Origin of the kampilan?
 

The first recorded kampilan possibly goes back to the Battle of Mactan in the Philippines -- April 1521. Magellan vs Lapu Lapu. However it is unclear if Lapu Lapu used a kampilan or a cutlass.

Some people attribute the kampilan to the Dayak of Borneo, but I think that it was more likely that the Moro of North Borneo were the originators. I have never seen a kampilan with Dayak designs.

I have done a search here, but found six pages of information and while there must be more information on the origins of kampilans, I don't see it.

I'd sure appreciate some opinions/ideas from our more erudite sword scholars here!

I HAVE PONDERED THIS QUESTION ALSO REGARDING THE KAMPILIAN AS WELL AS MORO KRIS. THE FORM OF THE KAMPILIAN MOST CLOSELY RESEMBLES THE DAYAK MANDAU TYPE. BORNEO ALSO HAD CROCODILES WHICH IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH IN THAT AREA, TO EXPLAIN MORE CLEARLY. THE BELIEF SYSTEMS WERE ANIMIST, EVERYTHING HAS A SPIRIT, A RIVER, A MOUNTAIN, LONGHOUSE AS WELL AS ANIMALS MOST SPIRITS AND ASSOCIATED WITH LIFE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE CROCODILES SPIRIT IS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH. I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH TO COMMENT FARTHER EXCEPT THAT I DON'T THINK THAT IS A BAD THING AS BOTH LIFE AND DEATH ARE A PART OF THEIR WORLD. WAR AND DEATH ARE ALSO LINKED SO A CROCODILE WITH ITS POWER AND SPIRIT OF DEATH WOULD BE A NATURAL CHOICE FOR A WAR WEAPON.
THE MANDAU IS SHORTER AS A LONG SWORD WOULD NOT SERVE VERY WELL FOR CUTTING OR MOVING THRU THE JUNGLE. OTHER SYMBOLS ARE USUALLY CARVED INTO MANDAU MOSTLY NOT THE CROCODILE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MANY REASONS FOR THESE SYMBOLS BUT I DON'T KNOW THEM.
THE MURUT PACKAYUN IS A LONG WAR SWORD BUT I HAVE NO INFORMATION ON KAMPILIAN IN THEIR AREA WHICH IS INLAND AND MORE MOUNTAINOUS. I SUSPECT THE ORIGIN OF THE KAMPILIAN IS A SEA FARING TRIBE PROBABLY LIVING ALONG THE COAST NEAR RIVERS WHERE CROCODILES WERE PART OF THEIR LIVES. THE MORO MAY HAVE SETTLED IN THESE AREAS AND MADE A LARGER MODIFIED MANDAU USED ONLY FOR WAR AND CARRIED BY THE GAURDS OF THE DATU. THE KAMPILIAN IS A LARGE AND FEARSOME WEAPON USED IN WAR NOT IN DAILY VILLAGE LIFE PERHAPS ONLY ON EXCURSIONS BY SEA OR TO REPEL ATTACKS FROM THE SEA BY WARRIORS WELL TRAINED IN ITS USE.
IT COULD HAVE ORIGINATED IN MANY AREAS UNDER MANY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORIGINAL COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR CEREMONIAL PURPOSES OR BROUGHT IN FROM OUTSIDE BY TRADERS AND MADE MUCH LARGER TO PRESENT TO SOME IMPORTANT CHIEF. ABOUT THE ONLY THING WE CAN SAY FOR SURE IS IT CAME TO BE AFTER TRADE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE REGION AND IRON AND STEEL COULD BE BROUGHT TO TRIBES WHO WERE STILL OPERATING WITH STONE AGE TECKNOLOGY.
JUST MY THOUGHTS ON IT NO SPECIFIC REFRENCES BUT THATS THE BEST I CAN DO UNTIL I GET MY TIME MACHINE WORKING. :rolleyes:

I just read the book of Eric Mjoberg, named "Borneo, the land of the headhunters." There you can find a paragraph about the connection between the crocodile and the dayaks.
Shortly what I have read is that: Most people of Borneo see the crocodile as holy. The crocodiles will be left alone, as long as it doesn't attack the people. Than it is an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (or how the saying is going:o ).
You can imagine what impression such an big strong animal has to the dajaks who were animists. Therefore the crocodile figure is a well seen object on their carvings (such as coffins, or endcarvings on their praws, etc).
Some dayak tribes believe that the guards in the underworld are huge crocodiles, who guard the deads who go for their last voyage over a slimy treetrunk which is lying over a river to finally reach the land of shadows.

