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

migueldiaz · 19th May 2011, 01:26 AM

Battara, thanks! Below is the pic from the referenced website. Incidentally, there are much more better pics than the black & white one below if one googles 'knaud kris'.

Battara · 19th May 2011, 02:46 AM

Yes I've always wondered if the buda type of keris was the ancestor to all keris and kris (seen also in the stone work). From there they diverged on their separate paths according to the varying martial environments of the Malay world (Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines).

migueldiaz · 19th May 2011, 02:49 AM

That Knaud keris sure is interesting, to say the least. There are many pics on the Net and two are below. They came from here: knaud_1, knaud_2, knaud_3, knaud_4, knaud_5, and knaud_6. Thanks.

migueldiaz · 19th May 2011, 02:51 AM

Here are close-ups of the tang. Does the cross-section appear round/oblong, or square/rectangular?

migueldiaz · 19th May 2011, 09:55 AM

In determining whether the subject kris is an import (e.g., a battle trophy from Java or Indonesia), the other important consideration is knowing the burial practices of ancient Filipinos.

Based on Guthe's sketchy report of the kris' circumstance when it was found in a cave (per earlier post above), we can surmise that the context was that of a burial.

In the case of the other specimen which is a spear (mistaken by Guthe for a kris, per post above), it's very clear that there was a skeleton, with a presumable Chinese ("blue and white") plate over his face. Thus it's clearly a burial all right.

In the case of the subject kris, there was mention of lots of porcelain. But it was not indicated whether there was a skeleton found also.

In any case, the fact that those artifacts were found in caves points to burials. In the Philippines' ancient religion, caves were believed to be entrances to the Underworld.

Whereas Christianity views the netherworld as a place to be avoided, in the ancient Austronesian cosmology it's a nice place to be in -- that's where one gets reunited with his departed relatives and other deified ancestors.

It's often that the wooden coffins (or the huge jars, in case of secondary burials), would have images of serpents and other reptiles. And that's because the chief deities of the Underworld are the naga and the serpent. But we digress

Now in a male person's burial (especially if one was a warrior or a ruler), there are essentially two types of artifacts that get buried with him -- (a) his most intimate personal possessions, and (b) prestige items that are proof that he has helped his bayan (political unit) to become more prosperous.

Group 'a' would typically include his personal weapon, talismans (e.g., boar's or croc's teeth), etc. In some cases, the living wife and/or slaves also get buried with the VIP!

For group 'b' there will be gold objects, and prestige goods like imported porcelain, battle trophies, etc.

The whole point in having the 'b' objects with the dead is that the person would like to show his ancestors at the entrance to the Underworld that he had uplifted his community by his raiding and trading activities, and he's got proof.

The other proof would be his tattoos. As we know, in Austronesia one does not get a tattoo unless he's done exploits for the benefit of the community. In the case of females, once they had given birth/s they get tattoos also (because part of the women's job in community-building is to raise manpower, which was the scarce resource and not fertile land).

And these tattoos supposedly glow in the Underworld, to make them more recognizable to the gatekeepers of sorts (Borneo would have a similar belief).

So what's the above saying about the subject kris?

First of all, it has to be pointed out that the place as found by Guthe appears not to have been looted (the porcelains are still there).

For local grave robbers, porcelains would be on top of their list. Gold would be second only (the looters don't regard the ethnographic value; they actually melted most of the gold they found and sold them by the kilos). Rusty metal objects would be of least interest to them.

Given that there's only one metal blade found, most probably that's the only blade there was (i.e., the kris).

Now I'd like to think that the kris was a type 'a' object. For why would he not be buried with his own personal sword? And the porcelains would be type 'b'.

In a 1500s grave (drawing is below, from Laura Lee Junker's Raiding, Trading, & Feasting, and it's all about the Philippines' precolonial way of life), we precisely see a warrior with what we can conclude to be his personal weapon (the iron sword), and battle trophies (the bronze blade, as we didn't have bronze swords, then the enemies? skulls). Then there's the usual imported ceramics, etc.

In summary, given the cultural context as elaborated, it appears to me that the kris was owned by whoever person was buried in that cave. As such, it's mostly likely locally produced.

