Borneo Parang Nabur or Visayan Bolo?

[VVV]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

[BSMStar]

It would not be the first time that I am "chalk full of blueberry muffins..."
and I agree that Museums can make mistakes. I also think that since the Spanish has about 400 years to learn about P.I. swords, there maybe something to learn from their experience... especially when verified with other examples.

Check the below link on Parang Naburs and compare the blade profiles below.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...y+parang+nabur

It seems to me that this profile is unique in the Philippines. If it is not a Parang Nabur (and can we prove that it is not related), then... what is it? The Spanish may have got this right, that it is a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. All of the key ingredients are present (except for the peen).

[BSMStar]

When looking at these older examples... I get a feeling of a short snout Sea Horse... but then again, call me crazy.


(The examples Zel has shown us ... thank you for sharing the wonderful pieces... look like bats to me.)

[Battara]

Originally Posted by BSMStar

When looking at these older examples... I get a feeling of a short snout Sea Horse... but then again, call me crazy.

Could there be flying sea-horse bats?

(You say tomato, I say potato? )

[VVV]

Originally Posted by BSMStar

It would not be the first time that I am "chalk full of blueberry muffins..."
and I agree that Museums can make mistakes. I also think that since the Spanish has about 400 years to learn about P.I. swords, there maybe something to learn from their experience... especially when verified with other examples.

Check the below link on Parang Naburs and compare the blade profiles below.


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...y+parang+nabur

It seems to me that this profile is unique in the Philippines. If it is not a Parang Nabur (and can we prove that it is not related), then... what is it? The Spanish may have got this right, that it is a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. All of the key ingredients are present (except for the peen).

I think there are lot of differences between the two swords you show (arc of the blade, fuller, motifs on the blade, protrusions on the blade close to the hilt, cup, form of the D-guard, fixing of the tang, construction of the hilt etc.). And I am familiar with the Parang Nabur in the thread you linked to as I have seen all of them "live".
Of course I could post several pictures of examples of these features but that you could all do with a little help from Google.
So I prefer to discuss the origin of, and accuracy, of the classification name "Parang Nabur", as it is known when we discuss these kind of swords on this forum.

Let's go back to the sources first. Where does the name Parang Nabur come from and what actually is it?

Stone: "PARANG NABUR. A Malayan sword also used by the Dyaks. It has a short blade curved towards the point, and widest at the point of the curvature. The hilt is generally of bone and has a guard and finger guard of brass or iron."

OK, let's have a look at the source Stone refers to, Ling Roth II page 135:

"The parang nabur seems to be the only really genuine Sea Dyak weapon. The parang pedang they have copied from the Malays, and the parang ilang is altogether a Kayan weapon, and beyond their powers of imitation. The nabur in ordinary use is a short curved sword with a bone handle. This style of sword is broadest at its point of curvature. It does not curve like a scimitar from the hilt, but is straight for some distance, and takes a sudden curve towards the end, and when the sword is long, as is one in my collection, it becomes top heavy and requires both hands to wield effectually."

Unfortunately there is no picture of this weapon in Ling Roth.
Nowhere is the quite characteristic D-guard, or any hilt guard, mentioned?
Have you ever seen a Parang Nabur that requires "both hands to wield effectually"?
One of the Parang Nabur in my collection is a 114 cm long Parang Nabur (which is 10 cm longer than Willem's Parang Nabur "XL" pictured in van Zonneveld!). This is the longest one I have so far seen or heard about. Still it's balanced so I can swing it with one hand. And there is no room on it for a second hand on the handle. (Of course I could put the other hand on my wrist but I don't think that's what Ling Roth meant with his description.)

Actually I suspect that Ling Roth isn't describing the same kind of sword as Stone assumes he does?
To me it seems like he is describing the, at that time, more common, as well as unique Sea Dayak, sword Niabor (same name and probably same pronounciation)?
A sword that could be handled with two hands at the handle and fits the description of Ling Roth.
Also the Parang Nabur found in f.i. Leiden are collected in the Banjarmasin area, SE Borneo, and the Sea Dayak live in the opposite NW Borneo!

So if Stone's only source was Ling Roth, as quoted, then it's easy to understand why there seems to be a misunderstanding about the South Luzon Bolo?

In the Leiden Borneo catalogues the name Parang Nabur isn't found as a name of these swords. The swords that we on this forum classify as "Parang Nabur" have some of the following local names in the collection notes:
Parang Lais, Sanangkas, Patjat Gantung, Kemudi Singkir, Mandrah and Wawalutan(?).

So if you would walk the streets of Banjarmasin 100 years ago and asked for a Parang Nabur it seems as if no local would even know what you talked about?
And if you would do the same in Kuching maybe somebody would have offered you a Niabor?

But let's keep the name "Parang Nabur" within this discussion as it's well known, probably because of Stone, as a description of this kind of sword.
I also think that Ian has a valid point about giving a sword from South Luzon a name in Malay.

Michael

[Spunjer]

I also think that Ian has a valid point about giving a sword from South Luzon a name in Malay.

the term golok is frequently use in the philippines...

[BSMStar]

Originally Posted by VVV

Let's go back to the sources first. Where does the name Parang Nabur come from and what actually is it?

Stone: "PARANG NABUR. A Malayan sword also used by the Dyaks. It has a short blade curved towards the point, and widest at the point of the curvature. The hilt is generally of bone and has a guard and finger guard of brass or iron."

The Philippines (ethnically) are about 90-95% Malay or Malay "mix"... so I ask, is there a possible connection through the people with a Malay sword? Is it possible that they may have had a Parang Nabur? Is it possible that they adopted this sword profile while making the sword their own? No one has come forward with any examples of this profile on any other Philippine sword.

If the issue is that all Parang Naburs come from Malay or Borneo… therefore, if it come out of the Philippines it can no longer be considered to be a Parang Nabur… I have no debate with that. I think I am in the same “vein” with Tom, that if taken at face value, this is a “bat head Parang Nabur.” The real “secret” is what did the locals call this sword? Indeed, it may have been called by a different name… but what should we call it until we discover the true name for this wonderful sword? And why?