Borneo Parang Nabur or Visayan Bolo?

VVV · 14th November 2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSMStar

Michael,

The second "Parang Nabur" that you posted... does the hilt appear to have been replaced? The "style" seems a bit different.

Not what I can remember.
I don't have the bolo here at the moment.
Only the pictures of it in my computer.
What specifically do you want me to check?

Michael

Ian · 14th November 2006, 02:51 PM

Michael:

I was hoping that some of our Visayan experts would comment on swords of this style, but they have been quiet for some time and it appears that they're not going to reply to your questions.

A Visayan attribution seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. The bat or dog head pommel is not a typical Visayan form (at least not in this representation) -- more commonly seen in S. Luzon (e.g., Batangas). The full length, peened over tang is an unusual construction in the Visayas -- more typical of Luzon. The short octagonal ferrule is more typical of Batangas than Visayas, although that is not a strong distinction IMO. The V-ground blade (rather than a chisel-grind) is unusual in the Visayas -- more common in Luzon and elsewhere. The scabbard has some general features of a Visayan scabbarb, especially from the eastern areas -- the drilled-through "hanger" being common -- but again the style and carving are dissimilar from most Visayan work.

Erik has suggested a Batangas origin. I think S. Luzon is a good guess, and Batangas is one area that deserves consideration. Another is the Bicol region, and it seems that some suggestions about that area have also been offered to you.

If this sword is from the Philippines, and I think it is, then S. Luzon would fit most closely. Batangas or Bicol? I can't take it any further than that I'm afraid. But Visayas seems unlikely.

Ian.

VVV · 14th November 2006, 03:45 PM

Ian,

Thanks for your comments and sharing your experience!

Michael

BSMStar · 14th November 2006, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VVV

Not what I can remember.
I don't have the bolo here at the moment.
Only the pictures of it in my computer.
What specifically do you want me to check?

Michael

Michael,

Carefully look at your original sword (D-guard clam shell) and my sword... at the hilts. Also look at the one like yours in the Madrid Museum. The details are amazingly similar.

Look at how they are peened.

Look at the second example that you posted... the detail of the face are a bit more crude (it does not show the same level of craftsmanship)... the peen appears to be a redo. I have seen "modern" Luzon peens that are done the same way, but none of the "original" examples (of this type sword) look like this. But I can not hold the sword in my hand to tell for 100% certain. It is possible that the original hilt was damaged and replaced... which is not a real big deal if true. It is still a great sword!

Also check to see, what is the hilt made from (it should be horn)...

BSMStar · 18th November 2006, 10:06 PM

Can we agree to call this sword a Parang Nabur?

This is how the Spanish identified it in the Museum...

tom hyle · 18th November 2006, 10:12 PM

To me this is the "bat-head parang nabur" of whose origins I've wondered. I once saw a chrome plated one marked "Phillipines"; not much help, I guess. It doesn't always have a full length tang, or something verrrry similar to it does not have a full length tang.

comiso90 · 2nd March 2008, 09:54 PM

Hey there..

It seems I have a sword very much like this... This is the first time in 30 years I've seen a photo of another.
Can anybody give me idea how much it would sell for?

I wish I had the scabbard!

thanks!

VVV · 19th November 2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSMStar

Can we agree to call this sword a Parang Nabur?

This is how the Spanish identified it in the Museum...

I don't know how it is in the US but here in Europe it's still a problem that both museums, as well as auction houses, most often classify their ethnographic swords wrong. That was one of the reasons that Shelford wrote his classic article on Sarawak swords and he brings it up already in the first sentence of his study.
I assume that this museum in recent time have used Stone as a reference (note also f.i. the spelling Campilan)?
The only sources that are useful here are collection notes, like those in Leiden.

Michael

Marc · 19th November 2006, 02:00 PM

"Campilán" is the Spanish term for "kampilan". Sometimes is used popularly to describe simply a sword of long blade from insular south east asia/north oceania, but in this context it is used properly.

Ian · 19th November 2006, 02:30 PM

I don't know what the term for these swords would be in Batangas or Bicol, but parang nabur, a Malay word, is most unlikely. Probably Southern Luzon bolo would be a good generic term until the actual local word surfaces. This one is too far north to call it a sundang ad probably too far south to call it an itak.

Parang nabur implies a Malay or Borneo origin, and I think there is general agreement here that these swords are not from those areas, although the similarity to a parang nabur suggests these swords may have been copied from the parang nabur in the distant past.

Ian.

zelbone · 19th November 2006, 07:04 PM

Interesting thread...

