What is the origen of Tibetan style Aceh blade forms?

[josh stout]

In the recent post showing a lovely collection of Aceh weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=4805) there are several examples showing straight backed sabers. The blade form is identical to that of Tibetan sabers. This form was the typical East Asian blade form until the rise of the Mongols in the Yuan dynasty. The form survived relatively unchanged in Tibet. Are the blades from Aceh another example of the old style of Asian saber, or are they an example of "convergent evolution"? The blade shape is so evocative of Tibetan blades with the same tip shape and even, at least in one example I have seen, the same hairpin piled construction. I can think of no way that Tibetan blades could have influenced Aceh, but it seems quite possible that the Aceh blades are another surviving example of a very old style.

This was the blade form that was the ancestor of Japanese blades in the Tang dynasty.
Josh

[RhysMichael]

First of all a good observation, I had not noticed the resemblance until you pointed it out. I have not read of any direct Tibetan influence in Aceh but sixth century A.D. Chinese chronicles. spoke of a kingdom on the northern tip of Sumatra named Po-Li, it is believed that this was where Aceh is now. Marco Polo, on his voyage from China visited Sumatra on his way to Persia and reported that in the northern part of the island there were at least six busy trading ports including Perlak (Ferlak), Samudera and Lambri. One translation of Marco Polo's Observations of Sumatra Polo states that Pasaman on the south west coast have no law unless it be that of brute beasts." They said they were "lieges of the Great Kaan" but paid no tribute. So, Chinese trade routes there would have been well extablished for centuries by 1300 AD which if I remember was the general time frame of the Yuan Dyansty. And it is certainly a possiblility that this came from the same lineage as Tibetan swords. There is also a possible link back trough India to for many other blade and hilt forms seen in Aceh that are fit the patterns of the Turko-Mongol saber. The Panjang that you speak of were very popular weapons in the Dutch-Aceh war and certainly was around before that but I have not been able yet to find anything dating the beginning or source of this blade form. I look forward with interest to see what others might know about this.

[RhysMichael]

Ok some more that may validate your idea

In the time of the Sung Dynasty ships from T'swan-chau (or Zayton) bound
for Tashi, or Arabia, used to sail in forty days to a place called
Lanli-poï (probably this is also Lambri, Lambri-puri?). There they
passed the winter, i.e. the south-west monsoon, just as Marco Polo's
party did at Sumatra, and sailing again when the wind became fair, they
reached Arabia in sixty days. (E. Bretschneider, Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources 1888)

[josh stout]

Thank you that is very interesting. So at least it is possible that at about the same time Chinese blade forms were making their way to Japan, they also made their way to Aceh. Then such blades largely disappeared in China, evolved into the Katana in Japan, and remained largely unchanged in Tibet and Aceh.

The Chinese blades that made it to Japan at that time often had a medial ridge, and perhaps a faceted tip. I have never seen such on any Tibetan sabers from the last 400 years or so, but there is one 14th-15th century version shown in Warriors of the Himalayas with a medial ridge. The ridge was supposedly lost in China at the time and was reintroduced from Japan at the end of the Ming. Have you ever seen one from Aceh with a ridge? It wouldn't prove anything either way, but it would be interesting.

I don't think there is going to be more than circumstantial evidence either way, but some evidence for a 13th c straight backed saber in Aceh would certainly help

Is there any evidence that people consider the straight-backed saber older or more traditional than the Indian influenced sabers?
Josh

[kai]

Hello Josh & John,

So at least it is possible that at about the same time Chinese blade forms were making their way to Japan, they also made their way to Aceh. Then such blades largely disappeared in China, evolved into the Katana in Japan, and remained largely unchanged in Tibet and Aceh.

Hmm, I have to admit that I'm more than a bit uneasy with such speculations. In the case of the Tibetan swords there's close overall similarity (including hilt and fittings), preserved old examples, documents and pictures in the archives, as well as migrating ethnic groups. So, this seems to be a reasonable hypothesis.

However, in the case of Aceh (or rather northern Sumatra including Aceh, Gayo, Alas, and several Batak groups) there are no such close links and we have to acknowledge that this is pure speculation at best. To illustrate this point, I could as well speculate that these blades originated in Sumatra, got introduced to China and spread from there.

