"Malaysian kris/keris"

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by David

You seem to be debating a point that no one is arguing here. The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris (whether Bugis or Balinese, etc. has never been proven), but the form itself, as a slashing sword length weapon has pretty much always been attributed to the Moro people. No one has stated otherwise in this thread.


Yep, again, no one is debating this point here. The Kris Sundang (and you will find numerous other weapons in the area of the Philippines also called "sundang" given the generic nature of the word) is not originally an Indonesian creation. However, there is a form of it that is from areas of Indonesia and yes, the indigenous population of these areas that are collectors, in other words, Malay people, do refer to this now as a Malay Sundang. Frankly, what Winstedt has to say about terminology ( which is mostly the re-hashing of other European authors in the book section you have posted) in pre-WWII Malaysia is a fairly moot issue at this point in time. Language evolves. That a large community of indigenous Malay collectors now refer to their own version of the Moro kris as a "Malay Sundang" legitimizes that terminology for me. It is, after all, their culture.


Again, i am not sure who you are debating or trying to convince. However, i and many others might argue your conclusive question. Why is it not just as likely that after seeing Moro kris and accepting and re-dressing traded blades in Malay/Indonesian styles that smiths in various Malay regions would not attempt to forge their own on their home turf? Obviously the smiths of Brunei, Sumatra, Borneo and Sulawesi have proven themselves quite skillful blade smiths over the centuries. So why assume that the sundangs that obviously don't look Moro in origin had to be created by Javanese or Sumatran smiths still living in the Philippines who emigrated to, say, Sulu or some other area of Moroland? Frankly, as much as you are demanding "scholarly" references from me, nothing you have presented supports your idea that none of these "so-call" Malay Sundangs have blades that were actually made in Indonesia. I would think that logic would suggest that in fact Indonesian smiths would emulate the slashing sword form of the Moro kris and create their own take on it.
Again, no one is denying that a great many of these Malay Sundangs (and i will continue to refer to them as such because that is what Malays call them these days) do indeed have Moro blades. But enough do not to raise the question of where those other blades may have been manufactured. Assuming they are all traded blades from the Philippines does not make sense to me and does not seem to hold up to observational evidence.

Hi David,

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords.

"Frankly, what Winstedt has to say about terminology ( which is mostly the re-hashing of other European authors in the book section you have posted).."

I am curious who these authors are? Please take note that Winstedt published this article in 1941.

"Language evolves. That a large community of indigenous Malay collectors now refer to their own version of the Moro kris as a "Malay Sundang" legitimizes that terminology for me. It is, after all, their culture."

True, but in what way is this a case of linguistic evolution? I see it as a misappropriation of a term which makes it necessary to correct and which I am attempting to do. Like I also said, I have not encountered the term "Malay Sundang" in any reliable literature.

"Why is it not just as likely that after seeing Moro kris and accepting and re-dressing traded blades in Malay/Indonesian styles that smiths in various Malay regions would not attempt to forge their own on their home turf? Obviously the smiths of Brunei, Sumatra, Borneo and Sulawesi have proven themselves quite skillful blade smiths over the centuries. So why assume that the sundangs that obviously don't look Moro in origin had to be created by Javanese or Sumatran smiths still living in the Philippines who emigrated to, say, Sulu or some other area of Moroland?"

Simply because no evidence of such appears in any serious study. I am basing my statements on published scholarly works and not mere imagination.

"Frankly, as much as you are demanding "scholarly" references from me, nothing you have presented supports your idea that none of these "so-call" Malay Sundangs have blades that were actually made in Indonesia. I would think that logic would suggest that in fact Indonesian smiths would emulate the slashing sword form of the Moro kris and create their own take on it."

Please check the references and you will see what I mean. None say their origins to be Indonesia but they do mention Sulu and Borneo. None also mention the term "Malay Sundang." I would provide all the details if I were writing a paper for a journal publication here but I am not. I will publish that somewhere else. I have nonetheless indicated the references or at least their authors for the convenience of those who would like to engage in a scholarly understanding of the sundang. I'm sorry but logic is not sufficient to prove the point. We have to recognize the hard work of earlier scholars who devoted time and effort to find out the truth. I have based my views on such works.

Anyway, the problem with this platform of communication is that sentiments may be misinterpreted and we are reduced to expressing ourselves in the form of emoticons. I hope I am not coming off as being adversarial. I am not. I am simply sharing my thoughts but I hope nonetheless that it would be taken seriously. I respect your views but it seems that at this point, the least we can do is to agree to disagree. I hope we can agree on that.

