Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
What is NOT a tumbuk lada for me one can see in the photos below. I call all knives in the photos below "sewar" even if at some point in space and time they might have been called tumbuk lada by somebody.
And I do this because I think, in our collectors' community, we should strive for precision, clarity and concision, and we should use a terminology that is precise, clear and concise. And in this case the ethnographically "correct" terms do not differentiate enough and create confusion as they are not specific and features related enough to be relevant.
So, for example, if we call "tumbuk lada" every Malay knife that has a somehow broader pommel, then the very use of the term "tumbuk lada" will become mostly useless as we won't know which "type of tumbuk lada" we are referring to.
That's why I believe that in order to be useful, clear and concise, the term "tumbuk lada" should be used only for the specific type of knives shown in the photos in the opening of the thread.
|
Alan hit the nail on the head, which is exactly what was said previously in the other thread, respectfully and appropriately culturally align your study.
Alan's alpha numeric suggestion is very sound if you do not want to delve deeper in to understanding the surrounding cultures and respect their weapons lore, or simply catalogue your collection.
If you went down the alpha numeric path for publication, it will involve a lot of study and a complete guide or legend to follow. Although a LOT of the hard work has been done here in these links Green provided.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...1&postcount=12
T1 could certainly categorise what most know the TL to be, the large ivory hilted status type from Sumatra. I still consider it as the alpha primary.
Michael M did a good discourse on the type too, with if I recall a 2 out of 3 key factor grouping with all complexities considered. Perhaps this is something that could also benefit you in a deeper understanding of the diversity to avoid the one basket drop for everything else that is a TL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mariusgmioc
So, for example, if we call "tumbuk lada" every Malay knife that has a somehow broader pommel, then the very use of the term "tumbuk lada" will become mostly useless as we won't know which "type of tumbuk lada" we are referring to.
|
- Simple, attach an image to your online conversation or writing if you feel others will not know what is being spoken of.... or in a verbal exchange describe the type of TL you may be discussing... or have the subject matter at hand.
There needs to be consistency in your discourse when you talk of precision and clarity. I looked at another thread. You note what is an isn't a Tumbuk Lada, in particular the image attached again to highlight the point within the link. It is a Minang Sewar, NOT a Tumbuk Lada.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...0&postcount=13
Zonneveld's amazing work, does figure 630 need to be removed, it does not fit what you've noted above.
Gardner insights previously shared, should it simply be torn up?
His time in Perak was important for some of the early foundation material he provided and more important is the LONG history of Aceh, Deli and Malaysia.
Holstein and his amazing bibliography and monumental 2 volume work, should that too be thrown to the wind or the TL pages simply removed?
I feel this is a sound inclusive origin description of a TL,
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...1&postcount=29
All bases covered, with real historical context.
Visual appreciation is one thing, context is quite another.