I was wondering if there ever was a name given by the ancient Filipinos to the for region encompass modern Philippines.
What's probably more likely is that each island or language group had it's own mini-country and had no concept of a Filipino country as a whole, but it would be cool if someone can supply the name of the area in the general location of the Philippines as it exist today.
Full Version: What was the ancient name of the Philippines?
as far as i know, the philippines was never thought of a sa collective group before the arrival of the spanish.
I think the Philippines was part of the East Indies (East India) group of Islands.
wasn't it called maharlika before it was known as maharlika islands...
i know maharlika means nobles.
i know maharlika means nobles.
it was called Spain
just a wild guess
Malacanang or its origin may-lakan-dyan
Malacanang or its origin may-lakan-dyan
I bet there was a term used by the locals to call the large part of the archipelago.
I think the Philippines were group of States or Countries like Cebu was a State, Panay was a State, Luzon was a State, Sulu was a Sultanate, so I think there was never an ancient name for the Philippines. The Philippines only became united when the Spaniards came and called it Las Islas Felipinas and it was not even a country, it was a province of Spain. There was even a time when the Philippines became a British Colony when the British Invaded the Philippines and the Spaniards had to give the Philippines to the British the Philippines became part of East India Company for many years and because of the Treaty of Paris, the British gave the Philippines back to Spain.
its luson , bisayas and mindanaw...
QUOTE(martin_nuke @ Sep 7 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]3192582[/snapback]
I think the Philippines were group of States or Countries like Cebu was a State, Panay was a State, Luzon was a State, Sulu was a Sultanate, so I think there was never an ancient name for the Philippines. The Philippines only became united when the Spaniards came and called it Las Islas Felipinas and it was not even a country, it was a province of Spain. There was even a time when the Philippines became a British Colony when the British Invaded the Philippines and the Spaniards had to give the Philippines to the British the Philippines became part of East India Company for many years and because of the Treaty of Paris, the British gave the Philippines back to Spain.
RP was never a part of Britain. Only Manila or more specifically, only Intramuros was captured by the brits. And it was not for MANY years...it's only for A year. We were also not a part / province of Spain until 1820s where thru the treaty of blah blah (i forgot), we were encompassed as part of New Spain.
QUOTE(*promo @ Sep 7 2007, 01:21 AM) [snapback]3192514[/snapback]
wasn't it called maharlika before it was known as maharlika islands...
i know maharlika means nobles.
i know maharlika means nobles.
Yeah I think Philippines ancient name is Maharlika
I've read many sites that proves this
QUOTE(P. Bredahl @ Sep 7 2007, 12:35 AM) [snapback]3192531[/snapback]
it was called Spain
i think it was pacific islands
ham_let, martin_nuke and xzsurf is right. Pre-Spanish Philippines was made up of several city-states called "barangays" controlled by a ruler called a "Datu". Sort of like the Sengoku Jidai in Medieval Japan where prefectures (provinces) were ruled by Japanese ruler called a Daimyo and his family clan, ancient Hellenic Greek City States in Peloponnese, Sicily, and Anatolia, or Reconquista medieval Christian kingdoms in Spain ruled by various Chritian kings (Castille, Aragon, Gallicia, Basque, Leone, Catalan etc). Each of the regions was made up of different ethnic groups that still have their own language like Illocano, Tagalog, Visayan, Bicolano, Kapampangan, Cebuano, the Moros etc. The people that Magellan and the Conquistador Legazpi first encountred and fought were the Cebuano people in Mactan, Cebu. There was a name I read about that medieval Chinese merchants and emissaries gave collectively to the Philippines archipelago that I read about in some Philippine history books but I forgot what it was called. I'll have to look it up. It was the Spanish who "united" the different ethnic groups of las Filipinas. I heard about "maharlika" in another forum but I don't think the majority of the people in the pre-Spanish Philippines called it that since they have different ethnic langauges.
QUOTE(xzsurf @ Sep 7 2007, 02:08 AM) [snapback]3192783[/snapback]
its luson , bisayas and mindanaw...
this also true b/c mindanaw was drawn in and name as mindanaw in old world maps.
QUOTE(martin_nuke @ Sep 7 2007, 02:23 AM) [snapback]3192582[/snapback]
The Philippines only became united when the Spaniards came and called it Las Islas Felipinas
The tribes back then were constantly at war with each other, so I imagine the Philippines would probably be 10 or more separate countries today without Spain's intervention.
QUOTE(raiderz @ Sep 7 2007, 09:54 AM) [snapback]3193083[/snapback]
There was a name I read about that medieval Chinese merchants and emissaries gave collectively to the Philippines archipelago
They called us the "MaI"
QUOTE(DCguy @ Sep 7 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]3193406[/snapback]
The tribes back then were constantly at war with each other, so I imagine the Philippines would probably be 10 or more separate countries today without Spain's intervention.