There is a legend that one of the greatest dayak chiefs ever lived had the shape of a crocodile. Therefore the great respect for the crocodile. But as I wrote earlier, when a crocodile attacks one of the dajaks of a certain tribe, it is declared the war and they will not rest till they killed the beast (and many crocodiles were killed before they had the right one).

But I think I am wondering of topic what Bill is asking (sorry Bill :shrug: .)
But maybe interesting for some people who didn't read the book.

But who says the head of the kampilan is supposed to be the mouth of a crocodile??????:confused: I know the opinions will be differ on this one and I have no clue myself what to think ...........so I step out now and will follow this thread with great pleasure!

Kind regards,
Maurice

Hi Bill,

Thanks for starting this thread.A nice subject and we will probably never know what happend so we can only guess and try to get as much info as we can.

Its a little dangerous to build a theory on the not proven other theory of the crocodilemouth I think.
Personally I don't think the handle represents always the crocodile mouth but that for later......

If Magellan was killed with a kampilan I doubt if the model was the same as we know know on the Phillipines.
seemly the model of the handle has become some variations during the times.
However we haven't seen kampilans with dayak motifs it at least looks if the dayaks of North Borneo used a kampilan with a small variation into the handle.
they seem to be more like a massive block,ceratainly the lower "jaw"
Pics below are mainly described as Dusun ( north Borneo)

source RMV Leiden

On Timor however you find Kampilans with hughe handles....

In my opinion they have more in common with the head of a hornbill.

Whats for sure is that on Timor they couldn't make swordblades and every blade had to be obtained by trade.

Seemly these kampilans where also traded to Timor.The collection numbers are very old so probably these are very old pieces.
Whats also possible that they carved the handle themselves but I doubt that.
Note that on two pieces the handguard is asymetric.
We don't know if these kampilans where a model before the more common open "crocodile" type or a modification of that type.

I agree with Vandoo that the blade of a kampilan is'nt very handy into the forrest. But on a boat or open area it must be a great weapon.
Note however that the area of North borneo is more open than other parts of Borneo. On the other way it would not suprise me if the kampilan design was originally from the mainland of Malaysia but was modified for combat at sea,traded and got his influence from other cultures.
The hook at the end of the blade is very handy for entering or just keeping of entering boats from enemies.
There's a nice theory if this hook maybe represents a prowshead.

kampilan blade ends in compare with a kelawang from Pattani

according to the writer you can see even the two mast from the boat on one of the drawings...... I don't know but its interesting.

Hello Bill,

Thanks for starting this thread as the kampilan is of great interest to me at the moment (I'm trying to acquire another piece).

Maurice, Vandoo, and Mandaukudi, thanks too for the additional info!

What I can add is taken from two books in front of me now. From Cato's good old "Moro Swords" (1996) --

"The basic form of the Moro kampilan was borrowed form Malay prototypes. The kampilan profile is strikingly similar to the klewang, mandau (parang ihlang) swords that were used in Indonesia and Malaya (now Malaysia).

"Dr. Mamitua Saber, noted Maranao expert on the history and culture of the Muslim Filipinos, has found evidence that variants of the kampilan exist in almost every country in insular Southeast Asia, including some of the isolated islands in the Indian Ocean, near Sumatra. It is his belief, however, that the most likely prototype for the Moro kampilan was the klewang, as produced by the inhabitants of the Celebes."

And from Krieger's "Primitive Weapons and Armor of the Philippine Islands" (1926):

"HAIRY KAMPILAN. -- This weapon denoted considerable rank on the part of he bearer. It is ornamented with a tuft of tufts of human or horse hair at the sides of the handle. The wooden handle is large, highly ornamented with carvings; bifid pommel. The large wooden cross guard is often provided with sword breaker and wrist protector. Moro. Weapon not essentially Filipino, but introduced by way of Borneo. North Bornean forms resemble it, as do also the north Celebes types with spur pointed at distal end. The weapon resembles the parang-ihlang.

xxx

"KAMPILAN. -- A long blade widening to a truncated distal end. The weapon is employed by the Moro private soldier. Large wooden handle sometimes highly carved. Sword breaker and wooden cross guard always present."

