Katipunan sword?

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by bathala

I olso respectfully disagree. I know you will not share your sources and it is understandable. But on the opposite sideI have samples and have seen katipunan themed swords (like the fist and sun themed) have both s and d guards. I comes really who can afford or what style they want. I think to say that katipunan did not employ d guards is assuming they did not have money and of pure peasant stock which I beg to differ. They had different statuses in life (eg aguinaldo and bonifacio)Bonifacio. Attached pics are of common folks and one of the basi revolt. As you can see they seem to carry dguard matulis and bolos. As for me it would be more practical for me to have some kind of hand protection I one can afford for his weapon.

1. The "pics" that you referenced are artist renditions of those eras, and are not actual pictures. Artist renditions aren't dependable or accurate especially when it comes to weapons. In fact when compared to available documentation, most renditions are wanting, or are way off-tangent in their depiction of blades and other cultural items.

2. If you'll check actual period pictures- studio ones, especially- you'll notice that the only ones with legit "Katipunan" blades- notably daggers with the sun etc symbol- are ranked officers, notably those who came from principalia class. Now take into account that many of the First Republic officers are defectors who used to be allied with the Spanish side. Even in First Republic era pics, what's being carried by foot soldiers aren't S- or D-guards, but rather guard-less or simple-guard fighting bolos.

3. In contrast, there are actual period photos of S- or D-guard bolos among the Spanish forces- particularly among their civilian-military faction, of whose ranked officers are from the Spanish-Filipino (mestizo, etc) families. Based on evidence alone, it's logical to assume that it's the Spanish side that wore these S- and D-guard bolos as standard-issue.

4. I don't think having hand protection is necessary in a battlefield situation, from the Filipinos' point of view. They were being worsted by the gun- and artillery- equipped Spaniards, then later on, the Americans. Hence it's impractical to issue D- and S-guard bolos to their foot soldiers.

5. I don't know how many times various historians mentioned how underequipped the 1896 Katipunan rebels were with regard to equipment. In fact foot soldiers had to resort to sharpened wooden spears. There was even a direct order by either Bonifacio or Aguinaldo for foot soldiers to use sharpened stakes instead if they didn't have bolos. This is a clear indicator that the Katipunan was not as rich as you perceive it to be.

[Ian]

algrennathan and bathala,

Your points are well taken, and I think xasterix has answered to the best of his ability. I have had the pleasure of corresponding with xas for the last couple of years, and come to know a little of his sources and data collection methods. The opinions he has stated here come from Filipino experts as well as local archives that are inaccessible to those of us outside the Philippines. Some of that material has been presented on these forum pages. On the other hand, many of the local informants insist upon anonymity, and some information cannot be shared (according to traditional customs). Such are the problems of ethnographic research, where "hard data" is often very difficult to find.

With regard to the original post of this thread, it is apparent to the seasoned collector of Filipino arms that the sword is not a traditional Filipino pattern. The long tapering blade, perhaps resembling a Spanish rapier, was probably made in Manila or a surrounding province by a local blade smith. The D-guard hilt with down-turned quillion is also very much a Spanish style, while the hilt has a little flair to the grip with some inset pieces of what appears to be capiz shell or MOP, suggesting its owner was willing to pay a little more for a stylish sword.

This sword would be quite at home being used for a duel in Madrid. It is a single-edged thrusting sword. Such is not the type of sword used by most Filipinos of that era who favored shorter swords with heavier blades. So xasterix's designation of this sword as likely belonging to a Spaniard or perhaps a mestizzo is quite logical. His suggestion is entirely in keeping with the respective cultures of that period. Is that conclusive proof? Certainly not, but it is the considered opinion of a local person who has done a lot of research on Filipino weapons and used many of the tools employed in academic ethnographic research (consideration of archival literature, use of local informants, personal research of local sites, etc.).

Lastly, one should consider also other Spanish colonies and how Spanish style swords developed in Mexico. The group of swords referred to as espada ancha were again locally made swords based on Spanish patterns and used primarily by local Spaniards and mestizzos.

[bathala]

Originally Posted by xasterix

1. The "pics" that you referenced are artist renditions of those eras, and are not actual pictures. Artist renditions aren't dependable or accurate especially when it comes to weapons. In fact when compared to available documentation, most renditions are wanting, or are way off-tangent in their depiction of blades and other cultural items.- I don't think that esteban villanueva did not know.what sword or weapons look like. The weapons in the basi revolt looks accurate to me to the point that the ilocano clip points are on point.

2. If you'll check actual period pictures- studio ones, especially- you'll notice that the only ones with legit "Katipunan" blades- notably daggers with the sun etc symbol- are ranked officers, notably those who came from principalia class. Now take into account that many of the First Republic officers are defectors who used to be allied with the Spanish side. Even in First Republic era pics, what's being carried by foot soldiers aren't S- or D-guards, but rather guard-less or simple-guard fighting bolos. -Period photo especially colonial is one sided. Ofcourse the insurgents did not have their photos taken. The sun and star symbols are of the later Republic not the revolt. You will have to look for other symbolism like the double snakes , the fist, the hanged man, the all seeing eye etc

3. In contrast, there are actual period photos of S- or D-guard bolos among the Spanish forces- particularly among their civilian-military faction, of whose ranked officers are from the Spanish-Filipino (mestizo, etc) families. Based on evidence alone, it's logical to assume that it's the Spanish side that wore these S- and D-guard bolos as standard-issue. - some period photo of colonial soldier have bolos without guards so not really standardized thoroughly.

