HISTORY OF STEEL IN EASTERN ASIA EXHIBITION NOW ONLINE - Page 2

Andrew · 30th December 2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

"Tolerance and lest we perpetuate misinformation"

Aside from the botched historical article in the Philippine exhibit, I also forwarded information to coordinators about incorrect categories and mislabeled swords. After bringing these matters to attention, nothing has been changed by the Macao Museum's administrator, in turn inaction is against EEWRS forum rules for inciting "INTOLERANCE", "FLAMES, INSULTS, BIGOTRY" and making statements that are now "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane" towards the race and nation of the Philippines.

For the record, Filipinos members of EEWRS were treated unjustly as a consequence of the Macao HOS project. Filipinos were publicly bashed on the EEWRS, contributors received artifacts damaged and there was an account of money swindled from a participant. Filipino members wanted to be disassociated from the ill-fated unsatisfactory exhibit.

The article and exhibit for the Philippine section does not merit a critique because its an unresearched rough draft containing too many mistakes. The display itself had false catagories with swords placed in the wrong headings. The exhibit, at least the Philippine section, should have been canceled rather than "salvaged and rushed" and unsuitably grouped with Eastern Asia.

Inadvertently, during and after the course of the exhibit, EEWRS was unable to moderate effectively because a majority of moderators were part of the project. Before the start of the second exhibit attempt I caught the Macao Museum assembler's abusive intolerant nature in a posted thread and decide not to join. Had he been banned for breaking the forum rules this whole episode may not have occurred.

Keep in mind, next time someone plans to do an exhibit, world class museums book their events up to two years in advance, details worked out beforehand. Real museums conserve and protect artifacts including their history. Why the Philippines section was expected to come up with an exhibit practically from scratch in a few months and put in a display about Eastern Asia was senseless and the fallout was unnecessary. Unfortunately, people were misled into peril and would like to put the ordeal in the past.

IMHO this thread should be locked and the link to the HOS website removed "lest we perpetuate misinformation". Individual links (excluding the Philippines section) for each of the remaining exhibit sections could be listed for participants who were able to present decent work and research.

It sounds like you have a problem with the moderation of this site, in addition to the exhibit. Please address your moderation concerns to the Staff via email or PM.

Andrew · 30th December 2006, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by themorningstar

the agung plays its final note....

This comment is uneccessary.

Quote:

huun, jumanji kami ha mabagani....

Please post in English.

B.I · 31st December 2006, 01:18 AM

This exhibition may have its faults (its not India and so thats not for me to judge) but I am surprised at the aggression fired against it. Surely we should applaud it for bringing the attention of arms to an increasingly ignorant general public.
We all want scholarly, and well researched additions to our libraries, but I think the bigger picture is being ignored. We also desperately need exhibitions and books to be pushed onto those that would not normally look to this subject. And these can happily remain on the ‘basic’ level. If we dont, and continue to sit here like a judge and jury, then I strongly feel we will slowly watch your hobby die.
This exhibition has been hounded on various platforms, and I think this is absolutely disgusting! A lot of effort was put into this, and it opened up many eyes by the efforts of Antonio and his staff.
I realise that the inaccuracies rubbed up some people the wrong way, but as in any academic book, this should not be so aggressively addressed. All books have their problems, for those that look hard enough. But, surely this is a starting point to discuss these issues, and further our knowledge. Can we not appreciate the exhibition for the efforts involved, and discuss any points we disagree with?
I made the same point about the book 'Arms and Armour from Iran'. Yes, it had many faults but the author somehow talked a publisher that had previously turned down weaponry books into accepting it, and has pushed his work through hard advertising and lecturing onto a much wider base than many previous books have managed. Is this a bad thing?
Of course it isnt. It means that were have a new book to discuss and it opens the doors for others to publish.
The same goes for this exhibition. Maybe Macau would never have even considered hosting an exhibition had Antonio not done all the work.
One book (or catalogue) could never be definitive, and so any inaccuracies should be noted and discussed by those than know better, and those that don’t will have an overall view, with a hopeful thirst to know more and discover these errors for themselves. If any book is taken as ultimate and faultless, then it is the problem of the reader in that he should question more.
Of course, this isn’t meant to excuse mistakes, but surely the exhibitions merits out weigh these inaccuracies! How many museums do we know of that are 100% accurate in their descriptions. Yes they should be pointed out, but surely not like this.
I cant speak for other countries (nor the US for that matter) but America ought to be wary of complacency when it comes to this hobby of ours. They, as a country, have a passion for guns, which luckily overlaps onto ‘white arms’, and the have the funds and museum space to continuously host permanent exhibitions. But, you should be aware of what is happening over here (UK).
I have watched museums gradually distance themselves from arms in general, due to their unpopularity as exhibits. This unfortunate view has been reflected in London arms fairs, which seem to attract fewer people each year. The auctions are the same. Most ‘top-end’ dealers will readily admit a decline in sales and hearken on to previous stories of a time when things were available and business was good.
Ebay is no judge of the current market, and forums do not show this decline. Everyone here is passionate, but will this go onto the next generation?
Baltimore is run by enthusiasts, who have done a fantastic job in organising events to instil this passion in lectures and dinners. But, without these few guys, the show would not be the same.
The Met still hold some great exhibitions centred around arms, but these too are run and organised by a select few. Without them, I wonder if the Met would not concentrate more on other popular exhibitions.
The V&A is a great example of this decline. When Tony North heralded the department, things were vastly different. However, when he retired, and was not replaced, the arms on show were soon taken down and put into storage (maybe permanently). The space was used for other exhibitions known to draw more of a general crowd. To keep a museum open and running, the general crowd must come first. We know that, even as passionate collectors. We must come second and it’s a fact we have to accept. There are still some very passionate people at the V&A, but these all have their own speciality and push for that primarily. I wonder what would happen if Donald Larocca retired? Yes, I am sure he would be replaced, and things would hopefully continue. As I said, the Met has the funds and the space, but I think people ought to be aware of the V&A as an example, before being so harsh with exhibitions that could potentially attract a ‘new’ crowd.
If Antonio’s work attracted just one new person into the fold, then it was all worth it. The layout looked fantastic, and the design alone would attract different people to view the exhibition. So, new eyes would see these weapons at their best, and potential collectors (all desperately needed) could be born.
It is a real shame that there were such obvious inaccuracies (apparently, from what I have read from others) but this still shouldn’t cause such a bad feeling towards this exhibition. I think it would be awful if Antonio decided not to host another, due to the harassment from this one. I know I would be reluctant to bother again if it were me. We surely learn from our own mistakes. I have heard this exhibition be called damaging to the academic field. How can this possibly be so?
The internet seems to have bred a new breed of academic. Very intelligent and educated. But hardly well read in what they criticise. You can give any individual essay to any college graduate, and he can tear it apart, word for word. But, all books, thesis and exhibitions should be looked at as a whole. The mistakes should be pointed out, but the efforts involved should always be applauded. Anyone can sit back, wait for someone to do all the work and then shoot it down. This doesn’t make them academic, not a good critic, as they are completely missing the point.
My point is that if any one good thing comes from anything, then it was all worthwhile. I really hope Antonio continues his efforts, and that people lighten up over this, and other, events.
This exhibition has not damaged anything (except maybe Ron’s pieces

), but I feel that the ‘village mob’ may prevent anything like this from happening again.
Well I, for one, sincerely hope not!

MABAGANI · 31st December 2006, 08:33 AM

Points taken.
But hold the applause and consider what's at stake.
We've heard "Publish or Perish" but I doubt it meant giving less than full effort, which is what happened in this case and at a sacrifice by incorrectly writing a country's history and abusing its people in the process.
There is also a big difference between collectors who want to write but plagiarize and regurgitate incorrect information to tout themselves as experts vs. collectors who have taken the time and effort to research producing insights and new theories. The better museum works I've seen have gone through or were connected to academic institutions to complete articles and essays or had their own research department to verify and approve written material to safeguard against or minimize errors. This is another reason why projects are scheduled two years out, painstakingly to produce a worthwhile endeavor.
Given the short notice, the outcome and fallout in this case I would have again opted to hold off publishing and left the Philippines out. Most importantly, no one or country deserves to be trampled on for the good of an exhibit or "catalog".

