machete

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

....Very well stated response I.P. and this question of what is or is not ethnographic has been at hand throughout the 25 years I have been here. Naturally, just as there are differences in the notions of collectors and their own interpretation of the character of weapons collected in their select fields...

...The term ethnographic is not a 'rubber stamp' or 'checked box' category, but quite subjective typically as we are not dealing with regulations or pattern forms from scheduled catalogs...

...This is one of the things that takes a weapon of this kind into 'ethnographic' context, much as in the way we often recognize North African swords that are Manding or Mandara, the takouba scabbards of Tuareg and of course those of kaskara to name a few. The leather work offers good insight into the most recent 'ethnographic' context the sword (and blade) were in...

Good notes Jim. And if we circumvent the concept of Anthropology as an academic subject of study, we may as well find the 'practical' definition of ethnographic implements, arms for the case, present in our forum Collector's Guide

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you Fernando.
As with any debate, these aspects described can be evaluated, disputed and qualified or disqualified ad nauseum. Anthropology, as defined, is generally either cultural, archaeological or linguistic.

The unique situation of elements used in the making of culturally oriented weapons which derive from sources outside that culture in my opinion become by association inherently a part of that culture as ethnographic, though in a notably qualified condition.

In the 'Collectors Guide' it is noted that 'militaria' cannot be included in the ethnographic criteria as it is produced typically outside the culture being examined. By this definition, the multitude of weapons we have discussed here for a quarter of a century which have comprised elements which derive from militarily oriented (mass produced outside the culture) are no longer recognized as 'ethnographic'.

Obviously just to begin, kaskaras with European blades; flyssas, which invariably have European blades of military connection; s'boula in Morocco, using French bayonet blades to name a few would be disqualified by this arbitrary definition.

In an effort to be comprehensive, what I believe was intended in this guide, was the exclusion of 'modern militaria' post 1900, particularly WWI & WWII items.

As with law, there are interpretations, and in addition there must be a degree of rationalization applied into criteria as the numbers of cases will of course have numerous exceptions. Practicality is a good guideline, but not always entirely applicable.

Fortunately these kinds of examples and situations are pretty much few and far between involving 'modern' elements, so a degree of latitude with noted limitation and exception seems reasonable.

[fernando]

Maybe what we need here is to separate the waters, Jim; standardized military models (SIC) is one thing and ethnic handmade weapons incorporating an element assumed to improve their efficacy is another. Or even in some cases the blade is assembled to simbolize influence of outside cultures ... but in an ethnic manner, for internal interpretation.
This does not take place in industrial production lines. A nimcha, for one, is an ethnographic implement; if it goes now and then with an early European blade, is not such a crime to let it enter the door to the Ethnographic universe. Or, in another perspective, is not militaria stuff.
I look at my 'Mbele a Lulendo' sword.



.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Maybe what we need here is to separate the waters, Jim; standardized military models (SIC) is one thing and ethnic handmade weapons incorporating an element assumed to improve their efficacy is another. Or even in some cases the blade is assembled to simbolize influence of outside cultures ... but in an ethnic manner, for internal interpretation.
This does not take place in industrial production lines. A nimcha, for one, is an ethnographic implement; if it goes now and then with an early European blade, is not such a crime to let it enter the door to the Ethnographic universe. Or, in another perspective, is not militaria stuff.
I look at my 'Mbele a Lulendo' sword.



.

Well put Fernando, and this dilemma could not be better explained, thank you.

P.S. That Portuguese sword from the Congo is a outstanding example!

[Edster]

The celebrated "anthropologist" Albert Einstein is said to have said"

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not".

Ed

[David]

Originally Posted by Edster

The celebrated "anthropologist" Albert Einstein is said to have said"

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not".

Ed

In “The Yale Literary Magazine” of February 1882, which was written and edited by students, Benjamin Brewster, who was a member of the class of 1882, wrote about an argument he had engaged in with a philosophical friend about theory versus practice. His companion accused him of committing a vulgar error.
His response:
"I heard no more, for I was lost in self-reproach that I had been the victim of “vulgar error.” But afterwards, a kind of haunting doubt came over me. What does his lucid explanation amount to but this, that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is?"

Einstein would have been 3 years old at the time.

[fernando]

Everyone knows that good old Albert was a plagiarist .