machete

[Interested Party]

David, Jim & Ed, this has been an interesting and possibly fruitful discussion. Is this an ethnographic weapon? In many ways no. Is it primarily a weapon or a tool? Tool, I believe, but there are several fencing schools built around this "tool" to muddy the waters. These schools are localized and traditional, does this make the insight, true skill, and oral tradition not ethnographic because they now use a mass-produced item? So, weapon or not is the item ethnographic?

I personally believe that this item is most likely is factory made, but I do not know. To paraphrase Alan Maisey "I could not tell conclusively without having the item in my hand." The sheath is very culturally Central American, handmade and wonderful. I do not believe the machete is military in origin. The question we are coming to is "Is a village made machete in the pattern of the US Army not ethnographic even though the US Army stole the pattern from Central America?" For that matter is a Masi seme made from a trade machete and used by a working Masi herder ethnographic? When a machete is bought by a local population rehandled and reshaped to optimized use in their ecosystem is that item then ethnographic?

I feel a push back against Militaria on this forum which I agree with. Militaria to me is kind of boring and a different genre than what the scope of this forum encompasses. That said I am a global learner so much so that I do feel incomplete if an idea or thread is not explored to its natural conclusion. I would like to thank the moderators for letting it continue and thanks everyone for participating in a discussion about an item that has sparked ideas well beyond its status. I feel that it dovetails into Jim's research into the espada ancha and regional martial arts that are possibly descended from Carança's teachings. I hope whoever made the machete would be proud or their legacy.

[Edster]

Interested Party,

You bring up some fundamental issues for the subject of "ethnographic weapons". How is an EW defined. Is it an item used by an "ethnic person" or made within an "ethnic/cultural tradition"? Does a person who is no longer a member of a the relevant cultural tradition cease to be an "ethnic" and is his weapon still "ethnographic"? If a bonafide ethnic person uses an alien weapon, can that weapon ever become ethnographic or must he change it somehow to have relevant cultural traits?

Are we members of the FORUM ethnics? If not when did we cease to be? Do we possess ethnographic items linked to our modern personal cultures?

In 1965 Frederick Barth wrote a seminal article on Ethnic Groups & Boundaries, link attached. Worth reading.
https://is.muni.cz/el/fss/jaro2013/S...troduction.pdf

Here is another article that assesses his work.
file:///Users/edhunley/Downloads/15523-Article%20Text-30553-1-10-20160401.pdf

Just some ideas for thought.
Regards,
Ed

[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.

I am unclear on whether this blade is indeed factory made or not, but I agree it probably is, Alan's sage words are profoundly well placed.
What I would note is that many forms of military weapons were copied from native forms, for a prime example the Gurkha kukri, and numbers of others.
The phenomenon is very reciprocal, military blades or weapons used in native context, and native forms produced in military context.

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.

The scabbard in the example posted is in my opinion very much privately made, and in the traditional form of leather scabbards familiar from Mexican swords and edged weapons from the 1830s onward. The heavy throat element added on is one feature very recognizable. 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.

Attached image of the similar type scabbard used in Mexican context as noted (Brinckerhoff & Chamberlain, 1972, op.cit.)
A Caribbean saber/machete (formerly termed 'Berber' saber) which is now deemed from Caribbean, apparently Cuba, where conscripts were sent to Moroccan Rif in 1920s insurgency. These machetes were clearly not of much use in 'less than tropical' situation so many were simply left there.

These are mostly found with British M1796 light cavalry saber blades (military)
and were reprofiled with these unusual points. These are found in this developed 'form' in the Caribbean, Central America and Gulf Coast Mexico and in slight variation but mostly of this 'form'.

The espada ancha (machete) was used for brushing trails, and as such did not require formal swordsmanship training. However, the military swords (typically the bilbo broadswords) of full length, were used in accord with military sword drill exercises. I believe that the treatise of the Spanish fencing master Carranza did find its way into swordsmanship in New Spain with the military in degree and particularly with the caballeros.
Carranza was governor for a time in Honduras.

* plz note I do not imply the Caribbean machete scabbard is in any way connected to the Mexican one. In fact the vertical 'handle' to hold while withdrawing blade has some resemblance to examples of Ethiopian origin ( "African Arms & Armor" Spring) no connection stated.

[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