"Is it really a Cockatoo?"

[Ian]

Ron:

Thanks for opening a new thread on this subject. I was thinking of doing the same, but I'm pleased you beat me to it.

The sarimanok story and the evidence you present is definitely thought provoking, and I can see where you are coming from in trying to identify a more Moro origin for this feature.

There seem to be a number of problems with this theory, however.

First, the bird you describe by inverting the hilt is anatomically incorrect with respect to the wing structure. And it is not just on this example, it is on every example I could find in my files and online. The rounded part of a bird's wing (represented by the small circle or spiral) is actually the "wrist" of the forelimb. When a bird's wing is folded up, it is extended backwards from the "shoulder," flexed at the "elbow," and flexed again at the "wrist," with the "fingers" pointing towards the rear of the bird. This can be seen in the X-ray picture attached below where the wing has been partly unfolded. I don't think Moro artists would have perpetuated such an inaccuracy for centuries without someone noticing the mistake and correcting it. I have attached an artist's depiction of the sarimanok and you can see the correct position of the spiral/circle.

Second, the sarimanok story is a legend mainly related to the Maranao people of Mindanao. It seems a stretch to think that this relatively minor group of sultanates in the 17th and 18th centuries would have such a profound effect on the style of weapons throughout Muslims in the Philippines, N. Borneo, Brunei and mainland Malaysia. The usual pattern of influence is from top down, not bottom up.

While it's a great idea and interesting story, I don't think it is the source of the hilt style that Cato called kakatua.

Ian.

[Ian]

While on the subject of kakatua hilts, it occurred to me to think about the word barong (or barung as it is pronounced in the Tausug dialect) and what it might derive from. I have found no discussion of this subject written in English.

Apart from the familiar leaf-shaped chopper favored by the peoples of the Sulu Archipelago, there is also the barong Tagalog (a man's shirt), and barong-barong, a Tagalog word meaning a temporary shelter or hut. The latter is interesting because it may be a transliteration of the Indonesian word burung-burung, which also means a shelter or hut.

So, we have an interesting similarity between the word barong (pronounced barung by the Tausug) and burung in Indonesian. One could posit a slight transformation of the word burung --> barung --> barong. And what does burung mean in Indonesian? It means "bird."

Is it possible that the whole sword is named "bird" because it resembles a bird, with the blade being the main part of the body, the handle being the neck, and the pommel the crest and beak?

In Indonesian the term for cockatoo is barung kakatua. Are we looking at a sword that depicts the cockatoo? Perhaps the pictures below help. Or maybe I'm just full of too much Christmas and New Year good cheer.

Ian.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by Ian

While on the subject of kakatua hilts, it occurred to me to think about the word barong (or barung as it is pronounced in the Tausug dialect) and what it might derive from. I have found no discussion of this subject written in English.

I naively assumed it probably derives from "parang". I haven't seen an etymology, though.

There has been some, but rather brief, discussion of this: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1817

(And while on the topic, "keris" -> "kalis"?)

[A. G. Maisey]

Ian, just a little clarification on language.

In Indonesian "burung-burung" means "birds". Doubling the noun gives a multiple, thus "burung" is "bird".

The word for "hut" in Indonesian is "gubuk". (can also be "pondok").

The word "barung-barung" (not burung-burung) refers specifically to the hut that is raised on stilts in the middle of a rice field to watch the crop; it can also be used to refer to a really, really degraded shelter, what we might call a hovel in English. I think it can also mean a stand, like a roadside stand, but I'm not sure of this, the more usual word for a stand or a stall or a booth would be "warung".

The word "barong" does occur in both Indonesian and Javanese where it has a number of meanings depending upon context.

The word for "cockatoo" in Indonesian is simply "kakatua", but the generic "burung" can be used with the specific noun "kakatua" in speech or in writing.

There is a children's traditional song:-

Burung kakatua hinggap di jendela
Burung kakatua hinggap di jendela
repeat
repeat

Nenek sudah tua, tinggal gigi dua
repeat

Burung kakatua -- etc, etc, etc

it goes on forever, with improvised verses.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ian, just a little clarification on language.

In Indonesian "burung-burung" means "birds". Doubling the noun gives a multiple, thus "burung" is "bird".

