Origin of the kampilan? [Archive] - Ethnographic Arms & Armour

VANDOO

27th October 2008, 07:31 PM

I HAVE PONDERED THIS QUESTION ALSO REGARDING THE KAMPILIAN AS WELL AS MORO KRIS. THE FORM OF THE KAMPILIAN MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE DAYAK MANDAU TYPE. BORNEO ALSO HAD CROCODILES WHICH IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH IN THAT AREA, TO EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY. THE BELIEF SYSTEMS WERE ANIMIST, EVERYTHING HAS A SPIRIT, A RIVER, A MOUNTAIN, LONGHOUSE AS WELL AS ANIMALS MOST SPIRITS AND ASSOCIATED WITH LIFE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE CROCODILES SPIRIT IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO COMMENT FARTHER EXCEPT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IS A BAD THING AS BOTH LIFE AND DEATH ARE A PART OF THEIR WORLD. WAR AND DEATH ARE ALSO LINKED SO A CROCODILE WITH ITS POWER AND SPIRIT OF DEATH WOULD BE A NATURAL CHOICE FOR A WAR WEAPON.
THE MANDAU IS SHORTER AS A LONG SWORD WOULD NOT SERVE VERY WELL FOR CUTTING OR MOVING THRU THE JUNGLE. OTHER SYMBOLS ARE USUALLY CARVED INTO MANDAU MOSTLY NOT THE CROCODILE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MANY REASONS FOR THESE SYMBOLS BUT I DON'T KNOW THEM.
THE MURUT PACKAYUN IS A LONG WAR SWORD BUT I HAVE NO INFORMATION ON KAMPILIAN IN THEIR AREA WHICH IS INLAND AND MORE MOUNTAINOUS. I SUSPECT THE ORIGIN OF THE KAMPILIAN IS A SEA FARING TRIBE PROBABLY LIVING ALONG THE COAST NEAR RIVERS WHERE CROCODILES WERE PART OF THEIR LIVES. THE MORO MAY HAVE SETTLED IN THESE AREAS AND MADE A LARGER MODIFIED MANDAU USED ONLY FOR WAR AND CARRIED BY THE GAURDS OF THE DATU. THE KAMPILIAN IS A LARGE AND FEARSOME WEAPON USED IN WAR NOT IN DAILY VILLAGE LIFE PERHAPS ONLY ON EXCURSIONS BY SEA OR TO REPEL ATTACKS FROM THE SEA BY WARRIORS WELL TRAINED IN ITS USE.
IT COULD HAVE ORIGINATED IN MANY AREAS UNDER MANY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR CEREMONIAL PURPOSES OR BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE BY TRADERS AND MADE MUCH LARGER TO PRESENT TO SOME IMPORTANT CHIEF. ABOUT THE ONLY THING WE CAN SAY FOR SURE IS IT CAME TO BE AFTER TRADE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGION AND IRON AND STEEL COULD BE BROUGHT TO TRIBES WHO WERE STILL OPERATING WITH STONE AGE TECKNOLOGY.
JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT NO SPECIFIC REFRENCES BUT THATS THE BEST I CAN DO UNTIL I GET MY TIME MACHINE WORKING. :rolleyes:

Maurice

27th October 2008, 09:01 PM

AS WELL AS ANIMALS MOST SPIRITS AND ASSOCIATED WITH LIFE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE CROCODILES SPIRIT IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO COMMENT FARTHER EXCEPT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IS A BAD THING AS BOTH LIFE AND DEATH ARE A PART OF THEIR WORLD. WAR AND DEATH ARE ALSO LINKED SO A CROCODILE WITH ITS POWER AND SPIRIT OF DEATH WOULD BE A NATURAL CHOICE FOR A WAR WEAPON. :rolleyes:I just read the book of Eric Mjoberg, named "Borneo, the land of the headhunters." There you can find a paragraph about the connection between the crocodile and the dayaks.
Shortly what I have read is that: Most people of Borneo see the crocodile as holy. The crocodiles will be left alone, as long as it doesn't attack the people. Than it is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (or how the saying is going:o ).
You can imagine what impression such an big strong animal has to the dajaks who were animists. Therefore the crocodile figure is a well seen object on their carvings (such as coffins, or endcarvings on their praws, etc).
Some dayak tribes believe that the guards in the underworld are huge crocodiles, who guard the deads who go for their last voyage over a slimy treetrunk which is lying over a river to finally reach the land of shadows.

There is a legend that one of the greatest dayak chiefs ever lived had the shape of a crocodile. Therefore the great respect for the crocodile. But as I wrote earlier, when a crocodile attacks one of the dajaks of a certain tribe, it is declared the war and they will not rest till they killed the beast (and many crocodiles were killed before they had the right one).

But I think I am wondering of topic what Bill is asking (sorry Bill :shrug: .)
But maybe interesting for some people who didn't read the book.

But who says the head of the kampilan is supposed to be the mouth of a crocodile??????:confused: I know the opinions will be differ on this one and I have no clue myself what to think ...........so I step out now and will follow this thread with great pleasure!

Kind regards,
Maurice

Mytribalworld

27th October 2008, 09:30 PM

Hi Bill,

Thanks for starting this thread.A nice subject and we will probably never know what happend so we can only guess and try to get as much info as we can.

Its a little dangerous to build a theory on the not proven other theory of the crocodilemouth I think.
Personally I don't think the handle represents always the crocodile mouth but that for later......

If Magellan was killed with a kampilan I doubt if the model was the same as we know know on the Phillipines.
seemly the model of the handle has become some variations during the times.
However we haven't seen kampilans with dayak motifs it at least looks if the dayaks of North Borneo used a kampilan with a small variation into the handle.
they seem to be more like a massive block,ceratainly the lower "jaw"
Pics below are mainly described as Dusun ( north Borneo)

source RMV Leiden

Mytribalworld

27th October 2008, 09:32 PM

On Timor however you find Kampilans with hughe handles....

In my opinion they have more in common with the head of a hornbill.

Whats for sure is that on Timor they couldn't make swordblades and every blade had to be obtained by trade.

Seemly these kampilans where also traded to Timor.The collection numbers are very old so probably these are very old pieces.
Whats also possible that they carved the handle themselves but I doubt that.
Note that on two pieces the handguard is asymetric.
We don't know if these kampilans where a model before the more common open "crocodile" type or a modification of that type.

I agree with Vandoo that the blade of a kampilan is'nt very handy into the forrest. But on a boat or open area it must be a great weapon.
Note however that the area of North borneo is more open than other parts of Borneo. On the other way it would not suprise me if the kampilan design was originally from the mainland of Malaysia but was modified for combat at sea,traded and got his influence from other cultures.
The hook at the end of the blade is very handy for entering or just keeping of entering boats from enemies.
There's a nice theory if this hook maybe represents a prowshead.

Mytribalworld

27th October 2008, 10:23 PM

kampilan blade ends in compare with a kelawang from Pattani

according to the writer you can see even the two mast from the boat on one of the drawings...... I don't know but its interesting.

migueldiaz

28th October 2008, 12:31 AM

Hello Bill,

Thanks for starting this thread as the kampilan is of great interest to me at the moment (I'm trying to acquire another piece).

Maurice, Vandoo, and Mandaukudi, thanks too for the additional info!

What I can add is taken from two books in front of me now. From Cato's good old "Moro Swords" (1996) --

"The basic form of the Moro kampilan was borrowed form Malay prototypes. The kampilan profile is strikingly similar to the klewang, mandau (parang ihlang) swords that were used in Indonesia and Malaya (now Malaysia).

"Dr. Mamitua Saber, noted Maranao expert on the history and culture of the Muslim Filipinos, has found evidence that variants of the kampilan exist in almost every country in insular Southeast Asia, including some of the isolated islands in the Indian Ocean, near Sumatra. It is his belief, however, that the most likely prototype for the Moro kampilan was the klewang, as produced by the inhabitants of the Celebes."

And from Krieger's "Primitive Weapons and Armor of the Philippine Islands" (1926):

"HAIRY KAMPILAN. -- This weapon denoted considerable rank on the part of he bearer. It is ornamented with a tuft of tufts of human or horse hair at the sides of the handle. The wooden handle is large, highly ornamented with carvings; bifid pommel. The large wooden cross guard is often provided with sword breaker and wrist protector. Moro. Weapon not essentially Filipino, but introduced by way of Borneo. North Bornean forms resemble it, as do also the north Celebes types with spur pointed at distal end. The weapon resembles the parang-ihlang.

xxx

"KAMPILAN. -- A long blade widening to a truncated distal end. The weapon is employed by the Moro private soldier. Large wooden handle sometimes highly carved. Sword breaker and wooden cross guard always present."

And then of course there's this other excellent thread, Towards a classification of the kampilan (http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000953.html).

Maurice

28th October 2008, 09:57 AM

On Timor however you find Kampilans with hughe handles....

In my opinion they have more in common with the head of a hornbill.

Hi Arjan,

I see what you mean and it looks indeed at a hornbill's head.
Did you noticed that the last pic of your Timor-examples has the hilt upsidedown? :)

The ,hairy, part of the hilt normally is on the ,edge, side of the blade.
To this one the ,hairy, side is at the backside of the blade (non-edge).

Mytribalworld

29th October 2008, 05:36 PM

Hi Arjan,

I see what you mean and it looks indeed at a hornbill's head.
Did you noticed that the last pic of your Timor-examples has the hilt upsidedown? :)

The ,hairy, part of the hilt normally is on the ,edge, side of the blade.
To this one the ,hairy, side is at the backside of the blade (non-edge).

Hi Maurice,

yes, I seen but its no doubt that its turned when it was rehilted.

Dajak

29th October 2008, 06:39 PM

There is no proof off that this type off kampilan was from philipine origine

There is only the name kampilan but the form is not proven from philipine .

Ben

VVV

29th October 2008, 09:01 PM

Interesting with the ship and mast theory on the spike.
But I assume it's just speculation from the article writer, or?
Also most really old kampilan don't have this spike feature.
On crocodiles they are considered holy ("keramat") in Folk Islam too, especially if they are extraordinary large or white.
In Hindu times they were, like the tiger, connected to Batara Guru - Shiva.

On the origin, old sources, Dusun-attribute etc. we discussed that in depth in this old thread.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5032

Michael

Nonoy Tan

31st October 2008, 10:32 AM

I read somewhere (still trying to locate the source reference) that most of such types of iron/steel/metal weapons (including those of Luzon and the Visayas) used before the arrival of Christianity and Islam to the Philippines, were likely introduced from Borneo.

migueldiaz

2nd November 2008, 06:22 PM

The first recorded kampilan possibly goes back to the Battle of Mactan in the Philippines -- April 1521. Magellan vs Lapu Lapu. However it is unclear if Lapu Lapu used a kampilan or a cutlass.
Hi Bill,

Most of us have probably read Antonio Pigafetta's account of the death of Magellan:

"Recognizing the captain [Magellan], so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... A native hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the native's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

I was just thinking, if it was a "cutlass", then what would it actually be, among the blades of the Visayans then?

I'm now reading William Henry Scott's Barangay -- Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture & Society (http://books.google.com/books?id=15KZU-yMuisC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=boxer+codex+moros+of+luzon&source=web&ots=lc59iFMW4N&sig=l4uCeTthY8_U8nFm1pjhoq8rPA0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA148,M1). This was written in the 1980s I think, and Scott is a leading historian on pre-hispanic Philippines.

