i can only speak in the field that i'm familiar with, therefore when you said:

it made me chuckle. here's an old thread:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1114

with pics to boot, taken in the 60's ;) (attaching one):

http://www.zawaj.com/weddingways/tausag/coin_toss.jpg


yep, i'm with you on that one. there are a whole lot of isas and the musas in the internet forums, therefore to gain knowledge, one must do his own research, like i mentioned earlier. Archives, records of early travelers, old training manuals, archeology - though it makes good references, it still has a lot of descripancies due to translation problem at that point in time. how many terms has been misunderstood due to not knowing the language, or just plain ignorance of the culture? what was interpreted as welcoming salute became interpreted as an agressive gesture?


don't wanna get into details about history but since you brought this one up: this depends on what side you're on. one man's terrorist/insurgent is another man's freedom fighter.
Sakay, Felizardo, Montalan, de Vega, Malvar, etc. were all considered as ruthless terrorists by the americans at the turn of the century. you don't have to go far on this one. one can read this on hurley's novella. but i guarantee you they weren't considered as terrorists on that part of the world.
in regards to the last part: actually, i don't see this as part of the topic...

Unfortunately every single book I have read that was coming up as an ultimate study of weapons, performed by a "culture carrier", about to destroy western myths and misunderstandings of local language and culture, based on author's personal research, in my very personal opinion, was a mere nationalistic BS. Archives, archives, archives, unless the villagers really remember the use of weapons (and if they do they are invaluable), there is very little that can be gained from them.

Rivkin, I think due to the prominence of the rifles in the photo Ron posted you may have overlooked the edged weapons in the background that were clearly still in use in this area in the 1960s. I understand that your area of study is not the Philippines, but since it is the topic we are on at the moment you might want to take note that kris and barong certainly have been uses as active weapons in these regions in the past 50 yrs. Therefore you may discover some actual "carriers of culture" in this region that might give you very valid information.
It should be obvious that history is written by the victors and that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How to rectify contadictions that arise in historical dating due to this will continue to be a question. I would be more concerned about the accurate descrption of the weapons and their history of use than the specifics a when exactly hostilities may have began or ended, but i do understand why these dates are important to some. It seems to me that any fair assessment of history must include the stories on both sides of the battle lines.
I must agree with Spunjer on his take on the study of weapons. We can only learn so much on forums or from books and travelling to the regions our weapons come from should be the goal of any serious collector. Even if one cannot find any true "carriers of culture" to speak with, much can be learned simply by walking amongst the people of the place these weapons come from and immersing ourselves in the whole of their culture. You cannot learn about these things in a vaccum, seperated from the culture of origin.
I feel a loss for anyone who felt the need to walk away from this forum due to their experience with HOS. Regardless of the validity of any claim they might have against HOS, this forum is not HOS. Certainly some here were contributors, but this forum is so much more than that. This forum is made up of the people that participate here, regardless of their connections elsewhere. Everyone here has a free voice, in the context of the rules of civility that exist here. This is place to share knowledge and grow. To leave this forum over this event is as much a loss to self as it is to this forum. Nothing is solved through withdrawal.

Please show me where I stated that the swords were not in use in Philipinnes 50 years ago. As I said, I make general statements.

My opinion is very simple: 20 or so years ago it became fashionable for young "easterners", lead by Dr. Said and others, lacking any knowledge of history, religion, archeology, to declare that the western knowledge is invalid and moreover - no matter how much BS the "easterner" puts into his book, he can not be critisized by a "westerner" since the "easterner" is a "culture carrier" (whatever this means) and he once did speak with a village elder (which they call "research").

Warning
 

Let's please keep the tone civil; okay?

Rivikin, you did not state this. Sorry if you thought i implied so. But after Ron posted the photo to support why speaking with "carriers of culture" is legitimate in the study of Philippines edged weapons you continued to dismiss the practice. I understand that you are speaking generally, but this thread is speaking specifically at the moment about the Philippines, so i see your post as ignoring the evidence that was put before you.
Your opinion was clear and perhaps valid to the area of weapons you are discussing, i am just not convinced that it necessarily applies in our discussion of Filipino weapory.

IN MANY AREAS KNIVES AND MACHETE ARE STILL CARRIED AS TOOLS BY THE LOCALS BUT ARE NOT WEAPONS. EDGED WEAPONS ARE STILL CARRIED TODAY ESPECIALLY BY INSURGENTS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND TERRORISTS. THEY ARE STILL NECESSARY TO CHOP THRU THE JUNGLE, GET FIRE WOOD AND OTHER CHORES AND MAY EVEN BE USED TO EXECUTE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN CAPTURED OR KIDNAPPED. BUT NO ONE GOES INTO BATTLE WITH SWORDS, SHIELDS OR SPEARS ANYMORE THE RIFLE ESPECIALLY AK47 IS NOW THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR AMBUSH OR ATTACKS.

IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD I WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ELDER AT 60 YEARS OLD BUT I WOULD BE A VERY POOR SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE USE OF THE TOMAHAWK AND BOWIE KNIFE. I WAS NOT TRAINED BY MY FAMILY OR TRIBE IN THE USE OF EDGED WEAPONS AS THE CHILDREN WERE IN THE OLD DAYS SO THAT KNOWLEGE HAS BEEN LOST. I HAVE CARRIED POCKET KNIVES, HATCHETS, MACHETE AND HUNTING KNIFES FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE BUT USED THEM AS TOOLS. SO ANY OPINIONS I WOULD HAVE ON ON HOW TO USE THEM IN WARFARE COULD ONLY BE BASED ON WHAT I HAD READ SEEN IN MOVIES OR STORIES I HAD HEARD NOT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. OFTEN THE STORYS THAT SURVIVE FROM THE OLD TIMES ARE EXZAGERATED TO MAKE THE HEROS SEEM GREATER THAN THEY WERE. FROM MY COUNTRY DANIAL BOONE, DAVY CROCKETT AND JIM BOWIE COME TO MIND THERE IS MORE FICTION THAN FACT IN MOST OF THE STORYS TOLD ABOUT THEM BY THE MEDIA AND THAT IS WHAT MOST OF US KNOW ABOUT THEM. SO UNLESS THE TRIBE IS STILL THE SAME AS IT WAS OVER 200 YEARS AGO THE ELDERS WILL HAVE LOST THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEGE AND ONLY HAVE THE STORYS LEFT. SO ASKING A OLD TRIBAL MEMBER ABOUT HEAD HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICED FOR 200 YEARS WILL ONLY GET YOU STORIES AND PERSONEL OPINIONS NOT FACTS. THE FACTS YOU CAN GET IS HOW THE WEAPON/TOOLS ARE USED TODAY AND PERHAPS THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE ANCESTORS FROM THE OLD DAYS. THE STORYS ABOUT THE ANCESTORS MAY BE ACCURATE OR NOT.

WHILE THE OLD WRITEINGS OF EXPLORERS AND ADVENTURERS HAVE MANY MISTAKES THEY ALSO HAVE SOME VAILD INFORMATION. SO WE JUST REHASH THE OLD WRITEINGS, ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDYS AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INFORMATION , AND UNTIL NEW WRITEINGS SHOW UP OR THE INVENTION OF THE TIME MACHINE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE.

INTERVIEWS WITH ELDERS CAN STILL BE VALUABLE FOR INFORMATION ON THE SOCIETY AT PRESENT AND WHAT THE HISTORY AND BELIEFS ARE TODAY. BUILDING UP A COMPARATIVE COLLECTION OF WEAPONS FROM A AREA CAN BE PRODUCTIVE AND THE LARGER THE COLLECTION THE BETTER. YOU USE THE FEW EXAMPLES WITH EXCELLENT PROVENANCE AS THE BASELINE AND COMPARE OTHER EXAMPLES TO THEM SOMETIMES IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THEM AND SEE THE CHANGES IN THE TYPE OR LINK DIFFERENT GROUPS BY SIMULARITYS.

I might be mistaken, but i believe that some Dayak tribes continued the practice of headhunting well into the 1950s.
I might also be mistaken about this, but i wouldn't be surprised if the gentleman with the barong on his belt in Ron's photo was very well schooled in how to use it as a weapon.
Your point is well taken that the information collected by explorers and adventurers of old are not necessarily invalid. Like all information it should be examined and questioned, but certainly not automatically dismissed.

It is well known that Iban took heads when acting for the British in the short war with Indonesia in the early 1960s. Not knowing the exact circumstances of how and when heads were cut off, such facts cannot really be used as concrete evidence of cultural knowledge of sword fighting inter tribal warfare in this modern age. Perhaps in isolated areas it might have been different?

INDEED SOME CULTURES AND AREAS OF THE WORLD ARE CLOSER TO THE OLD TRADITIONS AND TIMES AND MAY STILL HAVE LIVING MEMBERS FROM THOSE TIMES. SOME TRIBES HAVE KEPT THEIR WAYS OF LIFE AND STILL TRAIN THEIR CHILDREN IN THE OLD WAYS OF LIFE AND WARFARE THE MASAI AMONG OTHERS STILL LIVE MUCH AS THEY DID IN THE PAST BUT WARFARE AND CATTLE RAIDS DO NOT PLAY AS BIG A ROLE IN THEIR LIVES AS IN THE PAST. MANY AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES STILL TRAIN THEIR YOUNG IN THE OLD WAYS MOSTLY CEREMONIES AND TRADITIONS BUT NOT IN WARFARE AS THEY ARE NOT MAKEING WAR ON THIER FELLOW MAN THESE DAYS. IT WOULD STILL BE NECESSARY TO TRAIN THE YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE WARRIORS IF THE TRIBE LIVED IN A CONSTANT STATE OF WAR WITH THEIR NEGHBORS. THERE ARE STILL PLACES WHERE THIS OCCURS AND THEY ARE TRAINED WITH FIREARMS, BOMBS, ECT. AND DO STILL CARRY EDGED WEAPONS FOR USE WHEN NEEDED.

