Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xasterix
Hi Sir Ian. Apologies if I cannot answer in full, as some of the info you've requested is being kept confidential, for the reason that it may be published in a future book or study. I'll answer in a general sense, to strike a middle ground, but again, apologies if I cannot go into the specifics.
The samples which can support my claim are, unfortunately, also confidential and cannot be uploaded, but I'll at least mention the number and dates of the samples.
The Luzon Tabaks (210 and 211) are from Central Luzon, not Northern. At least 5 samples provenanced from that Central Luzon area- dated 1901, 1916, 1940, 1980s, and 2000s (with additional samples up to present-day) - exhibit similarities in blade profile, blade grind, scabbard, and hilt / scabbard patterns. Northern Luzon does not make chisel-ground blades.
While 212 exhibits a figural that can be found in Ilocos Sur, its blade features are not consistent with the blunt bolo type from that area. 212 is a katana. There are at least 4 pieces (2 of them katanas) that have similar figurals. By conjecture, either an Ilocos-made figural was married to a katana blade, or the artisans in Pampanga are also able to make figurals.
As to why it's called a katana, there are 2 reasons for that. The general reason, and one easily believable and practical- is that it DOES look like a katana because of its blunt tip.
|
Hello Xas:
Thank you for getting back to me about these examples. Before responding to your comments, I must say I am deeply disappointed to see information coming from anonymous
panday and examples that are held secretly. I have been hearing of possible publications relating to similar sources that were being discussed more than 20 years ago, and never amounted to anything. Data held in this manner is really not helpful at all. Scholarship shares freely and without secrets.
A while back, I wrote here on the work of
Cole on the Tiguian and Ilocano people. I believe that your sources have overlooked the Tinguian in their analysis of the examples I have shown. For example, if you look at Figure 7 (no. 5) of Cole's work (which I reproduced in the referenced thread), you will see a blunt-ended sword that resembles a
katana. This example was drawn in the early 1900s (1907-1908). Thus, the general style seems to be quite widespread in northern Luzon, and one could reasonably ask whether it originated in northern or central Luzon. Cole mentions that the swords of the
Tinguian and
Ilocano were highly prized and widely sought, and furthermore there has been a sizeable
Ilocano population in Pampanga for a long time (according to Spanish and American census records). Is a knife made by an
Ilocano in
Pampanga an
Ilocano or
Pampangan knife (or both)? We can end up in a series of circular arguments without the kind of data that you suggest exists but is unavailable for wider study. Perhaps the weapon styles of some Northern and Central Luzon weapons are so inter-related that it makes little sense to separate
Ilocano/Tinguian from
Pampangan, because the distinctions are very subtle and may reflect a common historic source.
With respect to your proposal regarding no. 212 from the History of Steel Exhibition, another possibility is that the "katana" style was indeed made in Ilocos Sur and your sources are incorrect.
Lastly, the term
katana seems to have been first recorded by Fox (1947) shortly after the conclusion of WWII and the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Do you know if this term was present pre-WWII? As for its similarity to a Japanese
katana, I guess that is possible but the similarity is not very close in terms of blade profile or length, more like a
wakisashi in length (but not profile).
Again, thanks for your reply. I appreciate the information.
Regards,
Ian.