Barung(s) for you

[Federico]

Ok, I get busy, go offline for a while, and here is a nice long post on barongs. Well since a lot of ground has been covered here, Ill try and see if I can slip in the best I can. Since this is a barong thread, Ill address only barongs, Ill address kris in the other thread, with one exception.

Labantayo, one hint at the possible traditional use of the garab, may come from the book Muddy Glory by Russel Roth. If I remember rightly (I dont have the book in front of me), if we associate the garab with the pulahan aka. pulajan aka. dios-dios of Samar and Leyte, at least one account in this book attributes to them that they were known for a double sword style. Now this is vague, does not necessarily point to the garab, and not very helpful but it is something.

As for the barong in FMA, as LabanTayo has noted a simple trace of your arts lineage should clear that up. Unfortunately, particularly for those of us in the US and Europe, most FMA that we are seeing has a very limited, and I stress limited set of sources. Eg. the Stockton Guros (Angel Cabales, Leo Giron, etc...), Pekiti Tersia (eg. Leo Gaje), Modern Arnis (Remy Presas), Doce Pares (either Diony or Cacoy), etc... While there are a plethora of teachers these days, you trace back and it comes back down to a small handful. Out of that handful, almost none have any real connection to Moroland, let alone a Moro fighting art. Of all the old manongs, I dont believe (with the exception of Tatang Illustrisimo) that really any claimed to be teaching a Moro art. Yet, it is the 2nd and most often 3rd and 4th generation teachers/students that seem to be spreading this myth. So where does it start, and how do you make sense out of it. If your teacher was from the US, his teacher from Visayas, and his teacher's teacher from Visayas, where does the Moro enter in the picture to teach the teacher some Moro technique let alone base the art off of a Moro weapon. Further complicating matters, is how non-blade oriented many FMA groups have become. Definitely a good way to generate power with a stick, can be very different depending on the type of blade weapon one is using. I know many in my own Eskrima group, who cannot translate their FMA into a blade because of their lack of any real blade experience. The stick in Arnis/Eskrima was intended as a training tool only for beginning students, and for many it was a good training tool because one grew up with a bolo, and did not have to re-learn how to handle it. I know from my father's own story about how his grandfather tried to teach him "arnis" a stick never entered the equation, and training was all bolo all the time. Anyways, that being said, I know in my own training, while certain principles can be taken as a universal applications of motion, none of the moves have really struck me as built around Moro weaponry. I have always felt the moves much more comfortable and natural to execute using bolo, rather than kris or barong.

Spunjer, as for Arnis/Eskrima only existing in Visayas, that can easily be traced back to the limited number of teachers who have openly taught here in the US. Visayan's were well represented amongst the early Filipino immigrants in the US, while other groups were not. There are definitely non-Visayan Eskrima/Arnis styles that werent simply taught to them by some Visayan. I can think of at least one group that pops up immidiately to my mind, and that would be Garimot Arnis. There are definitely many many different styles still in PI, that have not been taught outside of their families, let alone publically, and unfortunately even more that have been lost due to modernization. Visayas, particularly Cebu, is very well known, particularly due to the efforts of the Canete brothers, in their promotion of FMA as a more public affair. But I can assure you, that for many family styles, FMA is not something to be shared with the public, but something to be cherished and kept within the family alone. But beyond this, what constitutes FMA in itself varies greatly. I know my great-grandfather supposedly learned his style piece by piece, from his voyages as a sailor. A core set of techniques, but also adding Chinese/Indonesian/Malaysian techniques as his voyages brought him into contact with other styles from port to port. There does definitely seem to be a core connection between the FMA weapon arts and the ocean/sailors.

Anyways, as for the origin of the Barong. I still feel the answer, like the origin of the kris, lies in finding provenanced pieces. Without a provenanced pieces, we are dealing with theory. Eg. when a myth speaks of a Barong, is it speaking of the barung sword as we know it in Sulu, the barong demon as is pernicious amongst many Malay states/cultures, or something different. Do modern Maguindanao claim the sword, where do their origin myths attribute it to? Unfortunately, I do not know which 17th account you are referring to, and to what context the barong is mentioned. But one thing that is equally important, aside from identifying what exactly they are describing, would be in what context are they describing it? Anyways, it is not something I have given much thought to, as I have always felt it deeply rooted in Sulu culture, in much the same way I feel the Kampilan has been rooted to Mindanao. Though Zamboanga, the Iranun, and Balangingi Samal definitely throw wrenches into theorization. Most particularly Zamboanga, a melting pot region in which one finds Mindanao and Sulu groups and items mixing freely. Hmmmm....I had a better response before oh well...

