Iban Parang
Humans have been using weapons since the beginning of their existence, and for good reason. Weapons provide a massive advantage in both attack and defense. Every martial arts practitioner interested in self defense should learn how to use weapons both to better defend against their use, and to gain an advantage in a serious self defense situation. You can see how I categorize weapons and their use on my self defense weapons page.
Although people in most 1st world countries no longer carry swords, practicing with them (or a stick of a similar length) can provide very valuable lessons in self defense. The methods of attack and defense that work with a sword also work with a stick, cane, hammer, wrench, knife, machete…even a household iron. You can learn to use a “stick” or any other long blunt or sharp object through the curriculum and videos on my single stick page, which I plan to add to in the very near future.
Parang Handle
Aside from the usefulness of sword and stick training for self defense, swords from different cultures can be fascinating. I recently posted a review of the Filipino ginunting, one of my favorite swords for functionality, and thought I’d add a few pictures of another favorite, an Iban parang from the island of Borneo. I purchased this parang in the state of Sarawak on the Malaysian side of Borneo. It’s about 100 years old, and decorated with human hair. The handle and scabbard are the most beautiful of all the swords I own.
As beautiful as the parang is, it’s hard for a modern westerner to imagine they were used on head hunting raids. Up until the late 1800′s or so, several tribes of Borneo required heads for all sorts of ceremonies, from those related to the rice harvest to weddings. Imagine having to cut a person’s head off before you could be married…or walking through the jungle where people were looking for heads! In any case, the parang is an amazing sword, very similar to others used in Indonesia and the Philippines. It’s designed for one handed use, fast, well balanced, and the design of the handle prevents the parang from slipping out of your hand.
Parang Scabbard
I’ve asked a few older Iban about their sword training, but never really gotten any detailed answers. They do have dances that involve the use of the sword and shield, but it seems that their “martial art” was lost when the practice of head hunting was abandoned. If anyone reading this has information on the martial arts of the tribes of Borneo, I’d love to hear from you! I can’t imagine people like the Iban wouldn’t have had their own martial art. If you were living in a jungle at a time when nearby tribes wanted your head, wouldn’t you?
thats not PARANG, that was MANDAU…by the way, its beautiful sword isnt it? sometimes mandau have mystical powers too, you know?
That is indeed a beautiful Iban parang illang that you have. I’m very glad to see it still has its tufts of human hair which once upon a time no Iban parang could be without, even when supplemented with large amounts of goat’s hair. Unfortunately today, many parangs have had their human hair removed in the interests of political correctness.
Your respondent Bunjank, is, I’m afraid, quite wrong to refer to it as a ‘mandau’. This was a term used by the Dutch in Indonesian Borneo to refer to simolar weapons used by non-Iban ethnic groups in their half of the island prior to Dutch Borneo becoming Kalimantan. I’m not sure which indigenous language the word comes from.
Among the Iban the term has always been ‘parang’ and this is the term used among most of the indigenous population of Malaysaian Borneo.
I had the opportunity to study the Iban people and their use of the parang from 1963 to 1964 in the Kapit region of the Rejang in what was then Sarawak’s Third Division.
At the time the war between Malaysia and Indonesia known as ‘Konfrontasi’ or ‘Confrontaion’ (1963-1966) provided the Iban with an opportunity to practice their old headhunting skills. I counted somewhere between 16 and 22 heads being taken.
In the 19th century Iban headhunting has rightly been described as a ‘mania’, and equally rightly the Iban themselves referred to as ‘…the most inveterate headhunters of the country…’ (Hose C & McDougle W, 1966 [1912]:32). Unquestionably, their enthusiasm for the practice surpassed all the other Borneo peoles. Contrary to some accounts headhunting never entirely disappeared up to the point when I was in Sarawak during the early 1960′s, and there were still plenty of Iban willing to discuss the matter.
As you correctly recount the chosen weapon for this activity (headhunting)was the parang. It is basically a cutlass -the kind of weapon so beloved of pirates and sailors. This 19th century description is as good as any, in which it is referred to as the ‘ilang’, ‘…carved at the angle in the rude shape of a horse’s head, and ornamented with tufts of hair, red or black; the blades of these swords are remarkable, one side being convex, the other concave, the othe concave. They are usually very short, but of good metal and a fine edge.’ (Greenwood J, 1865:99).
