two types of Piras?

KuKulzA28 · 17th August 2009, 04:59 AM

I've been wondering about this... perhaps this has been discussed before or it's common knowledge and I'm just not educated in it. If that's the case just let me know what's what and we can be done with this thread.

Here are pictures of Piras I've found:

(they're not mine, just ones I found while surfing the web)

Do they they look similar? Yes.
But do they look like the same blade? No.

Two types of Pira?

Now I can understand that locally many varying lengths and sizes of the same blade type can be found, but Piras, Yakan's favored blade I'm told, consistently come in TWO forms... the one with the hump (which I've handled and used before) and the klewang-like one. One has a lobe at the tip's end, not unlike the Chinese Ox-tail saber or the Turkish Kilij in practice. However the other (usually larger and more sword-like) Pira has a look very similar to klewang from Sumba, Timor, etc. See below:

Now, I've heard different stories. Some folks say the Pira was down-sized and the arm guard removed to make it better for solely utility purposes. But the lobe/hump? Why two distinctly different forms of the same weapon? Some Garab/talibon were better choppers, and others had a long point for thrusting, but all can be identified by the same type of handles and blade shapes. The two different Piras look to have two different roles... sword and short-sword/machete.

So Why two?

I can see two possibilities for why the hump-back Pira was developed. Please help me out if I am incorrect here...
[1] If the hump-back Pira only began to appeared when klewang-Piras were in decline, we can see it as when the Moros were being disarmed or giving up the sword for the assault rifle. Thus what was previous a sword that was also good for hacking through vegetation became a "machete"-type blade, for bushwhacking and butchery, maybe even a side-arm for the insurgent.
[2] Perhaps they were two closely linked blades but there were and has always been two distinct types of Yakan blades - hump-back Pira for work, klewang-Pira for war. That is a possibility.

In either case, the Moros were good with blades, and they understood them well, and I am sure a specialization occurred, whether or not the two Pira types co-existed. Looking at the Mexican machete known as the Machete Costeño, one can see a possible convergent evolution of arms. Let's take a brief look at the Machete for a moment:
"[...] Angel refers to this as a "Machete Costeño". It is far from a machete, however. The Saniards discovered that the jungle was much thicker at the Oaxacan coast and the plants had much larger diameter stalks than in the interior. Their machetes with thin blades were not efficient at cutting through this growth. The Saniards modified the mariner's (or pirate's) cutlass. They shortened it and the extra weight improved matters. The modified cutlass still did not have enough cutting power so the Spanish sword makers shortened it still further and added the peculiar humback to the blade's back for about half its length. This gave the blade the right length, weight and balance to allow the Spanish to successfully hack their way to the sea from the central Oaxacan valleys. [...]" ~ Pale Horse Galleries

So... what? Am I spot on? Totally off?
Why then, are they both called Piras?
Does that suggest the hump-back evolved from the klewang?
Does that just mean a categorization error by revered academics?

Any and all suggestions, explanations, and criticisms welcome.

Rick · 17th August 2009, 03:03 PM

Ah, what's in a name ??

I'm not seeing a great similarity in the tips you have illustrated .

I'd be willing to bet that the Pira you have shown in the lower right of your four examples is probably the oldest form .

The example you show above it seems to be mid 20thC; it certainly has a pira hilt but the blade seems a bit generic .

Two styles sharing the same name but very different forms ?

Battara · 17th August 2009, 04:35 PM

I agree with Rick, the upper left is the newest form that came from the oldest form, the lower right.

KuKulzA28 · 17th August 2009, 08:24 PM

Ok, so the shorter hump-back Pira comes after the sword-like Pira?

Why the new form? is it because of reasons I guessed at earlier (shift in weaponry, disarming, utility vs. war), or ones I had not considered?

