably too far south to call it an itak.

Parang nabur implies a Malay or Borneo origin, and I think there is general agreement here that these swords are not from those areas, although the similarity to a parang nabur suggests these swords may have been copied from the parang nabur in the distant past.

Ian.

[zelbone]

Interesting thread...

I see where you may mistake these swords as being Visayan. These examples may be parang naburs, but then again I'm not to familiar with those swords. And Batangas and Bicol has been brought up as a possible origin. In the past I have made references to the "bathead Batangas bolo." I've also posted a year ago when I was in Batangas that those swords are possibly from Bicol instead.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2818
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=594


So here's some food for thought. The first sword is from Bicol. This sword was given to me by my Uncle several years ago and I always thought it was from Batangas. Last year when I was in Batangas, my cousin told me that it was originally from Bicol. The most prevalent figural hilt form in Batangas is the horse, but the bathead form can be found there as well. Most scabbards in Batangas are made of tooled leather. The scabbard on this example is wood with a flared toe...similar to certain Visayan scabbards. The other two swords are very similar, but with different blade styles. They are also from the Philippines most likely from Bicol. One now belongs to Ibeam. All three have bathead hilt and similar scabbards. The blades on the swords in question do not look like any of these examples. Study the differences and make comparisons....maybe you'll find your answers.

[BSMStar]

It would not be the first time that I am "chalk full of blueberry muffins..."
and I agree that Museums can make mistakes. I also think that since the Spanish has about 400 years to learn about P.I. swords, there maybe something to learn from their experience... especially when verified with other examples.

Check the below link on Parang Naburs and compare the blade profiles below.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2467&highlight=malay+parang+nabur

It seems to me that this profile is unique in the Philippines. If it is not a Parang Nabur (and can we prove that it is not related), then... what is it? The Spanish may have got this right, that it is a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. All of the key ingredients are present (except for the peen).

[BSMStar]

When looking at these older examples... I get a feeling of a short snout Sea Horse... but then again, call me crazy. :D


(The examples Zel has shown us ... thank you for sharing the wonderful pieces... look like bats to me.)

[VVV]

It would not be the first time that I am "chalk full of blueberry muffins..."
and I agree that Museums can make mistakes. I also think that since the Spanish has about 400 years to learn about P.I. swords, there maybe something to learn from their experience... especially when verified with other examples.

Check the below link on Parang Naburs and compare the blade profiles below.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2467&highlight=malay+parang+nabur

It seems to me that this profile is unique in the Philippines. If it is not a Parang Nabur (and can we prove that it is not related), then... what is it? The Spanish may have got this right, that it is a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. All of the key ingredients are present (except for the peen).

I think there are lot of differences between the two swords you show (arc of the blade, fuller, motifs on the blade, protrusions on the blade close to the hilt, cup, form of the D-guard, fixing of the tang, construction of the hilt etc.). And I am familiar with the Parang Nabur in the thread you linked to as I have seen all of them "live".
Of course I could post several pictures of examples of these features but that you could all do with a little help from Google.
So I prefer to discuss the origin of, and accuracy, of the classification name "Parang Nabur", as it is known when we discuss these kind of swords on this forum.

Let's go back to the sources first. Where does the name Parang Nabur come from and what actually is it?

Stone: "PARANG NABUR. A Malayan sword also used by the Dyaks. It has a short blade curved towards the point, and widest at the point of the curvature. The hilt is generally of bone and has a guard and finger guard of brass or iron."

OK, let's have a look at the source Stone refers to, Ling Roth II page 135:

"The parang nabur seems to be the only really genuine Sea Dyak weapon. The parang pedang they have copied from the Malays, and the parang ilang is altogether a Kayan weapon, and beyond their powers of imitation. The nabur in ordinary use is a short curved sword with a bone handle. This style of sword is broadest at its point of curvature. It does not curve like a scimitar from the hilt, but is straight for some distance, and takes a sudden curve towards the end, and when the sword is long, as is one in my collection, it becomes top heavy and requires both hands to wield effectually."

Unfortunately there is no picture of this weapon in Ling Roth.
Nowhere is the quite characteristic D-guard, or any hilt guard, mentioned?
Have you ever seen a Parang Nabur that requires "both hands to wield effectually"?
One of the Parang Nabur in my collection is a 114 cm long Parang Nabur (which is 10 cm longer than Willem's Parang Nabur "XL" pictured in van Zonneveld!). This is the longest one I have so far seen or heard about. Still it's balanced so I can swing it with one hand. And there is no room on it for a second hand on the handle. (Of course I could put the other hand on my wrist but I don't think that's what Ling Roth meant with his description.)