"Love God with all your heart, always bear in mind that love of God is also love of Country, and thus, too, is love of ones fellowmen" -Andres Bonifacio, Katipunan Revolution founder

VANDOO · 1st January 2007, 01:27 AM

AS I DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS I AM NOT AWARE OF WHY THERE IS INFIGHTING OR WHAT HAPPENED TO CAUSE THE INITIAL ANGER BUT SENSE IT IS PERSONEL AND HAS BEEN BREWING SINCE BEFORE THE EXHIBIT AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE EXHIBIT HAD BEEN.
THE EXHIBIT IS OVER AND THE MUSEUM DID CONSIDER THE PHILIPPINES IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE INCLUDED IN IT. IF THEY HAD NOT CONSIDRED THE PHILIPPINES TO BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO EVEN BE IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SNUB. THEY DID HAVE TO RUSH THE EXHIBIT WHICH HAS LED TO MORE MISTAKES THAN WOULD USUALLY OCCUR. THERE WERE ALSO PROBLEMS AT THE START AS SOME PEOPLE WHO INITIALLY WERE GOING TO HELP PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ITEMS DROPPED OUT FOR SOME REASON. THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE MISTAKES MADE AND MAY BE PART OF THE REASON FOR THE ANGER WHICH MAKES THEM FEEL THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT ENTIRELY. BUT THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN MAD IF THEY HAD BEEN LEFT OUT ENTIRELY AS THEY ARE IN THE REGION AND DID PLAY A PART IN ITS HISTORY. I FEEL ITS UNFORTUNATE THERE ARE NEGATIVE FEELINGS AND ANGER OVER THIS EXHIBIT AND HOPE IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE CHANCE OF FUTURE EXHIBITS IN MACAU OR OTHER PLACES. I CAN'T JUDGE AS I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PHILIPPINES WERE INTENTIONALY TRAMPLED AND INSULTED

. PERHAPS THE ONE WHO WROTE THE HISTORY SHOULD GET A POOR GRADE ON HIS DATES ON THE HISTORY TEST BUT THEY WOULD SURELY HAVE SCORED A LOT HIGHER ON THE TEST THAN I WOULD HAVE.

THIS IS NOT A CHALLENGE OR PUT DOWN ITS JUST HOW I SEE IT NO OFFENSE IS MENT.

Rivkin · 1st January 2007, 07:24 AM

Gentlemen,

I apologize for saying something very controversial, but:
100 years ago a collector was typically a nobleman with a profound education, who upon feeling the approach of his demise would write most likely a single work that would encompass his lifelong activities.
Today a typical weapons collector is a nationalistic young fellow who after a few sessions of karate decides to bless the world with the description of his own country's martial culture. From this point on he can spent a few years doing a Ph.D. on the subject, where he will learn that he can not really learn much in academic environment since arms and armour is not a significant part of academic classes, and 99% of historian and art historians have their knowledge of the subject formed by movies and the BS published by Osprey. Another option is that he will write a book, which is typically a bizarre mixture of quotes from old classical texts, photographs of his friends' swords and his own research, the latter is typically beyound BS.

From this point I see no reason to popularize the knowledge or studies of arms and armour, but rather deepen it. As of today we lack the people who publish at least 1 article on the subject every 4 months or so, we lack any kind of educational opportunities extended to students at universities, which makes our community pretty much off-mainstream. As of now there are only very few people whom I would experts in some part of our field, the rest I would put together with me in the category of enthusiasts.

I obviously have not read the catalogue and I have not seen here anything that would be really negate the information given by the exhibition (it is kind of hard to give precise years of any undeclared war). If the catalogue is ridden with errors, it is indeed a grief thing. However we just recently had some other publication coming out which is ridden with errors, as obviously we had many times before... It is bad, but that is what enthusiasts do - they try and hopefully they learn on their mistakes. Should we stop the presses - no, I think we do not. We just should spend more time collaborating, proof reading, emailing the materials prior to the publication. And this is what I think to be even more important than promoting the knowledge of swords in the general public (in which I do not really believe) - deepen and professionalize our knowledge.

Spunjer · 1st January 2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

100 years ago a collector was typically a nobleman with a profound education, who upon feeling the approach of his demise would write most likely a single work that would encompass his lifelong activities.

yes, i picture a white mustachioed man wearing a red velvet robe smoking a pipe writing about his exploits in the savage lands of india and southeast asia, were dastardly natives are noted for their peculiar habit of stretching their lips, and yet produces the most interesting and unusual types of weapons yet unseen in the 'civilized' world. of how he crossed (i'm sure riding in the back of an elephant while the natives walked and carry all his belongings) and explored the vast jungles of dark africa.
yet a hundred years later with all the braggadocios of these exploits that has little to do with our shared enthusiasm, we are still bickering whether those palias (really trying to conform with english only post, but i'm sorry, doesn't know the english translation for this word) on the spine of the muslim pilipino's head chopper axes signifies talsimanic symbols or numbers of heads lopped off by that certain weapon. we have pictures of their great collections, and yet it doesn't help us explain certain properties of why the sword was this way and not that way, or what's the significance of those inlays. books, such as stone's, are profoundly flawed, though i consider him as a profoundly educated man. the bottom line is, our knowledge regarding our collection has markedly improved since the early days of those educated noblemen, and i believe this is due to being able to communicate in a level field with the same people who's ancestors were the one responsible in making the same type of weapons. but then again, maybe i'm being too nationalistic. i do know this: traveling to the philippines and being able to talk to the older folks certainly gave me a better perspective and whole new outlook on the weapons that i have in my collection.

Quote:

Today a typical weapons collector is a nationalistic young fellow who after a few sessions of karate decides to bless the world with the description of his own country's martial culture. From this point on he can spent a few years doing a Ph.D. on the subject, where he will learn that he can not really learn much in academic environment since arms and armour is not a significant part of academic classes, and 99% of historian and art historians have their knowledge of the subject formed by movies and the BS published by Osprey. Another option is that he will write a book, which is typically a bizarre mixture of quotes from old classical texts, photographs of his friends' swords and his own research, the latter is typically beyound BS.

i have no idea that we share the same sentiment on cato's book. the ironic thing about it though is that to this day, the book is still regarded as the 'bible' to most muslim pilipino sword enthusiasts.

Quote:

From this point I see no reason to popularize the knowledge or studies of arms and armour, but rather deepen it. As of today we lack the people who publish at least 1 article on the subject every 4 months or so, we lack any kind of educational opportunities extended to students at universities, which makes our community pretty much off-mainstream. As of now there are only very few people whom I would experts in some part of our field, the rest I would put together with me in the category of enthusiasts.

my take on this is, one's enthusiam can go a long way. if you're really interested to find out more about your collection, why wait for everybody else's contribution to be posted in this here forum (or any other forums) when you can do your own research? this forum can only take you so far. this is not a cheap hobby for sure, and you can't be on a government sustenence if you're planning on starting on collecting. my point is, for a few sacrifice, meaning not buying two or three swords for awhile, maybe one can use that fund to make that trek to your weapon's origin. to the muslim pilipino weapon collectors, a trip to mindanao and/or sulu is just a hopsctoch from manila, a mere $50.00. when you come back, maybe write an article about what you've learn.

Quote:

(it is kind of hard to give precise years of any undeclared war)

On August 14, 1898, 11,000 American ground troops were sent to occupy the Philippines

Hostilities started on February 4, 1899 when an American soldier shot a Filipino soldier who was crossing a bridge into Filipino-occupied territory in San Juan del Monte, an incident historians now consider to be the start of the war.

-Wikipedia

Rivkin · 1st January 2007, 05:46 PM

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 · 1st January 2007, 05:57 PM

Quote:

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

MABAGANI · 1st January 2007, 07:31 PM

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.

Spunjer · 1st January 2007, 08:16 PM

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

Quote:

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):

Quote:

"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?

Quote:

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 · 1st January 2007, 08:27 PM

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 · 1st January 2007, 09:22 PM

Quote:

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 · 1st January 2007, 09:42 PM

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 · 1st January 2007, 10:00 PM

Let's please keep the tone civil; okay?

David · 1st January 2007, 10:07 PM

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.

VANDOO · 2nd January 2007, 04:50 PM

IN MANY AREAS KNIVES AND MACHETE ARE STILL CARRIED AS TOOLS BY THE LOCALS BUT ARE NOT WEAPONS. EDGED WEAPONS ARE STILL CARRIED TODAY ESPECIALLY BY INSURGENTS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND TERRORISTS. THEY ARE STILL NECESSARY TO CHOP THRU THE JUNGLE, GET FIRE WOOD AND OTHER CHORES AND MAY EVEN BE USED TO EXECUTE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN CAPTURED OR KIDNAPPED. BUT NO ONE GOES INTO BATTLE WITH SWORDS, SHIELDS OR SPEARS ANYMORE THE RIFLE ESPECIALLY AK47 IS NOW THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR AMBUSH OR ATTACKS.

IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD I WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ELDER AT 60 YEARS OLD BUT I WOULD BE A VERY POOR SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE USE OF THE TOMAHAWK AND BOWIE KNIFE. I WAS NOT TRAINED BY MY FAMILY OR TRIBE IN THE USE OF EDGED WEAPONS AS THE CHILDREN WERE IN THE OLD DAYS SO THAT KNOWLEGE HAS BEEN LOST. I HAVE CARRIED POCKET KNIVES, HATCHETS, MACHETE AND HUNTING KNIFES FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE BUT USED THEM AS TOOLS. SO ANY OPINIONS I WOULD HAVE ON ON HOW TO USE THEM IN WARFARE COULD ONLY BE BASED ON WHAT I HAD READ SEEN IN MOVIES OR STORIES I HAD HEARD NOT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. OFTEN THE STORYS THAT SURVIVE FROM THE OLD TIMES ARE EXZAGERATED TO MAKE THE HEROS SEEM GREATER THAN THEY WERE. FROM MY COUNTRY DANIAL BOONE, DAVY CROCKETT AND JIM BOWIE COME TO MIND THERE IS MORE FICTION THAN FACT IN MOST OF THE STORYS TOLD ABOUT THEM BY THE MEDIA AND THAT IS WHAT MOST OF US KNOW ABOUT THEM. SO UNLESS THE TRIBE IS STILL THE SAME AS IT WAS OVER 200 YEARS AGO THE ELDERS WILL HAVE LOST THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEGE AND ONLY HAVE THE STORYS LEFT. SO ASKING A OLD TRIBAL MEMBER ABOUT HEAD HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICED FOR 200 YEARS WILL ONLY GET YOU STORIES AND PERSONEL OPINIONS NOT FACTS. THE FACTS YOU CAN GET IS HOW THE WEAPON/TOOLS ARE USED TODAY AND PERHAPS THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE ANCESTORS FROM THE OLD DAYS. THE STORYS ABOUT THE ANCESTORS MAY BE ACCURATE OR NOT.

WHILE THE OLD WRITEINGS OF EXPLORERS AND ADVENTURERS HAVE MANY MISTAKES THEY ALSO HAVE SOME VAILD INFORMATION. SO WE JUST REHASH THE OLD WRITEINGS, ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDYS AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INFORMATION , AND UNTIL NEW WRITEINGS SHOW UP OR THE INVENTION OF THE TIME MACHINE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE.

INTERVIEWS WITH ELDERS CAN STILL BE VALUABLE FOR INFORMATION ON THE SOCIETY AT PRESENT AND WHAT THE HISTORY AND BELIEFS ARE TODAY. BUILDING UP A COMPARATIVE COLLECTION OF WEAPONS FROM A AREA CAN BE PRODUCTIVE AND THE LARGER THE COLLECTION THE BETTER. YOU USE THE FEW EXAMPLES WITH EXCELLENT PROVENANCE AS THE BASELINE AND COMPARE OTHER EXAMPLES TO THEM SOMETIMES IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THEM AND SEE THE CHANGES IN THE TYPE OR LINK DIFFERENT GROUPS BY SIMULARITYS.

David · 2nd January 2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

SO ASKING A OLD TRIBAL MEMBER ABOUT HEAD HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICED FOR 200 YEARS WILL ONLY GET YOU STORIES AND PERSONEL OPINIONS NOT FACTS. THE FACTS YOU CAN GET IS HOW THE WEAPON/TOOLS ARE USED TODAY AND PERHAPS THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE ANCESTORS FROM THE OLD DAYS. THE STORYS ABOUT THE ANCESTORS MAY BE ACCURATE OR NOT.

I might be mistaken, but i believe that some Dayak tribes continued the practice of headhunting well into the 1950s.
I might also be mistaken about this, but i wouldn't be surprised if the gentleman with the barong on his belt in Ron's photo was very well schooled in how to use it as a weapon.
Your point is well taken that the information collected by explorers and adventurers of old are not necessarily invalid. Like all information it should be examined and questioned, but certainly not automatically dismissed.

Tim Simmons · 2nd January 2007, 06:49 PM

It is well known that Iban took heads when acting for the British in the short war with Indonesia in the early 1960s. Not knowing the exact circumstances of how and when heads were cut off, such facts cannot really be used as concrete evidence of cultural knowledge of sword fighting inter tribal warfare in this modern age. Perhaps in isolated areas it might have been different?

VANDOO · 2nd January 2007, 07:04 PM

INDEED SOME CULTURES AND AREAS OF THE WORLD ARE CLOSER TO THE OLD TRADITIONS AND TIMES AND MAY STILL HAVE LIVING MEMBERS FROM THOSE TIMES. SOME TRIBES HAVE KEPT THEIR WAYS OF LIFE AND STILL TRAIN THEIR CHILDREN IN THE OLD WAYS OF LIFE AND WARFARE THE MASAI AMONG OTHERS STILL LIVE MUCH AS THEY DID IN THE PAST BUT WARFARE AND CATTLE RAIDS DO NOT PLAY AS BIG A ROLE IN THEIR LIVES AS IN THE PAST. MANY AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES STILL TRAIN THEIR YOUNG IN THE OLD WAYS MOSTLY CEREMONIES AND TRADITIONS BUT NOT IN WARFARE AS THEY ARE NOT MAKEING WAR ON THIER FELLOW MAN THESE DAYS. IT WOULD STILL BE NECESSARY TO TRAIN THE YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE WARRIORS IF THE TRIBE LIVED IN A CONSTANT STATE OF WAR WITH THEIR NEGHBORS. THERE ARE STILL PLACES WHERE THIS OCCURS AND THEY ARE TRAINED WITH FIREARMS, BOMBS, ECT. AND DO STILL CARRY EDGED WEAPONS FOR USE WHEN NEEDED.

AS MUCH AS I LIKE TO STUDY THE HISTORY OF THOSE DAYS I DO NOT WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO RETURN TO THOSE DAYS OF PREYING ON YOUR FELLOW MAN FOR HEADS, FOOD OR SLAVES. BUT EVEN MODERN MAN SEEMS TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR RETURNING TO THOSE KINDS OF PRACTICES OFTEN BASED ON WRONGS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE DISTANT PAST. SO THEY HATE AND FEEL JUSTIFIED IN RETURNING TO THOSE DAYS AND DOING THE SAME TERRIBLE THINGS FOR REVENGE NOW TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE PAST EVENTS. THEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTACKED MUST LEARN TO FIGHT AND HATE AGAIN AND THE CYCLE STARTS OVER AGAIN AND NO ONE MAY LIVE IN SAFETY OR PEACE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK MANKIND WILL OUTGROW THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IN TIME BUT SO FAR I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT HAPPENING IN THE PAST OR TODAY.

MABAGANI · 3rd January 2007, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VANDOO

OLD TRADITIONS ...STUDY THE HISTORY

To the point, we're supposed to remember and study history, so why get the written history wrong and have another generation repeat the same mistakes...we could've been spared the incorrect brief history lesson, had the article focused more on the exhibit's theme the "history of steel". The articles from other authors were able to take aspects of the history of weaponry within each nation and stay within context.
Yet another point implied that anything from a nationalistic view is "bs". So where would that leave most HOS articles? It seemed most were written from a nationalistic perspective. Does the study and research digress to only the outsider/foreigners' observation being correct without native words to describe things? backwards to pigstickers and bushwacking wall hangers...lolz

For some carrying on tradition isn't just collecting ethnographic weaponry, its an unbroken link to their warrior ancestors, for example "huun, jumanji kami ha mabagani..." , no English terms for the translation, its like a salutation, words of wisdom a brother recieves as he goes off to battle with a sword, spoken words passed on from generation to generation. "the agung plays its final note"...a more obvious metaphor, the warrior leaves on a journey knowing he's willing to sacrifice himself for his people. Fitting or 'misfit'ting depending on the point of view of the observer.

Two extremes in a modern age where information is more readily available, one strives for knowledge, even has answers laid before them about an object but never quite understands it, lost and suffering in the quest, the other lives and learns within the realm of the culture's wisdom from which the object originates at peace. Were some things never meant to be written? Both have the ability to find the truth but the one stuck in duality will be left empty, angered and at odds with the world.

Social commentary, whether one chooses to accept it or not. In the case of HOS, I gave some facts to incorrect information to educate not degrade. Sure it could be left the way it is and suffer the embarassment for shoddy work. I tried to help and can do no more, point people in the right direction, at least.

VANDOO · 3rd January 2007, 05:22 PM

I THINK WE ALL AGREE HERE AND ARE ON THE SAME PAGE EVEN THOUGH IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO EXPRESS ONES OPINIONS IN A WAY WE ALL UNDERSTAND. I AGREE WITH MABAGANI THAT IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PROJECT WAS RUSHED AND THAT THE MISTAKES SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN SOME WAY IF POSSIBLE. I THINK THE IDEA OF AN EXHIBIT WAS A GOOD ONE AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT HAD TO BE RUSHED AND THAT MORE KNOWLEGABLE PEOPLE WERE NOT ABLE TO CHECK ON THE INFORMATION AND MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE THE EXHIBIT WAS DONE.