The word for "hut" in Indonesian is "gubuk". (can also be "pondok").

The word "barung-barung" (not burung-burung) refers specifically to the hut that is raised on stilts in the middle of a rice field to watch the crop; it can also be used to refer to a really, really degraded shelter, what we might call a hovel in English. I think it can also mean a stand, like a roadside stand, but I'm not sure of this, the more usual word for a stand or a stall or a booth would be "warung".

The word "barong" does occur in both Indonesian and Javanese where it has a number of meanings depending upon context.

The word for "cockatoo" in Indonesian is simply "kakatua", but the generic "burung" can be used with the specific noun "kakatua" in speech or in writing.

There is a children's traditional song:-

Burung kakatua hinggap di jendela
Burung kakatua hinggap di jendela
repeat
repeat

Nenek sudah tua, tinggal gigi dua
repeat

Burung kakatua -- etc, etc, etc

it goes on forever, with improvised verses.

Alan, thank you so much for the clarification. I have little familiarity with Indonesian--perhaps enough for the marketplace. My Filipino is a little better. Relying on dictionaries and online sources is a poor substitute for fluency.

[A. G. Maisey]

The way Indonesian is used varies a bit from place to place, but if we need to use a dictionary to access standard meanings, there is really only one that's any good:- Echols & Shadily, English-Indonesian, Indonesian-English, in the old editions both were in a single volume, in the newer editions there are two separate volumes.

But for keris related things, Javanese is in most cases more relevant.

[Ian]

...you mentioned that the carvings wasn't anatomically correct. you're right; that's if the bird is at rest. but i believe that not unlike the carvings, the sarimanok represented on the pommel is in the same position, as in wing spread apart, like it's soaring. looking at the pictures i've attached, please note that on the triangular part of the pommel, more often than not, it's thinner towards the front than it is in the back. that would make more sense on how it's represented in ukkil.

The carvings are not anatomically correct if the bird is in flight or at rest. I cannot see an anatomical equivalent to the well defined circle or spiral in the position shown, whether the bird is at rest or with the wings extended.

Furthermore, if you look at the soft tissues of the bird in the X-ray I showed, you will see that the shoulders and chest are the broadest part of the body and it tapers towards the tail. The folded wings are thinnest towards the tail end. I'm not sure what to make of your observation, which seems to suggest the opposite.

yes, it is of Maranao origin, but why would that be a stretch? it would be safe to assume that the moro kris as we know it didn't evolve to its present size (or close to it) after tangling with the spaniards in the 17th century. Maranaos are next door neighbors to the Maguindanaos, Sultan Kudarat's realm. meanwhile, Ilanuns where in the service of the Tausugs. not to mention, we're not talking a style of weapon, rather just a part of a particular weapon.
looking at how different Indonesian cultures have somewhat a particular type of pommel on their keris, in a way giving them a cultural identity, why not the Moros?

The appearance of the so-called kakatua style has not been dated reliably to my knowledge, but I believe that it almost certainly predated the 19th century C.E. At this time the Maranao, Maguindanao and Ilanum were mostly poorly organized, in conflict among themselves, and subordinate to the more powerful Brunei and Sulu sultanates. Moreover, the weapon most associated with the so-called kakatua style hilt, the barong/barung, was not part of their culture. The wider use of this hilt style beyond the Moro homelands suggests to me that the source was likely to be more powerful and central to the Islamic peoples of SE Asia than a series of small and inferior sultanates on the periphery of the Asian Islamic world.

Ian.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

The carvings are not anatomically correct if the bird is in flight or at rest. I cannot see an anatomical equivalent to the well defined circle or spiral in the position shown, whether the bird is at rest or with the wings extended.

Furthermore, if you look at the soft tissues of the bird in the X-ray I showed, you will see that the shoulders and chest are the broadest part of the body and it tapers towards the tail. The folded wings are thinnest towards the tail end. I'm not sure what to make of your observation, which seems to suggest the opposite.

