Talk:Luzon Empire

Perspective

The article is obviously thoroughly researched and draws from Filipino, Chinese and Spanish sources. But several elements in it would leave the impression to the reader that the "Luzon Empire" is of Chinese origin, or a Chinese colonial outpost. These elements include the copious usage of the Chinese name of Luzon, the several illustrations drawn from Chinese history or Chinese culture, and the "Further information" links to the respective histories of the Ming and Song Dynasties. But reading the article in its current form, it does not establish that the Luzon Empire was a Chinese creation. At most, it states that "Zhang Shijie's fleet and the last Song emperor may have escaped to pre-colonial Philippines and established the Luzon Empire...", which admittedly is merely a conjecture. However, the "Origins" section gives greater weight to the collapse of the Song Dynasty and Zhang Shijie than the possibility that the establishment of the communities and governments in Luzon at that time had nothing to do with the Chinese. That leads to a highly weighted suggestion that the Luzon Empire derives from China.

The rest of the article establishes that prior to the 1520s, China and its leaders perceived that there was a Luzon Empire, and dealt with it accordingly. Fair enough. But the article would be more balanced if it gives greater consideration to how the inhabitants of Luzon perceived their own culture, government or political structure. Without that native perspective, the impression left is that the people of Luzon viewed themselves in exactly the same way as the the Chinese or Japanese saw them.

The perspective from which Philippine pre-Hispanic history is taught in the Philippines is vastly different from that which informs the article, as it is more similar in tone and viewpoint as presented in the History of the Philippines (pre-1521) entry. I'm not going to insist that the local viewpoint is more accurate than a foreign one (per WP:NPOV). But it is a sensitive matter for many Filipinos to insinuate that Filipino pre-Hispanic society was somehow subservient to a foreign government or kingdom. The article does not go that far, but the use of too many non-Filipino elements (the pictures, the Japanese or Chinese characters, etc) may lead to that impression. I hope that subsequent edits to the article will keep these views in mind. Anyo Niminus (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m on board with the surplus amounts of non-Filipino elements. It will make Luzon look like an empire of Chinese origin. Edits should be made. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, Perspective, and Some Other Notes

Some notes on the current conundrum by Alternativity (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC):

• First, this Lusong referred to in the article did in fact, exist, and I have been looking for some time now for an article that would put all these references together. I did not write that article myself for two reasons: a) I don't have access to the foreign references, only the Filipino ones and b) I felt that the references were so disconnected from one another that any article about Lusong would have been Original Research. But I'm saying I don't think the existence of the article is absurd at all, as has been suggested elsewhere.
• Second, what I do find absurd is the (implied?) characterization of Lusong as a breakaway/exiled Chinese empire. I'm not about to dismiss the theory, but that's the point: it's a theory. Only one of several possible interpretations. Saying outright that Lusong=Lesser Song Dynasty is about as frivolous as suggesting that the kingdom of Shamballa was actually located in what is now Zambales. The data might suggest it, if you look hard enough for an interpretation that favors yours, but it certainly doesn't support it.
• The words "empire" and "kingdom" are very tricky here, as their application to the actual forms of government that existed in the locality at the time would be imprecise, and carry numerous connotations. I recommend that the data here be moved to a new article which uses neither term. Perhaps simply "Lusong", as Bolkiah called it in 1500 (as distinguished from Luzon)?
• What stops me from creating an article simply called "Lusong" is I'm not sure I shouldn't be calling it Tondo, Tundo, or Tundun, which is apparently what the Laguna Copperplate Inscription (LCI) calls it.
• Come to think of it, I'm not even sure there are enough data sources to suggest that Bolkiah's Lusong of 1500 AD and the LCI's Tundun of 900 AD are the same entity.
• Another thing that stops me is that I cannot read Chinese.
• The fact is, no local record of this kingdom other than the LCI exists, and the LCI is a very limited source. Sources exist, but they are either Chinese, Arabian,or from Brunei and thus do not show us how the people interpreted their own system of government.
• In other words, sigh. I know enough to know someting's wrong with this article, and I know enough to know that it can't simply be dismissed. But I don't feel I know enough to be able to fix it.
• Help? Anyone else here researching this era? (Signature above)

