Quote:
Originally Posted by xasterix
Nice kris! I agree that it's likely Maguindanao. Unique hilt too.
I've seen around 2 archaic krises that don't have a separate gangya, both are in the Philippines. They both have round tangs. They've made me think about the widely accepted assumption that krises with separate gangya are automatically older. I jokingly call these as "mono-gangya" krises.
There are also kalis (Sulu) being made nowadays that still have the separate gangya feature; they retained that knowledge even without outside intervention or Internet access, from what I understand.
Of course I'll need more samples (and preferably disassembled archaic ones with mono-gangya) to prove this hypothesis that separate-gangya krises aren't necessarily older, but it's an interesting thing to consider, IMHO.
|
As they say (whoever "they" are
), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide.