My Maguindanao Kris

[David]

Originally Posted by milandro

No the ganja is not separated.

Can you confirm this one way or the other. To me i see a dark incised line on one side of the first hole in the "greneng" area, but it does not seem to continue on the other side of the hole. Close-ups of the area would be helpful.

[Battara]

I'll agree with Ian, with one addition - at the mounts appear a little more recent that that, and might even be later Maranao (Marawi) made mounts on this Maguindanao piece.

[milandro]

Thank you all!


The " cutting" line appears to go through the last hole too, but this may be completely vestigial (I will ad up a picture at some point). Certainly cannot figure how to detach it , and the hilt is firm in place. So, I'd go with a vestigial line.

If this was made into two different pieces fitting it together with such a precision would have been a work of art in itself.

While researching this kris, on the forum and elsewhere, I found a large number of krises such as mine (or so they look to me) all indicated as Maguindanao from several auction houses (although the style of the picture taking appears to be very similar).

Most if not all seemed (to me) to have some age to it and showed what appears to be a vestigial incision of the ganja. (am I at liberty to post pictures of these krises since all the auctions seem to have been completed?)

I have seen that on previous thread here too there is a debate on the meaning of this cutting line ( real or vestigial) in terms of timeline.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22272

In this one there was a blade without even a vestigial line and it was probably bought in the '30


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...separate+ganja


Whichever the period when my kris was made, it wasn't made yesterday. I am very happy with my kris anyway, whether this was made early in the 20th century or later in the same century.

[xasterix]

Nice kris! I agree that it's likely Maguindanao. Unique hilt too.

I've seen around 2 archaic krises that don't have a separate gangya, both are in the Philippines. They both have round tangs. They've made me think about the widely accepted assumption that krises with separate gangya are automatically older. I jokingly call these as "mono-gangya" krises.

There are also kalis (Sulu) being made nowadays that still have the separate gangya feature; they retained that knowledge even without outside intervention or Internet access, from what I understand.

Of course I'll need more samples (and preferably disassembled archaic ones with mono-gangya) to prove this hypothesis that separate-gangya krises aren't necessarily older, but it's an interesting thing to consider, IMHO.

[David]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Nice kris! I agree that it's likely Maguindanao. Unique hilt too.

I've seen around 2 archaic krises that don't have a separate gangya, both are in the Philippines. They both have round tangs. They've made me think about the widely accepted assumption that krises with separate gangya are automatically older. I jokingly call these as "mono-gangya" krises.

There are also kalis (Sulu) being made nowadays that still have the separate gangya feature; they retained that knowledge even without outside intervention or Internet access, from what I understand.

Of course I'll need more samples (and preferably disassembled archaic ones with mono-gangya) to prove this hypothesis that separate-gangya krises aren't necessarily older, but it's an interesting thing to consider, IMHO.

As they say (whoever "they" are ), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by David

As they say (whoever "they" are ), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide.

Point taken and agreed on sir.

I have a trick to check if it's really separate gangya...I aim a heat gun around 4 inches above the line. After around 15 seconds at 400 Celsius setting, the galgal should start to melt, and if it's a 2-part kris, you'll see a telltale sign from the line. Either liquefied black ooze, or in other cases smoke (for those that only had minimal adhesive placed).

There's always the risk of melting the adhesive at the hilt with this tactic, that's why I keep it at 15 seconds tops (usually it takes 30-70 seconds for the hilt's adhesive to wear off in my experience).

[kai]

I have a trick to check if it's really separate gangya...I aim a heat gun around 4 inches above the line. After around 15 seconds at 400 Celsius setting, the galgal should start to melt, and if it's a 2-part kris, you'll see a telltale sign from the line. Either liquefied black ooze, or in other cases smoke (for those that only had minimal adhesive placed).

There's always the risk of melting the adhesive at the hilt with this tactic, that's why I keep it at 15 seconds tops (usually it takes 30-70 seconds for the hilt's adhesive to wear off in my experience).

Ray raises a really interesting point here though: Most Moro kris - even those with a near perfect fit that hardly leaves any visible line - do seem to have been additionally secured by galgal (natural resin mix). This is not traditionally done in any Indonesian keris culture that I'm aware of - not sure about Malay keris sundang though?

In worn, old blades, resin and nowadays often epoxy have been utilized to fill gaps that developed by material loss and can't be readily improved during blade maintenance/restoration.

