Barung(s) for you

[MABAGANI]

If you ever notice I rarely write my sources online, unfair? but always good to do your own research and cross reference, otherwise we end up not thinking for ourselves. On a hunch and through study again IMHO, the barung deals with the rise and fall of the Maguindanaos and the rise of Tausug as power shifts and transitions. I'll reserve my thoughts about footage from the Sulu Seas video. "Suicidal frenzy" doesn't cut it, you have to be taught how to use the weaponry or you'll end up hurting yourself. I'd comment that you can't separate the culture from the weapon, sure you can use basic principles but then its still incomplete, at least spiritually and physically especially when dealing with Moro swords. btw Battara, the avatar is a signal for the sword to come home some day...

[Federico]

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

[themorningstar]

Originally Posted by Federico

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required. 2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended. cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required.

Well if you feel that there is no need for my "research" feel free to ignore my posts. However, not growing up in Sulu, with a barung, then should I consign myself to never understanding the history or the weaponry of the region? As such, it would seem that most of us on this forum should thus give up our discussions, since the vast majority of us are not and will never be from the places from which the weaponry we collect are from. However, if we want to play "academics", then we must conform to some form of standardization. Now, if we dont want to play "academic" that is something else, and fine then there is no need for citation. However, the very fact that you can claim that your knowledge comes from first hand experience, to me would count as citation of some sorts. It is knowledge that is coming from a source (eg. your personal experience), and has some quantification. However, I would prefer to avoid mystery in our discussioins. I try to be forthcoming about who I am, and what constitutes what little knowledge I have to form my opinion. I understand some knowledge must be kept secret, for cultural reasons. But if we are going to attempt a discourse, if we limit our discussion by secrecy we hit a dead end of communication real fast.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended.

This was in fact the original point behind my post, that what to some observers may not qualify as "training", due to a lack of perceived formality such as gi's, it is still valid training. I am not, and I stress once again, I am not arguing that one needs formality to constitute valid training.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. .

Again, there is a caveat in this statement, eg. it is natural amongst those who are raised in said environment implying a some form of training no matter how altruistic. However, stick a barung in the hands of someone growing up in the US who has never handled a blade other than a steak knife, they will not be able to instinctually cut with it. Which was my point. The ability to cut is not universal instinct innate amongst all people. Training, even if something as innate as cultural immersion is still necessary. I have hung out with enough people, who have never handled a blade longer than 3", to know that even though my own small background growing up with bolo may not seem all that much, it is far more than what they had and makes the difference between being able to clear the backyard of weeds with a bolo, and swinging and swinging without ever cutting anything.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

Ok, I am a little lost by the quote on logic. I am also unsure if when stating in our opinion, you are in fact multiple people posting under one handle, or a single individual representing a group of people (your profile is rather blank). However, I meant to simply suggest, on a pure statistical level, without training the chance of people picking up an un-known weapon and suddenly becoming succesful at its use against trained opponents is very low. I am sure there are people who are natural warriors, but to assume that an entire population can without training be filled with natural warriors is to me logically un-sound (now again mind you I am still unclear what you meant in your discussion of logic as logic). Now, again I did not mean to imply there is some fixed amount of time of training that creates some super warrior, but rather skill varies for individuals. And while there are some who can pick up skill sets quickly, many cannot. Hence the debatability of the validity that any set amount of training, is more dependent on the individual, rather than X amount of years. Hence, what may seem like a short period of training to some, may in fact be all that was needed by a certain individual. Whereas others to achieve the same results may take years to attain.

[themorningstar]

i apologize, because i am not able to ignore your posts when i know certain information written by you is either wrong or inaccurateand i feel compelled to enlighten. yes, i would feel it a great gesture if you did take the time out to thoroughly study and research the history and cultural context of the weaponry of the region and accurately disseminate its beautiful existence.but for you to include other forum members in your statement is rather uncalled for, for none have tried to play the role of expert. i do agree w/ you however that if we were to "play" academics, that we would need some form of standardization as well as citation. but since most of the academic knowledge i have acquired came from the lips of old men and not papers, what good would it do to cite those sources? i have preserved their knowledge for many years, shouldn't that be all the verification needed? it's possible, but i have also done my research outside and all it has done is authenticated that knowledge. it may serve to your benefit, a display of my information, but by not doing your own research you would rob those who did search, sacrifice, preserve and utilize that knowledge of their hard work and honor. that is very admirable of you to be forthcoming of who you are and your information, the fact that my profile is blank is mostly due to laziness and other things,but i am not a difficult person to find out about or find for that matter. i am thankful that you realize some information must be kept secretive, but to say our discourse has hit a dead end due to "secrecy" is rather odd because i thought it was due to a lack of citable sources. the statement on logic was my pointing out of the oxymoron that had occurred in your sentence regarding pure logic and how it suggests, suggestion borders on assumption. logic is logic for a reason, its relative to fact. and yes i will clarify for you that i am one individual behind the keyboard speaking on behalf of those that are no longer here.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

