Barung(s) for you

[tom hyle]

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....

[Federico]

Originally Posted by tom hyle

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.

[Federico]

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.

[tom hyle]

Thanks Federico.

[MABAGANI]

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...