The Tourist Item/Souvenier in arms antiquities

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I have a recently-made barong which has an elegantly shaped scabbard, a thick well-shaped blade which has been stained to look similar to older examples, and a hilt which is moderately ornamental. It is both obviously new and also fully functional as a weapon.

It is obvious that effort was made to present as a quality piece, yet not overdone in ornament.

It is my feeling that it is of a higher quality - and cost - to be a tourist wall-hanger. Beyond that, I understand that such things are still carried by people of the culture. I'd say that as it is functional, culturally appropriate, and fully functional, it is a legitimate ethnological weapon, and I value it as such.[IMG]http://[/IMG]

Greetings. I am currently a student of BangsaMoro culture and weapons; I see you have here what we call as a 'ba-wrong' from Tugaya; that's a place in Mindanao that produces tourist items.

While I cannot ascertain the functionality of your piece, I'd like to list down the faults that I can see on face value of your piece:

1. The aesthetics are all wrong. That's the main problem with Maranao-made weapons. While the barung is used by a number of Moro tribes even until now, each tribe has somewhat customized the barung to fit their functional needs, thus the nuances in design (e.g. the modern Yakan barung is built like a bushcraft blade to suit the needs of the Yakan's peaceful existence; the modern Sama barung is light-bladed and has a hilt made of Santol wood for easier transpo, the modern Tausug barung is heavy, well-built, and still combat-oriented, etc). However, the Maranaons, to begin with, never customized the barung for functional use. If you try to research on period pieces of the Maranaons, they are very, very rarely shown with weapons, and when they do, they don't carry the barung. That already says a lot- that the Maranaons don't view barung as a functional weapon enough to have customized it to fit their needs.

2. The ukkil is wrong. Sorry I can't explain this in detail, but in summary, each tribe imprints its ukkil on their adopted barung design. When it comes to the Tugaya-made weapons, they attempted to copy antique weapons from other tribes, YET they used the Maranao ukkil. This is just wrong.

3. Some of the design modifications are outrageous. When you've viewed enough antique and modern BangsaMoro weapons, you'll realize that the Tugaya-made weapons are over-the-top. They're like peacocks.

4. Functionality. The only way to test for a barung's functionality is by checking if it's been heat-treated. According to several sources, the Tugaya-made barungs are NOT heat-treated. This makes them wall-hangers.

5. Lack of provenance. There's no such thing as an antique Maranao barung; according to historical documents, the Maranaons preferred to use ranged arms- guns and lantaka (cannons)- to defend their territory. They're not like the other tribes that glory in hand-to-hand combat. Without provenance, the Maranao barung is just...a modern counterfeit. A glorified attempt at reproduction.

I hope you'll view my criticism constructively; I know you may have spent a significant investment on your Maranao "ba-wrong", but well I guess it's much better if you buy barungs from other tribes (whether antique or modern) as they embody the true essence of BangsaMoro weapons.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Greetings. I am currently a student of BangsaMoro culture and weapons; I see you have here what we call as a 'ba-wrong' from Tugaya; that's a place in Mindanao that produces tourist items.

While I cannot ascertain the functionality of your piece, I'd like to list down the faults that I can see on face value of your piece:

1. The aesthetics are all wrong. That's the main problem with Maranao-made weapons. While the barung is used by a number of Moro tribes even until now, each tribe has somewhat customized the barung to fit their functional needs, thus the nuances in design (e.g. the modern Yakan barung is built like a bushcraft blade to suit the needs of the Yakan's peaceful existence; the modern Sama barung is light-bladed and has a hilt made of Santol wood for easier transpo, the modern Tausug barung is heavy, well-built, and still combat-oriented, etc). However, the Maranaons, to begin with, never customized the barung for functional use. If you try to research on period pieces of the Maranaons, they are very, very rarely shown with weapons, and when they do, they don't carry the barung. That already says a lot- that the Maranaons don't view barung as a functional weapon enough to have customized it to fit their needs.

2. The ukkil is wrong. Sorry I can't explain this in detail, but in summary, each tribe imprints its ukkil on their adopted barung design. When it comes to the Tugaya-made weapons, they attempted to copy antique weapons from other tribes, YET they used the Maranao ukkil. This is just wrong.

3. Some of the design modifications are outrageous. When you've viewed enough antique and modern BangsaMoro weapons, you'll realize that the Tugaya-made weapons are over-the-top. They're like peacocks.

