[xasterix]

To elaborate on my previous assertion that it may not be Yakan:

Estimating place of origin or ethno group without verified provenance is a tricky business. Consider the following:

a) Not to belittle Cato or his research, but how many provenanced pre-1900 Yakan samples did he really encounter? Was there a commonality between features of pieces from a particular era? Remember- PH and Moro sword features vary per era, sometimes a later era radically departs in features as compared to the previous one.

b) Swords sometimes end up in places far away from their origin location or ethno group The possibilities are diverse- they may have been looted from the enemy (remember, the Tausug and the Yakan were at conflict pre-1900), stolen/smuggled/bought from the original location/ethno tribe, inherited due to intermarriage, left behind by a traveler, etc

c) This is often missed: a sword is an assembled piece. PH and Moro swords in particular can be disassembled, pieces replaced or swapped, either during a previous or current era. Some collectors have done this. In assessing a piece- how can we tell if it's "pure?" Would, say, having a Yakan blade but with a Tausug hilt and scabbard and assembled in Jolo- would you call the barung as "Yakan?"

d) In reading Cato's reference and others- there was no in-depth assessment of the Yakans' smithing / artisanship capabilities at certain eras. In the Sulu area, the Tausugs' (and to some extent, the Sama) are documented- sword production locations, smithing traditions, artisan craftmanship, materials, and practices, etc. But with regard to the Yakan, there's no mention in formal documentation- thankfully there's still oral tradition to go by.

TBH, most of the barungs that are supposedly "Yakan" in this forum are actually not so.

Sorry I can't divulge more at this point, as I respect the wishes of a Yakan culture-bearer that he be the one to formally publish the information- but just to emphasize, my points above must be considered before reaching a conclusion.