So the book is all about how the Philippines was before the arrival of the Spaniards. In the section entitled "The Visayas" and under the "Weapons and War" subsection, we read this:

"There were two kinds of swords -- kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 to 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical hornlike flare at the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill. The wavy kris was called kiwo-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement cannot be predicted. Hilts were carved of any solid material -- hardwood, bone, antler, even shell -- and great datu warriors had them of solid gold or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface -- damascended or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao or Sulu, and these in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades.

"The word kampilan came into Spanish during the Moluccan campaigns of the sixteenth century as "a heavy, pointed cutlass [alfange]" -- inappropriately, however, since a cutlass had a curved blade weighted toward the tip for slashing blows, while the kampilan was straight. (Modern ones are two-handed weapons running to 90 centimeters.) It apparently was never manufactured by Visayan smiths but imported from parts of Mindanao, both Muslim and pagan, which had direct culture contact with the Moluccas. Like the kris, it was coated with poison before going into battle, and the fiction that the weapon itself has been rendered poisonous by some alchemy no doubt enhanced its market value. Fine ones were handed down from father to son, bore personal names known to the enemy, and could be recognized by the sound of little bells which formed part of their tasseled decoration."

So there.

The pre-hispanic Visayans (of whom Lapu Lapu was one) had only two basic swords: the kris and the kampilan.

To me thus, the "cutlass" that was used against Magellan in all probability would be a kampilan. If it were the kris, Pigafetta an eyewitness wouldn't have described it like he did: "a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger".

Traditionally in the Philippines, Lapu Lapu is depicted as armed with the kampilan.

VVV

2nd November 2008, 09:19 PM

Hi Miguel,

Scott's book is unique as it's based on what the Spanish wrote about the Filipinos when they first encountered them. This means of course that there are a lot of misunderstandings and cultural biased flaws in the original documentation that needs to be decipherd (based on other documentation and sources). Like the old poison myth...
I assume that the kris from Makassar wasn't of the Sundang type but more of the regular Malay size?
And that the kampilan the Spaniards encountered on their Moluccan campaign belonged to Illanum seafarers?
Not to the regular inhabitants of the Moluccas who according to all other sources used other kind of swords?
I think the book is very interesting and also sometimes quite surprising.
Like when he mentions the baladaw (= Malay beladau?) as a kind of popular Visayan push dagger. I wonder why it didn't survive in popularity?
Unfortunately Scott died in 1993. A year before the book first was published.

Michael

migueldiaz

3rd November 2008, 12:18 AM

Scott's book is unique as it's based on what the Spanish wrote about the Filipinos when they first encountered them. This means of course that there are a lot of misunderstandings and cultural biased flaws in the original documentation that needs to be decipherd ...
Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, I agree that there were a lot of "transmission errors", as early as back then when the first contact was made, down to the present time as these matters are over and over retold and reinterpreted.

Doesn't it make that all the more exciting? :)

Best regards.

PS -

Dear all,

I'm now looking at the Boxer Codex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Codex) which is described as follows:

"Boxer Codex is a manuscript written circa 1595 which contains illustrations of Filipinos at the time of their initial contact with the Spanish. Aside from a description of and historical allusions to the Philippines and various other Far Eastern countries, it also contains seventy-five colored drawings of the inhabitants of these regions and their distinctive costumes. Fifteen illustrations deal with Filipinos ...

"The Boxer Codex depicts the Tagalogs, Visayans, Zambals, Cagayanons and Negritos of the Philippines in vivid colors. The technique of the paintings suggests that artist may have been Chinese, as does the use of Chinese paper, ink and paints."

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

Reichsritter

3rd November 2008, 03:18 AM

Hi,

Kampilan was mentioned in an ancient Ilonggo/ Visayan epic the "Hinilawod" it was only recorded by the Spanish in 1573. The epic was said to be the longest in the world since it takes three days to complete.

The pommel I think is not necessarily a crocodile...it might what in the Ilonggos folklore called "Bakunawa" or sea serpent who swallowed the moon, this story was often told to the kids during lunar eclipse. I think there are pommel variants that these serpents head had a ball swallowed in it.

Nonoy Tan

3rd November 2008, 07:03 AM

Indeed, there is so much talent and expertise in this forum!

A major problem, as some already implied, is that the word Kampilan, Kempilan, or Campilan has been used by the Spaniards (particularly in the Philippines) to describe blades which may or may not be a Kampilan (as we presently know it).

The Ibaloi (Northern Luzon) songs mentions the Campilan, too. They may or may have acquired the word from early Spaniards in the Philippines.

Early Spanish records of the Ilongots (Northern Luzon) use the word Campilan to describe a cutlass.

These information add to the confusion.

Here is more information that can help place the issue in context:

Historical writings mention the name Raha Matanda or Raja Ache (Lakandula) who ruled Manila and adjacent areas in the 16th century. Raha Matanda was the grandson of Sultan Sirapada I of Borneo.

Nonoy Tan

3rd November 2008, 07:09 AM

Hi Tim,

The Balarao dagger is mentioned in Antontio de Morga's " Sucessos delas Islas Filipinas" and the translated version which includes Rizal's comments mentions its loss.

Nonoy

Dajak

4th November 2008, 04:47 AM

I Like to see an drawing or an pic off one with an kampilan before 1850

not one what looks like an kampilan but is one.

Ben

Mytribalworld

5th November 2008, 07:41 PM

I Like to see an drawing or an pic off one with an kampilan before 1850

not one what looks like an kampilan but is one.

Ben

Ooh yeh, where did I have that polaroid photo with Lapu Lapu in war dress :D

Jim McDougall

10th November 2008, 10:41 AM

This is an excellent topic Bill! and a great idea for a thread as it focuses on the kampilan specifically, and addresses not only the development of the weapon and its particulars, but fascinating history associated with it.
The observations and discussion added by everyone here have been really informative, and this is again, the kind of threads I really like seeing, that truly give the most current data available on a certain weapon form.

MiguelDiaz and Mandaukudi, fantastic input with the great illustrations and cites on references! Excellent observations Vandoo, Toeodor, Maurice and Dajak! and Nonoy Tan thank you for addressing the word 'kampilan'. I wondered if the etymology of the word was known, and think arms and armour terminology is a fascinating factor in its study.

Its great really learning more on these weapons, thank you guys!

All the best,
Jim

migueldiaz

10th November 2008, 10:48 PM

Jim, thanks :)

Mandaukudi, thanks too for those wonderful images above!

Early Spanish records of the Ilongots (Northern Luzon) use the word Campilan to describe a cutlass.
In Zaragoza's Tribal Splendor (1995), we see these 1898 studio pics of Ilongot warriors.

In the four-man pic, what is interesting to me is the leftmost Ilongot's 'sidearm' which looks like a sword with a bifurcated hilt -- would this be the cousin of the Moro kampilan? ... and hence was the one the Spaniards described as a 'campilan'?

Also the Ilongot in the center (standing) seems to be holding what looks very similar to a Moro panabas.

The Ilongots by the way appear to have continued with their headhunting ways, long after the Igorots of the Cordillera have put it to a stop.

See the 1959 police pic below (warning: the picture may be too gruesome to some).

fernando

11th November 2008, 03:08 PM

VVV

11th November 2008, 04:06 PM

migueldiaz

13th November 2008, 12:00 PM

Thanks Miguel for posting the pictures of the Luzon-maybe-kampilan-inspired-swords.
A pity that they aren't easier to see from the pictures.
I have this bolo that, based on Hein's old book, is supposed to be tribal and from Luzon?
Do you recognise it from any of your sources?

Michael
Hi Michael,

I'm not familiar with the form as I'm still a budding collector :)

It appears though, based on the pics earlier posted in this forum (the ones taken at Madrid museum/s), that it's also possible that they are Visayan (i.e., from central Philippines).

But I'm not really sure about that. I'm sure the others more familiar with the nuances of the forms can comment much more competently.

Regards.

migueldiaz

13th November 2008, 02:50 PM

I'd like to propose a theory on the probable use of those thingys on the upper tip of the kampilan's blade.

I'm not aware if this had been proposed before, but my theory is that those things are used to deliver poison to the enemy during combat.

My train of thought would be:

[1] Visayans customarily applied poison on their kampilans & krisses [WH Scott, in Barangay];

[2] In the Battle of Mactan, it doesn't come as a surprise thus that Pigafetta reported the use of poison arrows by the natives against the Spaniards;

[3] After Magellan's defeat, Magellan's first native ally, Rajah Humabon, in disappointment over Magellan's failure to defeat Humabon's enemy [Lapu-lapu], reportedly ordered the extermination of the surviving Spaniards via poisoning;

thus once again, chemical warfare really looks like a typical method of defeating the enemy;

[4] The kris being wavy would have a longer total blade length compared to a straight blade of the same overall length -- as such when the kris was laced with poison, more poison can be lodged on the blade as compared to a straight blade; the point is that the kris' wavy blade then becomes an ideal weapon to deliver poison to the enemy;

[5] Now for the kampilan which Scott said was also laced with poison, being a very long sword perhaps it made sense to just concentrate the poison on the blade's tip;

[6] Now on how to operationalize the idea, I thought that those many perforations and jagged edges would make an ideal repository for the poison (normally the sap of a certain tree, per Krieger, when Krieger described how the Luzon tribes source their poison);

the spikelets and other protrusions on the other hand will provide good platform for injecting the poison into the flesh of the enemy.

On how to prove or debunk the theory, these are the things that can be done --

[a] if Pigafetta had a post-battle account, we should find out whether those wounded by the "large cutlass, which looked like a scimitar" were noted as having experienced symptoms of poisoning (e.g., nausea, vomitting, etc.);

[b] it should also be established whether the Visayans' kampilans had those spikelets and perforations in the first place;

[c] for those in the US and Europe who have access to crime laboratories, those spikelets and perforations on the kampilan should be swabbed and the sample taken for analysis of traces of poison, a la CSI :)

now if you have etched your kampilan and obliterated any chemical trace on the blade's tip, shame on you! ;)

[d] given that kampilan must have been first developed in Borneo, and then it went up to Mindanao first before reaching the Visayas and then Luzon, it will help if we can find out whether those original users of the kampilan laced their blades with poison also.

Back to the subject on whether in the first place the Visayans had kampilans similar to the ones used by the Moros of Mindanao (i.e., with spikelets and perforations), I think that's the case.

Because Pigafetta described the fighting style of the men of Lapu-lapu as -- "When our muskets were discharged, the natives would never stand still, but leaped hither and thither, covering themselves with their shields."

Now earlier, the Europeans and later the Americans described the Moro fighting style as exactly like that. So if the movements were the same, it stands to reason that the weapons used must have been very similar if not the same.

Admittedly, all of the above are highly speculative.

But hey, to echo Vandoo, let me end by saying that "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!" :) :D

Attached are pics of various spiked tips, as collated randomly from pics in the forum.

VVV

13th November 2008, 10:50 PM

...It appears though, based on the pics earlier posted in this forum (the ones taken at Madrid museum/s), that it's also possible that they are Visayan (i.e., from central Philippines)...

