"Is it really a Cockatoo?"

[Ian]

David:

All good points. I am not privy to any data Cato may have used. From the comment of van Duuren about the "general consensus" favoring a cockatoo, it appears that more than Cato have shared this opinion and that perhaps it was not his idea originally.

Just where the "cockatoo hilt" style may have originated is unclear. It could have been a migration northwards through Borneo similar to the wavy blade form of the keris. You say that there are no old examples of this hilt form that would support a southern influence. How old do they need to be? If we are talking about 17th or 18th C, then I believe that our forum host, Lee Jones, has an example from that era that was discussed on the old UBB forum (may it rest in peace). IIRC, that kris had a small cockatoo pommel in a style associated with Malaysia or Borneo. I'm away from my books at the moment, but again if I recall correctly Albert van Z. shows several Borneo kris with similar pommels in his book on the arms of the Indonesian Archipelago.

An alternative view is that the pommel style was a back diffusion, from north to south, with its origin in Moroland and then spreading back to Borneo and Malaysia. However, we need to look at the geopolitical forces operating a couple of hundred years ago. At that time the Sulu Archipelago was very much under the influence and control of the Brunei Sultanate. Influences tend to spread from those in power to the subordinate groups, rather than the other way around. How likely is it that a bunch of quarrelsome subordinate groups on the periphery of the Muslim world would influence weapons widely in the region? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else who might post here would know for sure either.

Frustratingly, we are left with a bunch of inductive ideas and very few ways of testing the hypotheses generated. We have one explanation for the shape of the pommel that another author has labeled a "consensus view." It seems to me that it is necessary to topple that idea before a new one can take its place. Which is to say that the "cockatoo hilt" idea stands until, through a deductive process, it can be shown to be wrong. [Obviously all ideas can be discussed and debated, but in the end there is only one that survives the test of truth.]

Ian.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

Frustratingly, we are left with a bunch of inductive ideas and very few ways of testing the hypotheses generated. We have one explanation for the shape of the pommel that another author has labeled a "consensus view." It seems to me that it is necessary to topple that idea before a new one can take its place. Which is to say that the "cockatoo hilt" idea stands until, through a deductive process, it can be shown to be wrong. [Obviously all ideas can be discussed and debated, but in the end there is only one that survives the test of truth.]

I'm afraid i completely disagree here. IF Cato's theory actually had been clearly sourced and references for his kakatau theory had been disclosed in his writings i might well agree. But simply because his idea is the only one published or that occasionally someone has mentioned that the kakatau theory is a "consensus view" (Consensus of whom exactly? When? Where? Why?) is not enough in my mind to validate it as the superior theory. It does not seem that the kakatau theory has been any more "tested" than the sarimanok one. I see no reason why both these theories should not be given equal standing as theories since neither can be seen as anything more than an inductive idea at this point. There is no substantial fact to be toppled here.

[kai]

I'm afraid I completely agree with David here.

We should compile data for both hypotheses (as well as looking out for additional claims) and compare their respective standing in due time.

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

I'm afraid I completely agree with David here.

We should compile data for both hypotheses (as well as looking out for additional claims) and compare their respective standing in due time.

Regards,
Kai

Hey Kai, maybe neither of us should be afraid. Peaceful co-existence of theories is not something that we need fear. LOL!

[kai]

Hello Ian,

From the comment of van Duuren about the "general consensus" favoring a cockatoo, it appears that more than Cato have shared this opinion and that perhaps it was not his idea originally.

It sure wasn't his idea - Ron traced the notion back to the early 20th c.
It would be more interesting whether he had Moro informants confirming this view - he did not wrote that down though...

Just where the "cockatoo hilt" style may have originated is unclear. It could have been a migration northwards through Borneo similar to the wavy blade form of the keris.

Well, the keris migrated over the sea. There are enough Malay coastal settlements around Borneo as well as other islands to allow for convenient "stepping stones" and keeping in touch.

You say that there are no old examples of this hilt form that would support a southern influence. How old do they need to be? If we are talking about 17th or 18th C, then I believe that our forum host, Lee Jones, has an example from that era that was discussed on the old UBB forum (may it rest in peace). IIRC, that kris had a small cockatoo pommel in a style associated with Malaysia or Borneo.

Given the scarcity of well-provenanced pieces from the early colonial period, I doubt we'll ever know for sure. I also believe we should be very cautious with estimating the absolute (rather than relative) age of any pieces! With a lot of work, we may be able to establish lines of evolution but reliably linking those to "real" historical events will be more than tough IMVHO.

Also note that hilt types we currently associate with Malaya, may not have been confined to Malaya in earlier times nor necessarily being of Malay origin!

I'm away from my books at the moment, but again if I recall correctly Albert van Z. shows several Borneo kris with similar pommels in his book on the arms of the Indonesian Archipelago.

The examples shown in Albert's book are not particularly old; most appear to be Moro blades that ended up in East Borneo.

An alternative view is that the pommel style was a back diffusion, from north to south, with its origin in Moroland and then spreading back to Borneo and Malaysia. However, we need to look at the geopolitical forces operating a couple of hundred years ago. At that time the Sulu Archipelago was very much under the influence and control of the Brunei Sultanate. Influences tend to spread from those in power to the subordinate groups, rather than the other way around. How likely is it that a bunch of quarrelsome subordinate groups on the periphery of the Muslim world would influence weapons widely in the region? I don't know, and I don't think anyone else who might post here would know for sure either.

Well, knowing for sure sets the benchmark very high.

I'd posit that the keris sundang melayu got heavy influence from their Moro cousin till pretty recent times: You see a lot of Moro blades in Malay fittings but hardly any the other way around!

I also believe that you underestimate the Malay trading network which allowed for a continuous flux of trade goods all over the archipelago (additionally aided by traders of many other ethnic groups including Bugis, many Chinese groups, Arab, etc.): The most busy ports were true melting pots with wealthy inhabitants always on the look for cool stuff to display their status! This was going on despite political struggles and Machiavellian strategies. And, of course, more active Moro groups were all over the place with raiding parties and settlements (18th-19th c.).

Regards,
Kai