Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi
Salaams David. I think the matter is properly addressed now dont you? Despite vast references that illustrate the words Deity and note the huge variance in descriptive terms; dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few... does it really actually matter ? The more important weight is concerned with the date and timing of any Sri Lankan adoption of this weapon style ... not whether Europeans transliterate what they see and what the references describe. Deity \ Icon??
Perhaps it would be like flogging a dead horse to continue arguing the point no? 
Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi. |
Well Ibrahiim, you claim to want to understand the kastane. Any ethnographic weapon cannot be properly understood without a clear understanding of the culture that spawned it or that culture's intent in its design. Deities are gods and goddess, supreme beings that are worshipped by the people that attend to that culture. An "Icon" if you choose to insist on that term, when not used in its original sense of a painting of Jesus Christ, can be viewed as "a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something." If the Sinhalese people were placing their gods and goddess on these hilts it would have a certain meaning and power to it. That they chose the iconic lion, a symbol of the Sinhalese people, to place on the pommel, conveys a separate purpose, meaning and understanding. To confuse "Deity" with "Icon" or see them as somehow interchangeable terms will only lead to continued confusion on the intent, place and purpose of the kastane within Sinhalese culture. So, you ask "dragon, snake, eagle, serpent, Makara, beast, gargoyle, Lion, to name a few… does it really actually matter?" Come on Ibrahiim, of course it matters.