Ok, it seems like I have opened pandora's box, my point has long since been lost.

I'll try to re-iterate. Citation does not mean only books. In history or anthropology circles, oral history, and living informants are highly valued. Oral history definitely is as valid as any written reference. I have never argued against oral history. I have repeated time and time again that I value oral history, and wish I could meet more people who are willing to share their knowledge.

However, if you dont credit a source, then all I am left to understand that is that the information is coming from your opinion. The credit does not have to be overly formal. But simply something as in the Maguindanao story of X, or my lolo told me, or even an elder told me gives us a point of reference. However, saying oh this is that, or other vague statements. Well its contextless.

Finally, while I am just as eager for tidbits of information where I can find it, I cannot simply accept things on faith. Sometimes errors occur. Stone's is such an example. Do we not cross-reference and try to check the validity of a source? Cross-referencing is always good, and part of the reason why I seek to learn still. If I could rest with one reference, then my journey would be over. But I am always, seeking to know why. If a catalog calls an item X, why? If a book says X, why? I dont hope to have all the answers, but would like to know why.

LabanTayo wrote :

"a quote passed on to me by BSMstar, says it all:
"history is written by the winner"

is the winner always right? "

Might makes 'right' . :mad:

In the process the history of the vanquished often gets destroyed . :mad:

So what's the point if 99% of forumites do not cite and base comments on opinion. We're not likely to set rules and guidelines regarding every statement. The "why" depending on the subject can also fall into opinion or educated guess after gathering info. If I'm being singled out for my vagueness, my private messaging is open for further explanations, I don't write in public without being able to back my comments. Consequently, often the open forum deals with gray areas, estimates without actual knowledge, until concrete or reliable evidence can be found, in this context wouldn't we individually be considered for credit as a source, if our train of thought, theories and comments make sense...our words are being recorded in the internet.

Now, first off, I currently have the feeling of a long spike thru my left eye (no blood; migraine) scraping against the inside of the top of my skull, and am on enough drugs to, nothing presumptuous, drop most men, so-as to exist with such pain and so many weapons and not do something with the one to end the other. So I may not be at my most logical and exhaustive; there's too much said by too many, so instead of picking apart and responding I'll try to just make my own li'l statement.
Logic is fine. It's very useful. Academic studies with citations and "proper"* forms are fine, and very useful. BUT, they are not the only fine and useful things. They are ways, paradigms of thinking and doing. They are not the only paradigms, and their common refusal to interact respectfully with other paradigms is frustrating at best, and basically takes this form: "what you have just said is not in a form we (admit it or not "science" is an organized religion; a "we") understand or from a source we respect, and therefore it has (emphasis mine) NO validity," and I believe this is not sensible, not helpful, discouraging and disrespectful to those who think in a different manner than you do, culturally divisive, and detrimental to a search for truth, even the banal ordinary truth of factuality.
I've repeatedly had the conversation with people where they ask me to cite sources, and since I have no such list running through my mind for proving things to people with, I'm often forced to say "I can't" Repeatedly I encounter the reply that then I shouldn't say a thing as I don't stnd ready to prove or defend it. That it's my responsibility to prove it. That's nonsense. It's my responsibility to speak the truth. It may be my responsibility to try to get certain knowledge (lore as well as personal experiece) "out" to such of the people as will listen, but it is your responsibility to determine whether to believe it. The world is full (too too full....) of people believing and engaging in all manner of foolishness. It is not my place to try to stop them; to prove my way to them; matter of fact I've worn myself out trying to get through to humans, to affect their beliefs, and I regret pretty near every moment I ever wasted on that.
For me often, too, it's a matter of not only don't I know where I read or heard this or that, but I found it, and it seems like you could, too, probably with no more effort than it would take me to find it again. I feel like people are giving me homework assignments or something, at such times. I'm affraid, with no disrespect intended, that I by and large have better things to do with my life than prove to humans how smart I think I am. I tell the truth; do with it what you will, I guess.
Now all this may seem well and good, it may seem arrogant and dismissive, it may seem like pointless whining (it seems that's how some people take it; shrug), and either way it may still seem illogical and not sensible to some, but in a way that's the very point, and to those who can't see the value in listening to or at least allowing, a way of thought they don't understand, I give this challenge: I make no claims to special brilliance (just to difference, which isn't so much a claim as an inescapable reality) go back in your memories, or in the archives, and see how often my uncited, folk-lore, old-man-talk, "I don't know...."ends up getting shown right or valid, or at least pointing in a useful direction. Sometimes wrong? Sometimes misinterpretted? Sure. But useless? Meaningless? Far from it! To be excluded? I don't mean to be offensive, but I think that's foolish. The folly of logic. Logic is how your mind works. It is not reality. Don't make a god of your own human mind.

