The 10th to 15th century Visayan kris, & earlier artifacts

migueldiaz · 17th May 2011, 05:02 PM

Here's a second expert, expressing his opinion:

migueldiaz · 17th May 2011, 05:04 PM

I guess the conclusion in all these is that Philippines, like Java, were both quite competent in coming up with very good designs, in the olden days.

migueldiaz · 17th May 2011, 05:05 PM

And if anybody is interested in buying the books, the links are here.

laEspadaAncha · 17th May 2011, 06:07 PM

Hello Miguel Diaz,

Great and fascinating post - thank you for sharing it.

While I am no expert on the kris, Moro or otherwise, as Gustav so eloquently put it in an earlier post in another thread, "a serious collector should at least be an amateur ethnologist," or something to that effect, and it is in this light I humbly comment below.

If I understand correctly, Dr. Dizon was the archeologist who published this paper on the kris. By his own admission, the dating of the site was limited to and by the following factors:

1. Site (i.e., contextual content of the grave)
2. Type
3. Metallurgical treatment of the iron items

Now, by his estimation, these items are dated to the Period of Contact or Trade, i.e., the 10th-15th century, CE.

I think it deserves mention that there was likely extensive trading and exchange taking place by this period, not just within the Philippine archipelago, but by extension, throughout the Indonesian archipelago as well.

In other words, in light of additional evidence, there is no reason to exclude the possibility this individual item may have found its way to Bohol by trade. As evidenced by digs all over the world, there is no shortage of trade goods to be found in burial sites, as often such items held every bit as much (and sometimes more) prestige than indigenously-produced goods due to their relative scarcity.

In short, the presence of this example of this form in a grave in the Visayas is not, IMHO, a sufficient condition to refute existing and established opinions of the Indonesian origin of the form.

kai · 17th May 2011, 09:22 PM

Hello Lorenz,

Thanks a lot for your great compilation! I've been meaning to post some of the hilts more recently found in SEA ship wrecks for discussion. However, I believe we should be cautious - for the time being - to label these as keris hilts rather than daggers in general.

For this discussion I believe it's reasonable to refer to the Bohol find as keris while keeping in mind that this is a borderline example with not much in common with either the surviving early Indonesian proto-keris (aka keris buda; which do have a square tang and a roundish iron methuk - the latter not seen here) nor the early Moro kris. Having said that, it does seem to be closer to the Indonesian keris putut style than any known Moro kris.

One more point: I heavily question the dating for the Bohol keris since it lacks any stratigraphic info as well as any "hard" dating methods. I'd posit that we need stronger evidence than the efforts given for dating before we can utilize this example in discussions of time lines and keris evolution.

Will comment more later when I find time.

Regards,
Kai

migueldiaz · 18th May 2011, 01:48 AM

laEspadaAncha, many thanks for the comments. And I agree with all of them. In particular, I certainly agree that that single evidence is not conclusive, as you nicely put it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by laEspadaAncha

In short, the presence of this example of this form in a grave in the Visayas is not, IMHO, a sufficient condition to refute existing and established opinions of the Indonesian origin of the form.

I guess we are like in a judicial court here, and we are merely trying to establish "beyond reasonable doubt" whether the specimen is indeed a Philippine kris or not. Either outcome is fine. We just want to establish the most plausible explanation.

Because for sure nobody can say that he is 100% sure that it came from Java or Indonesia.

On the other hand, nobody can likewise say that he is 100% certain that it is indeed a Philippine kris (due to the fact that raiding and trading were very much part of the culture then).

Thus to my mind we are working with probabilities here. So it's more like trying to establish if it's more like 20/80, or 50/50, or 80/20, etc. on whether it's Javanese/Indo. or Philippine ...

migueldiaz · 18th May 2011, 02:33 AM

Kai, many thanks also for your comments.

I agree with you that labeling the gold hilts as kris (as some of them were captioned in the book/s) may be premature.

On the dating method employed, the use of excavated associated Chinese ceramics and pottery is actually a well-accepted method.