They called us the "MaI"
They called us the "MaI"
but the Philippines was already est. in the ortienal world, the only thing that spain cliamed that they decovered and united and showed that to west. even at the end they where liars when they gave land (sulu-sulu and mindanaw) away claiming it but they never occupied it.
and welcome back!
QUOTE(*promo @ Sep 7 2007, 02:21 PM) [snapback]3193437[/snapback]
but the Philippines was already est. in the ortienal world, the only thing that spain cliamed that they decovered and united and showed that to west. even at the end they where liars when they gave land (sulu-sulu and mindanaw) away claiming it but they never occupied it.
and welcome back!
and welcome back!
LOL! Thanks, yeah bruh I know its been a while since I've been posting.
The Philippines was heavily divided until the 1500's when the Spainards came. So there really is no ancient name, rather ancient city-states.
QUOTE(*promo @ Sep 7 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]3193437[/snapback]
but the Philippines was already est. in the ortienal world, the only thing that spain cliamed that they decovered and united and showed that to west. even at the end they where liars when they gave land (sulu-sulu and mindanaw) away claiming it but they never occupied it.
and welcome back!
and welcome back!
THe Spaniards occupied Mindanao especially Zamboanga which was a Spanish stronghold that is why there is Chavacano. I even read in a book somewhere that the Spaniards where able to occupy Sabah but just for a short time.
QUOTE
When the Americans purchase the Archipelago from Spain through the Dec. 10, 1898 Treaty of Paris, the United States (wrongly) initially assumed that the entire Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao and the Sultanate of Sulu was a part of the Republic.
If the Sulu archipelago is a part of the Republic, why did the Americans have to sign several treaties with the Sultanate of Sulu after the signing of the Treaty of Paris? In fact the first treaty signed between the Americans and the Sultanate was just three months later after the signing in Paris.
History attests to this fact, and in a recent write up local political leader, Hadji Limpasan Idjirani says "The Kiram-Bates Peace Treaty upheld a historic political independency and territorial sovereignty of the unconquered Sulu Archipelago. "
"U.S. Army Brigadier General John C. Bates, in representation of U.S. President William McKinley, arrived in Jolo, August 1899, to negotiate for a peace treaty with Sulu's 32nd and last Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Kiram.
Thus, General Bates became first American who had walked on Islamic Moro sovereign territory of Sulu Archipelago."
Aside from the Bates Treaty we also have the so-called Carpenter Agreement which reestablished the status of Sulu and the American occupation army in Mindanao.
Incidentally no one has bothered to check if the 103-year old Treaty is still enforceable to this day. If so , then the United States Government, according to that treaty is duty bound to protect Sulu from aggression.
The Kiram-Bates Peace Treaty of March 20, 1899 upheld a historic political independency and territorial sovereignty of the unconquered Sulu Archipelago. Treaties are bilateral agreements between sovereign countries, as in the case of Island State of Sulu and the United States of America.
U.S. Army Brigadier General John C. Bates, in representation of U.S. President William McKinley, arrived in Jolo, August 1899, to negotiate for a peace treaty with Sulu's 32nd and last Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Kiram.
Thus, General Bates became first American who had walked on Islamic Moro sovereign territory of Sulu Archipelago.
If the Sulu archipelago is a part of the Republic, why did the Americans have to sign several treaties with the Sultanate of Sulu after the signing of the Treaty of Paris? In fact the first treaty signed between the Americans and the Sultanate was just three months later after the signing in Paris.
History attests to this fact, and in a recent write up local political leader, Hadji Limpasan Idjirani says "The Kiram-Bates Peace Treaty upheld a historic political independency and territorial sovereignty of the unconquered Sulu Archipelago. "
"U.S. Army Brigadier General John C. Bates, in representation of U.S. President William McKinley, arrived in Jolo, August 1899, to negotiate for a peace treaty with Sulu's 32nd and last Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Kiram.
Thus, General Bates became first American who had walked on Islamic Moro sovereign territory of Sulu Archipelago."
Aside from the Bates Treaty we also have the so-called Carpenter Agreement which reestablished the status of Sulu and the American occupation army in Mindanao.
Incidentally no one has bothered to check if the 103-year old Treaty is still enforceable to this day. If so , then the United States Government, according to that treaty is duty bound to protect Sulu from aggression.
The Kiram-Bates Peace Treaty of March 20, 1899 upheld a historic political independency and territorial sovereignty of the unconquered Sulu Archipelago. Treaties are bilateral agreements between sovereign countries, as in the case of Island State of Sulu and the United States of America.
U.S. Army Brigadier General John C. Bates, in representation of U.S. President William McKinley, arrived in Jolo, August 1899, to negotiate for a peace treaty with Sulu's 32nd and last Sultan Mohammad Jamalul Kiram.