4. I don't think having hand protection is necessary in a battlefield situation, from the Filipinos' point of view. They were being worsted by the gun- and artillery- equipped Spaniards, then later on, the Americans. Hence it's impractical to issue D- and S-guard bolos to their foot soldiers. Not foot soldiers ofcourse but how about upper command?

5. I don't know how many times various historians mentioned how underequipped the 1896 Katipunan rebels were with regard to equipment. In fact foot soldiers had to resort to sharpened wooden spears. There was even a direct order by either Bonifacio or Aguinaldo for foot soldiers to use sharpened stakes instead if they didn't have bolos. This is a clear indicator that the Katipunan was not as rich as you perceive it to be.

- yes not all katipunan members are rich but to suggest all members would be dirt poor would be untrue. I come from one. As a secret society it is really up to you to fund you own weapons and it would be biased to say that my andcestors sword, (s guard)with a spanish mans head with rope tied around the neck is a spanish hand me down. Xas I respect your research, this is just my take as I have documented history and heirlooms from my family. Never in anyway were we alligned with the colonial gov.(because of land grievance) .

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by bathala

- yes not all katipunan members are rich but to suggest all members would be dirt poor would be untrue. I come from one. As a secret society it is really up to you to fund you own weapons and it would be biased to say that my andcestors sword, (s guard)with a spanish mans head with rope tied around the neck is a spanish hand me down. Xas I respect your research, this is just my take as I have documented history and heirlooms from my family. Never in anyway were we alligned with the colonial gov.(because of land grievance) .

Thanks for sharing your lineage, now I understand the motivation for your assertion. Agreed that not all members of the Katipunan were dirt-poor- especially the ones that came from the "premiere" Tagalog provinces during the 1890s (Cavite, Batangas, etc). Your case would be similar to what I categorized in my previous post as #2- sword of a principalia, or upper class that joined or supported the Katipunan. You're fortunate to have such a heirloom and family history!

[Ian]

For those unfamiliar with Spanish colonial social systems, here is what I have gleaned from my travels to the Philippines and readings of the country's history under Spanish rule. Please correct any errors.

The caste system in the Philippines under Spanish rule

From highest to lowest social standing:

1. Peninsulares. Those born in Spain (the Iberian Peninsula) but subsequently lived in the Philippines were top of the system
2. Insulares (Criollos). Those born in the Philippines to Spanish parents were below the Peninsulares but ahead of everyone else (see also Creoles in American cultures)
3. Mestizos. Those born to a Spanish and an Indigenous parent (Spanish mestizos). There were also Chinese mestizos.
   
4. Indios. Those born to Indigenous parents in the Philippines

Only Peninsulares could hold the highest positions in the Philippines. They commanded most of the wealth of the country, in combination with the Insulares, and occupied key positions in the military, national and local government, banking, commerce, religious organizations (down to local priests), trading, education, health care, etc.

Mestizos, having one Spanish parent, were next on the social scale. They were entrusted with lower positions of authority, such as minor Government officials, junior officers and NCOs in the military, adminstrators and clerks in industry, lawyers, teachers, accountants, farming overseers, etc. In this regard, they competed with the less powerful or wealthy Insulares for such positions.

Indios were the native indigenous groups, who comprised the substantial majority of the population and had little authority or control over their lives. Not all were poor (although many were). Some were landholders and quite wealthy. Some managed to get an education but most did not. Relatively few achieved positions of influence or authority.

Principalia (pl. Principales) were Indios who came from the old elite ruling class and nobility that pre-dated Spanish colonization, and they filled positions as mayors of towns and local chiefs of the barrios (barangay).

[chmorshuutz]

Originally Posted by Ian

Principalia (pl. Principales) comprised the elite ruling class and nobility who made up the mayors of towns and local chiefs of the barrios (barangay)—these were drawn from the peninsular and insular classes. They also occupied most of the professional positions and controlled professional organizations.

Principalia are originally from indios, they belong to families that descended from precolonial nobility of the barangays like Gatdula, Soliman, Dula, Laya, Tupas, Gatmaitan, etc. some of them intermixed with the Chinese and Spanish down the line though.

I had an ancestor from 1840s in Ilocos that was a gobernadorcillo, but I don't know anything about my ancestry beyond 1790s so I cannot ascertain my family's status whether they descended from some precolonial ruling class or not, probably the latter. The most well documented principalia clans were ethnic Kapampangan and Tagalogs.

[Ian]

chmorshuutz,

Thank you for that correction! Much appreciated. I had read that the Spanish control of administrative positions extended to towns and barrios. It's good to know that it did not reach that far into indigenous society. I have amended my statement above.