Very old Visayan kris

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Gustav

We have two tendencies. The first one I would call academic, it works with available dates, and treats these dates as facts. Everything else ranges between hypothesis and speculation.

The second is amateurs approach and is based on speculations going beyond the available dates.

The possible truth often enough is situated somewhere between these viewpoints in my opinion.

I forgot to reply to this; apologies for the delay, but let me add another:

The third is based on oral tradition, which can be gleaned, for example- from Moro elders here in the Philippines. This is a primary source and a very authoritative one, as emphasized by several international academic studies. The challenge in obtaining this is access- there is a high level of trust needed to facilitate information sharing.

Certain Moro elders can identify and age-estimate antique and vintage blades- after all, generational transmission through oral tradition is very much alive among their people. They have a great deal of knowledge which has not yet been published.

I have a bias towards the third approach, because the first approach, while objective, is based on a a colonizer's perspective (Spanish or American). There are limitations to such data, the most common being loss of meaning due to translation. Observer's bias is also prevalent in colonizer documentation.

That being said- the "best" possible outcome would be data that is verified by both the first and third approaches.