machete

[Martin Lubojacky]

I am not sure if this is the right chapter to ask about the modern weapon - the machete. I bought it because it has a specific spirit (otherwise I don't collect machetes). The modifications, whether practical (belt clip) or beautifying, in my opinion, speak to the fact that it has been an integral part of someone's life for some time. The scabbard is signed in two places (if it is a signature and not some inscription; I read it as "Ventura Moriterro" (?)). The scabbard was very dirty, I had to clean it, it doesn't get any better. The blade is probably made of some kind of corrosion resistant steel, it wasn't rusty, just sort of discolored. I was surprised that the blade is quite thin at the handle, yet it is strong, flexible and strong. The handle shows that the weapon has been used for a long time or intensively. The blade also bears signs of use.
I'd be grateful for any opinion, but I'd be particularly interested to know where the machete might have come from and how old it might be. Also, what do you think of the inscription. Thanks,
Martin

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Edster]

Martin,

The blade and grip profile is virtually identical to one I have. The grip is an olive drab plastic and there is a lanyard hole where the your rivet on the grip tip is. Mine is US military surplus. Near where the blade & grip join are smallish stamps "US, 1945 and True Temper" (the trade name of a US firm that makes lawn & garden tools.)

The scabbard is likely of Central American origin.

Regards,
Ed

[Martin Lubojacky]

Thank you Ed. Also the written name could correspond to the Central American origin of the scabbard

[fernando]

Perhaps Ventura Monteiro. Brasil ? Machete de seringueiro; worker that extracts the latex from rubber trees ? .



.

[Interested Party]

It looks central American to me. I see El Salvadorans working with very similar sheaths today. Check out the Imacasa web site. They make patterns for almost everyone including Brazilian ones that Fernando mentioned. The handle to me does look older as Edster says.

[fernando]

If the last name is actually spelled MONTEIRO is Portuguese; thus a Brazilian item.

[Interested Party]

Originally Posted by fernando

If the last name is actually spelled MONTEIRO is Portuguese; thus a Brazilian item.

Of Brazilian use or manufacture? Would you place the age between 1940-1960 or after? I would imagine the sheath is not original. It is quite well built, being water molded, tooled and the frog is attached with little rivets that look like bits of nails.

[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!".

[Jim McDougall]

Here are some examples of the far more widespread use of military swords by American Indian tribes in the 19th century. These are found in references on the ethnographic items of these tribes.

As always, a matter of perspective.

[Edster]

David,

Fair enough.

Best,
Ed

[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

[David]

Originally Posted by 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

In “The Yale Literary Magazine” of February 1882, which was written and edited by students, Benjamin Brewster, who was a member of the class of 1882, wrote about an argument he had engaged in with a philosophical friend about theory versus practice. His companion accused him of committing a vulgar error.
His response:
"I heard no more, for I was lost in self-reproach that I had been the victim of “vulgar error.” But afterwards, a kind of haunting doubt came over me. What does his lucid explanation amount to but this, that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, while in practice there is?"

Einstein would have been 3 years old at the time.

[fernando]

Everyone knows that good old Albert was a plagiarist .

[Edster]

David & Fernando,

I initially thought that Yogi Berra was the sayer, but then additional searches
credited Albert. But then again...

"Pablo Picasso is widely quoted as having said that “good artists borrow, great artists steal.” Whether or not Picasso was truly the first person to voice this idea is in some dispute."

Even someone once claimed there is a dialectal relationship between Theory & Practice as practice informs how the theory may evolve/be improved/be developed based on the realities exposed via real world applications.

Still, I think we can all agree there is an elegance to the original rendition. :-)

Best regards,
Ed

[David]

Originally Posted by fernando

Everyone knows that good old Albert was a plagiarist .

LOL!
Frankly i think misattributions to the origins of quotes is more an artifact of social media than anything else. I don't think Einstein, if he did indeed ever say this, did so with the intention of claiming credit for the quote.

[milandro]

I think the machete which originated this thread is mass-produced by Collins

I have had two from Guatemala with an almost Identical scabbard

Collins had several factories in any central and South American countries.

The hilt of the OP seems to be alder than the ones I had ( sorry no pictures) .

Collins generally have marks for Collins Legitimus mine wa similar to this