How old is the kampilan as a form?
 

In the concurrent thread with an intriguing example hilt on a kampilan, I was wondering just how old is the kampilan as a sword form.
While the example shown was being discussed, I realized that the now familiar hilt form with 'open jaw' has become well known, especially after the Spanish-American war, when of course many of these were taken as souveniers.

It seems that the apparent symbolism seen in the design and motif in these hilts remains elusive, and while authors such as Holstein and Cato offer suggestions, no conclusive explanations stand as far as I know.
As a form, I understand that these have existed outside the Moro regions in the Philippines, as well as into Borneo with the Dyaks, and probably other areas ?

What is most unclear is just how far back does the design of the kampilan go? I recall that accounts of the death of Ferdinand Magellan April 27, 1521 at Mactan, Philippines at the hands of tribal warriors described his being attacked with a 'kampilan'.
However, we cannot know whether that describes the examples we are now familiar with, or whether it was some sort of proto form . Also it must be considered that these accounts were probably transcribed and transliterated a number of times, so the kampilan term may well have been interjected.

Which leads to the next question, etymologically what language and meaning does the term have? how long?

Other accounts I have seen described the weapon used by the warriors as 'cutlasses', again a broadly applied term for any heavy blade and in any degree curved for cutting strokes. Since this term was not really known until late 17th into 18th c. it is again clearly later addition to the text of accounts.

So just how long has the kampilan as we know it been around? and are there notable differences regionally or tribally?

Salaams Jim, Wikipedia says Quote ''The kampilan is a type of single-edged long sword, traditionally used by various ethnic groups in the Philippines archipelago.

The kampilan has a distinct profile, with the tapered blade being much broader and thinner at the point than at its base, sometimes with a protruding spikelet along the flat side of the tip and a bifurcated hilt which is believed to represent a mythical creature's open mouth.[1]

The Maguindanao and the Maranao of mainland Mindanao preferred this weapon as opposed to the Tausūg of Sulu who favoured the barung. The Kapampangan name of the Kampilan was Talibong and the hilt on the Talibong represented the dragon Naga, however the creature represented varies between different ethnic groups. Its use by the Illocanos have also been seen in various ancient records. The native Meranau name of the Kampilan was Kifing, while the Iranun language it is known as Parang Kampilan.[2]

A notable wielder of the kampílan was Datu Lapu-Lapu (the king of Mactan) and his warriors, who defeated the Spaniards and killed Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan at the Battle of Mactan on April 27, 1521.[1][3][4]

The mention of the kampílan in ancient Filipino epics originating from other non-Muslim areas such as the Hiligaynon Hinilawod and the Ilocano Biag ni Lam-Ang is possible evidence for the sword's widespread usage throughout the archipelago during the ancient times. Today, the kampílan is portrayed in Filipino art and ancient tradition.

In Borneo, the Dayak people are also known to forge kampilan.[5] The officers who bears the royal regalia of the Sultan of Brunei such as the Panglima Agsar who carries the royal weapons of kelasak (shield) and kampilan, whereas the Panglima Raja carries the pemuras (royal gun) and kampilan".[6]Unquote.

My hotel has 150 Filipino guests staying at the moment but I couldn't find anyone to explain the different dialect forms of the sword name nor the historical aspects of this weapon but when I think of it I could travel the length and breadth of this country and not find a soul with the slightest idea on Omani Swords. :)

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams All and in respect of the post above please see our own library rendition at http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7408

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. :shrug:

Thank you very much Ibrahiim for the quick response! :)
It is interesting what you note on the fact that most people in specific countries typically are not familiar with names and terminology of the weapons regarded as indigenous there.
Here in Texas, most people would of course know what a Bowie knife is, but few would know anything on its history or specific form.

What I hope to discover, especially as I know many of the members here have collected amazing examples of the kampilan over the years, is that perhaps they have seen documentation, examples and illustration which might establish early use of the form.

Also, thank you for the link to Bill's thread from 2008! I forgot about that :) oops, maybe we might just expand on it here?

see also http://old.blades.free.fr/swords/kle...ilan/kam01.htm

Related, but on a different subject: I have never met a Moroccan that had heard of the word "koummya", even though they were very aware of the famous Moroccan jambiya style most of us know so well. They all saw pics or the real thing and said it's a "khandjar".

That is amazing Charles! Remember how many years it took to find the origin of 'kaskara' , a word nobody in the Sudan ever heard of.......the janbiyya/ katar thing......the term shotel in Ethiopia.........ettc.

It seems most of these weapons were named or termed by collectors or contemporary narrators, while locals always used more general terms which were far more collective. In many cases, terms for sword, knife were alike or in use in that way.
That is one of the frustrating dilemmas in trying to accurately trace the lineage in development of so many forms.

Karud may be another example.
Elgood and Flindt admitted that they could never find the true origin of this word and suggested that it was just a misheard spelling of "Kard" by the early Europeans.
I did a very non-scientific test: asked an Iranian girl working with us to show her multiple Iranian relatives a photo of "Karud" and name it .

