[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.