AS MUCH AS I LIKE TO STUDY THE HISTORY OF THOSE DAYS I DO NOT WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO RETURN TO THOSE DAYS OF PREYING ON YOUR FELLOW MAN FOR HEADS, FOOD OR SLAVES. BUT EVEN MODERN MAN SEEMS TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR RETURNING TO THOSE KINDS OF PRACTICES OFTEN BASED ON WRONGS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE DISTANT PAST. SO THEY HATE AND FEEL JUSTIFIED IN RETURNING TO THOSE DAYS AND DOING THE SAME TERRIBLE THINGS FOR REVENGE NOW TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE PAST EVENTS. THEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTACKED MUST LEARN TO FIGHT AND HATE AGAIN AND THE CYCLE STARTS OVER AGAIN AND NO ONE MAY LIVE IN SAFETY OR PEACE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK MANKIND WILL OUTGROW THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IN TIME BUT SO FAR I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT HAPPENING IN THE PAST OR TODAY. :o

To the point, we're supposed to remember and study history, so why get the written history wrong and have another generation repeat the same mistakes...we could've been spared the incorrect brief history lesson, had the article focused more on the exhibit's theme the "history of steel". The articles from other authors were able to take aspects of the history of weaponry within each nation and stay within context.
Yet another point implied that anything from a nationalistic view is "bs". So where would that leave most HOS articles? It seemed most were written from a nationalistic perspective. Does the study and research digress to only the outsider/foreigners' observation being correct without native words to describe things? backwards to pigstickers and bushwacking wall hangers...lolz

For some carrying on tradition isn't just collecting ethnographic weaponry, its an unbroken link to their warrior ancestors, for example "huun, jumanji kami ha mabagani..." , no English terms for the translation, its like a salutation, words of wisdom a brother recieves as he goes off to battle with a sword, spoken words passed on from generation to generation. "the agung plays its final note"...a more obvious metaphor, the warrior leaves on a journey knowing he's willing to sacrifice himself for his people. Fitting or 'misfit'ting depending on the point of view of the observer.

Two extremes in a modern age where information is more readily available, one strives for knowledge, even has answers laid before them about an object but never quite understands it, lost and suffering in the quest, the other lives and learns within the realm of the culture's wisdom from which the object originates at peace. Were some things never meant to be written? Both have the ability to find the truth but the one stuck in duality will be left empty, angered and at odds with the world.

Social commentary, whether one chooses to accept it or not. In the case of HOS, I gave some facts to incorrect information to educate not degrade. Sure it could be left the way it is and suffer the embarassment for shoddy work. I tried to help and can do no more, point people in the right direction, at least.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE HERE AND ARE ON THE SAME PAGE EVEN THOUGH IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO EXPRESS ONES OPINIONS IN A WAY WE ALL UNDERSTAND. I AGREE WITH MABAGANI THAT IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PROJECT WAS RUSHED AND THAT THE MISTAKES SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN SOME WAY IF POSSIBLE. I THINK THE IDEA OF AN EXHIBIT WAS A GOOD ONE AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT HAD TO BE RUSHED AND THAT MORE KNOWLEGABLE PEOPLE WERE NOT ABLE TO CHECK ON THE INFORMATION AND MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE THE EXHIBIT WAS DONE.

I THINK THE IDEA FOR THE EXHIBIT TO COINCIDE WITH THE ASIAN GAMES PROBABLY DIDN'T COME ALONG UNTILL THERE WAS LITTLE TIME TO PLAN AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SO IT WAS EITHER DO IT OR FORGET THE IDEA AND SAY IF ONLY WE HAD MORE TIME, MONEY,HELP AND A BIGGER EXHIBIT AREA WE COULD DO IT AND THROW UP YOUR HANDS AND DO NOTHING.
THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO HURRY ON AND DO THE BEST THEY COULD WITH WHAT THEY HAD. I AM SURE THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD ALL THE TIME, HELP,MONEY AND SPACE THEY NEEDED AND TO HAVE HAD EVERYTHING PERFECT AND ACCURATE . BUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS AND ARE WORKING FAST CORNERS HAVE TO BE CUT AS UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS ALWAYS CROP UP SO MORE MISTAKES WILL BE MADE AND THERE WILL NOT BE TIME TO FIND AND CORRECT THEM BEFORE THE DEADLINE. I HOPE THEY WILL HAVE TIME NOW TO CORRECT SOME OF THE MISTAKES AND PERHAPS IF THE CATALOGS ARE ALREADY PRINTED A LOOSE PAGE COULD BE INSERTED WITH THE CORECTIONS LISTED WITH THE PAGE NUMBERS OF THE MISTAKES. THAT WOULD BE THE EASYIEST AND LEAST EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO IT.

I AM GLAD THE EXHIBIT WENT THRU ANYWAY AS OVER THE YEARS I HAVE HEARD MANY GOOD IDEAS AND SEEN THEM BEAT DOWN BY REASON (NOT ENOUGH TIME,MONEY,SPACE, INTREST IN THE SUBJECT, NO MONEY TO BE MADE FOR US). AS A RESULT VERY FEW GOOD IDEAS ARE EVER COMPLETED UNLESS SOME GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL IGNORES THE NAY SAYERS AND PUSHES ON WITH THE IDEA UNTIL HE IS EITHER STOPPED OR THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.