4. Functionality. The only way to test for a barung's functionality is by checking if it's been heat-treated. According to several sources, the Tugaya-made barungs are NOT heat-treated. This makes them wall-hangers.

5. Lack of provenance. There's no such thing as an antique Maranao barung; according to historical documents, the Maranaons preferred to use ranged arms- guns and lantaka (cannons)- to defend their territory. They're not like the other tribes that glory in hand-to-hand combat. Without provenance, the Maranao barung is just...a modern counterfeit. A glorified attempt at reproduction.

I hope you'll view my criticism constructively; I know you may have spent a significant investment on your Maranao "ba-wrong", but well I guess it's much better if you buy barungs from other tribes (whether antique or modern) as they embody the true essence of BangsaMoro weapons.

This is an excellent itemization of a 'tourist' grade item vs. the authentic form and I do hope it is viewed as constructive as intended. That was the goal of this thread. Extremely interesting background here!
Bob, I think your attitude toward recognizing this piece as ethnographic even though modern is perfect.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Greetings. I am currently a student of BangsaMoro culture and weapons; I see you have here what we call as a 'ba-wrong' from Tugaya; that's a place in Mindanao that produces tourist items.

While I cannot ascertain the functionality of your piece, I'd like to list down the faults that I can see on face value of your piece:

1. The aesthetics are all wrong. That's the main problem with Maranao-made weapons. While the barung is used by a number of Moro tribes even until now, each tribe has somewhat customized the barung to fit their functional needs, thus the nuances in design (e.g. the modern Yakan barung is built like a bushcraft blade to suit the needs of the Yakan's peaceful existence; the modern Sama barung is light-bladed and has a hilt made of Santol wood for easier transpo, the modern Tausug barung is heavy, well-built, and still combat-oriented, etc). However, the Maranaons, to begin with, never customized the barung for functional use. If you try to research on period pieces of the Maranaons, they are very, very rarely shown with weapons, and when they do, they don't carry the barung. That already says a lot- that the Maranaons don't view barung as a functional weapon enough to have customized it to fit their needs.

First, thank you for your response.
Sadly, I seem unable to locate the shipping information for this item, which I thought I had in a safe place. I cannot say whether it came from Maranao. Can you tell me the grounds for your attribution? Anything specific, or just the overall impression?

Regarding actual local use, is there any likelihood that a blade of this type would be used at all, locally, or would it be avoided? It seems to be somewhat blade-heavy, but it seemed to me to be functional as a weapon.

2. The ukkil is wrong. Sorry I can't explain this in detail, but in summary, each tribe imprints its ukkil on their adopted barung design. When it comes to the Tugaya-made weapons, they attempted to copy antique weapons from other tribes, YET they used the Maranao ukkil. This is just wrong.

Please describe ukkil as applied to barongs; I'm unfamiliar with the term, and (obviously) not all that familiar with barongs, or barights. Pictures would be appreciated, if you can provide.

3. Some of the design modifications are outrageous. When you've viewed enough antique and modern BangsaMoro weapons, you'll realize that the Tugaya-made weapons are over-the-top. They're like peacocks.

While mine seems reasonably decorated, I'm not in a position to judge "over-the-top." If you could be more specific regarding ornamentation, I'd be pleased to learn more. Again, if you could provide graphic information, it would be useful to many.

4. Functionality. The only way to test for a barung's functionality is by checking if it's been heat-treated. According to several sources, the Tugaya-made barungs are NOT heat-treated. This makes them wall-hangers.

How might I check for heat-treatment? What level of functionality, or lack thereof, would one find in a blade that is not so treated?

5. Lack of provenance. There's no such thing as an antique Maranao barung; according to historical documents, the Maranaons preferred to use ranged arms- guns and lantaka (cannons)- to defend their territory. They're not like the other tribes that glory in hand-to-hand combat. Without provenance, the Maranao barung is just...a modern counterfeit. A glorified attempt at reproduction.

I gather that your feeling is that a barong made by the wrong group wears its falsehood on its face, so to speak. So the Maranaons would never carry a barong themselves, nor would anyone else in the Phillippines ever use one made by these folk?

I hope you'll view my criticism constructively; I know you may have spent a significant investment on your Maranao "ba-wrong", but well I guess it's much better if you buy barungs from other tribes (whether antique or modern) as they embody the true essence of BangsaMoro weapons.