Thus, General Bates became first American who had walked on Islamic Moro sovereign territory of Sulu Archipelago.
it's maharlika and maniolas
NONE... there was no Philippines before spaniards came, there was no FIlipinos...only tribal groups..
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
QUOTE(agentslayer @ Sep 6 2007, 10:54 PM) [snapback]3192385[/snapback]
I was wondering if there ever was a name given by the ancient Filipinos to the for region encompass modern Philippines.
What's probably more likely is that each island or language group had it's own mini-country and had no concept of a Filipino country as a whole, but it would be cool if someone can supply the name of the area in the general location of the Philippines as it exist today.
What's probably more likely is that each island or language group had it's own mini-country and had no concept of a Filipino country as a whole, but it would be cool if someone can supply the name of the area in the general location of the Philippines as it exist today.
QUOTE(SimonSays @ Sep 23 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]3227842[/snapback]
NONE... there was no Philippines before spaniards came, there was no FIlipinos...only tribal groups..
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
Philippines was always represented by Manila in the past so it was called maniolas by the greeks,similar to iran being called persia because of it's capital persipolis.
QUOTE(Suzuka00 @ Sep 24 2007, 10:11 PM) [snapback]3230164[/snapback]
Philippines was always represented by Manila in the past so it was called maniolas by the greeks,similar to iran being called persia because of it's capital persipolis.
thanks for the new info it further proves that spanards were last to "discover"
RP! and it doesn't matter with that guy u present him with facts and he'll insults you!
also early europeans came RP before spain "the watering place of the gods omens" what ever that means....
and to add chinese also called San Tao 3 isalnds and Chin San mountian of gold.
the ancient philippines was called "Tawalisi",
check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja
but it was also called Mai, or Po-Ni by the chinese (but that might have been borneo too.) ThePortuguese called the inhabitants of the Philippines Lucuoes, after Luzon.
check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja
but it was also called Mai, or Po-Ni by the chinese (but that might have been borneo too.) ThePortuguese called the inhabitants of the Philippines Lucuoes, after Luzon.
Hmm...Maharlika.
I wouldn't mind being called a Maharlikan. They should totally change it back.
I wouldn't mind being called a Maharlikan. They should totally change it back.
QUOTE(taybenco @ Sep 25 2007, 05:37 PM) [snapback]3230362[/snapback]
the ancient philippines was called "Tawalisi",
check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja
but it was also called Mai, or Po-Ni by the chinese (but that might have been borneo too.) ThePortuguese called the inhabitants of the Philippines Lucuoes, after Luzon.
check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urduja
but it was also called Mai, or Po-Ni by the chinese (but that might have been borneo too.) ThePortuguese called the inhabitants of the Philippines Lucuoes, after Luzon.
I'm not sure if Wikipedia is completely accurate on that.
I mean, it CAN be edited by just about anyone.
You can post total factoids at that site and not get noted for like...a month.
This comes from experience.
well as far the article goes its just something that Rizal and Craig gave as an explanation.
"Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines who was also a respected scholar, speculated that the land of Tawalisi was in the area of the northern part of the Philippines, based on his calculation of the time and distance of travel Ibn Battuta took to sail to China from Tawalisi. In 1916, Austin Craig, a historian of the University of the Philippines, in "The Particulars of the Philippines Pre-Spanish Past," traced the land of Tawalisi and Princess Urduja to Pangasinan. Philippine school textbooks have included Princess Urduja in the list of great Filipinos. In the province of Pangasinan, the capitol building in Lingayen is named "Urduja Palace." A statue of Princess Urduja stands at the Hundred Islands National Park in Pangasinan."wikipedia
no factoids for sure, I haven't heard or read of it any where else. but i think that place is supposed to be on the SEA mainland or eastern india. so is it still taught in the school textbooks in the phils?
i'm not a total wikipedia fan, but i think it's good for quick information. i think you might be referring to the "Philippines" and "Filipino People" Pages, where the content is quite variable.
btw, during ww2 some collaborationists wanted the Japanese to change the names of the Philippines to "Tagala", but there isn't any historic grounding for that either.
"Jose Rizal, the national hero of the Philippines who was also a respected scholar, speculated that the land of Tawalisi was in the area of the northern part of the Philippines, based on his calculation of the time and distance of travel Ibn Battuta took to sail to China from Tawalisi. In 1916, Austin Craig, a historian of the University of the Philippines, in "The Particulars of the Philippines Pre-Spanish Past," traced the land of Tawalisi and Princess Urduja to Pangasinan. Philippine school textbooks have included Princess Urduja in the list of great Filipinos. In the province of Pangasinan, the capitol building in Lingayen is named "Urduja Palace." A statue of Princess Urduja stands at the Hundred Islands National Park in Pangasinan."wikipedia
no factoids for sure, I haven't heard or read of it any where else. but i think that place is supposed to be on the SEA mainland or eastern india. so is it still taught in the school textbooks in the phils?
