Origin of the kampilan?

VANDOO · 10th December 2008, 06:55 PM

I SUSPECT THAT THE PRESENCE OF PIGS IN AN AREA WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBLE PRESSENCE OF MOSLEMS. WHILE IT IS TRUE GOOD MOSLEMS WOULD NOT EAT OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SWINE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ALLOW THOSE WHO WERE NOT MOSLEMS TO FOLLOW THEIR TRADITIONS AS FAR AS THE KEEPING AND EATING OF PIGS WAS CONCERENED. THRU OUT OCEANIC SOCIETYS PIGS PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART ESPECIALLY AT BIG FEASTS AND CEREMONIAL GATHERINGS.THEY ARE ALSO A SIGN OF WEALTH AND IMPORTANT ITEM OF TRADE AND DOWERY.
NOT BEING A MOSLEM I AM JUST GUESSING PERHAPS SOMEONE OF THAT FAITH CAN AFIRM OR DENY THIS IDEA.

THRU OUT MOST HEADHUNTING SOCIETYS THE TAKEING OF THE HEAD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A BATTLE AND THE ULTIMATE CONFIRMATION OF WHO WAS THE VICTOR. USUALLY THE HEAD WAS TAKEN BACK AND THE SKULL PRESERVED BUT IN SOME GROUPS IT WAS TAKEN AND THEN DISCARDED. IN SOME INSTANCES FEET AND HANDS WERE TAKEN BUT I AM NOT SURE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT. AS HEADHUNTING WAS VERY PREVELANT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME AND MOST ALL TRIBES PRACTICED IT; IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME WHAT HAPPENED TO MAGELLAN'S HEAD AS TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE BODY I HAVE NO IDEA (THEY WERE NOT CANNIBALS TO MY KNOWLEGE). SO IT WAS PROBABLY KEPT BECAUSE THE ENEMY WANTED IT BACK, SO IN KEEPING IT WOULD BE A FURTHER SHOW OF THEIR POWER AND AN INSULT TO THEIR ENEMYS.
IN SOME POLYNESIAN SOCIETYS (ESP. HAWAII) THE KEEPING OF THE LONG LEG AND ARM BONES WAS PRACTICED AS IT WAS BELIEVED THE MANA (POWER) OF THE PERSON RESIDED THERE.

migueldiaz · 11th December 2008, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

IT IS ALSO LIKELY THEY TOOK HIS HEAD SO A KAMPILIAN WOULD ALSO SERVE WELL FOR THAT. IS THERE ANY MENTION OF THEM TAKEING HIS HEAD OR IF MAGELLANS ENTIRE BODY WAS RECOVERED.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

THRU OUT MOST HEADHUNTING SOCIETYS THE TAKEING OF THE HEAD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A BATTLE AND THE ULTIMATE CONFIRMATION OF WHO WAS THE VICTOR. USUALLY THE HEAD WAS TAKEN BACK AND THE SKULL PRESERVED BUT IN SOME GROUPS IT WAS TAKEN AND THEN DISCARDED ... AS HEADHUNTING WAS VERY PREVELANT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME AND MOST ALL TRIBES PRACTICED IT; IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME WHAT HAPPENED TO MAGELLAN'S HEAD AS TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE BODY I HAVE NO IDEA (THEY WERE NOT CANNIBALS TO MY KNOWLEGE). SO IT WAS PROBABLY KEPT BECAUSE THE ENEMY WANTED IT BACK, SO IN KEEPING IT WOULD BE A FURTHER SHOW OF THEIR POWER AND AN INSULT TO THEIR ENEMYS.

Hi Vandoo,

Thanks for your comments.

And please allow me to compliment your speculation with my own speculation, with shreds of anecdotal evidence for flavor, taken from our author du jour, Antonio Pigafetta

With regard to the areas in the Philippines Pigafetta had been to (i.e., the Visayas, Mindanao mainland, and the Sulu island group), so far I've found no reference to decapitation.

But during Raja Calambu's (he ruled portion of northern Mindanao plus some Visayan islands) time with Pigafetta, Pigafetta saw three malefactors meted with capital punishment. They were hanging on a tree. Thus at least in Calambu's kingdom, capital punishment is not equal to decapitation.

