machete

[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.