[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by ariel

In many places, there are vicious arguments about ethnicity, cultural heritage, roots of artefacts etc.
For example, there is a trend in modern Russia to define "cossaks' as a separate ethnos ( absurd, if you ask me). But they seriously claim that cossacks had separate ethnic origins, material culture and, of course, weapons. Per that view, war karabela and shashka are not Polish or Caucasian in origin, but rather genuine ancient weapons attributable to the distinct Cossack ethnos.
Not being familiar with the history of Nepal, I am just curious whether there are historical tensions in pinpointing their ethnic origin to Mongoloid or Hindu cultures? If this is the case, it might color the ascertainment of Kukri vs. Kora as the "national" weapon of Nepal.
I am not trying to throw oil on the fire, but unfortunately, far too often, partisan nationalistic views obscure and distort real history.
So, please put my mind to rest, that there is nothing of that nature in the contemporary Nepalese historical research.

Actually, lets leave this entirely counterproductive perspective out of this discussion. This type of rheotoric does little to serve the study of the history and development of weapons, while certain people seem to enjoy this kind of emotionally charged 'debate'.....better left for political editorial.

Didn't we just do this?