Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18th January 2017, 03:41 PM   #1
Marcus
Member
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 420
Default Philippine or Confederate?

I bought this sword from Ian through our swap forum. His identification was as follows:

" This is a dahong palay, so named because the shape of the blade resembles either a rice leaf or a venomous snake of the same name. This is usually a Tagalog (central Luzon) blade form but here it is in Ilocano dress as shown by the brass cross guard and integral ferrule, while the bent tang and shape of the "horse hoof" pommel are consistent with older Ilocano work.

The heavy blade has obvious lamination and appears to have a hardened edge. The blade has been fitted to the hilt perfectly.

Dimensions:
OAL.......... 24 5/8 in
Blade........ 18 3/8 in
Hilt........... 6 1/4 in
Thickness of blade at forte.... 5/16 in
A couple of very small minor areas of damage to the horn hilt. Scratched on the hilt is the name "John Ikaver 1861." The initials "F.S." are incised deeply at forte."

Something that Ian missed is that also scratched on the hilt is “9th Virginia Regt.” (or it could be a crossed 7). Also, I read the name as "John Q. Leaper”.

Once I pointed out the second inscription, based on his identification of the piece as a dahong palay, Ian suggested an association with the US 9th Infantry regiment that fought in the Philippine war. A couple of points challenge that interpretation. The problem is there is no clear connection between "Virginia" and the 9th Regiment that fought in the Philippines. There was a 9th Virginia Regt. in the Continental army. It was formed prior to the Revolution but it was disbanded on November 15, 1783. There was also a 9th Virginia Regt. in the Army of the Confederacy, and that unit was formed in July of 1861, consistent with the date. Incidentally, there was also a 7th Virginia Regt. in the Army of the Confederacy, which was formed in May of 1861.
In any case, by the time of the Philippine war, it was no longer customary to identify US military units with specific states, unless they were volunteer units recruited for specific conflicts, such as the Spanish American War. Furthermore, the US 9th infantry regiment that fought in the Philippines was first formed in Maryland, not Virginia.
All of the above considerations leave me with a sword identified as Philippine, likely from circa 1900. Without the inscriptions one could imagine that came to the US as a trophy or souvenir from the Philippines.
However, what if the inscriptions on the hilt are credible? Is it plausible that this is not from the Philippines at all and really was made by a Virginia blacksmith (F.S.) in 1861?
Attached Images
           
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 05:43 PM   #2
Rick
Vikingsword Staff
 
Rick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,290
Default

The horse hoof horn pommel and the ferrule/guard are pure Filipino.
Rick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 05:58 PM   #3
Oliver Pinchot
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 457
Default

Forgive me for stating the obvious:
Somewhere in its recent history, someone scratched the inscription into
the grip in order to pass it off as a Confederate sidearm.
Oliver Pinchot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 06:37 PM   #4
kai
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,254
Thumbs up

Quote:
Forgive me for stating the obvious:
Somewhere in its recent history, someone scratched the inscription into
the grip in order to pass it off as a Confederate sidearm.
I'm with you, Oliver! I did not saw that you already answered since I got sidetracked and took a while to complete my post...

Regards,
Kai
kai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 08:37 PM   #5
Battara
EAAF Staff
 
Battara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,218
Default

I'm in agreement so far 👍
Battara is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 08:45 PM   #6
Marcus
Member
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 420
Default

They might have done better if they had etched "9th Manchu Regt." and made the date 1901 instead of 1861, then they could have tried to pass it off as associated with in the massacre of Balangiga in Samal, September 28 1901.
Marcus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th January 2017, 06:30 PM   #7
kai
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,254
Exclamation

Hello Marcus,

Quote:
Something that Ian missed is that also scratched on the hilt is “9th Virginia Regt.” (or it could be a crossed 7). Also, I read the name as "John Q. Leaper”.
<snip>
However, what if the inscriptions on the hilt are credible? Is it plausible that this is not from the Philippines at all and really was made by a Virginia blacksmith (F.S.) in 1861?
While the year might be explained away by regarding it as a birthdate or some other memento, you seem to be correct, that the inscription doesn't make any sense if placed in the period of US colonial presence in the Philippines.

However, I agree with Ian that this certainly is a Filipino dahong palay. The scratched inscription may point to the US civil war but I doubt that this sloppy inscription would have been put on a good short sword in those times.

AFAIK, quite a few Filipino blades have been offered in the US market as genuine civil war artefacts to solicit a much higher selling price; I believe the most likely explanation for this enigma is that someone wanted to bolster the civil war attribution and added a fake inscription...

Regards,
Kai
kai is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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 10:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.