Thanks for the comment and the pictures.
The pictures just indicate Philippines to me.
But maybe Visayas, as well as Mindanao, is an alternative to Luzon (from Hein)?
Any forumites in Madrid who knows how it's described at the museum?

Michael

Nonoy Tan

14th November 2008, 06:06 AM

Hi Michael,

The "bolo" you posted is used by people from the extreme east of Luzon (along the coast and the mountains near the coast). They call it "Katana" - probably a loan word.

Nonoy

VVV

14th November 2008, 06:10 AM

Thanks Nonoy!!!

In case you have any pictures of people wearing it I would appreciate if you could share them?

Michael

Dajak

14th November 2008, 07:18 PM

Here an shield off the Ilongot .

Ben

Tim Simmons

14th November 2008, 08:40 PM

VVV

14th November 2008, 08:58 PM

Tim,

Here is another African example but what does that have to do with the discussion of kampilan?
Isn't it obvious that some curator made a mistake, like they often do.
And don't we all recognise which weapons that don't belong in the picture and which ones that do?

Michael

Tim Simmons

14th November 2008, 09:08 PM

Exactly!!! how trust worthy is the legacy left to us. Especially when it is 4 or more centuries ago. Museums are the depository of what we assume to be current knowledge. Which is cearly in question in some areas. :shrug:

migueldiaz

15th November 2008, 12:28 AM

I dare to question the value of discussion about the Kampilan in this thread. I am not trying to be rude or upset anybody but I do have doubts about the information especially as no body has noted that the bottom central weapon in this picture is African.
Hi Tim,

There were no further comments because of "kampilan fatigue" perhaps? ;)

Actually when those museum pics were first posted in PI Weaponry in Spanish Museums (http://216.219.192.186/vb/showthread.php?t=324), forumites already commented that some items are misplaced (e.g., Battara's comment on African weapons being there).

And I've also been leafing through the old threads on kampilan in the archives and indeed, the kampilan discussions go a long way back. So perhaps some are not that interested anymore in reciting the same old stuff! ;)

But me, I'm not tired yet because I've just started :)

Best regards to all.

VVV

15th November 2008, 08:16 AM

migueldiaz

15th November 2008, 12:53 PM

Tim,

I agree with you that there is a risk of misinformation if you only use one museum, one book or whatever as the only source of information. But if you combine it with other sources it's possible to discover the misinformation and find out which information that's credible.
Isn't the above mentioned procedure rather basic for all of us?

Michael
Michael,

Indeed the process is like that of "triangulation" in locating a radio transmission, using several detectors that are located differently.

Each detector being imperfect will have its own margin of error. But when you combine the results of several detectors, the error of one will be lopped off by the other/s. And the result you'll get will be much closer to reality.

Also museum curators are jacks of all trades but masters of none. And this is understandable given the huge amount of items of all kind in their inventory ...

migueldiaz

17th November 2008, 02:54 PM

Hi Bill,
Some guy from my home town is now running an exhibition on Fernão Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellanvs) biography and his earth circum navigation.
One of the illustrations shows the Portuguese captain being eliminated by the Lapu Lapu chieftain, after being weakened by an arrow in his leg, among other wounds.
I wonder what is the age of this picture (painting?), and from where he did get it. He doesn't remember it either. But he promised to search his stuff and tell me.
I think this is a sugestive depiction of the weapon used by the native leader ... at least in the author's imagination.
Fernando
Hi Fernando,

I often see that painting in various publications here in Manila, but I'm still to find out who the painter is.

On a related matter, I'm now reading this book published by the local National Historical Institute, entitled Fernando Oliveira: Viagem de Fernao Magalhaes [The Voyage of Ferdinand Magellan].

Oliveira is a Portuguese linguist and maritime expert who between 1550 and 1560 interviewed one of the survivors of Magellan's crew who reached the Philippines.

The only existing original manuscript of the interview is kept in a library in Leiden, Holland. The copy of the first page and the two pages from where the quote below was lifted, are attached below.

The manuscript's French annotated edition was authored by Pierre Valiere in 1976. Then the transliteration and the English translation was done by Peter Schreurs in 2002.

I was looking for a description of the weapons Lapulapu and his men used against Magellan but Oliveira's interviewee didn't say anything about it:

"And so it came to pass that on the next Sunday, through the goodness and grace of God, the king [Humabon, of Cebu] and his wife the queen with some of the leading citizens were converted and asked for baptism.

During the next week, most of the inhabitants of the kingdom [in Cebu] were also converted. And because Ferdinand Magellan considered this a good opportunity for the conversion of the other kings, he informed them that they must either become Christians or obey the authority of the newly converted king. If they refused, he would make war on them and burn their villages and their palm plantations which served them for their sustenance.

Two of them pledged obedience to the Christian king when hearing what damage he might do to them. But the third [Lapulapu] let him know that he would do nothing of what he had ordered him to do and that if he would wage war on him he would defend himself.

When Ferdinand Magellan heard that answer, he thought that he might yet be able to change his mind by inflicting some damage on him, and he decided to go ashore with some men to attack his territory [in Mactan Island, where Lapulapu ruled]. He did so indeed and landed with sixty arquebus soldiers and started to burn huts and felling palm trees.

Then the king [Lapulapu] and many of the native came rushing out to prevent it and started to fight with them. But as long as our men still had gunpowder, the natives did not come near them, but when their powder was consumed, they started to surround them from all sides. And because they were incomparably greater in number, they were also much stronger.

Our men, unable to defend themselves or get away, fought to exhaustion, and some of them were killed, among them also Ferdinand Magellan.

Before when he was still alive, he had refused that his friend the king [Humabon] come to help him with some men whom the latter held ready just for that purpose. He had said that the Christians, with the help of God, were strong enough to beat all that scum.

But as soon as he had been killed, the king came to help the others who had been badly wounded. He ordered that they be brought to the boats because he was afraid that the whole rest of this enemies would unite and make them prisoners ..."

The words in brackets are my own annotations.

The other person who recounted the events was the Genoese pilot, Juan Bautista, who was with Magellan also. If anybody has the text of his account, then that might provide another lead on whether it was indeed the kampilan that was also used against Magellan.

VANDOO

17th November 2008, 03:54 PM

THERE ARE MANY MISTAKES IN AMONG THE GOOD WRITTEN REFRENCE INFORMATION AS WELL AS DISPLAYS IN MUSEUMS. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS USE LOGIC AND OUR KNOWLEGE TO SORT THRU ALL OF IT AND DISCOUNT THAT WHICH DOES NOT FIT AND COMPILE THAT INFORMATION THAT DOES APPLY. THERE ARE MANY PICTURES AS WELL AS LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION AND IDEAS ON VARIOUS SWORDS HERE IN THE FORUM POSTS.
PERHAPS SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO GO THRU IT ALL AND SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF AND PURSUE SOME OF THE GOOD IDEAS TO SEE IF NEW INFORMATION COULD BE GAINED IN THAT WAY. THE INFORMATION COULD BE CONDENSED AND THEN FORM THE CORE FOR FURTHER STUDY.
AS TO WHAT THE SWORD LOOKED LIKE THAT KILLED MAGELLAN THOUGH AN INTERESTING TOPIC I FEAR IT WILL NOT SHED MUCH LIGHT ON THE KAMPILIAN AS IT WILL DEAL PRIMARILY WITH THE DEATH OF THE GREAT MAN FIRST AND THE ONE WHO DISPATCHED HIM SECOND THE SWORD WILL RECEIVE LITTLE ATTENTION.
A FRIEND OF MINE IS EXPERIMENTING WITH A NEW TYPE OF MACHINE THAT IS ABLE TO DETERMINE AGE AND ESTABLISH PROVENANCE WITHOUT DAMAGEING THE OBJECT. HE IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH POTTERY ,STONE AND GOLD ARTEFACTS AS THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD ARCHELOGICAL INFORMATION ESPECIALLY ON THE POTTERY. PERHAPS WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED TO WORK WELL AND THE BENCHMARKS ARE SET UP IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO GAIN MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION ON SWORDS AS WELL AS OTHER ITEMS.

I SUSPECT THE KAMPILIAN EVOLVED FROM A SHORTER WEAPON SUCH AS THE MANDAU WHICH IS PRESENT IN BORNEO OR THE SIMULAR SWORDS USED BY THE TIBOLI AND BAGOBO IN MINDANAO. THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER SIMULAR WEAPONS FROM MALAYSIA, INDIA, INDONESIA, ECT. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHOPPING STYLE OF BLADE MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY CAME IN FROM ANOTHER AREA DURING THE VARIOUS WAVES OF IMIGRATION. BUT MOST EXAMPLES OF THE LARGE FORM KAMPILIAN WE RECOGNIZE AS A WAR SWORD SEEM TO BE MOSTLY IN THE PHILIPPINES AND BORNEO AREA. FOR THAT REASON I SUSPECT THE LARGE WAR SWORD KAMPILIAN ORIGINATED IN THAT AREA. GIVEN THE LARGER SIZE OF MORO WEAPONS (PANABAS, KRIS, KAMPILIAN) IN RELATION TO MOST OTHERS IN THE AREA IT IS LIKELY THEY HAD A ROLE IN ITS DEVELOPMENT.
THE MURUT SWORD IS ALSO LARGE BUT I SUSPECT THE FORM WAS INFLUENCED FROM ARABIC OR INDIAN SWORDS AS THE BLADE IS SO MUCH DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TRIBES IN BORNEO SO WILL DISCOUNT IT FROM THIS DISCUSSION. THE PISO PODANG ALSO FALLES INTO THIS CATEGORY WITH THE PAKAYUN BLADES, BOTH LIKELY WERE TRADE ITEMS ORIGINALLY.
AS TO THE FANG DAGGER AND THE TWO MOROCCAN DAGGERS YEP WE RECOGNIZED THEM BUT AS THE DISCUSSION IS ON KAMPILIAN I IGNORED THE MISTAKE AS IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE SUCH MISTAKES IN MUSEUMS. :D

fernando

17th November 2008, 04:26 PM

Hi Lorenz

Hi Fernando,
I often see that painting in various publications here in Manila, but I'm still to find out who the painter is ...
This is the reason i didn't come back here with any helping info. The exhibition author confessed he picked the picture from a website and also ignores who the painter was.

Oliveira is a Portuguese linguist and maritime expert who between 1550 and 1560 interviewed one of the survivors of Magellan's crew who reached the Philippines.

The only existing original manuscript of the interview is kept in a library in Leiden, Holland. The copy of the first page and the two pages from where the quote below was lifted, are attached below..

Fascinating stuff ... quite readable, even having being handwritten five centuries ago.

Fernando

migueldiaz

18th November 2008, 01:46 AM

Hi Lorenz
... Fascinating stuff ... quite readable, even having being handwritten five centuries ago.
Hi Fernando,

Yes, going over these firsthand accounts is fascinating all right.

Here's more quotes from the book I mentioned, yet still no clue as to whether anything resembling a kampilan as we know it figured in the battle:

"Here we have arrived at the fatal day: that on which Magellan meets with death. After the refusal of the other kings to obey the Christian king and pay the required tribute to Magellan consisting of three goats, three pigs, and three sacks of rice, the latter organizes a punitive expedition on 27 April 1521 (some authors say 28 April).

