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.

LabanTayo · 9th December 2004, 04:14 AM

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 · 9th December 2004, 05:23 AM

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 · 9th December 2004, 09:02 AM

Quote:

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

Federico · 9th December 2004, 03:54 PM

Beyond geographic vs cultural/ethnic denotations, temporal periodization could help further classify items, particularly in a geographic sense. Particularly for weapons that cannot be classified via a certain ethnic group, a temporal/geographic monicker may be more helpful? Particularly since internal migration was somewhat limited and more traceable pre-American occupation (eg. aside from individual exceptions, large migrations of people were usually only under official impetus and aid of the Spanish Colonial government, or at least traced by them). But then there is the issue of how many pre-American pieces, with provenance are out there to aid in a typography. Hmm...I just read that and it didnt make sense to me, so oh well. I guess Im trying to say, in Moro Swords, Bob Cato limited his study sample to pre-1930 pieces, still a broad spectrum, but limiting by time period helps to make the study a little smaller and more manageable. But then there is the issue of actually dating these pieces, and affixing items to various time periods, and with a lack of provenance this becomes difficult. Oh well...just rambling, brain is a little fried at the moment. Though hopefully next week, with the start of break itll start working again.

wilked aka Khun Deng · 10th December 2004, 05:34 AM

Ruel and others, I'm very glad to your see your critical aid supplied as advice. As one who has been out there collecting information lately I can echo their comments. Terms of reference (definitions) are particulary important.

As one with little experience prior, helping "the dha guys" research effort I put together a brief presentation stating our goals and specific area of research. It helped tremendously in focusing my questions during interviews and was an easily accessable reference on many unforeseen opportunities that popped up. Additionally it served as a contact list and leave-behind document for those I dealt with should they come across additional information later.

The matter of voracity of information is a touchier subject. Without boring you with a intelligence classification class, I'll just say that we rate information on two things 1.The validity of the source - loyalty, personal interests, access to information 2. Credibilty of information - has the source been valid in the past, has there been confirmation from other sources. The touchy part is memory is a funny thing, illustrations and statuary can be influenced by artistic license and old photos can be posed. I guess what I'm trying to say is each bit of information should be treated as a seperate item to be verified and and not just the source who may be right about some things but mistaken on others.

In example there are two bronze statues in the courtyard of the American embassy in Burma of a US officer and a Kachin Ranger carrying a Naga-dao. The Naga-dao reaches from the ranger's shoulder to kneecap. Upon presentation of a poster of this statue with the lineage of his unit underneath, one of the few remaining officers of that unit exclaimed (to paraphrase) "where did they get that sword, he never carried a sword like that and I've never seen one that big either it would be useless in the jungle" The dao was perfectly represented except for its size (confirmed info) and the fact that it wasn't in common use by that unit (unreliability of source).

Ian · 11th December 2004, 05:03 PM

on eBay, but not sure what it is called: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3945057787

What do you think? Certainly seems to have some age -- early 20th C. maybe. The scabbard reminds me of those on talibon from Leyte. The blade is definitely slimmer than most "talibon" and rather than being a chopper seems to be more designed for stabbing. Could this be an example of the Leyte sansibar that was recently described here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3945057787?

I will send more detailed pictures when I receive the piece.

Ian.

9th December 2004, 05:23 AM	#3
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Definition 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.

10th December 2004, 05:34 AM	#6
wilked aka Khun Deng Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oahu, Hawaii Posts: 166	Research Ruel and others, I'm very glad to your see your critical aid supplied as advice. As one who has been out there collecting information lately I can echo their comments. Terms of reference (definitions) are particulary important. As one with little experience prior, helping "the dha guys" research effort I put together a brief presentation stating our goals and specific area of research. It helped tremendously in focusing my questions during interviews and was an easily accessable reference on many unforeseen opportunities that popped up. Additionally it served as a contact list and leave-behind document for those I dealt with should they come across additional information later. The matter of voracity of information is a touchier subject. Without boring you with a intelligence classification class, I'll just say that we rate information on two things 1.The validity of the source - loyalty, personal interests, access to information 2. Credibilty of information - has the source been valid in the past, has there been confirmation from other sources. The touchy part is memory is a funny thing, illustrations and statuary can be influenced by artistic license and old photos can be posed. I guess what I'm trying to say is each bit of information should be treated as a seperate item to be verified and and not just the source who may be right about some things but mistaken on others. In example there are two bronze statues in the courtyard of the American embassy in Burma of a US officer and a Kachin Ranger carrying a Naga-dao. The Naga-dao reaches from the ranger's shoulder to kneecap. Upon presentation of a poster of this statue with the lineage of his unit underneath, one of the few remaining officers of that unit exclaimed (to paraphrase) "where did they get that sword, he never carried a sword like that and I've never seen one that big either it would be useless in the jungle" The dao was perfectly represented except for its size (confirmed info) and the fact that it wasn't in common use by that unit (unreliability of source).

11th December 2004, 05:03 PM	#7
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Recent acquisition ... on eBay, but not sure what it is called: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3945057787 What do you think? Certainly seems to have some age -- early 20th C. maybe. The scabbard reminds me of those on talibon from Leyte. The blade is definitely slimmer than most "talibon" and rather than being a chopper seems to be more designed for stabbing. Could this be an example of the Leyte sansibar that was recently described here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3945057787? I will send more detailed pictures when I receive the piece. Ian. Last edited by Ian; 11th December 2004 at 05:18 PM.

8th December 2004, 11:54 PM	#1
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.

9th December 2004, 04:14 AM	#2
LabanTayo Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kansas City Posts: 177	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.

9th December 2004, 03:54 PM	#5
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Beyond geographic vs cultural/ethnic denotations, temporal periodization could help further classify items, particularly in a geographic sense. Particularly for weapons that cannot be classified via a certain ethnic group, a temporal/geographic monicker may be more helpful? Particularly since internal migration was somewhat limited and more traceable pre-American occupation (eg. aside from individual exceptions, large migrations of people were usually only under official impetus and aid of the Spanish Colonial government, or at least traced by them). But then there is the issue of how many pre-American pieces, with provenance are out there to aid in a typography. Hmm...I just read that and it didnt make sense to me, so oh well. I guess Im trying to say, in Moro Swords, Bob Cato limited his study sample to pre-1930 pieces, still a broad spectrum, but limiting by time period helps to make the study a little smaller and more manageable. But then there is the issue of actually dating these pieces, and affixing items to various time periods, and with a lack of provenance this becomes difficult. Oh well...just rambling, brain is a little fried at the moment. Though hopefully next week, with the start of break itll start working again.