Actually I suspect that Ling Roth isn't describing the same kind of sword as Stone assumes he does?
To me it seems like he is describing the, at that time, more common, as well as unique Sea Dayak, sword Niabor (same name and probably same pronounciation)?
A sword that could be handled with two hands at the handle and fits the description of Ling Roth.
Also the Parang Nabur found in f.i. Leiden are collected in the Banjarmasin area, SE Borneo, and the Sea Dayak live in the opposite NW Borneo!

So if Stone's only source was Ling Roth, as quoted, then it's easy to understand why there seems to be a misunderstanding about the South Luzon Bolo?

In the Leiden Borneo catalogues the name Parang Nabur isn't found as a name of these swords. The swords that we on this forum classify as "Parang Nabur" have some of the following local names in the collection notes:
Parang Lais, Sanangkas, Patjat Gantung, Kemudi Singkir, Mandrah and Wawalutan(?).

So if you would walk the streets of Banjarmasin 100 years ago and asked for a Parang Nabur it seems as if no local would even know what you talked about?
And if you would do the same in Kuching maybe somebody would have offered you a Niabor?

But let's keep the name "Parang Nabur" within this discussion as it's well known, probably because of Stone, as a description of this kind of sword.
I also think that Ian has a valid point about giving a sword from South Luzon a name in Malay.

Michael

[Spunjer]

I also think that Ian has a valid point about giving a sword from South Luzon a name in Malay.


the term golok is frequently use in the philippines...

[BSMStar]

the term golok is frequently use in the philippines...

Yea, I noticed the deity hilts below the "referenced" Parang Nabur (in the Madrid Museum) were called Goloks.

My only suggestion is... that this may be a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. The profiles are strikingly similar and odd for the Philippines. It is peened like a Luzon blade. The hilt is localized... as is the D-guard. I do not think it to unusual for someone to adopt this blade and to make it their own. Apparently, this blade was discontinued as mysteriously as at was adopted (maybe sea raiding was not so important any more). I am keeping an open mind that maybe the Parang Nabur made its way to Luzon and was adopted for a "brief" stay. Stranger things have happened.

There are merits for both sides of the argument... but darn, the blade is an oddity.

Can anyone say how far back this blade profile can be traced back on the Parang Nabur (100, 200, 300 or more years)?

[Dajak]

It is not even close an Parang Nabur



Ben

[Dajak]

Some more pics


Ben

[VVV]

Very nice examples Ben,

I noticed that you don't have any examples with the Badouh (kutika) commonly seen on Parang Nabur?
Several of the 19th C examples in Juynboll have this talismanic inlay.
Is this just a coincidence or do you think it's an age indicator?
(Obviously the second example I show has less age than the first.)


Michael

[BSMStar]

Yes, I see what you mean...

[BSMStar]

This seems to be when the sword "changed" and the hilt became more bat like...

[zelbone]

the term golok is frequently use in the philippines...


interesting....in Batangas a bolo is often called a "gulok."

[Dajak]

Hi Michael I think it is not an age indicator because not al the seadayaks
are moslim I think whe have to look at the Handle style and blade style and the style off the handguard .
We have 3 different ones wood horn and Brass , don t forget that there also
Manadu's with brass handles .

[Battara]

When looking at these older examples... I get a feeling of a short snout Sea Horse... but then again, call me crazy. :D
Could there be flying sea-horse bats? :eek:

(You say tomato, I say potato? :shrug: )

[BSMStar]

Could there be flying sea-horse bats? :eek:

(You say tomato, I say potato? :shrug: )

You're right... I am madder than a hatter. But dude, if that's a bat... then I haven't seen one like that since the '60s man... that is one strange looking dude! :rolleyes:

[BSMStar]

Let's go back to the sources first. Where does the name Parang Nabur come from and what actually is it?

Stone: "PARANG NABUR. A Malayan sword also used by the Dyaks. It has a short blade curved towards the point, and widest at the point of the curvature. The hilt is generally of bone and has a guard and finger guard of brass or iron."

The Philippines (ethnically) are about 90-95% Malay or Malay "mix"... so I ask, is there a possible connection through the people with a Malay sword? Is it possible that they may have had a Parang Nabur? Is it possible that they adopted this sword profile while making the sword their own? No one has come forward with any examples of this profile on any other Philippine sword.