HEAD HUNTING HAS OCCURED IN MALAYSIA VERY RECENTLY DUE TO THE IMIGRATION PRESSURE PUT ON THE DAYAKS. YOU COULD ALSO SAY THEY ARE CURRENTLY HEAD HUNTING IN THE MIDDLE EAST ESPECIALLY IRAQ. I COULD TAKE A HEAD MYSELF IF I WANTED TO BUT I NO LONGER HAVE THE BELIEFS, TRADITIONS OR REASONS IN MY CULTURE THAT WERE THERE IN THE DISTANT PAST. IT MAY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY ANCIENT ANCESTORS SOCIETY BUT AS I KNOW LITTLE ABOUT ANCIENT PICTS AND DON'T FOLLOW THEIR BELIEFS FOR ME TO TAKE A HEAD WOULD ONLY BE AN ACT OF MURDER, OR SELF DEFENSE. SO I THINK IF THE TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN AND ARE NOT A PART OF THE TRIBAL LIFE OF A PERSON TODAY HE CAN NOT BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE PAST.
ANYONE CAN TAKE A HEAD AND MAY HAVE HAD ANCESTORS WHO WERE HEADHUNTERS BUT UNLESS THEIR ANCIENT BELIEFS AND TRADITIONS ARE KNOWN, LIVED AND INTACT IT IS NOT THE SAME AS IN THE OLD DAYS. OLD WARRIORS FROM THOSE TRADITIONAL SOCIETYS OR A TRIBAL STORYTELLER (WHO WERE THE HISTORIANS OF THE TRIBE) MIGHT STILL HAVE SOME GOOD INFORMATION ON OLD TRADITIONS OR BELIEFS. BUT THE GUY WHO JUST TOOK A HEAD BECAUSE THE NEGHBORS ATE HIS DOG WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE TRIBAL INFORMATION. :D

Okay, I agree that we disagree about some things. lolz
Btw the warrior mythology has its place and can be applied in modern life, they are lessons not always to be taken literally, at least in a civilized society(?). We can't afford to leave people behind any longer, uneducated in the age of information if our common goal is peace. Difficult enough as it is to reconcile eachs own history, so why screw with another nations' past? We really need a new archetype for the one human race. Read works by Joseph Cambell. Save some trees, send laptops with free internet access not bombs...

I have stayed out of this discussion until now, mostly because I have very little knowledge of Philippine history, culture, society or weaponry.

I have no base of knowledge, so what can I contribute?

However, as this discussion has developed it has moved from the core issues of disagreement in respect of some perceptions of history, and other suggested inaccuracies, to the broader questions of how people at this point in time should view, or are able to view , events and opinions that existed in a time past.

It has often been said that "winners write the history books".
If this is so, and I personally believe that it is, we can expect to see varying opinions in respect of any historical event. To identify the real, accurate truth of any matter could in some cases be impossible at any later date. In the writing of any new work the important thing should be that the matters presented as fact be adequately referenced. Commentary on an exhibition of edged weaponry is hardly in the same category as a text book produced for use by Phd candidates. I would suggest that if the percieved inaccuracies in the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition are able to referenced to any accepted authority, then that should be adequate for the purpose for which this exhibition commentary was produced.

Barry has very accurately identified the changing nature of the cultural stream.
That which held true for one's grandfather does not necessarily hold true for oneself.

The passing of time changes cultural perceptions, and societal values, and even deeply rooted values can and do undergo change over a period of time.

Just as values change, so do beliefs.

Verbal histories may hold the essence of truth, but it is certain that that essence of truth will be buried and distorted by the need for the human respository of that verbal tradition to reinforce the values and self image of the society of which he is a part.This is not to say that a verbal tradition has no value, it does have a high value. But that value reflects the way in which a culture and society sees itself, rather than the truth of the events recounted in the verbal history or tradition.

A parrallel can be drawn with the babads of the Javanese courts, which do contain the essence of truth, but are presented in a way and a form calculated to reflect truths to cast a positive light on the ruler.

Perhaps we could look at the events which have taken place in our world over the last few years.
How many of us believe that the "facts" that have been presented to us in respect of a number of major events are accurate representations of what really took place?

I feel that in assessing the excellence or otherwise of the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition we should adopt a flexible attitude rather than an intransigent one. I suggest that it may be wise to view this commentary in the context of its presentation, and to realise that any perception of historical events can vary, dependent upon a multitude of factors.

As a person with no stake in the debate surrounding this exhibition, who has only a passing interest in what was presented in the exhibition, and after following the contributions to this debate in this and other forums, I feel compelled to comment that I have been left with an overall feeling of negativity in respect of the viciously critical comments that have been levelled at both the exhibition and those people who devoted their time and their property to trying to ensure its success.

