Fernando, thank you so much for adding this most pertinent example which reflects the kind of diffusion seen with these clearly Sinhalese influenced hilts, and most important showing the Portuguese perspective.
Thank you as well for adding your perspective on the 'origins of the kasthane dilemma', which seems of course to correspond pretty much with the views expressed already.
Actually the reason I started this thread was because of the outcry on the other thread concerning the emphasis on the kasthane in a thread whose title indicated Sinhalese swords, including the kasthane. There it was claimed that the thread was being derailed by emphasis on the kasthane, remarkable since it followed the topic in the title. Just the same, I thought a more deliberately titled thread would allow focused discussion on the kastane without such consternation.
Now we have a derailment toward the perils and worth of the Wikipedia online source! It seems to me that any source of material used in research is useful but with the caveat that the material must be considered along with corroborating material as well.
It seems that here the issue has become that the source material cited by Ibrahiim from Wikipedia is considered questionably because he has contributed to its content. I will say here that I often use Wikipedia to augment and add to data I use to write along with my own notes and other resources. In most cases it has proven quite reliable although in many cases politically charged material is somewhat questionable.
It should probably have been reiterated that he had added to the Wikipedia material he cited, but I honestly thought he had mentioned that before.
Whatever the case, I would like to see this thread return to the subject matter and forego this unnecessary point of contention.
Fernando, again, wonderful example!!!!
|