In any case

if I may recap the considerations discussed so far --

ARGUMENTS FOR A PHILIPPINE ORIGIN

[1] the specimen was found in the Philippines; thus at first blush it has to be regarded as Philippine, and the burden of proof is in proving otherwise

[2] in the dissertation, it is apparent that the panelists (the American university professors) concurred with the proponent (Dr. Dizon) that the specimen was a Philippine artifact

[3] one of the dissertation's key findings is that over time, the metallography of Phil. iron implements improved as expected -- now if the subject kris was an imported item, most probably its characteristics would not have synced (or is anachronistic) with this key finding

[4] linguistically and from time immemorial, "kalis", "keris", and "kris" have been established to be the Philippine's primary weapon, aside from the kampilan -- hence, the presence of an ancient kris in the Phils. should not come as a surprise (and the Indonesians and the Filipinos must have had a common linguistic ancestry: "sandata" [Fil.] and "senjata" [Indo.] both refer to weapon, "kalis/karis/kris" [Fil.] and "keris" [Indo.] all refer to the same blade genre, etc.)

[5] it was also seen above that experts from all over have noted that ancient Philippine craftsmanship (10th to 15th century) was at par with the Javanese - thus once again, the plausibility of the specimen being Filipino is very much there

[6] zooming in on the specimen itself, I think it's easier (at least for me) to imagine the thing to be morphing over time into a Moro sundang (kris), rather than it evolving into the more slender and pointy keris -- but perhaps this is a matter of opinion

[7] and then we have the square cross section of the tang, which is a distinguishing trait of the Philippine/Moro kris (vs. the predominantly round cross-section of kerises)

[8] then we also see in post no. 10 above the elephant's trunk/ bird beak in one of the gold hilts (plus the bird's head motif in the others) -- my point here is that these features as we all know are still present in Philippine krises, and thus we see a coherent picture over time.

ARGUMENTS FOR A JAVANESE OR INDO. ORIGIN

[1] raiding and trading were prevalent at the time; thus it's also very possible that the kris was obtained via those means

[2] of the 90 or so artifacts examined, there was only one specimen that is like the subject kris

[3] I suppose that there is a larger body of literature that pertains to the development of the keris as originating from Java

[4] though the keris' tang's cross-section is circular, a few early (or rare?) kerises had square cross-section.

Those are the pro-Java arguments I can think of. But the fewness of the points was certainly not to load the dice!

It's more because of my unfamiliarity with the Javanese keris. Hopefully, some of the other experts can chime in as well

PS - If anybody has access to the writings per attached, I think Guthe's own account can shed some more light on the matter.

Battara · 18th May 2011, 03:58 AM

I have always thought that there was a common kris form that later changed in various ways in Indonesia and in the Philippines. A similar keris to this one was found in Java several years ago with nearly the exact same shape to this one found in Bohol.

I thus go with this being an ancestor to the Moro kris.

Also, I have always been fascinated by the gold work of the Philippines before the Spanish took it all.

17th May 2011, 05:02 PM	#1
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Here's a second expert, expressing his opinion: Attached Images

17th May 2011, 05:04 PM	#2
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	I guess the conclusion in all these is that Philippines, like Java, were both quite competent in coming up with very good designs, in the olden days. Attached Images

17th May 2011, 05:05 PM	#3
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	And if anybody is interested in buying the books, the links are here. Attached Images