If the issue is that all Parang Naburs come from Malay or Borneo… therefore, if it come out of the Philippines it can no longer be considered to be a Parang Nabur… I have no debate with that. I think I am in the same “vein” with Tom, that if taken at face value, this is a “bat head Parang Nabur.” The real “secret” is what did the locals call this sword? Indeed, it may have been called by a different name… but what should we call it until we discover the true name for this wonderful sword? And why?

[RhysMichael]

Just to add to the hilt here is a remount of a Japanese bayonet that has the same type of hilt and was attributed to the Phillipines

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v96/RhysMicheal/Swords4/DSCF0874.jpg

[Spunjer]

but what should we call it until we discover the true name for this wonderful sword? And why?

what about sonda? why you ask? coz that's the literal translation of the word 'bolo' in Bikolano.

[VVV]

The Philippines (ethnically) are about 90-95% Malay or Malay "mix"... so I ask, is there a possible connection through the people with a Malay sword? Is it possible that they may have had a Parang Nabur? Is it possible that they adopted this sword profile while making the sword their own? No one has come forward with any examples of this profile on any other Philippine sword.

If the issue is that all Parang Naburs come from Malay or Borneo… therefore, if it come out of the Philippines it can no longer be considered to be a Parang Nabur… I have no debate with that. I think I am in the same “vein” with Tom, that if taken at face value, this is a “bat head Parang Nabur.” The real “secret” is what did the locals call this sword? Indeed, it may have been called by a different name… but what should we call it until we discover the true name for this wonderful sword? And why?

It's a pity that the swords from Philippines aren't as well documented as those from Indonesia and Malaysia. Hopefully someone will continue the work of Cato on Moro Swords and also start to collect information about swords from the rest of the Philippines. Maybe then we could find out what this sword, as well as other Filipino swords, originally were called and in what region they were used.

On what inspired the creators of this sword, as well as what in the Western world among collectors is known as a "Parang Nabur", Tim answered it quite clear in his first comment of this sword:

"Yummy, how old is this. It looks as if there is a lot of European hanger influence. Tim"

This Filipino sword as well as the Borneo "Parang Nabur" and the Malay Regalia swords etc. are most likely all inspired by foreign sabres.
That means that the origin of these swords aren't indigenous Malay.

There are to many problems with trying to trace it to the Borneo variation of the foreign sabre. It's all based on a small mistake by Stone in 1934, that then has been quoted by other authors, museum curators and members of this forum, and suddenly a new term, and reference, is invented that actually never existed among the original users of the sword.

If you want to find out what is the specific inspiration for this local variation, which would be very interesting, I assume the best way would be to study the swords of foreign people visiting this area. Probably Spanish swords would be a good start?

Michael

[Dajak]

Maybe the name Parang Nabur comes from the Seadayak parang Niabor
Because in the older days The Iban of the batang Lupar and Saribas in the olden days joined in their large war prahus on pitatical raids along the cost and up certain rivers.
Altough they probably never went out a very great ditance on the sea, by coasting they where able to attack numerous villages round the coast , and they owe their name of SEA DAYAKS to this practice.
The great PIRATICAL FORAYS were orginised by malays , who went for plunder, but they could always induce the Iban to accompany them on the promise that all the heads of the slain should fall to their share.

Don t forget that the Malay must have come to Borneo not lather than the early part off the 15 cht , as Brunei was a large and weahlty town in 1521 .
Probably the Malays came directly from the Malay Peninsula, but most have have mixed largely with the Kadayans, Melanaus and other coastal people.

This all can be read in headhunters from Alfred C Haddon .

So that s why some off these use the parang Nabur too but not whit the muslim indication s like the malay people did.

A picture off An Iban Pirate with an parang Nabur is maybe hard to get but we coul say that the same from the Parang pandat
show me an pic from an Land dayak with an parang pandat.

So till that time we have to believe stone till we can prove that it is not true
he write about the subject.


