Moro / Borneo hybrid ?

VVV · 17th August 2008, 05:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

VVV, I now understand your point better - focus on the Sea Dayaks. Is it possible that they got kampilans from the Illanums?
[snip]

I have never seen pictures, or seen any other evidence, of that the kampilan ever was used by the Sea Dayaks. I assume that Stone mixed up the Illanums with the Sea Dayaks as both of them were pirates and sometimes sailed together. You have to remember that Stone never visited Borneo and his book is a summary of other books and articles at that time. Most often they didn't have a lot of pictures so that's why it was easy to mix up weapons based on written descriptions only. So you have to check his sources if something sounds strange in his descriptions or classifications.

Michael

Dajak · 17th August 2008, 09:35 AM

The same for the kampilan as we now it has no evidence that the type that Stone suggest come from the philipine .

The story goes that this type has indonesian origen and found in Celebes or Timor .

And don't forget even Shelford s is not complete he forgot to mention the parang sankit .

Ben

Battara · 17th August 2008, 07:03 PM

So then the other sources that Zonneveld used are also wrong and the kampilan is strictly a Moro weapon - is this right? (just trying to understand)

VVV · 17th August 2008, 08:51 PM

Shelford says he doesn't deal with the kampilan in his article as it's strictly an Illanum weapon.
Foy I think also describes it as an Illanum weapon but I am not 100% sure as I don't have it at the moment.
Forman (is Solc as Forman was only the designer of the book) is full of mistakes so he is not in the same league as the other sources.
Hein's examples are collected by Sonne among the Sun-Dayaks (=Dusun, related to Illanums).
He later writes, based on Foy, that they might originally come from the Philippines.
So to me it seems that Stone is the only one of van Zonneveld's sources that attributes it to the Sea Dayaks.
But Albert now and then follow this forum so maybe he would like to bring in new information on this?

Michael

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

17th August 2008, 09:35 AM	#2
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	The same for the kampilan as we now it has no evidence that the type that Stone suggest come from the philipine . The story goes that this type has indonesian origen and found in Celebes or Timor . And don't forget even Shelford s is not complete he forgot to mention the parang sankit . Ben

17th August 2008, 07:03 PM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	So then the other sources that Zonneveld used are also wrong and the kampilan is strictly a Moro weapon - is this right? (just trying to understand)

17th August 2008, 08:51 PM	#4
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Shelford says he doesn't deal with the kampilan in his article as it's strictly an Illanum weapon. Foy I think also describes it as an Illanum weapon but I am not 100% sure as I don't have it at the moment. Forman (is Solc as Forman was only the designer of the book) is full of mistakes so he is not in the same league as the other sources. Hein's examples are collected by Sonne among the Sun-Dayaks (=Dusun, related to Illanums). He later writes, based on Foy, that they might originally come from the Philippines. So to me it seems that Stone is the only one of van Zonneveld's sources that attributes it to the Sea Dayaks. But Albert now and then follow this forum so maybe he would like to bring in new information on this? Michael