"Is it really a Cockatoo?"

[Tim Simmons]

Really interesting thread. Subtle and abstract bird forms and motives are also found in what is known as Island Melanesia, Solomons ect . It is possible that in some places the origin for this may be lost but the forms are perpetuated just out of tradition.

ps, could there be any relation to Garuda? even slightly?

any thoughts
https://roguegaruda.wordpress.com/20...ndonesia-a-li/

[Ian]

Hi Ron.

That's an interesting hilt. The sword appears to be Sulu in origin but the sarimanok tradition is Maranao--something that would need reconciling.

Of course, the bird depicted could be something else, such as the Palawan peacock pheasant, a beautiful bird that I had the pleasure of seeing on a visit to northern Palawan to visit the caves.

Ian.

Palawan peacock pheasant
.

[Spunjer]

Tim,
In Sulu folktale or narrative or katakata, there's a creature called Sumayang Galura (the Soaring Garuda), a "giant bird whose lair lies atop a towering tree one meter away from the sky" (per Gerard Rixhon, Sulu Studies). the imaginary Galura is a mythical symbol of the brute or beastly power (Amilbangsa, Ukkil, Visual Arts of the Sulu Archipelago). it doesn't really describe this fantastic beast other than it's half giant and half eagle with the body and limbs of a man..

Ian,
ok, just for the sake of argument, i'll go with this for now:

The sword appears to be Sulu in origin but the sarimanok tradition is Maranao--something that would need reconciling

.
you do realize that although the sarimanok is prevalent in the Maranao culture, they don't have a monopoly of this particular legendary creature? again in the book Ukkil, Visual Arts of the Sulu Archipelago, there are pictures of this creature, in ukkil form, on Sunduks, or grave markers, brasswares, blanket, etc. so why not on a kalis?
as far as the kris itself: the problem i'm having with this line of thinking, as in "the sword appears to be Sulu in origin" is this; you're insinuating the origin of this particular blade as Sulu, which is based on Cato's theory. i understand that that's the only reference we can go by in regards to classification, but the bottom line is, it's just a theory. if you use that as a guideline, it becomes stagnant. let's look at the material that's being used on that. it appears to be made out of carabao horn. below are pictures of a kris that have a similar pommel motif: again, a sarimanok. i've handled this in person, and yes, the pommel is carved out of a carabao horn. now there's one tribe that's known for using this material: the Yakans. you can see that on their piras.
a peacock? okay...
so what happened to the cockatoo?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

... you're insinuating the origin of this particular blade as Sulu, which is based on Cato's theory. i understand that that's the only reference we can go by in regards to classification, but the bottom line is, it's just a theory ...

Ron,

Being the only published theory, that is indeed all we really have to go on. Some people may have knowledge that is different, but until it is put out there for discussion and the basis of it checked out, then there is nothing else to discuss. Cato described his methodology and, while not perfect, it is not unlike many other ethnographic studies--collect and catalog examples, interview people from the culture, try to identify key informants, research the historical records, etc.

The fact that Cato was from a completely different culture does not negate his contribution. After all, a great deal of excellent ethnographic research and anthropology was reported by people who were not from the culture under study. I have discussed Cato's work with a number of Filipino collectors who hold it in low regard. I have even been told that a 'cano could never understand the complexities of Moro culture. However, neither those individuals nor others have published an alternative narrative, and Cato's ideas stand unchallenged until they do.

The "just a theory" idea implies that "anything-can-be-anything," which reduces to "we-know-nothing." Theories are a way of proposing testable hypotheses, and Cato provides ideas that are testable if we can find old provenanced pieces that could confirm or refute his proposals.

On the subject of this thread, I'm very comfortable with the idea that more than one type of bird can be represented on Moro hilts. It doesn't have to be only a cockatoo, or a sarimanok, or whatever. What we started out discussing was whether the familiar kakatua hilt, in its various forms, was indeed meant to represent a cockatoo or something else.

I think it can be agreed that the so-called kakatua style, or at least a similar antecedent, has been present for several centuries on hilts from the Malay archipelago, northern Borneo, and the southern Philippines. This is not a peculiarly Moro trait. Cato, based on his Moro informants, argues for the cockatoo. One way to test this idea would be to go to other geographic areas where this form has been seen and ask what it is called there.

Looking at stylistic interpretations of birds carved on hilts is probably not going to take us any further in knowing what bird(s) are represented. We need data from people who know what these are actually meant to be, from all parts of the Malay world in which they are found. Until that is known we really cannot say with any confidence what they are supposed to be. Cato's proposal stands, or is an open question if you prefer, until it is comprehensively disproven.

Ian.

[Spunjer]

Being the only published theory, that is indeed all we really have to go on.

wrong. anything can be researched. specially nowadays

Some people may have knowledge that is different, but until it is put out there for discussion and the basis of it checked out, then there is nothing else to discuss.

in my defense, that's what i thought i was doing when i started this thread...

The fact that Cato was from a completely different culture does not negate his contribution. After all, a great deal of excellent ethnographic research and anthropology was reported by people who were not from the culture under study. I have discussed Cato's work with a number of Filipino collectors who hold it in low regard. I have even been told that a 'cano could never understand the complexities of Moro culture.

i'm not really sure where that came from, but him being an American (or 'cano as you call it) has nothing to do with it. kinda myopic, don't you think? i'm not convinced with some of what he wrote, so i did my own research. it wasn't that hard. incidentally, a lot of what i used during my research were books written by westerners:
Blair/Robertson, Scott, Rixhon, Kiefer, Cowie, etc.
of course, the internet (lots of e-books floating around offered by universities), and correspondence with Moro scholars

Theories are a way of proposing testable hypotheses, and Cato provides ideas that are testable if we can find old provenanced pieces that could confirm or refute his proposals.

i believe that was my intention when i started this thread.

[David]

Sorry Ian, but i'm with Ron on this one. Sure, Cato is pretty much all we have to work with and frankly i don't know what he's gotten right and what he's gotten wrong. All of it, some of it, none of it? I do think to is fair to use Cato as our guide, it being pretty much all we have published to go on, but you act as if being published adds automatic credibility and respectability to his ideas. Correct me if i am wrong, but Moro Sword isn't some academic treatise that has been tested by an academic peer group in some major university. What was Cato's background beyond his own collecting interest (honestly, i'm asking, i don't really know). Obviously this work was approved by his publisher, Graham Brash, but that doesn't mean they fact checked his work carefully, something that would be very difficult to do given the subject and the lack of other written works on the topic. I don't quite see why you place so much importance on the fact that this is the only published work on the subject and so little importance on the testimony of native Filipino collectors who dismiss Cato. How can you dismiss them solely on the fact that they have never published their own thoughts and theories. Really, anyone can publish a book these days. That doesn't make those books all worth reading.
Ron IS putting his theory out there for discussion right here in our forum. I find quite a bit of what he has to say sound. I don't think we should shut down the discussion simply because there re no published works to support his theories.

[Battara]

Although I may not completely agree with Ron's thesis, I will have to say that it is a possibility. I completely agree that the kakatua pommel for junggayan pommels is incorrect and that it is more likely a sarimanok.

I also agree with the Galura idea, especially since it was an old Hindu (12 century) import (Garuda) from India through Indonesia and Indian travelers. In fact, there is even a Moro version of the Indian Ramayana.

On the other hand, Cato probably had different sources for his information that what we have now. I have been informed that Cato might now regret not having the other sources of information and thus recognizes that some modifications to his book are in order. What we have here is not a repudiation of Cato, but modifications to his work, which happens to all scholarly and scientific endeavors with the passing of time.