And then of course there's this other excellent thread, Towards a classification of the kampilan.

Hi Arjan,

I see what you mean and it looks indeed at a hornbill's head.
Did you noticed that the last pic of your Timor-examples has the hilt upsidedown? :)

The ,hairy, part of the hilt normally is on the ,edge, side of the blade.
To this one the ,hairy, side is at the backside of the blade (non-edge).

Hi Maurice,

yes, I seen but its no doubt that its turned when it was rehilted.

There is no proof off that this type off kampilan was from philipine origine

There is only the name kampilan but the form is not proven from philipine .



Ben

Interesting with the ship and mast theory on the spike.
But I assume it's just speculation from the article writer, or?
Also most really old kampilan don't have this spike feature.
On crocodiles they are considered holy ("keramat") in Folk Islam too, especially if they are extraordinary large or white.
In Hindu times they were, like the tiger, connected to Batara Guru - Shiva.

On the origin, old sources, Dusun-attribute etc. we discussed that in depth in this old thread.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=5032

Michael

I read somewhere (still trying to locate the source reference) that most of such types of iron/steel/metal weapons (including those of Luzon and the Visayas) used before the arrival of Christianity and Islam to the Philippines, were likely introduced from Borneo.

Hi Bill,

Most of us have probably read Antonio Pigafetta's account of the death of Magellan:

"Recognizing the captain [Magellan], so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... A native hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the native's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

I was just thinking, if it was a "cutlass", then what would it actually be, among the blades of the Visayans then?

I'm now reading William Henry Scott's Barangay -- Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture & Society. This was written in the 1980s I think, and Scott is a leading historian on pre-hispanic Philippines.

So the book is all about how the Philippines was before the arrival of the Spaniards. In the section entitled "The Visayas" and under the "Weapons and War" subsection, we read this:

"There were two kinds of swords -- kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 to 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical hornlike flare at the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill. The wavy kris was called kiwo-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement cannot be predicted. Hilts were carved of any solid material -- hardwood, bone, antler, even shell -- and great datu warriors had them of solid gold or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface -- damascended or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao or Sulu, and these in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades.

"The word kampilan came into Spanish during the Moluccan campaigns of the sixteenth century as "a heavy, pointed cutlass [alfange]" -- inappropriately, however, since a cutlass had a curved blade weighted toward the tip for slashing blows, while the kampilan was straight. (Modern ones are two-handed weapons running to 90 centimeters.) It apparently was never manufactured by Visayan smiths but imported from parts of Mindanao, both Muslim and pagan, which had direct culture contact with the Moluccas. Like the kris, it was coated with poison before going into battle, and the fiction that the weapon itself has been rendered poisonous by some alchemy no doubt enhanced its market value. Fine ones were handed down from father to son, bore personal names known to the enemy, and could be recognized by the sound of little bells which formed part of their tasseled decoration."

So there.

The pre-hispanic Visayans (of whom Lapu Lapu was one) had only two basic swords: the kris and the kampilan.

To me thus, the "cutlass" that was used against Magellan in all probability would be a kampilan. If it were the kris, Pigafetta an eyewitness wouldn't have described it like he did: "a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger".

Traditionally in the Philippines, Lapu Lapu is depicted as armed with the kampilan.

Hi Miguel,

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 (based on other documentation and sources). Like the old poison myth...
I assume that the kris from Makassar wasn't of the Sundang type but more of the regular Malay size?
And that the kampilan the Spaniards encountered on their Moluccan campaign belonged to Illanum seafarers?
Not to the regular inhabitants of the Moluccas who according to all other sources used other kind of swords?
I think the book is very interesting and also sometimes quite surprising.
Like when he mentions the baladaw (= Malay beladau?) as a kind of popular Visayan push dagger. I wonder why it didn't survive in popularity?
Unfortunately Scott died in 1993. A year before the book first was published.