[zamboanga]

from the link provided by spunjer (http://cebueskrima.s5.com/custom2.html):

"Or maybe they (moros) really don't have any organized sword fighting system after all and relied purely on suicidal frenzy and the sharpness of their Kris at the height of mayhem"

my question is, would that have been possible? how can a group of people, relying supposedly on an unorganized fighting system, succesfully repulse the advances of Spain's army over a very long period of time?

i believe there is more than a system involved. and for that i suggest anyone to study the culture beyond the weapons.

even today one can see the "warrior" mentality nurtured among joloanos. and i don't mean that in a negative or a positive way. they are prepared for battle even when there is none. it is there is what i am saying.

examples i can site, ask any true blooded jolo-born lady and i bet she can show you how to disassemble a 1911 and put it back together in a snap. i have seen an 11 year old girl load a full magazine of heavy m14 bullets using her elbows. while the weapons have been replaced, the culture is still there.

my point is if you apply this to those times of old - surely a "systematic" way of blade fighting could have evolve from those hand-me down instructions. kali or not, there is a system.

going back to the link. interestingly, while the author claimed to have travelled the "entire breadth of Mindanao" he only mentions places like Ipil, Dumingag, Margosatubig and Ozamiz. These are places where the visayans dominate in populace. surely you won't find your kali man or whatever moro martials practitioner there.

he should have visited lamitan or jolo.

just my sharing. peace!

[Rick]

As a complete novice regarding FMA and or any relationship it may or may not have to Moro martial arts I've got to ask you guys this question ; what MA system was I watching during the Crossing Sulu Seas video when they were working with Barung , Kris and Budjak ?

[MABAGANI]

If you ever notice I rarely write my sources online, unfair? but always good to do your own research and cross reference, otherwise we end up not thinking for ourselves. On a hunch and through study again IMHO, the barung deals with the rise and fall of the Maguindanaos and the rise of Tausug as power shifts and transitions. I'll reserve my thoughts about footage from the Sulu Seas video. "Suicidal frenzy" doesn't cut it, you have to be taught how to use the weaponry or you'll end up hurting yourself. I'd comment that you can't separate the culture from the weapon, sure you can use basic principles but then its still incomplete, at least spiritually and physically especially when dealing with Moro swords. btw Battara, the avatar is a signal for the sword to come home some day...

[Federico]

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

[themorningstar]

Originally Posted by Federico

Without citation, we kill any possibility of an academic discussion, as citation is the core of a proper academic discourse. Without citation, the discussion turns quickly to a discussion of personal opinion. IMHO it is the lack of citation that tends to lead to a lack of research. It is amazing, how many un-backed claims are picked up on in weapons collecting circles as truth without question. Then through repitition of such claims, they gain validity through weight of voice, and not merit of factuality. And without citation, it becomes difficult to verify or negate the validity of such claims. Eg. if I say, observers saw ancient Filipinos use kampilan. Without citation, or in the very least some point of reference, it is contextless. What account am I referencing? Whom exactly are these observers? Are there alternate motives behind the account? Or even a temporal date is lacking (eg. does ancient mean 1600, 1700, 1950, etc...)? Also, which account is being referenced, particularly when multiple accounts exist? However, if I say in Pigafetta's account, he noted warriors used kampilan. Others can go back to the account, and note, hey he never used the word kampilan, where am I getting this claim from. While, it makes it easier for others to dis-agree, it does keep a higher standard of academic research. Of course, when common knowledge is being referenced, particularly amongst peers, for brevities sake one can forgo alot of citation.