I see where you may mistake these swords as being Visayan. These examples may be parang naburs, but then again I'm not to familiar with those swords. And Batangas and Bicol has been brought up as a possible origin. In the past I have made references to the "bathead Batangas bolo." I've also posted a year ago when I was in Batangas that those swords are possibly from Bicol instead.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2818
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=594

So here's some food for thought. The first sword is from Bicol. This sword was given to me by my Uncle several years ago and I always thought it was from Batangas. Last year when I was in Batangas, my cousin told me that it was originally from Bicol. The most prevalent figural hilt form in Batangas is the horse, but the bathead form can be found there as well. Most scabbards in Batangas are made of tooled leather. The scabbard on this example is wood with a flared toe...similar to certain Visayan scabbards. The other two swords are very similar, but with different blade styles. They are also from the Philippines most likely from Bicol. One now belongs to Ibeam. All three have bathead hilt and similar scabbards. The blades on the swords in question do not look like any of these examples. Study the differences and make comparisons....maybe you'll find your answers.

18th November 2006, 10:06 PM	#5
BSMStar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Kansas City, MO USA Posts: 312	Can we agree to call this sword a Parang Nabur? This is how the Spanish identified it in the Museum... Attached Images

2nd March 2008, 09:54 PM	#7
comiso90 Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3	Hey there.. It seems I have a sword very much like this... This is the first time in 30 years I've seen a photo of another. Can anybody give me idea how much it would sell for? I wish I had the scabbard! thanks! Attached Images

19th November 2006, 02:30 PM	#10
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	What's in a name ? I don't know what the term for these swords would be in Batangas or Bicol, but parang nabur, a Malay word, is most unlikely. Probably Southern Luzon bolo would be a good generic term until the actual local word surfaces. This one is too far north to call it a sundang ad probably too far south to call it an itak. Parang nabur implies a Malay or Borneo origin, and I think there is general agreement here that these swords are not from those areas, although the similarity to a parang nabur suggests these swords may have been copied from the parang nabur in the distant past. Ian.

19th November 2006, 07:04 PM	#11
zelbone Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: VISAYAS and MINDANAO Posts: 169	Interesting thread... I see where you may mistake these swords as being Visayan. These examples may be parang naburs, but then again I'm not to familiar with those swords. And Batangas and Bicol has been brought up as a possible origin. In the past I have made references to the "bathead Batangas bolo." I've also posted a year ago when I was in Batangas that those swords are possibly from Bicol instead. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2818 http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=594 So here's some food for thought. The first sword is from Bicol. This sword was given to me by my Uncle several years ago and I always thought it was from Batangas. Last year when I was in Batangas, my cousin told me that it was originally from Bicol. The most prevalent figural hilt form in Batangas is the horse, but the bathead form can be found there as well. Most scabbards in Batangas are made of tooled leather. The scabbard on this example is wood with a flared toe...similar to certain Visayan scabbards. The other two swords are very similar, but with different blade styles. They are also from the Philippines most likely from Bicol. One now belongs to Ibeam. All three have bathead hilt and similar scabbards. The blades on the swords in question do not look like any of these examples. Study the differences and make comparisons....maybe you'll find your answers. Attached Images

14th November 2006, 02:51 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Michael: I was hoping that some of our Visayan experts would comment on swords of this style, but they have been quiet for some time and it appears that they're not going to reply to your questions. A Visayan attribution seems unlikely for a couple of reasons. The bat or dog head pommel is not a typical Visayan form (at least not in this representation) -- more commonly seen in S. Luzon (e.g., Batangas). The full length, peened over tang is an unusual construction in the Visayas -- more typical of Luzon. The short octagonal ferrule is more typical of Batangas than Visayas, although that is not a strong distinction IMO. The V-ground blade (rather than a chisel-grind) is unusual in the Visayas -- more common in Luzon and elsewhere. The scabbard has some general features of a Visayan scabbarb, especially from the eastern areas -- the drilled-through "hanger" being common -- but again the style and carving are dissimilar from most Visayan work. Erik has suggested a Batangas origin. I think S. Luzon is a good guess, and Batangas is one area that deserves consideration. Another is the Bicol region, and it seems that some suggestions about that area have also been offered to you. If this sword is from the Philippines, and I think it is, then S. Luzon would fit most closely. Batangas or Bicol? I can't take it any further than that I'm afraid. But Visayas seems unlikely. Ian.

14th November 2006, 03:45 PM	#3
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Ian, Thanks for your comments and sharing your experience! Michael

18th November 2006, 10:12 PM	#6
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	To me this is the "bat-head parang nabur" of whose origins I've wondered. I once saw a chrome plated one marked "Phillipines"; not much help, I guess. It doesn't always have a full length tang, or something verrrry similar to it does not have a full length tang.

19th November 2006, 02:00 PM	#9
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	"Campilán" is the Spanish term for "kampilan". Sometimes is used popularly to describe simply a sword of long blade from insular south east asia/north oceania, but in this context it is used properly.