Barong Classification

Battara · 13th April 2005, 01:31 PM

Spunjer, I know that at one time for many tribes, the wearing of red meant that one had killed and it was a badge of honor and rank (red for blood). Later I wonder if it became more significant as a talisman.

Battara · 14th April 2005, 06:18 PM

You know, another thought came into my mind (still hurts

) and that is another type of barong to consider. Ibeam and I were discussing the sipit barong that has a narrower blade profile, and the hilt comes over in an angle and is almost flat at less than a 45 degree angle. I'll post some pictures if I can. This label comes from Cecil Quirino according to Ibeam and not found in Cato's book.

Ian · 14th April 2005, 11:39 PM

Hi Battara:

Look forward to seeing the pictures of a sipit barung -- don't quite follow your description of the hilt, but a picture should clear that up. Another style not found in Cato is the shandigan barung with its swollen edge, which we talked about a little bit in this thread already.

A question for the barung fans:

Do you think there is a consensus about classifying barung based on Spunjer's proposal, perhaps with some modifications, such that an essay (with illustrations) could be written and published here in the Archives? We have talked about creating additional informative pieces that could serve as references, and an update to Cato's work would be appreciated by many of us. For several years I have been hearing that Cecil Quirino is going to write a more definitive text, setting down new material and correcting inaccuracies in Cato's book, but nothing has emerged yet. Why not help educate ourselves more while we wait for Cecil's book? Just a thought.

Ian.

Federico · 15th April 2005, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

Hi Battara:
A question for the barung fans:

Do you think there is a consensus about classifying barung based on Spunjer's proposal, perhaps with some modifications, such that an essay (with illustrations) could be written and published here in the Archives? We have talked about creating additional informative pieces that could serve as references, and an update to Cato's work would be appreciated by many of us. For several years I have been hearing that Cecil Quirino is going to write a more definitive text, setting down new material and correcting inaccuracies in Cato's book, but nothing has emerged yet. Why not help educate ourselves more while we wait for Cecil's book? Just a thought.

Ian.

My vote has already been made (for what its worth as a mere hobbiest), note earlier posts, against separating Samal and Tausug barong by the criteria listed. Shandigan barong are described in Bob's book, but the name is not used, nor is there a picture of an example. The term really hadnt popped up into more common use til Cecil featured the name for a new barong being produced by his company just a couple years ago. There are a number of changes in later catalogs as well, eg. the use of the term kiwo instead of kalis seko to describe tausug kris, which may hint at things to come once his book is finally published.

Ian · 15th April 2005, 05:45 AM

Barung banditos:

I'm thinking that with some skillful wordsmithing, even widely divergent views can be syhthesized along the lines of "one school of thought has suggested ..." and "another body of opinion believes that distinguishing between the characteristics of barung among the Samal and Tausug is very difficult because of substantial overlap in styles." Seems that a scholarly approach could be crafted that would be useful to the reader as we search for more information to better define the subject matter.

I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between being able to conclusively distinguish the two forms and there being no way to distinguish between them.

Spunjer and others have spent some time trying to work this out, and they have offered some testable hypotheses. Those efforts are laudable and should not be cast aside. Can you guys get together and work on the available data -- pictures, descriptions, etc. -- to flesh out these ideas and reach some consensus? It would be great to move beyond opinion and conjecture, and understand better the areas of agreement and disagreement.

Waiting for Cecil Quirino's book is a poor reason for not trying to do something now. As far as I know, nobody has yet seen a draft of this book. Moreover, just writing a book is a substantial and time consuming undertaking, let alone getting it printed -- it is possible Cecil's book may never happen. Why not try to do something more modest with what we have here?

Ian.