As for the training of the barong. Well, what constitutes training? Does one have to wear a gi, and have a belt ranking system, to be "training" in a style? Does working out scenarios with family members constitute training? I do believe mindset plays a very important role in fighting ability, often overlooked by many Westerners. However, from a sheer mechanical perspective, at the bare minimum there would have to be at least enough training given to utilize a tool. Cutting with a blade for many is not an instinctual action, let alone cutting with a barong. Pure logic in itself would suggest that not training would make it impossible for there to be any regular success of cutting to happen, let alone a reputation for being skilled workers to be formed. That being said, how much training is truly needed to create a good warrior, is something that is debatable.

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required. 2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended. cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the day has finally dawned. let me kindly address a few things in this post. 1. citations, i have no need of so-called citations or your research. i lived in sulu and grew up w/ a barung as my blanket, my life was my research and that is all the verification required.

Well if you feel that there is no need for my "research" feel free to ignore my posts. However, not growing up in Sulu, with a barung, then should I consign myself to never understanding the history or the weaponry of the region? As such, it would seem that most of us on this forum should thus give up our discussions, since the vast majority of us are not and will never be from the places from which the weaponry we collect are from. However, if we want to play "academics", then we must conform to some form of standardization. Now, if we dont want to play "academic" that is something else, and fine then there is no need for citation. However, the very fact that you can claim that your knowledge comes from first hand experience, to me would count as citation of some sorts. It is knowledge that is coming from a source (eg. your personal experience), and has some quantification. However, I would prefer to avoid mystery in our discussioins. I try to be forthcoming about who I am, and what constitutes what little knowledge I have to form my opinion. I understand some knowledge must be kept secret, for cultural reasons. But if we are going to attempt a discourse, if we limit our discussion by secrecy we hit a dead end of communication real fast.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

2. training, there was no gi or belt ranking system in my family's style of silat. yes, working out scenarios with "family members" actually constituted a large part of training as our art was only kept within the "family" direct or extended.

This was in fact the original point behind my post, that what to some observers may not qualify as "training", due to a lack of perceived formality such as gi's, it is still valid training. I am not, and I stress once again, I am not arguing that one needs formality to constitute valid training.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

cutting w/ a blade actually is an instinctual action amongst those that were raised by the old law of the barung that effected a natural as well as necessary instinct. cutting with a barung is an art and science unto itself that escapes many, especially those that train in a closed-guard. .

Again, there is a caveat in this statement, eg. it is natural amongst those who are raised in said environment implying a some form of training no matter how altruistic. However, stick a barung in the hands of someone growing up in the US who has never handled a blade other than a steak knife, they will not be able to instinctually cut with it. Which was my point. The ability to cut is not universal instinct innate amongst all people. Training, even if something as innate as cultural immersion is still necessary. I have hung out with enough people, who have never handled a blade longer than 3", to know that even though my own small background growing up with bolo may not seem all that much, it is far more than what they had and makes the difference between being able to clear the backyard of weeds with a bolo, and swinging and swinging without ever cutting anything.

Originally Posted by themorningstar

pure logic suggests nothing because that is its essence, logic is logic, suggestion borders on assumption. and finally, ioo (in our opinion) a warrior's skill is not measured by their amount of training, but in their ability to use their training, and that is not debatable.

Ok, I am a little lost by the quote on logic. I am also unsure if when stating in our opinion, you are in fact multiple people posting under one handle, or a single individual representing a group of people (your profile is rather blank). However, I meant to simply suggest, on a pure statistical level, without training the chance of people picking up an un-known weapon and suddenly becoming succesful at its use against trained opponents is very low. I am sure there are people who are natural warriors, but to assume that an entire population can without training be filled with natural warriors is to me logically un-sound (now again mind you I am still unclear what you meant in your discussion of logic as logic). Now, again I did not mean to imply there is some fixed amount of time of training that creates some super warrior, but rather skill varies for individuals. And while there are some who can pick up skill sets quickly, many cannot. Hence the debatability of the validity that any set amount of training, is more dependent on the individual, rather than X amount of years. Hence, what may seem like a short period of training to some, may in fact be all that was needed by a certain individual. Whereas others to achieve the same results may take years to attain.