"Let us listen to the Genoese pilot: “In the morning of 28 April 1521, Ferdinand Magellan ordered three sloops to be armed with some sixty men. These went to the island where they came face to face with three or four hundred men who fought so furiously that Ferdinand Magellan was killed together with six of his men”.

"Gomara gives more details: “Magellan was killed when he had been hit in the face by an arrow after he had lost his helmet which had fallen off after being hit by stones and lances. He was also wounded in the legs, and after falling down he was pierced by a lance.”

"Herrera is even more precise: “Magellan had wished to attack immediately, but the king [Humabon], his friend, advised him to wait for daybreak, because he knew that they [Lapulapu’s men] had been digging several trenches wherein they had they had planted sharpened sticks and he thought that they should not take such a risk. When daylight had come, some of the men were ordered to remain behind in the sloops to guard them, after which he took off with 55 of his men. Upon arriving at the village, they found no people, but as soon when they had started to put fire to the houses, a group of Indios attacked them on one side, and while they were fighting, they were also attacked on the other flank by a second group of natives. The Spaniards were now split up in to groups, but they resisted the enemies with such force that they succeeded in closing ranks again. They continued fighting during a great part of the day, till the musketeers had no more powder and the crossbowmen no more arrows. Magellan was hit by a rock which knocked off his helmet. Then he was also wounded in one leg and hit by more rocks, and fell down. Lying on the ground he was pierced by one of the long bamboo lances which the natives used with great courage. That’s how the great captain died because he was too courageous and had tempted fate far too much. His death was a great blow to his men. Cristopher Rabelo, the captain of the Victoria, died also with six of his companions. This killing occurred on 27 April of that year wherein the Philippines were discovered for the first time.

"Jeronimo Osorio betrays a Portuguese viewpoint when giving Magellan a peculiar post mortem: “During that expedition, he encountered a lot of dangers, because the Spanish captains and the soldiers wanted to get rid of him and plotted his death, on which occasion some of these men were executed, and this happened finally also to him. He had helped a certain local leader who had asked for it, but after a fight he was treacherously killed by that man on an island named Mata. That’s how one traitor punished another because of his treachery”

"On the other hand, the words of Pigafetta reflect a real affection for Magellan: “I hope that Your Illuster Lordship will see to it that the fame of such a courageous and noble captain will not be effaced in our times. Among his other virtues, he was more firm than anybody else ever was in the middle of the greatest hardships and before important occasions. He endured hunger better than all the others, and he understood sea charts and navigation more accurately than any man in the world. This was clearly seen, for no other had so much natural talent nor the boldness and expertise to circumnavigate the world as he had almost done. But his magnificent plan ended for him in this battle.

"Gaspar Correia, like Jeronimo Osorio, writes that Magellan was killed during the banquet on 1 May 1521, but we know this to be mistaken."

I think I should buy the modern translation of Pigafetta's book, as he appears to be the most astute observer among those that with Magallanes at the time ... for sure we can find there more info as to what edged weapons the native Filipinos carried then ... :)

PS - For instance this is how Pigafetta described (http://books.google.com/books?id=RB4usvtAZrEC&pg=PA3&dq=the+genoese+pilot#PRA1-PA69,M1) one Mindanao rajah he met:

"And he [Rajah Calambu, of what is now Agusan del Norte province in Mindanao island] was the most handsome person we saw among those peoples. He had very black hair to his shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head, and two large gold rings hanging from his ears. He wore a cotton cloth, embroidered with silk, which covered him from his waist to his knees. At his side he had a dagger, with a long handle, and all of gold, the sheath of which was of carved wood. Withal he wore on his person perfumes of storax and benzoin. He was tawny and painted all over. His island is called Butuan and Calaghan."

migueldiaz

18th November 2008, 02:02 AM

Here's more speculation on my part ...

In all of the eyewitness accounts of the Battle of Mactan, all mentioned about lances and bamboo spears. But it was only Pigafetta who mentioned a scimitar/cutlass-looking sword as having been used. And the mention of that sword specifically referred to Magellan being inflicted with a blow from one, just before he died.

Thus it looks to me that the use of swords among the Visayans then was not prevalent (at least in Lapulapu's men).

Perhaps this would be because metals and steel were hard to come by.

Which would then mean that only Lapulapu and some of the nobles would have had swords.

Hence, I cannot help but conclude that it must have been Lapulapu himself (or one of his royalties) who personally inflicted one of the fatal blows to Magellan.

Now as to whether it was a kampilan or a kris (per WH Scott's Barangay), we still have to establish that ...

fernando

18th November 2008, 11:55 PM

Great input, Lorenz

I can see the legitimacy in doubting whether the sword/s used to strike Fernão Magalhães was/were a kampilan or a keris.
I had a look to the battle original narration by Piagafetta:

Quando visteno questo tutti andorono addosso a lui: uno con un gran terciado (che è como una scimitarra, ma più grosso) , li dette una ferita nella gamba sinistra, per la quale cascò col volto innanzi. Subito li furono addosso con lancie de ferro e de canna e con quelli sui terciadi, fin che lo specchio, il lume, el conforto e la vera guida nostra ammazzarono.

Interpretation is not so evident ... translation makes it worse (tradutore, traditore). Cutlass as being a curved blade (Alfanje-Alfange), versus terciado, a term which seems to have a castillian origin and, apart from the subjective (?) quotation from Piagafetta, is considered to be a short, broad straight sword (quoting Real Armeria and in general), therefore a sword with the shape of a gladius (if i may). In such case Piagafetta would not have been so "technical" in describing this weapon, by placing it between such a straight piece and a scimitar, a curved sword, again with a Castillian influenced name. On the other hand, could it be that, being envolved with Spaniards (and Portuguese) he tended to describe the weapons typology with an Iberian terminology?
Also peculiar is that, he expresses "un gran terciado, which is like a scimitar but larger", whereas the first should by all means be shorter than the late. Terciado (Terçado in Portuguese) derives from tercio (terço) meanning "third", reflecting that this weapon is one third shorter than a current (mark) sword.
If you find all the above to be nonsense, just please skip it over :o .
Fernando

Rick

19th November 2008, 12:43 AM

Could I suggest that the peculiar slashing and chopping technique used with the kampilan may , (when described in action), due to the motions employed in use ; have been seen as a scimitar when in actuality it was not ? :shrug:

Heat of the moment and all .

migueldiaz

19th November 2008, 06:03 AM

... AS TO WHAT THE SWORD LOOKED LIKE THAT KILLED MAGELLAN THOUGH AN INTERESTING TOPIC I FEAR IT WILL NOT SHED MUCH LIGHT ON THE KAMPILIAN AS IT WILL DEAL PRIMARILY WITH THE DEATH OF THE GREAT MAN FIRST AND THE ONE WHO DISPATCHED HIM SECOND THE SWORD WILL RECEIVE LITTLE ATTENTION ... I SUSPECT THE KAMPILIAN EVOLVED FROM A SHORTER WEAPON SUCH AS THE MANDAU WHICH IS PRESENT IN BORNEO OR THE SIMULAR SWORDS USED BY THE TIBOLI AND BAGOBO IN MINDANAO. THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER SIMULAR WEAPONS FROM MALAYSIA, INDIA, INDONESIA, ECT. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHOPPING STYLE OF BLADE MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY CAME IN FROM ANOTHER AREA DURING THE VARIOUS WAVES OF IMIGRATION. BUT MOST EXAMPLES OF THE LARGE FORM KAMPILIAN WE RECOGNIZE AS A WAR SWORD SEEM TO BE MOSTLY IN THE PHILIPPINES AND BORNEO AREA.
Thanks Vandoo for your usual informative and thought-provoking comments :)

Indeed on the one hand these blades tend to have a standard form.

Yet on the other hand, the form tends to be dynamic as the sword is continually made more responsive to its new environment (which environment happened to be dynamic also).

On the type/s of sword used by Lapulapu and his men against Magallanes, I have to agree that it will be difficult to definitively establish that.

But let's see if the indirect ways (e.g., studying what the prehispanic blades of the Visayans were in general, etc.) can at least bring us to something very plausible.

PS - On the idea of somebody collating all the previous discussions on the kampilan, it occurred to me already that maybe I can draft the kampilan FAQ. But problem is, my job gets in the way! ;) :D

Anyway, it's in my to-do list. But if somebody can beat me to it, then that's even better. :)

Nonoy Tan

19th November 2008, 07:49 AM

I believe that a visit to the Southwestern University in Cebu will provide a glimpse of the Visayan weapons during the pre-hispanic times.

Nonoy

migueldiaz

20th November 2008, 01:37 AM

I believe that a visit to the Southwestern University in Cebu will provide a glimpse of the Visayan weapons during the pre-hispanic times.
Thanks, and in a Filipino martial arts forum (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14431), they listed down two more universities to visit (re prehispanic Philippine blades):

a). The best place to look first would be the Cebu Normal University Museum, and the person you want to talk to is Dr. Romola 'Moling' Ouano Sebellan

b). Also visit Southwestern University, and their Aznar Museum.

c). And visit University of San Carlos, Cebuano Studies Center.

Cebu, here I come :)

migueldiaz

20th November 2008, 03:00 AM

Quando visteno questo tutti andorono addosso a lui: uno con un gran terciado (che è como una scimitarra, ma più grosso) , li dette una ferita nella gamba sinistra, per la quale cascò col volto innanzi. Subito li furono addosso con lancie de ferro e de canna e con quelli sui terciadi, fin che lo specchio, il lume, el conforto e la vera guida nostra ammazzarono.

Interpretation is not so evident ... translation makes it worse (tradutore, traditore). Cutlass as being a curved blade (Alfanje-Alfange), versus terciado, a term which seems to have a castillian origin and, apart from the subjective (?) quotation from Piagafetta, is considered to be a short, broad straight sword (quoting Real Armeria and in general), therefore a sword with the shape of a gladius (if i may). In such case Piagafetta would not have been so "technical" in describing this weapon, by placing it between such a straight piece and a scimitar, a curved sword, again with a Castillian influenced name. On the other hand, could it be that, being envolved with Spaniards (and Portuguese) he tended to describe the weapons typology with an Iberian terminology?

Also peculiar is that, he expresses "un gran terciado, which is like a scimitar but larger", whereas the first should by all means be shorter than the late. Terciado (Terçado in Portuguese) derives from tercio (terço) meanning "third", reflecting that this weapon is one third shorter than a current (mark) sword.
Thanks Fernando, for taking us to the original language used! and your elaboration thereof.

I find it most helpful and I'm sure the others will find it like so as well.

Am not familiar with cutlasses and scimitars, but the little that I know of them is that they look like per attachment below.

Now on how to reconcile Pigafetta's descriptions of the sword used against Fernão Magalhães, can you please comment again based on the drawings below of scimitar-looking Tausug kampilans, as reproduced in The Sulu Zone, 1768-1898 (http://books.google.com/books?id=_UyVI5IxcjIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Sulu+Zone,+1768-1898#PPA179-IA3,M1) (1975) by James Francis Warren?

We all know that Moros regard Lapulapu as a Tausug (a Moro group based in Sulu islands in Mindanao). We find this view for instance in the Wikipedia article on Lapulapu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapu-Lapu).

