How old is the kampilan as a form?

Jim McDougall · 21st June 2015, 02:49 PM

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.

21st June 2015, 02:49 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	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.