|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
30th November 2009, 08:33 AM
|
#1 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Ex-Taipei, Taiwan, now in Shanghai, China
Posts: 180
|
I can see the Paiwan tribe members with their knifes, but, on the other hand, I don't see any knife pics on this thread. Is it only me ?
Last edited by yuanzhumin; 30th November 2009 at 08:37 AM. Reason: mistakes |
|
|
|
5th December 2009, 05:54 PM
|
#2 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: between work and sleep
Posts: 731
|
Quote:
I have the photos on flickr if you'd like to see them, but they are smaller... here's is the .link |
|
|
|
|
|
8th December 2009, 11:39 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
KuKulzA28, thanks for this thread, and I really enjoyed reading it.
What continues to intrigue me is that how come some of the northern Luzon (Philippines) bolos look almost exactly the same, as pointed out by Dajak for instance here? Of course one logical explanation is that the Austronesian migration to the Philippines came by way of Taiwan (see invasion route below of your great-great-xxx grandfathers). Which points to the fact that we are distantly related, and so you should give me your laraw as a way of further cementing our common cultural heritage   PS - By the way and as we all know, aside from archeology one other solid proof of this Austronesian migration theory is linguistics. The languages of the subject peoples are related to each other. |
|
|
|
|
9th December 2009, 02:02 AM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: between work and sleep
Posts: 731
|
Yes Migueldiaz, we're really really distant relatives, in a way. As for cementing our common cultural heritage.... I'd rather sell my laptop, cellphone, clothes, and be a little hungry than give you my laraw. It was hard enough to get, and it is a heritage thing too.
It is amazing isn't it? Our austronesian heritage traveled far and wide. My S.Chinese side traveled far and wide too! A big reason why there's chinatowns in almost every country! As for blades... Taiwanese aboriginal blades tend to have chisel grinds and open scabbards. The Amis and Paiwanese blades are straight. Many have open-socket handles. In Bhutan they have the same style straight blades and open scabbards. The Ifugao/Btonoc/etc. have Pinalug and Hinalung that have open socket handles and open scabbards. Talibon and garabs from Samar often have chisel grind /single bevel edges. Dayaks and Iban Mandaus and parangs are often single beveled as well, though with the concave/convex attribute. Even some work blades from southern China and Japan have similar attributes as the Taiwanese aboriginal blades, though it may go the other way. Very interesting. EDIT: Yuanzhumin you can see the photos? Last edited by KuKulzA28; 9th December 2009 at 03:19 AM. |
|
|
|
|
9th December 2009, 01:54 PM
|
#5 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
Quote:
 Quote:
|
|||
|
|
|
|
9th December 2009, 03:04 PM
|
#6 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: between work and sleep
Posts: 731
|
Quote:
 With demanding distant relatives like this... Quote:
Let me take a few cultural traits that set the aforementioned groups apart. Now keep in mind, nothing is 100% definitive, there are exceptions... CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG! There are several different peoples in Luzon yes? However the Cordilleran tribes are very distinct from the Tagalog/other people. These are people who practice headhunting, village-village warfare, are not sailors, and with what can be considered a lower level of civilization (in terms of infrastructure). The other peoples use distinctly different weaponry, and in Luzon many of these are Spanish influenced, have leather scabbards, and the most popular styles often come from the war with Spain/America and after. The Waray of Samar and Leyte also exhibit blade-characteristics that make them somewhat similar to the others. The people of the Dios Dios and Pulahan where tribal people in the hills. Although converted to Christianity (in many cases) they retained a lot of tribal ways and lived a semi-nomadic life-style. If they had agriculture it was growing hemp for sale. They often lived in the interior and fought with the more financially-savvy coastal people... I'm sure Hokkien Chinese were amongst those. While I doubt a vinta would be strange to a Waray hillman, and I don't think they were headhunters... culturally they share similarities as they have single bevel blades, semi-nomadic thus less infrastructure, village-village warfare, etc. The Kenyah and Kayan and other interior tribal people of Kalimantan/Borneo are another good example. They have modified chisel ground blades, headhunt, are not a seafaring civilization, practice village-village warfare.... and while their longhouses are big, it's not the same level of social and structural infrastructure as can be found in Jogyakarta, Bali, Sulu, Manila, etc. I do not know a lot about the Bhutanese nor the Lepcha people, but the Bhutanese sword is virtually identical to the Paiwanese sword, and the Lepcha people too have open-scabbards. I DO think the sea-faring aspect is important. Look at Botel Tobago, the Yami island south of Taiwan and north of the Philippines. The Tao people, while genetically related to the Taiwanese aborigines, have more in common with northern Luzon Filipinos. They do not exhibit two traits endemic to Taiwanese Austronesians, and those are headhunting and drinking. They do however exhibit a sea-faring fishing culture... with very close cultural-cousins in Borneo. In fact, in their oral histories, they have gone to Luzon due to war... at one time there was more regular contact. THey are a vestiage of the oceanic culture than moved on from Taiwan, while the present-day aborigines had stayed and developed land-based cultures. The more infrastructure there is, it seems these attributes also disappear. While headhunting might have been ubiquitous in the distant past, these peoples have had it up till more recently. Also the other Indo-Austronesians seem to have large cities, greater trade networks, and more centralized rule. Their blades tend to follow the patterns of klewang, parang, golok, and pedang. They have outside influences from Chinese, Indians, Malaysian (many are Melayu), etc. They, being more centralized and having larger populations based on a larger trade network, more intensive farming, and fishing - they conduct war differently and certainly not on a village-village level, they did it on a state-state level. Maybe it is a combination of environment, convergent evolution, and the distribution of ideas... but it seems the biggest of these groups have many things in common underlying their similarities in blade characteristics. just some thoughts... Last edited by KuKulzA28; 9th December 2009 at 03:16 PM. |
||
|
|
|
|
11th December 2009, 12:26 AM
|
#7 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
Quote:
I agree that we can see both -- there's a common thread, while at the same time we see distinct local traits ... the unity in diversity and diversity in unity stuff. Of course the Austronesian peoples' culture/s did not develop in a vacuum. There's the two other neighboring civilizations -- the Chinese and the Indians/Hindu. And when the Europeans came later, what we have is a happy mix of just about everything? 
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
