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.