We have to realize that sea trade routes connecting just about every island and coastal town from East Asia to Southeast Asia (and possibly beyond) are really old and probably predate the first sophisticated cultures with "international" influence like the Dong Son (originating from the northern Vietnam/Yunnan/Guangdong triangle - nothing to do with ethnic Han ). Thus, it would be more reasonable to assume that even bronze age cultures already had some knowledge about the main weapons of other ethnic groups rather assuming they were living in ignorance of each other until the days of any surviving chronicles.

Of course, trade was not a one-way street despite any perceived superiority.

The ridge was supposedly lost in China at the time and was reintroduced from Japan at the end of the Ming. Have you ever seen one from Aceh with a ridge?

No. There are different fuller configurations but no examples with medial ridge AFAIK.

Likewise, blades with different welding types can be found but all are also known from other ethnic groups across the SEA archipelago.

Is there any evidence that people consider the straight-backed saber older or more traditional than the Indian influenced sabers?

Not that I know of - paging Utami!

The adoption of Islam may have had a pronounced effect on beliefs and values regarding "old traditions" though...

Regards,
Kai

[RhysMichael]

Originally Posted by josh stout

Is there any evidence that people consider the straight-backed saber older or more traditional than the Indian influenced sabers?
Josh

I have no idea on this one and yes Utami as our man on the ground overthere may have a better answer. I have not heard from him in a while but I have his e-mail on my computer at home and will send him a message trying to get him to peek in here. One thing to note the Indian influence may actually pre-date the Chinese influence.

It would also be great if Albert saw this I would love to know his take on it.

Originally Posted by kai

However, in the case of Aceh (or rather northern Sumatra including Aceh, Gayo, Alas, and several Batak groups) there are no such close links and we have to acknowledge that this is pure speculation at best. To illustrate this point, I could as well speculate that these blades originated in Sumatra, got introduced to China and spread from there.

We have to realize that sea trade routes connecting just about every island and coastal town from East Asia to Southeast Asia (and possibly beyond) are really old and probably predate the first sophisticated cultures with "international" influence like the Dong Son (originating from the northern Vietnam/Yunnan/Guangdong triangle - nothing to do with ethnic Han ). Thus, it would be more reasonable to assume that even bronze age cultures already had some knowledge about the main weapons of other ethnic groups rather assuming they were living in ignorance of each other until the days of any surviving chronicles.

I don't think any of us are ready to stand on the table and yell that this is the origin of the panjang yet. You are right that there is not enough evidence for it to be anything but speculation. Still thats often how things start, with speculation. And yes it could be the Indonesians introduced it to the Chinese. It could have been from earlier Buddhist or Hindu influece from India (Some references say Indian influence was found there as early as the 1st century AD and again according to Ethnic Groups of Insular Southeast Asia vol 1, Human Relations Area Files Press, New Haven,1972, pp. 15ff. at p.16: "Chinese sources dating from as early as 500 AD contain references to the Kingdom of Poli in North Sumatra, within the present bounds of Aceh, which apparently was ruled by Buddhists of Indian extraction." ) but there are no common Indian forms to this sword that I know of (of course what I know on Indian swords might fill a thimble). The common trade routes cause a big problem trying to trace things thats for sure. But others have documented Chinese influence on clothing and architecture in Aceh. If the panjang or a similar sword can be found to have been around much earlier that any examples I know of then it would strengthen the idea. The hairpin folding could be another clue of common ancestry or it could be related to the pattern welding seen on say ladieng or even an aberrrancy caused by a single smith or family of smiths. I've only seen a few bronze age swords. Does anyone know of any that vaguely resemble a panjang ? Its a good point thoughthat there may well be similarities between bronze age weapons. I'd be surprised if they did not know about the weapons of thier neighbors.

This all could be "convergent evolution", parrallel development or whatever else its called. It wouldn't be the first time similar sword forms had evolved independantly of each other. As I said a long way still from proof or anything definative, but certainly worth gathering more information if we can.

[RhysMichael]

OK this got me looking for a Buddhist connection between Aceh and Tibet and I found this.
From THE MYSTICAL WORLD OF INDONESIA, Allen Sievers, the John Hopkins
University Press, Baltimore and London, 1974
"Shri Vijaja on Sumatra was a centre of Buddhist
learning, attracting students from China and India, exporting texts
and exerting an influence on Tibet. "

Shri Vijaja (Shri Vijaya) was also prominent as a trading partner with China from the 7th cent. until it was conquered by the Javanese.

