Reread the posts up to your initial post Pinnah. A few of the guys that commented, especially Frederick89, have studied the puukko for a long time, tracing its history, qualities and attributes. This isn't the first time the questions have come up. There is another thread regarding puukkos here with lots of historical info and many pics.
Yes, I'm familiar with the other thread and yes, I read all the posts prior to my post. IMO, Alberta Ed has given the strongest discussion, as he allows for the appropriate level of variation on a theme. Given the wide range of grind heights and blade cross sections among FINNISH manufacturers of puukos, I would be hesitant to insist that there is agreement on any set of essential defining attributes. More deeply (and the point of my post) is that classification systems based on essential attributes fail in practice. Unless the goal is to spark long threads on the internet. Then they work wonderfully as people get to debate endlessly about what's in, what's out and how to deal with edge cases. Better to pick some classic examplars (as you've posted) and call it a day.
Very interesting comments and beautiful photos folks.
Pinnah, I too tend to over think things. I have always struggled with gray areas. I dislike words like "Almost"
In the big scheme of things, this isn't that important.
Part of my thought process in asking these questions. Stems from what I see as an increasing popularity in Puukko Knives, or Puukko Style knives.
If a Puukko must originate in Finland. Then my Puukko Style Malanika Knife will arrive in a few weeks. Is it any less of a knife. Certainly not. And I eagerly await its arrival.
To take it one step further. When searching the bay or other sites, for specific pieces of military gear. I see the word "style" used to excess. To me, Military Style, is not the same as military. Much the same same American Style is not the same as American.
I definitely get, that a Puukko is in many respects similar to a Bowie knife. Both carry certain inherent classifications and characteristics that make them such. Yet there are many thousands of variations. Since the history and lore of the Puukko goes back considerably further than the Bowie. It stands to reason there would be even a wider array of descriptions, stories, legends and other components to the story.
I tend to classify rather than characterize. A shortcoming no doubt.
I was just wondering if we will see the word Puukko go the way of the word Bushcraft? Or if it will remain more true to it's origins. Personally, I hope it remains true.
LV, I think that thinking about how we think is always important. Certainly worth talking about.
Classification as a shortcoming?? That's a bit strong. Perhaps better to say that when setting out to do classification based on essential features that you need to have your eyes wide open about the kinds of problems that approach will generate. If you're building a database, you can't escape the problem really. The alternative is to think about categories in a different way. I find that more useful, particularly when dealing with analysis issues, like thinking about knives.
Find some classic Puukos. Knives that are closely similar are more puuko. Knives that are less so, are less puuko.