Weapons attributions -- how should it be done ?
 

I posted this both here and on another forum to try to get a broad spectrum of ideas. I wonder if attributions should follow historical lines ( who first used that type of sword ) or cultural lines ( such as who currently has the most people using it ). If a weapon is used by more than one group of people do we attribute the weapon to all of them or go by one of the above criteria ? I have no idea what the convention is on this and was wondering how most of the people here or people who write books and articles decide where a sword or other weapon is attributed to ( I know many of you here are published and probably have had to deal with this ) .

As some examples the takouba is attributed to the Taureg but is also found in the Hausa and Fulani peoples. Dha/Darb are often attributed to the Burmese but in fact there appear to be many styles used by many different ethnic groups. ( I know there is now a great deal of work here to delineate the attribution on these but it has been taken a great deal of effort by those working on it and they are constantly open minded for a better information on how it breaks down) . The kukuri in most popular literature is attributed to Nepal but I have been told by collectors that there are Indian versions to this. I am sure there are many other examples.

So what are the rules, conventions or thoughts on this ? I am sure there are many ideas on this as later someone is often ready to come along and claim it was done wrong.

Thanks

Attributions are always, at best, an educated guess based on a person's
knowledge and research. With Japanese swords, there is an expert
panel (Shinsa team) with a zillion years of examining, handling, researching,
etc. some of the best and widest variety of Japanese swords in existence;
however, sometimes they still get it wrong. Submit a sword for shinsa to
one team and get an attribution. Submit it to another team and you may
(not uncommonly) get a different attribution. If a blade doesn't jump out
as say "I'm a ......" , then it's a best guess which may be right or wrong
and may very well change over time as we gather more knowledge and
experience.

Rich

The Japanese Sword Index
http://www.geocities.com/alchemyst/nihonto.htm
------------------------------------------------------------

Cultural attributions are much like systems of classification. Both are most properly applied as a means to organizing our understanding of the origins, evolution and distribution of ethnographic arms. I will opine that neither is an appropriate end in and of itself and that most sweeping generalizations will ultimately fail scrutiny.

Interesting question, JT.

My approach to this problem is simplistic, I guess: collection and organization of information from as many sources as possible. How one chooses to organize the data is, largely, dependant on the nature of the data available.

Historical and Cultural data should both be considered and, along with any other available information, incorporated into one's analysis.

Good question, John ...
 

I agree Andrew. Keeping things simple seems desirable, although the simplest solution may not necessarily be the most accurate. Absent better information, I think we need to remain open to both the historical and cultural contexts.

Ian.

Thanks everyone for the comments so far. I agree that it is something that if we are not careful could become way too complicated too fast. I always assumed a style of sword was attributed to the earliest known people to use it, rather than any of the peoples who adopted it from them. This of course could have to be changed as new data became available. Recently I have found this is not a universal way to do it.

The "attribution" is typically something very short that gives sort of general idea about the weapon's provenance. Most of the weapons have complex origins, exist in many areas and so on. It is impossible to account for all of it in one phrase, so I see the "attribution" as a kind of label - it just should be distinctive.