HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE

[Rivkin]

Unfortunately I have no knowledge of Moro or SEA weaponry whatsoever, therefore my comments are purely general observations of the field. Yes, 100 years a lot of mistakes where made, but I am quite impressed by the contribution of the old school, made often in the absence of any acrheological or historical data.
I find speaking to the "carriers of the culture" to be a complete waste of time, unless this culture indeed used swords at most 50 years ago. 100 years typically separating the actual use of swords from modern "culture carriers" have lead to the replacement of knowledge by marketplace rumors. Archives, records of early travelers, old training manuals, archeology - these are the sources I respect. "Isa and Musa said" for me is basically nothing.

Concerning the dates of undeclared wars - typically there are always a few hundred of guerillas that continue to fight even after the time when large battles are over. Which brings in the question whether we qualify their actions as organized crime, terrorism or a continuation of the war ? In the latter case how large a number "guerillas" merits the extenstion of the war's timeline ?

[RhysMichael]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Concerning the dates of undeclared wars - typically there are always a few hundred of guerillas that continue to fight even after the time when large battles are over. Which brings in the question whether we qualify their actions as organized crime, terrorism or a continuation of the war ? In the latter case how large a number "guerillas" merits the extenstion of the war's timeline ?

I had this problem when researching the Dutch Atjeh war. While the dutch sources almost universally use the same date the Atjeh ( Aceh ) sources do not always agree with the Dutch sources

[Spunjer]

i can only speak in the field that i'm familiar with, therefore when you said:

I find speaking to the "carriers of the culture" to be a complete waste of time, unless this culture indeed used swords at most 50 years ago.

it made me chuckle. here's an old thread:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1114

with pics to boot, taken in the 60's (attaching one):

"Isa and Musa said" for me is basically nothing.

yep, i'm with you on that one. there are a whole lot of isas and the musas in the internet forums, therefore to gain knowledge, one must do his own research, like i mentioned earlier. Archives, records of early travelers, old training manuals, archeology - though it makes good references, it still has a lot of descripancies due to translation problem at that point in time. how many terms has been misunderstood due to not knowing the language, or just plain ignorance of the culture? what was interpreted as welcoming salute became interpreted as an agressive gesture?

Concerning the dates of undeclared wars - typically there are always a few hundred of guerillas that continue to fight even after the time when large battles are over. Which brings in the question whether we qualify their actions as organized crime, terrorism or a continuation of the war ? In the latter case how large a number "guerillas" merits the extenstion of the war's timeline ?

don't wanna get into details about history but since you brought this one up: this depends on what side you're on. one man's terrorist/insurgent is another man's freedom fighter.
Sakay, Felizardo, Montalan, de Vega, Malvar, etc. were all considered as ruthless terrorists by the americans at the turn of the century. you don't have to go far on this one. one can read this on hurley's novella. but i guarantee you they weren't considered as terrorists on that part of the world.
in regards to the last part: actually, i don't see this as part of the topic...

[Rivkin]

Unfortunately every single book I have read that was coming up as an ultimate study of weapons, performed by a "culture carrier", about to destroy western myths and misunderstandings of local language and culture, based on author's personal research, in my very personal opinion, was a mere nationalistic BS. Archives, archives, archives, unless the villagers really remember the use of weapons (and if they do they are invaluable), there is very little that can be gained from them.

[David]

Originally Posted by Rivkin

Unfortunately every single book I have read that was coming up as an ultimate study of weapons, performed by a "culture carrier", about to destroy western myths and misunderstandings of local language and culture, based on author's personal research, in my very personal opinion, was a mere nationalistic BS. Archives, archives, archives, unless the villagers really remember the use of weapons (and if they do they are invaluable), there is very little that can be gained from them.

Rivkin, I think due to the prominence of the rifles in the photo Ron posted you may have overlooked the edged weapons in the background that were clearly still in use in this area in the 1960s. I understand that your area of study is not the Philippines, but since it is the topic we are on at the moment you might want to take note that kris and barong certainly have been uses as active weapons in these regions in the past 50 yrs. Therefore you may discover some actual "carriers of culture" in this region that might give you very valid information.
It should be obvious that history is written by the victors and that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. How to rectify contadictions that arise in historical dating due to this will continue to be a question. I would be more concerned about the accurate descrption of the weapons and their history of use than the specifics a when exactly hostilities may have began or ended, but i do understand why these dates are important to some. It seems to me that any fair assessment of history must include the stories on both sides of the battle lines.
I must agree with Spunjer on his take on the study of weapons. We can only learn so much on forums or from books and travelling to the regions our weapons come from should be the goal of any serious collector. Even if one cannot find any true "carriers of culture" to speak with, much can be learned simply by walking amongst the people of the place these weapons come from and immersing ourselves in the whole of their culture. You cannot learn about these things in a vaccum, seperated from the culture of origin.
I feel a loss for anyone who felt the need to walk away from this forum due to their experience with HOS. Regardless of the validity of any claim they might have against HOS, this forum is not HOS. Certainly some here were contributors, but this forum is so much more than that. This forum is made up of the people that participate here, regardless of their connections elsewhere. Everyone here has a free voice, in the context of the rules of civility that exist here. This is place to share knowledge and grow. To leave this forum over this event is as much a loss to self as it is to this forum. Nothing is solved through withdrawal.

[Rivkin]

Please show me where I stated that the swords were not in use in Philipinnes 50 years ago. As I said, I make general statements.

My opinion is very simple: 20 or so years ago it became fashionable for young "easterners", lead by Dr. Said and others, lacking any knowledge of history, religion, archeology, to declare that the western knowledge is invalid and moreover - no matter how much BS the "easterner" puts into his book, he can not be critisized by a "westerner" since the "easterner" is a "culture carrier" (whatever this means) and he once did speak with a village elder (which they call "research").

[Rick]

Let's please keep the tone civil; okay?

[David]

Rivikin, you did not state this. Sorry if you thought i implied so. But after Ron posted the photo to support why speaking with "carriers of culture" is legitimate in the study of Philippines edged weapons you continued to dismiss the practice. I understand that you are speaking generally, but this thread is speaking specifically at the moment about the Philippines, so i see your post as ignoring the evidence that was put before you.
Your opinion was clear and perhaps valid to the area of weapons you are discussing, i am just not convinced that it necessarily applies in our discussion of Filipino weapory.

[Andrew]

Enough, already.

[MABAGANI]

Here's a well researched book by an American if anyone is interested in learning more about US history in the Philippines, "Muddy Glory, America's 'Indian Wars' in the Philippines 1899-1935" by Russel Roth 1981.

But back on topic, rather than taking wild guesses at what went wrong with the Philippine section of the exhibit, gather information from everyone involved. Why make excuses? All the authors agreed the work was rushed and had many mistakes, one quit the EEWRS over the fiasco. Contributors caught many errors in the descriptions and want them changed. Difficult to call this infighting rather than honestly wanting to correct errors that were already made. Including the Philippines with Eastern Asia might be okay for something like sporting events, but if we are writing about weaponry the nation fits better with Southeast Asia, "Malay" keris/kris culture. Keep in mind, the original exhibit was supposed to include all regions of the world but was reorganized when the Macao Museum could not meet its deadline for the East Asian Games 2005 event. Ironically, within the East Asian Games participating regions are the People's Republic of China, Guam, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Kazakhstan, DPR Korea (North Korea), Korea (South Korea), Macau, Mongolia and Chinese Taipei.