I would go further, and say they are of quality unsurpassed by any other similar weapon. When sharpened properly they are incredibly sharp (mine would cut a piece of paper with no more effort than just the weight of the parang laid upon it) and they would keep their edge through a whole day of hacking through arms, legs, or heads, or the jungle, so I am told with no reason to disagree. Alas, I do not know all the secrets of how such an edge was obtained.
The Iban clearly had an unequalled knowledge of metal-working to make swords of this quality. My close Iban friend in more recent times tried to have his grandfather’s sword (which had taken numerous heads) copied by a Japanese swordsmith. “I do not know how to make a blade like this,” the Japanese smith confessed, shaving metal off an iron bar with the parang in question.
Using the parang required strength and agility which once upon a time all Iban men (apart from the manang, or shaman) possessed in abundance. I heard of warriors who would leap high into the air and take a head on the way down. I once saw a warrior display his skills with the parang by twirling it with his feet!
A boy would learn how to handle a parang from the age of three up from his father, elder brother, other men and distinguished warriors. He would practice the moves through dance. Not the effete parodies we now see in tourist displays, but real real war dances where all the fighting-moves were practiced.
Fighting was done traditionally with sword and wooden shield. Crouching low, using the shield to protect the body, the warrior would first attempt to main an enemy by striking at his legs or feet. The shield was used, not only to fend off blows, but to trap an opponent’s sword (or parang) and whisk it away.
I was told the best way to take a head was not to hack at it, but to aim a hard slap at the neck with the parang, allowing the weight of the weapon to carry through. I would emphasise that I have never attempted any such thing for real, I’m very happy to say. I was told also that success required much practice and skill, besides the strength and agility already mentioned.
In a crowded situation, or in the jungle, the short parang illang made much better sense than a longer sword, since it was less likely to get entangled. At one time there was a fashion for longer swords, similar to the Indian tulwar, but I doubt if these were ever used much in anger (someone please correct me if I’m wrong). I’m afraid that your Filippino sword would be slightly disadvantaged in combat with the parang, because despite its fine point, it lacks the weight and concave design (from what I can discern) for real head removal! (Imagine also use of the shield in a fight of this nature).
If I can be of further help, please contact.
Best wishes,
Black Jake.
Wow, thank you for the thoughtful response!
I was in Kapit myself in 2004, but for better and worse I’m sure it has changed a great deal since you were there in the 60′s. It would be very interesting to see the authentic sword and shield dances rather than ones done for tourists these days, but from the Iban tribesmen I talked to it doesn’t seem like the current generations are interested, or the elders are not willing to teach them.
Your description of their fighting strategy is fascinating, and makes a great deal of sense. I’ve seen a few of their shields, and do recall hearing that they were used to trap and “whisk away” an opponent’s sword.
Regarding the parang in comparison to the ginunting… The ginunting does have an excellent weight/balance, and is currently the sword of the Filipino Marines both for jungle clearing and as a last resort in warfare. I think it’s plenty capable of severing a head in one stroke. Both are excellent weapons.
Thanks again!
Thank you for your kind comments.
As I know nothing about the ginunting I’ll take your word for it vis-a-vis the parang ilang. I must admit the ginunting appears to be a formidable weapon.
I see in my previous comment I’ve written ‘main’ instead of ‘maim’. Silly me! Slightly dislexic, I’m afraid.
My last visit to Kapit in Malaysian Borneo was around 1997. I was sadddened to find the Iban I encountered had forgotten almosr all their history, traditions and headhunting rituals -or perhaps they were just tired of fat old Westerners asking embarrassing questions about heir warlike past. All they seemed to know was a load of old cobblers (Cockney rhyming-slang) from the internet, the inaccuracy of which would have appalled the grizzled old warriors of my young days like the famous Temenggong Jagah Anak Barieng, who was truly ‘raja brani’ (rich and brave), and who was kind enought to let me ask him questions on several occasions.