I accept your criticism for its undoubted value, though it seems pretty comprehensively negative. Can you toss me a bit of sugar-coating next time?

Really, though, I'd be very interested in whatever you can make available by way of photos, drawings etc in order to educate my eye. Sadly, a field trip to Mindanao is not in the cards for me.

Any comment you might provide regarding current usage and carry of these weapons would also be enlightening.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Bob A

I accept your criticism for its undoubted value, though it seems pretty comprehensively negative. Can you toss me a bit of sugar-coating next time?

Really, though, I'd be very interested in whatever you can make available by way of photos, drawings etc in order to educate my eye. Sadly, a field trip to Mindanao is not in the cards for me.

Any comment you might provide regarding current usage and carry of these weapons would also be enlightening.

Apologies if I came off as too stingy! Haha I'll make up for it by answering your request for further clarification.

1. I can tell it's Maranao as most of the antique shops in Metro Manila have ba-wrongs that look exactly like yours. There's an overall feel that just screams 'I'M FROM TUGAYA' and which most experienced collectors avoid. These ba-wrongs are ridiculously overpriced. As a point of comparison, Maranao ba-wrongs sell for $300 up; I just recently got a pre-WW2 well-preserved barung for just $136. The unreasonable price is designed to hoodwink tourists into buying these seemingly expensive and antique pieces.

If you want to be specific...perhaps the most obvious sign for me that it's a knock-off is that it attempted to copy a Junggayan crest (that's the end-part of the hilt that seems to have a wing) but it isn't well-done. It also attempted to copy the carved-metal-ferrule that's prevalent in Tausug barungs; but the design is unclear.

Regarding blade use...I really don't know. I haven't encountered a functional Maranao barung yet. In connection to your #4 theory, the easiest is to do a run with a hardness-testing file. or etch the blade.

2. Regarding ukkil...it's usually the carved pattern that's present on the hilt, at the throat of the scabbard, or in some cases the blade itself. Ukkil is present in many aspects of BangsaMoro textile, architecture, and other art-forms. You can check out articles on Google Scholar about ukkil. Suffice to say, once you get a lot of ukkil exposure, you'll be able to ascertain the origin and timeline of a certain barung by 'reading' its ukkil.

3. Another aspect that's difficult to explain, as it's similar to ukkil...once you have a lot of exposure, you'll know what's the 'right' amount of ornamentation for a barung. Since you have a modern, Tugaya-sourced ba-wrong, you can compare it with the look of my modern barungs sourced from Sulu (Tausug smith), Zamboanga (Tausug smith), and Basilan (Yakan smith), all of which are functional. I'm also attaching a modern Sama barung, which is my most elaborate barung to date. But its elaboration is...tempered and unified, and not over-the-top considering its overall theme.

5. Perhaps my view regarding this is tempered by the fact that there's rhyme and reason why a legit BangsaMoro weapon is made as such; from the hilt-to-blade ratio, to the overall weight, weight distribution; even some of the stuff that may look ornamental to some actually has some functional value. The Maranao ba-wrong has none of these; it just aims to be eye-candy, and nothing more. All Maranao ba-wrongs I've held 'feel' wrong when I hold them. BangsaMoro weapons are wielded using Moro Fighting Arts (MFA), and legit barungs as well as other weapons such as the pira and the kris rhyme perfectly with this art. The Maranao ba-wrong does not. It's simply...wrong.

Apologies if some of my clarifications will blossom into further questions ) if you want to learn more...I'd definitely recommend reading the book "Ukkil" by Ligaya F. Amilbangsa. It'll answer most, if not all, of your questions regarding ukkil, BangsaMoro weapons, and even BangsaMoro culture.

=)

[mross]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Greetings. I am currently a student of BangsaMoro culture and weapons; I see you have here what we call as a 'ba-wrong' from Tugaya; that's a place in Mindanao that produces tourist items.

While I cannot ascertain the functionality of your piece, I'd like to list down the faults that I can see on face value of your piece:

1. The aesthetics are all wrong. That's the main problem with Maranao-made weapons. While the barung is used by a number of Moro tribes even until now, each tribe has somewhat customized the barung to fit their functional needs, thus the nuances in design (e.g. the modern Yakan barung is built like a bushcraft blade to suit the needs of the Yakan's peaceful existence; the modern Sama barung is light-bladed and has a hilt made of Santol wood for easier transpo, the modern Tausug barung is heavy, well-built, and still combat-oriented, etc). However, the Maranaons, to begin with, never customized the barung for functional use. If you try to research on period pieces of the Maranaons, they are very, very rarely shown with weapons, and when they do, they don't carry the barung. That already says a lot- that the Maranaons don't view barung as a functional weapon enough to have customized it to fit their needs.

