Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 12th January 2023, 12:38 AM   #14
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edster View Post
David,

Good point. On the surface I would agree. BUT many if not most weapons were initially produced in an industrialized environment, even the Kassala sword market, and used within a cultural context. Many utility knives became weapons when needed. In this case the US Army's M1942 machete was made in several places during WW2 including Australia and used as necessary. And afterward adapted as a commercial tool including in Central/South America even until today.

Martin's machete is a survival of its origin and used within the ethnic culture of its owners. We may even Wokely call it a "cultural appropriation", but I think it's still ethnographically valid.
Just because a tool or weapon migrates into a particular culture that does not make it an ethnographic artifact of that culture. This is a mass produced military issue machete. Not my definition of ethnographic at least. We will have to agree to disagree here i'm afraid.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.