PI Weaponry in Spanish Museums

Marc · 4th March 2005, 10:45 PM

Federico:
I don't know if I understand you well, but I would like to point out keep that Engar's comment about the 19th origin was intended for the Anthropological Museum's collection ( and there's no mention about at what point of the 19th century). AFAIK, the Army Museums ones are composed by different lots, each one with its particular story.

Conogre · 4th March 2005, 11:31 PM

One nice thing about a wealth of photgraphs this inclusive is that you can go back, time after time, and notice something pointed out by another's comments that may have escaped you the first time or few.....I can't speak for anyone else, but the first time I was literally overwhelmed!
Justin's comment about the "missing link", for instance, stopped me dead.....the Y-hilted bolos that he pointed out, although disimilar from the two "mystery swords/knives" do show a possible evolution when displayed next to the burongs, as these are.
It doesn't address by whom or when, but it is an interesting thought at least and would seem to lend some credence to the possibility/probability of a Philippine origin.
I agree with Ian ......I can visualize dwelling for hours in front of these beauties as if time had stopped altogether.
Mike

Federico · 5th March 2005, 12:13 AM

Hello Marc

Just surprised that a central collection point wasnt started till 1886 in Manila (at least as I understand it in Engar's post). I would have thought there would have been an earlier attempt at centralizing a collection of PI weaponry, particularly given at this point in history we are nearing the end of Spanish colonial rule, why the late start in revelling in colonial trappings. I suppose a justification could be made that the empire is on its last legs, one last attempt to revel in past glories.

Marc · 5th March 2005, 10:22 PM

Federico:

Ah! Ok, now I understand, I'm sorry! No, no, let me explain... I'm concentrating in the Army Museum because is the one I'm more familiar with... that Museum was founded in 1803, or at least the institution that constitutes its backbone was founded then. It starts an expansion, understood as a fierce policy of acquisition of exemplars, at the decade of 1830, when all the Military Delegations around the world are asked to send items that could be deemed interesting for the museum's objectives. This policy was more or less maintained through the whole century, and though far from being the main body of items sent, they included ethnographic objects, a percentage of which were weapons. The celebration of the 1886 "Exposición General de Filipinas" ("General Exposition of the Philippines") in Madrid saw indeed an increase of the flux of items from there, but it doesn't means that it was inexistent before that. Not to forget the donations from private individuals.
So, the interest was there long before the Colonies were lost. I hope this clarifies things a little bit...

Federico · 6th March 2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc

Federico:

Ah! Ok, now I understand, I'm sorry! No, no, let me explain... I'm concentrating in the Army Museum because is the one I'm more familiar with... that Museum was founded in 1803, or at least the institution that constitutes its backbone was founded then. It starts an expansion, understood as a fierce policy of acquisition of exemplars, at the decade of 1830, when all the Military Delegations around the world are asked to send items that could be deemed interesting for the museum's objectives. This policy was more or less maintained through the whole century, and though far from being the main body of items sent, they included ethnographic objects, a percentage of which were weapons. The celebration of the 1886 "Exposición General de Filipinas" ("General Exposition of the Philippines") in Madrid saw indeed an increase of the flux of items from there, but it doesn't means that it was inexistent before that. Not to forget the donations from private individuals.
So, the interest was there long before the Colonies were lost. I hope this clarifies things a little bit...

Clarifies things greatly, thank you.

Spunjer · 7th March 2005, 04:53 PM

once again, thanks for posting the pics, engar. the pictures just amazes me to no end.

here's a weird looking kris. were would this fit in cato's theory?

and i would assume this is the scabbard:

Ian · 7th March 2005, 07:02 PM

Ron:

That one looks 20th C. to me, possibly from one of the non-Moro groups, or at least modified. It is very atypical for a Moro kris.

There may be some Visayan or Lumad influences.

Ian.

zamboanga · 11th March 2005, 03:28 AM

Thanks Tom and John for the info on the chinese jians.

I remember having owned a similar styled blade before and the comment I got was that it was a non-traditional moro weapon made in mindanao.