Michael

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!

Hi,

Kampilan was mentioned in an ancient Ilonggo/ Visayan epic the "Hinilawod" it was only recorded by the Spanish in 1573. The epic was said to be the longest in the world since it takes three days to complete.

The pommel I think is not necessarily a crocodile...it might what in the Ilonggos folklore called "Bakunawa" or sea serpent who swallowed the moon, this story was often told to the kids during lunar eclipse. I think there are pommel variants that these serpents head had a ball swallowed in it.

Indeed, there is so much talent and expertise in this forum!

A major problem, as some already implied, is that the word Kampilan, Kempilan, or Campilan has been used by the Spaniards (particularly in the Philippines) to describe blades which may or may not be a Kampilan (as we presently know it).

The Ibaloi (Northern Luzon) songs mentions the Campilan, too. They may or may have acquired the word from early Spaniards in the Philippines.

Early Spanish records of the Ilongots (Northern Luzon) use the word Campilan to describe a cutlass.

These information add to the confusion.

Here is more information that can help place the issue in context:

Historical writings mention the name Raha Matanda or Raja Ache (Lakandula) who ruled Manila and adjacent areas in the 16th century. Raha Matanda was the grandson of Sultan Sirapada I of Borneo.

Hi Tim,

The Balarao dagger is mentioned in Antontio de Morga's " Sucessos delas Islas Filipinas" and the translated version which includes Rizal's comments mentions its loss.

Nonoy

I Like to see an drawing or an pic off one with an kampilan before 1850

not one what looks like an kampilan but is one.

Ben

Ooh yeh, where did I have that polaroid photo with Lapu Lapu in war dress :D

This is an excellent topic Bill! and a great idea for a thread as it focuses on the kampilan specifically, and addresses not only the development of the weapon and its particulars, but fascinating history associated with it.
The observations and discussion added by everyone here have been really informative, and this is again, the kind of threads I really like seeing, that truly give the most current data available on a certain weapon form.

MiguelDiaz and Mandaukudi, fantastic input with the great illustrations and cites on references! Excellent observations Vandoo, Toeodor, Maurice and Dajak! and Nonoy Tan thank you for addressing the word 'kampilan'. I wondered if the etymology of the word was known, and think arms and armour terminology is a fascinating factor in its study.

Its great really learning more on these weapons, thank you guys!

All the best,
Jim

Jim, thanks :)

Mandaukudi, thanks too for those wonderful images above!

In Zaragoza's Tribal Splendor (1995), we see these 1898 studio pics of Ilongot warriors.

In the four-man pic, what is interesting to me is the leftmost Ilongot's 'sidearm' which looks like a sword with a bifurcated hilt -- would this be the cousin of the Moro kampilan? ... and hence was the one the Spaniards described as a 'campilan'?

Also the Ilongot in the center (standing) seems to be holding what looks very similar to a Moro panabas.

The Ilongots by the way appear to have continued with their headhunting ways, long after the Igorots of the Cordillera have put it to a stop.

See the 1959 police pic below (warning: the picture may be too gruesome to some).

Hi Bill,
Some guy from my home town is now running an exhibition on Fernão Magalhães (Ferdinand Magellanvs) biography and his earth circum navigation.
One of the illustrations shows the Portuguese captain being eliminated by the Lapu Lapu chieftain, after being weakened by an arrow in his leg, among other wounds.
I wonder what is the age of this picture (painting?), and from where he did get it. He doesn't remember it either. But he promised to search his stuff and tell me.
I think this is a sugestive depiction of the weapon used by the native leader ... at least in the author's imagination.
Fernando

Thanks Miguel for posting the pictures of the Luzon-maybe-kampilan-inspired-swords.
A pity that they aren't easier to see from the pictures.
I have this bolo that, based on Hein's old book, is supposed to be tribal and from Luzon?
Do you recognise it from any of your sources?

Michael

Hi Michael,

I'm not familiar with the form as I'm still a budding collector :)

It appears though, based on the pics earlier posted in this forum (the ones taken at Madrid museum/s), that it's also possible that they are Visayan (i.e., from central Philippines).

