MORO KRIS HOW OLD IS THIS ONE

[Dajak]

Like to now if this is an old one .


Thanks
Ben

[Battara]

IMHO - I would place this at around 1930s based on the style of okir used at the base of the blade near the hilt. The pommel is bone. I am wondering if the line is a fake or indicative of a truly separable ganga. Also the pointed tip of the blade leads me to think this is later as well. I don't see any lamination on this either, also often indicative of laster pieces.

It looks Maguindanao to me.

[Dajak]

Hi Battara the blade is laminated

and ganjar separated


Ben

[David]

Hi Ben. Better pictures would help. It's really hard to make any judgement on the ganja line when the photo isn't sharp.
That said i think Jose's assessment probably isn't that far off. I think the hilt might be a latter addition.

[Dajak]

Look at the needle


Ben

[David]

Well, that settles that then..... :)

[Battara]

Ok then.....I would now say the early 1920s if is laminated and ganga is separate. David has a good point about the hilt - I agree.

[Andrew]

I thought this was an "archaic" blade type (per Cato)?

Is it a later blade in an older style?

[David]

My take Andrew is that it is one of the later blades that showed up in the early 20th century that attempted to recreate the features that were found on the archaic models. :shrug:

[Andrew]

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

[David]

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?
It's the style in which the features are carved. If you put this blade side-by-side with an "archaic" one i think you would instantly. I am afraid i don't have an "archaic" example myself to put (though i am excepting donations and offers ;) :D ). The same features are there; the Indo style sogokan and what i have heard others on this forum refer to as the "arrowhead" that surrounds it. The carving is generally deeper and better executed on the older ones though. And there are some stylistic differences. The work tends to look closer to the style of the ricikan on an Indonesian keris on the "archaic" kris. Closer to it's source design i would imagine. :shrug:

[Battara]

Andrew one of the big indicators for me about being more recent is the okir used on the ganga - it not what was used until the 1920s or later. Before 1915 okir does not seem to be used. By the 1940s it seems that the okir was present but not the lamination. This piece may be a transition piece of sorts.

[Rick]

I think one of the giveaways to me is the truncated "sogokan" to use the Javanese term . I would expect to see a complete "sogokan" in an archaic sword .
I guess I am reiterating David's post .

Only my tuppence tho ......... :shrug:

[Battara]

A trunkated what?

[Rick]

This feature; on the old piece there is a pecetan to the left of blade center line and a sogokan to the right . They both come to a point and are deeply sculpted a la the Indo keris .

On the second example offered for discussion there is no real pecetan; but both sides of the blade's center line resemble the sogokan feature yet do not end in a point; they are squared off ; truncated, and are also fairly superficial compared to deep carving on the first example given .

[Battara]

You have a good point Rick and I agree.....