![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,399
|
![]()
I agree Andrew. Keeping things simple seems desirable, although the simplest solution may not necessarily be the most accurate. Absent better information, I think we need to remain open to both the historical and cultural contexts.
Ian. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 520
|
![]()
Thanks everyone for the comments so far. I agree that it is something that if we are not careful could become way too complicated too fast. I always assumed a style of sword was attributed to the earliest known people to use it, rather than any of the peoples who adopted it from them. This of course could have to be changed as new data became available. Recently I have found this is not a universal way to do it.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 655
|
![]()
The "attribution" is typically something very short that gives sort of general idea about the weapon's provenance. Most of the weapons have complex origins, exist in many areas and so on. It is impossible to account for all of it in one phrase, so I see the "attribution" as a kind of label - it just should be distinctive.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|