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

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

Again thanks Miguel for all the research. It seems to me that this dating from 10th-15th century is a bit wide. Have they been unable to refine this dating a bit given the artifacts found. I personally would find 10th C date unlikely, but could see 15th C date.

David, thanks too. The use of associated imported ceramics (Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.) does give very accurate periodization. But as you said, sometimes the time period indicated can be very wide.

Thus I asked Dr. Dizon earlier on what else can be done. He said that there's a US company, Beta Analytic, which does non-destructive dating of steel ("AMS" is the process as I recall). Since recycled iron can't be dated accurately, AMS instead dates the embedded carbon in the steel.

The downside is that it costs Usd 700. If only say 70 of us here can chip in Usd 10 each then the query on the date of the Visayan kris will be settled once and for all (i.e., as to which point within 10th to 15th C it belongs).

Or maybe I'll try requesting first the university to do it at their own cost, in aid of alleviating the miseries of krisophiles

Originally Posted by Spunjer

i thought i'd add this [laguna copperplate inscription] in the context of the artifacts posted above...

Spunjer, this is an excellent context you've added to the picture, i.e., the Luzon-Java connection as far back as the 9th to 10th century AD. As you also mentioned, the proper paradigm is to view the region as closely-knit groups (and not as compartmentalized entities).

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Miguel Diaz, I cannot disagree with anything you have presented. I am of the opinion that the blade under discussion here is a Philippine blade.

Alan, many thanks for your expert opinion! Your assessment surely counts a lot to us.

Thanks again to all. And if I (or anybody among us) can find related info, let's post it here please

[KuKulzA28]

I don't really have any expertise to add anything, but thanks for all the information and discussion! It really impresses me just how much culture and sophistication was in so many places before colonialism and imperialism... and the Philippines being such a cultural center... something I did not know, but am not surprised by. Learn something new everyday!

[kai]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

The downside is that it costs Usd 700. If only say 70 of us here can chip in Usd 10 each then the query on the date of the Visayan kris will be settled

Hello Lorenz, count me in!

AMS is a destructive method though. A bit of metal will have to be sacrificed and since the carbon content of iron/steel is low, maximum accuracy may not be feasible. Still it would be really nice to narrow down the age of this unique piece!

BTW, does Dr. Dizon possibly have a list of carbon-dated Philippine pieces?

Regards,
Kai

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by KuKulzA28

I don't really have any expertise to add anything, but thanks for all the information and discussion!

Thanks too, Vinny. We are all here to learn, that's for sure

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Lorenz, count me in! AMS is a destructive method though. A bit of metal will have to be sacrificed and since the carbon content of iron/steel is low, maximum accuracy may not be feasible. Still it would be really nice to narrow down the age of this unique piece! BTW, does Dr. Dizon possibly have a list of carbon-dated Philippine pieces?

Thanks, Kai! I'll let everybody know later what will be the university's response, as to them footing the bill. You're right about AMS - it is a destructive method. Regarding the list of carbon-dated pieces, I'll ask Dr. Dizon when I'll have the chance to talk to him again.

I actually visited him in his office earlier today. He showed me a 1973 publication by Karl Hutterer, entitled An Archeological Picture of a Pre-Spanish Cebuano Community. Excerpts can be seen below. At least one of the two blades appear to have been the one photographed in the earlier posts above.

Anyway, Dr. Dizon said that these blades in Hutterer's paper were dated to be from the 14th century AD. And what's particularly interesting for me here is that the blade likewise has that profile where we see a 'waist' (i.e., a narrowing down of the blade's width near the hilt, and 'bulging' of the width near the point).

[migueldiaz]

Still on the 'waisted' blade shape as found in Phil. archeological artifacts dating back from the 10th to 15th century, once again through the kindness of Dr. Bong Dizon we just got even more info to chew on.

The additional info comes from his book, Faces from Maitum. Maitum is located in Mindanao, and it's a very important archeological spot in Southeast Asia. For a brief background, please refer to this and to this.

Going straight to the point, once again we find a blade profile (per attached, and it's that of a spear, but which Dr. Dizon also said can be that of a dagger), that's waisted. And this time around, the blade is from A.D. 70 to 370 (or alternatively, from 5 B.C to A.D. 225).

Attached are the radiocarbon dating data (they are Greek to me, but perhaps some of us here in the forum can appreciate these stuff).

Would anybody have any idea why this ('waisted') blade shape persisted for at least about 1,500 years? What would be the advantages of such blade profile? It must have worked so well, such that it remained in vogue for such a very long time.

[A. G. Maisey]

According to Rawson this blade shape goes back a very long time and is a "common heritage of the Indo-Aryan peoples".

It is likely that it entered use in the Philippines from an Indian source, either directly, or indirectly..

Its mechanics of use are that in a blade designed for use as a cut weapon , it gives forward weight --- the khukri effect, in a blade designed for thrust it allows a broad wound for more effective hemorrhage, and easier extraction from the wound.

It has been in use for so long because it is a very good design.

[migueldiaz]

Thank you for the comments