panabas

[eli]

Hi i just recently got this moro panabas off ebay. I dont know much about them And the seller didn't know much about this one. He did think the fittings were new but thats about all of his knowledge on it. So i would really like to know any thoughts you guys have on it. New, old, tourest piece what ever its fine with me. Just give any thoughts you have. All will be greatly appreciated.


Heres the link



http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=6526015614

[tom hyle]

Can't say the age, but it seems to me these smaller, simpler, ones with the broader blade (especially in the base) are more the work ones? This is a vague and general impression; nothing solid; someone else can probably say more.

[Ian]

Eli:

I think this one was made quite recently. There still seems to be some forging scale on the blade, usually a sign of little actual use. The simple brass ferrule is not traditional on large heavy panabas (usually iron rings on the heavy duty old ones) and that brass looks new, similar to other work coming out of Mindanao via Davao City. The wooden handle may have been turned on a lathe.

All indications point to fairly recent construction. The crudely forged blade might suggest it was made as a tool. But the dimensions seem too large and the weight too heavy for a convenient, brush cutting tool. I would say this one was made to sell as a recent reproduction of a traditional panabas. There, I managed to not say the "t" word again.

ian.

[Conogre]

Has anyone else, or Federico himself, for that matter, found any further information suggesting or confirming that the panabas itself is actually a weapon DERIVED from a similar appearing tool?
Once the statement was presented, I found myself strongly in agreement with it, based primarilly upon intuition, I admit.
While you're probably correct in the attribution of a piece made in the last 50 years or so, the fact that some fundamentalist Muslims consider attempted conversion a capitol offence along with the occasional "terrorist" act of a head in a bag (surprisingly often belonging to a missionary) would seem to indicate that some might still be being made "just in case".
While rather grisly humor is hard to avoid, I suspect that this might be the actual case, particularly in "plainer" models that wouldn't garnish all that high a return on the open market, similar to American Ahmish items still being made for local use and yet appearing in antique/folk art areas here in the USA.
Mike

[Bill]

not much of an answer for your question, but in Cashey's "the first voyage around the world", Pigafetta's account: in Cebu a cutlass was called a campilan. the warriors on Mactan fought mostly with sharpened bamboo spears & rocks, as Magellan retreated, he was rushed by the few warriors that carried campilans, but Pigafetta's report was that Magellan went down with a blow from a large "terciado", described as a scimtar, only larger. panabas? have seen mentioned that both campilan & panabas were used before the Spanish, as well that metal was so valuable it was seldom used for tools, almost always for weapons.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by Bill

not much of an answer for your question, but in Cashey's "the first voyage around the world", Pigafetta's account: in Cebu a cutlass was called a campilan. the warriors on Mactan fought mostly with sharpened bamboo spears & rocks, as Magellan retreated, he was rushed by the few warriors that carried campilans, but Pigafetta's report was that Magellan went down with a blow from a large "terciado", described as a scimtar, only larger. panabas? have seen mentioned that both campilan & panabas were used before the Spanish, as well that metal was so valuable it was seldom used for tools, almost always for weapons.

Interesting, Ill have to re-look at the translation notes for my version of Pigafetta's account, because in my version it describes the natives as having metal tipped spears with bamboo shafts, and as posessing swords.

Also interesting is the account that metal was so valuable it was seldom used for tools. Where did you find that, as I have not heard it before? William Henry Scott, in his work dealing with 16th century Filipinos, Barangay, describes the locals as having very complex metal working skills, with metal work being abdundant and wide spread. So much so that when the Spanish arrive, they hire a local, Panday Pira, to make their cannon for them.

[Bill]

Pigafetta: "They shot so many arrows at us and hurled so many bamboo spears, some of them tipped with iron, at the Captain-General, besides pointed stakes hardened with fire, stones, and mud, that we could scarcely defend ourselves." (Magellan's 49 against 3 divisions, est. 1,500) From what I have been able to find, early 16thC, blowpipes & wooden arrows seem to the majority of weapons in the PI, I have little doubt that metal working is throughout the PI at this time but nothing to the extent that it is in Brunei and Celebes. As Brunei excercises control over most of the PI, it would make no sence to promote swordmaking. By the latter half of the 16thC this seems to change to a well armed Southern PI, this might be explained by the support of the Sultans of Brunei & Makassar in thier support of the "Moro" against the Spanish. As far as cannon making, Brunei was making them, but if you do a little searching you will find that the cannon making in Luzon is introduced by either the Japanese or two shipwrecked Spanish sailors, take your pick, but I haven't seen anything that claims early 15thC cannon making in the PI.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by Bill