David · 19th May 2011, 05:28 PM

This is a very interesting thread Miguel. Thanks so much for all the research.
I am having a difficult time seeing this as anything but an Indonesian keris, in spite of the rectangular tang. The blade bears little resemblance to any other Philippines kris we have seen, but has much in common with early keris such as the blade shape and the carvings which look very much like a double puthut form at the base. There is also, i believe, record of early Indo Keris with square or rectangular tangs. The only thing that remotely resembles a Moro kris here is the tang which isn't very decisive IMO. Clearly trade was in full swing at these times as is evident from the presence of Chinese ceramics also present. So clearly it is possible that this was a blade gained in trade. Even as a traded blade it might very well have become a choice "A" object for the person buried. There is just no telling here.
I would think that if these blades were prevalent in the area during this era that far more than this one single example would have turned up by now. Hardly enough evidence exists to form any opinion of the origin of this single blade let alone to completely reverse the generally accepted theory that the keris developed first in Java before making it's way to the Philippines. Even the evidence of a parallel development is lacking as this seems to be the only example of a "kris" from this time period in the Philippines. Where are all the other artifacts?

Spunjer · 19th May 2011, 10:53 PM

me and lorenz has been discussing this topic. i agree with you david that trading was prevalent at that point in time, but one must not omit the fact that at that time, indonesia and philippines as we know it, didn't exist, just a bunch of islands forming an archipelago from china to australia. it's also a possibility that this particular form of weapon was common in bohol, as it is in jawa. it's true that this is the only specimen, but as lorenz have mentioned, an old rusting iron was number eleven on the porcelain hunter's top ten list. with all the gold dagger handles that has been found, who's to say that there was a rusty iron, or an imprint anyway, left behind? kris or keris, wasn't as important to the visayans, or the northern mindanawans, as opposed to the javans, which has more relevance, therefore it was given more attention. as an analogy, if i'm standing on the beach looking at a wave with someone from the midwest, i see a nice barreling left point, while he sees rough water with a shark or two lurking below...

A. G. Maisey · 20th May 2011, 12:01 AM

An interesting thread, and one that has opened up several avenues of discussion.

1)--- geographic origin of this blade

in my opinion it is not Javanese nor Balinese ( I group these two places together because for much of the period under consideration they can be considered as closely related, if not part of the same area of political influence)

I have never seen an early Javanese keris that had been forged without a gonjo.

I have never seen any Javanese keris from any period that had a tang similar to the tang on the blade under discussion. Early Javanese tangs were more or less square in cross section; this tang has an oblong cross section.

I have never seen a Jawa/Bali blade with a similar treatment to the sorsoran. Yes, in profile the notches in the sorsoran could perhaps be likened to a puthut, but likened only. I can see no suggestion of a puthut, only notches that would form an effective blade trap.

The flat sided tang and forward weighted blade indicate that this blade was used primarily as a cutting weapon, not a thrusting weapon. Early Javanese keris were used as over-hand stabbing weapons, and developed into weapons used as short rapiers.

In short, this blade simply does not look like a Javanese blade, early or otherwise.

2)--- did trade links exist between Jawa and other areas of Maritime South East Asia in the period 10th to 15th centuries CE.

Yes, of course they did, and had for over 1000 years prior to the 15th century. (see Christie, J.W.)

3)--- where did the keris originate?

The form first appeared during the Early Classical Period in Central Jawa, it developed to its modern form in East Jawa after 1000CE and prior to 1500CE.
The expansion of Javanese trade during the period 10th to 13th centuries CE saw the keris, along with other Javanese produce introduced to other areas of Maritime South East Asia.
The further expansion of trade and political influence under Majapahit to around 1500CE saw an intensification of Javanese influence and trade throughout Maritime South East Asia. This was the period when the keris spread into other areas. In some societies it remained very close to its original Javanese form; in others it developed a different form that was more suitable to local conditions.

4)--- the Candi Sukuh stele, and the other monumental representations of the keris at Candi Sukuh.

Candi Sukuh dates from about 1437. It is by no means evidence of keris origin in Jawa, as there is ample evidence of the existence of the keris in Jawa that pre-dates Sukuh by several hundred years. Sukuh is a relatively late construction of this period.

