Quote:
|
Originally Posted by josh stout
Is there any evidence that people consider the straight-backed saber older or more traditional than the Indian influenced sabers?
Josh
|
I have no idea on this one and yes Utami as our man on the ground overthere may have a better answer. I have not heard from him in a while but I have his e-mail on my computer at home and will send him a message trying to get him to peek in here. One thing to note the Indian influence may actually pre-date the Chinese influence.
It would also be great if Albert saw this I would love to know his take on it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kai
However, in the case of Aceh (or rather northern Sumatra including Aceh, Gayo, Alas, and several Batak groups) there are no such close links and we have to acknowledge that this is pure speculation at best. To illustrate this point, I could as well speculate that these blades originated in Sumatra, got introduced to China and spread from there. 
We have to realize that sea trade routes connecting just about every island and coastal town from East Asia to Southeast Asia (and possibly beyond) are really old and probably predate the first sophisticated cultures with "international" influence like the Dong Son (originating from the northern Vietnam/Yunnan/Guangdong triangle - nothing to do with ethnic Han ). Thus, it would be more reasonable to assume that even bronze age cultures already had some knowledge about the main weapons of other ethnic groups rather assuming they were living in ignorance of each other until the days of any surviving chronicles. |
I don't think any of us are ready to stand on the table and yell that this is the origin of the panjang yet. You are right that there is not enough evidence for it to be anything but speculation. Still thats often how things start, with speculation. And yes it could be the Indonesians introduced it to the Chinese. It could have been from earlier Buddhist or Hindu influece from India (Some references say Indian influence was found there as early as the 1st century AD and again according to
Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia vol 1, Human Relations Area Files Press, New Haven,1972, pp. 15ff. at p.16: "Chinese sources dating from as early as 500 AD contain references to the Kingdom of Poli in North Sumatra, within the present bounds of Aceh, which apparently was ruled by Buddhists of Indian extraction." ) but there are no common Indian forms to this sword that I know of (of course what I know on Indian swords might fill a thimble). The common trade routes cause a big problem trying to trace things thats for sure. But others have documented Chinese influence on clothing and architecture in Aceh. If the panjang or a similar sword can be found to have been around much earlier that any examples I know of then it would strengthen the idea. The hairpin folding could be another clue of common ancestry or it could be related to the pattern welding seen on say ladieng or even an aberrrancy caused by a single smith or family of smiths. I've only seen a few bronze age swords. Does anyone know of any that vaguely resemble a panjang ? Its a good point thoughthat there may well be similarities between bronze age weapons. I'd be surprised if they did not know about the weapons of thier neighbors.
This all could be "convergent evolution", parrallel development or whatever else its called. It wouldn't be the first time similar sword forms had evolved independantly of each other. As I said a long way still from proof or anything definative, but certainly worth gathering more information if we can.