I read a curious comment that the Iban do not like the parang as a weapon or tool because it ‘…cannot be used backhand like the nyabur’ (Sutlive & Sutlive 2001: 791). I say ‘curious’ because I have heard the Iban refer to two different types of weapon as the ‘nyabur’ -one looking very like the parang illang, and the other resembling the Indian tulwar. What is meant by ‘used backhand’ I haven’t the foggiest, because to cut in either direction one merely swivels the wrist, and this is much faster with a short cutlass kind of weapon than with a long curved sword like the tulwar. I never saw Iban warriors with anything but the parang illang, except on some ceremonial occasions. None of the weapons mentioned will cut on the back of the weapon, of course, and I really don’t know what the writer in question is talking about.
Many of the older parangs are perforated with holes, have brass-inlaid designs, and the blunt side of the blade is often cut into intricate designs.
As I expect you know, headhunting, besides being trophy-gathering on a grand scale (mostly during the 19th century), formed part of a religious complex associated with the fertility of rice and the weaving of pua kumbu (large blanket-sized ceremonial textiles), and of course the parang (with sheild) was the No.1 weapon. It mostly involved wanton and indiscriminate killing, but on other occasions opposing warriors would clash and man-to-man combat ensue. Shields were often painted with dazzling and fearsome designs to overawe and distract.
The above comment was pretty accurate. As an Iban I knew a little about the Iban Arts of self-defence. You are rightly told that the Iban self-defence has diminished when there was no longer any tribal war or headhunting in Borneo.
The weapons of choice for the Iban in battle are as follows:
(1) they used cannons obtained from piracy activities,
(2) Blowpipe built for dual purposes. It acts as a blowpipe with poisonous dart that can kill within 3-5 minutes and it has a spear at the tip of it. Spear is used to pierce through the body of the enemies. This weapon is used for long distance combat. Blowpipe is silence.
(3) Long sword is called nyabor and short sword is parang ilang. these two knives are as sharp as the razor blade used for close hand combat. For cutting the head is the shorter sword parang ilang is used.
I concurred with the above writer that mandau is not the term used to describe the Dayak-Iban weapon.
The Iban arts of self-defence are called Kuntau and Penchak.
(1) Kuntau is used for hand to hand fighting. Its movement is very fast normally targetting the lower parts of the opponent body like vital organ such the groin and the abdomen and upper part targetted the jaw and the eyes. Swipe away the leg and push the body backward to make the opponent off-balance.
(2) Penchak is an art of self-defence using stick combat for attacking and defending the opponent’s attack. Rotan is preferred to stick because its lighter, stronger and flexible. The movement of this Penchak is clearly to fend off enemies blow by using shield in battle. Rotan is only used during practice or training.
TQ. steve.
Thanks for the comment Steve. I’ve read basically the same as you said regarding blowpipes and swords, but didn’t know about the cannons.
On the self defense arts though, my understanding is that Kuntau is a Chinese martial art. I know there’s a significant Chinese population in Borneo, and certainly the Iban mixed with the Chinese (evident in the goods they traded). However I would have thought the Iban with their much older history would have had their own martial art at some point.
Penchak sounds to me like Pencak from “Pencak Silat”, the Indonesian fighting arts. I could much better imagine the Iban using something that came to be known as “Penchak” or Pencak Silat since that is an indigenous Indonesian art, but I would think an Iban fighting style would have predated that, especially when you consider the long history of tribes in Borneo.
In any case, it does seem that the indigenous Iban fighting styles have unfortunately been lost for the most part.
Regarding Jake’s comment about the Parang not being able to cut in both directions…I’ve seen a couple of Parangs where the back ~6 inches or so were sharpened so they could cut in both directions, but they seem to be rare. I wonder how common this was in older Parangs, as it is a very effective design.
Thanks for the reply. By the way the origin of the Iban ancient ancestors came from southern china before they migrated to Borneo.
Cheers.
steve.
Thank YOU.
I was very interested in Steve’s comments, and one day when I have more time I would love to get more closely acquainted for an exchange of views. Steve is absolutely right on almost everything he has to say, and all the more brilliant since his English is very good and my Iban very poor.
The Iban certainly did use cannon -often beautifully cast often with ornate designs ,for their ”piracy’ as the British, referred to it, or ‘bejalai’ (lit. taking a walk) as they termed it, and beautiful war-boats called ‘bangkong’ which were used on the rivers like the mighty Rejang. They also ranged far and wide all over the South China Seas, including Singapore.
