machete

[fernando]

I was only focusing on the name; no knowledge to further judging .

[Martin Lubojacky]

Thank you all for your interesting comments.
I'm of the opinion that the name is a bit longer - I see it as Monterroza (acc to
https://forebears.io/surnames/monterroza - it is found mainly in Colombia).
The frog is attached to the sheath with many miniature nails, yet it holds firmly. The typeface seems older to me (I would guess that's how my grandfather wrote), so I think from the way the scabbard might be circa 1950s (?).

[BBJW]

Agreed that it is Central American (South Texas/Arizona) most likely El Salvador.--bbjw

[David]

Yes, but is this ethnographic in nature? Isn't this a mass produced item?

[Edster]

David,

Good point. On the surface I would agree. BUT many if not most weapons were initially produced in an industrialized environment, even the Kassala sword market, and used within a cultural context. Many utility knives became weapons when needed. In this case the US Army's M1942 machete was made in several places during WW2 including Australia and used as necessary. And afterward adapted as a commercial tool including in Central/South America even until today.

Martin's machete is a survival of its origin and used within the ethnic culture of its owners. We may even Wokely call it a "cultural appropriation", but I think it's still ethnographically valid.

Regards,
Ed

[Jim McDougall]

As always, there is history here, and as with most Latin American weapons they may well be mounted or in use in modern context, often blades can have much earlier origins and have been circulating for some time.

While indeed firms like Collins & Co. produced blades for machetes from 19th c. into 20th, it is very much the same context as trade blades which were naturally commercially produced for export into many ethnographic spheres, much as Ed has pointed out in which case the production was native. Solingen produced countless numbers of blades for ethnographic consumption....England produced blades for Abyssinia, as well as Africa (seme, Maasai).

Use of commercial or otherwise acquired blades (captured etc) in ethnographic weapons was so profound, this was much of the reason the European Armory was conceived, to discuss European forms often encountered in ethnographic context.

With the 'machete', the use of these heavy bladed swords (aka cutlasses) was well known in tropical settjngs used by sailors ashore in brushing through heavy vegetation. Many of the hangers off vessels in the Americas were likely the source for the heavy bladed swords that became known as espada anchas in Spanish colonial context by the latter 18th c.

These were never called espada anchas by the Spanish colonials, they were called locally MACHETE. Well into the 19th century, these were used by the horsemen in the frontera and the Spanish Southwest in place of the long Spanish bilbo swords for brushing trails.

The machete was a standard throughout the Caribbean and tropical Americas by the Spaniards from earlier historic periods into modern times in Latin America. It would be hard to pinpoint exactly which country this example is from, as it has the same type hilt and features as many over a long period in these countries.
A handsome example of a vital Spanish American implement IMO.

These are examples of late 18th early 19th Spanish colonial 'machetes' (as termed locally in those times, espada ancha is a modern term).

[David]

Originally Posted by Edster

David,

Good point. On the surface I would agree. BUT many if not most weapons were initially produced in an industrialized environment, even the Kassala sword market, and used within a cultural context. Many utility knives became weapons when needed. In this case the US Army's M1942 machete was made in several places during WW2 including Australia and used as necessary. And afterward adapted as a commercial tool including in Central/South America even until today.

Martin's machete is a survival of its origin and used within the ethnic culture of its owners. We may even Wokely call it a "cultural appropriation", but I think it's still ethnographically valid.

Just because a tool or weapon migrates into a particular culture that does not make it an ethnographic artifact of that culture. This is a mass produced military issue machete. Not my definition of ethnographic at least. We will have to agree to disagree here i'm afraid.

[Jim McDougall]

Martin's machete has a scabbard which is quite consistent with those from Mexico from 1830s into 20th century. These are seen on weapons from many sabers to machetes, and the style is well known throughout Latin America.

As noted in "Spanish Military Weapons in Colonial America 1700-1821" (Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972), the machete was well known in these regions and was popularly used. This was the case well into the 20th century. As noted previously, the so called espada ancha was used primarily as a 'tool' for brushing trails, but as a weapon as required.
These 'machetes' as locally known evolved into the more familiar form seen in Martins machete later in the century using commercially produced blades but keeping traditional hilt and scabbard forms.

As far as I have known, the 'espada ancha' (machete) has always been classified as an ethnographic weapon, used by the Spanish Mexican culture, and well into Latin America with the same cultural background.

With the kaskara for one example, as noted, the blades on these swords in the 19th century were largely imported, commercially made trade blades typically from Solingen. These, often with these trade blades have become recognized as virtually a national weapon of the Sudanese culture.
Blades began being produced locally, but the heirloom trade blades remained prized by the native people.
As far as I have known, the kaskara unconditionally, is recognized as an ethnographic weapon regardless of the blade source.

It would be virtually impossible to recount all the instances of foreign, colonial, European blades as key components of traditional ethnographic arms that are well recognized as artifacts or items of these cultures.

Clearly the note on military machetes of 20th century used in certain regions as implements would be straining the definition ethnographic, however with Martin's example of traditional form from early types, it is clearly ethnographic. I would suggest even items of military origin if embellished with native ethnic decoration may well be absorbed into the cultural artifacts of its region .

One favorite quote said to me when I once asked a Sikh how to identify a Sikh weapon. He replied, '...if it was used by a Sikh...then it is Sikh!".