Still all very circumstantail and not proof of anything I know

[josh stout]

So far we seem to have three hypotheses.

First, the blade type may be descended from straight bladed Asian swords going back to the Bronze Age. This would be true in China and Tibet, but would need some archeology to support this in Aceh.

Second, the blade might have come through Chinese traders, possibly as part of the spread of Buddhism. This would date to the 12th or 13th centuries when the blade type was also spread to Japan. Buddhist iconography in the region and accounts of trade rutes with China make this plausible.

Third, the blade type may have been developed endogenously and simply represent the fact that there are only so many ways to make a sword.

These hypotheses are only verifiable through actually finding swords of the appropriate age. Even then, it would be difficult to tell if a bronze sword had a particular look due to a regional commonality of design or through a coincidence due to design constraints. Still, a parsimonious interpretation of a straight bronze sword would be that it was related to the similar swords in the area. So that would be the most conclusive finding. A 13th century depiction would help, but would not rule out the possibility of a still earlier origin. If there were an archeological record, a transition from one sword type to another would be diagnostic.

A recent endogenous origin should be the null hypothesis, but it is also the most difficult to verify. No matter how many recent examples are found, it does not preclude an earlier origin.

Now for some questions about less conclusive evidence: What is the name of these swords? I think they are called piso panjang or long knife. Is there a shorter version? Could there have once been one? The utility knives found throughout China, Mongolia, and Tibet as well as the tanto of Japan all look like short versions of the piso panjang. The knife blade form is just as old as the saber version if not older.

So yes, I am wildly speculating, but I think it is still in the region where the ideas are at least theoretically verifiable, even if practically they never are.
Josh

[RhysMichael]

Originally Posted by josh stout

Now for some questions about less conclusive evidence: What is the name of these swords? I think they are called piso panjang or long knife. Is there a shorter version? Could there have once been one? The utility knives found throughout China, Mongolia, and Tibet as well as the tanto of Japan all look like short versions of the piso panjang. The knife blade form is just as old as the saber version if not older.

So yes, I am wildly speculating, but I think it is still in the region where the ideas are at least theoretically verifiable, even if practically they never are.
Josh

Good Questions and I can only contribute a bit to the answers. I am sure others can add more

The names vary a great deal, as Kai pointed out there are a great many ethnic groups ( Aceh, Gayo, Alas, Batak, Tamiang, Aneuk Jamee, Kluet, Simeulue to name a few) in this area and most have a name for this sword. Sikin Panjang is the most common seen in western liturature on these swords. Sikin Panjang translates to Long Sikin or sometimes long knife. Sikin is sometimes spelled Sekin or Sikim or Sikkin. Panjang is sometimes spelled pandjang. But it is also called a Peudeung panjang, Thikin Panjang, Andar , Naru, Narumo, Gloepak Sikin, Gluepak Sikin, Loedjoe Aceh (Atjeh) and one dutch sorce had them listed as Sikin aus Gajo Luos. There may be others I do not know of. There is a shorter version of this sword called a Sikin Alang ( Loejoe Alang , Ludjoe or Ludju Alang). A similar blade shape is seen on a couple of knives from the area the sikin lapan sagu ( luju lapan sagi, piso lapan sagi, loedjoe lapan sagi) and the Lopah Petawaran ( Tombolata, Tordjong ).

As a side note glancing through Von Zonneveld's boot there are similar blades on 2 of the Balato's on page 29. this could be from the Aceh association with the Nias or not .

A good overview of Ancient Aceh acheological sites can be found here
http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/docs%5CAce...nielperret.pdf

[josh stout]

Thanks for the link. What a fascinating and largely unknown history Aceh has. The archeological work to date is preliminary at best, but it still shows wide ranging active trading activity. For this discussion it seems that the 13th C contact with China would be the place to focus as most of the earlier artifacts seem to be associated with South Indian/Sri Lankan sources. I don't think Indian swords ever had this form. But the influences seem so wide ranging including Persian and even a possible Roman artifact that without much more archeological work I don't think this question will be answered.
Josh