I THINK THE IDEA FOR THE EXHIBIT TO COINCIDE WITH THE ASIAN GAMES PROBABLY DIDN'T COME ALONG UNTILL THERE WAS LITTLE TIME TO PLAN AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SO IT WAS EITHER DO IT OR FORGET THE IDEA AND SAY IF ONLY WE HAD MORE TIME, MONEY,HELP AND A BIGGER EXHIBIT AREA WE COULD DO IT AND THROW UP YOUR HANDS AND DO NOTHING.
THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO HURRY ON AND DO THE BEST THEY COULD WITH WHAT THEY HAD. I AM SURE THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD ALL THE TIME, HELP,MONEY AND SPACE THEY NEEDED AND TO HAVE HAD EVERYTHING PERFECT AND ACCURATE . BUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS AND ARE WORKING FAST CORNERS HAVE TO BE CUT AS UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS ALWAYS CROP UP SO MORE MISTAKES WILL BE MADE AND THERE WILL NOT BE TIME TO FIND AND CORRECT THEM BEFORE THE DEADLINE. I HOPE THEY WILL HAVE TIME NOW TO CORRECT SOME OF THE MISTAKES AND PERHAPS IF THE CATALOGS ARE ALREADY PRINTED A LOOSE PAGE COULD BE INSERTED WITH THE CORECTIONS LISTED WITH THE PAGE NUMBERS OF THE MISTAKES. THAT WOULD BE THE EASYIEST AND LEAST EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO IT.

I AM GLAD THE EXHIBIT WENT THRU ANYWAY AS OVER THE YEARS I HAVE HEARD MANY GOOD IDEAS AND SEEN THEM BEAT DOWN BY REASON (NOT ENOUGH TIME,MONEY,SPACE, INTREST IN THE SUBJECT, NO MONEY TO BE MADE FOR US). AS A RESULT VERY FEW GOOD IDEAS ARE EVER COMPLETED UNLESS SOME GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL IGNORES THE NAY SAYERS AND PUSHES ON WITH THE IDEA UNTIL HE IS EITHER STOPPED OR THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED.

HEAD HUNTING HAS OCCURED IN MALAYSIA VERY RECENTLY DUE TO THE IMIGRATION PRESSURE PUT ON THE DAYAKS. YOU COULD ALSO SAY THEY ARE CURRENTLY HEAD HUNTING IN THE MIDDLE EAST ESPECIALLY IRAQ. I COULD TAKE A HEAD MYSELF IF I WANTED TO BUT I NO LONGER HAVE THE BELIEFS, TRADITIONS OR REASONS IN MY CULTURE THAT WERE THERE IN THE DISTANT PAST. IT MAY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY ANCIENT ANCESTORS SOCIETY BUT AS I KNOW LITTLE ABOUT ANCIENT PICTS AND DON'T FOLLOW THEIR BELIEFS FOR ME TO TAKE A HEAD WOULD ONLY BE AN ACT OF MURDER, OR SELF DEFENSE. SO I THINK IF THE TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN AND ARE NOT A PART OF THE TRIBAL LIFE OF A PERSON TODAY HE CAN NOT BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE PAST.
ANYONE CAN TAKE A HEAD AND MAY HAVE HAD ANCESTORS WHO WERE HEADHUNTERS BUT UNLESS THEIR ANCIENT BELIEFS AND TRADITIONS ARE KNOWN, LIVED AND INTACT IT IS NOT THE SAME AS IN THE OLD DAYS. OLD WARRIORS FROM THOSE TRADITIONAL SOCIETYS OR A TRIBAL STORYTELLER (WHO WERE THE HISTORIANS OF THE TRIBE) MIGHT STILL HAVE SOME GOOD INFORMATION ON OLD TRADITIONS OR BELIEFS. BUT THE GUY WHO JUST TOOK A HEAD BECAUSE THE NEGHBORS ATE HIS DOG WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE TRIBAL INFORMATION.

MABAGANI · 3rd January 2007, 06:19 PM

Okay, I agree that we disagree about some things. lolz
Btw the warrior mythology has its place and can be applied in modern life, they are lessons not always to be taken literally, at least in a civilized society(?). We can't afford to leave people behind any longer, uneducated in the age of information if our common goal is peace. Difficult enough as it is to reconcile eachs own history, so why screw with another nations' past? We really need a new archetype for the one human race. Read works by Joseph Cambell. Save some trees, send laptops with free internet access not bombs...

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 09:34 PM

I have stayed out of this discussion until now, mostly because I have very little knowledge of Philippine history, culture, society or weaponry.

I have no base of knowledge, so what can I contribute?

However, as this discussion has developed it has moved from the core issues of disagreement in respect of some perceptions of history, and other suggested inaccuracies, to the broader questions of how people at this point in time should view, or are able to view , events and opinions that existed in a time past.

It has often been said that "winners write the history books".
If this is so, and I personally believe that it is, we can expect to see varying opinions in respect of any historical event. To identify the real, accurate truth of any matter could in some cases be impossible at any later date. In the writing of any new work the important thing should be that the matters presented as fact be adequately referenced. Commentary on an exhibition of edged weaponry is hardly in the same category as a text book produced for use by Phd candidates. I would suggest that if the percieved inaccuracies in the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition are able to referenced to any accepted authority, then that should be adequate for the purpose for which this exhibition commentary was produced.

Barry has very accurately identified the changing nature of the cultural stream.
That which held true for one's grandfather does not necessarily hold true for oneself.

The passing of time changes cultural perceptions, and societal values, and even deeply rooted values can and do undergo change over a period of time.

Just as values change, so do beliefs.

Verbal histories may hold the essence of truth, but it is certain that that essence of truth will be buried and distorted by the need for the human respository of that verbal tradition to reinforce the values and self image of the society of which he is a part.This is not to say that a verbal tradition has no value, it does have a high value. But that value reflects the way in which a culture and society sees itself, rather than the truth of the events recounted in the verbal history or tradition.

A parrallel can be drawn with the babads of the Javanese courts, which do contain the essence of truth, but are presented in a way and a form calculated to reflect truths to cast a positive light on the ruler.

Perhaps we could look at the events which have taken place in our world over the last few years.
How many of us believe that the "facts" that have been presented to us in respect of a number of major events are accurate representations of what really took place?

I feel that in assessing the excellence or otherwise of the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition we should adopt a flexible attitude rather than an intransigent one. I suggest that it may be wise to view this commentary in the context of its presentation, and to realise that any perception of historical events can vary, dependent upon a multitude of factors.

As a person with no stake in the debate surrounding this exhibition, who has only a passing interest in what was presented in the exhibition, and after following the contributions to this debate in this and other forums, I feel compelled to comment that I have been left with an overall feeling of negativity in respect of the viciously critical comments that have been levelled at both the exhibition and those people who devoted their time and their property to trying to ensure its success.

In my opinion this hypercritical attitude does not reflect honour upon those who engage in it, nor does it it reflect honour upon the society and culture represented in the exhibition. If we can assume that the overall objective of the exhibition, and those who supported it , was to promote an element of Philippine culture, then we can only deduce that the viciousness of the attacks upon the exhibition and the work of those who supported it has been calculated to detract from those efforts to present a cultural element in a favourable light.

We do not sell an idea by violent and vicious disagreement with those who promote that idea in a way that varies slightly from what we ouselves believe, rather, we take what those others present and we build on it.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM

Taking of heads.

During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land.

Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders.

It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course.

During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it.

During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

MABAGANI · 3rd January 2007, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

It has often been said that "winners write the history books".
If this is so, and I personally believe that it is, we can expect to see varying opinions in respect of any historical event. To identify the real, accurate truth of any matter could in some cases be impossible at any later date. In the writing of any new work the important thing should be that the matters presented as fact be adequately referenced. Commentary on an exhibition of edged weaponry is hardly in the same category as a text book produced for use by Phd candidates. I would suggest that if the percieved inaccuracies in the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition are able to referenced to any accepted authority, then that should be adequate for the purpose for which this exhibition commentary was produced.

I feel that in assessing the excellence or otherwise of the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition we should adopt a flexible attitude rather than an intransigent one. I suggest that it may be wise to view this commentary in the context of its presentation, and to realise that any perception of historical events can vary, dependent upon a multitude of factors.

As a person with no stake in the debate surrounding this exhibition, who has only a passing interest in what was presented in the exhibition, and after following the contributions to this debate in this and other forums, I feel compelled to comment that I have been left with an overall feeling of negativity in respect of the viciously critical comments that have been levelled at both the exhibition and those people who devoted their time and their property to trying to ensure its success.

In my opinion this hypercritical attitude does not reflect honour upon those who engage in it, nor does it it reflect honour upon the society and culture represented in the exhibition. If we can assume that the overall objective of the exhibition, and those who supported it , was to promote an element of Philippine culture, then we can only deduce that the viciousness of the attacks upon the exhibition and the work of those who supported it has been calculated to detract from those efforts to present a cultural element in a favourable light.