5)--- the Knaud keris

amongst academic researchers of the keris, there are many questions that surround the Knaud. We need to be very, very wary of using this keris as an example of anything, except perhaps the gullibility of European colonials.

kai · 20th May 2011, 12:52 AM

Hello David,

(Being slow and distracted while working on my response, Ron and Alan beat me to it - I'm keeping this unedited though.)

Quote:

I am having a difficult time seeing this as anything but an Indonesian keris, in spite of the rectangular tang. The blade bears little resemblance to any other Philippines kris we have seen, but has much in common with early keris such as the blade shape and the carvings which look very much like a double puthut form at the base.

Yes, it does look like puthut style but during that time frame, this style might not have been limited to what we today know as Indonesia. (And half of modern Indonesia apparently never had any keris culture...)

However, I see some features that make me think that this might be at best a copy of this style rather than being an expression of a genuine tradition (wether locally crafted or coming to Bohol as trade or as a gift from a foreign power):
1. This blade is essentially flat - no thickening at the gonjo area nor at the puthut areas while the tang is a mere extension of the blade.
2. The details of the putative puthut carvings don't fit any anthropomorphic features but appear to be merely geometrical by design.

Quote:

There is also, i believe, record of early Indo Keris with square or rectangular tangs. The only thing that remotely resembles a Moro kris here is the tang which isn't very decisive IMO.

Yes, and its proportions aren't typical "Moro" either - I don't think we can closely link it with the surviving kris tradition in the area.

Quote:

Even as a traded blade it might very well have become a choice "A" object for the person buried. There is just no telling here.

In basically any warrior culture a blade is much more than a weapon. The choice of what constitutes the most important personal piece for someone of status (and, thus, being able to afford more than a very few blades) may very well be the perceived talismanic/magic/religious properties which most likely would also make treasured gifts from powerful foreign sources eligible. From the length I believe it's safe to assume that this most likely wasn't the person's primary war sword but rather something more "personal" anyway.

Quote:

I would think that if these blades were prevalent in the area during this era that far more than this one single example would have turned up by now. Hardly enough evidence exists to form any opinion of the origin of this single blade let alone to completely reverse the generally accepted theory that the keris developed first in Java before making it's way to the Philippines. Even the evidence of a parallel development is lacking as this seems to be the only example of a "kris" from this time period in the Philippines. Where are all the other artifacts?

I believe we need to be more patient and remember that iron is prone to fast corrosion (as well as getting overlooked by non-professionals just trying to make a living). Iron artefacts do turn up but since so little archeology is actually being done throughout SEA, good evidence accumulates at a slow pace (and subsequent analysis/publishing being even slower).

Regards,
Kai

migueldiaz · 21st May 2011, 02:25 AM

Messrs. David, spunjer, AG Maisey, and kai, many thanks for your comments!

Thanks most especially to Alan for the exhaustive commentary covering the various aspects of the discussion at hand. Coincidentally, I was reviewing the other day Alan's article on the origin of the keris.

Dr. Dizon also saw this thread by the way. And he mentioned that we should also consider the situation at the time -- i.e., that ancient Filipinos, Indonesians, and Malaysians were all maritime people, and there was really no distinct boundaries amongst them. Being genetically and culturally close relatives, he added that these peoples freely shared metal technologies among them.

On the subject kris, I also noticed that it was described that it appears that the blade's edge has more carbon content. Am mentioning this for whatever it is worth.

Lorenz

19th May 2011, 01:26 AM	#1
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Battara, thanks! Below is the pic from the referenced website. Incidentally, there are much more better pics than the black & white one below if one googles 'knaud kris'. Attached Images

19th May 2011, 02:49 AM	#3
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	That Knaud keris sure is interesting, to say the least. There are many pics on the Net and two are below. They came from here: knaud_1, knaud_2, knaud_3, knaud_4, knaud_5, and knaud_6. Thanks. Attached Images

19th May 2011, 02:51 AM	#4
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Here are close-ups of the tang. Does the cross-section appear round/oblong, or square/rectangular? Attached Images