2. The ukkil is wrong. Sorry I can't explain this in detail, but in summary, each tribe imprints its ukkil on their adopted barung design. When it comes to the Tugaya-made weapons, they attempted to copy antique weapons from other tribes, YET they used the Maranao ukkil. This is just wrong.

3. Some of the design modifications are outrageous. When you've viewed enough antique and modern BangsaMoro weapons, you'll realize that the Tugaya-made weapons are over-the-top. They're like peacocks.

4. Functionality. The only way to test for a barung's functionality is by checking if it's been heat-treated. According to several sources, the Tugaya-made barungs are NOT heat-treated. This makes them wall-hangers.

5. Lack of provenance. There's no such thing as an antique Maranao barung; according to historical documents, the Maranaons preferred to use ranged arms- guns and lantaka (cannons)- to defend their territory. They're not like the other tribes that glory in hand-to-hand combat. Without provenance, the Maranao barung is just...a modern counterfeit. A glorified attempt at reproduction.

I hope you'll view my criticism constructively; I know you may have spent a significant investment on your Maranao "ba-wrong", but well I guess it's much better if you buy barungs from other tribes (whether antique or modern) as they embody the true essence of BangsaMoro weapons.

This is the type of information that is very useful. It is also the type of insight that the Cato book lacked.(Which is why I take that book with a grain of salt). Xasterix I know you said you are just a student but have you considered doing a white paper on identification?

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by mross

This is the type of information that is very useful. It is also the type of insight that the Cato book lacked.(Which is why I take that book with a grain of salt). Xasterix I know you said you are just a student but have you considered doing a white paper on identification?

Thank you for your kind words, sir. I owe the knowledge to past members of this forum, many of whom are my mentors, who once upon a time considered writing a book that would compile all their accumulated knowledge; sadly, it did not come to fruition. I am still tying up some loose ends with regard to modern BangsaMoro weapons (and I'm too focused on barungs, I need to catch up on the others), while I still have a long, loooooong way to go with regard to BangsaMoro antiques.

Perhaps one day, with my mentors' permission, I'll be able to make a humble contribution that will make PH blade classification a bit easier =)

[Jim McDougall]

Once again, very nice exchange gentlemen!! on this barong type, and this is a great illustration of how genuine weapon forms inspire 'commercial' enterprise (=tourist) items. Xasterix' detailed and informative description of key elements of authentication is outstanding, and Bob, your gracious acceptance of same is exemplary in that the comments were indeed quite objective. I know from many personal experiences that these kinds of direct critique can be a bit rough.

This is a true learning experience for all reading here, especially for some like myself, completely uninitiated in these weapons of the Philippines.

[motan]

Hi,
This is a good subject, but as said, a real minefield. Huge grey areas and few truths, like other subjects related to authenticity. Everyone has different standards. In a way, it is parallel to restoration of damaged pieces. Some go for full restoration, including replacement of missing part, while others are minimalists and swear that anything but cleaning would compromise the authentic value of a piece.

Collectors of weapons that are still made and used, or were made until recently, and those who can not afford more expensive items, like myself, deal with these issues all the time. I personally rate authenticity above quality (to certain limits), because I am interested in the ethnographic attributes as much as in the weapon itself. These are my personal guidelines for collecting in this order (although I don't adhere to them 100%):

1. True to type: if a piece is not very old for its kind, it should at least resemble the original type. Many makers were tempted to adjust the style to what the buyers want - usually more ornaments. Whole styles have been invented for the tourist market. Many daggers that I collect have no described type, so I have to rely on intuition. However, for Koummiyas this works well. Original, 19th c. Koummiyas were made in around 5 basic types, which are described in several threads on this forum. Other styles were probably invented for the tourist market.

2. Signs of use: I see signs of actual use as a good thing, even if they compromise the quality of a piece to a degree. This is because they are the best proof of authenticity. Also this is not a universal truth. The best Mughal and Ottoman pieces, which are the pinnacle of Islamic weapons, are often presentation pieces/gifts and were kept safely on the shelf all their life.