In my opinion this hypercritical attitude does not reflect honour upon those who engage in it, nor does it it reflect honour upon the society and culture represented in the exhibition. If we can assume that the overall objective of the exhibition, and those who supported it , was to promote an element of Philippine culture, then we can only deduce that the viciousness of the attacks upon the exhibition and the work of those who supported it has been calculated to detract from those efforts to present a cultural element in a favourable light.

We do not sell an idea by violent and vicious disagreement with those who promote that idea in a way that varies slightly from what we ouselves believe, rather, we take what those others present and we build on it.

Taking of heads.

During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land.

Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders.

It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course.

During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it.

During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

We covered this already, there are references to exact dates but for some reason the accepted facts (on both sides) were not proofread and written incorrectly and artifacts were mislabeled within the exhibit. In an attempt to point out inaccuracies the promoter who espouses superior values went on a personal attack rather than taking them into consideration. Most members probably missed that part in the editing. Even contributors would like to fix the errors. Sincerity is in question because nothing has been done to at least correct the online presentation. I'll take personal blame for bringing this whole thread debacle to attention but why should anyone stand by when there are clearly errors and when members of this forum were mistreated in the process of the exhibit.

It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage.
Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan.
Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely):
Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27.
E. Jaiwant Paul's version:
"As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100
I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one.
Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history".
Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire.
The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians.
The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history.
And the list may continue on and on....
History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned.
As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts.

Mabagani, I have the utmost respect for your opinion in this matter, and if in your opinion the matters that I have addressed had been previously dealt with and resolved, I respect that opinion.

However, in my opinion these matters had not been satisfactorily addressed; had I considered that all elements involved in this discussion had been adequately addressed and dealt with, I would not have spent time in writing my post.

In essence, my post is a plea for adopting a realistic view of the world, history, and the exhibition which is the subject of this debate.

An objective assessment of the criticism levelled at this exhibition and those who contributed to it will reveal that to date this critical commentary has been something other than realistic.

In respect of the mislabelling of artifacts, would it possible to provide comparative data setting out the inaccuracies in labelling, and what that labelling should correctly be? Or does this already exist somewhere else, and I am not aware of it?

A. G. Maisey, I have forwarded the blatant mistakes which contributors would like corrected, they can easily be researched and crossed referenced. As mentioned, all authors and contributors agreed about errors. As for the fallout due to the exhibit, damage was done and I doubt resolution.
PM me

Hi Braulio,
We have had a cordial relationship throughout your tenure as Member here.
I sincerely hope that it continues .

I think that it is time that we talk of the Elephant that is standing in the room and a few other things.

You are aware that a member crucial to this project went missing for almost a month during the closing weeks just before the deadline approached; yes?

I personally called this member by telephone and left a message requesting that he respond, even call me collect as did others involved in the project.

There was no answer via phone or email to me and none that I am aware of to any of us who were involved in this project.

This member's assignment was to write the accompanying text for the exhibit; he did not refuse the task. The deadline came and went with no word from our contributor despite repeated attempts at contact.

The rest of the team was forced to pick up the ball and finish that which AFAIK was left undone; at this point we had about a week IIRC to get the project to completion.

Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included.

To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend.

I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not.

Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so. :(

Rick

Thank you Mabagani for your undertaking to forward material to me that will give me more insight to this matter.

I look forward to recieving it.

Rick, I had my reasons for not trying the second attempt, the original team was prepared and ready, everything was lined up descriptions, text, article, etc. way before the deadline. I was expecting my child as I mentioned and I didn't want to go through a whole revamp and wait again not knowing if the museum was serious, again. They did cancel the first attempt, why not the second? The personal attack on the team coordinator swayed the decision not to participate in the process. In essence from there, I was left out of the loop from the beginning. I still don't know why they did not leave the Philippines out when other nations did not go through with their projects, and knowing the Philippines was already at a disadvantage of starting over with no article. Also sounded like the team had to expand the original contributions to fill space?

No one contacted me when the team got in trouble, I could have easily proofread the text and ironed out the mistakes without drastic changes to the work. I thought with the silence everything was under control. I asked everyone what went wrong after I finally read text and got bashed by the assembler for commenting about the online article. Hearing all the complaints and abuses from the contributors were not right either.

Unfortunate turn of events, but in hindsight I'm not sure if the mishap was foreseeable. Had I known what was going on I may or may not have been able to warn or help the team.
I regret bearing witness to the fallout and complaints that went on behind the scenes. And I again would have preferred this thread locked, we could have tried to fix the mistakes without airing comments on and way off topic.

Braulio, i think it is time for you to put your cards on the table. I have tried hard to understand all sides of this issue, but inspite of our PMs you haven't made this any easier or clearer for me. I do understand and respect your desire not to mention names and air dirty laundry, but it is time for innuendos to end and facts to be made straight. I and others have asked you time and again to get specific with a complete list of the mistakes apparent in the exhibition. The best you have been able to tell me is that you sent a list to Ian. Now you have apparently sent a list to Alan. I can see no reason why these corrections need to be some big secret that is passed around behind closed doors. If you are truly concerned about this supposedly false information being accepted or passed on as facts then come foward and put your money where you mouth is. If you are worried that these mistakes somehow slight the Filipino perspective then speak up. If you feel that somehow your people have not gotten a fair hearing, that the history presented is somehow skewed and distorted, then by all means, set us straight. Hopeful you will agree that this would be right ON topic, so why not share this information with the whole community?

check your pm

Braulio, you should really be able to say it here in the public forum.

