Kampilan marked "London 1762"

Bill M · 26th October 2008, 06:43 PM

Don't have a clue as to why the blade is marked as such. It would be nice if it were that old, but ........

Tip is double edged and sharp.

Your comments?

Lew · 26th October 2008, 07:57 PM

Bill

That is a great piece I don't think 1769 is the year more like a catalog number? Was there a London museum?

Lew

CharlesS · 26th October 2008, 08:37 PM

Now here is one I truly wish could talk!!

Bill M · 26th October 2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LOUIEBLADES

Bill

That is a great piece I don't think 1769 is the year more like a catalog number? Was there a London museum?

Lew

What, Lew, you don't think this kamp is 244 years old?

There are quite a few museums in London. Hard to say if it came from one of them.

I'd like it to be a date, but don't really think it is.

Did some searching on Google and did not find much except the British fighting the Spanish in 1762, and taking Manila.

Curious about the origin of kampilans. Apparently coming from Borneo originally. I have heard they were of Dayak origin? But I suspect the Borneo origin was more likely related to Moro living there in the North.

I have never seen a Kampilan hilt with Dayak designs.

Rumor suggests Magellan was killed by a kampilan in the battle of Mactan in April 1521, in the Philippines, though it may have been more of a cutlass.

Is there any evidence of the kampilans shaped like they are today in old books, manuscripts, paintings, etc?

katana · 26th October 2008, 10:31 PM

Hi Bill

,
just a thought....the London 1769 / 1762 may be a retailer's / outfitters mark and the number relates to a pattern or a 'sale' number. There may be more hidden beneath the hilt (such as a company name). British swords with serial numbers tend to be stamped on the spine.... Jim will probably add more on this

.

If the stamping is a retailers mark it suggests that the blade was re-worked ( including the Tang ??) and then re-hilted..... I love these mystery swords

Has the blade distal taper ??

Kind Regards David

katana · 26th October 2008, 10:48 PM

Hi Bill,
browsing the web..... Robert Wilkinson-Latham mentions that sometimes numbers stamped on the blades were the firms order numbers ....manufacturers mentioned are Robert Gieves of Gieves, Hawkes, Mole, and Reeves.

Regards

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2008, 12:05 AM

Thanks David, but kampilans are pretty much way outside my usual field!

As always, my curiosity gets the best of me though, so I retraced some steps to see what I could find out. What intrigued me of course, is the extremely, actually as far as I know, singular appearance of such a marking as the 'LONDON 1762'.

This blade is of course anything but 18th century, and the hilt is very attractive, according to what notes I could find, the standard form known as 'thallisic' (in Cato...wish I had my copy here!). Have no idea what that term means. I dont believe there is any agreement on what creature is represented on the pommel of these, but seems generally held to be either a crocodile/nagan entity or the Philippine deity of Bakonaua (moon eater).

The blade is of course not of the earlier form, the truncated blade point type, and though I am as always noted, not a metallurgist, this seems to be of 19th century at best. Those markings, though using the early form with serifs, seem too large, incongruent in placement, I've really never seen such markings on the forte like this especially on a 'native' blade. I'm not aware that British outfitters or makers supplied either Philippines or these regions with blades (though of course they did to Abyssinia, India etc.) and in the 19th century there was commercial activity in North Borneo. The much debated use of the kampilan in Borneo by Dayaks I would mention here simply to support that suggestion. I really dont know enough on this people to address how extensive or which tribes might have used them, but wanted to mention the British connection.

The numeric '1762' does not suggest to me a serial number or retailer or museum number, and the broad use of London, would even more deny this possibility. To me it seems a spuriously applied 'date' which seems to be close to numerous such dates on the blades from Dutch East India Co. hangers which seem to have ended up on a number of Sinhalese kastanes.

I do recall the note on Magellan being felled by a Phillipine Datu's 'kampilan' in 1521, but would submit that the term itself, like many weapon terms in these archipelagos may have been somewhat capriciously applied. I have understood that kampilan may refer to any number of sword types in these regions, with the semantics of this early period notwithstanding.

Despite all, I think it is a beautiful hilt, but uncertain of the age of the blade, with the markings appearing spurious in my opinion.

Best regards,
Jim

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Bill,
browsing the web..... Robert Wilkinson-Latham mentions that sometimes numbers stamped on the blades were the firms order numbers ....manufacturers mentioned are Robert Gieves of Gieves, Hawkes, Mole, and Reeves.

Regards

Hi David,
Robert's note is of course correct, but as far as I know, the few instances were with the makers stamp on the back of the blade near the hilt. One example I have seen of a British M1829 light cavalry sabre was stamped with Reeves &Co. with the numbers 111 in that location. I dont recall where Wilkinson stamped their numbers, which, contrary to other firms, were recorded. I believe it was also on the blade back. I dont know of any Mole examples with numbers, though the stamp was at the same location. Mole was primarily a Wilkinson subcontractor I understand, and later was absorbed into the firm about the 1920's.

All the best,
Jim

Jeff D · 27th October 2008, 12:40 AM

The 17 looks like a different 'font' then the other letters and numbers.

All the Best
Jeff

Bill M · 27th October 2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff D

The 17 looks like a different 'font' then the other letters and numbers.