We do not sell an idea by violent and vicious disagreement with those who promote that idea in a way that varies slightly from what we ouselves believe, rather, we take what those others present and we build on it.

We covered this already, there are references to exact dates but for some reason the accepted facts (on both sides) were not proofread and written incorrectly and artifacts were mislabeled within the exhibit. In an attempt to point out inaccuracies the promoter who espouses superior values went on a personal attack rather than taking them into consideration. Most members probably missed that part in the editing. Even contributors would like to fix the errors. Sincerity is in question because nothing has been done to at least correct the online presentation. I'll take personal blame for bringing this whole thread debacle to attention but why should anyone stand by when there are clearly errors and when members of this forum were mistreated in the process of the exhibit.

ariel · 3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM

It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage.
Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan.
Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely):
Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27.
E. Jaiwant Paul's version:
"As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100
I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one.
Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history".
Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire.
The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians.
The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history.
And the list may continue on and on....
History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned.
As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts.

A. G. Maisey · 3rd January 2007, 11:38 PM

Mabagani, I have the utmost respect for your opinion in this matter, and if in your opinion the matters that I have addressed had been previously dealt with and resolved, I respect that opinion.

However, in my opinion these matters had not been satisfactorily addressed; had I considered that all elements involved in this discussion had been adequately addressed and dealt with, I would not have spent time in writing my post.

In essence, my post is a plea for adopting a realistic view of the world, history, and the exhibition which is the subject of this debate.

An objective assessment of the criticism levelled at this exhibition and those who contributed to it will reveal that to date this critical commentary has been something other than realistic.

In respect of the mislabelling of artifacts, would it possible to provide comparative data setting out the inaccuracies in labelling, and what that labelling should correctly be? Or does this already exist somewhere else, and I am not aware of it?

MABAGANI · 4th January 2007, 12:23 AM

A. G. Maisey, I have forwarded the blatant mistakes which contributors would like corrected, they can easily be researched and crossed referenced. As mentioned, all authors and contributors agreed about errors. As for the fallout due to the exhibit, damage was done and I doubt resolution.
PM me

Rick · 4th January 2007, 01:47 AM

Hi Braulio,
We have had a cordial relationship throughout your tenure as Member here.
I sincerely hope that it continues .

I think that it is time that we talk of the Elephant that is standing in the room and a few other things.

You are aware that a member crucial to this project went missing for almost a month during the closing weeks just before the deadline approached; yes?

I personally called this member by telephone and left a message requesting that he respond, even call me collect as did others involved in the project.

There was no answer via phone or email to me and none that I am aware of to any of us who were involved in this project.

This member's assignment was to write the accompanying text for the exhibit; he did not refuse the task. The deadline came and went with no word from our contributor despite repeated attempts at contact.

The rest of the team was forced to pick up the ball and finish that which AFAIK was left undone; at this point we had about a week IIRC to get the project to completion.

Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included.

To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend.

I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not.

Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so.

Rick

31st December 2006, 08:33 AM	#34
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	Points taken. But hold the applause and consider what's at stake. We've heard "Publish or Perish" but I doubt it meant giving less than full effort, which is what happened in this case and at a sacrifice by incorrectly writing a country's history and abusing its people in the process. There is also a big difference between collectors who want to write but plagiarize and regurgitate incorrect information to tout themselves as experts vs. collectors who have taken the time and effort to research producing insights and new theories. The better museum works I've seen have gone through or were connected to academic institutions to complete articles and essays or had their own research department to verify and approve written material to safeguard against or minimize errors. This is another reason why projects are scheduled two years out, painstakingly to produce a worthwhile endeavor. Given the short notice, the outcome and fallout in this case I would have again opted to hold off publishing and left the Philippines out. Most importantly, no one or country deserves to be trampled on for the good of an exhibit or "catalog". "Love God with all your heart, always bear in mind that love of God is also love of Country, and thus, too, is love of ones fellowmen" -Andres Bonifacio, Katipunan Revolution founder Last edited by MABAGANI; 31st December 2006 at 05:41 PM.

1st January 2007, 07:31 PM	#40
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	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. Last edited by MABAGANI; 1st January 2007 at 09:47 PM.

1st January 2007, 10:00 PM	#45
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Warning Let's please keep the tone civil; okay?

2nd January 2007, 04:50 PM	#47
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	IN MANY AREAS KNIVES AND MACHETE ARE STILL CARRIED AS TOOLS BY THE LOCALS BUT ARE NOT WEAPONS. EDGED WEAPONS ARE STILL CARRIED TODAY ESPECIALLY BY INSURGENTS, FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND TERRORISTS. THEY ARE STILL NECESSARY TO CHOP THRU THE JUNGLE, GET FIRE WOOD AND OTHER CHORES AND MAY EVEN BE USED TO EXECUTE SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN CAPTURED OR KIDNAPPED. BUT NO ONE GOES INTO BATTLE WITH SWORDS, SHIELDS OR SPEARS ANYMORE THE RIFLE ESPECIALLY AK47 IS NOW THE WEAPON OF CHOICE FOR AMBUSH OR ATTACKS. IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD I WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ELDER AT 60 YEARS OLD BUT I WOULD BE A VERY POOR SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE USE OF THE TOMAHAWK AND BOWIE KNIFE. I WAS NOT TRAINED BY MY FAMILY OR TRIBE IN THE USE OF EDGED WEAPONS AS THE CHILDREN WERE IN THE OLD DAYS SO THAT KNOWLEGE HAS BEEN LOST. I HAVE CARRIED POCKET KNIVES, HATCHETS, MACHETE AND HUNTING KNIFES FOR MUCH OF MY LIFE BUT USED THEM AS TOOLS. SO ANY OPINIONS I WOULD HAVE ON ON HOW TO USE THEM IN WARFARE COULD ONLY BE BASED ON WHAT I HAD READ SEEN IN MOVIES OR STORIES I HAD HEARD NOT ACTUAL EXPERIENCE. OFTEN THE STORYS THAT SURVIVE FROM THE OLD TIMES ARE EXZAGERATED TO MAKE THE HEROS SEEM GREATER THAN THEY WERE. FROM MY COUNTRY DANIAL BOONE, DAVY CROCKETT AND JIM BOWIE COME TO MIND THERE IS MORE FICTION THAN FACT IN MOST OF THE STORYS TOLD ABOUT THEM BY THE MEDIA AND THAT IS WHAT MOST OF US KNOW ABOUT THEM. SO UNLESS THE TRIBE IS STILL THE SAME AS IT WAS OVER 200 YEARS AGO THE ELDERS WILL HAVE LOST THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWLEGE AND ONLY HAVE THE STORYS LEFT. SO ASKING A OLD TRIBAL MEMBER ABOUT HEAD HUNTING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PRACTICED FOR 200 YEARS WILL ONLY GET YOU STORIES AND PERSONEL OPINIONS NOT FACTS. THE FACTS YOU CAN GET IS HOW THE WEAPON/TOOLS ARE USED TODAY AND PERHAPS THE NAMES OF SOME OF THE ANCESTORS FROM THE OLD DAYS. THE STORYS ABOUT THE ANCESTORS MAY BE ACCURATE OR NOT. WHILE THE OLD WRITEINGS OF EXPLORERS AND ADVENTURERS HAVE MANY MISTAKES THEY ALSO HAVE SOME VAILD INFORMATION. SO WE JUST REHASH THE OLD WRITEINGS, ANTHROPOLOGICAL STUDYS AND ARCHEOLOGICAL INFORMATION , AND UNTIL NEW WRITEINGS SHOW UP OR THE INVENTION OF THE TIME MACHINE THAT IS ALL WE HAVE. INTERVIEWS WITH ELDERS CAN STILL BE VALUABLE FOR INFORMATION ON THE SOCIETY AT PRESENT AND WHAT THE HISTORY AND BELIEFS ARE TODAY. BUILDING UP A COMPARATIVE COLLECTION OF WEAPONS FROM A AREA CAN BE PRODUCTIVE AND THE LARGER THE COLLECTION THE BETTER. YOU USE THE FEW EXAMPLES WITH EXCELLENT PROVENANCE AS THE BASELINE AND COMPARE OTHER EXAMPLES TO THEM SOMETIMES IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET APPROXIMATE DATES FOR THEM AND SEE THE CHANGES IN THE TYPE OR LINK DIFFERENT GROUPS BY SIMULARITYS. Last edited by VANDOO; 2nd January 2007 at 05:10 PM.