Junboyll has also some books about the philiphinne weapons

Ben

[kai]

Hello Ben,

Junboyll has also some books about the philiphinne weapons
I must have missed these - could you please post the references? Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Kai

[Dajak]

Katalog des Ethnographischen Reichsmuseums, vol. XX: PHILIPPINEN.
JUYNBOLL, H.H.,
Bookseller: Antiquarianbooksellers GEMILANG
(BREDEVOORT, 0, Netherlands) [Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within Netherlands:
US$ 5.12 (EUR 4.00)
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: philippines ethnographica anthropology museum collection reichsmuseum leyden katalog collection. Leiden, Brill, 1928. Large 8 , original wraps. (xviii), 168pp. Numerous ills. on 12 fine plates o.o.t., indexes, registers. Important catalogue describing the Philippine-art collection of the Leyden Ethnogr. Museum. Plates depicting a.o.: basket-work, weavings, arms & armour, woodcarvings, bronze implements, household pieces, dress. Unopened copy, good. One of the rarest issues in the series (tog. 23 vols. publ.). Bookseller Inventory # 9616


Hi Kai von der Molukken ist da auch was von Juynboll auch in deutsch

Ben

[VVV]

Kai,

I have Juynboll's book on Philippines but unfortunately it only covers the weapons in the Leiden museum. This means that most of them are from Sulu, Mindanao (a lot of Bagobo) and some from North Luzon. And only a handful of swords collected in the region around Manila. No blades from South Luzon and the Visayas.
It's quite thin compared to f.i. Borneo and unfortunately not as useful. :(

Ben,

I have the second edition of Stone's book and in the beginning you can read about him and his life.
Stone was clearly a remarkable man and his work was of high value when he published it and it still is today.
But unlike Haddon, who based his book on his expedition to Borneo in 1898-1899, Stone actually never visited the island.
His descriptions of f.i. Borneo weapons are based on the litterature that is listed in the end of the book. This means that he only had a small percentage of all the information we have today about Borneo weapons to base his book on. And no Internet!
To list all weapons in all times is an impressive task and I find it very surprising that there are so few errors in his work based on the above.

On the Parang Nabur he writes the source of his description openly for the readers to double check.
Which I have quoted so everybody can make their own opinion and contribute to the discussion.

In f.i. Leiden there are 25+ "Parang Nabur" with credible collection notes and collected in SE Borneo.
None that has been collected in NW Borneo!
Of course there is a bias because North Borneo was British and the rest was Dutch at that time. But there are also weapons in the huge Leiden collection, like the Niabor, collected in Sarawak.
Also don't you find it strange that there are no references to this sword in f.i. Shelford, Evans, Brooke etc. where you can find all the other weapons of the inhabitants of the old British part of Borneo?
Why don't we see it in any of the Iban books that has been published after Stone?
I find it quite probable that the authors of those has tried really hard to find this "Sea-Dayak sword" as described in Stone. But it seems as if all of them failed for a reason...

Why?

I think the only conclusion must be that the weapon wasn't in use in that region?

So Ben here is the "Parang Nabur" challenge:

There are 25+ "Parang Nabur" from SE Borneo with collection notes in Leiden alone.
Show me 5 "Parang Nabur" (only 20% of the amount in Juynboll) with proper scientific collection notes originating from Sarawak and a proven age of at least 100 years (no new tourist copies).
If so you will be the new owner of my 114 cm "Parang Nabur". :)
If you can't do it who can? ;)

Michael

[BSMStar]

what about sonda? why you ask? coz that's the literal translation of the word 'bolo' in Bikolano.

Hey Spunjer... how about Parang Sonda? :rolleyes:

(or is that a double positive? :D :D :D )

[Dajak]

Kai,

I have Juynboll's book on Philippines but unfortunately it only covers the weapons in the Leiden museum. This means that most of them are from Sulu, Mindanao (a lot of Bagobo) and some from North Luzon. And only a handful of swords collected in the region around Manila. No blades from South Luzon and the Visayas.
It's quite thin compared to f.i. Borneo and unfortunately not as useful. :(

Ben,

I have the second edition of Stone's book and in the beginning you can read about him and his life.
Stone was clearly a remarkable man and his work was of high value when he published it and it still is today.
But unlike Haddon, who based his book on his expedition to Borneo in 1898-1899, Stone actually never visited the island.
His descriptions of f.i. Borneo weapons are based on the litterature that is listed in the end of the book. This means that he only had a small percentage of all the information we have today about Borneo weapons to base his book on. And no Internet!
To list all weapons in all times is an impressive task and I find it very surprising that there are so few errors in his work based on the above.

On the Parang Nabur he writes the source of his description openly for the readers to double check.
Which I have quoted so everybody can make their own opinion and contribute to the discussion.