But I'm not really sure about that. I'm sure the others more familiar with the nuances of the forms can comment much more competently.

Regards.

On the probable use of the perforations and the spikelets
 

I'd like to propose a theory on the probable use of those thingys on the upper tip of the kampilan's blade.

I'm not aware if this had been proposed before, but my theory is that those things are used to deliver poison to the enemy during combat.

My train of thought would be:

[1] Visayans customarily applied poison on their kampilans & krisses [WH Scott, in Barangay];

[2] In the Battle of Mactan, it doesn't come as a surprise thus that Pigafetta reported the use of poison arrows by the natives against the Spaniards;

[3] After Magellan's defeat, Magellan's first native ally, Rajah Humabon, in disappointment over Magellan's failure to defeat Humabon's enemy [Lapu-lapu], reportedly ordered the extermination of the surviving Spaniards via poisoning;

thus once again, chemical warfare really looks like a typical method of defeating the enemy;

[4] The kris being wavy would have a longer total blade length compared to a straight blade of the same overall length -- as such when the kris was laced with poison, more poison can be lodged on the blade as compared to a straight blade; the point is that the kris' wavy blade then becomes an ideal weapon to deliver poison to the enemy;

[5] Now for the kampilan which Scott said was also laced with poison, being a very long sword perhaps it made sense to just concentrate the poison on the blade's tip;

[6] Now on how to operationalize the idea, I thought that those many perforations and jagged edges would make an ideal repository for the poison (normally the sap of a certain tree, per Krieger, when Krieger described how the Luzon tribes source their poison);

the spikelets and other protrusions on the other hand will provide good platform for injecting the poison into the flesh of the enemy.

On how to prove or debunk the theory, these are the things that can be done --

[a] if Pigafetta had a post-battle account, we should find out whether those wounded by the "large cutlass, which looked like a scimitar" were noted as having experienced symptoms of poisoning (e.g., nausea, vomitting, etc.);

[b] it should also be established whether the Visayans' kampilans had those spikelets and perforations in the first place;

[c] for those in the US and Europe who have access to crime laboratories, those spikelets and perforations on the kampilan should be swabbed and the sample taken for analysis of traces of poison, a la CSI :)

now if you have etched your kampilan and obliterated any chemical trace on the blade's tip, shame on you! ;)

[d] given that kampilan must have been first developed in Borneo, and then it went up to Mindanao first before reaching the Visayas and then Luzon, it will help if we can find out whether those original users of the kampilan laced their blades with poison also.

Back to the subject on whether in the first place the Visayans had kampilans similar to the ones used by the Moros of Mindanao (i.e., with spikelets and perforations), I think that's the case.

Because Pigafetta described the fighting style of the men of Lapu-lapu as -- "When our muskets were discharged, the natives would never stand still, but leaped hither and thither, covering themselves with their shields."

Now earlier, the Europeans and later the Americans described the Moro fighting style as exactly like that. So if the movements were the same, it stands to reason that the weapons used must have been very similar if not the same.

Admittedly, all of the above are highly speculative.

But hey, to echo Vandoo, let me end by saying that "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it!" :) :D

Attached are pics of various spiked tips, as collated randomly from pics in the forum.

Thanks for the comment and the pictures.
The pictures just indicate Philippines to me.
But maybe Visayas, as well as Mindanao, is an alternative to Luzon (from Hein)?
Any forumites in Madrid who knows how it's described at the museum?

Michael

Hi Michael,

The "bolo" you posted is used by people from the extreme east of Luzon (along the coast and the mountains near the coast). They call it "Katana" - probably a loan word.

Nonoy

Thanks Nonoy!!!

In case you have any pictures of people wearing it I would appreciate if you could share them?

Michael

Here an shield off the Ilongot .


Ben

I dare to question the value of discussion about the Kampilan in this thread. I am not trying to be rude or upset anybody but I do have doubts about the information especially as no body has noted that the bottom central weapon in this picture is African.

Tim,

Here is another African example but what does that have to do with the discussion of kampilan?
Isn't it obvious that some curator made a mistake, like they often do.
And don't we all recognise which weapons that don't belong in the picture and which ones that do?