User:PericlesofAthens and User:Balthazarduju might be able to help you in the Chinese regard, since they are pretty concerned about the Luzon claim showing up on articles like History of Song Dynasty. For starters, I don't think Lusong (呂宋) translates to Lesser Song. _dk (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Lusong is a tagalog word meaninng "to wade." I was just saying that the article implied that this "Lusong Empire" could be construed based on Chinese records as "Lesser Song". I never said the article said "Lusong"="lesser song" translation-wise. Also, I think we need help from historians from China, Brunei, and the Philippines, not just China. Although the Chinese translation need is more immediate.Alternativity (talk) 03:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, nobody is trying to refute what you're saying. I'm just pointing out what's wrong with the article, not your post. _dk (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Aight. Anyway, I think I've found a solution to our little problem. Give me a few hours to execute it, and we'll see if it's more satisfactory, overall. :-D Alternativity (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

(reset indention) OKAY. Here goes. I've come up with a more orthodox article, Ancient Tondo. It still needs work, but I think it covers the same territory as this article with the conjecture moved to a separate section which I have not yet finished. May I suggest a partial merge, with this page being reduced to a discussion of the theory that the Lesser Song Dynasty later became the Tondo of Lakandula?Alternativity (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the name "Lesser Song Empire" even come from? Chinese records only says 呂宋, which is a phonetic transliteration of Luzon. I don't think the "Lesser Song Empire" translation even exists. _dk (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not nearly explicit enough about the origins & ethnic/cultural/national background of the Luzon Kingdom. It implies that the kingdom was populated and led by Chinese Song refugees (much as Taiwan was run by Koxinga and Ming refugees after the Qing took over), but doesn't say it outright. This is a crucial element which needs to be cleared up.

More to the point, I'm posting a comment in order to address the third point - I have no idea how Luzon might have seen itself, but as it pertains to the Sinocentric world order, words like "empire" and "kingdom" actually have rather solid, definite meanings. Within that system, polities such as Korea, Ryukyu, and Vietnam which were tributaries to China were "kingdoms", led by "kings" (王), a position of definitively lower status than the Chinese Emperor (皇帝)(the only Emperor recognized by China as the one true ruler, the Son of Heaven, etc). Within this worldview system, titles such as Emperor, King, and Prince had very definite meanings. Of course, on the other hand, we don't know how Luzon viewed itself - would it have called its ruler an emperor? LordAmeth (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There's NO WAY the chiefs of Tondo or Manila would have called themselves emperors. That much I do know. I don't even see sufficient evidence for the word Luzon or Lusong referring to a single political unit. Lusong/Luzon is the name of the island, and numerous states occupied it, including numerous tagalog city-states such as Tondo, Manila, Pila, and that's not even counting the various states of the Zambal, Pampanga, Pangasinan, etc cultures. I don't see a single reference that says Tondo or Manila claimed all of Luzon for itself, except Bolkiah's claim to have conquered Luzon when in fact all he defeated was a single naval force not necessarily representative of the whole island... but we all know how conquerors' claims tend to get exagerrated, right? I tried to come up with a Luzon Kingdom article, but I simply could not find enough merit in the idea that any such political entity (referring to itself as Luzon) existed.Alternativity (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) For the merge suggestion, I prefer a full merge from one to another, and remove all origin theories unless they are verified. (The Lesser Song theory is sourced from a blog, which is unsourced itself.) _dk (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the official History of Song (宋史) has described fate of Zhang Shijie and Emperor Bing in the passage of ["Scroll 47" of History of Song]. Even if you are literate in Chinese it will take some deciphering as the text is in Classical Chinese. Nevertheless the demise of Zhang and the suicide of Bing is at the very end of the chapter:

