I walk the line on this argument. While it would be sad to have this forum over-run with qustions on M1860 Ames cavalry sabers and British infantry swords, I believe that a smattering of them now and again reminds us of how ethnographic pieces affected the west and vice-versa. As someone has already pointed out, there a very specific sites for American civil war swords, for example. That being said, it is rather hard to strictly define what constitutes "ethnographic", especially based on one's own culture and perspective. We have had great discussions here on Romanian swords, Scottish basket hilts, colonial Spanish weapons, and "pirate" weapons in the past. With this open style, I think we all have learned for the better. If a forumite is completely dis-interested in Euro weapons, they can ignore the thread. Likewise, if there is an individual who inundates this site with a ton of such swords, their questions will undoubtedly be ignored for lack of interest or knowledge and they will go away. In brief, leave it like it is, but I am for a policy that more broadly defines ethno pieces to ones not mass-produced industrially. In this way, an unidentified dagger that turns out to be a Confederate bowie (and not a Philippine bolo, as many Confed pieces really turn out to be) can still generate fascinating discussions on form, use, etc. My 2 cents...
