"Is it really a Cockatoo?"

[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.

[Ian]

David:

Thank you. Ron, is indeed absolutely correct in his comment about ukil and okir work and the necessary abstractness of Islamic art in representing living objects. And Ron, I am sorry to have not acknowledged that earlier.

My comments about accuracy in depiction come from 50+ years as an avid birdwatcher, and there were several things about Ron's description of this bird that were not necessarily abstractions but just seemed wrong. It was as though the body and wings were represented backwards. Then it occurred to me that perhaps he has the head and tail at the wrong ends. So I took Ron's pics and reworked then as below. Flipping the hilt upright, and changing the head and tail orientation yields a "stylized bird" that I could recognize as a fancy chicken (manok), with the body proportions approximately correct.

I have a great respect for the quality of carving found on many Maranao pieces, especially the high end work such as appears on Ron's junggayang hilt. Therefore, I was surprised by the apparent inaccuracies, even allowing for the abstraction that was necessarily introduced.

Ron's original interpretation may well be correct. The answer probably lies with those who create these works, although the original intent may be lost in time.

Ian.

[VANDOO]

IN EARLY TIMES PRE- ISLAM THERE WERE MANY ANIMIST BELIEFS AMONG MANY TRIBES WIDE SPREAD THRU-OUT THE REGION. MANY OF THE DESIGNS MAY HAVE STILL HELD POWER IN THE BELIEFS OF THE PEOPLE EVEN AFTER THEY HAD TO CHANGE THEIR OLD WAYS AND BELIEFS DUE TO THE NEW BELIEFS AND LAWS BROUGHT BY NEW RULERS AND RELIGIONS. OFTEN THESE OLD BELIEFS FIND A WAY TO LINGER ON AND ADAPT. HEADHUNTING ENDED BUT OFTEN CEREMONIES AND STORIES STILL PERSISTED AND OTHER HEADS SUBSTITUTED FOR THE REAL THING MONKEYS, WOODEN LIKENESS, ECT.
I KNOW OF NO STORIES OF THE COCKATOO BEING SACRED, GOOD LUCK OR POWERFUL IN ANY OF THE OLD TRIBAL BELIEFS IN MALAYSIA, BORNEO OR THE PHILIPPINES. THE HORNBILL BIRDS HAD POWER IN ALL OF THESE PLACES AND FIGURED IN LEGENDS, FOLKLORE, CEREMONIES, HEADHUNTING AND COSTUMES EVEN UP TO THE PRESENT. SO I WOULD THINK THE HORNBILL WOULD BE A MORE LIKELY CANDIDATE IF THE DESIGN REPRESENTS A BIRD AT ALL. THE FEATHERS AND SKULLS OF VARIOUS HORNBILL ARE IMPORTANT PARTS OF DAYAK WAR CLOAKS AND HATS AND CARVED EARRINGS. THE FEATHERS AND SKULLS ARE USED IN MALAYSIA AS WELL AS THE PHILIPPINES TOO. HERE ARE 4 PICTURES OF DAYAK CARVINGS REPRESENTING THE HORNBILL. AND 4 PICTURES FROM THE PHILIPPINES ILONGOT WEARING A PANGLAO HEADRESS. 2 PICTURES OF HEADRESS AND A PIRA SWORD I ALWAYS THOUGHT LOOKED LIKE A HORNBILL IN FLIGHT.