[Ian]

Guys:

Instead of arguing with each other about semantics and getting all defensive and irritated, why don't you see what others have done to resolve issues of nomenclature in other aspects of sword descriptions? Ewart Oakeshott's widely accepted descriptions of medieval swords is an excellent example. Albert van Zonneveld took a different approach with the wide spectrum of Indonesian swords and knives.

Instead of arguing terminology, why not explore the typology of these weapons, looking for similarities that enable broad groups to be defined and then consider sub-groups? Oakeshott took a purely typographic approach to medieval swords and gave his main groupings Roman numerals, thus avoiding descriptive terms altogether.

Function is determined by how the weapon is put together, and what is not functional is essentially decorative. Sometimes we focus on the decorative aspects and lose sight of the functional. Typology as applied to Oakeshott's classification is mainly concerned with function.

So, can we cut through the crap and focus on the structural and functional similarities and differences between these weapons, and decide whether they are members of an identifiable group or totally unrelated? If they are members of the same clan, then come up with some simple names by which you want to identify the clan and its various families. Then take your agreed upon names and list the various pseudonyms that have been applied by others to these families of weapons.

This would be a YUUUUUUGE contribution to the field and would put to rest some of the arguing on these pages. You guys are smart and experienced in this area of weaponology. Should be easy-peasy for you.

Ian.