Barong Classification

Ian · 15th April 2005, 04:45 AM

Barung banditos:

I'm thinking that with some skillful wordsmithing, even widely divergent views can be syhthesized along the lines of "one school of thought has suggested ..." and "another body of opinion believes that distinguishing between the characteristics of barung among the Samal and Tausug is very difficult because of substantial overlap in styles." Seems that a scholarly approach could be crafted that would be useful to the reader as we search for more information to better define the subject matter.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between being able to conclusively distinguish the two forms and there being no way to distinguish between them.

Spunjer and others have spent some time trying to work this out, and they have offered some testable hypotheses. Those efforts are laudable and should not be cast aside. Can you guys get together and work on the available data -- pictures, descriptions, etc. -- to flesh out these ideas and reach some consensus? It would be great to move beyond opinion and conjecture, and understand better the areas of agreement and disagreement.

Waiting for Cecil Quirino's book is a poor reason for not trying to do something now. As far as I know, nobody has yet seen a draft of this book. Moreover, just writing a book is a substantial and time consuming undertaking, let alone getting it printed -- it is possible Cecil's book may never happen. Why not try to do something more modest with what we have here?

Ian.

Federico · 15th April 2005, 09:17 AM

Ian

I would like to clarify, that I am not stating that differentions cannot be made between Tausug and Samal barungs (though what that may be I do not know), but rather using the scabbard and cockatua features listed in the initial post are not reliable in light of other evidence against. Realistically, there is only one post stating that this differention can be made, with no evidence given to support why. In light of the problems I have personally encountered (well heres the kicker this is only worth as much as you trust that my opinion is of any worth, it has already been asserted on this forum that it is in fact of no worth despite what evidence I may try to assert, so if you are in the latter camp then all I type is useless) with this typography I would like to see what evidence is in favor. Certainly Bob's book does not make this differention. Like everyone here, I would love to know every little secret about the weapons I collect that can be known, however I feel critical review is still necessary in the pursuit of knowledge. I know this is not a popular idea, but is there no standard of proof to back a claim other than the popularity of a sentiment?

tom hyle · 15th April 2005, 12:21 PM

Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is

Ian · 15th April 2005, 03:04 PM

Federico and Tom:

I hear what you are both saying. My point was not to ignore or dismiss any particular person's views, quite the opposite. I was trying to encourage a coming together and synthesis of ideas. Each one of us has but a small fragment of the truth, and one way this Forum helps me is by allowing us to bring those fragments together.

Sometimes our own strongly held beliefs get in the way of dialogue and objectivity -- I'm guilty of doing that too.

But I think this Forum offers a great opportunity to talk through differences of opinion in a civil manner, and in the process perhaps enlighten not just ourselves but everyone. I would again encourage all interested parties to take some of the ideas expressed here and work through differences of opinion and interpretation so that the rest of us can be better informed.

Ian.

tom hyle · 16th April 2005, 12:28 AM

That's absolutely true; this forum always strives toward fairness and peace, and that's why 'plaints for them can be heard and responded to here.

Federico · 17th April 2005, 05:09 AM

Ian

I would just like to clarify (seems like I need to do this alot), earlier post was not directed at you, I just know in the past in debates with others the sentiment has been voiced by some forum members(not just the deafening silence that occurs so often on the net). Anyways, I would love to see what evidence there is to draw this distinction between Samal and Tausug. The physical difference between the two styles is self-evident, and is noted in Bob Cato's book. However, why should we call one style Samal and the other Tausug, and not just a variation within a singular cultural theme. The only place I can think of, is one picture in Kriegers plates that says one barong is Samal, but then it doesnt say the other is Tausug (it actually says Mindanao) which then leads to the question how accurate is that distinction. Certainly, Bob's book does not make the distinction, so what are the merits of the argument? Zel never elaborated earlier, and hasnt commented in this thread either, and Spunjer said Zel's post and Bob's book are the only two references for this typology.