In f.i. Leiden there are 25+ "Parang Nabur" with credible collection notes and collected in SE Borneo.
None that has been collected in NW Borneo!
Of course there is a bias because North Borneo was British and the rest was Dutch at that time. But there are also weapons in the huge Leiden collection, like the Niabor, collected in Sarawak.
Also don't you find it strange that there are no references to this sword in f.i. Shelford, Evans, Brooke etc. where you can find all the other weapons of the inhabitants of the old British part of Borneo?
Why don't we see it in any of the Iban books that has been published after Stone?
I find it quite probable that the authors of those has tried really hard to find this "Sea-Dayak sword" as described in Stone. But it seems as if all of them failed for a reason...

Why?

I think the only conclusion must be that the weapon wasn't in use in that region?

So Ben here is the "Parang Nabur" challenge:

There are 25+ "Parang Nabur" from SE Borneo with collection notes in Leiden alone.
Show me 5 "Parang Nabur" (only 20% of the amount in Juynboll) with proper scientific collection notes originating from Sarawak and a proven age of at least 100 years (no new tourist copies).
If so you will be the new owner of my 114 cm "Parang Nabur". :)
If you can't do it who can? ;)

Michael

just start already to make a package Saribas where the pirate s are is north borneo

there is north sarawak dutch say north borneo for them

and north borneo that is british borneo british south borneo is dutch north borneo

so did get the stuf that is in leiden taken from dutch or english people

Don t forget that we are talking about 1850 and not the late 1900

Look at the pic off an iban warrior from 1959
look at the weapon he have

Ben

[Dajak]

Hi Michael
Another pic 2 ibans have these weapons
does it make this an seadayak sword or a weapon that seadayaks sometimes use


Ben

[VVV]

Thanks for the interesting pictures.

It's hard to see the weapons but to me it looks like the regular Iban Pedang (the sword that resembles the Piso Podang that we have discussed several times before)?
It's not the sword we discussed.

And don't try to confuse us with North and South. ;)
The specified region is Sarawak, where you find the Sea Dayaks.

Please try harder.

Michael

[Dajak]

Hi Michael take a look in the book ling rothpage 135

[VVV]

Yes, that's the quote I posted before and the source of Stone???

It's obviously an alternative spelling of the Iban parang aka Niabor, Njabor or Nyabor.
The genuine and old war sword of the Sea-Dayak (see Shelford etc.).
Maybe you could share a picture of it for this thread as a reference because, as you know, I don't have one myself yet?

Michael

[Dajak]

http://old.blades.free.fr/swords/dayak/parang_dayak_intro.htm


Over here you can look at the parang niabor I think they make an langueage
mistake

Here they talk about parang pedang but is an parang nabur but look it proves that the dayaks also used it

[VVV]

Yes,

In a way it's another language semi-mistake.
This is once again the Iban (parang) Pedang.
Described as having cross guard, not D-guard, and hollow at the hilt etc.
It seems that because Ling Roth puts parang in front of all the names earlier known from other sources it get's confusing.

Can we agree that it's all based on a misunderstanding by Stone, because of what Ling Roth wrote and that Ling Roth didn't show pictures of the swords he describes?

Michael

[Dajak]

Hi Michael yes the problem is that if someone make s a mistake it will show
up in the later books The weapon as he discribes is an parang niabor with the rings and handle
and you can also hold it with 2 hands

Henry ling roth is talking german handle swords this could be the nabur

the parang pedang is an borneo sword and not an pirate sword

The problem with the pirates is that they not easy to talk with and the moment you see them you sail away or you never can tell what happend

And that we don t have pics people carrying them ling roth discribe the parang pandat as an seadayak sword and this could be true because landdayak have an different type

Ben

[VVV]

Hi Ben,

It seems as if you agree that the Parang Nabur as described in Stone is wrong?
He misunderstood Ling Roth's description of the Sea Dayak (parang) Niabor and put the "corrupted" name on another kind of sword from another region of Borneo?

Michael

[Dajak]

Hi Michael yes he discribes the sword that I show the pics off we now that one as piso podang with the bataks see the pics

The parang pedang is an total different sword you have 2 by yourself
the one I have date before 1820 and one that you have too

Ben

[Bill M]

PI? Borneo?

Michael, we are a bit alike.....

[Bill M]

Parang Nabur?

[VVV]

Hi Bill,

Nice swords. I think you will find all the views of the forumites in this thread to form your own opinion on this debated issue.

Michael

[BSMStar]

Parang Nabur?

Hi Bill,

Great swords!!! :) (Let me know if you get tired of them) ;)

If these blades come from the PI (which I am inclined to believe they do), it seems that we can not come to a consensus on a name. I am not sure that we have agreed that they come from the PI.