All the Best
Jeff

Hi Jeff,

In the hand it looks more like those letters -- 17 -- were struck harder. May or may not be a different font.

It is also hard to tell if the last number is a 2 or a 9. I think it is a 2 as in 1762, if that helps.

There are no markings on the spine or anywhere else.

Jim McDougall · 27th October 2008, 02:03 AM

Hi Jeff,
I think you're right, the font does look different.
David, I think the last number is a 2.

All the best,
Jim

Jeff D · 27th October 2008, 06:45 AM

Hi Jim and Bill,

The 1 and 7 appears slightly larger, has a deeper imprint and has a different font ( I have seen similar 1's and 7's on British blades of early 20th century but not on the forte). Possibly added at a later date to add 100 or more years.
Wilkinson and Mole both used the spine to place their numbers, but, I don't think Wilkinson started this practice until 1854? I am not sure when Mole numbered their blades. I think it was at about the same time. Mole of course was a Birmingham not a London maker.

All the Best
Jeff

26th October 2008, 06:43 PM	#1
Bill M Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Georgia Posts: 1,599	Kampilan marked "London 1762" Don't have a clue as to why the blade is marked as such. It would be nice if it were that old, but ........ Tip is double edged and sharp. Your comments? Attached Images

26th October 2008, 10:31 PM	#5
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Bill , just a thought....the London 1769 / 1762 may be a retailer's / outfitters mark and the number relates to a pattern or a 'sale' number. There may be more hidden beneath the hilt (such as a company name). British swords with serial numbers tend to be stamped on the spine.... Jim will probably add more on this . If the stamping is a retailers mark it suggests that the blade was re-worked ( including the Tang ??) and then re-hilted..... I love these mystery swords Has the blade distal taper ?? Kind Regards David Last edited by katana; 27th October 2008 at 01:00 PM.

26th October 2008, 10:48 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	Hi Bill, browsing the web..... Robert Wilkinson-Latham mentions that sometimes numbers stamped on the blades were the firms order numbers ....manufacturers mentioned are Robert Gieves of Gieves, Hawkes, Mole, and Reeves. Regards Attached Images Last edited by katana; 26th October 2008 at 11:13 PM.

27th October 2008, 12:05 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Thanks David, but kampilans are pretty much way outside my usual field! As always, my curiosity gets the best of me though, so I retraced some steps to see what I could find out. What intrigued me of course, is the extremely, actually as far as I know, singular appearance of such a marking as the 'LONDON 1762'. This blade is of course anything but 18th century, and the hilt is very attractive, according to what notes I could find, the standard form known as 'thallisic' (in Cato...wish I had my copy here!). Have no idea what that term means. I dont believe there is any agreement on what creature is represented on the pommel of these, but seems generally held to be either a crocodile/nagan entity or the Philippine deity of Bakonaua (moon eater). The blade is of course not of the earlier form, the truncated blade point type, and though I am as always noted, not a metallurgist, this seems to be of 19th century at best. Those markings, though using the early form with serifs, seem too large, incongruent in placement, I've really never seen such markings on the forte like this especially on a 'native' blade. I'm not aware that British outfitters or makers supplied either Philippines or these regions with blades (though of course they did to Abyssinia, India etc.) and in the 19th century there was commercial activity in North Borneo. The much debated use of the kampilan in Borneo by Dayaks I would mention here simply to support that suggestion. I really dont know enough on this people to address how extensive or which tribes might have used them, but wanted to mention the British connection. The numeric '1762' does not suggest to me a serial number or retailer or museum number, and the broad use of London, would even more deny this possibility. To me it seems a spuriously applied 'date' which seems to be close to numerous such dates on the blades from Dutch East India Co. hangers which seem to have ended up on a number of Sinhalese kastanes. I do recall the note on Magellan being felled by a Phillipine Datu's 'kampilan' in 1521, but would submit that the term itself, like many weapon terms in these archipelagos may have been somewhat capriciously applied. I have understood that kampilan may refer to any number of sword types in these regions, with the semantics of this early period notwithstanding. Despite all, I think it is a beautiful hilt, but uncertain of the age of the blade, with the markings appearing spurious in my opinion. Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 27th October 2008 at 12:52 AM.

26th October 2008, 07:57 PM	#2
Lew (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: East Coast USA Posts: 3,191	Bill That is a great piece I don't think 1769 is the year more like a catalog number? Was there a London museum? Lew

26th October 2008, 08:37 PM	#3
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,857	Now here is one I truly wish could talk!!

27th October 2008, 12:40 AM	#9
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	The 17 looks like a different 'font' then the other letters and numbers. All the Best Jeff

27th October 2008, 02:03 AM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	Hi Jeff, I think you're right, the font does look different. David, I think the last number is a 2. All the best, Jim

27th October 2008, 06:45 AM	#12
Jeff D Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: B.C. Canada Posts: 473	Hi Jim and Bill, The 1 and 7 appears slightly larger, has a deeper imprint and has a different font ( I have seen similar 1's and 7's on British blades of early 20th century but not on the forte). Possibly added at a later date to add 100 or more years. Wilkinson and Mole both used the spine to place their numbers, but, I don't think Wilkinson started this practice until 1854? I am not sure when Mole numbered their blades. I think it was at about the same time. Mole of course was a Birmingham not a London maker. All the Best Jeff