3. Quality. Quality comes for me only in third place. If all things equal and the price tag is not to high, I prefer quality, of course. But quality is often not related to authenticity, contrary to what many people think. In daggers like Koummyas, Shibriyas and Arabian Jambiyas/Khanjars, low quality, or "village type" pieces are not necessarily younger or less authentic.

In the pictures, a Shibriya from Sinai which is authentic, but definitely below mine and most collectors' standards. It shows that the value of authenticity has limits, even for me. Below, 3 Koummiyas I bought recently that are not very old, but true to type, have reasonable quality blade and show signs of use, so I consider them as authentic.

[Ian]

Just to add to the topic of modern barung made for use or decoration, there is an older thread "Modern Barung" from about a year ago that discussed some of these issues also. It can be found here. Perhaps Xasterix could inform us more fully about some of the examples shown in that thread.

Ian.

[ariel]

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm coming into this discussion a little later than I would have preferred, but I've been "off the planet" for a few days, and that has restricted my ability to communicate.

I have just now read through all the posts to date, and what I have read seems to be mostly presented from the perspective of the collector, which of course is reasonable, since most of us who contribute to this forum are indeed, collectors.

I'd like to make a couple of comments from a slightly different perspective, and limited to the objects that are my prime focus, which is to say, keris and associated edged weaponry.

I find the concept of "tourist" weaponry difficult to understand in terms of the present time.

If I wish to import the type of weaponry that interests me, into the state of Australia in which I live, I need to obtain a certificate from the state police that states I that I am permitted to import and to possess that weapon. I then present this certificate to the Australian Customs service, and they permit me to take possession of the imported weapon. This applies whether I personally carry the item, or whether I have it sent to me.

I know that many, if not most countries now have import restrictions applying to edged weapons that are similar to the Australian restrictions. From personal knowledge of what tourists to Indonesia buy at the present time, compared with what tourists to Indonesia bought during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, my opinion is that the preparation and sale of keris and other weapons to foreign tourists to Indonesia does not exist any longer, it has simply become too difficult for Mr. Good Citizen to take swords and daggers back to his home country.

It may have existed at times in the past, but the only dedicated tourist style of keris of which I am aware is a particular type of Balinese keris that began life as a keris that was popular for dance performances and ended its existence in the marketplace as a travesty of a keris with a cut-out sheet metal blade and incredibly poorly carved dress.

Those old-time "tourist keris", when of fair to good quality, have now become collector's items in their own right.

My own position on the designation of a weapon as a "tourist" or "souvenir" is quite simply that where a traditional weapon that still fulfils a function in today's society is manufactured for use in today's society, then that weapon is a genuine ethnographic artifact of the society, and its value is directly related to its quality.

Where a weapon no longer fulfils a function in its society of origin, but continues to be made, and then purchased by persons either within or outside of the society of origin, as a keepsake, ornament, toy or souvenir, then that weapon can legitimately be classified as something prepared for tourists, or as a souvenir. I think perhaps a good example of this type of "tourist weapon" would be the Australian boomerang, especially the hunting boomerang:- still made, but no longer used for its originally intended purpose.

I very much doubt that it is ever possible to classify any weapon as "tourist" just on the basis of type, style or quality, I feel that it is necessary to have an in depth understanding of the society of origin of that object, before it can be classified as "tourist" or "souvenir".

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by ariel

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

Hi, just to emphasize, the barungs I've posted aren't 'allegedly' authentic; they are DEFINITELY authentic. They are sold by a Yakan friend, and several previous members of this forum have verified that she's selling the real thing, as sourced from Basilan, Zamboanga, Jolo, and Tawi Tawi. Like me, they also frown upon the ba-wrongs of the Maranao, because those things can't even be sharpened properly, or fail to hold an edge after a couple of cuts. Why? Because they're not even heat treated.

Coming from the perspective of someone who practices the Moro Fighting Arts, I'll use your analogy. Which would I prefer, a car that performs well, is faithful to culture of the people who invented it- or a toy car that looks amazing, is a mishmash of various cultural motifs, but doesn't even run on batteries?

Please do not forget that the best people to ask about these weapons, aside from the ones who produced them, are actually the ones who are able to USE them. A blade is meant to be thrust or swung. I'm wondering how you would have been able to assess that the 'ba-wrong' is more practical than my legit barungs, when you haven't even held them yet.

Lastly, these things aren't just art forms. They are meant to be functional and deadly works of art. Hopefully we will be a little considerate and discerning of the argument and proof I have established.