![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,195
|
![]() Quote:
Well said Fernando, and the synopsis in your previous post was a perfectly orchestrated example of how complex the classification of ethnographic forms can be! I think what we can take from the discussion exercise in this case is that these particular forms of machete/guanabacoa types seem to have developed at an uncertain location in the Spanish colonies sometime probably earlier to mid 19th c. Obviously with the trade and other commerce in these regions and with the maritime routes throughout as a conduit, there was considerable diffusion of these forms. Therefore the futility of trying to assign a certain classification to them is made difficult by this. I have thought for some time (again it has been two decades or more that these have been studied) that these are perhaps best broadly classified as Spanish colonial swords often in use as machetes. Any regionally oriented assessment to specific examples of these may be best assessed and described by locally distinct 'dress or decoration' and key inscriptions or blade motif which obviously denote areas and/or period. Clearly there are examples with Dominican inscriptions......so these illustrate presence there; similarly there are examples in Philippines so again.......and so on. I think Senor Calvo's paper is superb, and well illustrated. Fernando's point is well made, and I think the discussion going forward will be well served by further examples and any notes on provenance when possible without focus on debating what to call them. The 'Berber' term is yet another example of collectors terms which we have come to use for colloquial uniformity for discussion and reference. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
|