Dating the 3 identifiable ages of the Moro Kris ?

MABAGANI · 6th February 2005, 04:16 PM

No, the sheath does not fit and not particularly garab in form, the hilt is actually similar to one of Vandoo's and Labantayo's Visayan kris from old threads, but with this keris/kris the hilt nor the scabbard fit, they look like they were just matched at a later point. Strange about the "dagger", the thickness of its tang does not leave room for the guard which looks like its missing in form but may have been intentionally made that way. IMHO, the type seems Brunei to me which makes sense if they were introducing them into Sulu, Mindanao, the Visayas and Luzon, noting Brunei's early connection to the Moros of Manila and the Brunei's later alliances with the Mindanao and Sulu sultanates in their struggle to control the Visayas. "If" this is in fact an early prototype keris/kris it would be safe to push the origin dates to around early/mid 16th century, where written accounts can be found about Brunei and their native dagger/keris?, this leaves approximately a century to the era of Buisan and Kudrat, for the keris to kris to develop into a sword or what we call the archaic type kris, when convergence in faith and kris type can be found among the Moro regions.
Again if this doesn't fly, we could always fall back on an alien origin...

Federico · 6th February 2005, 11:22 PM

I will be the first to admit that provenance, particularly regarding this era, is shaky ground at the best. But I feel if we adopt an cultural-anthropological frame-work of analysis, combing provenanced artifacts, cross-referenced with historical research, and all that cross-referenced to modern salvage-anthropological interviews with living members or ancestors from the culture, we can get closer than only doing one part. So many of the old (and many new) researchers only combined one, or at best two aspects. Then again, the amount of actual academic research done on weaponry is rare (how many of the books we collect and read are merely made but laymen such as ourselves operating in the dark). But I can hardly think of any, especially considering Moro weaponry, that combined all three. However, I still feel provenance, in the very least time and location of collection (something which most Western museum collections can provide as many were made under the impetus of government surveys of the regions), can provide us a starting date for when the archaic form first appeared. What the impetus, and how it spread then becomes part of theoretical interpretation, but a time of collection gives us a date from where to start. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the case (I know this is part of the debate amongst many history students) that certain information just does not plain exist in record. So if we have to eliminate pieces as improperly provenanced, that is a sad but necessary fact. And, well it is possible without a time machine, the raw data is just non-existant for anything conclusive to be made. That being the case, then we have to rely on what we have, and possibly just consign ourselves to never knowing for sure. However, considering the lack of academic sholarship in the field, as well as the countless number of collections that have not properly been accessed in relation to the subject, I refuse to believe that we cannot learn at least something (if only to say that for sure these pieces existed before X date) that we currently do not know. Anyways, whenever one considers a primary source (be it a catalog card of an artifact, an diary of a period observer, etc...) there are many more factors that can be learned, than what is explicitly said. Often, what is explicitly said may in fact be more mis-leading than what can be learned when the account is taken into larger context. As such, it is only through peer review of our research that we can ever hope to move forward, and ascertain the quality of the research/theories being done. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems many are more eager to move forward, regardless of the actual merit of the theory/research, that any attempt at objectivity is resisted.

Anyways, beyond this vague diatribe on the process of research, I cannot help but suspect that we will need to divide further the "archaic" kris category. I suspect with my own questionable example, that the change to cutting kris from keris, was the first change with other features, such as the rectangular tang, coming later (again without provenance this is just a guess). From the mere handling of my own kris, I have found blade rotation in the hilt when cutting to be a problem. Perhaps the features we so attribute to the kris, such as rectangular tang, baca-baca, were not attempts to secure the blade to the hilt from falling out, but rather to prevent blade rotation when cutting. If barong and kampilan are secure enough with just pitch alone, why the extra security in the kris? Anyways, perhaps the tang shape is a pertinent clue in marking the progression of kris evolution (round, semi-rounded, to full rectangular), it would be interesting to see what provenance research would reveal. Perhaps, Leaf was right in his assertion that the archaic style, was in fact a regional variation and not a temporal variation (though oral history would seem not to support this theory). Anyways, I know my own archaic version does not handle like a more modern kris. It is definitely more comfortable cutting vs. thrusting, however it behaves more like a barong in feel/mechanics of the cut. Anyways, I have been very interested in the Brunei connection to this form of kris. Aside from the mysterious Alan Maissey kris, do we have any other Brunei kris attributable to this style? In general, until that kris, all the Brunei keris I have seen have been, well keris. Anyways, as Scott notes in his work Barangay, Spanish observers observed the keris in the southern islands, middle islands, and Islamic parts of Northern islands in the 16th/17th centuries. Does this imply a earlier introduction of the keris style prior to Islam? Perhaps, but there has been some argument made that Visayas bore more Islamic elements during this time, than has been previously given to them. Also of note, Scott notes, that the keris in Visayas were largely crude in comparisson the keris being made in Mindanao. Early attempts at mimickry? Kudarat's appeal to Visayan datus to join him and throw off Spain, during his reign suggests that even by his day there was some form of remembered cultural commonality stll between the Visayas and Moro groups. Is this commonality from pre-Islamic roots, or were there proto-Islamic inroads into the Visayas, that were just not established to the degree of the Southern Islands on first Spanish contact. As such, the theory of keris traveling with Islam, could be defendable. But then again, this is just speculation.

MABAGANI · 10th February 2005, 10:15 PM

I started reading through Majul's "Muslims in The Philippines" again, interestingly at the end he writes about the interconnections between Brunei, Sulu, the Maranao, Iranun and Maguindanao including the era of Buisan and Kudrat, also states the Brunei Sultanate was the oldest in relation to their ties by marriage.

