[tom hyle]

I agree with David on the kris, and one thing that seems clear about the kris (in my opinion a not merely effective but very nasty weapon) is that its origins and early uses are shrouded in mystery and controversy. Most you see today are either old and suffering (IMHO it's damage to be suffered) from over"wash"ing or made in imitation of such, while, since the current use is purely ceremonial (or nearly so), types and forms ineffectual in combat are modernly promulgated.
This is a worldwide phenomenon; edged weapons are often (though incorrectly IMHO) viewed as obsolete, and not made to using standards; a 20th C. USMC sabre, while nothing to want stabbed with, is a smallswordish and arguably ineffective weapon; this in no way argues against the deadliness or strenght of "real" sabres meant for cutting.
Certainly there have always been ceremonial/display/etc. weapons, but my estimate is maybe 1/4 of those modernly so accused. One cannot properly answer this issue on a broad scale, but only type-by-type or even piece-by-piece, and some understanding of the culture, religion, and combat of the piece's native culture is very beneficial in such analyses.
For whatever it's worth, I'm considered a reasonably large man (5'8" 200+ lb.) and having worked as a laborer and craftsman have reasonably well-developed hands (I call the left one "the clamp"). I find most tulwars quite possible to hold and use, and others nearly so. Some are even quite comfortable to me, and I think that men of my size are not common among populations with low protein intake in youth (maybe a larger factor than genetyics in the size varience across history, so it's said.). I think the factor is largely that Europeans (etc.) do not understand how a tulwar is used; if you snap/extend your wrist the disc is most uncomfortable, but if instead of chopping you slash, no problem. Many peoples seem to have favoured hilts that tightly gripped the hand, presumeably to improve the hold.