Thanks by the way

Lee · 17th August 2009, 09:08 PM

This pira was purchased in the market in Zamboanga City in the mid 1970s. I recall that the stall had a number of what I remember as huge kris-like blades with silver wire inlay (tourist versus real I cannot say now), but this was the one thing that caught my novice eye (I recall the brass in the stall was pretty touristy). The scabbard has been wrapped with black plastic electrical tape - so much like what I would have done in that time - but in this case it came to me like that, loosely over-wrapped with the strip of cloth. It did not strike me as being really old, maybe about a decade (though it now looks much the same after I have had it nearly 35 years!), but it did have some evidence of use and work staining and light bleaching of the handle and scabbard. It was and remains incredibly sharp. I have always regarded it first as a tool, but clearly it could very effectively serve as a weapon. So, I'll speculate that this is a utilitarian tool. To me, it is a distinct type, as opposed to being evolved from the somewhat more flamboyant weapon.

t_c · 17th August 2009, 09:11 PM

I believe that you are correct and that the "humpback" version is the modern predecessor of the more elegant old style.

There was some discussion on these in the old forum:

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000136.html

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001032.html

http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000758.html

As far as the why's?.....

Lee · 17th August 2009, 09:24 PM

Oh dear, following the links, I guess I have trotted this one out a few times before. Sorry about that.

But this does bring up an issue of lost pictures in threads. Please, whenever possible, use the facility to upload pictures to the vikingsword.com server rather than hosting them on a third party photo sharing site. That way they should at least survive as long as the text does.

We have seen several photo hosting services close or merge with links broken and sometimes even the images lost. Personally, when my cable company changed the naming for the small web space they provide to me as part of the package this broke many image links I had posted to other various forums I was a member of.

Rick · 17th August 2009, 10:21 PM

Possibly we are looking at the de-evolution of a pure weapon to an agricultural tool .

Notice the less pronounced belly in the blade of the newer examples; better for brush than very curved for human targets .I think that if you take the upper side of the point of the oldest example and carry that line closer to the hilt you wind up with the agricultural form .

migueldiaz · 18th August 2009, 01:52 AM

Interesting thread! I still find the early 1900s pira the most graceful of all (from Krieger) -- I wish I had one

migueldiaz · 18th August 2009, 02:23 AM

Here's the oldest pira I have, which is my pride and joy

Rick · 18th August 2009, 02:38 AM

I must thank my Wife and Charles for my example .
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...s1/182-rb6.jpg

Lucky guy am I .

17th August 2009, 04:59 AM	#1
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	two types of Piras? I've been wondering about this... perhaps this has been discussed before or it's common knowledge and I'm just not educated in it. If that's the case just let me know what's what and we can be done with this thread. Here are pictures of Piras I've found: (they're not mine, just ones I found while surfing the web) Do they they look similar? Yes. But do they look like the same blade? No. Two types of Pira? Now I can understand that locally many varying lengths and sizes of the same blade type can be found, but Piras, Yakan's favored blade I'm told, consistently come in TWO forms... the one with the hump (which I've handled and used before) and the klewang-like one. One has a lobe at the tip's end, not unlike the Chinese Ox-tail saber or the Turkish Kilij in practice. However the other (usually larger and more sword-like) Pira has a look very similar to klewang from Sumba, Timor, etc. See below: Now, I've heard different stories. Some folks say the Pira was down-sized and the arm guard removed to make it better for solely utility purposes. But the lobe/hump? Why two distinctly different forms of the same weapon? Some Garab/talibon were better choppers, and others had a long point for thrusting, but all can be identified by the same type of handles and blade shapes. The two different Piras look to have two different roles... sword and short-sword/machete. So Why two? I can see two possibilities for why the hump-back Pira was developed. Please help me out if I am incorrect here... [1] If the hump-back Pira only began to appeared when klewang-Piras were in decline, we can see it as when the Moros were being disarmed or giving up the sword for the assault rifle. Thus what was previous a sword that was also good for hacking through vegetation became a "machete"-type blade, for bushwhacking and butchery, maybe even a side-arm for the insurgent. [2] Perhaps they were two closely linked blades but there were and has always been two distinct types of Yakan blades - hump-back Pira for work, klewang-Pira for war. That is a possibility. In either case, the Moros were good with blades, and they understood them well, and I am sure a specialization occurred, whether or not the two Pira types co-existed. Looking at the Mexican machete known as the Machete Costeño, one can see a possible convergent evolution of arms. Let's take a brief look at the Machete for a moment: "[...] Angel refers to this as a "Machete Costeño". It is far from a machete, however. The Saniards discovered that the jungle was much thicker at the Oaxacan coast and the plants had much larger diameter stalks than in the interior. Their machetes with thin blades were not efficient at cutting through this growth. The Saniards modified the mariner's (or pirate's) cutlass. They shortened it and the extra weight improved matters. The modified cutlass still did not have enough cutting power so the Spanish sword makers shortened it still further and added the peculiar humback to the blade's back for about half its length. This gave the blade the right length, weight and balance to allow the Spanish to successfully hack their way to the sea from the central Oaxacan valleys. [...]" ~ Pale Horse Galleries So... what? Am I spot on? Totally off? Why then, are they both called Piras? Does that suggest the hump-back evolved from the klewang? Does that just mean a categorization error by revered academics? Any and all suggestions, explanations, and criticisms welcome. Last edited by KuKulzA28; 17th August 2009 at 05:13 AM.

