machete

[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.