15th April 2005, 12:21 PM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is Last edited by tom hyle; 16th April 2005 at 12:37 AM. Reason: moderator complaint

15th April 2005, 04:45 AM	#1
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Barung banditos: I'm thinking that with some skillful wordsmithing, even widely divergent views can be syhthesized along the lines of "one school of thought has suggested ..." and "another body of opinion believes that distinguishing between the characteristics of barung among the Samal and Tausug is very difficult because of substantial overlap in styles." Seems that a scholarly approach could be crafted that would be useful to the reader as we search for more information to better define the subject matter. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between being able to conclusively distinguish the two forms and there being no way to distinguish between them. Spunjer and others have spent some time trying to work this out, and they have offered some testable hypotheses. Those efforts are laudable and should not be cast aside. Can you guys get together and work on the available data -- pictures, descriptions, etc. -- to flesh out these ideas and reach some consensus? It would be great to move beyond opinion and conjecture, and understand better the areas of agreement and disagreement. Waiting for Cecil Quirino's book is a poor reason for not trying to do something now. As far as I know, nobody has yet seen a draft of this book. Moreover, just writing a book is a substantial and time consuming undertaking, let alone getting it printed -- it is possible Cecil's book may never happen. Why not try to do something more modest with what we have here? Ian.

15th April 2005, 09:17 AM	#2
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Ian I would like to clarify, that I am not stating that differentions cannot be made between Tausug and Samal barungs (though what that may be I do not know), but rather using the scabbard and cockatua features listed in the initial post are not reliable in light of other evidence against. Realistically, there is only one post stating that this differention can be made, with no evidence given to support why. In light of the problems I have personally encountered (well heres the kicker this is only worth as much as you trust that my opinion is of any worth, it has already been asserted on this forum that it is in fact of no worth despite what evidence I may try to assert, so if you are in the latter camp then all I type is useless) with this typography I would like to see what evidence is in favor. Certainly Bob's book does not make this differention. Like everyone here, I would love to know every little secret about the weapons I collect that can be known, however I feel critical review is still necessary in the pursuit of knowledge. I know this is not a popular idea, but is there no standard of proof to back a claim other than the popularity of a sentiment?

15th April 2005, 03:04 PM	#4
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,396	Federico and Tom: I hear what you are both saying. My point was not to ignore or dismiss any particular person's views, quite the opposite. I was trying to encourage a coming together and synthesis of ideas. Each one of us has but a small fragment of the truth, and one way this Forum helps me is by allowing us to bring those fragments together. Sometimes our own strongly held beliefs get in the way of dialogue and objectivity -- I'm guilty of doing that too. But I think this Forum offers a great opportunity to talk through differences of opinion in a civil manner, and in the process perhaps enlighten not just ourselves but everyone. I would again encourage all interested parties to take some of the ideas expressed here and work through differences of opinion and interpretation so that the rest of us can be better informed. Ian.

16th April 2005, 12:28 AM	#5
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	That's absolutely true; this forum always strives toward fairness and peace, and that's why 'plaints for them can be heard and responded to here.

17th April 2005, 05:09 AM	#6
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Ian I would just like to clarify (seems like I need to do this alot), earlier post was not directed at you, I just know in the past in debates with others the sentiment has been voiced by some forum members(not just the deafening silence that occurs so often on the net). Anyways, I would love to see what evidence there is to draw this distinction between Samal and Tausug. The physical difference between the two styles is self-evident, and is noted in Bob Cato's book. However, why should we call one style Samal and the other Tausug, and not just a variation within a singular cultural theme. The only place I can think of, is one picture in Kriegers plates that says one barong is Samal, but then it doesnt say the other is Tausug (it actually says Mindanao) which then leads to the question how accurate is that distinction. Certainly, Bob's book does not make the distinction, so what are the merits of the argument? Zel never elaborated earlier, and hasnt commented in this thread either, and Spunjer said Zel's post and Bob's book are the only two references for this typology.