Siwaih/ Sewar question

[RhysMichael]

In "Hands of Time - The crafts of Aceh", Barbara Liegh says these daggers are "the prerogative of the sultan and men of substantial wealth." However in "THE HISTORY OF SUMATRA, CONTAINING AN ACCOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT, LAWS, CUSTOMS, AND MANNERS OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS, WITH A DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURAL PRODUCTIONS, AND A RELATION OF THE ANCIENT POLITICAL STATE OF THAT ISLAND." by William Marsden, F.R.S. published 1811, he says of the siwaih that it "is a small instrument of the nature of a stiletto, chiefly used for assassination"

Does anyone know which of these is correct or maybe both ?
Thanks

[Battara]

I would not be surprised if both were true....I have seen gold sewars and rencongs for royalty before. And they were small enough for concealment....

[Alam Shah]

In "Hands of Time - The crafts of Aceh", that statement is true
In "THE HISTORY OF SUMATRA..." ...chiefly used for assassination"...
Perhaps the statement should be "... used by a chieftain, many had been used for assassination."

Battara, I had seen gold, silver sewars and rencong too.

[RhysMichael]

thanks for the input so far

[kai]

Hello John,

Well, I'd suggest that Marsden's account got heavily tinted by the colonial perspective of those times: Get your soldiers killed outside the battlefield (surprise, surprise for any occupying army!) and it's regarded as an assassination; have your soldiers killing some non-collaborating locals and it becomes a heroic deed...

However, I still find myself wondering about Leigh's assertion that sewar were reserved for nobility. It seems well established that rencong basically took the place of keris in Acehnese culture. This is supported by their huge diversity (decoration, pamor, size, fittings, etc.) suggesting that just about every member of the culture was wearing at least one.

I observe the same (or an even higher) diversity among sewar though. Moreover, the use of sewar seems to be much more widespread on Sumatra than that of rencong... Quite a few sewar originate from the Minang Kabau and I've never heard that they were a sign of nobility/rule there (also their often moderate decoration and the high status of keris seem to speak against such a notion). If correct at all, were sewar possibly restricted to nobility/judges only within the Aceh court (and other sultanates under its rule)? OTOH, any well-provenanced examples from the Aceh sultanate with plain original fittings which would point towards use by commoners?

Regards,
Kai

[RhysMichael]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello John,

Well, I'd suggest that Marsden's account got heavily tinted by the colonial perspective of those times: Get your soldiers killed outside the battlefield (surprise, surprise for any occupying army!) and it's regarded as an assassination; have your soldiers killing some non-collaborating locals and it becomes a heroic deed...

Kai

Thats a good point and its always a problem with these writings as the seldom try to look at the point of view of the people they are writing about. There are a huge number of photos from the early 20th century with people wearing Siwaih and they are not hidden as you would expect for an assasins weapon though surely as noted above some were small enough to be concealed at need.

However, I still find myself wondering about Leigh's assertion that sewar were reserved for nobility.

I can't find anything saying there were sumptuary laws on this. But of course that does not mean they don't exist. Finding references on this sort of thing in central Virginia can be frustrating. I wonder if I can write to Barbara Liegh though her publisher to ask about this ?

Thanks for the input

[kai]

Hello John,

There are a huge number of photos from the early 20th century with people wearing Siwaih and they are not hidden as you would expect for an assasins weapon though surely as noted above some were small enough to be concealed at need.

There's a bunch of Sumatran blades which seem to have been mainly used as backup weapons (by both men and women), especially the smaller examples. Most of these would be always worn hidden to gain a tactical advantage if need be. AFAIK, that's part and parcel of probably just about any traditional fighting approach in the Malay world (and beyond). The aim of these blades is to aid survival - colonial sources referring to their main use as assassinations are pretty insulting, especially considering that they come from a foreign oppressor...

I can't find anything saying there were sumptuary laws on this. But of course that does not mean they don't exist. Finding references on this sort of thing in central Virginia can be frustrating. I wonder if I can write to Barbara Liegh though her publisher to ask about this ?

First, get the name straight.
Better email her directly - I'm going to PM you contact adresses.

Regards,
Kai