I have seen Iban children as young as three practicing with the parang ilang, and they certainly develop considerable skills as they grow (or used to, since I know very little of modern Ibans today). My comments regarding the cutting direction of the parang ilang resulted from comments in Sutlive & Sutlive (2002) which I happen to disagree with. As stated, all that’s needed to cut in both directions is a very simple and swift movement of the wrist. The existence of a double-edged parang which you report is very interesting, as you intimate, such weapons are very unusual.
I’m out of time so I’ll keep further comment for another day.
All the best,
Black Jake
A chance for further comment!
First, my apologies for various typos in my previous missives, especially my mis-spelling of the legendary Tun Jugah anak Barieng€™s first name. Very embarrassing I€™m afraid €“I do have some problems even though I know the correct spelling €“old age and bad eyesight unfortunately! I trust readers will forgive these infirmities.
However, it should be noted that with regard to Iban words and phrases spelling may vary. This is because there is the earlier English spelling based on received pronunciation, and the current standard Malaysian spelling.
Your original request was for information on Bornean martial arts but with regard to the Iban, all I can do is to reiterate that in the not-so-distant past, the original Iban martial art consisted primarily of combat with the short Iban sword (parang ilang) and wooden shield (terabai). Training was through dance, often referred to as €˜ajat€™ or €˜ngajat€™, but this term simply means €˜dance€™ or €˜to dance€™ and was not originally a specific kind of dance. The €˜fighting€™ or €˜war€™ dance was distinct from other dances, and judging from the tourist performances I saw on my last trip to Sarawak, the proper steps have long been forgotten.
Is there anyone still alive who knows how to perform an Iban war-dance convincingly? Probably not on the Malaysian side of the border, but possibly among the Ibanic peoples on the Indonesian side of the border (Kalimantan), such as the Maloh, some knowledge may still remain. The Bahau of the Mahakam River still perform ritual combat with stick and sheild which I imagine must be very similar to the kind of fighting practiced by the Iban with their parang and terabai. Alas, I can only imagine, I do not know. I do have a copy of a very old film showing Dyaks (Iban?) practicing their skills with sword and shield, but tantalisingly, this is only a few seconds long.
As Steve correctly recounts, in the days of massive Iban raiding during the 19th Century, warriors often had the use of brass or iron cannon €“some locally cast, though by whom it is difficult to say, in various sizes. These however, were rare and highly-prized items. Muskets were also available on a very limited scale. Steve omits to mention the throwing-spears (sankoh?) sometimes called €˜javelins€™ in English accounts. They were very much part of the Iban warrior€™s €˜kit€™ in battle. The €˜sumpitan€™ or blowpipe with spear-blade attachment, as Steve attests, was indeed a deadly weapon of stealth in the gloom of the rain forest, but not so good on a windy day in open spaces! However, there are 19th Century accounts (see Greenwood J, 1865) which mention a range of 100 yards in calm air.
I know very little of Kuntau or Penchak, but suspect they are a comparatively recent innovation. I may be wrong of course. The whole of S E Asia is an incredible mix of cultural diversity, including Chinese and Indian influence of course, and there is considerable interchange of terminology, ideas, artefacts and everything imaginable, so it is very difficult to say who has borrowed what from whom!
What greatly interests me are the old blades on the Iban swords. As has been stated, they are often pierced, inlaid with brass, or fret-worked on the non-cutting edges with intricate designs. As one might expect among a people who were formerly warriors of great distinction, the Iban have a number of names for their swords. The parang ilang is sometimes called a €˜duku amat€™ (as is the nyabur) €“a term which translates roughly as €˜true€™ or €˜real€™ knife.
Also €˜duku ilang€™ is used to describe weapons which, at least to my inexperienced non-Iban eyes, appear very similar. Steve€™s reference to the long curved sabre-like sword as the €˜nyabor€™ (or €˜nyabur€™) coincides with my understanding, but I have also heard the term used to describe a weapon of similar length to the parang ilang, but in some ways more resembling a machete, slightly more curved and weightier towards the point than the parang ilang. Michael Heppell (2006: 122-131) notes some other names for swords as used by the Iban:
€¢ €˜pedang€™ €“a long curved sword like a sabre and similar to the tulwar. It is this which I tend to think of as the nyabur.
