Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ariel
Quoting Michael:
"... I think that the parang on the link above is more related to this kind of non-documented Iban sword than the one on Artzi's site?
And the hilt form looks more like the rare kind shown in Iban Art pict.135 or Coppens page 73 (far right)."
Another one of my pseudophilosophical ramblings:
Why do we always try to pigeonhole every weapon into some predefined niche?
"This one is a Niabor, this one is a Jimpul, and that one is undefined or undocumented"
Do not get me wrong: it is important to know a correct name for many reasons, but these swords were made by hand, by illiterate village smiths who never belonged to trade guilds, had no manuals, no strict standards and no ethnographers standing behind their backs and ordering them to increase the angle just a bit to conform to Pic. X on Page Y in book Z.
Of course, every one of them had just a gestalt of what a mandau ( or anyrhing else) should look and just spiced it up from time to time with a crenellation here, a curlicue there and a recurve blade if he had a pariculatly good drink last evening.
The more we look at the swords, the more variability we find even within the same class. Not a miracle: it is an art first and foremost, and real art lets imagination run wild.
I just wonder what real head-hunting Dyaks from the 19th century would call this sword. Probably just "A Sword".
|
The only reason for using collector terminology, like Jimpul and Niabor, is to be able to explain in one word what you are referring to and save space on this forum.
Non-documented f.i. means that it's not pictured in any of the books.
But I agree that a parang is a parang is a parang...
Michael