[Sajen]

Hi F. de Luzon, I don't want to join a discussion about names nor I want discuss the references in relevant literature.
But there is a point at which I'm sure, there are for sure so called pure Malay sundangs/kris which are for sure not coming with pure Moro blades. So they can't be called "rehilted Moro blades", see for example here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...=malay+sundang and here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...=malay+sundang

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords.


"In the course of its expansion to nearby lands, this reptilian (naga) was adopted by the Malay peoples, who used it as the pattern for their keris blades. The Malay keris, in turn, eventually became the prototype for the Moro version that figured so prominently in the warface of the Southern Philippines." Moro Swords, Robert Cato, Singapore, 1996, page 61, 62

Best regards,
Detlef

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hi F. de Luzon, I don't want to join a discussion about names nor I want discuss the references in relevant literature.
But there is a point at which I'm sure, there are for sure so called pure Malay sundangs/kris which are for sure not coming with pure Moro blades. So they can't be called "rehilted Moro blades", see for example here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...=malay+sundang and here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...=malay+sundang

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords.


"In the course of its expansion to nearby lands, this reptilian (naga) was adopted by the Malay peoples, who used it as the pattern for their keris blades. The Malay keris, in turn, eventually became the prototype for the Moro version that figured so prominently in the warface of the Southern Philippines." Moro Swords, Robert Cato, Singapore, 1996, page 61, 62

Best regards,
Detlef

Hi Detlef,

I don't have my copy of Cato right now which is why I expressed my uncertainty in my statement that you quoted. But this is only one statement and not my main argument. Nonetheless, I cited a probable source of information which was Cato.

Aside from that, it seems to me that the sundang in the examples you shared have Moro/Sulu blades.

Kind regards,

F. de Luzon

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

Aside from that, it seems to me that the sundang in the examples you shared have Moro/Sulu blades.

Hmmmm, interesting point of view!

Best regards,
Detlef

[David]

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords.

Well, i never said "proven", i said "accepted". Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation. Do you believe that the Moro Kris developed in a vacuum, yet for some reason carries the same form and iconography as it's cousin, the Indonesian keris, which developed centuries before it? Or perhaps you have seen examples of Moro kris which can be reasonably dated anywhere near the oldest know examples of Indonesian keris. If you have, i'd like to see them. Or maybe you have some photographs from a stele at an ancient Moro temple that can be dated to the 15th century (as can with the Candi Sukuh in Central Jawa showing Javanese keris) that shows depictions Moro style kris in use at the time, thereby dating their existence to somewhere near the same time when the Indonesian keris as we know to was developing.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

"Frankly, what Winstedt has to say about terminology ( which is mostly the re-hashing of other European authors in the book section you have posted).."
I am curious who these authors are? Please take note that Winstedt published this article in 1941.

Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

"Language evolves. That a large community of indigenous Malay collectors now refer to their own version of the Moro kris as a "Malay Sundang" legitimizes that terminology for me. It is, after all, their culture."
True, but in what way is this a case of linguistic evolution? I see it as a misappropriation of a term which makes it necessary to correct and which I am attempting to do. Like I also said, I have not encountered the term "Malay Sundang" in any reliable literature.

Language is a living entity. It does not only live for academic purposes. I am regularly in communication with a large group of keris enthusiasts from various parts of Indonesia and Malaysia. This is THEIR culture, not mine. It is not for me to critical their cultural "appropriation". If i want to communicate with them, which is, after all, the actual purpose of language, it is best for me to use terms they best understand. When i say "Malay Sundang" they immediately know exactly what i mean. It is not for me to "correct" them and i would only be risking alienating that community if i tried. Your mileage may vary.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

"Why is it not just as likely that after seeing Moro kris and accepting and re-dressing traded blades in Malay/Indonesian styles that smiths in various Malay regions would not attempt to forge their own on their home turf? Obviously the smiths of Brunei, Sumatra, Borneo and Sulawesi have proven themselves quite skillful blade smiths over the centuries. So why assume that the sundangs that obviously don't look Moro in origin had to be created by Javanese or Sumatran smiths still living in the Philippines who emigrated to, say, Sulu or some other area of Moroland?"