If you look around a bit… rightly or wrongly, this sword “type”… in fact these very swords are universally referred to as being a Parang Nabur. It would seem to me, that no matter what we decide here, the label of Parang Nabur will still be out there for some time to come… even if a more correct name is found and applied.


Best regards,

Wayne

[comiso90]

Hey there..

It seems I have a sword very much like this... This is the first time in 30 years I've seen a photo of another.
Can anybody give me idea how much it would sell for?

I wish I had the scabbard!

thanks!

[comiso90]

I was very happy to find this thread.. it looks like I have somthing similiar.

where can I get more information?

How old?
uses? Ceremonial?
worth?

thanks

[Bill M]

Comiso90,

Forum rules do not allow us to ask prices on this Forum. Since you are new, it will be forgiven and understood.

Tried to PM you with some info, but you are not enabled to receive. Suggest that you privately email or PM people who have swords like this for more information.

[Mark]

Comiso90,

Forum rules do not allow us to ask prices on this Forum. Since you are new, it will be forgiven and understood.

Tried to PM you with some info, but you are not enabled to receive. Suggest that you privately email or PM people who have swords like this for more information.

Indeed, no great sin to have asked, as the established members know just to not answer, but please read the posting rules and guidelines at the top of the forum.

Mark
Vikingsword Staff

[comiso90]

sorry... didnt realize..

I'm just happy to find people that recognize it!

[Daniel Hdz]

Erik Farrow lead me to this site so I could get more info and replies from some experts in this field. Pictures of my fathers sword are attached. Comments and contact will be appreciated.

Thanks,
Dan.

[Daniel Hdz]

Erik Farrow advised me on this sword that my dad has had since the early 60's. He says it has been incorrectly labeled as being from Sea Dayak. He also lead me to this site so I could get some comments from the experts. Any info. you can share with me is very much appreciated. I nor my dad are big collectors, however he was given this sword by an employer when he was very young and he's had it displayed on our wall at home. Also I'm not sure if I have been adding the photos correctly. Can anyone help?

Thank you,
Dan

[Daniel Hdz]

Here are a few more.

[VVV]

Erik Farrow advised me on this sword that my dad has had since the early 60's. He says it has been incorrectly labeled as being from Sea Dayak. He also lead me to this site so I could get some comments from the experts. Any info. you can share with me is very much appreciated. I nor my dad are big collectors, however he was given this sword by an employer when he was very young and he's had it displayed on our wall at home. Also I'm not sure if I have been adding the photos correctly. Can anyone help?

Thank you,
Dan

Hello Dan,

Yours is a very nice variation of the same Luzon swords as in this thread.
You can find all the information we have on it at the moment here and also in this thread.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1792&page=3

If you ever get tired of it... ;)

Michael

[Daniel Hdz]

What's the best and safest way to clean this beauty.

[xasterix]

Hi. Apologies for necro-ing this old thread, but the swords in question are variations of the Minasbad, a blade made in the Bicol region of Luzon, Philippines. It's the supposed weapon of the Cimarrones, a tribe that lived in the highlands and which were renowned for their fighting prowess.

[Bill M]

Thank you for reviving this post. I will join you on Facebook

[Battara]

Thanks. In other posts we have already established the information you mentioned. So it is great that you also corroborate this as well.

[xasterix]

My apologies for my unintended slur in the forum rules. Suffice to say, if anyone wants a knowledge resource for Minasbads, a good person to ask would be Prof. Jason Chancoco, a University professor in the Philippines who has devoted his life to reviving the antique Minasbad and other Bicol blade designs and tracing the vanished Cimarrones tribe. He would willingly share knowledge based on his thorough research with old traditional smiths in the region.

[ShazamsLaw]

My apologies for my unintended slur in the forum rules. Suffice to say, if anyone wants a knowledge resource for Minasbads, a good person to ask would be Prof. Jason Chancoco, a University professor in the Philippines who has devoted his life to reviving the antique Minasbad and other Bicol blade designs and tracing the vanished Cimarrones tribe. He would willingly share knowledge based on his thorough research with old traditional smiths in the region.


Would you happen to know anyone or any sources on Visayan kampilans or longswords that were used by them? Long blades are known to be associated with muslims or moros only but I find it hard to believe that their neighbors were never able to learn and adapt to bigger swords unless they were mentally incapable of doing so.