But we are not talking of criminals here, but warriors in the battlefield.

In Luzon and especially in its northern part, it's established that head-taking in the battlefield was prevalent. We had an extensive discussion of that in Origin of the Kalinga Axe.

But as far as central Philippines (the Visayas) and southern Philippines (Mindanao region) are concerned, I really don't know what the practice was.

But here comes Pigafetta again in the picture, with the severed head we are looking for!

"In one of those [junks] which we captured was a son of the king of the isle of Luzon, who was captain-general of the King of Burne [Borneo], and who was coming with the junks from the conquest of a great city named Laoe ... He had made this expedition and sacked that city because its inhabitants wished rather to obey the King of Java than the Moorish King of Burne. The Moorish king having heard of the ill-treatment by us of his junks, hastened to send to say ... that those vessels had not come to do any harm to us, but were going to make war against the Gentiles, in proof of which they showed us some of the heads of those they had slain ... [and] that captain [is known to be] exceedingly dreaded by the Gentiles who are most hostile to the Moorish king."

Since we know that the 16th century kings of Luzon were muslims (e.g., decades later, the Rajas Lakandula, Sulaiman, and Matanda), then it doesn't come as a surprise that the Luzon prince practiced beheading on his vanquished foes.

Attached are pics of the statue of Raja Sulaiman (1558–1575), located in front of Malate Church in Manila.

But all these proofs of head-taking pertain to Luzon and in Mindanao. As for what the practice was in the Visayas, I think we need to make further speculations

And I think those pigs often mentioned in the accounts will shed more light on the subject ...

migueldiaz · 12th December 2008, 03:31 AM

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.

migueldiaz · 13th December 2008, 01:13 PM

Some more maps for reference, from Martin J. Noone's The Islands Saw It: The Discovery and Conquest of the Philippines, 1521-1581 (1982).

[Noone's dedication on the books says, "To the People of the Bisayas whom I loved".]

On the map showing the Muslim "penetration" in prehispanic Philippines, the Islam areas would be Manila, Mindoro, and the Sulu areas and the region around Lake Lanao and the land south of it.

Cebu would be the only major area not under Muslim rule. So it looks like urban centers-wise, prehispanic Philippines was pretty much a Muslim country.

Since the Islamization of the Philippines in the 14th century came from the south, it is curious why "Luzon" (i.e., Manila) was a Muslim kingdom, and yet the Visayas which is in between Mindanao and Luzon was not.

Just the same, the influence on the Visayas by its southern brethren [in Mindanao] was still very apparent -- the two major Visayan swords then were the kris and the kampilan (per WH Scott's Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society [1994]).

The other two maps show the more accurate path of Magellan's fleet inside the Philippines.

migueldiaz · 29th December 2008, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

... 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

From Looking for the Prehistoric Filipino by the eminent historian WH Scott, we find these info that Muslims had also penetrated prehispanic Cebu and the Visayas, and even Mactan in particular!

"And if Magellan's survivors were correct in reporting the existence of a small Muslim settlement on Mactan called Bulaya, it was probably a Bornean outpost. At least, a Bornean who had married and settled in Cebu was an influential local figure in Legazpi's day."

(p. 42)

"Political aggrandizement was effected by trading networks based on intermarriage, both between ruling families and between foreign merchants and their customers in trading posts. So the son of the ruler of Manila married the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei; Francisco Serrao raised a mestizo [a child of an intermarriage between races] family in Ternate [Spice Islands]; and Tupas [the Cebu harbor prince, at the time Legazpi arrived in Cebu in 1565] was able to make use of Si Damit, Kamotuan and Bapa Silaw -- all well-informed Malay-speaking Muslims settled in Cebu. So, too, Tupas sent his own daughter to Legazpi as a concubine, but Legazpi had her baptized and married off to a Greek caulker named Andreas Perez." (p. 53)
Hence, it might look after all that Lapulapu could had been a Muslim or must had been at least influenced by Muslims.