*whenever the word "proper" comes out of you, you should ask yourself real, real hard whether that's not actually an expression of bigotted tribal superiorist assumptions; it almost always is. I entertain comical visions of entering a snooty restaurant with a "proper dress" sign wearing sarong and k(e)ris, or face-paint and phallicrypt........................the clothing of my own Iroquois and Cherokee ancestors is just too similar to European clothing to make a really funny mind-cartoon; I need a more Southern element to really push it over the edge :) then it really makes me laugh

If fighting garabs were used in pairs, wouldn't there be an equal or near to it number of left and right handed ones? May the reference more likely be to a sword-and-dagger style? Now I'll be the one to ask for sources or explanations. What are you talking about garab, pulahan,...? What are these terms? Where are they from? They've been kicking around here a bit, and I was hoping they'd come clearer, but they haven't. Should I go back to calling them talibons until there's something more systematic or agreed upon? Am I missing a source everyone else has access to? I never know; life always seems like that to me, anyway....
There's an elusive quest for the origins of the paired swords fighting concept/style, which marches on....

I stated my reference of the account of two sword style as possibly being from the book by Russel Roth Muddy Glory. If I remember correctly, the reference in the text was vague. If I remember correctly, it is only a brief sentence stating that they were known for attacking from the grass with double swords. This is what I mean by citation. No exact page numbers, no ISBN, just a simple reference to where I got this information.

Anyways, the Pulahan aka. Dios-Dios cult, were a religious cult in the Samar-Leyte area active circa the early 1900s. They were known for their use of bladed weaponry in attacking American troops, and wearing red. There really isnt much good information out there that I know of, or at least no one has deemed me worthy of letting me know if good information exists, aside from Russel Roth's book. There are some passing reference given in official government records, particularly the Philippine Commission reports to the President made at the time. However, they are not very detailed.

As for the term Garab. In a thread on the subject a while back, Mabagani said he talked to a Waray researcher (Waray being one of the groups of people who inhabit Leyte and Samar, my own family background) who stated the term used for the sword was in fact Garab not Talibong. Since then it seems that we have adopted the term. I will admit outside the forum, I do not often use it, as more people are familiar with talibong, but well here so many people use now use the term garab, I use it. Kinda like how everyone here uses kris to describe Moro kris instead of keris.

Ok, Ill talk to you later in PM Mabagani when I have time (as you know I am juggling a number of things right now). We have known eachother for a while now, and it would seems things are getting muddled, which I would not like.

I will make this last attempt at clarifying my position publicly. Realistically, my initial comment was not really meant to be based of any specific statement you had made in knowledge. We have known each other for a while, and you should know that I will be hunting down the information eventually, seeking for myself. It was based on the comment you made that you did not feel revealing sources, in general (at least that is how I read it if you intended something else, then I apologize I read it wrong), was not a good practice. My counter argument was supposed to have been in jist, that I felt it is nice to know where someone is basing their opinion off of. I did not call into question the relevence of the source, I did not state opinion has no place, I did not state there is only one way to look at things. Rather, I stated if we are going to make claims or assertions, it is more helpful if some attempt is made at saying where that claim or assertion comes from. I also said I understood the necessity for not being overly explicit. However, if Morningstar hadnt revealed he is referring to his experience, and what he had been taught by elders, all this time I would have thought he just read books such as myself. Already, some attempt at reference has clarified positions, at least for me. When someone doesnt say where they are forming their opinion, the assumption I am left to make, is that they are either the information from a book, or it is their opinion. Not a bad thing, but when discussing details, eg. this event occured at this date, well sometimes confusion occurs because we are referring to different texts, or different events all together (as your reference to the Illocano legend, when you first mentioned the statement I was thinking you referring to Tagalog references to the old Sultanate in Tondo). Again, it is helpful to see where we eachother are coming from, for the sake of clarity of discourse. Again, I am not arguing that we need overly formal citations, nor that opinion or conjecture is bad, or that only Western sources count. Rather I am asking that if we are making opinion or conjecture, differentiate that from more factual assertions with some kind of reference (realistically I will admit since we have known eachother I am fine with you just stating this comes from legends, this was not meant at a specific statement you had made, but rather the idea the referencing in general was not good). Meaning, if it is not just your opinion, or something you have deduced, some credit from where the knowledge is from is necessary. While I know many on the forum, I do not know you all. I also have no idea what everyone considers research. The experience varies. For some it is growing up in the society, for others it is reading books, for others it is through direct handling of the weapons, and for others it is repeating what has been discussed in threads. Without some explanation about where someone is coming from in discussion, then how can I differentiate between where one is coming from. Now, I did not think this was an un-reasonable request. But as subsequent discussion has proved, I was wrong and I apologize.