€¢ €˜jimpul€™ €“a medium-length curved sword somewhere between a parang ilang and tulwar in length, but with typical €˜horse€™s-head€™ handle.
€¢ €˜langgai tinggang€™ €“a heavier-than-usual curved sword with traditional (horse€™s head) handle, similar to some types of nyabur.
I suspect some swords are simply given a name that the owner fancies, as €˜duku amat€™ seems to have been applied to both the parang ilang and the nyabur. Or, at least that has been my experience. I don€™t know whether or not praise names are given to Iban swords. It€™s possible of course, and I wonder if writers have confused the first part of a praise name with more general terms. Perhaps someone could put me right.
€˜Parang€™ is a term used for a large heavy knife, or cleaver, throughout the Malaysian/Indonesian archipelago. €˜Parang ilang€™, I have been told, refers to the Bornean combination of a large €˜knife€™ (sword or cutlass) with a small long-handled short-bladed knife (lungga) carried in the scabbard of the parang.
Back in 1963/4 in the upper Rejang near Kapit, an Iban male without his parang ilang close to hand was like a Samurai warrior without his katana. Usually the weapon was carried at the waist, the owner being quite prepared to use it to avenge any threat or insult, as well using it for all manner of general purposes. Woe indeed to anyone inclined to take a liberty with any Iban male or female. Some may recall that pre-Christian longhouse Iban females of past eras and during the late 50€™s and early 60€™s, thought it quite improper to wear anything above the waist €“the mark of a prostitute, I was told. In an incident which occurred near Kuching, of which I have personal knowledge, a Malay soldier made a disparaging remark to an Iban woman and then touched her inappropriately. Her enraged shouts promptly brought the Tuai Rumah (Longhouse Head) who immediately drew his parang and slashed the soldier from collar-bone to lower ribs. His second blow would have undoubtedly severed the soldier€™s head had not other tuai (elders) physically restrained him.
There€™s a lot of nonsense written about Iban swords, so be careful! I€™ve already commented on the curious claim that the parang ilang cannot be used €˜backhand€™, whatever that is supposed to mean. I am still baffled by this totally confusing misapprehension, which to my surprise has been repeatedly expressed in the literature. Let me quote:
€˜The Iban find the ilang deficient in battle, as you cannot slash backhand with it.€™ (Heppell M, 2006:130.)
Furthermore, as previously mentioned (30/611) with reference to what he calls the €˜duku ilang€™ (which from his illustrations appears identical to the parang ilang) Sutlive writes:
€˜The Iban do not like them as weapons or tools, because, they say, they cannot be used backhand like the nyabur.€™ (Sutlive V & Sutlive J, 2001:791.)
Both Heppell and Sutlive seem to have derived their rather odd views about the parang ilang from Anthony Richard€™s Iban Dictionary (1981:114). Unfortunately I have no idea where Richards obtained his information.
If the parang ilang is deficient as weapon or tool, one wonders why they are so frequently used as both. Charles Hose writing in 1926, with over 20 years experience among the interior peoples of Sarawak, in his Chapter on €˜War€™, states that: €˜The principle weapon is the sword known as the parang ilang€¦€™ (Hose C, 1988 [orig.1926]:131). He is writing about the Kayan, but notes that the weapons used by other Dyaks (presumably including the Iban) are €˜very similar€™ (ibid), as indeed they are.
It€™s difficult to imagine the Kayan using a weapon supposedly discounted by their traditional enemy, the Iban, as €˜deficient€™. Against the Iban, the Kayan were more than capable of holding their own and proved a most formidable adversary. Combined with their organisational and fighting skills they possessed a strong sense of revenge, and were never a foe to be treated lightly.
