Is this a Langgai Tinggang
 

I bought this sword in Sibu (Sarawak) in 1982
I doubt it's a Langgai Tinggang because the "Krowit" looks different from the standard Krowits from the LT I've been looking at. In addition, the groove along the length of the sheath is missing. Anyone have an idea?

Hello Godfried,

You refer to the groove along the back of the blade, I assume?

I'd posit that this is one of the intermediates between langgai tinggang and other Iban blades (possibly leaning towards parang pedang which can also exhibit mandau-like features). Also the scabbard has some LT and some mandau features while the hilt suits a LT. On total evidence, I'd be fine with calling this a variant langgai tinggang or an intermediate Iban piece. Nice one!

BTW, please also show the backside of blades and scabbards as the offer additional clues for discussion!

Regards,
Kai

Hello Godfried,

I don't care too much about the name game. But Kai makes a very sound conclusion based on the terminology that we follow in the western world.

But what a nice piece considering that you bought it in 1982 in Sibu.
Well preserved.

Looking forward to more pictures. (if possible)

Best regards,
Willem

Hello Godfried,

Here's a tilan(g) kamarau from the Iban.

Parang pedang tend to have slightly longer blades which either resemble LT or TK blades. Often parang pedang seem to originate from the islamized coastal groups but some appear to exhibit more Iban features.

Regards,
Kai

Not my area of interest, so no definitive comments about this particular blade.
Instead I would like to propose a very general comment:
Our mutual interest is " Oriental" weapons. By definition, they were made by individual masters who, unlike European manufacturers, did not have strict standards established by their governmental authorities.
It, therefore, is inevitable that what came out of the smithy was at least a little different every time. The same is true about the place that specialized in handles and in yet another workshop producing scabbards.
I do not think we can ever find a pair of absolutely identical parangs, kastanes, khandas or pulwars. IMHO, if we do, it might be a telltale sign of late manufacture under governmental regulation.

Again IMHO: what really counts is the general gestalt. We can quibble about subtle differences and think about intermixes with other forms, but as a rule tulwar is tulwar is tulwar.

Hi Ariel:

You make an important point that these are handmade items constructed to a general formula and made using handed down techniques. That there would be regional variation and changes over time is inevitable. How quickly such changes occur and how much license is given to the various specialists who make these items also likely varies from place to place. What makes this a challenging topic is that we usually do not know the degree of variation introduced and how quickly that occurred.

I'm thinking of the Laz bichaq from your own interests which seems to have come and gone rather quickly, and the Kachin dao which was replaced almost completely by the straight Shan dha with a squared off end during just a few decades of the second half of the 19th C. My understanding of Borneo swords like the topic of this thread is that they changed little over a century or two, with the same basic blade and hilt styles, but differed mainly in their decorative elements. However, I too am no expert on changing styles of Borneo swords, and look forward to hearing from others in response to your ideas.

Before we get too side tracked, however, let's remember the original question asked by Godfried. Hopefully some of our other experts will also give opinions.

The other site.

wow, very nice !