19th May 2011, 09:55 AM	#5
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	In determining whether the subject kris is an import (e.g., a battle trophy from Java or Indonesia), the other important consideration is knowing the burial practices of ancient Filipinos. Based on Guthe's sketchy report of the kris' circumstance when it was found in a cave (per earlier post above), we can surmise that the context was that of a burial. In the case of the other specimen which is a spear (mistaken by Guthe for a kris, per post above), it's very clear that there was a skeleton, with a presumable Chinese ("blue and white") plate over his face. Thus it's clearly a burial all right. In the case of the subject kris, there was mention of lots of porcelain. But it was not indicated whether there was a skeleton found also. In any case, the fact that those artifacts were found in caves points to burials. In the Philippines' ancient religion, caves were believed to be entrances to the Underworld. Whereas Christianity views the netherworld as a place to be avoided, in the ancient Austronesian cosmology it's a nice place to be in -- that's where one gets reunited with his departed relatives and other deified ancestors. It's often that the wooden coffins (or the huge jars, in case of secondary burials), would have images of serpents and other reptiles. And that's because the chief deities of the Underworld are the naga and the serpent. But we digress Now in a male person's burial (especially if one was a warrior or a ruler), there are essentially two types of artifacts that get buried with him -- (a) his most intimate personal possessions, and (b) prestige items that are proof that he has helped his bayan (political unit) to become more prosperous. Group 'a' would typically include his personal weapon, talismans (e.g., boar's or croc's teeth), etc. In some cases, the living wife and/or slaves also get buried with the VIP! For group 'b' there will be gold objects, and prestige goods like imported porcelain, battle trophies, etc. The whole point in having the 'b' objects with the dead is that the person would like to show his ancestors at the entrance to the Underworld that he had uplifted his community by his raiding and trading activities, and he's got proof. The other proof would be his tattoos. As we know, in Austronesia one does not get a tattoo unless he's done exploits for the benefit of the community. In the case of females, once they had given birth/s they get tattoos also (because part of the women's job in community-building is to raise manpower, which was the scarce resource and not fertile land). And these tattoos supposedly glow in the Underworld, to make them more recognizable to the gatekeepers of sorts (Borneo would have a similar belief). So what's the above saying about the subject kris? First of all, it has to be pointed out that the place as found by Guthe appears not to have been looted (the porcelains are still there). For local grave robbers, porcelains would be on top of their list. Gold would be second only (the looters don't regard the ethnographic value; they actually melted most of the gold they found and sold them by the kilos). Rusty metal objects would be of least interest to them. Given that there's only one metal blade found, most probably that's the only blade there was (i.e., the kris). Now I'd like to think that the kris was a type 'a' object. For why would he not be buried with his own personal sword? And the porcelains would be type 'b'. In a 1500s grave (drawing is below, from Laura Lee Junker's Raiding, Trading, & Feasting, and it's all about the Philippines' precolonial way of life), we precisely see a warrior with what we can conclude to be his personal weapon (the iron sword), and battle trophies (the bronze blade, as we didn't have bronze swords, then the enemies? skulls). Then there's the usual imported ceramics, etc. In summary, given the cultural context as elaborated, it appears to me that the kris was owned by whoever person was buried in that cave. As such, it's mostly likely locally produced. Attached Images

21st May 2011, 02:25 AM	#10
migueldiaz Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Manila, Phils. Posts: 1,042	Messrs. David, spunjer, AG Maisey, and kai, many thanks for your comments! Thanks most especially to Alan for the exhaustive commentary covering the various aspects of the discussion at hand. Coincidentally, I was reviewing the other day Alan's article on the origin of the keris. Dr. Dizon also saw this thread by the way. And he mentioned that we should also consider the situation at the time -- i.e., that ancient Filipinos, Indonesians, and Malaysians were all maritime people, and there was really no distinct boundaries amongst them. Being genetically and culturally close relatives, he added that these peoples freely shared metal technologies among them. On the subject kris, I also noticed that it was described that it appears that the blade's edge has more carbon content. Am mentioning this for whatever it is worth. Lorenz Attached Images

19th May 2011, 02:46 AM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Yes I've always wondered if the buda type of keris was the ancestor to all keris and kris (seen also in the stone work). From there they diverged on their separate paths according to the varying martial environments of the Malay world (Indonesia/Malaysia/Philippines).

