![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 478
|
![]() Quote:
Nice historic link, how did you find it? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4
|
![]()
Nice historic link, how did you find it?[/QUOTE]
it was once posted some time ago by a guy named spunjer under Moro weapons. . . ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,336
|
![]()
Well , that pushes the integral gangya back to at least 1906 if we are to believe the info on the site .
Another thing that is pushed back some more is the sharper corners on the seki(sp?) which I had equated more with the mid 20thC. era . Interesting .......... ![]() So does this mean that Cato's 1930's seperate gangya guideline is out the window ? Or are these two kalis just anomalies ? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]() Quote:
That doesn't imply that kris with integral gangya are necessarily later than 1930 (although many are). Obviously, there must have been a transition phase during which both types were produced - possibly about 1900-1930? Some examples may be late 19th century. I wouldn't be too surprised if there even were a few older oddballs with integral gangya. After all, an integral gangya isn't too uncommon in keris Bugis - so it's not a new invention and the concept will have been known to Moro panday well before the 20th c. Regards, Kai |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,272
|
![]()
I'm wondering if the kris in question is a transitional piece. The luk on it are sharp, yes, but not as sharp and pointed as those I have seen on post-1930s krises which have very sharp points (like the one on my head
![]() Regarding the separable ganga issue, I haven't seen much evidence yet to alter Cato's thesis other than there may be exeptions to the rule in non-separable kris before 1900. Certainly the craftmanship used on earlier kris is unnecessary for later kris post-1930 when guns were even more plentiful than before. It would certainly cost more money to create a separable ganga especially when the demand for kris as an everyday weapon drops in later years. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,255
|
![]()
Hello Jose,
Quote:
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Apparently it wasn't uncommon to utilize kris in warfare/resurgence attacks well into the 1970s. However, one could argue that an integral gangya will be even stronger than the traditional one - so I don't think the lack of martial use (wether assumed or real) is a convincing reason for the different gangya construction. Economic reasons may be more prevalent although I'd expect the more well-off patrons to continue favoring the traditional version... ![]() Cato seems to imply that traditional forging skills/traditions got lost during about the same period but are there any convincing reasons for such a hypothesis? Is it possible that the successful US invasion let to an landslide loss of the recognition of talismanic/mystic properties of a blade? I doubt this, too, but would like to hear people with better knowledge of Filipino and, especially, Moro beliefs/customs/history to discuss pros and cons! Regards, Kai |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 91
|
![]()
Photos.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|