[ariel]

Jim McDougall:
“I once somewhat dismissed the relevance, I have come to view it quite differently.”
——————————————————————————————


Jim,
I am glad you have seen the light:-)
History of everything consists of multiple facets and needs to be looked at from different angles.

The “ name game” can be ridiculous or enlightening depending on the question asked and the quality of an answer. But the same is true about engineering aspects of different weapons, their usage, materials, decorations, etc.

Each and every approach adds something new and potentially important to our understanding of the fascinating subject of the history of weapons. Ignoring names or mis-naming the objects is as detrimental to our understanding of their history as ignoring their sacral meanings.

I have a term for it, “ The Rumpelstiltskin syndrome”: know my name and you become my master. And the corollary: misname me at your peril.

In a way, our Kris colleagues got it right: they are meticulous about naming different pamors and minute details of structure and decorations and correlating them with local traditions of manufacture, sacral and mystical features of their objects of interest, names of masters, materials, age etc. I tried but could never become really interested in Indonesian weapons, but I admire their aficionados.