[tom hyle]

I had some thoughts that might be illuminating in this matter. I had them the other morning on the way to work, and wrote them down, so you won't be getting fresh or perhaps in-depth versions, but I still feel there's a certain relevance. The subject isn't swords, the subject is logic and argumentation etc. (tune out here.....) Also this isn't about anything hurting my feelings, though I do keenly feel that I "resemble those remarks". It is, like any argument, properly (duly noted), about finding the truth. I think I have found a way to make clearer and more interculturally penetrative (you like that?) the value of unsuported/nonfactual/etc. evidence. We have discussed the concept that fact and opinion are two different things, but that hardly covers the spectrum. Also very much to the point is that fact and truth/reality are two different things, as well. This goes to the bases of science and logic, BTW. A fact is not something that is true. A fact is something that has been PROVEN to be true. A theory is something that has been proven to be largely true, without rising to the level of absolute proof. The term fact only has meaning in the context of some group or institution that will approve or disapprove of the proof (perhaps appropriately and perhaps not, but that's not my point). Truth is simply true, and whatever some might tell you, reality is simply real. So a thing might be completely true without having been proven, or without even being provable or testable (this is a good example of what real science teaches and claims vs. the social-religious institutional beliefs and behaviors of its claimed followers; kinda like "Christians" burning people to death; funny how I don't remember Christ doing anything like that....); lack of proof is not a valid assault on reality, and not a good reason to disrespect or disregard a person.
Say we are hungry in the forest. I come and say I saw an animal go by. You ask me to take you to a track so we can follow it. I look around where it was, but can't find a track. Now, we don't have a track; no hard evidence we can use to kill dinner, but I did see it (or so I say; but would you address one so in the forest?), and I saw which way it went, and we can try to find tracks over that way, and use our imaginations and geographical and biological knowledge to figure out where it went. As we have no other resources, is this information, which is not as good as it might be, useless, or might it help us eat?
Formal "Western" logic in its basic "logic meet" (yes, they're real; they might be called logic bees; I can't remember) form must assume premises that are true; if you argue from false premises with it you get false results. But in the real world it is rarely safe and sure what is true, and we must argue, and indeed act, on questionable premises all the time. I wonder if "higher levels" of formal logic, or non-"Western" thought systems take this into account, and allow for or even enhance thinking of the kind we must do in the world we really inhabit?

[Spunjer]

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

[MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

so was arnis/escrima developed by the visayans as a form of self defense against the moros then?

I don't buy that it was completely Visayan, arnis/escrima after all is just a name for arts related to the PI, we can't exclude Luzon (didn't they fight too? why left out for some reasons?) and the southern islands or the old timers here and abroad in the history of the FMA, a complicated but understandable matter.
We know that when the Spanish arrived in PI written material/history was burned and martial arts were banned, but that would not have stopped oral tradition or physical teachings in regards to forms of art, dance and martial.
Mindanao and Sulu had kept their martial arts alive which can be found in their written and evidentally, their oral/physical traditions, if you care to delve deeper you can find early pre-Islamic traces of the martial arts in recorded epics. This would point towards martial arts existing prior to the whole Mindanao/Sulu and Visayan/Luzon separation/conflict, all the islands were on the verge of Islamic conversion at the time of Spanish arrival.
The answer depends on what perspective you want to take and how open your interpretation of history would be.

[LabanTayo]

does the truth have to be published before it is accepted as the truth?
if my lolo (grandfather) told me that when he was in WWII as a guerilla and told me that the sword they used was called 'itak', then should i discount that from being the truth, since its not published.
we are here to discover our history by comparing pics and notes. but does verbal information not count? the only time i have seen the Panay sword, Binangon, refered to as such, is one of Kris Cutlery's old catalogues. does that count as published? does that make it the truth? or does the fact that everyone in Panay call their farm sword a Binangon, count as truth?
we have to account that most of the real filipino history is verbal, not written by the spanish or americans. there's a lot of published items that are incorrect in their facts.

a quote passed on to me by BSMstar, says it all:
"history is written by the winner"

is the winner always right?

[Federico]

Ok, it seems like I have opened pandora's box, my point has long since been lost.

I'll try to re-iterate. Citation does not mean only books. In history or anthropology circles, oral history, and living informants are highly valued. Oral history definitely is as valid as any written reference. I have never argued against oral history. I have repeated time and time again that I value oral history, and wish I could meet more people who are willing to share their knowledge.