17th August 2009, 04:35 PM	#3
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,217	I agree with Rick, the upper left is the newest form that came from the oldest form, the lower right. Attached Images

17th August 2009, 09:08 PM	#5
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 913	No answers, just another data point and some speculation This pira was purchased in the market in Zamboanga City in the mid 1970s. I recall that the stall had a number of what I remember as huge kris-like blades with silver wire inlay (tourist versus real I cannot say now), but this was the one thing that caught my novice eye (I recall the brass in the stall was pretty touristy). The scabbard has been wrapped with black plastic electrical tape - so much like what I would have done in that time - but in this case it came to me like that, loosely over-wrapped with the strip of cloth. It did not strike me as being really old, maybe about a decade (though it now looks much the same after I have had it nearly 35 years!), but it did have some evidence of use and work staining and light bleaching of the handle and scabbard. It was and remains incredibly sharp. I have always regarded it first as a tool, but clearly it could very effectively serve as a weapon. So, I'll speculate that this is a utilitarian tool. To me, it is a distinct type, as opposed to being evolved from the somewhat more flamboyant weapon. Attached Images

17th August 2009, 09:24 PM	#7
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 913	A plea to preserve the archives Oh dear, following the links, I guess I have trotted this one out a few times before. Sorry about that. But this does bring up an issue of lost pictures in threads. Please, whenever possible, use the facility to upload pictures to the vikingsword.com server rather than hosting them on a third party photo sharing site. That way they should at least survive as long as the text does. We have seen several photo hosting services close or merge with links broken and sometimes even the images lost. Personally, when my cable company changed the naming for the small web space they provide to me as part of the package this broke many image links I had posted to other various forums I was a member of.

17th August 2009, 10:21 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Possibly we are looking at the de-evolution of a pure weapon to an agricultural tool . Notice the less pronounced belly in the blade of the newer examples; better for brush than very curved for human targets .I think that if you take the upper side of the point of the oldest example and carry that line closer to the hilt you wind up with the agricultural form . Last edited by Rick; 17th August 2009 at 10:36 PM.

17th August 2009, 03:03 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Ah, what's in a name ?? I'm not seeing a great similarity in the tips you have illustrated . I'd be willing to bet that the Pira you have shown in the lower right of your four examples is probably the oldest form . The example you show above it seems to be mid 20thC; it certainly has a pira hilt but the blade seems a bit generic . Two styles sharing the same name but very different forms ?

17th August 2009, 08:24 PM	#4
KuKulzA28 Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: between work and sleep Posts: 731	Ok, so the shorter hump-back Pira comes after the sword-like Pira? Why the new form? is it because of reasons I guessed at earlier (shift in weaponry, disarming, utility vs. war), or ones I had not considered? Thanks by the way

17th August 2009, 09:11 PM	#6
t_c Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: ca, usa Posts: 92	I believe that you are correct and that the "humpback" version is the modern predecessor of the more elegant old style. There was some discussion on these in the old forum: http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000136.html http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001032.html http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000758.html As far as the why's?.....

18th August 2009, 01:52 AM	#9
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Interesting thread! I still find the early 1900s pira the most graceful of all (from Krieger) -- I wish I had one Attached Images Last edited by migueldiaz; 18th August 2009 at 02:15 AM.

18th August 2009, 02:23 AM	#10
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Here's the oldest pira I have, which is my pride and joy Attached Images

18th August 2009, 02:38 AM	#11
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	I must thank my Wife and Charles for my example . http://www.arscives.com/historysteel...s1/182-rb6.jpg Lucky guy am I .