2nd January 2007, 06:49 PM	#49
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,806	It is well known that Iban took heads when acting for the British in the short war with Indonesia in the early 1960s. Not knowing the exact circumstances of how and when heads were cut off, such facts cannot really be used as concrete evidence of cultural knowledge of sword fighting inter tribal warfare in this modern age. Perhaps in isolated areas it might have been different? Last edited by Tim Simmons; 2nd January 2007 at 07:21 PM.

31st December 2006, 01:18 AM	#33
B.I Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 485	This exhibition may have its faults (its not India and so thats not for me to judge) but I am surprised at the aggression fired against it. Surely we should applaud it for bringing the attention of arms to an increasingly ignorant general public. We all want scholarly, and well researched additions to our libraries, but I think the bigger picture is being ignored. We also desperately need exhibitions and books to be pushed onto those that would not normally look to this subject. And these can happily remain on the ‘basic’ level. If we dont, and continue to sit here like a judge and jury, then I strongly feel we will slowly watch your hobby die. This exhibition has been hounded on various platforms, and I think this is absolutely disgusting! A lot of effort was put into this, and it opened up many eyes by the efforts of Antonio and his staff. I realise that the inaccuracies rubbed up some people the wrong way, but as in any academic book, this should not be so aggressively addressed. All books have their problems, for those that look hard enough. But, surely this is a starting point to discuss these issues, and further our knowledge. Can we not appreciate the exhibition for the efforts involved, and discuss any points we disagree with? I made the same point about the book 'Arms and Armour from Iran'. Yes, it had many faults but the author somehow talked a publisher that had previously turned down weaponry books into accepting it, and has pushed his work through hard advertising and lecturing onto a much wider base than many previous books have managed. Is this a bad thing? Of course it isnt. It means that were have a new book to discuss and it opens the doors for others to publish. The same goes for this exhibition. Maybe Macau would never have even considered hosting an exhibition had Antonio not done all the work. One book (or catalogue) could never be definitive, and so any inaccuracies should be noted and discussed by those than know better, and those that don’t will have an overall view, with a hopeful thirst to know more and discover these errors for themselves. If any book is taken as ultimate and faultless, then it is the problem of the reader in that he should question more. Of course, this isn’t meant to excuse mistakes, but surely the exhibitions merits out weigh these inaccuracies! How many museums do we know of that are 100% accurate in their descriptions. Yes they should be pointed out, but surely not like this. I cant speak for other countries (nor the US for that matter) but America ought to be wary of complacency when it comes to this hobby of ours. They, as a country, have a passion for guns, which luckily overlaps onto ‘white arms’, and the have the funds and museum space to continuously host permanent exhibitions. But, you should be aware of what is happening over here (UK). I have watched museums gradually distance themselves from arms in general, due to their unpopularity as exhibits. This unfortunate view has been reflected in London arms fairs, which seem to attract fewer people each year. The auctions are the same. Most ‘top-end’ dealers will readily admit a decline in sales and hearken on to previous stories of a time when things were available and business was good. Ebay is no judge of the current market, and forums do not show this decline. Everyone here is passionate, but will this go onto the next generation? Baltimore is run by enthusiasts, who have done a fantastic job in organising events to instil this passion in lectures and dinners. But, without these few guys, the show would not be the same. The Met still hold some great exhibitions centred around arms, but these too are run and organised by a select few. Without them, I wonder if the Met would not concentrate more on other popular exhibitions. The V&A is a great example of this decline. When Tony North heralded the department, things were vastly different. However, when he retired, and was not replaced, the arms on show were soon taken down and put into storage (maybe permanently). The space was used for other exhibitions known to draw more of a general crowd. To keep a museum open and running, the general crowd must come first. We know that, even as passionate collectors. We must come second and it’s a fact we have to accept. There are still some very passionate people at the V&A, but these all have their own speciality and push for that primarily. I wonder what would happen if Donald Larocca retired? Yes, I am sure he would be replaced, and things would hopefully continue. As I said, the Met has the funds and the space, but I think people ought to be aware of the V&A as an example, before being so harsh with exhibitions that could potentially attract a ‘new’ crowd. If Antonio’s work attracted just one new person into the fold, then it was all worth it. The layout looked fantastic, and the design alone would attract different people to view the exhibition. So, new eyes would see these weapons at their best, and potential collectors (all desperately needed) could be born. It is a real shame that there were such obvious inaccuracies (apparently, from what I have read from others) but this still shouldn’t cause such a bad feeling towards this exhibition. I think it would be awful if Antonio decided not to host another, due to the harassment from this one. I know I would be reluctant to bother again if it were me. We surely learn from our own mistakes. I have heard this exhibition be called damaging to the academic field. How can this possibly be so? The internet seems to have bred a new breed of academic. Very intelligent and educated. But hardly well read in what they criticise. You can give any individual essay to any college graduate, and he can tear it apart, word for word. But, all books, thesis and exhibitions should be looked at as a whole. The mistakes should be pointed out, but the efforts involved should always be applauded. Anyone can sit back, wait for someone to do all the work and then shoot it down. This doesn’t make them academic, not a good critic, as they are completely missing the point. My point is that if any one good thing comes from anything, then it was all worthwhile. I really hope Antonio continues his efforts, and that people lighten up over this, and other, events. This exhibition has not damaged anything (except maybe Ron’s pieces ), but I feel that the ‘village mob’ may prevent anything like this from happening again. Well I, for one, sincerely hope not!

1st January 2007, 01:27 AM	#35
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	AS I DON'T KNOW ALL THE FACTS I AM NOT AWARE OF WHY THERE IS INFIGHTING OR WHAT HAPPENED TO CAUSE THE INITIAL ANGER BUT SENSE IT IS PERSONEL AND HAS BEEN BREWING SINCE BEFORE THE EXHIBIT AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM NO MATTER HOW ACCURATE THE EXHIBIT HAD BEEN. THE EXHIBIT IS OVER AND THE MUSEUM DID CONSIDER THE PHILIPPINES IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO BE INCLUDED IN IT. IF THEY HAD NOT CONSIDRED THE PHILIPPINES TO BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO EVEN BE IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SNUB. THEY DID HAVE TO RUSH THE EXHIBIT WHICH HAS LED TO MORE MISTAKES THAN WOULD USUALLY OCCUR. THERE WERE ALSO PROBLEMS AT THE START AS SOME PEOPLE WHO INITIALLY WERE GOING TO HELP PROVIDE INFORMATION AND ITEMS DROPPED OUT FOR SOME REASON. THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE MISTAKES MADE AND MAY BE PART OF THE REASON FOR THE ANGER WHICH MAKES THEM FEEL THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT ENTIRELY. BUT THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE BEEN MAD IF THEY HAD BEEN LEFT OUT ENTIRELY AS THEY ARE IN THE REGION AND DID PLAY A PART IN ITS HISTORY. I FEEL ITS UNFORTUNATE THERE ARE NEGATIVE FEELINGS AND ANGER OVER THIS EXHIBIT AND HOPE IT DOES NOT EFFECT THE CHANCE OF FUTURE EXHIBITS IN MACAU OR OTHER PLACES. I CAN'T JUDGE AS I DON'T KNOW HOW THE PHILIPPINES WERE INTENTIONALY TRAMPLED AND INSULTED . PERHAPS THE ONE WHO WROTE THE HISTORY SHOULD GET A POOR GRADE ON HIS DATES ON THE HISTORY TEST BUT THEY WOULD SURELY HAVE SCORED A LOT HIGHER ON THE TEST THAN I WOULD HAVE. THIS IS NOT A CHALLENGE OR PUT DOWN ITS JUST HOW I SEE IT NO OFFENSE IS MENT.

1st January 2007, 07:24 AM	#36
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Gentlemen, I apologize for saying something very controversial, but: 100 years ago a collector was typically a nobleman with a profound education, who upon feeling the approach of his demise would write most likely a single work that would encompass his lifelong activities. Today a typical weapons collector is a nationalistic young fellow who after a few sessions of karate decides to bless the world with the description of his own country's martial culture. From this point on he can spent a few years doing a Ph.D. on the subject, where he will learn that he can not really learn much in academic environment since arms and armour is not a significant part of academic classes, and 99% of historian and art historians have their knowledge of the subject formed by movies and the BS published by Osprey. Another option is that he will write a book, which is typically a bizarre mixture of quotes from old classical texts, photographs of his friends' swords and his own research, the latter is typically beyound BS. From this point I see no reason to popularize the knowledge or studies of arms and armour, but rather deepen it. As of today we lack the people who publish at least 1 article on the subject every 4 months or so, we lack any kind of educational opportunities extended to students at universities, which makes our community pretty much off-mainstream. As of now there are only very few people whom I would experts in some part of our field, the rest I would put together with me in the category of enthusiasts. I obviously have not read the catalogue and I have not seen here anything that would be really negate the information given by the exhibition (it is kind of hard to give precise years of any undeclared war). If the catalogue is ridden with errors, it is indeed a grief thing. However we just recently had some other publication coming out which is ridden with errors, as obviously we had many times before... It is bad, but that is what enthusiasts do - they try and hopefully they learn on their mistakes. Should we stop the presses - no, I think we do not. We just should spend more time collaborating, proof reading, emailing the materials prior to the publication. And this is what I think to be even more important than promoting the knowledge of swords in the general public (in which I do not really believe) - deepen and professionalize our knowledge.

