A Very Old Kris

[migueldiaz]

another rectangular tang hole, and part of the tang can actually be seen on the specimen.

note: all these pics i'm posting are being cobbled from various sources, but i personally checked out the specimens at the museums, to find out the inferred tang shapes.

[migueldiaz]

this hilt is too crumpled and damaged. thus it was impossible to find out what the tang's shape was.

[migueldiaz]

this one has a circular hole where the tang passes.

to summarize, as far as these 10th to 13th century a.d. gold hilts are concerned, the vast majority would have inferred square or rectangular tangs.

[migueldiaz]

then a hundred or two hundred years later (given that this specimen is estimated to be from the 10th to the 15th century a.d.), we find the bohol kalis with a square tang.

to recap, it appears that for philippine blades we can trace a progression from a round tang (circa 500 b.c. to 100 b.c.), then to a hexagonal one (circa 0 a.d. to 950 a.d.), then finally to the square or rectangular tang (10th to 15th cent. a.d.), even up to now.

i'd just like to qualify that these are anecdotal evidences. and especially for the hexagonal tang (assuming it's really hexagonal -- and i'll try to view the actual specimen the next time i'm in cebu), i think it's too early to say that this tang shape persisted.

most probably it's a simple switch from a round tang, and then to the square or rectangular tang. but the thing is the square or rectangular tang appears to have come up even way earlier, as we've seen.

[David]

Miguel, thanks for all these diagrams and research. These gold hilts are indeed quite interesting and beautiful. However, from what i can see in the diagram you presented in post #15, these hilts clearly were not attached to the weapons that we consider to be kris today. Different types of weapons use different types of tangs for different reasons. Indonesian keris still use a round tang because it is a stabbing weapon, not the slashing weapon that the Moro kris developed into, so the stability that the rectangular tang offers along with the a sang-asang is not necessary. So i am not sure that we can use the evidence presented here to make a case for a evolution in these kalis forms from round to hexangular to square or rectangular tangs that we see in Moro kris since we are looking at completely different weapons.
It's fine to use the general terminology of "kalis" to describe all these weapons, but when you use the term in that way, all "Kris" might be "kalis", but clearly not all "kalis" are "kris".

[A. G. Maisey]

There are some interesting comments in this thread, but I'm not going to get too involved in it because I do not have the necessary cultural, societal nor historical knowledge specific to the matters being discussed to be able to make valid comments.

However, I will make this one comment:- in the Javanese keris the kembang kacang or sekar kacang, the "elephant's trunk", did have a definite symbolic meaning when it first appeared, which was in the Modern Keris, the form that appeared after the Keris Buda. Its origin was rooted in Hindu belief, nothing at all to do with elephants roaming around Jawa. It should be noted that both kembang kacang and sekar kacang are euphemisms.

How the kembang kacang may be interpreted in the societies to which the keris spread from its point of origin, I do not know, but I am reasonably confident that any such interpretations would have been generated within those societies, rather adopted from early Javanese society.

The later, although still early in terms of keris development, additions to the Javanese keris of singo barong, naga, or bomha held iconographic meanings which differed from the meaning and purpose of the original kembang kacang.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

However, I will make this one comment:- in the Javanese keris the kembang kacang or sekar kacang, the "elephant's trunk", did have a definite symbolic meaning when it first appeared, which was in the Modern Keris, the form that appeared after the Keris Buda. Its origin was rooted in Hindu belief, nothing at all to do with elephants roaming around Jawa. It should be noted that both kembang kacang and sekar kacang are euphemisms.

How the kembang kacang may be interpreted in the societies to which the keris spread from its point of origin, I do not know, but I am reasonably confident that any such interpretations would have been generated within those societies, rather adopted from early Javanese society.

The later, although still early in terms of keris development, additions to the Javanese keris of singo barong, naga, or bomha held iconographic meanings which differed from the meaning and purpose of the original kembang kacang.

Hello Alan, many thanks for the comments. It's always a pleasure and an edification to read your commentary.

With regard to those two distinctive features of kerises and krises (encircled in the attached pic, which pic I merely hastily snatched from the Internet), what would be the latest views on which century or centuries those first appeared?

Being a stranger to Indonesian kerises, I don't have any idea on these matters. Thus hope that you can shed more light on the subject. Thanks in advance.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

It's fine to use the general terminology of "kalis" to describe all these weapons, but when you use the term in that way, all "Kris" might be "kalis", but clearly not all "kalis" are "kris".

David, yes, agreed. Not all kalis are kris. And just to clarify, all of the kalises I'm presenting here are of the pre-kris variety. And so I can even concede that the Bohol kalis is still a kalis, and not a kris (yet), given the qualifications we have made on what defines a kris.

