A Very Old Kris

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

... the 'waisted' kalis blade, just like the Bohol kalis, is an ancient Phil. blade shape (but for sure, there's no exclusivity, as this blade shape is also found in many other cultures) ...

Just to add an example to the non-exclusivity of subject blade shape, here's a Nepalese blade that looks very similar (blade with a 'waist'). And it even has those triangular 'blade catcher'-shaped guards on both sides of the hilt.

But I'm sure nobody among us will claim that certain Nepalese blades are therefore related to the Southeast Asian keris-kris. And it's because we cannot analyze these things on a mere superficial level. I'm sure we are all in agreement on this point.

And so the blade shape is just the starting point. And we all look deeper -- trade routes, ancient religions which are the ones that bring forth design motifs, etc. To recap, I think there's no argument here at all

But hey, I still owe David that reply ...

PS - If I can get past this discussion on this 'very old kris', I'll also be starting another thread soon on blade forms found on stone carvings, statues, etc. And the pic below will be one of them.

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

But I'm sure nobody among us will claim that certain Nepalese blades are therefore related to the Southeast Asian keris-kris. And it's because we cannot analyze these things on a mere superficial level. I'm sure we are all in agreement on this point.

The commonly accepted wisdom is that the keris as we know it (asymmetrical blade, gonjo, gandik, greneng, etc.) originated in Jawa, but the basic design for the keris didn't just pop out of thin air. Other blades certainly influenced its design. It did not develop in a vacuum. The "modern" keris (Mojopahit) developed in a Hindu influenced empire whose cultural roots come from India. Nepal is right next to India and also a Hindu state influenced by India. So, while i hate to surprise you like this Lorenz, of course there is a possibility, maybe even a likelihood, that this Nepalese blade is related to the keris and perhaps a forerunner in design to what was to become the "modern" keris in Jawa in the Mojopahit (or before) period. The Javanese keris has a few differences in the details, the specifics that we have already been over many times in this thread. The Moro kris, which doesn't seem to arrive until at least a couple of centuries later (again, please show me a Moro kris with all features intact that is earlier than the 16th century) has these same exact details of design. So for me, given all the present evidence we have to examine, the Moro kris was developed based on the specific design elements of the "modern" Javanese keris. All these features in the Javanese keris were fully intact before they appeared on the Moro kris.
I am completely open to examining evidence to the contrary if and when it arrives. Still waiting...

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

The commonly accepted wisdom is that the keris as we know it (asymmetrical blade, gonjo, gandik, greneng, etc.) originated in Jawa, but the basic design for the keris didn't just pop out of thin air. Other blades certainly influenced its design. It did not develop in a vacuum. The "modern" keris (Mojopahit) developed in a Hindu influenced empire whose cultural roots come from India. Nepal is right next to India and also a Hindu state influenced by India. So, while i hate to surprise you like this Lorenz, of course there is a possibility, maybe even a likelihood, that this Nepalese blade is related to the keris and perhaps a forerunner in design to what was to become the "modern" keris in Jawa in the Mojopahit (or before) period. The Javanese keris has a few differences in the details, the specifics that we have already been over many times in this thread. The Moro kris, which doesn't seem to arrive until at least a couple of centuries later (again, please show me a Moro kris with all features intact that is earlier than the 16th century) has these same exact details of design. So for me, given all the present evidence we have to examine, the Moro kris was developed based on the specific design elements of the "modern" Javanese keris. All these features in the Javanese keris were fully intact before they appeared on the Moro kris.

Hi David. On the possible Nepali connection, I think that it can only be plausible if we can discover ancient Indian blades which remotely resemble kerises.

I can think of another illustration to visualize your scenario: let's imagine a figurative tree where the trunk is Indian Hinduism, the source of it all. Then there would be an older and lower branch and that would be Nepalese Hinduism. Then there would be a higher and younger other branch, and that would be Indonesian Hinduism (and a twig off this branch would be Philippine Hinduism, because we got our Hinduism by way of Indonesia).

Now to my mind if your hypothesis is to be plausible (that that Nepalese kris-like sword was derived from India, in the same manner that the Javanese keris had its ultimate roots from India), we should see lots of examples of Indian proto-kerises in ancient stone carvings, metal statues, etc.

But so far I haven't seen any (and I've been looking, too). So at the moment, I think it's just purely coincidental that that Nepalese blade resembles the Southeast Asian kris.

But as you also said, let's all continue to look for evidences, to either prove or disprove the theory, thereby continuing to make progress.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

I am completely open to examining evidence to the contrary if and when it arrives. Still waiting...

David, I did not mean to keep you waiting. And we only have Gustav to blame, for coming up with those distractions! Just kidding, Gustav.

