Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
I didn't know this. Do ALL of the earliest "18thC"s have round tangs for sure, or is this an assumption. I don't own any of these "archaic" style kris so i don't know from my own experience. I am also not sure that calling them "18thC" kris is in our best interest since i think some of these are probably a little older than that.
I know we have been around this block before, but i do find it difficult to accept these "archaic" kris as Bugis since the blade form doesn't really resemble the bugis style of keris very much. I am also confused as to why you can't believe that these keris could possible be a "starter edition".
|
I have 2 "18thC". Neither one,have I removed the hilt. One I'm sure has a keris sized round tang. The other, I can get a cleaning pick in between the blade & hilt & it appears to have a robust oval tang. Federico has posted one with a robust round tang & Lee has posted one with a retangular one. Strikes me that someone else once posted one with a retangular tang or at least confirmed it once. Only use "18thC" because Cato did, I think they are quite a bit older then that. There is enough variation to suggest many smiths made them for a extended period of time. That's the main problem in Philippine origin. They copied the style but never perfected it, don't think they would lose the knowledge. RSword: Didn't you once have a Bugis keris with the same pattern of the kris you sold me?