I THINK WE HAVE DONE AS MUCH WITH THIS TOPIC AS CAN BE DONE AND ITS TIME TO LOCK IT DOWN AS IT WOULD SEEM THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE MAY HAVE MADE ANY CONTRIBUTION TO KNOWLEGE WAS WHEN WE WENT OFF TOPIC. UNFORTUNATELY GREVIENCES ARE VERY SELDOM ENDED BY DISCUSSION AND THE EXHIBIT IS OVER AND CAN NOT BE CHANGED. THE INFORMATION HAS BEEN SENT AND MISTAKES WILL EITHER BE CORRECETED OR NOT AND THANKS OR APOLOGYS WILL EITHER BE SENT OR NOT "END OF STORY"
TIME TO MOVE ON AND HOPE THE CATALOG WILL BE COMPLETED AND AVAILABLE IN FUTURE. IF ALL THE MISTAKES ARE LISTED HERE IN THIS POST WE CAN MAKE THE CORRECTIONS TO OUR PERSONEL COPYS WHEN THEY ARRIVE. PEACE DUDES!

Thank you Mabagani for your attempt to forward your promised data to me.

I apologise for failing to ensure that my inbox was able to accomodate your message.

My inbox is now empty.

Alan, in the PM Mabagani sent me he asked me to retract the statement in my post were i stated that he had sent you infomation (please consider it retracted), saying that you had misread his intended remarks, and i in turn, yours. Apparently he has sent you nothing. I also read his post to mean that he was senting you info, so i am no so sure if it was a mis-readinding as much as a mis-stating. Regardless, i thought you would want to know. Why he informed me of this misunderstanding and not you as well i am not sure. :)

Hopefully we have reached a point in the discussion of whatever inaccuracies there are in the Philippines section article and descriptions in which everyone has been heard, expressed their opinions, and to some extent agreed to disagree. I, too, see no reason why they couldn't have been posted here, but obviously that isn't going to happen.

Yet, it seems that the controversy surrounding the organization of this exhibition will not go away, despite repeated attempts to explain and correct the misconceptions of people not directly involved in the process. I am glad that Rick has taken the time to directly address and rebut what are being said about alleged mismanagement of the exhibition, but I want to make a couple additions to Rick's comments.

First, let me make it absolutely clear that there was NO cancelled "first attempt," nor was the Museum's seriousness about the project ever legitimately in question. The Museum was forced by the Macao government to delay the opening of the exhibition by six months. The Museum's desire was to have the exhibition open in October 2005, coinciding with the Asian Games in Macao. The Macao city government, over a year into the project, decided they didn't like this idea and made the Museum postpone the exhibition by six months (not cancel). This was communicated immediately to all the contributors, with a full explanation, more than six months before the original opening date, well before even the first pre-exhibition deadline came up. I personally travelled to Macao in March 2005 to meet with the Museum Director and staff and received the explanation first-hand. I wrote up a report of my trip, which was proved to all the contributors. It is here, by the way. So there was no "second" attempt at the exhibition, because the preparations for the exhibition were never stopped, or cancelled. There WAS a change in the leadership of the Philippines Section, however, which evidently engendered an enormous amount of resentment and bitterness in some quarters, resulting in the withdrawal of most of the original contribitors and a huge set-back for the Section. It is hardly appropriate, in my opinion, to now sit and sling mud at the people who remained with the project throughout, and at those who stepped up after the set-back and re-built the Section. Correcting errors of fact is fine, but condemning the entire process and everyone involved is not.

A second point is about the chronology of the exhibition, specifically about the contributor who went completely silent in the last weeks before the final deadlines, and was “stuck” with shipping expenses after not having his pieces exhibited. This seems to be the basis for one of the central criticisms of how the Museum handled the organization of the exhibition.

First, it is critical to understand what the process was at the final stages of the exhibition preparation. The catalogue would consist of photographs of every piece in the exhibition, with an accompanying caption, plus an introductory article for each section. Every piece had to be unpacked, catalogued, and photographed by the Museum, then each display had to be arranged and the pieces mounted. None of this can be done without the pieces in hand. Every piece of text had to be translated into two other languages (Chinese and Portuguese), both for the exhibition display, and for the catalogue. All needed to be done by the opening date of the exhibition (May 12, 2006).

Prior to shipping, the Museum had to arrange for insurance for the pieces during shipping, and while in the possession of the Museum. Thus, photographs, descriptions, and insurance values had to be provided to the Museum well in advance of the shipping date. Also, shipping arrangements had to be negotiated with a carrier (a special billing account was set up with Federal Express), requiring at least some idea of the final number of pieces that would be shipped and displayed.

This all required a strict schedule, and specific deadlines for each stage in the process. The schedule and deadlines were communicated to all the participants early on in the process, and again when the “new” organization of the section began in November of 2005.