"二月戊寅朔，世傑部將陳寶降。己卯，都統張達以夜襲大軍營，亡失甚衆。癸未，有黑氣出山西。李恒乘早潮退攻其北，世傑以淮兵殊死戰。至午潮上，張弘范攻其南，南北受敵，兵士皆疲不能戰。俄有一舟檣旗僕，諸舟之檣旗遂皆僕。世傑知事去，乃抽精兵入中軍。諸軍潰，翟國秀及團練使劉俊等解甲降。大軍至中軍，會暮，且風雨，昏霧四塞，咫尺不相辨。世傑乃與蘇劉義斷維，以十餘舟奪港而去，陸秀夫走衛王舟，王舟大，且諸舟環結，度不得出走，乃負昺投海中，後宮及諸臣多從死者，七日，浮屍出於海十余萬人。楊太后聞昺死，撫膺大慟曰：「我忍死艱關至此者，正爲趙氏一塊肉爾，今無望矣！」遂赴海死，世傑葬之海濱，已而世傑亦自溺死。宋遂亡。" I've highlighted the relevant words regarding the two. --Kvasir (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The text in 東西洋考 (A study of the Eastern and Western Oceans) has a section describing Luzon Empire indeed which had been referenced as having a Chinese origin. See Book 5, page 1-7. It too is in Classical Chinese and I have not decipher it yet. Let's see if anyone can find an online English translation. --Kvasir (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The only "origin" I can find there is in its first page: 呂宋在東海中初為小國而後寢大 - "Luzon was first a small country in the East Sea which later expanded". There are mentions of it first sending tribute to Yongle Emperor in 1406, and the existence of trade with "Franks" from a place called "Qianmila" (千糸蠟國).....nothing that I see relates to remnants of Song. _dk (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not able to find a reference to the origin of 呂宋國 and strings of 東都 in 東西洋考.「来朝并貢方物」 in the first page means "They came to the imperial court and tribute paid." Countries which presents tribute to the another country cannot be an empire. I think these articles are originally researched fiction. In Japanese documents, 呂宋国 means Spanish colonized Philippines (e.g. Shuinjō, circa 1621[1]). And, they had called Spanish governors general of Philippines as kings of Luzon state(呂宋国王), e.g. 呂宋国王郎敝洛黎勝君迎上書. In addition, from 『コンパクト 世界地名語源辞典』 ISBN 477221609X, ethmology of Luzon is from "mortar" or "mutual aid organization of farm village" in Tagalog. 呂宋 looks like just a set of substitute characters, and never means "The Lesser Song Empire". Chinese character 呂's original meaning is "backbone".--203.184.103.175 (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Strong Speedy Merge. Obviously, I believe that the Luzon Empire should quickly be merged into Ancient Tondo, and Luzon empire thus deleted, as it is not in line with orthodox Philippine or Chinese history, and the sources provided for Luzon Empire do not sufficiently validate the existence of a "Luzon Empire" sponsored by the remnants of the Lower Song Dynasty. Alternativity (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if "strong and speedy" are really valid, but I'd certainly support a regular Merge. LordAmeth (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support Merge. I'm okay with Alternativity's proposal. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone want to do the honours? _dk (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in like this, but I feel forced to tell you that User: Ushiwaka is still not replying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.251.62 (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

He has been given enough time and notification. Now, is there someone with an adequate knowledge of the history of Philippines willing to do the merge? _dk (talk) 14:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Willing, but lacking in free time at the moment. If nobody else does, I will eventually. But if someone else wants to take the initiative, may I specifically ask for a careful examination of the sources cited here? Because while I believe the basic assertions of this article are unorthodox, the references cited here are difficult to find in searches and are great for mining information. Makes my mouth water when I think about it, actually. Wish I had the time to do this right now... Alternativity (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Support although there is very little in this article that is worth keeping. Yunfeng (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an article/subject that can stand on its own and can be expanded upon

I was astonished to read about the existence of the Luzon Empire myself, though I don't think it's necessary at all to get emotionally uptight about a mere existence of a Chinese-based culture on the islands way back in pre-colonial times. I think there are striking unmistakable similarities between the so-called Mongoloid-type people of the Asian mainland and the Filipino people, not just in physical appearances, but culturally as well. I don't think this article was started by a Chinese national, but why would it matter anyways? This should be an objective retrospective of true historical events, and certainly can use additional expert knowledge on the events and evidences that support what are described as circumstantial and conjecture.

