Very old Visayan kris

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Gustav

We have two tendencies. The first one I would call academic, it works with available dates, and treats these dates as facts. Everything else ranges between hypothesis and speculation.

The second is amateurs approach and is based on speculations going beyond the available dates.

The possible truth often enough is situated somewhere between these viewpoints in my opinion.

I forgot to reply to this; apologies for the delay, but let me add another:

The third is based on oral tradition, which can be gleaned, for example- from Moro elders here in the Philippines. This is a primary source and a very authoritative one, as emphasized by several international academic studies. The challenge in obtaining this is access- there is a high level of trust needed to facilitate information sharing.

Certain Moro elders can identify and age-estimate antique and vintage blades- after all, generational transmission through oral tradition is very much alive among their people. They have a great deal of knowledge which has not yet been published.

I have a bias towards the third approach, because the first approach, while objective, is based on a a colonizer's perspective (Spanish or American). There are limitations to such data, the most common being loss of meaning due to translation. Observer's bias is also prevalent in colonizer documentation.

That being said- the "best" possible outcome would be data that is verified by both the first and third approaches.

[Ian]

Xas, thanks for adding these thoughts. There is actually a fourth method that has recently been brought to my attention by another forum member who happens to be an archeologist. This involves carbon dating of the carbon contained within the steel. I believe it involves determining the ratio of C14/C12 content. Unfortunately, this is a destructive analytic method, although only a few grams of metal are required. The obvious place to take a sample would be the tang (if one can get to it).

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Ian

Xas, thanks for adding these thoughts. There is actually a fourth method that has recently been brought to my attention by another forum member who happens to be an archeologist. This involves carbon dating of the carbon contained within the steel. I believe it involves determining the ratio of C14/C12 content. Unfortunately, this is a destructive analytic method, although only a few grams of metal are required. The obvious place to take a sample would be the tang (if one can get to it).

Thanks for that Ian; that's a relatively foolproof and thoroughly scientific way of looking at it. Did he mention how accurate it would be (can it be narrowed down to years or decades)?

[Ian]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Thanks for that Ian; that's a relatively foolproof and thoroughly scientific way of looking at it. Did he mention how accurate it would be (can it be narrowed down to years or decades)?

Ray, I don't know the precision of the carbon-dating method for steel. However, I did find a nice overview article for the use of carbon dating of iron and steel: HERE

Regards, Ian