Federico · 15th April 2005, 10:17 AM

Ian

I would like to clarify, that I am not stating that differentions cannot be made between Tausug and Samal barungs (though what that may be I do not know), but rather using the scabbard and cockatua features listed in the initial post are not reliable in light of other evidence against. Realistically, there is only one post stating that this differention can be made, with no evidence given to support why. In light of the problems I have personally encountered (well heres the kicker this is only worth as much as you trust that my opinion is of any worth, it has already been asserted on this forum that it is in fact of no worth despite what evidence I may try to assert, so if you are in the latter camp then all I type is useless) with this typography I would like to see what evidence is in favor. Certainly Bob's book does not make this differention. Like everyone here, I would love to know every little secret about the weapons I collect that can be known, however I feel critical review is still necessary in the pursuit of knowledge. I know this is not a popular idea, but is there no standard of proof to back a claim other than the popularity of a sentiment?

tom hyle · 15th April 2005, 01:21 PM

Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is

15th April 2005, 01:21 PM	#7
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Hi, how are you? There used to be writing here, and the computer won't believe me if I just TELL it there still is Last edited by tom hyle; 16th April 2005 at 01:37 AM. Reason: moderator complaint

13th April 2005, 01:31 PM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,345	Spunjer, I know that at one time for many tribes, the wearing of red meant that one had killed and it was a badge of honor and rank (red for blood). Later I wonder if it became more significant as a talisman.

14th April 2005, 06:18 PM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,345	You know, another thought came into my mind (still hurts ) and that is another type of barong to consider. Ibeam and I were discussing the sipit barong that has a narrower blade profile, and the hilt comes over in an angle and is almost flat at less than a 45 degree angle. I'll post some pictures if I can. This label comes from Cecil Quirino according to Ibeam and not found in Cato's book.

14th April 2005, 11:39 PM	#3
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,522	Hi Battara: Look forward to seeing the pictures of a sipit barung -- don't quite follow your description of the hilt, but a picture should clear that up. Another style not found in Cato is the shandigan barung with its swollen edge, which we talked about a little bit in this thread already. A question for the barung fans: Do you think there is a consensus about classifying barung based on Spunjer's proposal, perhaps with some modifications, such that an essay (with illustrations) could be written and published here in the Archives? We have talked about creating additional informative pieces that could serve as references, and an update to Cato's work would be appreciated by many of us. For several years I have been hearing that Cecil Quirino is going to write a more definitive text, setting down new material and correcting inaccuracies in Cato's book, but nothing has emerged yet. Why not help educate ourselves more while we wait for Cecil's book? Just a thought. Ian.

15th April 2005, 05:45 AM	#5
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,522	Barung banditos: I'm thinking that with some skillful wordsmithing, even widely divergent views can be syhthesized along the lines of "one school of thought has suggested ..." and "another body of opinion believes that distinguishing between the characteristics of barung among the Samal and Tausug is very difficult because of substantial overlap in styles." Seems that a scholarly approach could be crafted that would be useful to the reader as we search for more information to better define the subject matter. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between being able to conclusively distinguish the two forms and there being no way to distinguish between them. Spunjer and others have spent some time trying to work this out, and they have offered some testable hypotheses. Those efforts are laudable and should not be cast aside. Can you guys get together and work on the available data -- pictures, descriptions, etc. -- to flesh out these ideas and reach some consensus? It would be great to move beyond opinion and conjecture, and understand better the areas of agreement and disagreement. Waiting for Cecil Quirino's book is a poor reason for not trying to do something now. As far as I know, nobody has yet seen a draft of this book. Moreover, just writing a book is a substantial and time consuming undertaking, let alone getting it printed -- it is possible Cecil's book may never happen. Why not try to do something more modest with what we have here? Ian.

15th April 2005, 10:17 AM	#6
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Ian I would like to clarify, that I am not stating that differentions cannot be made between Tausug and Samal barungs (though what that may be I do not know), but rather using the scabbard and cockatua features listed in the initial post are not reliable in light of other evidence against. Realistically, there is only one post stating that this differention can be made, with no evidence given to support why. In light of the problems I have personally encountered (well heres the kicker this is only worth as much as you trust that my opinion is of any worth, it has already been asserted on this forum that it is in fact of no worth despite what evidence I may try to assert, so if you are in the latter camp then all I type is useless) with this typography I would like to see what evidence is in favor. Certainly Bob's book does not make this differention. Like everyone here, I would love to know every little secret about the weapons I collect that can be known, however I feel critical review is still necessary in the pursuit of knowledge. I know this is not a popular idea, but is there no standard of proof to back a claim other than the popularity of a sentiment?