On the other hand, Lapulapu could have been an animist, like all ethnic Filpinos before the islands' Islamization in the 13th/14th century and Christianization in the 16th century.

But let's assume for the moment that Lapulapu was a Tausug (and perhaps that was also the reason why Rajah Humabon [the king Magalhães was able to befriend] and Lapulapu were not seeing eye to eye, i.e., on the further presumption that Humabon's tribe was an animist).

If Lapulapu was a Muslim Tausug, then couldn't it be that he and his nobles were armed with such curved kampilans, such that Pigafetta noted them as resembling a scimitar but only larger?

But on why Pigafetta used the term terciado [commonly translated as "cutlass"] to describe such a big sword still escapes me.

Perhaps in alluding to a terciado Pigafetta was not referring to the sword's size (hence he said "a large cutlass [terciado]"), but on some other feature of the terciado. What could it/they be?

PS -

Rick, what you mentioned is also possible of course. Given Warren's reference to highly-curved kampilans of the Sulu warriors, I'm now wondering whether the comparison with a scimitar was in fact on track. Hmm :rolleyes:

Nonoy Tan

24th November 2008, 12:06 PM

It is not unlikely that the Visayans were using some weapons similar to Borneo. The peoples of these two places had strong historical ties, as well as blood relations. Visayans lived in Borneo, and vice-versa. In the middle of the 15th century (this is before Magellan’s time) the king of Brunei (Sultan Mohammed) was Visayan, based on Hose and McDougall’s “The Pagan Tribes of Borneo.” His great grand nephew, Makoda Ragah (Sultan Bulkiah or Bolkeiah), a famous character in Bornean history is of mixed Visayan, Arab and Chinese blood. The peoples of Visaya and Borneo travelled extensively throughout the Southeast Asian archipelago; the Visayans even invaded a portion of Formosa (modern Taiwan), from where such Visayan chiefs of Formosa raided the Chinese coasts during the 12th century - but that’s another story 

By the way, the Tausug migrated from Northeastern Mindanao (in the area of Butuan), and later occupied the Sulu archipelago where they are now rooted. This movement (c.a. 1100 A.D.) occurred before the introduction of Islam into the country (c.a.1400 A.D.).

tom hyle

30th November 2008, 04:22 PM

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?

tom hyle

30th November 2008, 04:37 PM

Of some interest (or confusion) are the words cutlass and scimitar. Cutlass is a very broad European sword category, also known as hangers, etc. This was the style of sword favored by/permitted to commoners. Examples I've seen are generally rather light and thin, certainly by SE Asian standards (of course, kampilan [per se] is a notably light thin sword by SE Asian standards, with a thin cutting zone rather like unto parang lading, in my limitted experience....). the term might be applied to any large knife/short sword, especially if single edged. Scimitar is an European word and seems to reflect popular,often false, European conceptions of foreign, particularly Islamic, swords. Persian shamshirs (thought to be the origin of the term) are light slashing swords with narrow tips. Though the concept no doubt owes much to the Tartaric yelman sabres, it seems to me that the swords (other than European falchions) that most closely reflect the concept are, in fact, Oceanic SE Asian. In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings......I babble disorganisedly and that's the kind of thing one encounters in new writings :p

migueldiaz

3rd December 2008, 01:28 PM

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?
Hello Tom,

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, it's beginning to look like the sheathed sword shown in the Boxer Codex is a machete of Indonesian ancestry.

As you made the above post, coincidentally I was looking at the Sumatran swords at Mytribalworld and Orientalarms. And said swords also look like the T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification (http://216.219.192.186/vb/showthread.php?t=235).

And given what Nonoy shared about the close ties the Philippine islands' had with Borneo, then it's really very plausible that the Philippine blade shown in the Boxer Codex has Indonesian roots.

That'a a very interesting thread by the way, on the T-grip thread. Learned a lot again by going over old posts. Thanks.

migueldiaz

3rd December 2008, 02:12 PM

In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings...
Thanks again Tom for the comments.

I guess that's what happens when somebody is confronted with a totally foreign object for the first time (i.e., in the case of Pigafetta first seeing a new type of sword as wielded by Lapulapu and his men, and in a very stressful condition at that). Words fail and so would the accurate recollection of the object.

It is amusing for instance to go over the depictions of medieval travelers of mammals they never saw before. In the images below, how many can you recognize? You'll be surprised as to what some of those drawings are referring to!

Most of the pics came from this website (http://www.strangescience.net/stmam2.htm).

Thus I agree that Pigafetta might just had been hallucinating ;)

Yet on the other hand, he may have seen this Visayan sword (the one Spunjer is selling, below). And thus the 'scimitar' description might be on track after all?? :confused:

migueldiaz

3rd December 2008, 02:21 PM

For those feeling lazy checking out the answers to the medieval drawings quiz :) here are the answers: (A) mammoth; (B) tiger; (C) hippopotamus; (D) elephant; (E) hippopotamus; (F) giraffe; (G) giraffe; (H) elephant; (I) rhino; and (J) wild ass.

Nonoy Tan

3rd December 2008, 02:56 PM

fernando

3rd December 2008, 11:24 PM

Hi Lorenz
... can you please comment again based on the drawings below of scimitar-looking Tausug kampilans ...

Indeed the earlier you pick on Kampilan examples the more they look like scimitars. The one you posted is perhaps a specimen latyer to the discussed period, with its knuckle guard provision.
On the other hand, the terçado remains a bit ambiguous, concerning its early form. Not that it is seldom mentioned; i have found a zillion quotations, in the works of Portuguese chronists, Castanheda, João de Barros, Fernão Medes Pinto. You have mentions on short terçados, naked terçados, adorned terçados with golden scabbards, even the ones carried by pages for their masters (like the King of Cambay), as also carried by women; all of these mostly belonging to the "Moors", but never a description on their form. Exception for the travels of Ibn Batuta (1346) who, when in the Maldives and according to the Portuguese translator (1840), saw the instructions of some Gadija being written in palm leaves (ola) with a curved iron, similar to a terçado. At a certain point i think the term was even used genericaly for sword ... a curved sword ... basicaly Moor. And maybe Pigafetta was used to see the the large version of it ... larger than the scimitar versions he had seen. Or he was hot minded with the event, which would be no surprise.
If i am not wrong, somebody mentioned the Moluco islands in a prior post.
I am inserting here an interesting picture, for general apreciation.
Fernando

.

migueldiaz

8th December 2008, 05:11 AM

he Borneoan influence (directly or indirectly) on the Ilongot, I believe has been largely ignored by historians.
Thanks Nonoy for sharing your findings on the Bornean connection of ancient Philippines.

And I agree with your supposition that even the Ilongots' and the Cordillerans' blades must had been influenced also by that link to Borneo.

I'm sure you've also read about this incident told by Pigafetta -- in their skirmish with a flotilla of praus [must be similar to the one below, taken from The Sulu Zone] in Borneo, they captured the captain-general of the Bornean king. And it turned out that the captain-general was the son of the king of Luzon, who at the time of his capture he just came from sacking a great (Bornean) city, which other king is the enemy of the king the Luzon prince is serving.

And said Luzon prince was to be married soon to a daughter of the Bornean king. So the ties with Borneo was intimate all right.

Also, "Luzon" or "Pozon", and that would be Manila in particular, happened to be the hub of activities in Luzon island. Thus from Manila, the Bornean influence must have easily trickled down to the neighboring areas.

So yes, the Bornean connection is definitely something that needs to be amplified.

migueldiaz

8th December 2008, 05:39 AM

Indeed the earlier you pick on Kampilan examples the more they look like scimitars. The one you posted is perhaps a specimen latyer to the discussed period, with its knuckle guard provision. On the other hand, the terçado remains a bit ambiguous, concerning its early form. Not that it is seldom mentioned; i have found a zillion quotations, ...
Thanks Fernando for the additional info! :)

Still on trying to find out where Pigafetta was coming from when he described that large terçado of the ethnic Filipinos, I found the pics below of Spanish blades in Osprey's The Conquistadores.

The blades in the Battle of Mactan is truly an interesting "east meets west" kind of encounter ;)

migueldiaz

8th December 2008, 05:44 AM

Still from Osprey's The Conquistadores, images of 16th century Spanish soldiers ...

migueldiaz

8th December 2008, 05:47 AM

Finally, some color plates from the same book.

I'm almost done reading Pigafetta's full account of the blades he saw throughout their landfalls in what are now Philippines and Malaysia (Borneo).

I'll post what I gathered as soon as my boss stops bothering me about some inconsequential reports that are due soon ;)

VANDOO

8th December 2008, 05:33 PM

Andrew

8th December 2008, 07:02 PM

Nice discussion. :cool:

To the "classics". http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3699

fernando

8th December 2008, 08:12 PM

A BIT MORE SPECULATION :rolleyes:
IN MANY PICTURES OF MORO DATAU YOU SEE ONE OR MORE SWORD BEARERS WHO HAVE A KAMPILIAN THEY ARE NEAR THE DATAU IN ALL THE PICTURES I HAVE SEEN. I SUSPECT THAT IN BATTLE THESE SWORDBEARERS WOULD BE RIGHT BESIDE AND AROUND THE DATU. IN THE PICTURES THERE IS USUALLY THE DATUS FAMILY OR OTHER DATU AND PEOPLE OF IMPORTANCE SO THE SWORDBEARER IS AT A LITTLE DISTANCE.
IN A BATTLE WITH VERY EXPERIENCED FIGHTING MEN WITH ARMOR AND LONG SWORDS SUCH AS MAGELLENS MEN IT WOULD BE SMARTER AND SAFER TO FIGHT THEM WITH SPEARS AND SHIELDS AND NOT TO GET IN TOO CLOSE. WHEN MAGELLAN WAS DOWN AND SEPARATED FROM HIS WARRIORS IT WAS SAFE TO APROACH AND FINISH HIM OFF.
PERHAPS LAPULAPU THEN CALLED HIS SWORDBEARER AND TOOK THE KAMPILIAN TO FINISH HIM OFF. IT MAY SHOW HONOR TO KILL A WORTHY FOE WITH THE KAMPILIAN RATHER THAN JUST TO STICK HIM FULL OF SPEARS OR IT MIGHT BE TO SHOW THE DATU'S POWER TO EXECUTE HIS ENEMY?. IT IS ALSO LIKELY THEY TOOK HIS HEAD SO A KAMPILIAN WOULD ALSO SERVE WELL FOR THAT. IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THEM TAKEING HIS HEAD OR IF MAGELLANS ENTIRE BODY WAS RECOVERED.?

Fair reasoning.
However it seems as the actual manner how Magalhães was finally executed is not yet established. This particular, together with his birth date and place are still an uncertainty. This was still assumed by the most recent author of a supposedly thorough research book on Magalhães biography and the circumnavigation saga, Michel Chandeigne, a French teacher who used to lecture in Lisbon.
Naturally there are versions of his beheading, here and there. For example, a martial arts Brazilian academy narrates that the ten Datus of Borneo, each with a force of a hundred men arrived at the island of Panay in the Visaya region, in the 13th century. Some historians beleive that this is when the old Philipino martial art Kali was born. It is said that Kali is the art of wide blades, an art that deeply influenced Philipino war traditions, being considered by some as the mother of all styles of stick and knife (sword) fighting. This source assumes that Magalhães was decapitated by the Datu Lapu Lapu and that, according to historians, Magalhães beheader was a Kali master.

