PI Weaponry in Spanish Museums - Page 2

Federico · 5th March 2005, 01:13 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, 11:22 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, 03:04 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, 05:53 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, 08:02 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.

Spunjer · 7th March 2005, 11:39 PM

early example of tourist piece, maybe?

also, about a month ago, there was an unknown sword that has an almost similar handguard (circular/gear looking); any relation perhaps?

Federico · 8th March 2005, 05:05 AM

Some early gunongs have gear-esque guards, though I have seen any quite so thick. Interesting cockatua. Anyways, Bob Cato does mention heavily engraved ala dragon engraved blades beginning to appear shortly after the turn of the century. If I remember right from his book (could be from somewhere else memory not working well right now), I think he also posited early attempts at tourist markets. Not all the Moro swords gotten from PI in the American occupation were battlefield pickups, soldiers had a strong penchant for souvenir shopping (to the unfortunate end of some). I dont think it would be un-reasonable to think that a smith, with a sudden influx of American soldiers with fat wallets, wouldnt start to cater to this new market. Anyways, the few heavy engraved blades Ive seen, that are similar to this one had wimpy un-hardened blades, not up for use in the least, which may lead credence for a tourist piece. Though on the flip side, Ive seen pics of kris with not quite so extensive engraving, but had very impressive sturdy looking blades. So engraving itself isnt a blackmark. Inspection of the blade, particularly whether it is thick enough near the guard, and if it was hardened would probably tell the tale.

zamboanga · 11th March 2005, 04:28 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, 09:00 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, 04:28 AM	#38
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...

5th March 2005, 01:13 AM	#31
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, 11:22 PM	#32
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, 05:53 PM	#34
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, 08:02 PM	#35
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,198	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.

7th March 2005, 11:39 PM	#36
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	early example of tourist piece, maybe? also, about a month ago, there was an unknown sword that has an almost similar handguard (circular/gear looking); any relation perhaps?

8th March 2005, 05:05 AM	#37
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Some early gunongs have gear-esque guards, though I have seen any quite so thick. Interesting cockatua. Anyways, Bob Cato does mention heavily engraved ala dragon engraved blades beginning to appear shortly after the turn of the century. If I remember right from his book (could be from somewhere else memory not working well right now), I think he also posited early attempts at tourist markets. Not all the Moro swords gotten from PI in the American occupation were battlefield pickups, soldiers had a strong penchant for souvenir shopping (to the unfortunate end of some). I dont think it would be un-reasonable to think that a smith, with a sudden influx of American soldiers with fat wallets, wouldnt start to cater to this new market. Anyways, the few heavy engraved blades Ive seen, that are similar to this one had wimpy un-hardened blades, not up for use in the least, which may lead credence for a tourist piece. Though on the flip side, Ive seen pics of kris with not quite so extensive engraving, but had very impressive sturdy looking blades. So engraving itself isnt a blackmark. Inspection of the blade, particularly whether it is thick enough near the guard, and if it was hardened would probably tell the tale.

10th April 2005, 09:00 PM	#39
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.