Originally Posted by David

Miguel, thanks for all these diagrams and research. These gold hilts are indeed quite interesting and beautiful. However, from what i can see in the diagram you presented in post #15, these hilts clearly were not attached to the weapons that we consider to be kris today. Different types of weapons use different types of tangs for different reasons. Indonesian keris still use a round tang because it is a stabbing weapon, not the slashing weapon that the Moro kris developed into, so the stability that the rectangular tang offers along with the asang-asang is not necessary. So i am not sure that we can use the evidence presented here to make a case for a evolution in these kalis forms from round to hexangular to square or rectangular tangs that we see in Moro kris since we are looking at completely different weapons.

Thanks for making all these observations. My only point was that as far as ancient kalises are concerned (that is, i'm not referring to krises as they have not been born yet during that time), we can see that very early on the tang quickly evolved from the round tang to the rectangular tang as early as the 10th to 13th century AD.

Thus it should not come as a surprise that the Bohol kalis (10th to 15th century AD) already sported the rectangular tang.

I also understand that all I've said somewhat invalidates a theory on Moro krises that goes like this:

1. all kerises (i.e., the Indonesian kind) have round tangs
2. said Javenese kerises are the ancestors of all kerises and krises
3. krises (i.e., the Moro kind) have rectangular tangs
4. krises came after the kerises
5. thus, the missing link between kerises and krises ought to be krises with round tangs.

However, as we've seen, the rectangular tang came about very early on, on kalises -- as early as 10th to 13th century AD.

And given that what I regard as the proto-kris (the Bohol kalis) also had the rectangular tang (as can be expected given the trend), then I think we can make an extrapolation, by saying that all krises from Day 1 had the rectangular tang.

Which leads us back to Ron's very old kris with a round tang that defied the trend. Well, I'm still scratching my head on that one. Can it be that the smith was Indonesian? Could the prematurely broken 'elephant trunk' be another sign that the smith was not that familiar with the finer points of making a Moro kris? Just thinking out loud ...

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

... However, from what i can see in the diagram you presented in post #15, these hilts clearly were not attached to the weapons that we consider to be kris today. Different types of weapons use different types of tangs for different reasons. Indonesian keris still use a round tang because it is a stabbing weapon, not the slashing weapon that the Moro kris developed into, so the stability that the rectangular tang offers along with the a sang-asang is not necessary. So i am not sure that we can use the evidence presented here to make a case for a evolution in these kalis forms from round to hexangular to square or rectangular tangs that we see in Moro kris since we are looking at completely different weapons.

Thanks again for the critique. 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.'

Actually all of those examples I posted have many many things in common:

1. all of them (except for a few Luzon plates from the Boxer Codex), are from the Visayas -- said region is the encircled portion on the map below;

2. within the Visayas, almost all of the examples I used are clustered on an area I marked with five 'x' in the map - thus, they share a common sub-culture;

3. as to their weapon types, all of them (except for the Bohol kalis) are: (a) very short, i.e., all of them are tiny hilts; (b) their blades appear to be all symmetrical and double-edged; and (c) as such they were all designed more for stabbing.

And though all designed for stabbing, the evolution from the round tang to a rectangular tang still happened. As to the impetus or motive for the transition to a rectangular tang, that I'm not sure of.

On a related matter, it might also interest others to know that some of those 10th to 13th century AD gold hilts have clay for its core inside, rather than wood. Perhaps as a ceremonial or dress dagger, sturdiness was not an issue, hence the use of clay sometimes.

And with regard to the early Iron Age (Argao, Cebu) dagger (500 BC to say 100 BC), there's a piece of cloth found wrapped its hexagonal tang. Would anybody have any idea on why a piece of cloth would be wrapped on the tang?

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Thanks again for the critique. 'As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.'

I'm not sure who is sharpening whom here, but you have certainly presented much food for thought.
I am certainly grateful for all this info on Visayan swords and daggers, but i do wonder just how much connection we can truly draw to Ron's kris that started this post or the Moro kris in general as we know it today. While i am not in a position to debate whether or not there is any real connection between your Visayan examples and the Moro kris, simply from observation the similarities are rather superficial. When we look at at Ron's sword we are able to draw very clear and solid connects to the Javanese and/or Balinese keris. These similarities are rather exacting, down to minute detail of the various features of these blades. We see in these early "archaic" Moro kris both a gonjo and a gandik. But even more we see most of the detailed feature that are contained in the diagram of Javanese keris that you posted in earlier in this thread. Clearly we see a developed kembang kacang (whether or not meant to be an elephant). We see a well developed double sogokan and greneng. So while i would not discount that Visayan swords may have had some influence on the development of the Moro kris, it is clear to my eyes at least that these early "archaic" Moro kris developed directly from the form of Javanese and/or Balinese keris. It's about so much more than the shape of the tang for me and i am afraid that all you have stated here has done little to invalidate the theory that the Moro kris is a direct development of the Javanese form. You have to look at the entire design of the keris/kris, not just the shape of the tang. I am afraid that i remain unconvinced that the Bohol kalis is the proto-type of the Moro Kris.