Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 27th August 2007, 03:52 PM   #1
Bill M
Member
 
Bill M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
Default

Just one of the many things I respect about this Forum is that people here are willing to discuss validity and origin of pieces that may challenge -- in a very beneficial way -- time honored concepts.

Two particular men (and there are many others) on this Forum have my utmost respect as researchers and gentlemen.

I had always heard that Parang Naburs were the province of the Sea Dayaks, and then VVV (Micheal) put forth the idea that they are more in the arena of the Phillippines.

I also have a pair of the aluminum handled khuks that were supposed to have been made for the troops of the Maharajah of Jodhpur, and a man whom I respect as one of the greatest khukri experts active today has pretty much convinced me that this is untrue. The research he has done very much supports his assertion.
Bill M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 05:18 PM   #2
Andrew
Member
 
Andrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Marsh
Two particular men ... on this Forum have my utmost respect as researchers and gentlemen.
Oh, stop it Bill. You're embarrassing me.
Andrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 07:20 PM   #3
Dajak
Member
 
Dajak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 952
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Marsh



I had always heard that Parang Naburs were the province of the Sea Dayaks, and then VVV (Micheal) put forth the idea that they are more in the arena of the Phillippines.

.
There is no proof of this Bill .

The malay introduced the Nabur into the coast of Borneo and some off the Iban Pirates used this weapon the one that are made in Borneo look somethimes like Jimpuls there is an rare straight nabur that was in my collection did had an lot off Iban influence
And now in American hands.

Ben
Dajak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2007, 09:11 PM   #4
VVV
Member
 
VVV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
Default

Seems to be a bit misunderstanding here about the so called Nabur issue again.
It all unfortunately started with Stone's book.
The picture in Stone shows a Luzon blade and I wasn't the one who figured out exacty where it came from.
Only that it wasn't from Borneo, or had any other Malay origin, and my guess was the Philippines.
Other forumites concluded to which area in the Philippines.
The text from Stone however was based on a misunderstanding of a quote from Ling Roth about the Parang Nyabur.
The sword Ben refers to - the Beladah Belabang - is of Malay, non-Dayak origin, and is not a Sea Dayak traditional sword.
Actually I haven't seen any of those collected at all even close to any Sea Dayak territory.
Ben, if you found new evidence to show that this is incorrect please state a reliable and old enough source for this?

Michael
VVV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.