Visayan Weapons Study

[LabanTayo]

Wilked,
email sent to with some info.....

thanks for the help so far everyone.
every little bit is appreciated.
even a pic of a hilt helps alot.

[ruel]

Before this effort can be considered a true "study," two things must first be done.

1. VALID DEFINITIONS:

You need to define what a "Visayan" weapon is, and to justify how you arrived at your definition. Without basic definitions, this study will not have a clear focus and hence will serve no good purpose.


2. CRITICAL METHODOLOGY:

You also need a way to evaluate the quality and reliability of the information you collect, as well as a way to decide whether your information is a representative sample. Otherwise, you'll simply be mixing good information with bad, and actually harming the effort of producing valuable research (because someone later will have to do that same sorting and sampling).

In other words, you need a valid research methodology based on critical insight.

* * * * * * *

There's really little point in gathering information now, without having done these two things first. I hate to be a bucket of cold water, but it's better to deal with these issues now, at the beginning, rather than let them invalidate the entire project.

[LabanTayo]

ruel,
thanks for the advice and warning.
with us being Filipino, i think we can come up with a clear definition of what a Visayan Weapon is. thats the easy part.
right now we are gathering whatever information we can get. we will then start the research process. it might take a few years and several trips to the PI to do this, but i think we will be able to at least come up with a valid island by island description of their given blades and their history. we dont intend on writing a published book, just something to give to people that will give them a clearer idea of the visayan weapons. we dont know all the answers ourselves, thats why we're doing this. most people that do Filipino Martial Arts dont even know what island their art came from or what weapon their art is based on. at least with what we come up with, they'll have a better idea. we wont have Kombatan guys going out and buying kampilans or matulis bolos to train with. they'll at least know that their art uses a medium to long, tip heavy type blade (tenegre with a clip or drop point from Negros).
tons of other reasons why we are doing this.
wish us luck........

[ruel]

* You of course have my best wishes.

* Maybe I need to elaborate a little on the definitions comment. For example, my late paternal grandmother's family are all ethic Cebuano and hence culturally Visayan. However, for a good long time they have been in Mindanao (Davao City) and hence geographically non-Visayan. One or two hundred years ago they probably used bladed weapons, but I'd wager they were not proper ginungtings or sansibars.

What to call them, then? A Visayan weapons definition based on culture would say include them, but at the risk of logically including what would more properly be Moro or Lumad weapons. A geographic definition would say exclude them, but that would be to deny the fact that they considered themselves Visayan,and unfairly neglect a good number of people. One has the potential to be over-broad, the other over-narrow.

I'm not suggesting that either definition is better, or that some alternative will be, but some kind of definition should be adopted nonetheless, simply to give the study clarity and consistency. As long as whatever definition chosen is clearly explained and justified, it will be useful for methodological purposes.

If I seem hung up on this, it's only because I see it as a problem that pervades our current body of reference materials and causes much unnnecessary confusion, but at the same time could be very easily avoided with a little fore-planning.

[LabanTayo]

ruel,
no misunderstanding at all. i totally see where you are coming from. zel and i discussed this tonite and we know we're in for a difficult task. any help and advice and possibly some good deals on visayan swords from you is appreciated. we definetely could use some directional insight on how to tackle this project.

[Ian]

Zel and Shelley:

I'm not sure I understand Ruel's point.

I think he is asking whether "Visayan" refers to a geographic region (i.e., the Visayas), or whether "Visayan" applies to members of ethnic groups that traditionally populated that geographic region (whether or not they presently live there)?

To avoid confusion, it seems that one has to limit the definition both geographically and ethnically. That is, apply the term to ethnic groups who live primarily within the Visayas. That excludes immigrants to the Visayas whose main ethnic homeland is elsewhere, and native Visayans who live outside the Visayas. You can lump and split such groups a thousand different ways, but if you stick with the ethnic groups that have been in much the same place for a hundred years or more, then you have some stability to your definition.

Clarity and simplicity of this definition will make your research much more straight forward, and ultimately more understandable for you and your audience. It is inevitable that somebody will have a problem with whatever definition you use. I don't think that matters very much, as long as you can communicate exactly how you defined and used the term for your study.

Ian.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Ian

(...)
Clarity and simplicity of this definition will make your research much more straight forward, and ultimately more understandable for you and your audience. It is inevitable that somebody will have a problem with whatever definition you use. I don't think that matters very much, as long as you can communicate exactly how you defined and used the term for your study.

Ian.

And I think that this is exactly Ruel's first point: the need to have a clear definition of the subject of study, before starting it. This allows for a focus, which means one may then have a tool to categorize information as more or less relevant to the research at hand (mind it, this doesn't mean "good" or "bad" information, which would be another categorization that in fact needs of Ruel's second point to be sorted trough, it's "relevance" the key word here). With this, one knows when is dealing with fundamental or superfluous information. The “definition” is just a working tool, albeit an important one. But it's dynamic, it can be changed along the way, to include or exclude additional information, depending on how it develops. But one must know at all times where one is standing and where one is heading to. A good definition of the research's subject allows for that.

A good planning is relatively easy and not only saves a lot of effort later on, but it's one of the critical factors for, at the end, turning up actually good (i.e solid, relevant, contrastable, reliable, perdurable...) results instead of a more or less picturesque collection of facts.

I don't want to come across as negative, far from that, it's just that I've seen this happening again and again, and I would hate to see it happening here, also, specially when it's fairly easy to avoid. I think Ruel's advice is good and pertinent, not only for this one, but for ANY research effort...

My apologies for the rant, I just thought I should chime in...

Marc