Well, all the younger or female members of her family called it "khanjar" ( which it is obviously not :-), but older males uniformly called it "Kard". Perhaps, Charles' conundrum is due to the fact that he spoke with the youngsters of his age:-) , who were into iPads and Apple watches, but just plainly ignorant about bladed weapons. Those children....

I asked my co-worker to pronounce the word , and she did it several times. Each time I thought I heard a hidden vowel sound between the two consonants:-)

Paging Professor Higgins :-)

The original Italian is:
uno con un gran terciado (che è como una scimitarra, ma più grosso)

The whole original text is available at https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Relaz...torno_al_mondo

For "terciado".
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Terciado.jpg
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpost.php?p=165771

Since it's explicitly scimitar-like, it doesn't sound like a kampilan to me. If it's similar to modern Philippine weapons, a big pira or a panabas? But long curved swords were not unusual in the area - a classic weapon of "Japanese" pirates. A long dao/dha/katana-like sword could be described as "like a scimitar, but larger".

I think most of the confusion with classifying terms applied to the various forms of ethnographic weapons derives from the 'western' need to have things neatly categorized. This in turn may be considered to result from the 'collecting' phenomenon in which it is necessary to classify and identify specimens in order to describe and record them, just as in scientific cases where assessment of them would be useless using random terms.

As has been shown here and in many instances over the years, local descriptions of weapons are characteristically colloquial and broadly applied.
Seemingly in many, if not most cases, the action verb, to cut, becomes the key word important to locals, who care little about classifying terms.

In looking into some of the earlier threads here, it seems that perhaps the 'kampilan' term might have some Spanish origin as it was used in their narratives and accounts years after the events described. Some of the early descriptions use the term 'cutlass' which is of course a European term also of much later origin.

In trying to establish the earliest period and origin of the form, some of the material in other threads suggests that perhaps the 'klewang' might have been the source, but inconclusively as far as I could determine.

While often in our study of the development of ethnographic forms, the emphasis on 'the name game' is decried as nonsensical and irrelevant, it is clear that when the only available descriptive material consists of narratives and contemporary accounts, it becomes almost essential.

In most other kinds of research, certain archaic words have changed meaning; geographic names have changed; counties or principalities have merged or changed etc. As we study weapons and without the benefit of visual evidence from real time, it becomes important to know what terms might have been used in local descriptions, as well as by those who may have transcribed or transliterated these descriptions.

Even visual evidence such as art or iconography becomes suspect as we consider artistic license or political or fashion oriented infusion. In the case of classical art, case in point Rembrandt, often anachronistic and out of context arms may be used such as Indonesian weapons in his Biblically themed paintings.

I guess I've gone onto a tangent here relating to the importance of terms in written records as well as examples in visual examples of art, but it seemed key to the kind of examination we are pursuing here.

Timo, we cross posted and I just saw your outstanding links and superb assessment, which describe what I was trying to say perfectly! Thank you!
The term 'scimitar' is a classic example of this kind of dilemma......rather than being an exact weapon form, it is a 'description' and most commonly found in literary parlance. Excellent!

Hello Timo,

I've also been wondering wether it might not have been a tabas/panabas - it's function as a mop-up weapon would be perfectly suitable for finishing off an fallen/wounded opponent with compromised fighting abilities.

I believe we can exclude pira since antique examples are relatively small as compared to European swords and wouldn't warrant a description as being "più grosso" IMHO.

Even considering that the oldest kampilan tend to have somewhat shorter blades, I'm not sure we can exclude them from this cursory account. It seems possible that the descriptions "gran terciado" and "una scimitarra, ma più grosso" were not meant as an exact description of the actual form but rather just used to emphasise a really broad and very long blade (by comparing it to swords known to the European reader). This was not meant for a hoplological society meeting but to the interested public in general.

I doubt that katana, dha or typical examples of the klewang family would provoke such a description by an European though.

Regards,
Kai

It is true. The Indians pronounce the word "kard" as "karot", "karod", "karud" too. As far as I remember in Ain-i-Akbari a knife that worn on rope (that is kard) is called as "karaed".

MY FEELING IS THAT THE GENERAL BLADE SHAPE OF THE KAMPILIAN IS A OLD ONE. PERHAPS CLUES MAY BE FOUND IN THE HISTORY AND ARTIFACTS OF THE DIFFERENT PEOPLES WHO MIGRATED INTO THE AREAS WHERE IT IS FOUND. I SUSPECT THE PROTO- KAMPILIAN HAD A MUCH SHORTER BLADE PERHAPS THE SIZE OF THE TIBOLI AND BAGOBO BLADES. STEEL WAS MORE RARE AND EXPENSIVE IN THOSE DAYS FOR ONE REASON AND AS IT WAS MOSTLY FOR USE IN THE JUNGLE WHERE A LONG KNIFE IS MORE OF A HINDRANCE THAN AN ADVANTAGE. WHEN AND WHY THE TIP AND HANDLE DESIGNS WERE FORMED IS A MYSTERY TO ME BUT I AM SURE THEY HAD HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT MEANING IN THE EARLY SOCIETIES WHEN THEY DEVELOPED.