Regards,
Kai

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by milandro

Thank you all!


The " cutting" line appears to go through the last hole too, but this may be completely vestigial (I will ad up a picture at some point). Certainly cannot figure how to detach it , and the hilt is firm in place. So, I'd go with a vestigial line.

If this was made into two different pieces fitting it together with such a precision would have been a work of art in itself.

While researching this kris, on the forum and elsewhere, I found a large number of krises such as mine (or so they look to me) all indicated as Maguindanao from several auction houses (although the style of the picture taking appears to be very similar).

Most if not all seemed (to me) to have some age to it and showed what appears to be a vestigial incision of the ganja. (am I at liberty to post pictures of these krises since all the auctions seem to have been completed?)

I have seen that on previous thread here too there is a debate on the meaning of this cutting line ( real or vestigial) in terms of timeline.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=22272

In this one there was a blade without even a vestigial line and it was probably bought in the '30


http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...separate+ganja


Whichever the period when my kris was made, it wasn't made yesterday. I am very happy with my kris anyway, whether this was made early in the 20th century or later in the same century.

In my limited knowledge I think the blade was made either late 1800s or early 1900s, because the features of mid-century to postwar are different. Th e pommel seems original, and had something (probably metal clad) placed on it before. The wood core of the hilt may also be original (we won't know unless it's disassembled unfortunately), but the metal clad (ferrules, rattan) may be later-era, probably quarter to mid-century. Overall nice kris, I think it's made for battle...I'm guessing the blade is the rigid and non-flexible (or minimum flexible) type.

[milandro]

Originally Posted by xasterix

.... Overall nice kris, I think it's made for battle...I'm guessing the blade is the rigid and non-flexible (or minimum flexible) type.

Thanks.

Absolutely rigid blade and , I too have the feeling this is a Kris which wasn't meant to be used for decorative purposes. It is still very sharp and one has to handle it with care or you will quickly notice it.

Given the weight and the length of this weapon, this would have been certainly wilded by someone whom knew what to do with it and had the necessary body mass and height.

[kino]

Originally Posted by milandro

Thank you all!


The " cutting" line appears to go through the last hole too, but this may be completely vestigial (I will ad up a picture at some point). Certainly cannot figure how to detach it , and the hilt is firm in place. So, I'd go with a vestigial line.

I would refrain from taking it apart just to find out if has a separate ganya. It’s difficult to put it back together properly.

Have you tried pouring hot water on it, sometimes that would reveal the welding pattern on the blade and ganya. As an alternative, warm household vinegar.

Welding pattern will differ (in my experience), with the blade proper and ganya.

[kai]

I agree with Albert that reading the grain of the metal is the least intrusive approach to ascertain a separate katik/gangya (in most kris blades).

It's usually not necessary to fully clean the blade or even do a gentle polish (if only a window across the line). A gentle etch with hot water or some weak acid often enough does the trick. A good magnifying glass (10x loupe) is one of the best investments for avid collectors.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Milandro,

(am I at liberty to post pictures of these krises since all the auctions seem to have been completed?)

Yes, sold items are fair game! (Keep in mind that unsold ePray & Co. items might get re-listed soon.)

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Thanks, kai. Milandro, I missed your question. Kai is right, any item that has been definitely sold and is not up for resale can be discussed here and pictures posted.

[Ian]

Milandro.

I took one of your pics, cropped and enlarged it, and rotated the pic to orient the gangya horizontally (as we usually view it). This is a good quality picture to consider whether the gangya is separate. The red arrows on the right indicate two areas that have been filed similarly. The top one is clearly not detached, so the bottom one is consistent with it also not being detached (although it may still be). The red circle on the left highlights the down-turned line that may be engraved or a line of separation. To my eyes it does not appear to pass through all structures, and is therefore not a line of separation, although cleaning off some of the oxidation within the small circular area (that a line of separation would have to pass through) would give you a definitive answer. Just some rolled up 220 grit sandpaper worked around in there would be sufficient to get a better look inside that drilled hole. You might also look to see if the lines on each side meet the greneng in the same place.
.

[David]

Originally Posted by Battara

I'll agree with Ian, with one addition - at the mounts appear a little more recent that that, and might even be later Maranao (Marawi) made mounts on this Maguindanao piece.

I think i know what you mean by this José. The mounts appear to be post WWII to me, especially the one closest to the pommel. There may well have been added later.