"Is it really a Cockatoo?"

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

Peer review is a straw man - physics is doing fine with much of its academic publishing being done without traditional prior peer review for decades already. And in just about any academic discipline you'll be able to find deplorable "scholarship" having been published after "approval" via academic peer review. And that is before the ugly rise of predatory "academic" journals with peer review of very questionable quality during the last decade or so...

Review done by a commercial non-academic publisher is bound to be quite another kettle of fish, too.

I thank Bob Cato for his efforts and sacrifice in getting his book published. Apparently he was a very dedicated collector and, with publishing his ideas, did more for promoting Moro craftsmanship than most of us. However, I fail to see his book as an academic endeavour: Hardly any sources are given except a few examples shown in pictures (usually without any provenance, discussion, etc.) and limited literature citations; pretty much the data base is just missing. Obviously, the earlier journal articles were leading up to the book - apart from a few pics, there's hardly any additional data.

He put out his ideas and these hypotheses can be falsified/modified by additional data and ongoing discussions. I believe the contributions on this forum are certainly very valuable and can be considered being on par with Cato's early attempt. Fair game IMHO...

Regards,
Kai

Thanks for confirming what i had expected. All my books are boxed already for an impending move so i cannot access my copy of Moro Sword at the moment.
Again, i have no particular bone to pick with Cato and do not feel fully qualified to confirm or deny any theory he might have presented in his book. However, i strongly disagree that Cato carries more weight simply because he is the only book reference that has been published on the matter, especially when, if we look closely, he fails to give us solid sources and references for his own work. This doesn't give him the "high ground", it merely affords him the only ground...so far.
Ian, i am glad to hear that is was not your intention to shut down this discussion, but when you write things like "Some people may have knowledge that is different, but until it is put out there for discussion and the basis of it checked out, then there is nothing else to discuss" i hope you can see how some might get that impression. What i have found over the many years i have been trying to understand these weapons (particularly Indonesian keris) is that a great deal of valuable and important research and breakthroughs in understanding happen right here on these forums. The vast majority of published references on the keris are misleading at best and utter wrong at worst. They hold no particular "high ground" simply by virtue of them finding a publisher. There has been less written on Moro weaponry and i am not able to say when and when not Cato may be correct or incorrect. But i can't assume he is right simply because he wrote it down. While there may in fact be a more scholarly and academic approach to other forms of arms that have been studied in far greater detail such as European and India swords i am afraid we are at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes the SEA. This doesn't mean that we should not use similar tried and true methods for our research and theory building, but i don't see why we need fully realized and completely supported evidence just to question theories by Cato that are not well sources and referenced themselves.