i apologize, because i am not able to ignore your posts when i know certain information written by you is either wrong or inaccurateand i feel compelled to enlighten. yes, i would feel it a great gesture if you did take the time out to thoroughly study and research the history and cultural context of the weaponry of the region and accurately disseminate its beautiful existence.but for you to include other forum members in your statement is rather uncalled for, for none have tried to play the role of expert. .

Well, I would like to think that I have not tried to pass myself off as an expert by any means. I used to write in my profile, that I was just a bum who had access to the library. And in many respects I still feel that I am still just a bum who has read too many books for his own good. If it seems like I was talking like an expert, then I apologize, as I am far from it. I am just another forumite (and thus felt myself in the same category as the other forum members here who are not from Sulu), who after a few years of trying to research, is left only with more questions than answers. So feel free to correct me if I am wrong, I am still learning. However, I may still ask why I am wrong, so that if I am on the completely wrong path, then I can get off it.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

i do agree w/ you however that if we were to "play" academics, that we would need some form of standardization as well as citation. but since most of the academic knowledge i have acquired came from the lips of old men and not papers, what good would it do to cite those sources? i have preserved their knowledge for many years, shouldn't that be all the verification needed? it's possible, but i have also done my research outside and all it has done is authenticated that knowledge. it may serve to your benefit, a display of my information, but by not doing your own research you would rob those who did search, sacrifice, preserve and utilize that knowledge of their hard work and honor.
.

For me the words from the lips of old men, is the best form of citation/reference and I value it far above what has been written in some book by some Westerner. If I had access to old men who still knew the knowledge, I would be at their feet asking at my most humblest to see if they would be willing to share their knowledge. Some of my best memories of my childhood, are exactly such episodes, sitting at the feet of the old Manongs as they told the stories of the past. Unfortunately, I live in Minnesota, and access to those with such knowledge is severely limited. In fact, most of the elders in my hometown have long since been dead, and hence my memories are only that of a child. I would like to wish one day that I could make a journey to places where such knowledge remained intact, but unfortunately my bio as a bum, is not all together un-warranted. I lack the funds for such a trip, and must content myself to pursue knowledge where I can find it, via books and from those willing to share on such forums as this. Even then, I have tried to credit those individuals who have helped me, as would be noted on my website. However, it is helpful for me, that if knowledge is coming first hand, to know where it is coming from. Otherwise, I can only guess that a forumite is like myself, reading accounts in books. When that is the case, then I would like to know if I have read those same books, to see if I draw those same conclusions. But if it is first hand, well then that is enough for me. This is just a hobby for me, and citation does not need to be overly formal, however a statement such as "this appears in legends". Well what legend? Maybe Ive heard it before, and can check if I remember seeing it. Perhaps it is a path I should seek. I have always valued those who did not give information, but have instead pointed me to where I should look.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

that is very admirable of you to be forthcoming of who you are and your information, the fact that my profile is blank is mostly due to laziness and other things,but i am not a difficult person to find out about or find for that matter. i am thankful that you realize some information must be kept secretive, but to say our discourse has hit a dead end due to "secrecy" is rather odd because i thought it was due to a lack of citable sources. .

What I meant by our discourse hitting a dead end, is that in the past I have had discussions where it has ended because of "secrecy". If we are discussing, lets say the origin of the barong, and someone says well I know the true origin of the barong, but cannot discuss it because of "secrecy" that is a dead end because they refuse to discuss further. Or if I am wrong, but there is no reason given why, just a simple statement that I am wrong, yet the reason why cannot be given due to secrecy then that is a dead end. I am more than willing to change my opinion, but will reserve the right to form my own opinion in lieu of evidence provided. If no evidence can be provided, then what am I to form my opinion off of? Also, I will be the first to admit, there are a million and one things that I am probably dead wrong on, I can scrap all my knowledge (which I am often tempted to do) as being wrong, but if part is right then it would be helpful to know which parts are wrong. If we are overly trapped by secrecy, there is only so much we can discuss before we can discuss no more due to secrecy.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the statement on logic was my pointing out of the oxymoron that had occurred in your sentence regarding pure logic and how it suggests, suggestion borders on assumption. logic is logic for a reason, its relative to fact. and yes i will clarify for you that i am one individual behind the keyboard speaking on behalf of those that are no longer here.