Fernando

Spunjer

9th December 2008, 05:47 AM

Fair reasoning.

Naturally there are versions of his beheading, here and there. For example, a martial arts Brazilian academy narrates that the ten Datus of Borneo, each with a force of a hundred men arrived at the island of Panay in the Visaya region, in the 13th century. Some historians beleive that this is when the old Philipino martial art Kali was born. It is said that Kali is the art of wide blades, an art that deeply influenced Philipino war traditions, being considered by some as the mother of all styles of stick and knife (sword) fighting. This source assumes that Magalhães was decapitated by the Datu Lapu Lapu and that, according to historians, Magalhães beheader was a Kali master.

Fernando

sorry fernando, but the legend of the ten datus was just that, a legend. although it has been disproven, it is sad to say that it's still in some of the history books.
here's a nice link regarding that, and the ever persistent art of "kali" (another made up word, lol).

http://cebueskrima.s5.com/index_2.html

from what pigafetta described, magellan was pretty much bum rushed, nothing fancy. i understand there's a lot of romanticism involved to give the art some sort of history, but truth is more important.
:)

fernando

9th December 2008, 10:58 PM

Hi Spunjer

sorry fernando,...
No need to be sorry :confused: Iam not a Kali fan ... didn't even know what it was, before having read about it in that website. :o

... from what pigafetta described, magellan was pretty much bum rushed, nothing fancy. i understand there's a lot of romanticism involved to give the art some sort of history, ...
Romanticism is a spice found everywhere; Also Pigafetta didn't leave his credits with allien hands:
"fin che lo specchio, il lume, el conforto e la vera guida nostra ammazzarono".

... but truth is more important ...
Naturally; but who knows the truth ? There is only one version, that of Pigafetta, which may as well be a distorted one. How far was he from Magalhães when they knocked him down; how was his mind clear and how much was he (or not) interested to golden the pill, when he later related what has happened ?
On the other hand, nothing could avoid that Magalhães's agony, or virtual death, was followed by a triumphant decapitation, which was a current fashion. Was Pigafetta still close enough to see it, in case it has happened ?
As i said in my previous posting, even recent scholars who have been gathering all possible documentation, do not consider Magalhães death cause as established; and certainly they are aware of Pigafetta's assumed relate.

Fernando

migueldiaz

10th December 2008, 05:11 AM

This source assumes that Magalhães was decapitated by the Datu Lapu Lapu and that ...
Hi Fernando.

One the one hand, that Magalhães was decapitated is a possibility I think.

On the other hand, we also read from Pigafetta that when the Christian king [Humabon] sent word to the Mactan people that if they return the body of Magalhães and the others they will be given as much merchandise as they might wish for, Lapulapu's people said 'no' --

"... but they answered that on no account would they ever give up that man, but they wished to preserve him as a monument of their triumph."

That Lapulapu's men were principled and not materialistic is sure fine by me :) But my point is that if the bodies were to be made as trophies (and we can see that Lapulapu did a lot of planning in that battle), then I think nobody was decapitated.

As an aside, I think Cebuanos in general go by the "work hard, play hard" rule. Earlier, Pigafetta noted one trait of the Cebuanos of old --

"When our people went on shore by day or by night, they always met with some one who invited them to eat and drink. They only half cook their victuals, and salt them very much, which makes them drink a great deal; and they drink much with reeds, sucking the wine from the vessels. Their repasts always last from five to six hours."

Going back to Magalhães' body, I certainly hope that one day an excavation will yield bodies that will point to Magalhães and company (including those of the 20+ others who were massacred in the delightful dinner).

migueldiaz

10th December 2008, 06:17 AM

Also Pigafetta didn't leave his credits with allien hands:
"fin che lo specchio, il lume, el conforto e la vera guida nostra ammazzarono".
"... until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

Well, I still feel like squirming whenever I read that! :p

I mean how can Pigafetta be so corny or mushy?! :D On the other hand, that only means that Magalhães was that good.

... There is only one version, that of Pigafetta, which may as well be a distorted one.
Well actually, we do have the accounts of Oliveira, the Genoese pilot, et al., all eyewitnesses. I wonder what you meant by that? :)

But yes, Pigafetta has got the most details, and thus most useful.

On the errors that crept into the narration itself and then into the translations, I think for so long as we are aware of the biases, then we can always make our own adjustments.

For instance, Pigafetta estimated that Lapulapu's men must have numbered about 1,500. Now many have already written that Lapulapu could not have assembled that many a company.

But we can understand that he wouldn't want to put his boss in a bad light, thus the exaggeration.

But we can fry Pigafetta in his own fat ;) to correct the error in his estimate. Like he mentioned that in Cebu the towns and their chiefs were --

Cingapola: the chiefs were Cilaton, Ciguibucan, Cimaninga, Cimaticat, and Cicanbul [and these chiefs must had been all the ones under Humabon?];
Mandani [Mandaue?]: chief was Aponoaan
Lalan: chief was Teten
Lalutan: chief was Japau
Lubucin: chief was Cilumai
Matan [Mactan]: one side was under Zula, then the other portion was under Cilapulapu [Lapulapu].

So let's say Cebu had 11 chiefs representing 11 towns.

Now the Philippines has 80 million people now, and about 2 million of those would be in Metro Cebu (i.e., 2.5% of the total).

The prehispanic Phil. population was about 800,000. So we can suppose that Humabon & company's Cebu would have a population of about 20,000.

Now divide 20,000 by 11 towns and you'll have 1,800 population per town. Half of those would be women. And of the remaining half, the kids and oldies would be say 30% -- so we are down to about 600 able-bodied men who can be the warriors.

You can adjust the assumptions but I think you'll never be able to reasonably come up with Pigafetta's "1,500".

So I guess that's it ... Pigafetta can say one thing, but we can always make our own adjustments! :)

migueldiaz

10th December 2008, 10:33 AM

... IN MANY PICTURES OF MORO DATAU YOU SEE ONE OR MORE SWORD BEARERS WHO HAVE A KAMPILIAN THEY ARE NEAR THE DATAU IN ALL THE PICTURES I HAVE SEEN ...
Just wanted to post the attached pic. But was that really a kampilan and an umbrella, or was it just an umbrella alone?

IT MAY SHOW HONOR TO KILL A WORTHY FOE WITH THE KAMPILIAN RATHER THAN JUST TO STICK HIM FULL OF SPEARS ...
Am not sure what the practice of the ethnic Visayans was.

But if beheading was the way to go, then Lapulapu being a man of principle must have done that to Magellan.

Like recently, the Indonesian Bali bombers were sentenced to death by firing squad. But being Muslims, they were requesting their govt that they be beheaded instead. The govt stuck though to firing squad.

But going back to Magellan and his encounter with the kampilan, I tend to think that the body was not decapitated, per my earlier post.

migueldiaz

10th December 2008, 12:41 PM

Still on the kampilan's probable origins, I've compiled Pigafetta's observations on the locals he encountered.

I was trying to see if there's anything he noted that will shed more light on the subject.

[1] At "Ladrone Islands" [Guam and Marianas Islands]

"These people have no arms, but use sticks ['baston'], which have a fishbone at the end."

[2] At "Zzamal & Humunu islands" [Samar Is. and Homonhon Is.]

"The lord of these people [in Homonhon Is.] was old, and had his face painted, and had gold rings suspended to his ears, which they names Schione, and the others had many bracelets and rings of gold in their arms, with a wrapper of linen round their head ...

"Near this isle is another where there are a kind of people who wear holes in their ears so large that they can pass their arms through them; these people are Caphre, that is to say, Gentiles, and they go naked, except that round their middles they wear cloth made of the bark of trees.

"But there are some of the more remarkable of them who wear cotton stuff, and at the end of it there is some work of silk done with a needle. These people are tawny, fat, and painted, and they anoint themselves with the oil of coco nuts and sesame, to preserve them from the sun and the wind. Their hair is very black and long, reaching to the waist, and they carry small daggers and knives, ornamented with gold, and many other things, such as darts ['fascines', 'faxina', 'foscine'], harpoons, and nets to fish, like our rizali, and their boats are like ours."

[3] At "Mazzavua" or "Massaua" or "Mazzava", which is either Limasawa Is. (southern Leyte), or Masaua (near Butuan City in northeastern Mindanao)

"... he [Rajah Calambu, the first Filipino king Magellan met] was the handsomest man that we saw among these nations. He had very black hair coming down to his shoulders, with a silk cloth on this head, and two large gold rings hanging down his ears, he had a cloth of cotton worked with silk, which covered him from the waist to the knees, at his side he wore a dagger, with a long handle which was all of gold, its sheath was of carved wood. Besides he carried upon him scents of storax and benzoin. He was tawny and painted all over. The island of this king is named Zuluan [Suluan, a tiny island near Homonhon] and Calagan [Caraga peninsula, which is part of Mindanao island] ...

"... the captain [Magellan] asked him [Rajah Calambu] if he had any enemies who made war upon him, and that if he had any he would go and defeat them with his men and ships, to put them under his obedience. The king thanked him, and answered that there were two islands the inhabitants of which were his enemies; however, that for the present it was not the time to attack them."

[4] At "Zzubu", also Cabu, Zabu, Subsuth, Subuth, Zubut, Cubo, Subo, or Zubo [all meaning Cebu]

From Oliveira: "As soon as he [Magellan's fleet] entered [Cebu port], he ordered some cannons to be fired, after which many people, armed with spears, shields and swords, came running to the shore. The king who was among them, ordered immediately to inquire from the captain who he was ..."

Back to Pigafetta: "When we came to the town we found the King of Zzubu at his palace, sitting on the ground on a mat made of palm, with many people about him. He was quite naked, except that he had a cloth round his middle, and a loose wrapper round his head, worked with silk by the needle. He had a very heavy chain round his neck, and two gold rings hung in his ears with precious stones. He was a small and fat man, and his face was painted with fire in different ways."

[5] At "Matan" or "Mautham" [Mactan]

Various accounts of the Battle of Mactan were already cited before in this thread.

I'd just like to add the probable reason why it is thought that Lapulapu must had been from Mindanao, and probably a Muslim:

"The captain before attacking wished to attempt gentle means, and sent on shore the Moorish merchant [instead of Enrique, the Malay slave of Magellan who was the interpreter earlier] to tell those islanders who were of the party of Cilapulapu [Lapulapu] ..."

I think though that Lapulapu was not a Muslim because: (a) Pigafetta being a detailed chronicler always indicated whether the people were Gentiles or Moors; (b) the only probable reason Magellan used the Moorish merchant in the pre-battle talks in Mactan was perhaps because earlier, it was the same Moor who convinced Raja Humabon to cooperate with Magellan; and (c) Pigafetta also noted that pigs among others were the common livestock of the islands (i.e., Cebu and elsewhere).

By the way, we also read from Transylvanus' account of the Battle of Mactan that: "... the enemy were more numerous, and used longer weapons, with which they did our men much damage ..."

