Visayan Weapons Study

ruel · 8th December 2004, 11:54 PM

* 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.

8th December 2004, 11:54 PM	#14
ruel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4	* 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.