As critical deadlines approached, one contributor did not respond to several attempts by a number of persons to contact him. The deadline for the descriptions of each piece (December 31, 2005) went by, with no word. The deadline for the draft article (February 15, 2006) passed, still no word. The shipping date (March 28, 2005) came and went, and still no word. While there was a list of pieces he was contributing, no descriptions of the pieces had been provided (I don’t think insurance information had been provided either, but I could be wrong on that). No one was sure that the pieces would get shipped (for all we knew he was in the hospital, or had a family emergency, or his collection had been stolen – any number of possiblities).

As the days passed after the shipping deadline, other contributors stepped in and offered additional pieces in order to fill in the gaps left in the collection. Others also stepped in to try and complete a partial draft of the article that was on hand.

He was left messages & e-mails expressly saying not to ship his items to Macao, as they had been replaced and would not be used in the exhibition.

He finally surfaced April 10, almost two weeks after the March 28 shipping deadline, informing us that he had shipped his pieces four days earlier (which was still over a week after the shipping deadline). He paid for his own shipping rather than use the billing account set up with FedEx by the Museum (it had lapsed by that point anyway, as its purpose had been fulfilled). Furthermore, the replacement pieces had already arrived in Macao and were being processed for the exhibition (including the translations of the descriptions). He had shipped his pieces over a week past the deadline, against instructions, and at his own expense rather than using the billing account the Museum had set up with FedEx.

I do not mean to chastise or discredit him by saying any of this (I want to keep his name out of it in fact). He DID have an explanation for his silence, with which no one argued once he offered it. Part of the problem right around the date he shipped, for example, was that he was having internet connectivity problems, so he couldn’t e-mail his waybills to Macao and let anyone know via e-mail that he had shipped until a few days after the fact. However, the practical reality was that repeated attempts to contact him by e-mail, phone and PM, for several weeks, went unanswered, and the preparations had to move ahead without him. It was unfortunate, but it was just too late for him to participate as a contributor to the collection.

He was informed, once it was known that he had shipped anyway, that his pieces couldn’t be used, and that the Museum couldn't pay for their shipping (because for one thing the Museum told him not to ship them, and for another shipping expenses had been arranged under a special billing account with FedEx, so there wasn’t any mechanism or budget in place to refund individual shipping charges).

So, yes, his pieces were not exhibited, and he was stuck with the shipping bill. This was unfortunate, but it was a result his own failure to communicate, and his own failure to follow the Museum's instructions, not the fault of the Museum. He was still acknowledged as a contributor to the exhibition, however, as he did make valuable contributions to the project.

As Rick said, it might have been better if those who withdrew from the exhibition for various reasons had stayed engaged. Their knowledge and experience, if not pieces from their collections, would have been invaluable. However, they chose not to. If the exhibition suffered as a result, it is hardly fair to blame those who stuck with it, even more so those who stepped up and filled in the holes that were left in the Section by those departures.

There has, frankly, been a lot of BS and distortion circulating about how the Philippines Section was organized in its final form. I hope to put that question finally to rest.

The entire process of the final organization of the Philippines section was conducted in a private, password protected forum generously provided by Lee on Vikingsword. If you want to get the inside story as it unfolded, the link is http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=10 and the password is pira06.

I think even a cursory reading will show that there was a tremendous amount of energy, time and commitment put in by everyone involved. All of the original contributors were asked to continue their participation (except for the original Section coordinator what was removed by the Museum), but unfortunately only a handful were ever heard from. It will also be seen that the entire process of selection and description was open to the whole group (final selections were whittled down by a committee of three contributors). All descriptions were posted for review by the entire group.

I went through and bumped all the threads, so that you can see them without having to search for old threads, then locked them to preserve them as they were first made. The only edits I made to any posts were to remove e-mail addresses, and links to one web page that itself contains a link to a second page where $$ insurance values are listed. I pasted in the text of the first web page, minus the link to the second, in the introductory sticky thread at the top of the forum.

Reading it all over again, I was reminded of what an exciting and rewarding process it all was. I am very proud to have been a part of the effort, as I am very proud to have worked with all the dedicated people involved. Whatever after-the-fact detractors might say about it, it was all worth it, and everyone gave all of themselves in making it happen.

Thanks for your advice David.

Mabagani attempted to send me something, but my inbox was full, so I did not recieve anything.

I would be the first to acknowledge that misunderstandings of the written word can easily occur, however, in this case, I am at a loss to identify exactly what it is that I may have misunderstood.

Still, it matters little, I have commenced my own review of the material published in HOS. I know almost nothing of the history and culture involved, or of Philippine weaponry for that matter, and I consider this to be a good opportunity to improve my knowledge in this area.

Before I leave...
Here are the last messages from my pm box about the project.
You may as well resurrect the public bashings towards the original coordinator and the recent one towards me.
I could not follow the assembler after knowing the mistreatment.
And he proved again that I made the right decision when he bashed me.
HOS is not EEWRS, the team tried their best given the circumstances.
As I mentioned, I have made great friends through the forum.
Regards

6th November 2005, 08:14 PM
I'm thinking that I could contribute a few pieces, and
perhaps Rick is thinking of doing the same. The issue
is really who will pull it together. I believe this
needs to be done through a Filipino coordinator. Any
suggestions?

