****************************************

OK, so now that I'm a curator for a Filipino weapon exhibit, I feel obliged to comment on a certain Filipino weapon that many here have seen, and which had the misfortune of being damaged at Faire on Saturday.

The kampilan is a long sword primarily associated with the Muslims of southern Mindanao (Iranun and Maguindanao Moros), though variants exist in the Sulu Archipelago, Sabah, and Timor. The form of this weapon goes back several centuries, and in fact Magellan was reputedly killed by a kampilan in a duel with Raja Lapulapu of Mactan.

Example of a kampilan not too different from Jeff's, from :http://perso.wanadoo.fr/taman.sari/:

However, despite the age of this type of sword, most surviving examples are not nearly this old. Jeff believes (or was told) that his kampilan is 400-500 years old. I hadn't seen it in a couple of years, but now, after seeing it again and having had by now alot more exposure to antique kampilan, I'm certain that his is no older than the very late 1800s, and more probably from around the 1920s-30s, when Moro weaponry was being sold for foreign consumption on a large scale.

This is a general comment about antique ethnographic weapons that should be taken to heart by collectors: There is a tendency to over-estimate the age most of what you see. Yet a moment's reflection will reveal why the overwhelming majority of ethnic weapons will date from after the mid-19thc. Some points to consider:

1. Steel weapons are highly subject to deterioration without constant maintenance. Most would have long succumbed to rust and/or damage within a single user's lifetime.

2. Steel is useful for making other objects, and as swords became increasingly obsolete, blades would be converted to other metal objects. This is probably the fate of the vast percentage of weapons made.

3. The organic materials used to make mounts for swords, especially in unfavorable climates such as the Philippines, are even more susceptible to decay. For a sword such as a wood-hilted kampilan to survive from 500 years ago, it would've had to have been re-hilted several times, so even in the unlikely case that the blade is that old, the hilt couldn't be more than about 100.

4. Availability: Think about how such weapons get from exotic places like the Morolands to places like Texas. Local products get to distant markets through trade. Trade only opened with certain foreign markets after the establishment of stable trade networks, and in most cases this was accomplished through colonialism. Thus, weapons from India started becoming available to the English from the late 1700s, Caucasus weapons became widely available to the Russians from the mid 1800s, and Philippine and Moro weapons became generally accessible to Americans from the early 1900s, all after wars of conquest in those areas.

5. Marketability: Now, after conquest and the emergence of an export craft market, native industries were developed to produce weapons primarily for trade or ceremonialism, as colonization would've stabilized the political situation and diminished the overt need for swords, especially with the introduction of more effective firearms and artillery. Thus, we see in all such places (including the Philippines) the creation of new styles of art as weapon-makers worked to meet such demand.

In the Philippines and Morolands, this would've been in the 1920s-30s, when US administration of the islands was settling into place. Stylistically, Jeff's kampilan looks to have been made in the very late 1800s, though it's just as likely that it's from this later period, especially given its condition (that is, it's condition before Saturday!).

This is not to say that new pieces aren't good or authentic, and indeed Jeff's kampilan is a fine specimen. It's just not as old as we might've thought, and the same is true of many antique weapons you will find offered. My advice? Know what you're buying, and buy for quality, not for the suggestion of age. Let quality rather than age set the piece's value in your mind.

I don't think that it is entirely out of the realm of possibility that the blade alone could be very old .

I have handled a dha of Andrew's that is of that vintage (16th c.) and the blade was in darn good shape .

What damage did the sword receive ?
Such a shame ....

BTW got a 404 on the link .

* Yeah, all of that above is really nothing new to the membership here; I just think I'm getting a bit better at explaining it to people not as heavily exposed to antique weapons as us. Frankly I was getting tired of people saying stuff like "What? Your thing is only 100 years old? That's not a real historical sword! I have some that're 500" or 1000, or 2000, depending on the who and what! -- "in my collection!" when in fact they are usually the same as what I have in age, quality, and condition.

* The damage was the breaking off of a portion of the hilt (part of the "jaw" and "crest") when he was playing around with a Chinese polearm and bumped the kampilan, which was dangling from his belt. Because it broke off in several small pieces in tall grass, not all of the missing parts were recovered.

And people ask me why I don't attend these Renaissance Faires in costume and wearing my own weapons...!

Anyways, I know that some go by how lavish the kampilan is. The logic is that the Sultanates of Mindanao were in a state of decline by the time of the US arrival, and therefore lavish spending on campaign weapons could not be made. However, this theory can easily be refuted, firstly by the lavishness of other datable weaponry used by these Sultanates during the same time period, and secondly the comparative lavishness of kampilan found in period pictures.

Also questioning the extreme age date of kampilans, is the idea that the form remained stagnant for 400 years. A supposition that ignores the dramatic evolution of the kris and barong in the same time period. Yet what did proto-kampilan truly look like? I have not seen any "early form kampilan", so cannot make any hypothesis as to what the evolutionary pattern of the kampilan was. My only gut feeling, is that the older kampilan, like barong, and kris were smaller than their later predesessors. However, this is only my own gut feeling with no data (historical or otherwise) to back this up. Anyways, I do not think it is impossible for there to be 200+ year old kampilan. However as Ruel noted, it is highly unlikely that such a campaign style weapon survived in great quantity. A pusaka may be revered and passed down, but would a campaign kampilan be a good candidate for becoming a pusaka piece? There is some evidence for it occuring, such as in various folklore and legend, but then...

I wonder if it's possible to infer some of the characteristics of earlier kampilan by comparing morphological characteristics with what are probable "sibling" forms, such as certain Mandau, or the klewangs from Timor. The latter, at least, do indeed look like smaller versions of Moro kampilan.