![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,235
|
![]()
Dear Amuk, (is that you first name?)
Pfew... before brookes time. depends on which Brooke. ![]() There is not very much written about these swords. The oldest picture that I know is from Quer Durch Borneo, so somewhere 1910 ? Than I believe that I saw more pictures from around 1930' and of course you see very nice examples upto 2000, as on the front of Iban art. For some reason I think that these swords will not be as old as 1800/1850, Maybe more around 1900 but that is just a feeling. ![]() Best regards, Willem |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kaboejoetan Galoenggoeng Mélben
Posts: 472
|
![]() Quote:
Yes, Amuk is the first name. The seller meant Brookes (plural) as in the dynasty i.e. before any Brooke. 1900 vintage will be fine by me. I'm just concerned that it's a fake i.e. a "more recent" piece (say, post 1945) artificially made to look older. I'm no metallurgist. The rust/pitting seemed to be more concentrated towards the tip, as if it had been hanging in its scabbard for a long time (unfortunately, no original scabbard). I haven't researched it but I have a sneaky feeling that this type of sword may have been around since about the 14thC (just a guess). Around that time, I think the Bataks already had a large Islamic kingdom which traded with India (and maybe traded/copied the tulwar). They had opened up Gajo etc. and were basically the catalyst for the rise of Atjeh in the 14thC. Best, |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|