QUOTE(Pakimo @ Sep 25 2007, 02:29 PM) [snapback]3230458[/snapback]
I'm not sure if Wikipedia is completely accurate on that.
I mean, it CAN be edited by just about anyone.
You can post total factoids at that site and not get noted for like...a month.
This comes from experience.
I mean, it CAN be edited by just about anyone.
You can post total factoids at that site and not get noted for like...a month.
This comes from experience.
i'm not a total wikipedia fan, but i think it's good for quick information. i think you might be referring to the "Philippines" and "Filipino People" Pages, where the content is quite variable.
btw, during ww2 some collaborationists wanted the Japanese to change the names of the Philippines to "Tagala", but there isn't any historic grounding for that either.
I thought Urduja didn't really exist.
QUOTE(agentslayer @ Sep 26 2007, 03:11 AM) [snapback]3231342[/snapback]
I thought Urduja didn't really exist.
well ibn battuta existed, but it isn't clear if he made all the trips he wrote about, just copied the descriptions of countries from other people (so musn't have been necessarily to tawalisi, wherever it might be).
all in all, it is a bit far fetched and mythological, just like calling the philippines Lemuria, but it clear that there were kingdoms/city states in the phils that had lots of contact with other cultures in Asia, just look at the laguna copperplate inscription.
I know these aren't very ancient, but the Philippines was also called so by the spanish before the colonization in 1565:
Islands of St. Lazarus, Islas del Poniente (islands of the west), Mindanao was Caesarea Caroli (named after King Charles V.).
YEs, urduja is a myth, similar to the code of kalantiaw..it has been disproven that princess urduja is not from the PHilippines..but somewhere in the middle east..the myth of the warrior princess was a THEORY by jose rizal who thought that princess urduja might have originated in the philippines..
QUOTE(agentslayer @ Sep 25 2007, 08:11 PM) [snapback]3231342[/snapback]
I thought Urduja didn't really exist.
In Chinese chronicle they called the island Mai , they named the isalnd of Luzon from Lusong , Sug-bu -Cebu , Jolo in Sulu . Mindoro Min-Tou -LO , Palawan - Pa-Lau- Yu
by greeks, u mean ancient greeks?
QUOTE(Suzuka00 @ Sep 25 2007, 12:11 AM) [snapback]3230164[/snapback]
Philippines was always represented by Manila in the past so it was called maniolas by the greeks,similar to iran being called persia because of it's capital persipolis.
QUOTE(*promo @ Sep 25 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]3230254[/snapback]
thanks for the new info it further proves that spanards were last to "discover" RP!
RP!Wow. You believe everything some random guy on the internet says.
QUOTE(*promo @ Sep 25 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]3230254[/snapback]
also early europeans came RP before spain "the watering place of the gods omens" what ever that means....
It was Arabs and Indians.
QUOTE(Pakimo @ Sep 25 2007, 08:21 PM) [snapback]3230451[/snapback]
Hmm...Maharlika.
I wouldn't mind being called a Maharlikan. They should totally change it back.
I wouldn't mind being called a Maharlikan. They should totally change it back.
They tried during Marcos' time. But one scholar claimed it sounded Sanskrit. So no.
QUOTE(SimonSays @ Sep 23 2007, 07:45 PM) [snapback]3227842[/snapback]
NONE... there was no Philippines before spaniards came, there was no FIlipinos...only tribal groups..
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
We do not have an empire where there is a king, there are only tribal chiefs who make war on each other.. our cluster of islands were not a unified soverignty or kingdom.. Lets face it guys, We are not Siam or Borneo or Java or India or China...this is the very reason why our ancestors went to the Philippines..to escapes and not be part of this kingdoms and just be free people living a simple life.. The only first time that we were unified, adapt a common ground and share a common culture is when a white man claim it for Spain..
This is how our country was shaped..Not to say that our culture is purely Spanish but my point is..the western culture was shaped and influence and mixed with our shamannistic austronesian eastern roots. The result: The Philippines!
Deal with it.
actually the philippines or luzon only could have been like vietnam today if the chinese conquered us before spanish.
QUOTE(Suzuka00 @ Oct 13 2007, 04:28 PM) [snapback]3264294[/snapback]
actually the philippines or luzon only could have been like vietnam today if the chinese conquered us before spanish.
Conquest was not their nature prior to communism. The Chinese have been living in eternal fear of the Mongols. Perhaps they knew it was wrong.
Galit talaga itong si kahntoot sa mga Tsino!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.