As an aside ...
 

Hi Ron:

I was looking at both Maurice's and Charles' swords and noted that Charles' hilt has the traditional pommel that is sometimes called a kakatua. The pommel on Charles' sword has an abstractness of quite similar design to what we see on Moro hilts. I'm not suggesting that the Moro design is necessarily derived from the Malay form, but it is conceivable that this style originated to the south and was imported into the Moro territories where it evolved further. Unfortunately, the historical record is silent as to its origin or possible diffusion.

Then we have Maurice's hilt which bears a striking similarity in form to Charles' hilt, but Maurice's pommel is clearly a bird with a powerful hooked beak. I would propose that Maurice's version likely predated Charles', and that the more abstract form is depicted more realistically in Maurice's example. Now I don't know how old these two pieces are, and I don't think we will be able to find out their relative ages, but it seems reasonable to me to think that the more realistic representation preceded the more abstract form which is common today. This would be consistent with greater Islamic influence over time, with its emphasis on less realistic representations in art and spiritual matters.

Just what the bird on Maurice's hilt may be is also open to discussion, but the powerful beak could be from a raptor, parrot, cockatoo, or a number of other species. The fact that the head appears to have a crest rules out several species, which is why I said it more likely resembled a cockatoo than many of the other possibilities.

There seems to be an obvious hypothesis one could make from these observations. However, I don't want to hijack this thread by getting into the origins of the Moro kris and its hilt styles. Starting another thread may be the way to go.

Ian.

i have a badik (?) in my collection that has a similar motif, but one can clearly see a parrot.

question is, which came first? the Moro sundang, or the Malay sundang? if it's the latter, then we can safely assume what you have stated. now if it's the former then there's a possibility that it could be a case of pareidolia, in this instance a non-Moro's impression of the pommel is that of a birdhead as oppose to what it actually represents especially for a someone that uses parrot as a motif, this would be their first impression :shrug:
just my two cents...

My two cents
 

In my opinion Ron, Maurice's Sundang hilt is that of the Blyth Hawk Eagle, specifically native to the Malay regions that their Sundangs are found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blyth%27s_hawk-eagle

http://www.eagledirectory.org/specie...awk_eagle.html

Gavin

Aye, there's the rub? :)
Which came first? My ideas on this could be wrong, but it has always been my impression that the Moro kris/kalis developed first from the Indonesian keris (influenced by Bali and/or perhaps Bugis styles) and that the Malay sundang developed after the Moro kris forming a circle of influence. One reason i believe this is simply that we can actually see the development of Moro kris from the Indonesian stabbing weapon it emulated into the slashing blade that it became by looking at the early "archaic" forms and watching the transformation over time into the larger, chunkier sword it became. I don't see those transitions in the Malay form of sundang. It seems to appear in it's earliest forms as a fully developed slashing sword. While the "kakatau" pommels discussed here have a more developed form, most of the pommels i have seen on Malay Sundang seem more a copied form from the Moro kris with less line and definition. My understanding of this has been that the Malay copied this hilt form and made it their own without fully understanding the intended symbolism of the Moro pommel, placing upon it the bird head explanation since such motifs and symbolic usage were common in their culture. So if i take Ron's two cents and add my three, hopefully we have a nickel. :shrug: ;)

Clamp and hilt
 

Hi David,

I disagree with you, based on the following observations, and also by virtue of direct examination :)

The majority of all other weapons in the geographic and temporal context of the Moro and Malay kris/sundangs do not have a similar clamping system. This alone suggests that such a system was unnecessary from a structural consideration. Natural resin or pitch was sufficient. A culture that could extract and smelt iron, process steel and forge-weld complex steel objects could extract and render such resins.

The examples with clamps inside the hilt demonstrate the function of the resin as primary binding mechanism. The tang and clamp are held securely inside the hilt by the resin. The examples with clamps running along the side of the hilt demonstrate that the clamp is not the primary binding mechanism. The clamp itself is made by folding thin strips of metal and then wrapping against the handle. Yes it does seem robust but eventually it can unravel very easily.

Why the clamps were added to these weapons when they were adopted and modified from the keris exemplar, as it appears to have been the case, I do not know. Others have suggested a cultural/spiritual use in keeping with similar beliefs in that geographic and temporal context so I can accept that. One might look at other early objects from the Moro culture to see if a clamping system was previously used to lock some spiritual aspect into it.

The one thing I see is that a clamp was not structurally necessary for such a weapon. If anything, it is the hilt that holds the clamp on the blade, not the clamp that holds the hilt on the blade.


All the best,
Emanuel

It seems to me that the answer to some of the questions about the origin of the Moro kris might well rest with the history of Brunei. The Sultanate of Brunei controlled much of northern Borneo and the southern areas of the Philippines, and the Moro were subordinate to the Brunei Sultan from about the 14thC through to the mid-19thC of the Common Era (C.E.). For much of this time, there existed a close relationship between the Brunei Sultanate and the Malay kingdom of Malacca, and during this time there was a greatly increased influence of Islam in Brunei and its dependencies.

“By the middle of the 15th century Po-ni (Borneo, more specifically Brunei) had entered into a close relationship with the Muslim kingdom of Malacca. This era also saw the origin of the ruling dynasty, which continues to this day.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brunei]

While a Filipinocentric view would argue that development of the Moro kris bypassed intermediaries and was based on direct influence from Java or the Celebes, an alternative view is a diffusion from Java, via adaptations in the Malay/Brunei centers of trade and power, to the further regions of the Brunei sultanate in the southern Philippines. A reasonable line of inquiry to help resolve this issue might be to look at the broad influences of Javanese and Malay cultural styles on the Brunei sultanate and its dependencies during the 14th–19thC, C.E.

On the nature of the bird shown on Maurice’s pommel and on Spunjer’s sewar, there is some ambiguity. As I noted earlier, this could be a crested raptor (e.g., hawk or eagle), cockatoo, crested parrot or several other species. Since a cockatoo is called a crested parrot, and “true parrots” rarely have crests (exceptions being the Australian cockatiel and galah), then we are largely dealing with semantics among birds that are related. Spunjer’s sewar actually shows a cockatoo with part of the crest lying flat down the back of its neck. The other crested parrots mentioned above and crested hawks have shorter crests than depicted on the sewar.

Ian

Out of curiosity, how old are the oldest known examples of the Malay sundang and the Moro kris?

Have fun,
Leif