|
|
|
19th November 2006, 02:30 PM
|
#1 |
|
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,361
|
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
|
#2 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
19th November 2006, 10:17 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
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). Last edited by BSMStar; 20th November 2006 at 01:31 AM. |
|
|
|
|
19th November 2006, 10:28 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
Is it a Bat?
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.) Last edited by BSMStar; 20th November 2006 at 01:26 AM. |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 09:28 PM
|
#5 | |
|
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,272
|
Quote:
 (You say tomato, I say potato?  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2006, 12:53 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 09:40 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
|
Quote:
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 Last edited by VVV; 20th November 2006 at 10:24 AM. Reason: Wawalutan had a question mark in the Leiden catalogues |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 11:41 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posts: 1,730
|
Quote:
the term golok is frequently use in the philippines... |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 01:14 PM
|
#9 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
My only suggestion is... that this may be a Philippine version of the Parang Nabur. The profiles are strikingly similar and odd for the Philippines. It is peened like a Luzon blade. The hilt is localized... as is the D-guard. I do not think it to unusual for someone to adopt this blade and to make it their own. Apparently, this blade was discontinued as mysteriously as at was adopted (maybe sea raiding was not so important any more). I am keeping an open mind that maybe the Parang Nabur made its way to Luzon and was adopted for a "brief" stay. Stranger things have happened. There are merits for both sides of the argument... but darn, the blade is an oddity. Can anyone say how far back this blade profile can be traced back on the Parang Nabur (100, 200, 300 or more years)? |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 01:50 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
It is not even close an Parang Nabur
Ben |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 04:10 PM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: VISAYAS and MINDANAO
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
interesting....in Batangas a bolo is often called a "gulok." |
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 07:31 PM
|
#12 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
Hi Michael I think it is not an age indicator because not al the seadayaks
are moslim I think whe have to look at the Handle style and blade style and the style off the handguard . We have 3 different ones wood horn and Brass , don t forget that there also Manadu's with brass handles . |
|
|
|
|
21st November 2006, 01:51 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
Quote:
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2006, 04:19 AM
|
#14 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 520
|
Just to add to the hilt here is a remount of a Japanese bayonet that has the same type of hilt and was attributed to the Phillipines
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2006, 07:46 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Witness Protection Program
Posts: 1,730
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
21st November 2006, 07:51 AM
|
#16 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
|
Quote:
On what inspired the creators of this sword, as well as what in the Western world among collectors is known as a "Parang Nabur", Tim answered it quite clear in his first comment of this sword: "Yummy, how old is this. It looks as if there is a lot of European hanger influence. Tim" This Filipino sword as well as the Borneo "Parang Nabur" and the Malay Regalia swords etc. are most likely all inspired by foreign sabres. That means that the origin of these swords aren't indigenous Malay. There are to many problems with trying to trace it to the Borneo variation of the foreign sabre. It's all based on a small mistake by Stone in 1934, that then has been quoted by other authors, museum curators and members of this forum, and suddenly a new term, and reference, is invented that actually never existed among the original users of the sword. If you want to find out what is the specific inspiration for this local variation, which would be very interesting, I assume the best way would be to study the swords of foreign people visiting this area. Probably Spanish swords would be a good start? Michael Last edited by VVV; 21st November 2006 at 11:37 AM. Reason: clarification |
|
|
|
|
|
22nd November 2006, 06:12 AM
|
#17 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
Maybe the name Parang Nabur comes from the Seadayak parang Niabor
Because in the older days The Iban of the batang Lupar and Saribas in the olden days joined in their large war prahus on pitatical raids along the cost and up certain rivers. Altough they probably never went out a very great ditance on the sea, by coasting they where able to attack numerous villages round the coast , and they owe their name of SEA DAYAKS to this practice. The great PIRATICAL FORAYS were orginised by malays , who went for plunder, but they could always induce the Iban to accompany them on the promise that all the heads of the slain should fall to their share. Don t forget that the Malay must have come to Borneo not lather than the early part off the 15 cht , as Brunei was a large and weahlty town in 1521 . Probably the Malays came directly from the Malay Peninsula, but most have have mixed largely with the Kadayans, Melanaus and other coastal people. This all can be read in headhunters from Alfred C Haddon . So that s why some off these use the parang Nabur too but not whit the muslim indication s like the malay people did. A picture off An Iban Pirate with an parang Nabur is maybe hard to get but we coul say that the same from the Parang pandat show me an pic from an Land dayak with an parang pandat. So till that time we have to believe stone till we can prove that it is not true he write about the subject. Junboyll has also some books about the philiphinne weapons Ben |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