Now on headtaking as a war trophy as practiced by prehispanic Visayans, from the same book, we also see that at least there's one anectodal evidence --

"They [Miguel Lopez Legazpi's party, after landing in Cebu on 28 April 1565, 24 years after Magellan's Cebu landing] suffered no losses until May 23, when Pedro de Arana, one of the commander's personal company was killed just outside the fort and his head taken." (p. 40)

"The next week [around June already?] Pedro de Arana's head was carried off to Mactan. The Spaniards promptly burned a few settlements, discovered the bloodstained boat in which the head had been carried ..." (p. 50)

And then note that the decapitated head was carried off to Mactan, which tempts us to speculate even more!

Just updating this thread as we stumble upon more info ...

12th December 2008, 03:31 AM	#3
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	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. Attached Images

13th December 2008, 01:13 PM	#4
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Some more maps for reference, from Martin J. Noone's The Islands Saw It: The Discovery and Conquest of the Philippines, 1521-1581 (1982). [Noone's dedication on the books says, "To the People of the Bisayas whom I loved".] On the map showing the Muslim "penetration" in prehispanic Philippines, the Islam areas would be Manila, Mindoro, and the Sulu areas and the region around Lake Lanao and the land south of it. Cebu would be the only major area not under Muslim rule. So it looks like urban centers-wise, prehispanic Philippines was pretty much a Muslim country. Since the Islamization of the Philippines in the 14th century came from the south, it is curious why "Luzon" (i.e., Manila) was a Muslim kingdom, and yet the Visayas which is in between Mindanao and Luzon was not. Just the same, the influence on the Visayas by its southern brethren [in Mindanao] was still very apparent -- the two major Visayan swords then were the kris and the kampilan (per WH Scott's Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society [1994]). The other two maps show the more accurate path of Magellan's fleet inside the Philippines. Attached Images

10th December 2008, 06:55 PM	#1
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I SUSPECT THAT THE PRESENCE OF PIGS IN AN AREA WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE POSSIBLE PRESSENCE OF MOSLEMS. WHILE IT IS TRUE GOOD MOSLEMS WOULD NOT EAT OR HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH SWINE THEY WOULD PROBABLY ALLOW THOSE WHO WERE NOT MOSLEMS TO FOLLOW THEIR TRADITIONS AS FAR AS THE KEEPING AND EATING OF PIGS WAS CONCERENED. THRU OUT OCEANIC SOCIETYS PIGS PLAY AN IMPORTANT PART ESPECIALLY AT BIG FEASTS AND CEREMONIAL GATHERINGS.THEY ARE ALSO A SIGN OF WEALTH AND IMPORTANT ITEM OF TRADE AND DOWERY. NOT BEING A MOSLEM I AM JUST GUESSING PERHAPS SOMEONE OF THAT FAITH CAN AFIRM OR DENY THIS IDEA. THRU OUT MOST HEADHUNTING SOCIETYS THE TAKEING OF THE HEAD IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF A BATTLE AND THE ULTIMATE CONFIRMATION OF WHO WAS THE VICTOR. USUALLY THE HEAD WAS TAKEN BACK AND THE SKULL PRESERVED BUT IN SOME GROUPS IT WAS TAKEN AND THEN DISCARDED. IN SOME INSTANCES FEET AND HANDS WERE TAKEN BUT I AM NOT SURE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT. AS HEADHUNTING WAS VERY PREVELANT IN THAT AREA AT THAT TIME AND MOST ALL TRIBES PRACTICED IT; IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME WHAT HAPPENED TO MAGELLAN'S HEAD AS TO WHAT WAS DONE WITH THE BODY I HAVE NO IDEA (THEY WERE NOT CANNIBALS TO MY KNOWLEGE). SO IT WAS PROBABLY KEPT BECAUSE THE ENEMY WANTED IT BACK, SO IN KEEPING IT WOULD BE A FURTHER SHOW OF THEIR POWER AND AN INSULT TO THEIR ENEMYS. IN SOME POLYNESIAN SOCIETYS (ESP. HAWAII) THE KEEPING OF THE LONG LEG AND ARM BONES WAS PRACTICED AS IT WAS BELIEVED THE MANA (POWER) OF THE PERSON RESIDED THERE.