I'd recommend "Luzon Empire" remain as its own article, or at least a stub, as this subject will cetainly be expanded upon in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.160.36 (talk) 09:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The existence of this culture is not in question. The problem is the claim that Luzon originated from Song remnants of the Battle of Yamen, which is based on dubious sources (a blog). _dk (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The merge suggestion was raised because the civilization/culture in question is the same as Ancient Tondo, an article which does not speculate without cause that the culture in question was founded by the remnants of the Song Empire. That, I'm afraid, constitutes revisionism and a conspiracy theory as far as present scholarship is concerned. 66.214.160.36, while I don't discount the possibility of there having been a "Lesser Song Empire" completely, that counts as speculation which we all know is not allowed in a Wikipedia article. I initially got duped by the suggestion too, until I examined the sources in question and realized that they were quoted not only out of context, but with a forced new context which gave it an illusion of authority. As for the apparent Chinese influence on Filipino culture and genetics, the latest research would suggest taht the influence happened earlier than this, in a manner less direct than this (Jocano, in Philippine Prehistory) _dk, I'm not questioning the existence of the culture, but question the name this article attached to that culture, and the accompanying connotations. Specifically, I have these five major objections to the name used here:

1. . this culture never referred to itself as an empire, especially since it did not even reign over all of Luzon
2. . it more specifically did not think of itself as an empire in the Chinese sense, or as an extension of a Chinese Imperial dynasty.
3. . the presence of the Empire label which implies direct Chinese influence undermines the important cultural achievements (their own, not imported) of Ancient Tundo and Ancient Maynila.
4. . it is simply not a term acceptable in present scholarship.
5. . the suggestion that this may have been a chinese empire is already a subsection under ancient tundo.

                                                   -- Alternativity (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Size of Admiral Zhang Shijie's armada

If there is a way we can get some information about the size of the armada then we can probably project the number of people who can be on the ships, therefore - validating the possibility of this entry. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in the above passage I posted from "Scroll 47" of History of Song (宋史) has described fate of Zhang Shijie and Emperor Bing.

"俄有一舟檣旗僕，諸舟之檣旗遂皆僕。世傑知事去，乃抽精兵入中軍。諸軍潰，翟國秀及團練使劉俊等解甲降。大軍至中軍，會暮，且風雨，昏霧四塞，咫尺不相辨。世傑乃與蘇劉義斷維，以十餘舟奪港而去，陸秀夫走衛王舟，王舟大，且諸舟環結，度不得出走，乃負昺投海中，後宮及諸臣多從死者，七日，浮屍出於海十余萬人。楊太后聞昺死，撫膺大慟曰：「我忍死艱關至此者，正爲趙氏一塊肉爾，今無望矣！」遂赴海死，世傑葬之海濱，已而世傑亦自溺死。宋遂亡。"

I'm not proficient in Classical Chinese, so I've only highlighted what I think is relevant to the size of Zhang's fleet. Something about "10+" boats and around 100,000 people. --Kvasir (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the 100,000 people refers to the people dead in the Battle of Yamen, not the people who followed Zhang Shijie's escape... _dk (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said I'm not proficient in Classical Chinese. Though 100,000 does give a clue about the size of the army. --Kvasir (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the Classical Chinese texts. Like DK said, in the text, it states that there were "100,000 plus" dead bodies on the ocean and "10 plus" boats were able to force out of the port......OK, then it comes to the next question - How big was one of these "boats"? How many people can one take onboard? TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Battle of Yamen, the Song navy was numbered "200,000" with "1000+" ships so you do the math, around 200 per ship? I'm sure the stat included some forces on land as well. --Kvasir (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Up to 1000? See Society of the Song Dynasty#Organization_and_equipment. Yunfeng (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thank you both. We all know that Admiral Zhenghe in Ming Dynasty sailed to the Gulf/Middle East with his Treasure ships and seems like they are very similar. The expedition took place almost 150 years later than the Battle of Yamen which I have a hard time believing the Technology survived thru Yuan Dynasty and all these years of non-stop wars and battles. Having said all those, I believe it’s totally Plausible that enough people made it out. The text says that 10+ ships were able to forced out...OK, then let’s say 15. A single ship was able to take on, ranging from 200 – 1000 (which I highly doubt that), OK, let’s say 80 due to the circumstances. That’s still a total of around 1,000 people which is enough to start a new settlement. Therefore, it’s mathematically plausible. TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's mathematically plausible, but there is no evidence that the Rajahs(Who were MUSLIM) ever called themselves Emperor. While the Philippines was influenced by China in a positive way, it was only through trade, not politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.33.249 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge again

