Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xasterix
Hi sir Ian,
Your review is much appreciated, thanks for this. If I may point out, however, the format of FilTradBlades is to present the weapons as is, as they are identified by the regional peoples affiliated with them (I say regional peoples and not Filipino, as certain groups- such as BangsaMoro- identify themselves differently).
I don't believe there is a 1:1 correspondence with regards to a particular Filipino weapon and its name. For example, a Talibong in Panay is so different than the extinct Leyte Talibong. The Ginuntings of Antique and Bikol, while sharing similar names, have different blade profiles, grind, and hilt style. The list goes on- sundang, pinuti, even panabas- different regions have different weapon schemas for these.
In light of this fact, there will always naturally be confusion regarding traditional weapon classification. The only way to circumvent this is to assign a thorough classification system- e.g. Regional, Provincial, Tribal or Peoples-specific (Southern Palawan, Palaw'an Tribe, Badung).
I believe the primary objectives of FilTradBlades are as follows: 1) to combat the misinformation being spearheaded by commercialized blade reproduction outfits (they are now legion), 2) to profile the FilTradBlades in their natural habitat, with the correct regional and cultural context in mind; and most importantly, 3) to support the remaining traditional smiths by showcasing their stories and products.
|
Hi xasterix:
Thank you for putting the information on this site in sharper perspective. It is indeed important to understand the primary focus of the FTB site in recording verbatim the names (as used by locals) of these items and their source. Collecting raw data in this manner certainly has merit, but, as you point out, it needs to lead to a classification system that provides a rational nosology for these edged weapons and tools. While it is relatively easy to assemble a data base of pictures and names, sorting through the individual items to arrive at an overall classification system is much harder.
To a degree, Robert Cato attempted to do this for Moro edged weapons (with moderate success). Albert van Zonneveld's classification of Indonesian weapons was a more detailed and broader classification, based largely on blade shapes and hilt styles. There are examples of this type of approach for weapons of other cultures too.
I think the problems come when folks try to extrapolate/speculate beyond the information provided but do not understand the limitations of the data.
Ian