Michael

Exactly!!! how trust worthy is the legacy left to us. Especially when it is 4 or more centuries ago. Museums are the depository of what we assume to be current knowledge. Which is cearly in question in some areas. :shrug:

Hi Tim,

There were no further comments because of "kampilan fatigue" perhaps? ;)

Actually when those museum pics were first posted in PI Weaponry in Spanish Museums, forumites already commented that some items are misplaced (e.g., Battara's comment on African weapons being there).

And I've also been leafing through the old threads on kampilan in the archives and indeed, the kampilan discussions go a long way back. So perhaps some are not that interested anymore in reciting the same old stuff! ;)

But me, I'm not tired yet because I've just started :)

Best regards to all.

Tim,

I agree with you that there is a risk of misinformation if you only use one museum, one book or whatever as the only source of information. But if you combine it with other sources it's possible to discover the misinformation and find out which information that's credible.
Isn't the above mentioned procedure rather basic for all of us?

Michael

Michael,

Indeed the process is like that of "triangulation" in locating a radio transmission, using several detectors that are located differently.

Each detector being imperfect will have its own margin of error. But when you combine the results of several detectors, the error of one will be lopped off by the other/s. And the result you'll get will be much closer to reality.

Also museum curators are jacks of all trades but masters of none. And this is understandable given the huge amount of items of all kind in their inventory ...

Hi Fernando,

I often see that painting in various publications here in Manila, but I'm still to find out who the painter is.

On a related matter, I'm now reading this book published by the local National Historical Institute, entitled Fernando Oliveira: Viagem de Fernao Magalhaes [The Voyage of Ferdinand Magellan].

Oliveira is a Portuguese linguist and maritime expert who between 1550 and 1560 interviewed one of the survivors of Magellan's crew who reached the Philippines.

The only existing original manuscript of the interview is kept in a library in Leiden, Holland. The copy of the first page and the two pages from where the quote below was lifted, are attached below.

The manuscript's French annotated edition was authored by Pierre Valiere in 1976. Then the transliteration and the English translation was done by Peter Schreurs in 2002.

I was looking for a description of the weapons Lapulapu and his men used against Magellan but Oliveira's interviewee didn't say anything about it:

"And so it came to pass that on the next Sunday, through the goodness and grace of God, the king [Humabon, of Cebu] and his wife the queen with some of the leading citizens were converted and asked for baptism.

During the next week, most of the inhabitants of the kingdom [in Cebu] were also converted. And because Ferdinand Magellan considered this a good opportunity for the conversion of the other kings, he informed them that they must either become Christians or obey the authority of the newly converted king. If they refused, he would make war on them and burn their villages and their palm plantations which served them for their sustenance.

Two of them pledged obedience to the Christian king when hearing what damage he might do to them. But the third [Lapulapu] let him know that he would do nothing of what he had ordered him to do and that if he would wage war on him he would defend himself.

When Ferdinand Magellan heard that answer, he thought that he might yet be able to change his mind by inflicting some damage on him, and he decided to go ashore with some men to attack his territory [in Mactan Island, where Lapulapu ruled]. He did so indeed and landed with sixty arquebus soldiers and started to burn huts and felling palm trees.

Then the king [Lapulapu] and many of the native came rushing out to prevent it and started to fight with them. But as long as our men still had gunpowder, the natives did not come near them, but when their powder was consumed, they started to surround them from all sides. And because they were incomparably greater in number, they were also much stronger.

Our men, unable to defend themselves or get away, fought to exhaustion, and some of them were killed, among them also Ferdinand Magellan.

Before when he was still alive, he had refused that his friend the king [Humabon] come to help him with some men whom the latter held ready just for that purpose. He had said that the Christians, with the help of God, were strong enough to beat all that scum.

But as soon as he had been killed, the king came to help the others who had been badly wounded. He ordered that they be brought to the boats because he was afraid that the whole rest of this enemies would unite and make them prisoners ..."

The words in brackets are my own annotations.

The other person who recounted the events was the Genoese pilot, Juan Bautista, who was with Magellan also. If anybody has the text of his account, then that might provide another lead on whether it was indeed the kampilan that was also used against Magellan.