I have just read both this and the Ancient Tondo article. They appear to be about the same political entity. So I have to ask: Why has the merge proposal stalled? It seems obvious to be that the two articles should be merged. Alternate views on the origins of the culture can be made on the merged page (properly cited of course). So, lets restart the merge and redirect process again. lk (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never actually seen a merge happen. How does one go about it? Alternativity (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not hard. Just move all the stuff over to the other page, merging as appropriate. Then put a redirect on the original page. If we can get reasonable consensus here, I'll be happy to do it. lk (talk) 14:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. There's my trouble. A lot of this material is supported by stuff I can't read, and therefore cannot merge! hehe. As far as I can tell, the Chinese referrences do not support the speculation itself, but rather provide fodder for it. However, these DO represent some of the earliest references to Lusong, so I'm sort of hesitant to see all those beautiful references disappear. :-S If you know what I mean. -- Alternativity (talk)

Well, I can read Chinese, albeit badly. However, my wife reads it well, including classical Chinese (which is almost another language). I also know someone who reads Tagalog, so that's fine too. However, I don't know anyone who reads Spanish or Portuguese, so that might be a problem. We can keep the references in context as is, and just presume that they appropriately support the statement that they are attached to. But I have to say that when I checked out some of the references, some were only peripherally related to the statement that they purportedly supported. lk (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Name of merged article

We should also discuss the name to merge to. Luzon Empire is I think POV, as it implies links to the Sung dynasty and the Chinese empire. There is only tenuous circumstantial evidence for such a link. Ancient Tondo is I feel, inaccurate. When emissaries presented themselves at the Ming court, they said that they were from Luzon, not Tondo. Like other contemporaneous South East Asian countries, the leaders probably styled themselves 'rajah' or 'sultan', if that is correct, then it would be accurate to call it the Kingdom of Luzon. Or perhaps, the page should be titled Ancient Luzon. Personally, I'm leaning towards Kingdom of Luzon, as there are many other pages about ancient kingdoms also titled Kingdom of XXXX. lk (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Luzon would also be inaccurate, as Luzon refers to and has always referred to the whole island. This kingdom covers only a small part of the whole island, specifically a Tagalog/Kapampangan one. To name this article Ancient Luzon would not only be POV but would disparage the heritage of the Ilocano, Bicolano, Zambal, Ibanag, and other kingdoms that almost certainly existed at the time, although probably with less trade opportunities and thus with limited recorded contacts with other nations. I too am rather dissatisfied with Ancient Tondo, but I can think of no other non-POV name.-- Alternativity (talk) 05:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Luzon refers to and has always referred to the whole island. Are you sure about this? I'm far from an expert in this of course, having just visited this issue, but it seems from the sources on this page, that the name 'Luzon' was first used to refer to this Kingdom, and then later picked up by the Europeans who came into contact with these peoples, and decided that Luzon was the name of the entire island. This is not an unusual case, for example the name Yangtze River is the name of only a small tributary of the river but was misapplied by the Europeans to the entire river, actually named "Chang Jiang" in Chinese. lk (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with another article

This talk page section is for discussion of contradictions between the Luzon Empire and Ancient Tondo articles indicated by the {{Contradict-other}} tags placed on the articles. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Check

I'm going to the library to check sources and attributions against the claims in this article. Anything I can't source is going to have to be removed, since it's all offline and in Chinese, Portugeuse and Spanish. I can read Chinese (classical is tougher) and Spanish and make my way in Portuguese, but I encourage anyone else who has access to a major library with research access to help out.-- Logical Premise ^Ergo? 13:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My wife reads classical Chinese fluently. Drop me a message on my talk page if you need any help with the classical Chinese. lk (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Finalizing the Merge -- Admin Comment solicited

I think that the discussion has led to a point where some consensus regarding a merge has been reached. The material shared between Luzon Empire and Ancient Tondo has more or less been reduced to those matters under dispute as a potential hoax - areas of the Luzon Empire article which have been identified as containing unpublished synthesis. May I seek Admin comment on this now? Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 03:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the merge. Since this is a low traffic page, we're probably not going to get any more comments unless we post a Request for comments. I don't think it's necessary. I think we should just redirect this page over to Ancient Tondo and deal with objections as they come up.

If no one objects, I'm going to blank this page and put a redirect to Ancient Tondo. LK (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Er... not that I object to the merge, but you can't... Hehe. I already did it. My apologies. I didn't see your comment right away. -- Alternativity (talk) 09:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)