Borneo parang naibur--a mix of old and new

[Ian]

In a recent discussion of a Borneo mandau, mention was made of fine rattan on the hilt being more indicative of older manufacture than coarser rattan wrappings. This prompted me to look back at some of my Borneo swords and reconsider their age. In doing so, I came across the one shown below, which I acquired online in 2005 and was discussed here at that time. For present purposes I will refer to my sword as a parang naibur, although Albert van Zonneveld shows a similar sword in his book that is called langgai tinggang, and our Borneo experts may have other names they can offer too. My main point in posting this one again is to illustrate what I think is old and new about this sword.

First, I think the scabbard itself is old, possibly 19th C. The wood shows areas that had red pigment and lime decoration which have faded over time (Figures A–D). The scabbard has nice traditional carving near the throat and is bound with bands of narrow rattan that have been woven intricately into characteristic designs. These contrast with the simple wrap with wide rattan strips to which a fiber rope is attached. This rope forms a belt from which bear claws are suspended (Figures E, F), and the belt is completed with a plastic disk (Figure G) that hooks through a loop in the rope. I think this belt was likely added shortly before the sword was offered online. I am wondering whether the generalization about thin versus thick rattan for hilts may also apply here to the scabbard as well.

The hilt is also likely to be a recent feature. Carved from wood in a traditional style, it lacks the elegance and refinement of older work, and the addition of bear fur was probably another attempt to enhance the online attractiveness of the item. The rattan wrapping on the hilt would seem to be of the “wider” variety mentioned in the mandau thread.

The blade appears old, and I would date it with the scabbard as possibly 19th C. It has a dark patina with areas of stable old rust that are almost black (Figure B). The blade is well forged and straight, with a thickness of 7.5 mm just in front of the hilt and tapering smoothly to 3.0 mm where the spine turns down towards the cutting edge and the blade has a maximum width of 4.5 cm. A fuller is present on each side just below the spine of the blade—the fullers are well cut, of even width, and run parallel to the curved spine. This is a good quality blade made by a skilled craftsman.

Along the spine of the blade are groups of lines with shallow brass inlay. These lines are widest closest to the hilt and narrowest near the tip. They are present in groups of 5—7—6—7—6—5 going from the hilt towards the tip (Figure C).

Dimensions:

Overall length = 61.5 cm
Length of blade = 49.0 cm

Ian

.

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Ian,
I generally agree with your assesment but would give more credit to the hilt. Of course you have it in front of you and can see much more details but to my eyes the hilt looks only maybe a couple of decades younger than the scabbard and blade.

[Ian]

Marius,

Thanks for your thoughts. Much appreciated. I have attached another close up picture of the hilt. There is not much to be seen in terms of wear from handling or age. The carving is crisp with no chips, cracks, etc. Those are the things I was looking at when I said that I thought it was of recent manufacture. Does the rattan wrap help with assessing age in this case?

Ian.

.

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by Ian

Does the rattan wrap help with assessing age in this case?

Nope. Keep in mind that wraps can be exchanged easily from one grip to another.......

[kai]

Hello Ian,

In a recent discussion of a Borneo mandau, mention was made of fine rattan on the hilt being more indicative of older manufacture than coarser rattan wrappings.

This and craftsmanship may help to estimate age. However, there are so many peoples living on Borneo that generalizations are usually off or unreliable at best. For example, braided rattan on the grip of Kayan status mandau is extremely fine (cp. the first grip posted by Ben on that other thread) while the Kutai equivalent is still skilfully done but crafted from noticeably broader splitted rattan - we really need to compare items from a single culture here. Not only that but also each part/type of braiding or other rattan work separately...

For present purposes I will refer to my sword as a parang naibur, although Albert van Zonneveld shows a similar sword in his book that is called langgai tinggang, and our Borneo experts may have other names they can offer too.

It is neither, sorry.

It is a type of Iban parang with symmetric edge (rather than a mandau with concave and convex sides); I don't believe we ever found a genuine name for this distinct type - maybe our member Primus can help with info from the source?

First, I think the scabbard itself is old, possibly 19th C. The wood shows areas that had red pigment and lime decoration which have faded over time

These scabbards are quite rare - definitely a good catch!

Regarding age, I'd guess it to be quite a bit later though. Just a hunch based on craftsmanship, materials, etc.

bound with bands of narrow rattan that have been woven intricately into characteristic designs. These contrast with the simple wrap with wide rattan strips to which a fiber rope is attached.

The wider rattan strips under the clip are typical and not per se a sign of recent work. I'm less convinced of the knots though - these look like later work for me...

This rope forms a belt from which bear claws are suspended (Figures E, F), and the belt is completed with a plastic disk (Figure G) that hooks through a loop in the rope. I think this belt was likely added shortly before the sword was offered online.

Genuine belts of this scabbard type seem to come in lesser qualities, too. No idea why and I'd guess they got replaced regularly during active use.

