|
|
|
20th November 2006, 01:14 PM
|
#1 | |
|
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
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
It is not even close an Parang Nabur
Ben |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 01:53 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
Some more pics
Ben |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 02:39 PM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 02:55 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
Yes, I see what you mean...
|
|
|
|
|
20th November 2006, 03:01 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
This seems to be when the sword "changed" and the hilt became more bat like...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