Thanks Federico.

Point taken, but the problem arises as I do cross reference info repeatedly in my quest for answers, if I have multiple sources I'm not about to list them all...it would look something like this after a statement, Pulahan/Garab- Prof. Borinaga-Bilaran/Leyte, Morningstar, Hurley, Elarth, Roth, etc...and that does not include the titles of the books or published articles, interviews, life experience, details and dates or if in combination where deduction and source were used to prove my theories correct. Here it becomes a discredit to leave a source out but to start crediting sources for me at least it becomes a labor, in which case I'd ask myself why am I giving all this info out that took me years to find. I'll leave it at that, if I'm not writing a source/s or thinking out loud (which forumites do), take it as opinion, if you're still not satisfied use the private messaging.
btw the avatar is an edited photo from the Met, c/o Battara, Lee... ;)

I had some thoughts that might be illuminating in this matter. I had them the other morning on the way to work, and wrote them down, so you won't be getting fresh or perhaps in-depth versions, but I still feel there's a certain relevance. The subject isn't swords, the subject is logic and argumentation etc. (tune out here.....) Also this isn't about anything hurting my feelings, though I do keenly feel that I "resemble those remarks". It is, like any argument, properly (duly noted), about finding the truth. I think I have found a way to make clearer and more interculturally penetrative (you like that?) the value of unsuported/nonfactual/etc. evidence. We have discussed the concept that fact and opinion are two different things, but that hardly covers the spectrum. Also very much to the point is that fact and truth/reality are two different things, as well. This goes to the bases of science and logic, BTW. A fact is not something that is true. A fact is something that has been PROVEN to be true. A theory is something that has been proven to be largely true, without rising to the level of absolute proof. The term fact only has meaning in the context of some group or institution that will approve or disapprove of the proof (perhaps appropriately and perhaps not, but that's not my point). Truth is simply true, and whatever some might tell you, reality is simply real. So a thing might be completely true without having been proven, or without even being provable or testable (this is a good example of what real science teaches and claims vs. the social-religious institutional beliefs and behaviors of its claimed followers; kinda like "Christians" burning people to death; funny how I don't remember Christ doing anything like that....); lack of proof is not a valid assault on reality, and not a good reason to disrespect or disregard a person.
Say we are hungry in the forest. I come and say I saw an animal go by. You ask me to take you to a track so we can follow it. I look around where it was, but can't find a track. Now, we don't have a track; no hard evidence we can use to kill dinner, but I did see it (or so I say; but would you address one so in the forest?), and I saw which way it went, and we can try to find tracks over that way, and use our imaginations and geographical and biological knowledge to figure out where it went. As we have no other resources, is this information, which is not as good as it might be, useless, or might it help us eat?
Formal "Western" logic in its basic "logic meet" (yes, they're real; they might be called logic bees; I can't remember) form must assume premises that are true; if you argue from false premises with it you get false results. But in the real world it is rarely safe and sure what is true, and we must argue, and indeed act, on questionable premises all the time. I wonder if "higher levels" of formal logic, or non-"Western" thought systems take this into account, and allow for or even enhance thinking of the kind we must do in the world we really inhabit?

Here's the link to the page advertising the tape:

http://www.kriscutlery.com/sandata/Video/index.html

According to that, the style is a Moro Silat-Kuntaw.

-Beautiful Javanese kris made by a master craftsman - Djeno
-Ilmu power of the Sinar Putih - silat group of Java
-Sali, a Tausug,shows moves of Moro style silat-kuntaw using a kris
-Ado, a Tausug, using a barong
-Watch a swordsmith forge a Moro Kris
And many more!

Thanks Manny , I have the tape .

I was fishing for opinions from the fma people here .
Is Silat-Kuntaw a purely Moro form ?
Is what is seen truly Silat-Kuntaw ?

Maybe this subject is a minefield that I should steer clear of . :o

Gee, and here i thought only the keris threads got went like this. ;)
It seems to me that everyone involved in this thread ought to take a deep breathe and reread the posts they have reacted so strongly to. From my reading i can only conclude that there is either great misunderstanding here or some did not really bother to read some posts through, just reacting to a statement or two they only thought they understood.

Tom, sounds like a metaphor to explain faith...like a double ended sword cutting the duality between logic and truth to reveal the unity of reality. Nechesh, passion is a good thing, but mixing it with swords is dangerous...
This thread was supposed to be about barung.
I finally got the barung with the script and symbols, much nicer to handle in person, its long and well balanced, shows good patterning and etch, even delivered with the smell of fragant oils on it. The writing towards the hilt that doesn't show too well in the pics says Allah, its scribed in fine curves opposite the choppy form on the reverse side, the chop type reminds me of the earliest form of Chinese script, seen on bone exhibited at the Asian Art Museum in SF.

