Another Moro Barung on ebay:)

[jarhead]

Nice historic link, how did you find it?[/QUOTE]


it was once posted some time ago by a guy named spunjer under Moro weapons. . .

[Rick]

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 ?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Rick

So does this mean that Cato's 1930's seperate gangya guideline is out the window ?

Nah, it's just a rule of thumb that Moro kris with separate gangya will be usually pre-1930's. There are some later examples - haven't seen any of these though (except Indonesian pieces).

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

[Battara]

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.

[kai]

Hello Jose,

I'm wondering if the kris in question is a transitional piece.

That's apparently what Zel was implying above - would love to hear him discussing the reasons for his assertion.

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

AFAIK post-1930s luk vary quite a bit - so I'd be weary to use them to argue a pre-1930s origin...

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.

BTW, wasn't it Stone bringing up this issue? (Hadn't time to check with the local library copy...)

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.

I think you're mixing at least 2 separate issues here:
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

[punal]

Photos.