Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 6th January 2008, 01:38 PM   #4
Marc
Member
 
Marc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Madrid / Barcelona
Posts: 256
Default

To be sincere, for my experience, Ariel's hypothesis holds far more water than any of the others. First of all, it's well-formulated, uses the data available and works with factors known to have had similar influences in other fields (names given to import products based in those they had in their place of origin. It happens even today). Theories regarding "names" or "marks" on weapons have an undeniable tendency to fall in the direction of what any bazaar seller would instantly recognize as "the coolness factor". You know how this goes, any notch on the handle of a Colt Army must be a man gone down, never a sign of mistreatment. I also tend to be quite sceptic about these stories, and although some of them are true, these tend to be not only somewhat obvious but normally they're also verifiable via some independent sources.

Also, the kind of explanation Ariel's putting forth is also mirrored in other similar cases, like the Canary Islands knife "naife" or the Filipino "punal".
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.