Sewar berpamor

VVV · 10th November 2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

...Hi Michael - I thought the classification would be based on the shape of the blade, and not really the size? I have another sewar of similar proportions, but with a plain blade and nice old patinated wooden sheath and hilt...

Hi Kai Wee,

I was thinking of the Golok Rembau (see Hill 1956:60) and suspected that something similar was the case for an oversized Sewar?

Michael

BluErf · 16th November 2008, 03:10 AM

Hello Michael,

Sorry for taking a while to get back. Had to dig out my books, which are still the various stages of being unpacked since I moved house.

I looked up the reference of golok rembau in the Hill article and saw that it was a mention of this golok being similar to the tumbok lada, but larger.

Also referring to Zonneveld's book, I found that it had adopted the same definition from Hill.

But that could be sufficient to make a differentiation, because in both Hill's article and Zonneveld's book, the tumbok lada was illustrated as a dagger with a slightly curved, short and broad blade, with a hilt in the form of a thick cylinder with a flat/near flat pommel. The sewar by comparison, is proportionately longer, slimmer and has a more pronounced curve. Furthermore, the hilt does not have the same bulky cylindrical look to it.

In Zonneveld's book, the sewar specimens published ranged from 19.5cm to 33.5cm, showing that a wide range of sizes is possible for sewars. The text also made mention of large sewars used as a machete.

Hence, though this blade of mine is larger than the biggest speciment published in Zonneveld's book at about 40cm, I think it is most likely still a sewar due to the blade and hilt form.

VVV · 16th November 2008, 04:01 PM

Hi Kai Wee,

I didn't mean that yours was a golok rembau. Just that it happens that oversized weapons also have
other names (like tumbok lada - golok rembau).
Maybe we will find it later in some source or maybe it's always a sewar, no matter size?
Anyway it's a great piece and the size is interesting too.

Michael

16th November 2008, 03:10 AM	#2
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Hello Michael, Sorry for taking a while to get back. Had to dig out my books, which are still the various stages of being unpacked since I moved house. I looked up the reference of golok rembau in the Hill article and saw that it was a mention of this golok being similar to the tumbok lada, but larger. Also referring to Zonneveld's book, I found that it had adopted the same definition from Hill. But that could be sufficient to make a differentiation, because in both Hill's article and Zonneveld's book, the tumbok lada was illustrated as a dagger with a slightly curved, short and broad blade, with a hilt in the form of a thick cylinder with a flat/near flat pommel. The sewar by comparison, is proportionately longer, slimmer and has a more pronounced curve. Furthermore, the hilt does not have the same bulky cylindrical look to it. In Zonneveld's book, the sewar specimens published ranged from 19.5cm to 33.5cm, showing that a wide range of sizes is possible for sewars. The text also made mention of large sewars used as a machete. Hence, though this blade of mine is larger than the biggest speciment published in Zonneveld's book at about 40cm, I think it is most likely still a sewar due to the blade and hilt form.

16th November 2008, 04:01 PM	#3
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Hi Kai Wee, I didn't mean that yours was a golok rembau. Just that it happens that oversized weapons also have other names (like tumbok lada - golok rembau). Maybe we will find it later in some source or maybe it's always a sewar, no matter size? Anyway it's a great piece and the size is interesting too. Michael