I can perhaps come up with other evidences, but unless we have a resolution on the definition of a keris-kris, then we will not really be resolving anything.

So I think it's absolutely necessary that we first go back to the topic of defining what a keris or kris is. And allow me to rehash that animal kingdom and blade kingdom analogy. Very quickly, once more (and my animal kingdom sub-classification is not meant to be taxonomically sound):

Birds & insects = Arrows, spears, & other projectiles

Aquatic animals & fishes = Shields of all sorts

Reptiles = Axes, clubs, maces, etc.

Amphibians = long swords

Mammals = shorts swords, daggers, & knives

- Mammal sub-group A (rodents, marsupials, etc.): blades of certain types

- Mammal sub-group B (primates, pachyderms, etc.): blades of another type

Now, the last sub-group B is still a big ball of wax. And since we all want to segregate further the 'primates' from within that sub-group, we have to make a narrower definition of what primates are.

My definition of what primates are: 'somewhat man-like in anatomy, and thus does not definitely look like an elephant, or a giraffe, or a dolphin, etc.' Hence the result of my definition of primates would be all of the guys below.

Now to my mind, you are defining what a primate is somewhat strictly, such that you will end up with just the gorilla, marmoset, and the chimp.

But this is not to say nor imply that since in reality all of the animals below are primates, then you are wrong As mentioned, this is just an illustration and all illustrations fail at some point.

Ok, moving now directly to the kris-keris world -- my definition of what a Phil. kris is: 'often has wavy blades, whether symmetrical or assymetrical, and/or is assymetrical and has at least one triangular 'blade catch' on the guard, and it does not matter at all whether the guard is separate from the blade or not'. Thus to me all of the blades below would be krises.

Now in my understanding of your definition, only the Javanese, Malay, and Sulawesi krises in the illustration below are real krises.

After the 1930s (if Cato is right), most of the Moro krises did not have separate guards anymore. Now let me ask you please, are those latter Moro krises not real krises anymore?

Also, I can practically guarantee that in the entire Philippines, once they see a wavy-bladed weapon, it will be regarded locally as a kris in the fullest sense of the word.

And once anybody sees that Bohol kalis, they will also regard that as a kris.

In summary, I now think that we all have to accept the fact that Philippines has a more liberal definition on what a kris or keris is (and that would be the whole caboodle below).

I would even venture to say that if we ask an Indonesian or a Malaysian and show them the Luzon and Visayan krises below, they would most likely say that it's those are krises all right, but they are the Philippine varieties.

Thus, in your definition of a kris or keris, wouldn't that be like defining the classical Indo-Malaysian keris more than anything else?

Hey, I have to leave now as I'm meeting in a few minutes 'Nacho' and Nonoy Tan. In fact I'll be late already but I'll have a good excuse!

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Ok, moving now directly to the kris-keris world -- my definition of what a Phil. kris is: 'often has wavy blades, whether symmetrical or assymetrical, and/or is assymetrical and has at least one triangular 'blade catch' on the guard, and it does not matter at all whether the guard is separate from the blade or not'. Thus to me all of the blades below would be krises.

Then very clearly, for you, all of the "kris" in your keris/kris/primate illustration are kris. For me they clearly are not. For many others they also are not.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Now in my understanding of your definition, only the Javanese, Malay, and Sulawesi krises in the illustration below are real krises.

This is not my definition. It is the commonly accepted one. And no, i would consider the Moro kris in your illustration a real kris. It has all the features required.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

After the 1930s (if Cato is right), most of the Moro krises did not have separate guards anymore. Now let me ask you please, are those latter Moro krises not real krises anymore?

I never maintained that the gonjo must be a separate one. The gonjo is there whether it is a separte piece or not. There are also gonjo iras keris in the Indonesian world. Most often the gonjo iras is delineated by an incised line (both in the Indonesian and Moro world, but not always). But the feature is there whether separate from the main body of the blade or not.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Also, I can practically guarantee that in the entire Philippines, once they see a wavy-bladed weapon, it will be regarded locally as a kris in the fullest sense of the word.
And once anybody sees that Bohol kalis, they will also regard that as a kris.
In summary, I now think that we all have to accept the fact that Philippines has a more liberal definition on what a kris or keris is (and that would be the whole caboodle below).

Can you really guarantee this? Frankly i doubt that. I am willing to bet that in different areas of the Philippines the locals have very different traditional names for these blades that don't have all the required features. In fact, the Visayan and Luzon blades that you show here don't even have the limited features that you yourself have set up as requirements to be a "real" kris. Simply having a wavy blade does not make that blade a kris. You may be right that most Filipinos have a more liberal definition of what a kris is, but it is completely unimportant what they might believe a keris is as this is an Indonesian weapon with rather strict parameters for it's definition. It is also very clear to me at least that it is these exact parameter of design which define the Moro kris and that these parameters have directly evolves from the Javanese keris, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

I would even venture to say that if we ask an Indonesian or a Malaysian and show them the Luzon and Visayan krises below, they would most likely say that it's those are krises all right, but they are the Philippine varieties.