Ian, i am not fully committed to any conclusion here, but you do seem to be continuing along this line without acknowledging Ron's point on this, that there is absolutely no reason why this depiction should be "anatomically correct" in the first place and that in fact it would be somewhat counter to Islamic law if it were. As a form of okir/ukkil any actual real-life forms would be highly stylized, wouldn't they? I don't think we can expect realism is such design and i can't see how we can use such false expectation as a debate point. What i believe Ron was attempting to point out about the thickness of the "wing" section being wider towards the tail is that it is a stylized form that implies the wings are outstretched in flight, not resting at the bird's sides, so in that scenario the wings must appear further out from the body of the bird nearer the tail.

[Spunjer]

thanks for everyone's participation so far...
Alan beat me to it. also, isn't it pronounced as "boo-roong" in Indonesian? OTOH, the weapon that we are all so familiar with is pronounced as "brr-oong" in Tausug.
anyway, back to the sarimanok

Originally Posted by Ian

Ron:

First, the bird you describe by inverting the hilt is anatomically incorrect with respect to the wing structure. And it is not just on this example, it is on every example I could find in my files and online. The rounded part of a bird's wing (represented by the small circle or spiral) is actually the "wrist" of the forelimb. When a bird's wing is folded up, it is extended backwards from the "shoulder," flexed at the "elbow," and flexed again at the "wrist," with the "fingers" pointing towards the rear of the bird. This can be seen in the X-ray picture attached below where the wing has been partly unfolded. I don't think Moro artists would have perpetuated such an inaccuracy for centuries without someone noticing the mistake and correcting it. I have attached an artist's depiction of the sarimanok and you can see the correct position of the spiral/circle.

if we go by that, you're right, in that it's not anatomically correct. couple things i need to point out.
first: the pommel, as with anything else, is in okir/ukkil fashion, hence it wasn't meant to look like the actual thing, in reverence to the tenets of Islam.
second: the sarimanok you've pointed out as an example is a modern rendition. when i went to the National Museum in Manila last year, i noticed something curious. the sarimanok carvings (non-contemporary) that were in display are in one particular pose: in that the wings are spread out, like they're gliding. furthermore, looking at old pictures of sarimanok carvings, it was represented in this particular pose. this further strengthened my theory. you mentioned that the carvings wasn't anatomically correct. you're right; that's if the bird is at rest. but i believe that not unlike the carvings, the sarimanok represented on the pommel is in the same position, as in wing spread apart, like it's soaring. looking at the pictures i've attached, please note that on the triangular part of the pommel, more often than not, it's thinner towards the front than it is in the back. that would make more sense on how it's represented in ukkil.

[Spunjer]

here's something else. attached are images of a couple junggayan pommels. notice the open beak that is common on these types.
now the question would be, why would the craftsman go from (blade down) designed pommel, then turn it right side up to make it more spectacular.

[Spunjer]

on your second point, you said:

Originally Posted by Ian

Ron:

Second, the sarimanok story is a legend mainly related to the Maranao people of Mindanao. It seems a stretch to think that this relatively minor group of sultanates in the 17th and 18th centuries would have such a profound effect on the style of weapons throughout Muslims in the Philippines, N. Borneo, Brunei and mainland Malaysia. The usual pattern of influence is from top down, not bottom up.

While it's a great idea and interesting story, I don't think it is the source of the hilt style that Cato called kakatua.

Ian.

yes, it is of Maranao origin, but why would that be a stretch? it would be safe to assume that the moro kris as we know it didn't evolve to its present size (or close to it) after tangling with the spaniards in the 17th century. Maranaos are next door neighbors to the Maguindanaos, Sultan Kudarat's realm. meanwhile, Ilanuns where in the service of the Tausugs. not to mention, we're not talking a style of weapon, rather just a part of a particular weapon.
looking at how different Indonesian cultures have somewhat a particular type of pommel on their keris, in a way giving them a cultural identity, why not the Moros?

[Spunjer]

here's a plus. picked this kris up a couple of years ago. this particular piece explains an old belief that predate Islam. as you may well know, we don't adhere strictly to the mother religion, catholics and muslims, hence ours is referred to as, Folk Catholicism, and to our brothers and sisters in the south Folk Islam. that was covered in the thread by migueldiaz:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=design
i will explain the ukkil and what it represents, so i split it into three parts: A, B, and C
A represents the sarinaga, or naga
B represents the earth realm
C represents the sarimanok

another thing; i've never seen a representation of kakatua in ukkil, or okir, for that matter...