Origin of the kampilan?

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Bill Marsh

The first recorded kampilan possibly goes back to the Battle of Mactan in the Philippines -- April 1521. Magellan vs Lapu Lapu. However it is unclear if Lapu Lapu used a kampilan or a cutlass.

Hi Bill,

Most of us have probably read Antonio Pigafetta's account of the death of Magellan:

"Recognizing the captain [Magellan], so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... A native hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the native's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

I was just thinking, if it was a "cutlass", then what would it actually be, among the blades of the Visayans then?

I'm now reading William Henry Scott's Barangay -- Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture & Society. This was written in the 1980s I think, and Scott is a leading historian on pre-hispanic Philippines.

So the book is all about how the Philippines was before the arrival of the Spaniards. In the section entitled "The Visayas" and under the "Weapons and War" subsection, we read this:

"There were two kinds of swords -- kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 to 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical hornlike flare at the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill. The wavy kris was called kiwo-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement cannot be predicted. Hilts were carved of any solid material -- hardwood, bone, antler, even shell -- and great datu warriors had them of solid gold or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface -- damascended or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao or Sulu, and these in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades.

"The word kampilan came into Spanish during the Moluccan campaigns of the sixteenth century as "a heavy, pointed cutlass [alfange]" -- inappropriately, however, since a cutlass had a curved blade weighted toward the tip for slashing blows, while the kampilan was straight. (Modern ones are two-handed weapons running to 90 centimeters.) It apparently was never manufactured by Visayan smiths but imported from parts of Mindanao, both Muslim and pagan, which had direct culture contact with the Moluccas. Like the kris, it was coated with poison before going into battle, and the fiction that the weapon itself has been rendered poisonous by some alchemy no doubt enhanced its market value. Fine ones were handed down from father to son, bore personal names known to the enemy, and could be recognized by the sound of little bells which formed part of their tasseled decoration."

So there.

The pre-hispanic Visayans (of whom Lapu Lapu was one) had only two basic swords: the kris and the kampilan.

To me thus, the "cutlass" that was used against Magellan in all probability would be a kampilan. If it were the kris, Pigafetta an eyewitness wouldn't have described it like he did: "a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger".

Traditionally in the Philippines, Lapu Lapu is depicted as armed with the kampilan.

[VVV]

Hi Miguel,

Scott's book is unique as it's based on what the Spanish wrote about the Filipinos when they first encountered them. This means of course that there are a lot of misunderstandings and cultural biased flaws in the original documentation that needs to be decipherd (based on other documentation and sources). Like the old poison myth...
I assume that the kris from Makassar wasn't of the Sundang type but more of the regular Malay size?
And that the kampilan the Spaniards encountered on their Moluccan campaign belonged to Illanum seafarers?
Not to the regular inhabitants of the Moluccas who according to all other sources used other kind of swords?
I think the book is very interesting and also sometimes quite surprising.
Like when he mentions the baladaw (= Malay beladau?) as a kind of popular Visayan push dagger. I wonder why it didn't survive in popularity?
Unfortunately Scott died in 1993. A year before the book first was published.

Michael

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by VVV

Scott's book is unique as it's based on what the Spanish wrote about the Filipinos when they first encountered them. This means of course that there are a lot of misunderstandings and cultural biased flaws in the original documentation that needs to be decipherd ...

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes, I agree that there were a lot of "transmission errors", as early as back then when the first contact was made, down to the present time as these matters are over and over retold and reinterpreted.

Doesn't it make that all the more exciting?

Best regards.

PS -

Dear all,

I'm now looking at the Boxer Codex which is described as follows:

"Boxer Codex is a manuscript written circa 1595 which contains illustrations of Filipinos at the time of their initial contact with the Spanish. Aside from a description of and historical allusions to the Philippines and various other Far Eastern countries, it also contains seventy-five colored drawings of the inhabitants of these regions and their distinctive costumes. Fifteen illustrations deal with Filipinos ...

"The Boxer Codex depicts the Tagalogs, Visayans, Zambals, Cagayanons and Negritos of the Philippines in vivid colors. The technique of the paintings suggests that artist may have been Chinese, as does the use of Chinese paper, ink and paints."

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

[tom hyle]

Please refer to the various images below. What is of particular interest to me is the sword the Tagalog noble is holding (the one with a zoomed-in image).

Given that at the time (pre-hispanic) Manila is governed by the Muslim Rajah Sulayman [he ruled over the present Tondo district], Rajah Lakandula, and Rajah Matanda [the latter two ruled over what is now the Malate and Ermita districts I think], the attire and weapons of the original Manilenos then would have Moro influence.

Now back to that sword with a bifurcated hilt and a seeming crescent shaped crossguard, doesn't that look like a kampilan?

What do you all think?

Thanks!

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?

[tom hyle]

Of some interest (or confusion) are the words cutlass and scimitar. Cutlass is a very broad European sword category, also known as hangers, etc. This was the style of sword favored by/permitted to commoners. Examples I've seen are generally rather light and thin, certainly by SE Asian standards (of course, kampilan [per se] is a notably light thin sword by SE Asian standards, with a thin cutting zone rather like unto parang lading, in my limitted experience....). the term might be applied to any large knife/short sword, especially if single edged. Scimitar is an European word and seems to reflect popular,often false, European conceptions of foreign, particularly Islamic, swords. Persian shamshirs (thought to be the origin of the term) are light slashing swords with narrow tips. Though the concept no doubt owes much to the Tartaric yelman sabres, it seems to me that the swords (other than European falchions) that most closely reflect the concept are, in fact, Oceanic SE Asian. In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings......I babble disorganisedly and that's the kind of thing one encounters in new writings

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

In any event, both terms certainly can be rather confusing, even to the point of uselessness, and this is of course just the sort of thing one encounters in old writings...

