Here is my 2 cents on this topic...as a collector I focus on true antique weapons. Now, with that said I know many folks that collect new pieces or recreations of old pieces. Many of these pieces are made in the traditional manner using traditional means...I would therefore interject that a piece made with correct materials and in a traditional manner would still be classifed as a "true" albeit modern version.
Now where does that place blades that are produced for the souvenir or modern use trade? If using morphological standards alone and not material/manufacture as a means to define legitimacy of a weapon type then yes, they would be legitimate (note any wavy bladed knife, sword, or dagger being classifed as a keris...same with barong, parang, bolo ect) albeit modern and not traditional.
I truly think that any weapon made with the correct materials should be referred to as at legitimate" but not antique. All others that fall into the correct morphological form and made of untraditional materials should just be classifed as modern...most of these are made for the souvenir market, however many are being used by current practioners of traditional martial arts whom can not afford true antique weapons...I refer to them as modern.
Technology has changed the process of how all things are made to one extent or another ie: the use of hand held grinders in keris making, air hammers for forging/folding.
Modern, modern/traditional or antique, I think that is how they should be classified for what it's worth. May you all be blessed with a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014!
All my best,
John
|