Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spunjer
... you're insinuating the origin of this particular blade as Sulu, which is based on Cato's theory. i understand that that's the only reference we can go by in regards to classification, but the bottom line is, it's just a theory ...
|
Ron,
Being the only published theory, that is indeed all we really have to go on. Some people may have knowledge that is different, but until it is put out there for discussion and the basis of it checked out, then there is nothing else to discuss. Cato described his methodology and, while not perfect, it is not unlike many other ethnographic studies--collect and catalog examples, interview people from the culture, try to identify key informants, research the historical records, etc.
The fact that Cato was from a completely different culture does not negate his contribution. After all, a great deal of excellent ethnographic research and anthropology was reported by people who were not from the culture under study. I have discussed Cato's work with a number of Filipino collectors who hold it in low regard. I have even been told that a 'cano could never understand the complexities of Moro culture. However, neither those individuals nor others have published an alternative narrative, and Cato's ideas stand unchallenged until they do.
The "just a theory" idea implies that "anything-can-be-anything," which reduces to "we-know-nothing." Theories are a way of proposing testable hypotheses, and Cato provides ideas that are testable if we can find old provenanced pieces that could confirm or refute his proposals.
On the subject of this thread, I'm very comfortable with the idea that more than one type of bird can be represented on Moro hilts. It doesn't have to be only a cockatoo, or a sarimanok, or whatever. What we started out discussing was whether the familiar
kakatua hilt, in its various forms, was indeed meant to represent a cockatoo or something else.
I think it can be agreed that the so-called
kakatua style, or at least a similar antecedent, has been present for several centuries on hilts from the Malay archipelago, northern Borneo, and the southern Philippines. This is not a peculiarly Moro trait. Cato, based on his Moro informants, argues for the cockatoo. One way to test this idea would be to go to other geographic areas where this form has been seen and ask what it is called there.
Looking at stylistic interpretations of birds carved on hilts is probably not going to take us any further in knowing what bird(s) are represented. We need data from people who know what these are actually meant to be, from all parts of the Malay world in which they are found. Until that is known we really cannot say with any confidence what they are supposed to be. Cato's proposal stands, or is an open question if you prefer, until it is comprehensively disproven.
Ian.