Ian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MABAGANI
btw will anyone from eewrs be willing to help antonio
out with the Philippine section.
i've let them know i couldn't commit the time and
travel because i have a baby daughter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
M:

I've been following the conflict between Antonio
Cejunior and Ruel. Seems Ruel is now out of teh
picture in coordinating the Philippine component of
the Mcau exhibition.

Were you involved with that project? If so, do you
still plan to contribute?

Antonio has asked several of us to help him out. Not
sure what to do.

Ian.

8th November 2005, 07:29 PM
Rick
Crazy turn of events...
There is a yahoo group that was set up that holds
messages and images of what everyone was going to
send.
I let Antonio know that I was cutting back or pulling
out after finding out the exhibit was posponed again.
I have a few local projects I have more control of and
I can't commit too much time because I have a baby to
watch over.
I don't feel comfortable about sending anything of
personal value after the whole unprofessional episode
that transpired between Ruel and Antonio.
I caught Antonio's eewrs post before it was removed.
Anyways, the project is mid next year, keep me posted.
Regards
Mabagani

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Hi Mabagani , Mark and I are going to coordinate the
Philippine section for the project through the Forum .
I hope we can count on you for some participation .
It's a shame that the project blew up but that is in
the past and now it's time to try to get to the finish
line .

Jose , Federico , Vandoo , myself and a growing list
of the member collectors of these weapons are showing
interest in contributing .

Antonio has asked me to contact you about details .
Can you spare the armor for the exhibit ?
I'm sending at least 1 Moro spear and whatever else is
asked of me .
Maybe we can dig up a helmet somewhere too .

Feel free to contact myself or Mark with any questions
you may have .

Thanks very much .

Rick

^^^ interesting...

The version of the process presented is different from my actual experience.
The Asian game schedule came and went with no communications from the museum to me about what was going on.
I was out of the picture in Nov 2005.

At what point did the museum decide to change the exhibit from a world exhibit to an exhibit about Eastern Asia and remove other sections?
Who made the final decision to leave the Philippines section in, knowing the team had a couple of months to deadlines and was starting from scratch?
It was unreasonable to expect one person or even the whole team to do a decent article in a month and half following the final selection.
It was not worth the risk of the teams reputation and personal belongings of the contributors in the rush to completion.
Damage was done and who should be held accountable?
Who was responsible for putting the Philippines section in the precarious situation?

From Men of Goodwill - Just for the Record
 

So true Mark !!!
It is time to unveil some other things that show how serious we at the Museum are when doing something.
The interesting fact is that no other section created any problems at all, and everything went smoothly after intensive negotiations.

Here is a link to the History of Steel Introductory websiteas well as the post aborted version of the submissions which caused some to not participate after the first coordinator was kicked out by me due to his entire unreliability. I have the email that dismissed him, no matter how the truth is laundered, and distorted.

In retrospect, the people who didn't join did it, in my opinion, because of certain influences out of spitefulness and because of ignorance of how a Museum works. This is of paramount importance for shallow judgement, but it is now water under the bridge. But I will not lower myself to the level of said person, nor do I have to prove anything.

Other Museums such as in my visit to Koreawith the involvement of the Korean Government, participated and were previously informed by their Consul General who paid a preliminary visit to the Museum at our request, as can be seen early in the link.

It is of the foremost importance that each person knows exactly their own limitations.
Our Museum has a tremendous track record on Past Exhibitions and Present
Exhibitions that speak for themselves. I myself have done over 300 exhibitions since 1978 and while I declare myself not a specialist on Philippines, Continental East Asia, Korean, Japanese or Chinese swords, I believe I have the authority based on a unblemished record of 28 years organizing exhibitions.
As proven here, Governments of Korea and China through reputable Museums, plus collectors of goodwill of Japanese, Philippines and Continental Asia trusted the Museum.

It seems that some people don't know their own limitations.
But the fact is, whether or not they participated, the exhibition is done and the catalogue will soon be ready. Those who point out "mistakes" point out their own dismissal or self dismissal with whatever excuses they could come up with. To blame the Museum, who just made a coordinating effort, knowing exactly its role, is a low act of decency and quite revealing of the moral stature of those who criticize.

However, there is a very positive thing. Despite all efforts to discredit the exhibition (does anyone recall the fable of the fox and the sour grapes ?) the exhibition took place, thanks to the constructive attitude that will go down in book.

And with this final statement, I remove myself from the debate over this issue, now that most of the truth has emerged.

Thank you once more to all that made it possible, and I wish to also thank the detractors for showing their real selves.

Why the fabrication in the "aborted" link?
We all know there were more contributors than three?
You should have been banned the first time you went on a personal attack and your comments should have stayed on the EEWRS so everyone could see what kind of person they were following and dealing with.
Everyone would have made the right decision to end the Philippines involvement.

Enough, already.