Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 26th October 2008, 11:05 PM

Thanks David, but kampilans are pretty much way outside my usual field!

As always, my curiosity gets the best of me though, so I retraced some steps to see what I could find out. What intrigued me of course, is the extremely, actually as far as I know, singular appearance of such a marking as the 'LONDON 1762'.

This blade is of course anything but 18th century, and the hilt is very attractive, according to what notes I could find, the standard form known as 'thallisic' (in Cato...wish I had my copy here!). Have no idea what that term means. I dont believe there is any agreement on what creature is represented on the pommel of these, but seems generally held to be either a crocodile/nagan entity or the Philippine deity of Bakonaua (moon eater).

The blade is of course not of the earlier form, the truncated blade point type, and though I am as always noted, not a metallurgist, this seems to be of 19th century at best. Those markings, though using the early form with serifs, seem too large, incongruent in placement, I've really never seen such markings on the forte like this especially on a 'native' blade. I'm not aware that British outfitters or makers supplied either Philippines or these regions with blades (though of course they did to Abyssinia, India etc.) and in the 19th century there was commercial activity in North Borneo. The much debated use of the kampilan in Borneo by Dayaks I would mention here simply to support that suggestion. I really dont know enough on this people to address how extensive or which tribes might have used them, but wanted to mention the British connection.

The numeric '1762' does not suggest to me a serial number or retailer or museum number, and the broad use of London, would even more deny this possibility. To me it seems a spuriously applied 'date' which seems to be close to numerous such dates on the blades from Dutch East India Co. hangers which seem to have ended up on a number of Sinhalese kastanes.

I do recall the note on Magellan being felled by a Phillipine Datu's 'kampilan' in 1521, but would submit that the term itself, like many weapon terms in these archipelagos may have been somewhat capriciously applied. I have understood that kampilan may refer to any number of sword types in these regions, with the semantics of this early period notwithstanding.

Despite all, I think it is a beautiful hilt, but uncertain of the age of the blade, with the markings appearing spurious in my opinion.

Best regards,
Jim

26th October 2008, 11:05 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,199	Thanks David, but kampilans are pretty much way outside my usual field! As always, my curiosity gets the best of me though, so I retraced some steps to see what I could find out. What intrigued me of course, is the extremely, actually as far as I know, singular appearance of such a marking as the 'LONDON 1762'. This blade is of course anything but 18th century, and the hilt is very attractive, according to what notes I could find, the standard form known as 'thallisic' (in Cato...wish I had my copy here!). Have no idea what that term means. I dont believe there is any agreement on what creature is represented on the pommel of these, but seems generally held to be either a crocodile/nagan entity or the Philippine deity of Bakonaua (moon eater). The blade is of course not of the earlier form, the truncated blade point type, and though I am as always noted, not a metallurgist, this seems to be of 19th century at best. Those markings, though using the early form with serifs, seem too large, incongruent in placement, I've really never seen such markings on the forte like this especially on a 'native' blade. I'm not aware that British outfitters or makers supplied either Philippines or these regions with blades (though of course they did to Abyssinia, India etc.) and in the 19th century there was commercial activity in North Borneo. The much debated use of the kampilan in Borneo by Dayaks I would mention here simply to support that suggestion. I really dont know enough on this people to address how extensive or which tribes might have used them, but wanted to mention the British connection. The numeric '1762' does not suggest to me a serial number or retailer or museum number, and the broad use of London, would even more deny this possibility. To me it seems a spuriously applied 'date' which seems to be close to numerous such dates on the blades from Dutch East India Co. hangers which seem to have ended up on a number of Sinhalese kastanes. I do recall the note on Magellan being felled by a Phillipine Datu's 'kampilan' in 1521, but would submit that the term itself, like many weapon terms in these archipelagos may have been somewhat capriciously applied. I have understood that kampilan may refer to any number of sword types in these regions, with the semantics of this early period notwithstanding. Despite all, I think it is a beautiful hilt, but uncertain of the age of the blade, with the markings appearing spurious in my opinion. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 26th October 2008 at 11:52 PM.