[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, before writing my post #20 I did check back through all your posts to this thread, and I am of the opinion that what I have written in post #20 does indeed reflect what you have written in your earlier posts.

If you are referring to my Post #19 as my "summary", well, that is something I have felt like writing for a long time, it could as easily have appeared in any one of several hundred threads in this Forum, it just happened to surface in this one. Probably because I get more & more short tempered with every passing day.

So it seems that you are writing one thing, and I am reading something different.

But then, if I read what you have written:-

I don't think we need to have a debate here: I believe we talk about swords, not personalities.

It appears to be obvious to me that you are not reading that which I have written.

From my perspective I am not involved in any debate:- how could I be? I have not put forward any opinion, merely a suggestion for consideration by those who appear to know more than I do in this particular field.

As for names, of course you have not suggested any name for the item under discussion, and I have not commented that you have.

Yes, we are talking about tools and swords and other sharp pointy things, I can detect no shadow of comment on anybody's personality. I have complimented you, true, but that compliment is hardly discussion of personality.

If my compliments in any way disconcert or embarrass you, I most humbly apologise for causing you any discomfort.

I will make this one last point:-

Unless a person has dedicated a considerable part of his life to the study of certain aspects of a society it is not possible for that person to claim that a particular object originates from that society, nor that it bears a particular name within that society.

Those who engage in such study, frequently dedicate a considerable part of their life to actually living in the society under enquiry. A good example of this is the way in which many noted anthropologists have carried out their enquiries.

Thus, for those who are not a part of the target society and who wish to place any item within such society and its geographic location, and to name it in accordance with the accepted usage in the society of origin, that person needs to rely upon statistical sampling.

The samples used can be drawn from published works, or from reliably authenticated examples of the item under enquiry, such examples could perhaps be provided by museums and other public institutions.

In the case of maritime South East Asia the nature of the region, the variation in languages, the philosophy of language structure, and the well documented and lengthy trade links throughout the region make the verification of geographic point of origin, name, and meaning of a name very difficult to verify.

The objective of reasonable accuracy is further complicated by unreliability of the data base upon which any statistical sampling must rely. There are other difficulties in applying statistical sampling to this matter also, difficulties relating to the numbers of objects involved in the study and the variation applicable.

If what I have written above can be accepted as accurate, it follows that many, if not most opinions in respect of the identification for objects of material culture from Maritime South East Asia need to be qualified. Perhaps in some cases, heavily qualified.