1st January 2007, 05:46 PM	#38
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	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 ?

1st January 2007, 08:27 PM	#42
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	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.

1st January 2007, 09:42 PM	#44
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	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").

1st January 2007, 10:07 PM	#46
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,115	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.

2nd January 2007, 07:04 PM	#50
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	INDEED SOME CULTURES AND AREAS OF THE WORLD ARE CLOSER TO THE OLD TRADITIONS AND TIMES AND MAY STILL HAVE LIVING MEMBERS FROM THOSE TIMES. SOME TRIBES HAVE KEPT THEIR WAYS OF LIFE AND STILL TRAIN THEIR CHILDREN IN THE OLD WAYS OF LIFE AND WARFARE THE MASAI AMONG OTHERS STILL LIVE MUCH AS THEY DID IN THE PAST BUT WARFARE AND CATTLE RAIDS DO NOT PLAY AS BIG A ROLE IN THEIR LIVES AS IN THE PAST. MANY AMERICAN INDIAN TRIBES STILL TRAIN THEIR YOUNG IN THE OLD WAYS MOSTLY CEREMONIES AND TRADITIONS BUT NOT IN WARFARE AS THEY ARE NOT MAKEING WAR ON THIER FELLOW MAN THESE DAYS. IT WOULD STILL BE NECESSARY TO TRAIN THE YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE WARRIORS IF THE TRIBE LIVED IN A CONSTANT STATE OF WAR WITH THEIR NEGHBORS. THERE ARE STILL PLACES WHERE THIS OCCURS AND THEY ARE TRAINED WITH FIREARMS, BOMBS, ECT. AND DO STILL CARRY EDGED WEAPONS FOR USE WHEN NEEDED. AS MUCH AS I LIKE TO STUDY THE HISTORY OF THOSE DAYS I DO NOT WANT THE HUMAN RACE TO RETURN TO THOSE DAYS OF PREYING ON YOUR FELLOW MAN FOR HEADS, FOOD OR SLAVES. BUT EVEN MODERN MAN SEEMS TO MAKE EXCUSES FOR RETURNING TO THOSE KINDS OF PRACTICES OFTEN BASED ON WRONGS THAT TOOK PLACE IN THE DISTANT PAST. SO THEY HATE AND FEEL JUSTIFIED IN RETURNING TO THOSE DAYS AND DOING THE SAME TERRIBLE THINGS FOR REVENGE NOW TO PEOPLE WHO ARE IN NO WAY RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE PAST EVENTS. THEN THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTACKED MUST LEARN TO FIGHT AND HATE AGAIN AND THE CYCLE STARTS OVER AGAIN AND NO ONE MAY LIVE IN SAFETY OR PEACE. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK MANKIND WILL OUTGROW THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR IN TIME BUT SO FAR I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT HAPPENING IN THE PAST OR TODAY.

3rd January 2007, 05:22 PM	#52
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I THINK WE ALL AGREE HERE AND ARE ON THE SAME PAGE EVEN THOUGH IT IS OFTEN DIFFICULT TO EXPRESS ONES OPINIONS IN A WAY WE ALL UNDERSTAND. I AGREE WITH MABAGANI THAT IT IS VERY UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PROJECT WAS RUSHED AND THAT THE MISTAKES SHOULD BE CORRECTED IN SOME WAY IF POSSIBLE. I THINK THE IDEA OF AN EXHIBIT WAS A GOOD ONE AND IT WAS UNFORTUNATE THAT IT HAD TO BE RUSHED AND THAT MORE KNOWLEGABLE PEOPLE WERE NOT ABLE TO CHECK ON THE INFORMATION AND MAKE CORRECTIONS BEFORE THE EXHIBIT WAS DONE. I THINK THE IDEA FOR THE EXHIBIT TO COINCIDE WITH THE ASIAN GAMES PROBABLY DIDN'T COME ALONG UNTILL THERE WAS LITTLE TIME TO PLAN AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS. SO IT WAS EITHER DO IT OR FORGET THE IDEA AND SAY IF ONLY WE HAD MORE TIME, MONEY,HELP AND A BIGGER EXHIBIT AREA WE COULD DO IT AND THROW UP YOUR HANDS AND DO NOTHING. THE CHOICE WAS MADE TO HURRY ON AND DO THE BEST THEY COULD WITH WHAT THEY HAD. I AM SURE THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE HAD ALL THE TIME, HELP,MONEY AND SPACE THEY NEEDED AND TO HAVE HAD EVERYTHING PERFECT AND ACCURATE . BUT WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS AND ARE WORKING FAST CORNERS HAVE TO BE CUT AS UNEXPECTED PROBLEMS ALWAYS CROP UP SO MORE MISTAKES WILL BE MADE AND THERE WILL NOT BE TIME TO FIND AND CORRECT THEM BEFORE THE DEADLINE. I HOPE THEY WILL HAVE TIME NOW TO CORRECT SOME OF THE MISTAKES AND PERHAPS IF THE CATALOGS ARE ALREADY PRINTED A LOOSE PAGE COULD BE INSERTED WITH THE CORECTIONS LISTED WITH THE PAGE NUMBERS OF THE MISTAKES. THAT WOULD BE THE EASYIEST AND LEAST EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO IT. I AM GLAD THE EXHIBIT WENT THRU ANYWAY AS OVER THE YEARS I HAVE HEARD MANY GOOD IDEAS AND SEEN THEM BEAT DOWN BY REASON (NOT ENOUGH TIME,MONEY,SPACE, INTREST IN THE SUBJECT, NO MONEY TO BE MADE FOR US). AS A RESULT VERY FEW GOOD IDEAS ARE EVER COMPLETED UNLESS SOME GROUP OR INDIVIDUAL IGNORES THE NAY SAYERS AND PUSHES ON WITH THE IDEA UNTIL HE IS EITHER STOPPED OR THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED. HEAD HUNTING HAS OCCURED IN MALAYSIA VERY RECENTLY DUE TO THE IMIGRATION PRESSURE PUT ON THE DAYAKS. YOU COULD ALSO SAY THEY ARE CURRENTLY HEAD HUNTING IN THE MIDDLE EAST ESPECIALLY IRAQ. I COULD TAKE A HEAD MYSELF IF I WANTED TO BUT I NO LONGER HAVE THE BELIEFS, TRADITIONS OR REASONS IN MY CULTURE THAT WERE THERE IN THE DISTANT PAST. IT MAY ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN IMPORTANT PART OF MY ANCIENT ANCESTORS SOCIETY BUT AS I KNOW LITTLE ABOUT ANCIENT PICTS AND DON'T FOLLOW THEIR BELIEFS FOR ME TO TAKE A HEAD WOULD ONLY BE AN ACT OF MURDER, OR SELF DEFENSE. SO I THINK IF THE TRADITIONS AND BELIEFS HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN AND ARE NOT A PART OF THE TRIBAL LIFE OF A PERSON TODAY HE CAN NOT BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON THE PAST. ANYONE CAN TAKE A HEAD AND MAY HAVE HAD ANCESTORS WHO WERE HEADHUNTERS BUT UNLESS THEIR ANCIENT BELIEFS AND TRADITIONS ARE KNOWN, LIVED AND INTACT IT IS NOT THE SAME AS IN THE OLD DAYS. OLD WARRIORS FROM THOSE TRADITIONAL SOCIETYS OR A TRIBAL STORYTELLER (WHO WERE THE HISTORIANS OF THE TRIBE) MIGHT STILL HAVE SOME GOOD INFORMATION ON OLD TRADITIONS OR BELIEFS. BUT THE GUY WHO JUST TOOK A HEAD BECAUSE THE NEGHBORS ATE HIS DOG WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE TRIBAL INFORMATION. Last edited by VANDOO; 3rd January 2007 at 06:24 PM.

3rd January 2007, 06:19 PM	#53
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	Okay, I agree that we disagree about some things. lolz Btw the warrior mythology has its place and can be applied in modern life, they are lessons not always to be taken literally, at least in a civilized society(?). We can't afford to leave people behind any longer, uneducated in the age of information if our common goal is peace. Difficult enough as it is to reconcile eachs own history, so why screw with another nations' past? We really need a new archetype for the one human race. Read works by Joseph Cambell. Save some trees, send laptops with free internet access not bombs...

