Hi Ben,
I have read Ling Roth's book but I think it's very cryptic regarding his description of Dayak swords. Sometimes I suspect that he mixes up names of the swords (Nabur vs Niabor) and a lot seems to come from hearsay. So if Ling Roth is the main source I fully understand why Stone also had problems with classifying some weapons.
Another example is his description of the Dukn. A van Zonneveld obviously chooses only to quote it in his excellent book, maybe because it's hard to figure out what it really is? My guess (!) is that it's the Iban Pedang that resembles the Batak Piso Podang.
Enclosed is a page from Ling Roth on the Parang Pandit (I think?).
If that's the page then he attributes it to the Hill tribes instead of the Sea Dayaks.
I also have enclosed a nice illustration from the same book of a Pandat that resembles yours. Also note that Ling Roth attributes the Kampilan in the same illustration to the Lanun tribe.
This thread more and more looks like a discussion only between us so unless somebody else would like to participate maybe we should continue it off forum?
And I am sure that we all would like to see the 1820 bring back sword.
Michael
PS RhysMichael, Charles Buttin's Catalogue is a catalogue of his collection. I don't have it with me at the moment but I think there is only one plate in it of Indonesian weapons. I find the D Buttin site very well researched and you can find a separate reference list on the site with several good books and articles.
|