The claws are certainly added very late: the remaining tissues would start rotting in a humid climate... Dito for the 3 smaller teeth.

The larger teeth appear to be a bit older though.

The rattan wrapping on the hilt would seem to be of the “wider” variety mentioned in the mandau thread.

I believe the Iban tend to utilize broader splitted rattan - craftsmanship is not too bad and probably consistent with a vintage origin.

The blade appears old, and I would date it with the scabbard as possibly 19th C.

The blade may well be older. Tough call since the quality doesn't seem to be high which tends to make estimates much more difficult.


I hope others will chime in, too!

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Hello Kai,

Thanks for your detailed response. The information is greatly appreciated.

It is somehow refreshing to know that some things simply don't have a name! I was never happy with calling it a parang naibur, but could find nothing better in the sources I consulted. To learn that it has no recognized name is not surprising.

I agree that the blade is rather plain, but at the same time it is well made and seems to have some age to it. The sword is quite light in the hand and well balanced.

I'm planning to take this one with me to Australia, so I will likely remove the belt and the fur trim on the hilt. No sense in giving customs people things to be concerned about. I don't think that the loss of the belt and fur will detract from the item.

Ian

[kai]

Hello Ian,

Thanks for your detailed response. The information is greatly appreciated.

You're welcome! Wait for comments by the Dayak specialists before taking any conclusions as well as actions...

I agree that the blade is rather plain, but at the same time it is well made and seems to have some age to it. The sword is quite light in the hand and well balanced.

Yes, it does't look like a toy (aka made as gift for foreigners or for sale to those who travel for pleasure). There may be a chance it was mainly made for ceremonial use.

I don't think that the loss of the belt and fur will detract from the item.

The fur and the new additions certainly not. However, please post a pic of the reverse side of the scabbard and a close-up of the rattan attachment.

There may be a point of depositing it in a museum...

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Thanks again Kai. Here are some pictures of the back of the scabbard with close ups of the rattan fittings.

I will not do anything drastic until hearing from more folks.

Ian.

[Dajak]

It don t even come close to an parang nabur.

http://old.blades.free.fr/swords/day...ayak_intro.htm

Ben

[kai]

You're welcome, Ian!

Here are some pictures of the back of the scabbard with close ups of the rattan fittings.

Doesn't look obviously suspect to me. The quality of the strap is low but I'd like input from any Iban specialists for the final verdict on age, etc.

Regards,
Kai

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by Ian

In a recent discussion of a Borneo mandau, mention was made of fine rattan on the hilt being more indicative of older manufacture than coarser rattan wrappings.

There is a kind of truth in this, but in mine opinion this is not an age indicator for the 100%.
Ofcourse the fine rattan work often is found on older hilts, and the plaited rattan on the more recent hilts is less intricate and coarser.

Indeed, on the more recent hilts, almost never is seen such intricate fine rattanwork. But I have seen very old hilts with coarse rattanwork on the hilts. So the other way around this works not as an indicator imho.

Kind regards,
Maurice

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by Ian

First, I think the scabbard itself is old, possibly 19th C. I am wondering whether the generalization about thin versus thick rattan for hilts may also apply here to the scabbard as well.

IMO I'm not sure if the scabbard is from the 19th century, and the "thin versus thick rattan" has nothing to do with the age of the scabbard. :-)
I've seen very old collected Borneo swords with huge, thick, rattan bands around the scabbard! The scabbard could be older indeed, looking at the patina here and there (between the rattan knots), but probably the paint is more recent. The carving on the scabbard though has no patina at all. I would not be surprised if it is even a more recent scabbard.

Originally Posted by Ian

The hilt is also likely to be a recent feature.

I agree with this one. The patina is not right, and it looks like it is artificially aged. The cravings don't look that smoothly done also, and rather crude.

Originally Posted by Ian

The blade appears old, and I would date it with the scabbard as possibly 19th C. It has a dark patina with areas of stable old rust that are almost black (Figure B). The blade is well forged and straight, with a thickness of 7.5 mm just in front of the hilt and tapering smoothly to 3.0 mm where the spine turns down towards the cutting edge and the blade has a maximum width of 4.5 cm. A fuller is present on each side just below the spine of the blade—the fullers are well cut, of even width, and run parallel to the curved spine. This is a good quality blade made by a skilled craftsman.

Sorry, but also here I must say the blade is probably not as old as you think. Normally these kind of blades (as far as I can remember though) are at least 1 cm thick at the spine. Also the fuller looks different, as the old style fullers. This blade is not a good quality blade IMO, and very poor. You can have a look at the holes in the blade and the krowit, which shows no signs of craftsmanship to me.
And if the blade does appear to be an old one, it is poorly crafted.


These kind of parangs show up now and than in Malaysian collections nowadays. Nothing wrong with it, but not the antique parangs I would like to collect.