THERE ARE MANY MISTAKES IN AMONG THE GOOD WRITTEN REFRENCE INFORMATION AS WELL AS DISPLAYS IN MUSEUMS. WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS USE LOGIC AND OUR KNOWLEGE TO SORT THRU ALL OF IT AND DISCOUNT THAT WHICH DOES NOT FIT AND COMPILE THAT INFORMATION THAT DOES APPLY. THERE ARE MANY PICTURES AS WELL AS LOTS OF GOOD INFORMATION AND IDEAS ON VARIOUS SWORDS HERE IN THE FORUM POSTS.
PERHAPS SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO GO THRU IT ALL AND SEPARATE THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF AND PURSUE SOME OF THE GOOD IDEAS TO SEE IF NEW INFORMATION COULD BE GAINED IN THAT WAY. THE INFORMATION COULD BE CONDENSED AND THEN FORM THE CORE FOR FURTHER STUDY.
AS TO WHAT THE SWORD LOOKED LIKE THAT KILLED MAGELLAN THOUGH AN INTERESTING TOPIC I FEAR IT WILL NOT SHED MUCH LIGHT ON THE KAMPILIAN AS IT WILL DEAL PRIMARILY WITH THE DEATH OF THE GREAT MAN FIRST AND THE ONE WHO DISPATCHED HIM SECOND THE SWORD WILL RECEIVE LITTLE ATTENTION.
A FRIEND OF MINE IS EXPERIMENTING WITH A NEW TYPE OF MACHINE THAT IS ABLE TO DETERMINE AGE AND ESTABLISH PROVENANCE WITHOUT DAMAGEING THE OBJECT. HE IS CURRENTLY WORKING WITH POTTERY ,STONE AND GOLD ARTEFACTS AS THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD ARCHELOGICAL INFORMATION ESPECIALLY ON THE POTTERY. PERHAPS WHEN IT IS ESTABLISHED TO WORK WELL AND THE BENCHMARKS ARE SET UP IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO GAIN MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION ON SWORDS AS WELL AS OTHER ITEMS.

I SUSPECT THE KAMPILIAN EVOLVED FROM A SHORTER WEAPON SUCH AS THE MANDAU WHICH IS PRESENT IN BORNEO OR THE SIMULAR SWORDS USED BY THE TIBOLI AND BAGOBO IN MINDANAO. THERE ARE PROBABLY OTHER SIMULAR WEAPONS FROM MALAYSIA, INDIA, INDONESIA, ECT. THE INFLUENCE OF THE CHOPPING STYLE OF BLADE MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY CAME IN FROM ANOTHER AREA DURING THE VARIOUS WAVES OF IMIGRATION. BUT MOST EXAMPLES OF THE LARGE FORM KAMPILIAN WE RECOGNIZE AS A WAR SWORD SEEM TO BE MOSTLY IN THE PHILIPPINES AND BORNEO AREA. FOR THAT REASON I SUSPECT THE LARGE WAR SWORD KAMPILIAN ORIGINATED IN THAT AREA. GIVEN THE LARGER SIZE OF MORO WEAPONS (PANABAS, KRIS, KAMPILIAN) IN RELATION TO MOST OTHERS IN THE AREA IT IS LIKELY THEY HAD A ROLE IN ITS DEVELOPMENT.
THE MURUT SWORD IS ALSO LARGE BUT I SUSPECT THE FORM WAS INFLUENCED FROM ARABIC OR INDIAN SWORDS AS THE BLADE IS SO MUCH DIFFERENT FROM OTHER TRIBES IN BORNEO SO WILL DISCOUNT IT FROM THIS DISCUSSION. THE PISO PODANG ALSO FALLES INTO THIS CATEGORY WITH THE PAKAYUN BLADES, BOTH LIKELY WERE TRADE ITEMS ORIGINALLY.
AS TO THE FANG DAGGER AND THE TWO MOROCCAN DAGGERS YEP WE RECOGNIZED THEM BUT AS THE DISCUSSION IS ON KAMPILIAN I IGNORED THE MISTAKE AS IT IS NOT UNUSUAL TO SEE SUCH MISTAKES IN MUSEUMS. :D

Hi Lorenz

This is the reason i didn't come back here with any helping info. The exhibition author confessed he picked the picture from a website and also ignores who the painter was.



