A Very Old Kris

[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.

[Ian]

Hi Xas,

Another lovely piece from your growing collection. Excellent blade with characteristics of pre-1800 manufacture. Whether pre-1700 is difficult to know, but the circular tang might suggest that. Perhaps carbon dating of the ivory pommel might help, but the pommel could have been added later or the part of the tusk from which the pommel came may have predated the animal's death by several decades.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Ian

Hi Xas,


Another lovely piece from your growing collection. Excellent blade with characteristics of pre-1800 manufacture. Whether pre-1700 is difficult to know, but the circular tang might suggest that. Perhaps carbon dating of the ivory pommel might help, but the pommel could have been added later or the part of the tusk from which the pommel came may have predated the animal's death by several decades.

Thanks for the kind words Ian! I'm also on the fence just what percentage of the hilt is original. That's the tricky part about ascertaining the age estimate, I guess- different parts may have different ages, especially among the Moro as they were no strangers to repairing and maintaining their pusaka blades throughout the ages. Although I've no doubt that the blade would be the oldest part of this piece.