19th May 2011, 05:28 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	This is a very interesting thread Miguel. Thanks so much for all the research. I am having a difficult time seeing this as anything but an Indonesian keris, in spite of the rectangular tang. The blade bears little resemblance to any other Philippines kris we have seen, but has much in common with early keris such as the blade shape and the carvings which look very much like a double puthut form at the base. There is also, i believe, record of early Indo Keris with square or rectangular tangs. The only thing that remotely resembles a Moro kris here is the tang which isn't very decisive IMO. Clearly trade was in full swing at these times as is evident from the presence of Chinese ceramics also present. So clearly it is possible that this was a blade gained in trade. Even as a traded blade it might very well have become a choice "A" object for the person buried. There is just no telling here. I would think that if these blades were prevalent in the area during this era that far more than this one single example would have turned up by now. Hardly enough evidence exists to form any opinion of the origin of this single blade let alone to completely reverse the generally accepted theory that the keris developed first in Java before making it's way to the Philippines. Even the evidence of a parallel development is lacking as this seems to be the only example of a "kris" from this time period in the Philippines. Where are all the other artifacts?

19th May 2011, 10:53 PM	#7
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	me and lorenz has been discussing this topic. i agree with you david that trading was prevalent at that point in time, but one must not omit the fact that at that time, indonesia and philippines as we know it, didn't exist, just a bunch of islands forming an archipelago from china to australia. it's also a possibility that this particular form of weapon was common in bohol, as it is in jawa. it's true that this is the only specimen, but as lorenz have mentioned, an old rusting iron was number eleven on the porcelain hunter's top ten list. with all the gold dagger handles that has been found, who's to say that there was a rusty iron, or an imprint anyway, left behind? kris or keris, wasn't as important to the visayans, or the northern mindanawans, as opposed to the javans, which has more relevance, therefore it was given more attention. as an analogy, if i'm standing on the beach looking at a wave with someone from the midwest, i see a nice barreling left point, while he sees rough water with a shark or two lurking below...

20th May 2011, 12:01 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	An interesting thread, and one that has opened up several avenues of discussion. 1)--- geographic origin of this blade in my opinion it is not Javanese nor Balinese ( I group these two places together because for much of the period under consideration they can be considered as closely related, if not part of the same area of political influence) I have never seen an early Javanese keris that had been forged without a gonjo. I have never seen any Javanese keris from any period that had a tang similar to the tang on the blade under discussion. Early Javanese tangs were more or less square in cross section; this tang has an oblong cross section. I have never seen a Jawa/Bali blade with a similar treatment to the sorsoran. Yes, in profile the notches in the sorsoran could perhaps be likened to a puthut, but likened only. I can see no suggestion of a puthut, only notches that would form an effective blade trap. The flat sided tang and forward weighted blade indicate that this blade was used primarily as a cutting weapon, not a thrusting weapon. Early Javanese keris were used as over-hand stabbing weapons, and developed into weapons used as short rapiers. In short, this blade simply does not look like a Javanese blade, early or otherwise. 2)--- did trade links exist between Jawa and other areas of Maritime South East Asia in the period 10th to 15th centuries CE. Yes, of course they did, and had for over 1000 years prior to the 15th century. (see Christie, J.W.) 3)--- where did the keris originate? The form first appeared during the Early Classical Period in Central Jawa, it developed to its modern form in East Jawa after 1000CE and prior to 1500CE. The expansion of Javanese trade during the period 10th to 13th centuries CE saw the keris, along with other Javanese produce introduced to other areas of Maritime South East Asia. The further expansion of trade and political influence under Majapahit to around 1500CE saw an intensification of Javanese influence and trade throughout Maritime South East Asia. This was the period when the keris spread into other areas. In some societies it remained very close to its original Javanese form; in others it developed a different form that was more suitable to local conditions. 4)--- the Candi Sukuh stele, and the other monumental representations of the keris at Candi Sukuh. Candi Sukuh dates from about 1437. It is by no means evidence of keris origin in Jawa, as there is ample evidence of the existence of the keris in Jawa that pre-dates Sukuh by several hundred years. Sukuh is a relatively late construction of this period. 5)--- the Knaud keris amongst academic researchers of the keris, there are many questions that surround the Knaud. We need to be very, very wary of using this keris as an example of anything, except perhaps the gullibility of European colonials.