Since it is often claimed that the Kayan invented the parang ilang, and the Iban were more than keen to obtain and copy such weapons, I cannot accept the view that the Iban found the parang ilang deficient in combat. As I strongly suspect that it is a hell of a long time since any Iban engaged in face-to-face hand-to hand fighting with sword and shield for real (I doubt if any has taken place since the 1920€™s, although I€™m open to correction), I would tend to regard the supposed deficiencies of the parang ilang in combat with some scepticism. Even more confusing than dubious claims about the parang€™s limitations as weapon or tool, is Sutlive€™s statement regarding the nyabur. This, we are told, is €˜€¦longer and straighter than the duku amat€™ (Sutlive V & Sutlive J, 2001:1294). Here €˜duku amat€™ seems to refer to the parang ilang. As the parang ilang is relatively straight, I confess even more bafflement with this observation. He then contradicts his claim by quoting an Iban verse stating: €˜Nyabur cudur pengundur antu bala nyerang€¦€™ which in translation refers to a sword with a curved blade routing the enemy hordes.
The Kayan certainly do make superb and beautiful parang ilang, so do the Kenyah (I have one), and the Iban undoubtedly traded or obtained these weapons from other Borneo societies on many occasions. But it should not be forgotten that the Iban have also long forged their own very fine parang ilangs as well.
The Kayan are usually given the credit, but whoever first fashioned this most remarkable and unique of hand-held weapons must have been a swordsmith of exquisite skill. It is not quite so easy to lop off a human head as some might imagine. There are gruesome accounts of Japanese officers in World War II making a horrible hash of executing prisoners with their Samurai swords, yet with the parang ilang decapitation of victims and enemies by the various head-hunting peoples of Borneo (Iban, Kayan, Bidayuh etc.) seems to have posed little difficulty. In fact when I was there, the SAS and other British troops were decidedly impressed by the speed and efficiency of the Iban in performing this task whenever they got the opportunity. In the 19th Century there were tales of steel musket-barrels being sliced through by Borneo tribesmen wielding the parang (see Muller K 1990: 34).
Carl Bock (1881) who travelled extensively through S E Borneo in what is now Kalimantan in 1879 (or thereabouts), illustrated and described the €˜mandau€™ as he calls it, used by the various Dyak groups of the interior. I was unsure, in my earlier missive, which language €˜mandau€™ is from. It appears to be Kayan, as might be expected. What seems remarkable is the speed with which this weapon and the techniques of forging it, spread throughout Borneo, possibly from the 18th Century onwards, or even earlier, since all Borneo societies skilled in working iron, like the Kayan and Iban, have the parang ilang or mandau. Perhaps there was a Kayan equivalent of Samuel Colt or Henry Ford, who having capitalised on the brilliance of his invention, produced parangs on a relatively grand scale, before passing on his skills to others!
Perhaps the Iban blacksmith deity Selempandai was really the apprentice of a Kayan blacksmith (perish the blasphemous thought!), who equalled his master and forged parangs of superb quality, enabling all his people to farm rice and protect themselves and their property, hence his association with forging human beings.
Let me leave you with a final comment from Hugh Low, 1848, on Iban skills in forging weapons: €˜Iron being necessary in the formation of their weapons of war, they have studied, and brought to greater perfection its workmanship than others of the mechanical arts€™ (Low E B, 1848:209). Such people would seem to be quite as capable of producing their own parangs as the Kayan and Kenyah, and certainly there is incontrovertible evidence that the Iban (then known as Sea Dyaks) were using the parang ilang in warfare at the time when Low was writing. Low credits both the Iban and Kayan working iron well before European contact, and Derek Freeman was convinced the Iban €˜€¦were in possession of iron before their arrival in Borneo€™ (Freeman J D, 1970:175) €“which is equally true of the Kayan.
References
Bock, Carl, The Headhunters of Borneo, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1985 [1881].
Freeman, J Derek, Report on the Iban, Athlone Press, UK, 1970.
Heppell, Michael, et al, Iban Art: Sexual Selection and Severed Heads, Kit Publishers, Amsterdam, 2006.
Hose, Charles, Natural Man, Oxford University Press, Singapore, 1988 [1926].
Muller, Kal, Indonesian Borneo, Kalimantan, Periplus Editions, USA, 1990.
Low, Hugh B, Sarawak, GB, 1848.
Sutlive V & Sutlive J, The Encyclopedia of Iban Studies, Tun Jugah Foundation, Sarawak, Malaysia, 2001.
All the best,
Black Jake.