[6] At "Bohol" Is. [Bohol] and "Panilongon" Is. [Panglao]

Here, the Concepcion was burned, given the lack of crew.

[7] At "Chippit" or "Gibesh" or "Gibeth" [Quipit, Zamboanga del Norte, Mindanao]

Magellan's crew was received well by the local king, Raja Calanao. Pigafetta didn't make note of the weapons he saw. Again, pigs were mentioned as part of the usual livestock (hence, still no local Muslims had been encountered so far since Magellan entered the Philippines).

[8] At "Cagayan" or "Caghain" or "Caghaiam" [Cagayan Sulu]

"... we touched at an almost uninhabited island, which afterwards we learned was named Cagayan. The few people there are Moors, who have been banished from an island called Burne [Borneo]. They go naked like the others, and carry blow-pipes with small quivers at their sides full of arrows, and a herb with which they poison them. They have daggers, with hilts adorned with gold and precious stones, lances, bucklers, and small cuirasses of buffaloes' hide."

This would be Pigafetta's first reference to them encountering Moors within the Philippine islands.

[9] At "Palaoan" [Palawan]

"In this island, which we learned was named Palaoan, we found pigs, goats, fowls, yams .... The people of Palaoan go naked like the other islanders ... they have blow-pipes, with thick arrows more than a span in length, with a point like that of a harpoon; some have a point made with a fish bone, and others are of reed, poisoned with a certain herb; the arrows are not trimmed with feathers, but with a soft light wood. At the foot of the blow-pipe they bind a piece of iron, by means of which, when they have no more arrows, they wield the blow-pipe like a lance. They like to adorn themselves with rings and chains of gimp and with little bells, but above all they are fond of brass wire, with which they bind their fish hooks."

[10] At "Burne" [Borneo]

"From the governor's house to that of the king, all the streets were full of men armed with swords, spears, and bucklers, the king having so commanded ... There [at the king's palace] were placed three hundred men of the king's guard with naked daggers in their hands, which they held on their thighs ... All the men who were in the palace had their middles covered with cloth of gold and silk, they carried in their hands daggers with gold hilts, adorned with pearls and precious stones, and they had many rings on their fingers."

"In front of the king's house there is a wall made of great bricks, with barbicans like forts, upon which were fifty-six bombards of metal, and six of iron ... The king to whom we presented ourselves is a Moor, and is named Raja Siripada ..."

[11] Passage through "Zolo" [Sulu] and "Taghima" [Basilan]

Pigafetta remarked: "The King of Burne [a Moor] married a daughter of the King of Zolo ..."

[12] At "Sarangani" [Sarangani]

"We were told that at a cape of this island [Mindanao] near to a river there are men who are rather hairy, great warriors, and good archers, armed with swords a span broad. When they make an enemy prisoner they eat his heart only, and they eat it raw with the juice or oranges or lemons. This cape is called Benaian."

WH Scott remarked in Barangay that Benaian must have been a corruption of the word bayani (hero). It is also speculated that Benaian can pertain to the ethnic Mindanao tribe, the B'laan?

As for that sword that is about a span or 9 inches wide ... ???

[13] At Timor

"... [after having been through many other places] we had found here a junk that had come from Lozon [Luzon], to trade in sandal wood ..."

To recap --

- looks to me that Lapulapu was not a Muslim, and just like the rest of the Cebuanos he and his people are animists, the religion of ethnic Filipinos

- it is possible however that Lapulapu was from Mindanao, given the circumstantial evidence of that Moor being used by Magellan to be the one to negotiate with Lapulapu

- as for the sword of Lapulapu and his men, it turns out that the Pigafetta's survey of ethnic Filipino weapons will not give us much

- and Pigafetta not hinting on Lapulapu being a Moor would therefore eliminate the possibility of Lapulapu having had used exotic blades

- thus perhaps the best source would still be WH Scott's Barangay, in which Scott categorically mentioned that there were only two basic prehispanic Visayan swords: the kris and the kampilan

- given that a kris is shorter and its wavy blades couldn't have missed the attention of Pigafetta, then it could have been none other than the kampilan which was used against Magellan.

As to the origin of the kampilan, after all that has been said and done, I think we are all still on a holding pattern ;) :D

VANDOO

10th December 2008, 06:55 PM

I SUSPECT THAT THE PRESENCE OF PIGS IN AN AREA WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBLE PRESSENCE OF MOSLEMS. WHILE IT IS TRUE GOOD MOSLEMS WOULD NOT EAT OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SWINE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ALLOW THOSE WHO WERE NOT MOSLEMS TO FOLLOW THEIR TRADITIONS AS FAR AS THE KEEPING AND EATING OF PIGS WAS CONCERENED. THRU OUT OCEANIC SOCIETYS PIGS PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART ESPECIALLY AT BIG FEASTS AND CEREMONIAL GATHERINGS.THEY ARE ALSO A SIGN OF WEALTH AND IMPORTANT ITEM OF TRADE AND DOWERY.
NOT BEING A MOSLEM I AM JUST GUESSING PERHAPS SOMEONE OF THAT FAITH CAN AFIRM OR DENY THIS IDEA.

THRU OUT MOST HEADHUNTING SOCIETYS THE TAKEING OF THE HEAD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A BATTLE AND THE ULTIMATE CONFIRMATION OF WHO WAS THE VICTOR. USUALLY THE HEAD WAS TAKEN BACK AND THE SKULL PRESERVED BUT IN SOME GROUPS IT WAS TAKEN AND THEN DISCARDED. IN SOME INSTANCES FEET AND HANDS WERE TAKEN BUT I AM NOT SURE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT. AS HEADHUNTING WAS VERY PREVELANT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME AND MOST ALL TRIBES PRACTICED IT; IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME WHAT HAPPENED TO MAGELLAN'S HEAD AS TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE BODY I HAVE NO IDEA (THEY WERE NOT CANNIBALS TO MY KNOWLEGE). SO IT WAS PROBABLY KEPT BECAUSE THE ENEMY WANTED IT BACK, SO IN KEEPING IT WOULD BE A FURTHER SHOW OF THEIR POWER AND AN INSULT TO THEIR ENEMYS.
IN SOME POLYNESIAN SOCIETYS (ESP. HAWAII) THE KEEPING OF THE LONG LEG AND ARM BONES WAS PRACTICED AS IT WAS BELIEVED THE MANA (POWER) OF THE PERSON RESIDED THERE.

migueldiaz

11th December 2008, 03:41 AM

IT IS ALSO LIKELY THEY TOOK HIS HEAD SO A KAMPILIAN WOULD ALSO SERVE WELL FOR THAT. IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THEM TAKEING HIS HEAD OR IF MAGELLANS ENTIRE BODY WAS RECOVERED.
THRU OUT MOST HEADHUNTING SOCIETYS THE TAKEING OF THE HEAD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A BATTLE AND THE ULTIMATE CONFIRMATION OF WHO WAS THE VICTOR. USUALLY THE HEAD WAS TAKEN BACK AND THE SKULL PRESERVED BUT IN SOME GROUPS IT WAS TAKEN AND THEN DISCARDED ... AS HEADHUNTING WAS VERY PREVELANT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME AND MOST ALL TRIBES PRACTICED IT; IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME WHAT HAPPENED TO MAGELLAN'S HEAD AS TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE BODY I HAVE NO IDEA (THEY WERE NOT CANNIBALS TO MY KNOWLEGE). SO IT WAS PROBABLY KEPT BECAUSE THE ENEMY WANTED IT BACK, SO IN KEEPING IT WOULD BE A FURTHER SHOW OF THEIR POWER AND AN INSULT TO THEIR ENEMYS.
Hi Vandoo,

Thanks for your comments.

And please allow me to compliment your speculation with my own speculation, with shreds of anecdotal evidence for flavor, taken from our author du jour, Antonio Pigafetta :)

With regard to the areas in the Philippines Pigafetta had been to (i.e., the Visayas, Mindanao mainland, and the Sulu island group), so far I've found no reference to decapitation.

But during Raja Calambu's (he ruled portion of northern Mindanao plus some Visayan islands) time with Pigafetta, Pigafetta saw three malefactors meted with capital punishment. They were hanging on a tree. Thus at least in Calambu's kingdom, capital punishment is not equal to decapitation.

But we are not talking of criminals here, but warriors in the battlefield.

In Luzon and especially in its northern part, it's established that head-taking in the battlefield was prevalent. We had an extensive discussion of that in Origin of the Kalinga Axe (http://216.219.192.186/vb/showthread.php?t=7438&page=1).

But as far as central Philippines (the Visayas) and southern Philippines (Mindanao region) are concerned, I really don't know what the practice was.

But here comes Pigafetta again in the picture, with the severed head we are looking for!

"In one of those [junks] which we captured was a son of the king of the isle of Luzon, who was captain-general of the King of Burne [Borneo], and who was coming with the junks from the conquest of a great city named Laoe ... He had made this expedition and sacked that city because its inhabitants wished rather to obey the King of Java than the Moorish King of Burne. The Moorish king having heard of the ill-treatment by us of his junks, hastened to send to say ... that those vessels had not come to do any harm to us, but were going to make war against the Gentiles, in proof of which they showed us some of the heads of those they had slain ... [and] that captain [is known to be] exceedingly dreaded by the Gentiles who are most hostile to the Moorish king."

Since we know that the 16th century kings of Luzon were muslims (e.g., decades later, the Rajas Lakandula, Sulaiman, and Matanda), then it doesn't come as a surprise that the Luzon prince practiced beheading on his vanquished foes.

Attached are pics of the statue of Raja Sulaiman (1558–1575), located in front of Malate Church in Manila.

But all these proofs of head-taking pertain to Luzon and in Mindanao. As for what the practice was in the Visayas, I think we need to make further speculations ;)

And I think those pigs often mentioned in the accounts will shed more light on the subject ...

migueldiaz

12th December 2008, 03:31 AM

Of pigs and men ...

In speculating on the type of sword used against Magallanes, we said that it would help if we can establish whether Lapulapu was a Muslim as hypothesized by some and as claimed by Filipino Muslims.

Using the eyewitness accounts (Antonio Pigafetta's and Francisco Albo's respective accounts, and another account recorded by Fernando Oliveira), it appears that Lapulapu couldn't have been one.

At least that was the circumstantial evidence then.

The reasoning goes like this --

[1] First and foremost, Pigafetta and the other witnesses always made the distinction whether the peoples were "Moors" or "Gentiles".

They didn't give their readers room for speculation. In the various islands they'd been to, it was only in "Cagayan" [Cagayan Sulu, a Philippine isle near Borneo] and a town in Palawan where they noted that the people are Moors.

Pigafetta's account is replete with such notes on what the peoples' religions were. And even Francisco Albo in his navigational "log-book" couldn't resist making those side comments:

"... and [continuing sailing, we] fell in with the head of the island of Poluan [Palawan, in westernmost Philippines]. Then we went to N 1/4 NE, coasting along it until the town of Saocao, and there we made peace, and they were Moors; and we went to another town, which is of Cafres [Gentiles]; and there we bought much rice, and so we provisioned ourselves very well, and this coast runs NE SW ..."

Magellan's crew didn't mention making landfalls in Sulu, Basilan, and Tawitawi. But I'm sure that had they done so, they would remark about these peoples being Moors.