Fascinating stuff ... quite readable, even having being handwritten five centuries ago.

Fernando

Hi Fernando,

Yes, going over these firsthand accounts is fascinating all right.

Here's more quotes from the book I mentioned, yet still no clue as to whether anything resembling a kampilan as we know it figured in the battle:

"Here we have arrived at the fatal day: that on which Magellan meets with death. After the refusal of the other kings to obey the Christian king 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).


"Let us listen to the Genoese pilot: “In the morning of 28 April 1521, Ferdinand Magellan ordered three sloops to be armed with some sixty men. These went to the island where they came face to face with three or four hundred men who fought so furiously that Ferdinand Magellan was killed together with six of his men”.

"Gomara gives more details: “Magellan was killed when he had been hit in the face by an arrow after he had lost his helmet which had fallen off after being hit by stones and lances. He was also wounded in the legs, and after falling down he was pierced by a lance.”

"Herrera is even more precise: “Magellan had wished to attack immediately, but the king [Humabon], his friend, advised him to wait for daybreak, because he knew that they [Lapulapu’s men] had been digging several trenches wherein they had they had planted sharpened sticks and he thought that they should not take such a risk. When daylight had come, some of the men were ordered to remain behind in the sloops to guard them, after which he took off with 55 of his men. Upon arriving at the village, they found no people, but as soon when they had started to put fire to the houses, a group of Indios attacked them on one side, and while they were fighting, they were also attacked on the other flank by a second group of natives. The Spaniards were now split up in to groups, but they resisted the enemies with such force that they succeeded in closing ranks again. They continued fighting during a great part of the day, till the musketeers had no more powder and the crossbowmen no more arrows. Magellan was hit by a rock which knocked off his helmet. Then he was also wounded in one leg and hit by more rocks, and fell down. Lying on the ground he was pierced by one of the long bamboo lances which the natives used with great courage. That’s how the great captain died because he was too courageous and had tempted fate far too much. His death was a great blow to his men. Cristopher Rabelo, the captain of the Victoria, died also with six of his companions. This killing occurred on 27 April of that year wherein the Philippines were discovered for the first time.

"Jeronimo Osorio betrays a Portuguese viewpoint when giving Magellan a peculiar post mortem: “During that expedition, he encountered a lot of dangers, because the Spanish captains and the soldiers wanted to get rid of him and plotted his death, on which occasion some of these men were executed, and this happened finally also to him. He had helped a certain local leader who had asked for it, but after a fight he was treacherously killed by that man on an island named Mata. That’s how one traitor punished another because of his treachery”

"On the other hand, the words of Pigafetta reflect a real affection for Magellan: “I hope that Your Illuster Lordship will see to it that the fame of such a courageous and noble captain will not be effaced in our times. Among his other virtues, he was more firm than anybody else ever was in the middle of the greatest hardships and before important occasions. He endured hunger better than all the others, and he understood sea charts and navigation more accurately than any man in the world. This was clearly seen, for no other had so much natural talent nor the boldness and expertise to circumnavigate the world as he had almost done. But his magnificent plan ended for him in this battle.

"Gaspar Correia, like Jeronimo Osorio, writes that Magellan was killed during the banquet on 1 May 1521, but we know this to be mistaken."

I think I should buy the modern translation of Pigafetta's book, as he appears to be the most astute observer among those that with Magallanes at the time ... for sure we can find there more info as to what edged weapons the native Filipinos carried then ... :)

PS - For instance this is how Pigafetta described one Mindanao rajah he met:

"And he [Rajah Calambu, of what is now Agusan del Norte province in Mindanao island] was the most handsome person we saw among those peoples. He had very black hair to his shoulders, with a silk cloth on his head, and two large gold rings hanging from his ears. He wore a cotton cloth, embroidered with silk, which covered him from his waist to his knees. At his side he had a dagger, with a long handle, and all of gold, the sheath of which was of carved wood. Withal he wore on his person perfumes of storax and benzoin. He was tawny and painted all over. His island is called Butuan and Calaghan."