Borneo Parang Nabur or Visayan Bolo?

[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 Spunjer

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

Yea, I noticed the deity hilts below the "referenced" Parang Nabur (in the Madrid Museum) were called Goloks.

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)?

[Dajak]

It is not even close an Parang Nabur



Ben

[Dajak]

Some more pics


Ben

[VVV]

Very nice examples Ben,

I noticed that you don't have any examples with the Badouh (kutika) commonly seen on Parang Nabur?
Several of the 19th C examples in Juynboll have this talismanic inlay.
Is this just a coincidence or do you think it's an age indicator?
(Obviously the second example I show has less age than the first.)


Michael

[BSMStar]

Yes, I see what you mean...

[zelbone]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

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

interesting....in Batangas a bolo is often called a "gulok."

[Dajak]

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 .

[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?

[RhysMichael]

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

[Spunjer]

but what should we call it until we discover the true name for this wonderful sword? And why?

what about sonda? why you ask? coz that's the literal translation of the word 'bolo' in Bikolano.

[BSMStar]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

what about sonda? why you ask? coz that's the literal translation of the word 'bolo' in Bikolano.

Hey Spunjer... how about Parang Sonda?

(or is that a double positive? )

[VVV]

Originally Posted by BSMStar

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?

It's a pity that the swords from Philippines aren't as well documented as those from Indonesia and Malaysia. Hopefully someone will continue the work of Cato on Moro Swords and also start to collect information about swords from the rest of the Philippines. Maybe then we could find out what this sword, as well as other Filipino swords, originally were called and in what region they were used.

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

[Dajak]

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

[kai]

Hello Ben,

Junboyll has also some books about the philiphinne weapons

I must have missed these - could you please post the references? Thanks a lot!

Regards,
Kai

[Dajak]

Katalog des Ethnographischen Reichsmuseums, vol. XX: PHILIPPINEN.
JUYNBOLL, H.H.,
Bookseller: Antiquarianbooksellers GEMILANG
(BREDEVOORT, 0, Netherlands) [Convert Currency]
Quantity: 1 Shipping within Netherlands:
US$ 5.12 (EUR 4.00)
[Rates & Speeds]
Book Description: philippines ethnographica anthropology museum collection reichsmuseum leyden katalog collection. Leiden, Brill, 1928. Large 8 , original wraps. (xviii), 168pp. Numerous ills. on 12 fine plates o.o.t., indexes, registers. Important catalogue describing the Philippine-art collection of the Leyden Ethnogr. Museum. Plates depicting a.o.: basket-work, weavings, arms & armour, woodcarvings, bronze implements, household pieces, dress. Unopened copy, good. One of the rarest issues in the series (tog. 23 vols. publ.). Bookseller Inventory # 9616


Hi Kai von der Molukken ist da auch was von Juynboll auch in deutsch

Ben

[VVV]

Kai,

I have Juynboll's book on Philippines but unfortunately it only covers the weapons in the Leiden museum. This means that most of them are from Sulu, Mindanao (a lot of Bagobo) and some from North Luzon. And only a handful of swords collected in the region around Manila. No blades from South Luzon and the Visayas.
It's quite thin compared to f.i. Borneo and unfortunately not as useful.

Ben,

I have the second edition of Stone's book and in the beginning you can read about him and his life.
Stone was clearly a remarkable man and his work was of high value when he published it and it still is today.
But unlike Haddon, who based his book on his expedition to Borneo in 1898-1899, Stone actually never visited the island.
His descriptions of f.i. Borneo weapons are based on the litterature that is listed in the end of the book. This means that he only had a small percentage of all the information we have today about Borneo weapons to base his book on. And no Internet!
To list all weapons in all times is an impressive task and I find it very surprising that there are so few errors in his work based on the above.

On the Parang Nabur he writes the source of his description openly for the readers to double check.
Which I have quoted so everybody can make their own opinion and contribute to the discussion.

In f.i. Leiden there are 25+ "Parang Nabur" with credible collection notes and collected in SE Borneo.
None that has been collected in NW Borneo!
Of course there is a bias because North Borneo was British and the rest was Dutch at that time. But there are also weapons in the huge Leiden collection, like the Niabor, collected in Sarawak.
Also don't you find it strange that there are no references to this sword in f.i. Shelford, Evans, Brooke etc. where you can find all the other weapons of the inhabitants of the old British part of Borneo?
Why don't we see it in any of the Iban books that has been published after Stone?
I find it quite probable that the authors of those has tried really hard to find this "Sea-Dayak sword" as described in Stone. But it seems as if all of them failed for a reason...

Why?

I think the only conclusion must be that the weapon wasn't in use in that region?

So Ben here is the "Parang Nabur" challenge:

There are 25+ "Parang Nabur" from SE Borneo with collection notes in Leiden alone.
Show me 5 "Parang Nabur" (only 20% of the amount in Juynboll) with proper scientific collection notes originating from Sarawak and a proven age of at least 100 years (no new tourist copies).
If so you will be the new owner of my 114 cm "Parang Nabur".
If you can't do it who can?

Michael