Only if you ask Indonesians that don't know the first thing about keris. Show them a Moro kris and they will likely answer differently.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Thus, in your definition of a kris or keris, wouldn't that be like defining the classical Indo-Malaysian keris more than anything else?

Again, the definition that i am using for a keris is not my definition. It is commonly accepted with just about every knowledgable person that i know who defines a keris. I have extended that definition to Moro kris only. Again, i do not consider these Visayan and Luzon blades kris. They have no other feature to link them to keris other than the wavy blade. And a wavy blade is not even a requirement for a keris and in fact only about one third of all Indonesian keris have wavy blades. I believe that percentage may be higher in Moro kris, but i have never seen an accounting of this. It seems though that it is the reverse with Moro kris, two thirds wavy, one third straight.

[kai]

Hello Lorenz,

Great to have you back - am looking forward to hearing some more thought-provoking discoveries from your travels!

I also believe that those Visayan/Luzon "kris" don't qualify as a genuine keris/kris/kalis.

The problem with comparing culture (or cultural artifacts) with evolution is that while cultures may (d)evolve they also, in many cases, receive important influences from other cultures. You may be able to specify where such an outside influence came from but this is very different from a clear-cut ancestor/descendant relationship that dominates biological evolution: For example, there seems little doubt that the Visayan/Luzon kris is based on the (Moro) keris/kris. Usually the blades are locally crafted but also some Moro blades got recycled (trade/battle pick-ups); however, the slender and wavy blade profile (which doesn't define a keris but rather is just what an outsider might consider as "cool") was obviously transplanted into the common Visayan or Luzon weapon styles (crossguard, hilt, scabbard). It is not the "whole package" with the essential associated baggage of beliefs and concepts that got accepted within another culture (and possibly happens later to be developed further).

I also would like to point out that you can't utilize the contemporary concept/definition of a word to discuss cultural developments that happened many centuries earlier, especially if you ask "cultural outsiders" like Christian Filipinos what they happen to use the word kris for, even if this has been going on for quite some time.

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

I also would like to point out that you can't utilize the contemporary concept/definition of a word to discuss cultural developments that happened many centuries earlier, especially if you ask "cultural outsiders" like Christian Filipinos what they happen to use the word kris for, even if this has been going on for quite some time.

This is a very good point Kai. This is also relevant to Lorenz's question of how the average Indonesian might view or describe keris/kris. We collectors, whether native to the region or Western, are much more in tune with these distinctions. The average Indonesian these days has little interest in keris and how they respond and/or choose to name or describe these blades has little relevance to historical accuracy. This makes even field research extremely difficult and i am afraid that finding those "old" guys out there who actually still know something about all this is becoming next to impossible.

[migueldiaz]

David & Kai, I easily get distracted and that's the reason why I'm posting here only now. And this time that distraction came in the form of a Weird Philippine sword/bolo. And so that's my lame excuse But seriously, please allow me to first accurately understand the points you elaborate above, before I make a reply. Thank you.

[xasterix]

Necro-ing this thread because I realized I have a kris with a cylindrical tang. Comments and assessments are welcome.

My notes on the matter:

1. The piece has 18.3in blade, measures 23.5in overall.

2. I removed the galgal near the tang (without meaning to reset) because the fragments were falling off. I decided to clear away all galgal near the blade base to secure the blade with easily-removable clear epoxy. It was an unexpected but fortunate surprise that I was able to see the upper part of the tang in the process.

3. Upon closer inspection, the asang-asang seemed to be retrofitted at a later date; the area under it did not have indentations for an asang at all, meaning the kris was built without an asang in mind.

4. The exposed tang is cylindrical, it had no angles (circular). Because of this feature, I believe (also based on the accumulated discussion in this thread andwith other collectors) is that this piece may be pre-1700 and fit into the "missing link" category.

5. The throat of the pommel was originally wrapped with torn copper wire; I removed it and replaced with hemp solidified by clear epoxy, to secure the pommel part.

6. I'm well aware that my aggressive restoration has reduced the value of the piece; however I've always been of the thought of striking a balance between a piece's provenance and future-proofing it. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea (especially of museums/provenance-particular collectors), but it is what it is. This piece is my lineage's pusaka already after all.

7. I'm attaching a comparative picture with 2 other pieces- a 23-in blade late 1800s kalis, and another archaic kris with 19.2in blade, which I think is late 1700s or early 1800s.