Pigafetta: "They shot so many arrows at us and hurled so many bamboo spears, some of them tipped with iron, at the Captain-General, besides pointed stakes hardened with fire, stones, and mud, that we could scarcely defend ourselves." (Magellan's 49 against 3 divisions, est. 1,500) From what I have been able to find, early 16thC, blowpipes & wooden arrows seem to the majority of weapons in the PI, I have little doubt that metal working is throughout the PI at this time but nothing to the extent that it is in Brunei and Celebes. As Brunei excercises control over most of the PI, it would make no sence to promote swordmaking. By the latter half of the 16thC this seems to change to a well armed Southern PI, this might be explained by the support of the Sultans of Brunei & Makassar in thier support of the "Moro" against the Spanish. As far as cannon making, Brunei was making them, but if you do a little searching you will find that the cannon making in Luzon is introduced by either the Japanese or two shipwrecked Spanish sailors, take your pick, but I haven't seen anything that claims early 15thC cannon making in the PI.

Brunei control of parts of PI was nothing like European colonial control of native islands. Again, the Sultan of Brunei and the Sultan of Tondo (later to become Manila) were blood relatives, not a question of colonial overlordship. I have not read any references (if you have I would be interested in reading them) that would show the Brunei relationship to PI was anywhere similar to European colonialism, in which weapon making and usage was dissuaded. Particularly, during this time, in this area, such a decree would be an open invitation for slavers to rape the area, and as far as I have encountered, such an event did not occur. The book Barangay goes into good detail about the wide spread diffusion of steel weaponry at the time. Including trade networks and relationships.

As for cannon, Panday Pira is found in the fourth chapter of Antonio de Morga's "Sucesos de las Islas Filipinas" (first edition, Mexico 1609). This chapter relates the events during the term of Spanish Governor-General Santiago de Vera and makes reference to a foundry run by Panday Pira:

Click Here
"[de Vera] built the stone fortress of Our Lady of the Way, inside the city of Manila on the land side, and for its defense, he had set up a foundry for the making of artillery under the hands of an old indio called Pandapira, a native of the province of Pampanga. He and his sons served in this line of work until their deaths many years later."

Now there is controversy whether or not this means he was making large cannon, or smaller lantaka (as in Borneo at the time), and that the making of large cannon was later introduced by the Spanish, but if we go back to the primary source of Morga, the direct quote would suggest that there is some form of artillery making, though not necessarily to the extent that say Jose Rizal would claim. Then again there is also suggestion that this skill came from and was run by Portugese. As for Japan the same statement of European revolution of cannon making holds true. Before they encountered Europeans, Japanese cannon were relatively primative metal tubes, modelled after Chinese examples, it was their encounters with the Portugese in the mid 16th century that they start to ramp up artillery production, but the biggest revolution for them comes in modelling Portuegese arquebuses.

[themorningstar]

it wasn't a "campilane" or a panabas... it was a terciada...

[Bill]

ment that last 15thC to be 16thC. Any examples of a terciada? Wasn't trying to compare Brunei dominance to European dominance but the purpose is really the same isn't it. Marrage was used by both for alliances, it all boils down to dominance of trade, not to offend anyone but the "missionary" spread of religion is often used to control a group & used and a excuse to kill them if they don't conform to control. If we look from early 16thC to late 16thC there is conciderable change in the amount of swords in the PI. Logic would seem to say, to fight the Spanish. You have Brunei & Celebes both well armed & both, that by the second half of the 16thC don't want the Spanish in thier backyards. Brunei, early 16thC has a large Bugis population. This time period the keris is throughout Celebes. Every "borneo" keris I have seen is Bugis. Seems that in a 50 year period we go from no mention of the "Moro" kris to Spanish accounts that seem to indicate that all "Moro" warriors welded one. A very quick evolution of a sword, unless of course, it already existed and was supplied.

[themorningstar]

oh.. i was just pointing out that your probably one of the few who noticed that the sword was a terciada, good eyes... guess what?... you probably already have one in your collection...

[Rick]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

oh.. i was just pointing out that your probably one of the few who noticed that the sword was a terciada, good eyes... guess what?... you probably already have one in your collection...

All right , spill it .
Describe for me a terciada , I can't stand the suspense anymore .
I , for one need to be enlightened .