Hmmm... We now have Chinese-made barongs, Tausug-made piras, and now Mindanao-made jians. Ahhh. economics, if there is a demand...

engar · 10th April 2005, 08:00 PM

I uploaded the article some minutes ago. The article comes from "Art in Sulu: A Survey" (Philippine Studies, Vol. 11, 1963) by David Szanton. It isn´t a great discovery but it can helps to people interested in Moro weaponry. Excuse me for the bad details on the pics.

11th March 2005, 03:28 AM	#8
zamboanga Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: zamboanga city, philippines Posts: 132	Item No. 4 Thanks Tom and John for the info on the chinese jians. I remember having owned a similar styled blade before and the comment I got was that it was a non-traditional moro weapon made in mindanao. Hmmm... We now have Chinese-made barongs, Tausug-made piras, and now Mindanao-made jians. Ahhh. economics, if there is a demand...

4th March 2005, 10:45 PM	#1
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Federico: I don't know if I understand you well, but I would like to point out keep that Engar's comment about the 19th origin was intended for the Anthropological Museum's collection ( and there's no mention about at what point of the 19th century). AFAIK, the Army Museums ones are composed by different lots, each one with its particular story.

4th March 2005, 11:31 PM	#2
Conogre Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Clearwater, Florida Posts: 371	One nice thing about a wealth of photgraphs this inclusive is that you can go back, time after time, and notice something pointed out by another's comments that may have escaped you the first time or few.....I can't speak for anyone else, but the first time I was literally overwhelmed! Justin's comment about the "missing link", for instance, stopped me dead.....the Y-hilted bolos that he pointed out, although disimilar from the two "mystery swords/knives" do show a possible evolution when displayed next to the burongs, as these are. It doesn't address by whom or when, but it is an interesting thought at least and would seem to lend some credence to the possibility/probability of a Philippine origin. I agree with Ian ......I can visualize dwelling for hours in front of these beauties as if time had stopped altogether. Mike

5th March 2005, 12:13 AM	#3
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Hello Marc Just surprised that a central collection point wasnt started till 1886 in Manila (at least as I understand it in Engar's post). I would have thought there would have been an earlier attempt at centralizing a collection of PI weaponry, particularly given at this point in history we are nearing the end of Spanish colonial rule, why the late start in revelling in colonial trappings. I suppose a justification could be made that the empire is on its last legs, one last attempt to revel in past glories.

5th March 2005, 10:22 PM	#4
Marc Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Madrid / Barcelona Posts: 256	Federico: Ah! Ok, now I understand, I'm sorry! No, no, let me explain... I'm concentrating in the Army Museum because is the one I'm more familiar with... that Museum was founded in 1803, or at least the institution that constitutes its backbone was founded then. It starts an expansion, understood as a fierce policy of acquisition of exemplars, at the decade of 1830, when all the Military Delegations around the world are asked to send items that could be deemed interesting for the museum's objectives. This policy was more or less maintained through the whole century, and though far from being the main body of items sent, they included ethnographic objects, a percentage of which were weapons. The celebration of the 1886 "Exposición General de Filipinas" ("General Exposition of the Philippines") in Madrid saw indeed an increase of the flux of items from there, but it doesn't means that it was inexistent before that. Not to forget the donations from private individuals. So, the interest was there long before the Colonies were lost. I hope this clarifies things a little bit...

7th March 2005, 04:53 PM	#6
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	once again, thanks for posting the pics, engar. the pictures just amazes me to no end. here's a weird looking kris. were would this fit in cato's theory? and i would assume this is the scabbard:

7th March 2005, 07:02 PM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Ron: That one looks 20th C. to me, possibly from one of the non-Moro groups, or at least modified. It is very atypical for a Moro kris. There may be some Visayan or Lumad influences. Ian.

10th April 2005, 08:00 PM	#9
engar Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 14	I uploaded the article some minutes ago. The article comes from "Art in Sulu: A Survey" (Philippine Studies, Vol. 11, 1963) by David Szanton. It isn´t a great discovery but it can helps to people interested in Moro weaponry. Excuse me for the bad details on the pics.