Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 6th March 2019, 07:53 PM   #1
ShazamsLaw
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 26
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xasterix
Hi Shazam,

With all due respect to sir Henry Scott, there's been much criticism from academicians regarding his claims / interpretation of pre-colonial Philippine history. Personally, I take it with a grain of salt, as what he's based it on isn't in turn verified by historians as authentic, definite documents. There have been instances before when fake documents are taken as 'authentic'- see the Code of Maragtas regarding this.

I think the best basis for discussion here, and the most tangible as well, would be to assess the oldest Philippine blades that have been shown in this forum.
I've actually never heard of any criticism towards Scott's works, in fact he was the one that debunked the Code of Maragtas or "code of kalantiaw". When Scott was examining prehispanic sources for the study of Philippine history he demonstrated that the code was a forgery committed by Marco. He even published his findings debunking the code in his book Prehispanic Source Materials for the Study of Philippine History.

Under what topic or source had historians took Williams claims into questioning?
ShazamsLaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.