Just goes to show you the inter-related nature of the Malay world, Sultanates rubbing off on other Sultanates, collectors rubbing off on other collectors :)

LOGIC + CONJECTURE = POSSIBLE TRUTH SOMETIMES
 

WITH RESEARCH YOU FIND AS MANY FACTS, LEGENDS, STORYS AND DATA AS POSSIBLE IF THE ANSWER IS NOT FOUND DUE TO LACK OF INFORMATION YOU CAN TRY AND USE LOGIC TO FILL IN SOME OF THE BLANKS. SOMETIMES IT WORKS AND SOMETIMES IT DOSENT, OFTEN THE FAILURE IS THAT OUR LOGIC IS NOT THE SAME AS THE SOCIETY WE ARE STUDYING. WE MAKE MISTAKES THAT A TRIBAL WARRIOR WOULD NEVER MAKE AS WE DON'T KNOW HIS TABOOS AND BELIEFS.
UNFORTUNATELY THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW HUMAN SOCIETYS WHO NEVER HAD A NEED FOR PROTECTION. SOCIETYS HAVE ALWAYS TRAINED THEIR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN TO COMPETE TO SEE WHO WAS GOOD AT WHAT, TO BEST SERVE THE TRIBE. EARLY TRAINING IS OFTEN LIKE PLAY (SPORTS) OR CEREMONY SUCH AS DANCES AND CONTESTS. WHEN MATURITY WHICH COMES EARLY IN TRIBAL LIFE OCCURS THERE ARE RITUALS AND SUCH AND THESE ARE USED BY THE ELDERS TO STEER THE YOUNG TO WHERE THEY CAN SERVE THE TRIBE BEST. SOME PEOPLE ARE NATURALY BETTER WARRIORS SO THEY WILL BE SENT WITH THE WARRIORS AND RECIEVE MORE FORMAL TRAINING. THOSE THAT ARE NOT AS GOOD MAY BE BETTER AS HUNTERS, BOAT BUILDERS, HUT BUILDERS, ECT.
FIGHTING FORMS AND STYLES NATURALY EVOLVE FROM PREVIOUS TYPES OF WEAPONS TO NEWER ONES WHICH WILL ALSO EVOLVE DIFFERENT TECKNIQUES. YOU CAN USE A STICK OR A SWORD OR KNIFE IN SIMULAR FASHION BUT EACH WILL HAVE DIFFERENT STRENGTHS AND WILL BE BETTER FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF ATTACK. THE STYLES USED WILL HAVE MUCH THE SAME BASICS BUT MANY MODIFICATIONS AMONG DIFFERENT GROUPS AND AREAS. THESE DIFERENCES ARE OFTEN DUE TO THE SOCIETYS TABOOS (LAWS), SUPERSTITIONS OR WHAT IS CONSIDERED HONORABLE AS THAT OFTEN VARYS WIDELY.
AFTER SEVERAL GENERATIONS OF WARRIORS HAVE USED A WEAPON FOR EXAMPLE BARUNG OR KRIS. THEY WILL HAVE FOUND MANY VARIATIONS THAT WORK BEST TO PASS ON TO STUDENTS OR FAMILY. A STYLE WOULD DEVELOP A VERY LARGE VARIETY OVER THE YEARS, IF THEY FOUGHT SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUPS OVER A WIDE AREA WITH VARIOUS FIGHTING STYLES AND WEAPONS. THE MORO FIT THIS TO A T AS THEY RAIDED OVER A LARGE AREA AND FOUGHT SEVERAL INVADERS FOR A LONG TIME SO SHOULD HAVE A VERY BROAD MARTIAL ART IF IT HAS NOT BEEN LOST.

Hello Kai,

Following your request in this thread for me to post the pics of my Palawan barongs in a new thread, I thought that it would be better if I just revive this one.

So from the shadows, this thread has come back once again ... at this point, play in your mind your favorite suspenseful background music ... ok, sorry for goofing around ;)

Levity aside, the pics of my two Palawan barongs can also be found here and here.

Ian earlier posted pics of a Palawan bolo, in which the scabbard carvings are very similar to my barong scabbard (under the first "here" in the above links) ...

And yes, I agree with you that the elongated barong blade could have also come from non-Moro (upland Palawan) ethnic groups. But as far as my two barongs are concerned, the forumite-seller of these told me that their original owners are Moros ...

:)

Very interesting points brought up here. Things ranging from Palawan barongs to citation, to the continuation of Moro arts... and the phenomenon of modern FMA that has spread world-wide using Moro weapons... I think it deserves a bump?

Many of the folks who posted back when this thread was new-stuff haven't posted in a long time. :shrug:

Some of these folks are no longer on the forum. :(