![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 400
|
Quote:
dear Ben, at first: You wrote your answer between the lines I have written in my answer so it looks almost if I have written it, maybe you can edit that? second: reading before you answer should provide a long and unessesary discussion. thirth: Indeed Salomon Muller says in Juynboll that the Dohong is probably taken over from another culture because he says that it maybe is from the times that "Modjapit rules about the coasts of Borneo" good possible because the blade of the Dohong looks like very old Modjapit daggers.So not Arababs did have their influence on the Dohong but the Hindu. ( however the Arabs did trade in this area) fourth: (reading before you write) was Schwaner talking about a Bayu when he used the word "Dohong" and talked about a 8 inch turned ivory round and thick hilt? Of course not! You can't beat the facts Ben! five:I still stay with my opinion that the hilt is of malay origin, the hilts of the 18th and 19th Pattani parangs and Anak Wali's are almost of the same shape. As Borneo is a mix of diverse tribal influences also its of course possible that the dohong is also a mix creation of Hindu influence with Malay details. six: please stay reading as professional as your way of collecting,you are a marvelous collector! The treads in this forum are to help eachother with ideas,knowledge and study.But only by staying professional readers we can lift this forum to the high unique level it deserves! best regards, Arjan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
Arjan trans late the page off schwaner in English
I said might be Arjan read please here start it mandaukudi Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 49 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Ben, one ( 16-284 ) is a very early collected piece came in to the museum around 1860 but was from the journey of Salomon Muller who visited Borneo in 1836. Salomon visited the south of Borneo the aria upriver Barito from Banjarmassin. In his book there's one time that he mentioned " we bought some chickens and other food,some mats,weaponery and jewellery" in the village Lontontoer.So its possible that he obtained this Bayu there. the other (781-04) I'm not for sure but the number is from just before 1900. the handle looks almost chinese and the scabbard has a " never used patina". Arjan. here it s end looks like you talk 2 things Arjan ben |
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 400
|
Quote:
Hi Ben, are you not exchancing Muller and Schwaner with eachother? or do you think that I exclude the bayu from beiing used as weapon? however the exact text in Schwaner says: The Dohong must be ,according to what they say have been the ancesteral weapon. included a pic of item no 16-284 taken by myself in de depot, from the very nice bayu collected by Muller. arjan. Last edited by mandaukudi; 30th June 2007 at 02:38 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
YOUR TRANSLATION IS NOT RIGHT ABOUT WHAT SCHWANER SAYS
That is what I mean the whole time read it like it is . Muller has taken some weapons and is writing about that the dohung is not an dayak weapon tells you in Juynboll that these are story s . What weapon did Schwaner take to the museum for weapons ? Schwaner talks about the parang as an Weapon that was before the mandau this is could be true . but dohung is no proof. sometimes people wanna believe something and has nothing to do if one is an outstanding collector or not who make rules if one is an good or bad collector. Translation is that in that ....part of borneo .....the shield and mandau came in later (that part and not counting for whole Borneo) but now in that time common the dohung must be after what they tell him a weapon from there ancestors (but they don t now for sure) also tells that the dohung is from an other culture . If we believe Stone the pandat is the weapon off the seadayaks IBANS is this true because he says it . proof did bring us that it must be an land dayak weapon Ben |
|
|
|
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 400
|
Quote:
I never told anywhere that the Pandat isn't the weapon of the Iban. But the Iban settled later on Borneo than the Ngadjoe and Ot Danum. I also didn't tell that the Dohung was in use by all Dayaks. As you have read you see that wrote that the Dohung was in use among the Ngadjoe and the Ot Danum. Of course the Dohunghilts did come from another country course they used Ivory for it and you can't find that on Borneo. But not all Dohongs have Ivory hilts and not all Dohungs have the same shape. Arjan. Arjan. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 951
|
Arjan the pandat is not the weapon off the Iban
I only try to say that what someone put up in an books does not have to be right it could be his interpetation . what proof do you have that the Iban setteld later on Borneo Ben |
|
|
|
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 400
|
Quote:
getting a little tired I totally agree with your words "sometimes people wanna believe something". regards, Arjan. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|