Thai Kastane

[Rick]

I'm kind of suspicious of this sword .
It could all be S.Indian after seeing some of the motifs in Elgood's Hindu Arms and Ritual i.e. pg. 99 fig. 8.64 or pg. 100 fig. 8.67 or pg. 175 fig. 16.26 .

If the hilt had a polish it might appear quite differently .
The fullering , and the blade itself is quite different than most parang nabur .

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=parang+nabur

[Mark]

As far as the detail of the decoration, I do not recognize any Thai motifs, which tend to be a little more "flamey" or spikey. Nor have I read or see a kastane provinenced from Thailand. There were certainly contacts with Sri Lanka, perhaps more with Burma than Thailand. One other point to ponder is a royal edict issued in Siam at a time when Japanese blades were becoming common and popular, requiring that the use of such blades would be acceptable only so long as the fittings were Thai. So you see a fair number of katana blades fitted with handles having a round cross-section and a pommel. Based on that I would have expected a more Thai-styled handle on the blade, though in more recent times the knuckle-bow saber handle is common.

Coincedentally, here is a sword which was recently sold by Hermann-Historica, attributed to "Borneo/Brunei," but the handle of which to me strongly resembles that of a Burmese dha. Note the blade ...

[CharlesS]

I agree with Mark completely. I see nothing in this sword that says "Thai".

[tom hyle]

Originally Posted by Rick

The fullering , and the blade itself is quite different than most parang nabur .

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=parang+nabur

I agree it is different than most parang nabur. I think of the bathead sword as perhaps a more "native"/archetypical form of parang nabur than those in the thread you linked, but it is the type in that thread to which I was referring as similar to this sword. I still think so; two grooves along the spine (yes, these ones are wider); similar length and curvature; trailing tip with yelman (I'm not sure a parang nabur really is a parang nabur when it has a clipped/truncatd tip, BTW; it's certainly significantly different than the machete like trailing tips; whether this is reflected with a different native name I don't know.); what's so different? All I see is this blade seems narrower, and that this narrowness occurs more at the tip; this blade seems to get a bit narrower as it goes away from the hilt, the parang nabur wider.

[Gavin Nugent]

Whilst reading through some old posts I came to this and it seemed to stop unsolved within these pages many years ago.

To throw my hat in the ring, it appears to be of Sumatran Peudeung form. The hilt to me says Vietnamese made in Peudeung form.
The Islamic blade/blade stlye is not unheard of within Sumatran weapons so perhaps the sword in full or hilt alone was gifted or bought from a Vietnamese person/workshop to or by a Sumatran??

My 2 cents

Gav

[David]

Originally Posted by freebooter

To throw my hat in the ring, it appears to be of Sumatran Peudeung form. The hilt to me says Vietnamese made in Peudeung form.
The Islamic blade/blade stlye is not unheard of within Sumatran weapons so perhaps the sword in full or hilt alone was gifted or bought from a Vietnamese person/workshop to or by a Sumatran??

Can we use the term "peudeueng form" with any real meaning since the word literally just means "sword" and can be used to describe a variety of Sumatran swords. Perhaps "peudeueng peusangan" might be more accurate as it seems to describe the curved variety.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by David

Can we use the term "peudeueng form" with any real meaning since the word literally just means "sword" and can be used to describe a variety of Sumatran swords. Perhaps "peudeueng peusangan" might be more accurate as it seems to describe the curved variety.

To be clearer, and following Zonneveld, Peudeueng would be correct and when referring to his notation of refer to Pedang, Pedang type 1 with the basket type guard is my thoughts as it shares the same form, langet and lugs at the base of the blade, along with the same profile, all that lacks is the spike in leu of the carved head pommel.

Gav

[David]

Originally Posted by freebooter

To be clearer, and following Zonneveld, Peudeueng would be correct and when referring to his notation of refer to Pedang, Pedang type 1 with the basket type guard is my thoughts as it shares the same form, langet and lugs at the base of the blade, along with the same profile, all that lacks is the spike in leu of the carved head pommel.

Gav

Well, i don't quite see exactly where Zonneveld states "Peudeueng" as "correct". He simply states that it is another word for pedang, of which there are numerous varieties. I think you are probably right that this sword blade comes very close to Zonnefeld's classification of a "Pedang type 1", but this is a purely Western classification. It is quite possible, of course, that the Sumatran did/does not distinguish name wise between Pedang I, II, and III, but Zonnefeld then goes on to give a long list of "pedang this" and "pedang thats" which seem to imply that very specific names exist for all these very different forms of swords do exist.
I don't know that the name i suggested above is correct either, but tagging on "peusangan" or "pasangan" i believe at least describes it as a curved sword blade.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i don't quite see exactly where Zonneveld states "Peudeueng" as "correct". He simply states that it is another word for pedang, of which there are numerous varieties. I think you are probably right that this sword blade comes very close to Zonnefeld's classification of a "Pedang type 1", but this is a purely Western classification. It is quite possible, of course, that the Sumatran did/does not distinguish name wise between Pedang I, II, and III, but Zonnefeld then goes on to give a long list of "pedang this" and "pedang thats" which seem to imply that very specific names exist for all these very different forms of swords do exist.
I don't know that the name i suggested above is correct either, but tagging on "peusangan" or "pasangan" i believe at least describes it as a curved sword blade.

Purely as a point of reference;

Peudeueng was in the first instance correct as a type/category of this sabre in my opinion.
It offers in my opinion a Sumatran regional base for what I felt was overlooked in the first instance many years ago.

From your elaborating Sumatran sabre type, Peudeueng Peusangan is a different type (blade and hilt when compared to the subject matter in question), hence my use of the word Peudeueng as being 'correct' in my context not Zonneveld's context as you have noted, nothing more.

Zonneveld was only referenced to elaborate that Peudeueng is of this type in question.

Refer Zonneveld as the easist point of reference that has at least classifications to elaborate my initial naming and presto Peusangan leads to Pedang type 1 is of this form as you can see.

You are correct that this is westernised and that native Sumatrans now or of the day would not choose between Pedang type 1,2 or 3 and rather would have used most likely just the word Peudeueng to cover all 'types'....hence my initial naming.

Native or westernised aside, isn't it nice to able to clasify a sword type in context with the hilt which is is a major point of intrigue within the post....

The simplicity of the term Peudeueng stands in my opinion and that the sword in question is Sumatran, Zonneveld reference only used to help answer your reply and to help others identify with the complete shape of the sabre in question from tip to tip in context.