Antique luzon blade need help in identifying

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by bathala

Maybe not in the realm of impossible. Actually there is a lot of profiles here that can be used for identification but it is still confusing if you look at it straightforward. If we go by this xasterix sword look more like the sundang than the" dahong bolo:

Sorry I couldn't see the pic. Your suggestion to salt-ify the document is noted, as I am always open to new and updated information. I guess that I prefer it as just my personal label, as I have no other term to call that particular profile. Thanks for your thoughts.

[bathala]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Sorry I couldn't see the pic. Your suggestion to salt-ify the document is noted, as I am always open to new and updated information. I guess that I prefer it as just my personal label, as I have no other term to call that particular profile. Thanks for your thoughts.

Thank you aswell. I learned too from this discussion. I was wondering about a dagger profile I encountered recently. This these best describe that blade profile. " Punto dyamante!

[algrennathan]

Just my take on this. Yes, his account give us an idea of blade typology or names during his time. But the question is, how accurate is the account? How credible is the author? Who was he? Was this peer reviewed? These questions arise cause the fact that it was only a thesis and not a published work makes this a bit sketchy.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by algrennathan

Just my take on this. Yes, his account give us an idea of blade typology or names during his time. But the question is, how accurate is the account? How credible is the author? Who was he? Was this peer reviewed? These questions arise cause the fact that it was only a thesis and not a published work makes this a bit sketchy.

Hi algrennathan,

I think that you will be searching long and hard to obtain many peer-reviewed/scientific publications that you are seeking. There are some American anthropological papers that are reasonably reputable, but these have problems too. What was observed in use by various ethnic groups were not necessarily of their own manufacture. For example, the account of Fox on the Negrito clans on Mt Pinatubo included various knives and swords that they acquired from Pampangan smiths. Also, the Tinguian in northern Luzon (see Faye Cooper-Cole's account) used some indigenous weapons but also knives and swords from the Ilokanos of Ilocos Norte.

The "name game" of trying to find specific indigenous names for a particular blade is often pretty fruitless because the same item can have many different names, depending on the local culture or preference. You will find many places in our Archives where discussions have highlighted different names for the same item, often with passionate arguments for various preferred names. Often there is no universally accurate descriptor for a particular blade, and to try to tease apart what it may be called among various social groups becomes difficult (even for those within the particular culture). A single blade form can have different names among different groups, and the same name can apply to different blade styles among different groups. When we translate many of the native terms, they often reduce to general descriptors, such as "knife" or "sword" in the original language, which is not very helpful. Consider, for example, itak, punal, sundang, bolo, talibong, espada, daga, etc.

Information on the local naming of blades is often so sparse that we are forced to take what we can get, imperfect as it may be.

[algrennathan]

Exactly. However what I am trying to get at is we don't know who Atienza is. If credible anthropologists already have errors in their work, more so for someone who has no credible background on a certain field. How can we trust such work to be accurate?

Originally Posted by Ian

Hi algrennathan,

I think that you will be searching long and hard to obtain many peer-reviewed/scientific publications that you are seeking. There are some American anthropological papers that are reasonably reputable, but these have problems too. What was observed in use by various ethnic groups were not necessarily of their own manufacture. For example, the account of Fox on the Negrito clans on Mt Pinatubo included various knives and swords that they acquired from Pampangan smiths. Also, the Tinguian in northern Luzon (see Faye Cooper-Cole's account) used some indigenous weapons but also knives and swords from the Ilokanos of Ilocos Norte.

The "name game" of trying to find specific indigenous names for a particular blade is often pretty fruitless because the same item can have many different names, depending on the local culture or preference. You will find many places in our Archives where discussions have highlighted different names for the same item, often with passionate arguments for various preferred names. Often there is no universally accurate descriptor for a particular blade, and to try to tease apart what it may be called among various social groups becomes difficult (even for those within the particular culture). A single blade form can have different names among different groups, and the same name can apply to different blade styles among different groups. When we translate many of the native terms, they often reduce to general descriptors, such as "knife" or "sword" in the original language, which is not very helpful. Consider, for example, itak, punal, sundang, bolo, talibong, espada, daga, etc.

Information on the local naming of blades is often so sparse that we are forced to take what we can get, imperfect as it may be.

[Ian]

algrennathan,

I appreciate your desire to identify weapons precisely. However, I think this is ultimately a self-defeating exercise. Many times, there is no single accepted name for a sword or knife. Basically, the name of a sword or knife comes down to what the owner wishes to call it, or what the panday called it, or what the local custom may be at that time. The same blade can have many different names (e.g., see Cato, Moro Swords).

It appears that Atienza was a university student who wrote this paper for his thesis. I have no idea what the quality of education may have been at his institution in Batangas in 1907, but it is very likely that he pursued his task diligently, made accurate observations, and tried to write down the names as clearly as he could. His account appears to be purely descriptive, as many ethnographic studies of the time were. Relatively few Filipinos had the opportunity to go to university in the early 20th C, so he likely came from a relatively affluent family. I have been told that academic integrity was very high in the 19th C and early 20th C (probably higher than today) because the opportunity to attend university was considered a great privilege and honor, which reflected on you and your family.

Having worked closely with Filipino academics for 20+ years, they are overwhelmingly careful and accurate investigators. There are exceptions, of course, but most take great pride in their work and especially their teaching.

Returning to Atienza, I think he recorded his observations as faithfully as he could. Whether his work relates well to current day terms and blade forms is up to others to determine.

[chmorshuutz]

Originally Posted by Ian

algrennathan,

I appreciate your desire to identify weapons precisely. However, I think this is ultimately a self-defeating exercise. Many times, there is no single accepted name for a sword or knife. Basically, the name of a sword or knife comes down to what the owner wishes to call it, or what the panday called it, or what the local custom may be at that time. The same blade can have many different names (e.g., see Cato, Moro Swords).

It appears that Atienza was a university student who wrote this paper for his thesis. I have no idea what the quality of education may have been at his institution in Batangas in 1907, but it is very likely that he pursued his task diligently, made accurate observations, and tried to write down the names as clearly as he could. His account appears to be purely descriptive, as many ethnographic studies of the time were. Relatively few Filipinos had the opportunity to go to university in the early 20th C, so he likely came from a relatively affluent family. I have been told that academic integrity was very high in the 19th C and early 20th C (probably higher than today) because the opportunity to attend university was considered a great privilege and honor, which reflected on you and your family.

Having worked closely with Filipino academics for 20+ years, they are overwhelmingly careful and accurate investigators. There are exceptions, of course, but most take great pride in their work and especially their teaching.

Returning to Atienza, I think he recorded his observations as faithfully as he could. Whether his work relates well to current day terms and blade forms is up to others to determine.

I agree. Even today, there's still some variation in nomenclature and blade profiles in Tagalog region, it's a large area compared to most ethnolinguistic regions of the country. The "hojas tari" illustrated by Atienza is different from its counterparts in Quezon, Mindoro and other Tagalog provinces. Same goes with "kabase" and "dahong palay".