[Ian]

Explain terciada please.

[Conogre]

ditto on my part, please.
Doea anyone have a photograpgh or good written description of the sword called a terciada?
Mike

[Bill]

Pigaffeta's account certainly can be argued from what "version", you read. Originally written in Italian, I believe it was translated to Spanish & French, then Spanish & French to English, then sort of picked & chosen by researchers which suited them. Other writings of Pigaffeta were in time incorperated into his account, as well as statements & letters of the few crewmen that survived. & I think what I just wrote could be debated. I have a feeling the answer to "terciado" is going to be a kris, but Pigafetta describes the sword as a scimtar, only larger. So, is a scimtar a Kampilan (or Panabus) & a Campilan a kris. What would the terminoligy of a 16thC Italian with a Spanish/Portuguese crew be, for cutlass & scimtar?

[Federico]

Originally Posted by Bill

Pigaffeta's account certainly can be argued from what "version", you read. Originally written in Italian, I believe it was translated to Spanish & French, then Spanish & French to English, then sort of picked & chosen by researchers which suited them. Other writings of Pigaffeta were in time incorperated into his account, as well as statements & letters of the few crewmen that survived. & I think what I just wrote could be debated. I have a feeling the answer to "terciado" is going to be a kris, but Pigafetta describes the sword as a scimtar, only larger. So, is a scimtar a Kampilan (or Panabus) & a Campilan a kris. What would the terminoligy of a 16thC Italian with a Spanish/Portuguese crew be, for cutlass & scimtar?

Ok, along with the translation errors, I am finally home and able to check my own copies. In my copy of Pigafetta's account, translated by RA Skelton, his text reads that Magellan was killed (eg. the death blow) by "...large javelin (which is like a partisan, only thicker)..." now this is in direct contradiction to him being killed by a kampilan, or sword in general. So we go to the translation notes and here is what Skelton writes "The author of this French version has misapprehended the Spanish terms for these two weapons, rendered by him as javelot and partisane but preserved in the Italian Ms. as terciado (=cutlass) and simitara (= scimitar). Reports of the manner of Magellan's death by witnesses differ. Nicholas of Naples, a seaman of Victoria, reported 19 years later: "I was by his side and saw him killed by arrors and by a lance thrust which pierced his throat" (Guillemard, p 254)". So terciado is Italian for cutlass and simitara is Italian for scimitar, but then if it is a translation error (depending on the version of the account you read), then it could be a javelin and spear. And then if we go with the other account of the death, then the Javelin/spear is what killed Magellan, and not a sword. Hmm...wish I could read 16th century French and Italian.

Anyways, as for Luzon, looking into my copy of Barangay, on pg. 232-233 Scott notes that "Tagalogs fought with the usual Philippine weapons-the single-edged balaraw dagger, the wavy kris (kalis), spears with both metal and firehardened tips, padded armor and carbao-hide breastplates, and long narrow shields (kalasag), or round bucklers (palisay)." He does go on to note that some with access to trade even had Japanese katana. He goes on to say in 1570, after the Spaniards burned down a Tagalog fort in now modern Manila that it "...contained a gun foundry where the Spaniards found evidence of considerable industry...clay and wax moulds and one 4 meter piece in the process of manufacture..." He goes further to note that Governor De Sande in 1579 collected "18,000 kilos of bronze artillery from towns surrounding Manila, and his employment of Filipinos to cast him a 4,000 kil cannon of which he reported,'There is not in the castle of Milan a piece so well made'".

Ok, now to Brunei. On pg. 74 of his work Muslims in the Philippines Majul notes that Brunei's presence in the Philippines was largely that of Islamic missionaries, and that by 1588 Brunei's presence (in terms of missionaries) had begun to decline in Mindanao in favor of a Moluccan presence. He goes on to say on pg 79, that the ruling family of Manila was in fact Bornean, with the Sultan of Brunei being the grandfather of the ruler of Manila (circa 1521) and that Rajah Suliman married the daughter of the Sultan of Brunei. He goes further to postulate that Manila was Brunei settlement established to conduct trade and Proselytize the local population, which by Legaspi's coming were still only in the beginning stages (starting in 1521).

Anyways, another factor to bare in mind is that the first encounters with PI come circa 1521 with Magellan, but Spain's first real attempts at colonizing doesnt come til 1565 with Legaspi, who goes first to Visaya, and then does not conquer Manila til 1571. So realistically Spanish antagonism in the area does not begin till the later half of the 16th century.