Thanks again Tom for the comments.

I guess that's what happens when somebody is confronted with a totally foreign object for the first time (i.e., in the case of Pigafetta first seeing a new type of sword as wielded by Lapulapu and his men, and in a very stressful condition at that). Words fail and so would the accurate recollection of the object.

It is amusing for instance to go over the depictions of medieval travelers of mammals they never saw before. In the images below, how many can you recognize? You'll be surprised as to what some of those drawings are referring to!

Most of the pics came from this website.

Thus I agree that Pigafetta might just had been hallucinating

Yet on the other hand, he may have seen this Visayan sword (the one Spunjer is selling, below). And thus the 'scimitar' description might be on track after all??

[migueldiaz]

For those feeling lazy checking out the answers to the medieval drawings quiz here are the answers: (A) mammoth; (B) tiger; (C) hippopotamus; (D) elephant; (E) hippopotamus; (F) giraffe; (G) giraffe; (H) elephant; (I) rhino; and (J) wild ass.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

Very interesting thread; always interesting to see the generally-considered-distinctive weapons of the famous/"great" cultures placed in a proper context vis-a-vis their neighbors.
In reference to the sword in the picture with the T-shaped pommel; it more closely resembles to me "Machete Philipiana" (spelling? forum thread "bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification") in shape, in size (it does not protrude beyond the wearer's body, I think), and in the brass-covered grip. Interesting early depinction of one of those, no?

Hello Tom,

Thank you for the comments.

Yes, it's beginning to look like the sheathed sword shown in the Boxer Codex is a machete of Indonesian ancestry.

As you made the above post, coincidentally I was looking at the Sumatran swords at Mytribalworld and Orientalarms. And said swords also look like the T-shaped hilted bolo discussed in Bolo with wide blade and t-grip for identification.

And given what Nonoy shared about the close ties the Philippine islands' had with Borneo, then it's really very plausible that the Philippine blade shown in the Boxer Codex has Indonesian roots.

That'a a very interesting thread by the way, on the T-grip thread. Learned a lot again by going over old posts. Thanks.

[MaharlikaTimawa]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Hi Bill,

Most of us have probably read Antonio Pigafetta's account of the death of Magellan:

"Recognizing the captain [Magellan], so many turned upon him that they knocked his helmet off his head twice... A native hurled a bamboo spear into the captain's face, but the latter immediately killed him with his lance, which he left in the native's body. Then, trying to lay hand on sword, he could draw it out but halfway, because he had been wounded in the arm with a bamboo spear. When the natives saw that, they all hurled themselves upon him. One of them wounded him on the left leg with a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger. That caused the captain to fall face downward, when immediately they rushed upon him with iron and bamboo spears and with their cutlasses, until they killed our mirror, our light, our comfort, and our true guide."

I was just thinking, if it was a "cutlass", then what would it actually be, among the blades of the Visayans then?

I'm now reading William Henry Scott's Barangay -- Sixteenth-Century Philippine Culture & Society. This was written in the 1980s I think, and Scott is a leading historian on pre-hispanic Philippines.

So the book is all about how the Philippines was before the arrival of the Spaniards. In the section entitled "The Visayas" and under the "Weapons and War" subsection, we read this:

"There were two kinds of swords -- kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 to 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical hornlike flare at the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill. The wavy kris was called kiwo-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement cannot be predicted. Hilts were carved of any solid material -- hardwood, bone, antler, even shell -- and great datu warriors had them of solid gold or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface -- damascended or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao or Sulu, and these in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades.

"The word kampilan came into Spanish during the Moluccan campaigns of the sixteenth century as "a heavy, pointed cutlass [alfange]" -- inappropriately, however, since a cutlass had a curved blade weighted toward the tip for slashing blows, while the kampilan was straight. (Modern ones are two-handed weapons running to 90 centimeters.) It apparently was never manufactured by Visayan smiths but imported from parts of Mindanao, both Muslim and pagan, which had direct culture contact with the Moluccas. Like the kris, it was coated with poison before going into battle, and the fiction that the weapon itself has been rendered poisonous by some alchemy no doubt enhanced its market value. Fine ones were handed down from father to son, bore personal names known to the enemy, and could be recognized by the sound of little bells which formed part of their tasseled decoration."

So there.

The pre-hispanic Visayans (of whom Lapu Lapu was one) had only two basic swords: the kris and the kampilan.

To me thus, the "cutlass" that was used against Magellan in all probability would be a kampilan. If it were the kris, Pigafetta an eyewitness wouldn't have described it like he did: "a large cutlass, which resembles a scimitar, only being larger".

Traditionally in the Philippines, Lapu Lapu is depicted as armed with the kampilan.

I think may of misunderstood, the Kampilan is not a "basic" weapon of the visayans, since they rarely sport fighting long fighting swords nor did they manufacture it themselves. The tagalogs imported japanese katanas for the use of battle but I don't think that makes the katana a Filipino weapon.
It seems the the muslims of Mindinao still cater of holding longer more developed weapons for the use of fighting while the non-muslim blades are more tools for agriculture than fighting.