In the Visayan islands they'd been to earlier, they definitely did not identify any tribe as Moors.

[2] Now the presence or absence of pigs in Pigafetta's account being used to establish whether the people are Muslims or not come in as a secondary proof only.

In fact the survivors of the voyage were explicit enough in their accounts as mentioned, so no other proofs are really necessary.

Just the same, the pigs' absence provides good supporting evidence.

[3] Pigs are very repulsive to Muslims, at least in 16th century southeast Asia. Thus Pigafetta noted:

"The king [Sultan Manzor of Tadore (Tidore), Magellan's crew's host in the Moluccas] then asked for another favour -- that was, that we should kill all pigs we had on board, for which we would give an ample compensation in fowls and goats. We gave him satisfaction in this ... so that the Moors should not have occasion to see them, since if by accident they see any pig they covered their faces not to see it or perceive its smell."

[4] Throughout southeast Asia, Pigafetta's observations on livestock traded vis-a-vis what he stated as the tribe's religion matched perfectly.

Hence whenever he identified one group as Moors, you can read in other places that those people traded goats and fowls but not pigs. Conversely if Pigafetta identified a group as Gentiles, then at some point you read that pigs, goats, and fowls were the livestock being bartered.

[5] Cebu and the prior islands visited were explicitly recorded as inhabited by "Gentiles". It comes as no surprise therefore that in Cebu pigs were raised right underneath the houses:

"Their houses are made of wood and beams and canes, founded on piles, and are very high, and must be entered by means of ladders; their rooms are like ours, and underneath they keep cattle, such as pigs, goats, and fowls."

[6] How about in Mactan where Lapulapu and Zula co-reigned? Well, it looks like pigs are common in there as well. For we read from the translators' notes of Oliveira's book that:

"After the refusal of the other kings to obey the Christian king [Humabon] and pay the required tribute to Magellan consisting of three goats, three pigs, and three sacks of rice, the latter organizes a punitive expedition on 27 April 1521 (some authors say 28 April)."
It would certainly be absurd if not ridiculous if the Mactan people were Muslims and yet pigs were part of the tribute being required from them.

[7] Zula by the way sided with Humabon. Thus on 26 April, he sent his son to Magellan to give the latter two goats as tribute. The son explained that they were not able to come up with the rest of the requirement only because Lapulapu "would not in any way obey the King of Spain, and had prevented him from doing so."

In summary, given that Lapulapu and his men appear not to be Muslims, then the argument that they also used non-Visayan and/or Mindanao blades weakens.

Lapulapu would had carried thus the traditional Visayan swords, which were the kris and the kampilan (and not a panabas, nor a budiak, nor a pira, nor any other exotic Muslim Mindanao weapon).

And so it would still look like it was the kampilans that were used against Magellan during his last moments.

So there would be my thoughts on the subject, for whatever it's worth! And I reserve the right to modify it as new info comes in :)

PS - Given that Lapulapu and his men made the most impact upon Magellan's group, it would be logical for Pigafetta to have inquired whether there was anything else out of the ordinary about Lapulapu.

Looks like Pigafetta did not find any other special info about Lapulapu. It turned out that he's just a typical Visayan king, who wants to be left alone.

Were Lapulapu a Bajau (sea gypsy) as claimed by some, then when Pigafetta later saw Bajaus in Mindanao ["The inhabitants of this island (Monoripa, near Sulu) always live in their vessels, and have no houses on shore."], for sure Pigafetta would have made reference to Lapulapu. But he did not.

migueldiaz

13th December 2008, 01:13 PM

Some more maps for reference, from Martin J. Noone's The Islands Saw It: The Discovery and Conquest of the Philippines, 1521-1581 (1982).

[Noone's dedication on the books says, "To the People of the Bisayas whom I loved".]

On the map showing the Muslim "penetration" in prehispanic Philippines, the Islam areas would be Manila, Mindoro, and the Sulu areas and the region around Lake Lanao and the land south of it.

Cebu would be the only major area not under Muslim rule. So it looks like urban centers-wise, prehispanic Philippines was pretty much a Muslim country.

Since the Islamization of the Philippines in the 14th century came from the south, it is curious why "Luzon" (i.e., Manila) was a Muslim kingdom, and yet the Visayas which is in between Mindanao and Luzon was not.

Just the same, the influence on the Visayas by its southern brethren was still very apparent -- the two major Visayan swords then were the kris and the kampilan (per WH Scott's [i]Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society [1994]).

The other two maps show the more accurate path of Magellan's fleet inside the Philippines.

migueldiaz

29th December 2008, 12:59 AM

... In summary, given that Lapulapu and his men appear not to be Muslims, then the argument that they also used non-Visayan and/or Mindanao blades weakens.

Lapulapu would had carried thus the traditional Visayan swords, which were the kris and the kampilan (and not a panabas, nor a budiak, nor a pira, nor any other exotic Muslim Mindanao weapon).

And so it would still look like it was the kampilans that were used against Magellan during his last moments.

So there would be my thoughts on the subject, for whatever it's worth! And I reserve the right to modify it as new info comes in :)
From Looking for the Prehistoric Filipino by the eminent historian WH Scott, we find these info that Muslims had also penetrated prehispanic Cebu and the Visayas, and even Mactan in particular!

"And if Magellan's survivors were correct in reporting the existence of a small Muslim settlement on Mactan called Bulaya, it was probably a Bornean outpost. At least, a Bornean who had married and settled in Cebu was an influential local figure in Legazpi's day." (p. 42)
"Political aggrandizement was effected by trading networks based on intermarriage, both between ruling families and between foreign merchants and their customers in trading posts. So the son of the ruler of Manila married the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei; Francisco Serrao raised a mestizo [a child of an intermarriage between races] family in Ternate [Spice Islands]; and Tupas [the Cebu harbor prince, at the time Legazpi arrived in Cebu in 1565] was able to make use of Si Damit, Kamotuan and Bapa Silaw -- all well-informed Malay-speaking Muslims settled in Cebu. So, too, Tupas sent his own daughter to Legazpi as a concubine, but Legazpi had her baptized and married off to a Greek caulker named Andreas Perez." (p. 53)

Hence, it might look after all that Lapulapu could had been a Muslim or must had been at least influenced by Muslims.

Now on headtaking as a war trophy as practiced by prehispanic Visayans, from the same book, we also see that at least there's one anectodal evidence --

"They [Miguel Lopez Legazpi's party, after landing in Cebu on 28 April 1565, 24 years after Magellan's Cebu landing] suffered no losses until May 23, when Pedro de Arana, one of the commander's personal company was killed just outside the fort and his head taken." (p. 40)
"The next week [around June already?] Pedro de Arana's head was carried off to Mactan. The Spaniards promptly burned a few settlements, discovered the bloodstained boat in which the head had been carried ..." (p. 50)

And then note that the decapitated head was carried off to Mactan, which tempts us to speculate even more!

Just updating this thread as we stumble upon more info ...

Maurice

16th May 2010, 09:16 AM

I have never seen a kampilan with Dayak designs.
To me this look like a dayak design (on the crosspiece).
It looks like some kind of face, which is uncommon to moro design..or am I mistaken?
This carving would be great when painted on the top/bottom section of a dayakshield.:shrug:

(By the way I would be probably the last who is thinking here that the kampilan is from Borneo/Dayak origine, I just want to discuss this design as being dayak...;) ).

Maurice

Battara

16th May 2010, 06:43 PM

I believe that this piece is actually Iranun, who also live and made raids on the Borneo coasts.

Also faces made from okir are not unheard of on Moro pieces.

tom hyle

6th August 2011, 05:45 PM

Hi Michael,

The "bolo" you posted is used by people from the extreme east of Luzon (along the coast and the mountains near the coast). They call it "Katana" - probably a loan word.

Nonoy

It appears to be "machete filipiana" ("odd bolo with t grip and....") with a different handle and pommel. Same guard though; is the tip broken off the sheath? Have to go back and check photos.....

MaharlikaTimawa

2nd September 2015, 02:45 AM

The "T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip" in an earlier post is an Ilongot bolo.

In the "Origin of the Kalinga Axe" thread, we can see a Panabas - not from Southern Philippines, but Northern Luzon (i.e. Ilongot).

The Borneoan influence (directly or indirectly) on the Ilongot, I believe has been largely ignored by historians.

I will look into it and share my findings in this forum.

I'm pretty sure those weapons were imported and weren't really made locally, not to mention how very rare it was for them to use it. So the use of a panabas was probably not that significant enough for anthropologists to take much notice of the use of such weapons, or is it to considered that panabas isn't anything BUT a muslim weapon, like the kampilan.

MaharlikaTimawa

2nd September 2015, 03:25 AM

Hi Bill,

Most of us have probably read Antonio Pigafetta's account of the death of Magellan:

"Recognizing the captain [Magellan], so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... A native hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the native's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

I was just thinking, if it was a "cutlass", then what would it actually be, among the blades of the Visayans then?

I'm now reading William Henry Scott's Barangay -- Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture & Society (http://books.google.com/books?id=15KZU-yMuisC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=boxer+codex+moros+of+luzon&source=web&ots=lc59iFMW4N&sig=l4uCeTthY8_U8nFm1pjhoq8rPA0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA148,M1). This was written in the 1980s I think, and Scott is a leading historian on pre-hispanic Philippines.

So the book is all about how the Philippines was before the arrival of the Spaniards. In the section entitled "The Visayas" and under the "Weapons and War" subsection, we read this:

"There were two kinds of swords -- kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 to 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical hornlike flare at the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill. The wavy kris was called kiwo-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement cannot be predicted. Hilts were carved of any solid material -- hardwood, bone, antler, even shell -- and great datu warriors had them of solid gold or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface -- damascended or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao or Sulu, and these in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades.

"The word kampilan came into Spanish during the Moluccan campaigns of the sixteenth century as "a heavy, pointed cutlass [alfange]" -- inappropriately, however, since a cutlass had a curved blade weighted toward the tip for slashing blows, while the kampilan was straight. (Modern ones are two-handed weapons running to 90 centimeters.) It apparently was never manufactured by Visayan smiths but imported from parts of Mindanao, both Muslim and pagan, which had direct culture contact with the Moluccas. Like the kris, it was coated with poison before going into battle, and the fiction that the weapon itself has been rendered poisonous by some alchemy no doubt enhanced its market value. Fine ones were handed down from father to son, bore personal names known to the enemy, and could be recognized by the sound of little bells which formed part of their tasseled decoration."

So there.

The pre-hispanic Visayans (of whom Lapu Lapu was one) had only two basic swords: the kris and the kampilan.

To me thus, the "cutlass" that was used against Magellan in all probability would be a kampilan. If it were the kris, Pigafetta an eyewitness wouldn't have described it like he did: "a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger".

Traditionally in the Philippines, Lapu Lapu is depicted as armed with the kampilan.

I think may of misunderstood, the Kampilan is not a "basic" weapon of the visayans, since they rarely sport fighting long fighting swords nor did they manufacture it themselves. The tagalogs imported japanese katanas for the use of battle but I don't think that makes the katana a Filipino weapon.
It seems the the muslims of Mindinao still cater of holding longer more developed weapons for the use of fighting while the non-muslim blades are more tools for agriculture than fighting.