6th February 2005, 04:16 PM	#1
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	No, the sheath does not fit and not particularly garab in form, the hilt is actually similar to one of Vandoo's and Labantayo's Visayan kris from old threads, but with this keris/kris the hilt nor the scabbard fit, they look like they were just matched at a later point. Strange about the "dagger", the thickness of its tang does not leave room for the guard which looks like its missing in form but may have been intentionally made that way. IMHO, the type seems Brunei to me which makes sense if they were introducing them into Sulu, Mindanao, the Visayas and Luzon, noting Brunei's early connection to the Moros of Manila and the Brunei's later alliances with the Mindanao and Sulu sultanates in their struggle to control the Visayas. "If" this is in fact an early prototype keris/kris it would be safe to push the origin dates to around early/mid 16th century, where written accounts can be found about Brunei and their native dagger/keris?, this leaves approximately a century to the era of Buisan and Kudrat, for the keris to kris to develop into a sword or what we call the archaic type kris, when convergence in faith and kris type can be found among the Moro regions. Again if this doesn't fly, we could always fall back on an alien origin... Last edited by MABAGANI; 6th February 2005 at 04:51 PM.

6th February 2005, 11:22 PM	#2
Federico Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA Posts: 312	I will be the first to admit that provenance, particularly regarding this era, is shaky ground at the best. But I feel if we adopt an cultural-anthropological frame-work of analysis, combing provenanced artifacts, cross-referenced with historical research, and all that cross-referenced to modern salvage-anthropological interviews with living members or ancestors from the culture, we can get closer than only doing one part. So many of the old (and many new) researchers only combined one, or at best two aspects. Then again, the amount of actual academic research done on weaponry is rare (how many of the books we collect and read are merely made but laymen such as ourselves operating in the dark). But I can hardly think of any, especially considering Moro weaponry, that combined all three. However, I still feel provenance, in the very least time and location of collection (something which most Western museum collections can provide as many were made under the impetus of government surveys of the regions), can provide us a starting date for when the archaic form first appeared. What the impetus, and how it spread then becomes part of theoretical interpretation, but a time of collection gives us a date from where to start. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the case (I know this is part of the debate amongst many history students) that certain information just does not plain exist in record. So if we have to eliminate pieces as improperly provenanced, that is a sad but necessary fact. And, well it is possible without a time machine, the raw data is just non-existant for anything conclusive to be made. That being the case, then we have to rely on what we have, and possibly just consign ourselves to never knowing for sure. However, considering the lack of academic sholarship in the field, as well as the countless number of collections that have not properly been accessed in relation to the subject, I refuse to believe that we cannot learn at least something (if only to say that for sure these pieces existed before X date) that we currently do not know. Anyways, whenever one considers a primary source (be it a catalog card of an artifact, an diary of a period observer, etc...) there are many more factors that can be learned, than what is explicitly said. Often, what is explicitly said may in fact be more mis-leading than what can be learned when the account is taken into larger context. As such, it is only through peer review of our research that we can ever hope to move forward, and ascertain the quality of the research/theories being done. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems many are more eager to move forward, regardless of the actual merit of the theory/research, that any attempt at objectivity is resisted. Anyways, beyond this vague diatribe on the process of research, I cannot help but suspect that we will need to divide further the "archaic" kris category. I suspect with my own questionable example, that the change to cutting kris from keris, was the first change with other features, such as the rectangular tang, coming later (again without provenance this is just a guess). From the mere handling of my own kris, I have found blade rotation in the hilt when cutting to be a problem. Perhaps the features we so attribute to the kris, such as rectangular tang, baca-baca, were not attempts to secure the blade to the hilt from falling out, but rather to prevent blade rotation when cutting. If barong and kampilan are secure enough with just pitch alone, why the extra security in the kris? Anyways, perhaps the tang shape is a pertinent clue in marking the progression of kris evolution (round, semi-rounded, to full rectangular), it would be interesting to see what provenance research would reveal. Perhaps, Leaf was right in his assertion that the archaic style, was in fact a regional variation and not a temporal variation (though oral history would seem not to support this theory). Anyways, I know my own archaic version does not handle like a more modern kris. It is definitely more comfortable cutting vs. thrusting, however it behaves more like a barong in feel/mechanics of the cut. Anyways, I have been very interested in the Brunei connection to this form of kris. Aside from the mysterious Alan Maissey kris, do we have any other Brunei kris attributable to this style? In general, until that kris, all the Brunei keris I have seen have been, well keris. Anyways, as Scott notes in his work Barangay, Spanish observers observed the keris in the southern islands, middle islands, and Islamic parts of Northern islands in the 16th/17th centuries. Does this imply a earlier introduction of the keris style prior to Islam? Perhaps, but there has been some argument made that Visayas bore more Islamic elements during this time, than has been previously given to them. Also of note, Scott notes, that the keris in Visayas were largely crude in comparisson the keris being made in Mindanao. Early attempts at mimickry? Kudarat's appeal to Visayan datus to join him and throw off Spain, during his reign suggests that even by his day there was some form of remembered cultural commonality stll between the Visayas and Moro groups. Is this commonality from pre-Islamic roots, or were there proto-Islamic inroads into the Visayas, that were just not established to the degree of the Southern Islands on first Spanish contact. As such, the theory of keris traveling with Islam, could be defendable. But then again, this is just speculation.

10th February 2005, 10:15 PM	#3
MABAGANI Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 221	I started reading through Majul's "Muslims in The Philippines" again, interestingly at the end he writes about the interconnections between Brunei, Sulu, the Maranao, Iranun and Maguindanao including the era of Buisan and Kudrat, also states the Brunei Sultanate was the oldest in relation to their ties by marriage.