Simply because no evidence of such appears in any serious study. I am basing my statements on published scholarly works and not mere imagination.

No evidence seems to exist for either theory. Where in your scholarly works have you come across anyone saying that Malay Sundang blades that are not Moro were made by Indonesians living and working in Moroland that were then traded to Indonesians? Why is your "imagination" any more legitimate than mine. We are all just speculating here and to claim that you have the answers based upon solid and indisputable evidence provided to you through scholarly research is disingenuous at best.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

"Frankly, as much as you are demanding "scholarly" references from me, nothing you have presented supports your idea that none of these "so-call" Malay Sundangs have blades that were actually made in Indonesia. I would think that logic would suggest that in fact Indonesian smiths would emulate the slashing sword form of the Moro kris and create their own take on it."

Please check the references and you will see what I mean. None say their origins to be Indonesia but they do mention Sulu and Borneo. None also mention the term "Malay Sundang." I would provide all the details if I were writing a paper for a journal publication here but I am not. I will publish that somewhere else. I have nonetheless indicated the references or at least their authors for the convenience of those who would like to engage in a scholarly understanding of the sundang. I'm sorry but logic is not sufficient to prove the point. We have to recognize the hard work of earlier scholars who devoted time and effort to find out the truth. I have based my views on such works.

Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship. I have read Winstedt, Woolley, Frey, Cato, Groneman, Tammens, van Duuren, Van Zonneveld, Gardner, etc., etc. However, as i am sure you know, great holes exist in these researches that may never be filled and i cannot think of any recognized author who has fully tackled and explained the origins of the Moro Kris or, for that matter, how the Malay Sundang developed. I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture.

[A. G. Maisey]

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords."

Mr. de Luzon, your statement that the sundang is not proven to have developed from the Indonesian keris may be technically correct, but your statement does not reflect the consensus of opinion in this matter. As with many, if not most matters of a historic nature, absolute proof of origin of the weapon form that we now refer to as "keris" is probably impossible to present, however, a careful review of the available evidence of keris origin will demonstrate that the current consensus of opinion is very difficult to refute.

The weapon from which all keris have developed first appeared in Central Jawa during the Early Classical Period. All other types of keris developed from this first form, known today by scholars of the keris as the "Keris Buda".

The keris spread from Jawa through trade and gifting to other places throughout Maritime South East Asia. This spread probably began during the Majapahit era and continued during the Mataram era, indeed, by some measures, it could be considered to have continued up until the present day.

The sundang is a unique derivation of the original keris, this is certain, but it did come from the same root as all other keris.

Perhaps a little more generalised reading of the literature that deals with Javanese keris, and of the history of Jawa, most especially Javanese trade links, may be of value.

[Ian]

Alan and David:

Thank you for bringing your expertise and understanding of keris to the Ethnographic Forum. It is always good to refresh our understanding of the Moro kris and its origins. I think F. de Luzon is saying that he can find no clear evidence, to his satisfaction, that the Javanese keris begat the Moro kris. Like so much history of ethnographic weapons, this transition was not documented at the time and we are left to surmise the facts. Certainly, we can find older Moro kris that look more like Indonesian keris, and the keris clearly predated the kris, but that's about as far as the evidence takes us.

The back migration of the Moro kris to the "Malay sundang" is an interesting concept, and I'm struggling to think of another similar example in the area of edged weapons. The observation that Moro kris appear to have been imported into Malaysia for the manufacture of recent Malay sundang seems plausible, but I'm not sure to what purpose that would have occurred other than to market these for tourists and collectors.

Perhaps this topic has run its course for now.

Ian.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by Ian

Alan and David:

Thank you for bringing your expertise and understanding of keris to the Ethnographic Forum. It is always good to refresh our understanding of the Moro kris and its origins. I think F. de Luzon is saying that he can find no clear evidence, to his satisfaction, that the Javanese keris begat the Moro kris. Like so much history of ethnographic weapons, this transition was not documented at the time and we are left to surmise the facts. Certainly, we can find older Moro kris that look more like Indonesian keris, and the keris clearly predated the kris, but that's about as far as the evidence takes us.

The back migration of the Moro kris to the "Malay sundang" is an interesting concept, and I'm struggling to think of another similar example in the area of edged weapons. The observation that Moro kris appear to have been imported into Malaysia for the manufacture of recent Malay sundang seems plausible, but I'm not sure to what purpose that would have occurred other than to market these for tourists and collectors.

