Origin of the kampilan?

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by VVV

Scott's book is unique as it's based on what the Spanish wrote about the Filipinos when they first encountered them. This means of course that there are a lot of misunderstandings and cultural biased flaws in the original documentation that needs to be decipherd ...

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, I agree that there were a lot of "transmission errors", as early as back then when the first contact was made, down to the present time as these matters are over and over retold and reinterpreted.

Doesn't it make that all the more exciting?

Best regards.

PS -

Dear all,

I'm now looking at the Boxer Codex which is described as follows:

"Boxer Codex is a manuscript written circa 1595 which contains illustrations of Filipinos at the time of their initial contact with the Spanish. Aside from a description of and historical allusions to the Philippines and various other Far Eastern countries, it also contains seventy-five colored drawings of the inhabitants of these regions and their distinctive costumes. Fifteen illustrations deal with Filipinos ...

"The Boxer Codex depicts the Tagalogs, Visayans, Zambals, Cagayanons and Negritos of the Philippines in vivid colors. The technique of the paintings suggests that artist may have been Chinese, as does the use of Chinese paper, ink and paints."

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

[tom hyle]

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?

[tom hyle]

Of some interest (or confusion) are the words cutlass and scimitar. Cutlass is a very broad European sword category, also known as hangers, etc. This was the style of sword favored by/permitted to commoners. Examples I've seen are generally rather light and thin, certainly by SE Asian standards (of course, kampilan [per se] is a notably light thin sword by SE Asian standards, with a thin cutting zone rather like unto parang lading, in my limitted experience....). the term might be applied to any large knife/short sword, especially if single edged. Scimitar is an European word and seems to reflect popular,often false, European conceptions of foreign, particularly Islamic, swords. Persian shamshirs (thought to be the origin of the term) are light slashing swords with narrow tips. Though the concept no doubt owes much to the Tartaric yelman sabres, it seems to me that the swords (other than European falchions) that most closely reflect the concept are, in fact, Oceanic SE Asian. In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings......I babble disorganisedly and that's the kind of thing one encounters in new writings

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings...

Thanks again Tom for the comments.

I guess that's what happens when somebody is confronted with a totally foreign object for the first time (i.e., in the case of Pigafetta first seeing a new type of sword as wielded by Lapulapu and his men, and in a very stressful condition at that). Words fail and so would the accurate recollection of the object.

It is amusing for instance to go over the depictions of medieval travelers of mammals they never saw before. In the images below, how many can you recognize? You'll be surprised as to what some of those drawings are referring to!

Most of the pics came from this website.

Thus I agree that Pigafetta might just had been hallucinating

Yet on the other hand, he may have seen this Visayan sword (the one Spunjer is selling, below). And thus the 'scimitar' description might be on track after all??

[migueldiaz]

For those feeling lazy checking out the answers to the medieval drawings quiz here are the answers: (A) mammoth; (B) tiger; (C) hippopotamus; (D) elephant; (E) hippopotamus; (F) giraffe; (G) giraffe; (H) elephant; (I) rhino; and (J) wild ass.

[Nonoy Tan]

The "T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip" in an earlier post is an Ilongot bolo.

In the "Origin of the Kalinga Axe" thread, we can see a Panabas - not from Southern Philippines, but Northern Luzon (i.e. Ilongot).

The Borneoan influence (directly or indirectly) on the Ilongot, I believe has been largely ignored by historians.

I will look into it and share my findings in this forum.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Nonoy Tan

he Borneoan influence (directly or indirectly) on the Ilongot, I believe has been largely ignored by historians.

Thanks Nonoy for sharing your findings on the Bornean connection of ancient Philippines.

And I agree with your supposition that even the Ilongots' and the Cordillerans' blades must had been influenced also by that link to Borneo.

I'm sure you've also read about this incident told by Pigafetta -- in their skirmish with a flotilla of praus [must be similar to the one below, taken from The Sulu Zone] in Borneo, they captured the captain-general of the Bornean king. And it turned out that the captain-general was the son of the king of Luzon, who at the time of his capture he just came from sacking a great (Bornean) city, which other king is the enemy of the king the Luzon prince is serving.

And said Luzon prince was to be married soon to a daughter of the Bornean king. So the ties with Borneo was intimate all right.

Also, "Luzon" or "Pozon", and that would be Manila in particular, happened to be the hub of activities in Luzon island. Thus from Manila, the Bornean influence must have easily trickled down to the neighboring areas.

So yes, the Bornean connection is definitely something that needs to be amplified.

[MaharlikaTimawa]

Originally Posted by Nonoy Tan

The "T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip" in an earlier post is an Ilongot bolo.

In the "Origin of the Kalinga Axe" thread, we can see a Panabas - not from Southern Philippines, but Northern Luzon (i.e. Ilongot).

The Borneoan influence (directly or indirectly) on the Ilongot, I believe has been largely ignored by historians.

I will look into it and share my findings in this forum.

I'm pretty sure those weapons were imported and weren't really made locally, not to mention how very rare it was for them to use it. So the use of a panabas was probably not that significant enough for anthropologists to take much notice of the use of such weapons, or is it to considered that panabas isn't anything BUT a muslim weapon, like the kampilan.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?

Hello Tom,

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, it's beginning to look like the sheathed sword shown in the Boxer Codex is a machete of Indonesian ancestry.

As you made the above post, coincidentally I was looking at the Sumatran swords at Mytribalworld and Orientalarms. And said swords also look like the T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification.

And given what Nonoy shared about the close ties the Philippine islands' had with Borneo, then it's really very plausible that the Philippine blade shown in the Boxer Codex has Indonesian roots.

That'a a very interesting thread by the way, on the T-grip thread. Learned a lot again by going over old posts. Thanks.