However, if you dont credit a source, then all I am left to understand that is that the information is coming from your opinion. The credit does not have to be overly formal. But simply something as in the Maguindanao story of X, or my lolo told me, or even an elder told me gives us a point of reference. However, saying oh this is that, or other vague statements. Well its contextless.

Finally, while I am just as eager for tidbits of information where I can find it, I cannot simply accept things on faith. Sometimes errors occur. Stone's is such an example. Do we not cross-reference and try to check the validity of a source? Cross-referencing is always good, and part of the reason why I seek to learn still. If I could rest with one reference, then my journey would be over. But I am always, seeking to know why. If a catalog calls an item X, why? If a book says X, why? I dont hope to have all the answers, but would like to know why.

[mmontoro]

Here's the link to the page advertising the tape:

http://www.kriscutlery.com/sandata/Video/index.html

According to that, the style is a Moro Silat-Kuntaw.

-Beautiful Javanese kris made by a master craftsman - Djeno
-Ilmu power of the Sinar Putih - silat group of Java
-Sali, a Tausug,shows moves of Moro style silat-kuntaw using a kris
-Ado, a Tausug, using a barong
-Watch a swordsmith forge a Moro Kris
And many more!

[Rick]

Originally Posted by mmontoro

Here's the link to the page advertising the tape:

http://www.kriscutlery.com/sandata/Video/index.html

According to that, the style is a Moro Silat-Kuntaw.

-Beautiful Javanese kris made by a master craftsman - Djeno
-Ilmu power of the Sinar Putih - silat group of Java
-Sali, a Tausug,shows moves of Moro style silat-kuntaw using a kris
-Ado, a Tausug, using a barong
-Watch a swordsmith forge a Moro Kris
And many more!

Thanks Manny , I have the tape .

I was fishing for opinions from the fma people here .
Is Silat-Kuntaw a purely Moro form ?
Is what is seen truly Silat-Kuntaw ?

Maybe this subject is a minefield that I should steer clear of .

[nechesh]

Gee, and here i thought only the keris threads got went like this.
It seems to me that everyone involved in this thread ought to take a deep breathe and reread the posts they have reacted so strongly to. From my reading i can only conclude that there is either great misunderstanding here or some did not really bother to read some posts through, just reacting to a statement or two they only thought they understood.

[MABAGANI]

Tom, sounds like a metaphor to explain faith...like a double ended sword cutting the duality between logic and truth to reveal the unity of reality. Nechesh, passion is a good thing, but mixing it with swords is dangerous...
This thread was supposed to be about barung.
I finally got the barung with the script and symbols, much nicer to handle in person, its long and well balanced, shows good patterning and etch, even delivered with the smell of fragant oils on it. The writing towards the hilt that doesn't show too well in the pics says Allah, its scribed in fine curves opposite the choppy form on the reverse side, the chop type reminds me of the earliest form of Chinese script, seen on bone exhibited at the Asian Art Museum in SF.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by nechesh

Gee, and here i thought only the keris threads got went like this.

Just goes to show you the inter-related nature of the Malay world, Sultanates rubbing off on other Sultanates, collectors rubbing off on other collectors

[migueldiaz]

Hello Kai,

Following your request in this thread for me to post the pics of my Palawan barongs in a new thread, I thought that it would be better if I just revive this one.

So from the shadows, this thread has come back once again ... at this point, play in your mind your favorite suspenseful background music ... ok, sorry for goofing around

Levity aside, the pics of my two Palawan barongs can also be found here and here.

Ian earlier posted pics of a Palawan bolo, in which the scabbard carvings are very similar to my barong scabbard (under the first "here" in the above links) ...

And yes, I agree with you that the elongated barong blade could have also come from non-Moro (upland Palawan) ethnic groups. But as far as my two barongs are concerned, the forumite-seller of these told me that their original owners are Moros ...

[KuKulzA28]

Very interesting points brought up here. Things ranging from Palawan barongs to citation, to the continuation of Moro arts... and the phenomenon of modern FMA that has spread world-wide using Moro weapons... I think it deserves a bump?

Many of the folks who posted back when this thread was new-stuff haven't posted in a long time.

[Battara]

Some of these folks are no longer on the forum.