Perhaps this topic has run its course for now.

Ian.

I agree. My apologies for "hijacking" your thread. My intention was to deepen the discussion. Thank you.

[Ian]

F de Luzon, no problem. I think we have had a useful and lively discussion on this topic. Appreciate your thoughts.

Ian.

Originally Posted by F. de Luzon

I agree. My apologies for "hijacking" your thread. My intention was to deepen the discussion. Thank you.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

"The Sundang is fairly well accepted as developing from some form of Indonesian keris."

This point has not been proven at all and is not even discussed in any literature on the keris. I don't think Cato even discussed it in his work on Moro swords."

Mr. de Luzon, your statement that the sundang is not proven to have developed from the Indonesian keris may be technically correct, but your statement does not reflect the consensus of opinion in this matter. As with many, if not most matters of a historic nature, absolute proof of origin of the weapon form that we now refer to as "keris" is probably impossible to present, however, a careful review of the available evidence of keris origin will demonstrate that the current consensus of opinion is very difficult to refute.

The weapon from which all keris have developed first appeared in Central Jawa during the Early Classical Period. All other types of keris developed from this first form, known today by scholars of the keris as the "Keris Buda".

The keris spread from Jawa through trade and gifting to other places throughout Maritime South East Asia. This spread probably began during the Majapahit era and continued during the Mataram era, indeed, by some measures, it could be considered to have continued up until the present day.

The sundang is a unique derivation of the original keris, this is certain, but it did come from the same root as all other keris.

Perhaps a little more generalised reading of the literature that deals with Javanese keris, and of the history of Jawa, most especially Javanese trade links, may be of value.

Point well taken, Mr. Maisey. And I shall do that.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by David

Well, i never said "proven", i said "accepted". Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation. Do you believe that the Moro Kris developed in a vacuum, yet for some reason carries the same form and iconography as it's cousin, the Indonesian keris, which developed centuries before it? Or perhaps you have seen examples of Moro kris which can be reasonably dated anywhere near the oldest know examples of Indonesian keris. If you have, i'd like to see them. Or maybe you have some photographs from a stele at an ancient Moro temple that can be dated to the 15th century (as can with the Candi Sukuh in Central Jawa showing Javanese keris) that shows depictions Moro style kris in use at the time, thereby dating their existence to somewhere near the same time when the Indonesian keris as we know to was developing.


Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others.


Language is a living entity. It does not only live for academic purposes. I am regularly in communication with a large group of keris enthusiasts from various parts of Indonesia and Malaysia. This is THEIR culture, not mine. It is not for me to critical their cultural "appropriation". If i want to communicate with them, which is, after all, the actual purpose of language, it is best for me to use terms they best understand. When i say "Malay Sundang" they immediately know exactly what i mean. It is not for me to "correct" them and i would only be risking alienating that community if i tried. Your mileage may vary.


No evidence seems to exist for either theory. Where in your scholarly works have you come across anyone saying that Malay Sundang blades that are not Moro were made by Indonesians living and working in Moroland that were then traded to Indonesians? Why is your "imagination" any more legitimate than mine. We are all just speculating here and to claim that you have the answers based upon solid and indisputable evidence provided to you through scholarly research is disingenuous at best.


Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship. I have read Winstedt, Woolley, Frey, Cato, Groneman, Tammens, van Duuren, Van Zonneveld, Gardner, etc., etc. However, as i am sure you know, great holes exist in these researches that may never be filled and i cannot think of any recognized author who has fully tackled and explained the origins of the Moro Kris or, for that matter, how the Malay Sundang developed. I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture.

"Seriously? You posted the Winstedt article. I assume you've read it He clearly references Woolley, Wilkenson, van Ronkel, Banks, and others."

When you stated he was "re-hashing" other Europeans, I was of the impression you were referring to other writings that you have encountered aside from the authors he was not only "clearly" but obviously citing. He wasn't re-hashing, he was citing his sources.

"Please don't misunderstand. I do not dismiss scholarship."

I understand clearly. Please read your second sentence: "Frankly i don't need the scholarly writings of Europeans nearly a century ago to tell me what i can see and determine for myself through simple observation." You just did.

"I am not attempting to prove a point here as give the current state of evidence i do not believe there is enough evidence to prove any points. We are left with logic, speculation and conjecture"

Well, such will not prove anything. They will only raise questions.