Thank you Evgeny for the note, and again, excellent illustration so thank you for sharing it.
It is always good to cite sources for quoted material and particularly illustrations, not only that those of us here might seek those references for further use, but to satisfy copyright matters etc. Typically material used here is considered in fair use perameters, used for scholarly discussion....with the only caveats avoiding using material from live auction and commercial instances.
In any case, I know I like to keep references with my notes and they are helpful in future discussions.
When it comes to restorations, obviously degree and manner of such matters are a matter of personal choice to the custodian of the weapon. There are no dictations of what is acceptable or not issued here, simply matters of personal opinion. My own personal view for example on older historic weapons which are no longer used and have remained static as either hereditary icons or in the case of items excavated or found, they should be kept to as much the condition in the status ending as possible. Obviously, much as with items found on shipwrecks, they must be stabilized and corrosive activity checked.
There is typically much to be learned from artifacts found in situ, and I personally feel a much stronger connection to items unaltered and able to see elements of construction etc.
While I admit to having limited understanding of Indonesian, Philippines and Moro as well as many Southeast Asian weapons, it seems that they are much more culturally active and in many cases considered still within what we consider 'working lives'. As such, they are, again as I understand, much revered culturally and it is considered disrespectful for them to remain in damaged or compromised condition. Therefore it is my impression that rather than 'being restored' they are being maintained and properly cared for in accord with cultural expectations.
This is not to say that European or any other old swords are not culturally relevant or not entirely revered as traditional icons, which they emphatically are...it is simply that they are perceived in more of a historic view rather than current. They do deserve every bit as much respect and admiration as the weapons of any culture, and again, the manner in which that is observed and carried out is entirely a matter of personal perception.
|