Dayak parang

David · 30th July 2007, 04:10 AM

Ben, i see the mirrorred "S" on your example, but it doesn't explaain to me why you don't think my mandau is Buket. It merely shows that another region also used the same motif. I see more motifs in common with Arjan's examples. I am not fully convinced of either origin, but as the examples fall up to now i would still be more inclined towards the Buket origins. I would love to hear why you think this is not possible.

Dajak · 30th July 2007, 12:54 PM

At the moment they found these pieces in that area did not have much contact with the other people

the pic from buket area don t look that it is from 1898

In hose and macdonald pagantribes off borneo we can read that a number off tribes have adopted the tatu off the Kayan Batang Kayan from the upper Makaham

I cannot find markings that only used by the buket people .

Maybe the tribe have an other name Schwaner does write also about the boekit people that they are moslim people and wear clothes on the Boegenese Art can be read in Schwaner 1843- 1847

bandjarmassin was famous for the diamonds that was search by the malay s
and the chinese people

That is why I think not Boekit

Ben

David · 30th July 2007, 01:35 PM

Ben, do you also suspect that the mandau from the museum that Arjan posted is Makaham and not Bukit?

Dajak · 30th July 2007, 02:57 PM

Hi David yes the problem with some off these is that some museums like I bring in an mandau and say I did take this from Borneo and the place was kuching they write that down without research . ( we also find sumatra weapons listed as Borneo weapons if you look in the leiden museum where the mandau is from )

So I don t now who bring in that mandau .

Nieuwenhuis did search an area and get a few example s not one .

So I never based area on what is in an museum . (Only when there is more proof )
Date that they bring it in can be used .

This is my opinion

There are in some books also mistakes The book off Zonneveld has one With the Jimpuls there is one pictured as Jimpul that is not classificated as an Jimpul but al the people that have the book think it s an Jimpul very dangerous.

He did put it with the Jimpuls because he had no classification wrong in my opinion .
Just leave it without name .

Ben

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30th July 2007, 04:10 AM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Ben, i see the mirrorred "S" on your example, but it doesn't explaain to me why you don't think my mandau is Buket. It merely shows that another region also used the same motif. I see more motifs in common with Arjan's examples. I am not fully convinced of either origin, but as the examples fall up to now i would still be more inclined towards the Buket origins. I would love to hear why you think this is not possible.

30th July 2007, 12:54 PM	#2
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	At the moment they found these pieces in that area did not have much contact with the other people the pic from buket area don t look that it is from 1898 In hose and macdonald pagantribes off borneo we can read that a number off tribes have adopted the tatu off the Kayan Batang Kayan from the upper Makaham I cannot find markings that only used by the buket people . Maybe the tribe have an other name Schwaner does write also about the boekit people that they are moslim people and wear clothes on the Boegenese Art can be read in Schwaner 1843- 1847 bandjarmassin was famous for the diamonds that was search by the malay s and the chinese people That is why I think not Boekit Ben

30th July 2007, 01:35 PM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Ben, do you also suspect that the mandau from the museum that Arjan posted is Makaham and not Bukit?

30th July 2007, 02:57 PM	#4
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	Hi David yes the problem with some off these is that some museums like I bring in an mandau and say I did take this from Borneo and the place was kuching they write that down without research . ( we also find sumatra weapons listed as Borneo weapons if you look in the leiden museum where the mandau is from ) So I don t now who bring in that mandau . Nieuwenhuis did search an area and get a few example s not one . So I never based area on what is in an museum . (Only when there is more proof ) Date that they bring it in can be used . This is my opinion There are in some books also mistakes The book off Zonneveld has one With the Jimpuls there is one pictured as Jimpul that is not classificated as an Jimpul but al the people that have the book think it s an Jimpul very dangerous. He did put it with the Jimpuls because he had no classification wrong in my opinion . Just leave it without name . Ben