A good debate
Hi All,
I'll take the points in order of appearance.
Louieblades,
I didn't suggest getting into what each group calls it and I agree that approach could become confusing, that's why I suggested using Saami as a way of distinguishing this type of knife from the conventionally dressed puukko. As for Bowie knives (which is btw what I call them), they might have started out as a southern gentleman's side arm but they wound up being produced and carried by a wide range of socio-economic groups in the American west.
Ariel,
The preface of Tiv, Ngombe, etc is certainly a convention borne of ignorance but I don't see anything condescending or imperialistic about using the name of a group associated with an artifact to define that artifact. I have nothing against calling a leuku a leuku as long as it refers to the Finnish interpretation of the Saami knife but I don't think a knife in traditional Saami dress should be called by a Finnish name. To me that doesn't give proper due to the culture that originated the style. As for the examples navaja and claymore, navaja is a Spanish word for a Spanish knife and claymore is a corruption of the Scottish claidheamh mor or great sword so these names give proper credit to the groups they are associated with.
Jussi M,
I have noted that on ebay, all other things being equal, a blade in traditional Saami dress will fetch a considerably higher price than one in traditional puukko dress. The fact that buyers are making a distinction and are willing to pay a premium based on that distinction argues against your a puukko is a puukko is a puukko allegation. Using the name of the culture that produced the blade has nothing to do with national borders it is simply about attributing the object to the culture that originally made it. Since we have a rather broadly based precedent for using this convention, I don't see why this case should be any different.
Sincerely,
RobT
|