![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
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 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
|
![]()
PI? Borneo?
Michael, we are a bit alike..... |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA Georgia
Posts: 1,599
|
![]()
Parang Nabur?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,637
|
![]()
Hi Bill,
Nice swords. I think you will find all the views of the forumites in this thread to form your own opinion on this debated issue. Michael |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO USA
Posts: 312
|
![]() Quote:
Great swords!!! ![]() ![]() If these blades come from the PI (which I am inclined to believe they do), it seems that we can not come to a consensus on a name. I am not sure that we have agreed that they come from the PI. If you look around a bit… rightly or wrongly, this sword “type”… in fact these very swords are universally referred to as being a Parang Nabur. It would seem to me, that no matter what we decide here, the label of Parang Nabur will still be out there for some time to come… even if a more correct name is found and applied. Best regards, Wayne |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|