18th May 2011, 02:33 AM	#7
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Kai, many thanks also for your comments. I agree with you that labeling the gold hilts as kris (as some of them were captioned in the book/s) may be premature. On the dating method employed, the use of excavated associated Chinese ceramics and pottery is actually a well-accepted method. In any case if I may recap the considerations discussed so far -- ARGUMENTS FOR A PHILIPPINE ORIGIN [1] the specimen was found in the Philippines; thus at first blush it has to be regarded as Philippine, and the burden of proof is in proving otherwise [2] in the dissertation, it is apparent that the panelists (the American university professors) concurred with the proponent (Dr. Dizon) that the specimen was a Philippine artifact [3] one of the dissertation's key findings is that over time, the metallography of Phil. iron implements improved as expected -- now if the subject kris was an imported item, most probably its characteristics would not have synced (or is anachronistic) with this key finding [4] linguistically and from time immemorial, "kalis", "keris", and "kris" have been established to be the Philippine's primary weapon, aside from the kampilan -- hence, the presence of an ancient kris in the Phils. should not come as a surprise (and the Indonesians and the Filipinos must have had a common linguistic ancestry: "sandata" [Fil.] and "senjata" [Indo.] both refer to weapon, "kalis/karis/kris" [Fil.] and "keris" [Indo.] all refer to the same blade genre, etc.) [5] it was also seen above that experts from all over have noted that ancient Philippine craftsmanship (10th to 15th century) was at par with the Javanese - thus once again, the plausibility of the specimen being Filipino is very much there [6] zooming in on the specimen itself, I think it's easier (at least for me) to imagine the thing to be morphing over time into a Moro sundang (kris), rather than it evolving into the more slender and pointy keris -- but perhaps this is a matter of opinion [7] and then we have the square cross section of the tang, which is a distinguishing trait of the Philippine/Moro kris (vs. the predominantly round cross-section of kerises) [8] then we also see in post no. 10 above the elephant's trunk/ bird beak in one of the gold hilts (plus the bird's head motif in the others) -- my point here is that these features as we all know are still present in Philippine krises, and thus we see a coherent picture over time. ARGUMENTS FOR A JAVANESE OR INDO. ORIGIN [1] raiding and trading were prevalent at the time; thus it's also very possible that the kris was obtained via those means [2] of the 90 or so artifacts examined, there was only one specimen that is like the subject kris [3] I suppose that there is a larger body of literature that pertains to the development of the keris as originating from Java [4] though the keris' tang's cross-section is circular, a few early (or rare?) kerises had square cross-section. Those are the pro-Java arguments I can think of. But the fewness of the points was certainly not to load the dice! It's more because of my unfamiliarity with the Javanese keris. Hopefully, some of the other experts can chime in as well PS - If anybody has access to the writings per attached, I think Guthe's own account can shed some more light on the matter. Attached Images Last edited by migueldiaz; 18th May 2011 at 08:03 AM. Reason: Grammar correction

17th May 2011, 06:07 PM	#4
laEspadaAncha Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 608	Hello Miguel Diaz, Great and fascinating post - thank you for sharing it. While I am no expert on the kris, Moro or otherwise, as Gustav so eloquently put it in an earlier post in another thread, "a serious collector should at least be an amateur ethnologist," or something to that effect, and it is in this light I humbly comment below. If I understand correctly, Dr. Dizon was the archeologist who published this paper on the kris. By his own admission, the dating of the site was limited to and by the following factors: 1. Site (i.e., contextual content of the grave) 2. Type 3. Metallurgical treatment of the iron items Now, by his estimation, these items are dated to the Period of Contact or Trade, i.e., the 10th-15th century, CE. I think it deserves mention that there was likely extensive trading and exchange taking place by this period, not just within the Philippine archipelago, but by extension, throughout the Indonesian archipelago as well. In other words, in light of additional evidence, there is no reason to exclude the possibility this individual item may have found its way to Bohol by trade. As evidenced by digs all over the world, there is no shortage of trade goods to be found in burial sites, as often such items held every bit as much (and sometimes more) prestige than indigenously-produced goods due to their relative scarcity. In short, the presence of this example of this form in a grave in the Visayas is not, IMHO, a sufficient condition to refute existing and established opinions of the Indonesian origin of the form.

17th May 2011, 09:22 PM	#5
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	Hello Lorenz, Thanks a lot for your great compilation! I've been meaning to post some of the hilts more recently found in SEA ship wrecks for discussion. However, I believe we should be cautious - for the time being - to label these as keris hilts rather than daggers in general. For this discussion I believe it's reasonable to refer to the Bohol find as keris while keeping in mind that this is a borderline example with not much in common with either the surviving early Indonesian proto-keris (aka keris buda; which do have a square tang and a roundish iron methuk - the latter not seen here) nor the early Moro kris. Having said that, it does seem to be closer to the Indonesian keris putut style than any known Moro kris. One more point: I heavily question the dating for the Bohol keris since it lacks any stratigraphic info as well as any "hard" dating methods. I'd posit that we need stronger evidence than the efforts given for dating before we can utilize this example in discussions of time lines and keris evolution. Will comment more later when I find time. Regards, Kai

18th May 2011, 03:58 AM	#8
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I have always thought that there was a common kris form that later changed in various ways in Indonesia and in the Philippines. A similar keris to this one was found in Java several years ago with nearly the exact same shape to this one found in Bohol. I thus go with this being an ancestor to the Moro kris. Also, I have always been fascinated by the gold work of the Philippines before the Spanish took it all.