As for logic, well yes it was meant to be an assumption and not fact. Most of what I type is pure speculation, and by no means meant to be hard fact. Like I said before, I am far from an expert, and like to stir the pot and see what comes out. As for your clarification, thank you. Anyways, it seems like our discussion is mostly off-topic for a public forum. If you would like to continue perhaps in Private Message or Email. Perhaps there I can give you a better perspective of who I am.

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Federico

This is just a hobby for me, and citation does not need to be overly formal, however a statement such as "this appears in legends". Well what legend? Maybe Ive heard it before, and can check if I remember seeing it. Perhaps it is a path I should seek. I have always valued those who did not give information, but have instead pointed me to where I should look.

This statement was in regards to the kampilan known throughout the islands, if you cared to observe, I did point towards Nothern Luzon, which left either the northern mountain provinces or Ilocano region, it was the Ilocano's well known epic "Lamang", if you cared to keep searching.

Re:secrecy and my own research on an open forum- secrecy has not stopped me from finding answers or sharing information where I see fit, I'm careful about what I write so it doesn't haunt me at some later point, I have published for academic institutions- Mindanao State University (MSU Marawi), University of the Philippines-Islamic Institute and the Philippine National Museum, also local colleges and universities. If you know me personally, I've shared my collection openly among scholars and most gratefully in return they have shared their knowledge openly with me. I also bring my collection to local PI cultural events. I'm merely and most humbly a collector who has been fortunate to meet other researchers on my personal journey. Honestly, it is self-sacrifice because I've found its done mostly through your own time and funding.
Since this is an open forum with relaxed standards as far as citations it wouldn't make sense to expect every forumite to have their libraries and books available after every statement to cite and footnote, I don't expect it, and if I cared to find answers I'd do it on my own anyways.
I still have much to learn and I'm not an expert but someone seeking knowledge for my own satisfaction and IMHO, I agree much of what we are searching for are not even in books, that's what our minds are for...

[Spunjer]

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

I don't buy that it was completely Visayan, arnis/escrima after all is just a name for arts related to the PI, we can't exclude Luzon (didn't they fight too? why left out for some reasons?) and the southern islands or the old timers here and abroad in the history of the FMA, a complicated but understandable matter.
We know that when the Spanish arrived in PI written material/history was burned and martial arts were banned, but that would not have stopped oral tradition or physical teachings in regards to forms of art, dance and martial.
Mindanao and Sulu had kept their martial arts alive which can be found in their written and evidentally, their oral/physical traditions, if you care to delve deeper you can find early pre-Islamic traces of the martial arts in recorded epics. This would point towards martial arts existing prior to the whole Mindanao/Sulu and Visayan/Luzon separation/conflict, all the islands were on the verge of Islamic conversion at the time of Spanish arrival.
The answer depends on what perspective you want to take and how open your interpretation of history would be.

[LabanTayo]

does the truth have to be published before it is accepted as the truth?
if my lolo (grandfather) told me that when he was in WWII as a guerilla and told me that the sword they used was called 'itak', then should i discount that from being the truth, since its not published.
we are here to discover our history by comparing pics and notes. but does verbal information not count? the only time i have seen the Panay sword, Binangon, refered to as such, is one of Kris Cutlery's old catalogues. does that count as published? does that make it the truth? or does the fact that everyone in Panay call their farm sword a Binangon, count as truth?
we have to account that most of the real filipino history is verbal, not written by the spanish or americans. there's a lot of published items that are incorrect in their facts.

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

is the winner always right?

[Federico]

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.

[Rick]

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' .

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

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Federico

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.

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.

[tom hyle]

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

[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...

[tom hyle]

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?

[mmontoro]

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!

[Rick]

Originally Posted by mmontoro

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 .

[nechesh]

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.

[MABAGANI]

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.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by nechesh

Gee, and here i thought only the keris threads got went like this.

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

[VANDOO]

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.

[migueldiaz]

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 ...

[KuKulzA28]

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.

[Battara]

Some of these folks are no longer on the forum.