Borneo Parang Nabur or Visayan Bolo?

VVV · 22nd November 2006, 05:32 PM

Yes, that's the quote I posted before and the source of Stone???

It's obviously an alternative spelling of the Iban parang aka Niabor, Njabor or Nyabor.
The genuine and old war sword of the Sea-Dayak (see Shelford etc.).
Maybe you could share a picture of it for this thread as a reference because, as you know, I don't have one myself yet?

Michael

Dajak · 22nd November 2006, 06:43 PM

http://old.blades.free.fr/swords/day...ayak_intro.htm

Over here you can look at the parang niabor I think they make an langueage
mistake

Here they talk about parang pedang but is an parang nabur but look it proves that the dayaks also used it

VVV · 22nd November 2006, 06:58 PM

Yes,

In a way it's another language semi-mistake.
This is once again the Iban (parang) Pedang.
Described as having cross guard, not D-guard, and hollow at the hilt etc.
It seems that because Ling Roth puts parang in front of all the names earlier known from other sources it get's confusing.

Can we agree that it's all based on a misunderstanding by Stone, because of what Ling Roth wrote and that Ling Roth didn't show pictures of the swords he describes?

Michael

Dajak · 22nd November 2006, 07:39 PM

Hi Michael yes the problem is that if someone make s a mistake it will show
up in the later books The weapon as he discribes is an parang niabor with the rings and handle
and you can also hold it with 2 hands

Henry ling roth is talking german handle swords this could be the nabur

the parang pedang is an borneo sword and not an pirate sword

The problem with the pirates is that they not easy to talk with and the moment you see them you sail away or you never can tell what happend

And that we don t have pics people carrying them ling roth discribe the parang pandat as an seadayak sword and this could be true because landdayak have an different type

Ben

VVV · 22nd November 2006, 09:05 PM

Hi Ben,

It seems as if you agree that the Parang Nabur as described in Stone is wrong?
He misunderstood Ling Roth's description of the Sea Dayak (parang) Niabor and put the "corrupted" name on another kind of sword from another region of Borneo?

Michael

Dajak · 23rd November 2006, 07:47 AM

Hi Michael yes he discribes the sword that I show the pics off we now that one as piso podang with the bataks see the pics

The parang pedang is an total different sword you have 2 by yourself
the one I have date before 1820 and one that you have too

Ben

Bill M · 25th November 2006, 02:41 AM

PI? Borneo?

Michael, we are a bit alike.....

22nd November 2006, 06:43 PM	#2
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	http://old.blades.free.fr/swords/day...ayak_intro.htm Over here you can look at the parang niabor I think they make an langueage mistake Here they talk about parang pedang but is an parang nabur but look it proves that the dayaks also used it Attached Images

25th November 2006, 02:41 AM	#7
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	So where do we decide this comes from? PI? Borneo? Michael, we are a bit alike..... Attached Images

22nd November 2006, 05:32 PM	#1
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Yes, that's the quote I posted before and the source of Stone??? It's obviously an alternative spelling of the Iban parang aka Niabor, Njabor or Nyabor. The genuine and old war sword of the Sea-Dayak (see Shelford etc.). Maybe you could share a picture of it for this thread as a reference because, as you know, I don't have one myself yet? Michael

22nd November 2006, 06:58 PM	#3
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Yes, In a way it's another language semi-mistake. This is once again the Iban (parang) Pedang. Described as having cross guard, not D-guard, and hollow at the hilt etc. It seems that because Ling Roth puts parang in front of all the names earlier known from other sources it get's confusing. Can we agree that it's all based on a misunderstanding by Stone, because of what Ling Roth wrote and that Ling Roth didn't show pictures of the swords he describes? Michael

22nd November 2006, 07:39 PM	#4
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	Hi Michael yes the problem is that if someone make s a mistake it will show up in the later books The weapon as he discribes is an parang niabor with the rings and handle and you can also hold it with 2 hands Henry ling roth is talking german handle swords this could be the nabur the parang pedang is an borneo sword and not an pirate sword The problem with the pirates is that they not easy to talk with and the moment you see them you sail away or you never can tell what happend And that we don t have pics people carrying them ling roth discribe the parang pandat as an seadayak sword and this could be true because landdayak have an different type Ben

22nd November 2006, 09:05 PM	#5
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Hi Ben, It seems as if you agree that the Parang Nabur as described in Stone is wrong? He misunderstood Ling Roth's description of the Sea Dayak (parang) Niabor and put the "corrupted" name on another kind of sword from another region of Borneo? Michael

23rd November 2006, 07:47 AM	#6
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	Hi Michael yes he discribes the sword that I show the pics off we now that one as piso podang with the bataks see the pics The parang pedang is an total different sword you have 2 by yourself the one I have date before 1820 and one that you have too Ben