Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Federico · 22nd January 2005, 08:53 PM

Of course, I would not be surprised if the dress was 10 or 20 years old, when I implied newer than 50 years old, I did not mean it was made yesterday, or even the year before.. But I am suspicious when it comes to Manila Antique shops. While I would like to tell myself, oh it is a traditional upgrade of hilts. Ive seen and been told too many stories from "Manila Antique" shops telling me that they have a "Maranao Datu's piece" that "displays all the fine acruitriments of a wealthy persons sword such as ivory or silver or gold", etc... and above all it is all original. In this case the upgrade of hilts was not to repair a good ol piece that was missing a hilt, but an intentional upgrade to turn a common persons kris that would sell for a lower price, into a "Datu's" kris at a much higher price. Which is why I am interested in what the seller had to say. If he is open about it being a composite, then I am more inclined to believe I am being overly paranoid, but if instead he gives a lovely story about an original piece then I become much more skeptical about the "traditional" repair. Also, pusaka pieces are not lightly given in Moroland today. If indeed it was a traditional re-do, and the owner hit hard times, the owner would do his best to keep the blade. Moro royalty, the only ones for whom such a re-build would be proper (the jump in stature for a commoner, even a rich commoner would be a very bad slip in social etiquite) are very much aware of how their ancestors were robbed of fine pieces on the field of battle, and many if not all are very protective of what few cultural heirlooms they have left. Which leads to then, why get rid of such a fine piece, after taking so much time and money to get it re-done so well, when there would at least be a few options around it? Now of course we can get into the role of the MNLF fighting in the 70s, a time when many fighters did sell pieces in dire straights, but stuff sold in this period, since the MNLF was largely a common persons movement, and not overly filled with royalty (many of whom were entrenched in official government) were plainer less guady swords. Now, current groups have other means of raising capital, and straights arent so dire. Which leads us back to why sell the pusaka?

22nd January 2005, 08:53 PM	#18
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	Of course, I would not be surprised if the dress was 10 or 20 years old, when I implied newer than 50 years old, I did not mean it was made yesterday, or even the year before.. But I am suspicious when it comes to Manila Antique shops. While I would like to tell myself, oh it is a traditional upgrade of hilts. Ive seen and been told too many stories from "Manila Antique" shops telling me that they have a "Maranao Datu's piece" that "displays all the fine acruitriments of a wealthy persons sword such as ivory or silver or gold", etc... and above all it is all original. In this case the upgrade of hilts was not to repair a good ol piece that was missing a hilt, but an intentional upgrade to turn a common persons kris that would sell for a lower price, into a "Datu's" kris at a much higher price. Which is why I am interested in what the seller had to say. If he is open about it being a composite, then I am more inclined to believe I am being overly paranoid, but if instead he gives a lovely story about an original piece then I become much more skeptical about the "traditional" repair. Also, pusaka pieces are not lightly given in Moroland today. If indeed it was a traditional re-do, and the owner hit hard times, the owner would do his best to keep the blade. Moro royalty, the only ones for whom such a re-build would be proper (the jump in stature for a commoner, even a rich commoner would be a very bad slip in social etiquite) are very much aware of how their ancestors were robbed of fine pieces on the field of battle, and many if not all are very protective of what few cultural heirlooms they have left. Which leads to then, why get rid of such a fine piece, after taking so much time and money to get it re-done so well, when there would at least be a few options around it? Now of course we can get into the role of the MNLF fighting in the 70s, a time when many fighters did sell pieces in dire straights, but stuff sold in this period, since the MNLF was largely a common persons movement, and not overly filled with royalty (many of whom were entrenched in official government) were plainer less guady swords. Now, current groups have other means of raising capital, and straights arent so dire. Which leads us back to why sell the pusaka?