3rd January 2007, 09:34 PM	#54
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,882	I have stayed out of this discussion until now, mostly because I have very little knowledge of Philippine history, culture, society or weaponry. I have no base of knowledge, so what can I contribute? However, as this discussion has developed it has moved from the core issues of disagreement in respect of some perceptions of history, and other suggested inaccuracies, to the broader questions of how people at this point in time should view, or are able to view , events and opinions that existed in a time past. It has often been said that "winners write the history books". If this is so, and I personally believe that it is, we can expect to see varying opinions in respect of any historical event. To identify the real, accurate truth of any matter could in some cases be impossible at any later date. In the writing of any new work the important thing should be that the matters presented as fact be adequately referenced. Commentary on an exhibition of edged weaponry is hardly in the same category as a text book produced for use by Phd candidates. I would suggest that if the percieved inaccuracies in the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition are able to referenced to any accepted authority, then that should be adequate for the purpose for which this exhibition commentary was produced. Barry has very accurately identified the changing nature of the cultural stream. That which held true for one's grandfather does not necessarily hold true for oneself. The passing of time changes cultural perceptions, and societal values, and even deeply rooted values can and do undergo change over a period of time. Just as values change, so do beliefs. Verbal histories may hold the essence of truth, but it is certain that that essence of truth will be buried and distorted by the need for the human respository of that verbal tradition to reinforce the values and self image of the society of which he is a part.This is not to say that a verbal tradition has no value, it does have a high value. But that value reflects the way in which a culture and society sees itself, rather than the truth of the events recounted in the verbal history or tradition. A parrallel can be drawn with the babads of the Javanese courts, which do contain the essence of truth, but are presented in a way and a form calculated to reflect truths to cast a positive light on the ruler. Perhaps we could look at the events which have taken place in our world over the last few years. How many of us believe that the "facts" that have been presented to us in respect of a number of major events are accurate representations of what really took place? I feel that in assessing the excellence or otherwise of the historical commentary that accompanied this exhibition we should adopt a flexible attitude rather than an intransigent one. I suggest that it may be wise to view this commentary in the context of its presentation, and to realise that any perception of historical events can vary, dependent upon a multitude of factors. As a person with no stake in the debate surrounding this exhibition, who has only a passing interest in what was presented in the exhibition, and after following the contributions to this debate in this and other forums, I feel compelled to comment that I have been left with an overall feeling of negativity in respect of the viciously critical comments that have been levelled at both the exhibition and those people who devoted their time and their property to trying to ensure its success. In my opinion this hypercritical attitude does not reflect honour upon those who engage in it, nor does it it reflect honour upon the society and culture represented in the exhibition. If we can assume that the overall objective of the exhibition, and those who supported it , was to promote an element of Philippine culture, then we can only deduce that the viciousness of the attacks upon the exhibition and the work of those who supported it has been calculated to detract from those efforts to present a cultural element in a favourable light. We do not sell an idea by violent and vicious disagreement with those who promote that idea in a way that varies slightly from what we ouselves believe, rather, we take what those others present and we build on it.

3rd January 2007, 09:54 PM	#55
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,882	Taking of heads. During the 1990's the Indonesian government , in accordance with their policy of "transmigration" transported a number---a large number---of settlers from Madura to Kalimantan, granted land to them , and gave them the essentials to commence development of farms on that land. Only problem was that the the land that the Indonesian government considered to be theirs to give, was considered by the Dyak people as their tribal land. They felt that their land was being stolen from them. Not only that, but they felt that their culture was being corrupted by outsiders. It would be fair to say that these Dyak people became just a little upset. Minor disagreements and confrontations eventually developed into a little war. The Indonesian army appeared to be content to stand back and let events take their course. During this time the Indonesian media published reports of heads being taken by Dyak people. This may or may not be true, but it was reported, and many people believed it. During the late 1960's and through to about 1980 I knew several people in Solo who worked for timber getting companies in Kalimantan. They were very cautious of Dyak people, and would not ever go into forest country unaccompanied. They told stories of fellow workers being killed and of heads being taken. Might have been just good stories, might not have been, but I did form the impression that they were genuinely frightened of the Dyak people.

3rd January 2007, 11:32 PM	#57
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	It is often said that the history is written by the victors. True, but not quite: history is written by both sides. And each side presents the facts to his own advantage. Take, for example, the fateful meeting between Sivaji and Afzal Khan. Lord Egerton of Tatton ( impartial , most likely): Sivaji put chain armor, and concealed a bichwa in his right sleeve and bagh-nakh in his left hand. Having approached Afzal Khan, he "... in the midst of a customary embrace, struck the waghnakh into the bowels of Afzal Khan ". The latter exclaimed "treachery and murder", but Sivaji instantly followed up the blow with his dagger. The Khan tried to cut Sivaji with his sword, but failed due to the armor. "Indian and Oriental Arms and Armour", p. 27. E. Jaiwant Paul's version: "As they embraced, Afzal Khan treacherously attempted to thrust a dagger in the Shivaji's chest, who was saved by his hidden armour. Shivaji, in turn, ripped out Afzal Khan's belly with the baghnakh. In the ensuing confusion,Shivaji's troops, lying in ambush massacred the Bijapur forces and enjoyed spectacular victory" " Arms and Armour. Traditional weapons of India", p.100 I could not find the Afzal's side description, but suspect it was closer to the Eggerton's one. Here we have two very conflicting versions, depicting one side as noble and another as treacherous, depending on who is "writing the history". Depending on who is the author, the Turkish practice of "devshirme" was described as either a cruel kidnapping of the children from the Balkans and making them "Sultan's slaves" or a noble and generous attempt to provide the kids with education and advance their careers in the Ottoman empire. The Russian rendition of the Battle of Kalka always includes the mention of the Tatar "Horde" with their numerical superiority against a small band of heroic Slavs. In fact, there were ~ 25,000 Mongols and allies versus ~ 85,000-125,000 Russians. The Iranians still recount the story of Aryobarzan who, with his small force, stopped the entire army of Alexander and was betrayed by a shepherd who showed the Greeks a secret passage across the mountain. This is a mirror image of the story of Leonidas and his 300 Spartans that occured ~ 150 years earlier and they just reversed the history. And the list may continue on and on.... History relies on personal and state accounts, but those are heavily contaminated by chauvinism, sycophantic paeans, inferiority complexes and just plain propaganda. The task of historians is a complicated one and it gets harder and harder with the passage of time... It is tremendously important to get to the bottom of things and present the real story. Otherwise, we become victims of historical fables and our worldview becomes poisoned. As they say, everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts. Last edited by ariel; 4th January 2007 at 06:08 AM.

3rd January 2007, 11:38 PM	#58
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,882	Mabagani, I have the utmost respect for your opinion in this matter, and if in your opinion the matters that I have addressed had been previously dealt with and resolved, I respect that opinion. However, in my opinion these matters had not been satisfactorily addressed; had I considered that all elements involved in this discussion had been adequately addressed and dealt with, I would not have spent time in writing my post. In essence, my post is a plea for adopting a realistic view of the world, history, and the exhibition which is the subject of this debate. An objective assessment of the criticism levelled at this exhibition and those who contributed to it will reveal that to date this critical commentary has been something other than realistic. In respect of the mislabelling of artifacts, would it possible to provide comparative data setting out the inaccuracies in labelling, and what that labelling should correctly be? Or does this already exist somewhere else, and I am not aware of it?

4th January 2007, 12:23 AM	#59
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	A. G. Maisey, I have forwarded the blatant mistakes which contributors would like corrected, they can easily be researched and crossed referenced. As mentioned, all authors and contributors agreed about errors. As for the fallout due to the exhibit, damage was done and I doubt resolution. PM me

4th January 2007, 01:47 AM	#60
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	Hi Braulio, We have had a cordial relationship throughout your tenure as Member here. I sincerely hope that it continues . I think that it is time that we talk of the Elephant that is standing in the room and a few other things. You are aware that a member crucial to this project went missing for almost a month during the closing weeks just before the deadline approached; yes? I personally called this member by telephone and left a message requesting that he respond, even call me collect as did others involved in the project. There was no answer via phone or email to me and none that I am aware of to any of us who were involved in this project. This member's assignment was to write the accompanying text for the exhibit; he did not refuse the task. The deadline came and went with no word from our contributor despite repeated attempts at contact. The rest of the team was forced to pick up the ball and finish that which AFAIK was left undone; at this point we had about a week IIRC to get the project to completion. Mabagani, please let's be realistic; a State Art Museum is not going to cancel a project because of the objections of former potential contributors, yourself included. To withdraw from cooperation in the face of an inevitable outcome which you could have affected in a positive way is IMO a failure; you could have tried to help because even if it was not as you wanted it to be it was going to happen regardless of whether you opposed it or not my friend. I am deeply sorry if things did not turn out as you wished; yet you always had the option of helping us or not. Unless I am mistaken you chose not to do so. Rick