Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12th November 2009, 04:44 PM   #1
Bill
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Chicago area
Posts: 327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VVV
On page 59 a resembling one from the Philippines, as Battara mentioned earlier, is commented
I don't really see why Per's and Cato's necessarily should be imported swords from Timor? Or maybe I misunderstood Bill?

I also think it's quite obvious that it's a kampilan and have considered van Z's classifying it as a "klewang" as one of the, surprisingly few, minor errors in his book. Unless you want to classify all kampilans as belonging to the klewang-category?

Michael

I agree, it really should be considered a kampilan. My edition of Cato shows it pg. 53, fig 33. It does not appear to be typical of Mindanao kampilans but as we see, there is always exceptions. The blade construction still is problematic for Mindanao being the place of origin.
Bill is offline  
Old 12th November 2009, 05:54 PM   #2
Sajen
Member
 
Sajen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,164
Default

Here two fast taken pics from Cato's book, page 53 and from Zonneveld page 71.
Attached Images
  
Sajen is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.