Interesting Kris for comments

[Bill M]

I am quite curious about it. Indo / Moro?

[carlos]

BEAUTIFUL KRIS!! IS FROM BORNEO?

CONGRATULATIONS FOR THIS PIECE
CARLOS

[Bill]

Very interesting kris, I don't recall seeing a straight blade "18thC" before. The blade tip seems to be in-between a stabbing & slashing sword. From what I can recall all the "18thC", I have seen, have a more defined point. Nice example of crossover from keris to kris. As far as "Indo smith who may have relocated", I think this kris preceeds the Philippine kris & a "relocated" smith wouldn't just start making a "kris" just because he is on, what is now, Philippine soil. Simular pattern to a wavy kris RSword & myself have posted before.

[Lew]

I think this center kris of mine is late 18th or early 19th century it exhibits a narrow blade and a cruder ganja but it seems more Moro than Bill's.



Lew

[kai]

Hello Bill,

I'm pretty sure this is an ethnic Malay example - Riau, Straits or even eastern Sumatra.

I wouldn't rule out Borneo/Brunei but most examples collected from Borneo seem to have originated from Sulu (or being crafted in the same style) with some trade blades from Mindanao thrown in the mix. Also, I don't recall any pamor blade from Borneo nor Moro provenance, especially not this pamor (even welded in low contrast).

The gangya configuration is keris-like and doesn't fit into Cato's categories. So, all bets are off on this piece... However, the carving of the blade is really nicely done and I'd guess it has some real age. I'm less convinced of the fittings, especially the clamp might be a quite recent replacement.

BTW, it's easy to tell ivory from giant clam shell with the help of a reasonable magnifying glass - the latter is quite porous and shows different growth rings.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Originally Posted by Bill

I don't recall seeing a straight blade "18thC" before.

I have a possible contender which might be from Sulu. Not yet in a publishable condition though...

BTW, could you please post a close-up of your piece, Lew? I agree that this also seems to be Moro.

Nice example of crossover from keris to kris. As far as "Indo smith who may have relocated", I think this kris preceeds the Philippine kris & a "relocated" smith wouldn't just start making a "kris" just because he is on, what is now, Philippine soil.

I think you have it backwards, kinda: While the kris best known from the Moro evolved from Malay/Indonesian keris, any extant pieces whose construction speaks for an origin in Malaysia or Indonesia seem to be younger than the oldest Moro kris. I'd postulate that these were crafted after (extensive and well established) contact with Moro traders and most likely inspired by Moro trade blades.

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Yeah Bill (Marsh), this blade seems to exhibit far too many Indo/Malay keris features to be a Moro kris. There is even a very well developed (and extented) tikel alis. The gonjo, as Kai already stated, is much more an Indo than a Moro form. And without a good staining i wouldn't even be so sure that the pamor is a low contrast material (i really think you should stain it Bill ).
Bill (the other one), i am with Kai and i don't believe this keris necessarily pre-dates the Moro kris. No, a relocated Indo/Malay smith wouldn't "just start making a "kris" because he is on Philippine soil". He would be asked to make one because that is his skill. If indeed this blade was made in Moroland and is old enough, it could be that it still exhibits Malay/Indo traits because it is transitional from Indo to Moro need. Still, if i were a betting man i would wager this blade was made in Indonesian (Sumatra or Sulawesi) early on, but still after the introduction of Moroland kris.
Kai, you may still be right about Riau or the Straits, but this type of pamor looks more like what i would associate with Celebes or Sumatra.

[kai]

Hello David,

There is even a very well developed (and extented) tikel alis.

Yeah, that one caught my eye, too.
That's also present on the archaic Moro kris, however, the execution is different...

And without a good staining i wouldn't even be so sure that the pamor is a low contrast material (i really think you should stain it Bill ).

I was referring to Moro kris which are usually done in low contrast. This piece seems to be regular (if Malay/Bugis) pamor though. An etch may be enough to bring out the pattern but some warangan may also be interesting.

Kai, you may still be right about Riau or the Straits, but this type of pamor looks more like what i would associate with Celebes or Sumatra.

Yes, it's pretty common with keris blades from Palembang and places of strong Bugis influence. I'd like to hear from our Singapore/Malay members if the pamor could help in narrowing things down!

Regards,
Kai

[Bill]

[QUOTE=kai]



I think you have it backwards, kinda: While the kris best known from the Moro evolved from Malay/Indonesian keris, any extant pieces whose construction speaks for an origin in Malaysia or Indonesia seem to be younger than the oldest Moro kris. I'd postulate that these were crafted after (extensive and well established) contact with Moro traders and most likely inspired by Moro trade blades.

Hi Kai, We know the "18thC" started out with round tangs & was for stabbing. I think the earliest "kris" was a "18C", if so, who made it. I'll stick with the Bugis as the most likely suspects. Just can't believe the "18thC" was a "starter" edition.

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill

Hi Kai, We know the "18thC" started out with round tangs & was for stabbing. I think the earliest "kris" was a "18C", if so, who made it. I'll stick with the Bugis as the most likely suspects. Just can't believe the "18thC" was a "starter" edition.

I didn't know this. Do ALL of the earliest "18thC"s have round tangs for sure, or is this an assumption. I don't own any of these "archaic" style kris so i don't know from my own experience. I am also not sure that calling them "18thC" kris is in our best interest since i think some of these are probably a little older than that.
I know we have been around this block before, but i do find it difficult to accept these "archaic" kris as Bugis since the blade form doesn't really resemble the bugis style of keris very much. I am also confused as to why you can't believe that these keris could possible be a "starter edition".

[RSWORD]

While I am not as familiar with the keris construction, this blade has a central core of mechanical twistcore sandwiched with nice lamellar cheeks. I have seen this construction in a few pieces(like the one I use to have that Bill/Chicago now has) and I have also seen a number of Moro pieces with well defined chiseling at the forte as in this example. What I have not seen as much is the sandwich type of construction in keris but as I mentioned I am not as familiar with them. My vote is that it is a Moro blade.

[kai]

Hello Rick,

While I am not as familiar with the keris construction, this blade has a central core of mechanical twistcore sandwiched with nice lamellar cheeks.

That's another point I was going to bring up. The twist core already present in archaic Moro kris is quite different (from 2 bars, only in the middle of the blade) from this example (which is basically identical with the classic keris blade construction).

I have also seen a number of Moro pieces with well defined chiseling at the forte as in this example.

We're not talking about the nice chiseling per se but rather the style in which it's executed - different from what I've seen in Moro kris...

Regards,
Kai

[Bill]

Originally Posted by David

I didn't know this. Do ALL of the earliest "18thC"s have round tangs for sure, or is this an assumption. I don't own any of these "archaic" style kris so i don't know from my own experience. I am also not sure that calling them "18thC" kris is in our best interest since i think some of these are probably a little older than that.
I know we have been around this block before, but i do find it difficult to accept these "archaic" kris as Bugis since the blade form doesn't really resemble the bugis style of keris very much. I am also confused as to why you can't believe that these keris could possible be a "starter edition".

I have 2 "18thC". Neither one,have I removed the hilt. One I'm sure has a keris sized round tang. The other, I can get a cleaning pick in between the blade & hilt & it appears to have a robust oval tang. Federico has posted one with a robust round tang & Lee has posted one with a retangular one. Strikes me that someone else once posted one with a retangular tang or at least confirmed it once. Only use "18thC" because Cato did, I think they are quite a bit older then that. There is enough variation to suggest many smiths made them for a extended period of time. That's the main problem in Philippine origin. They copied the style but never perfected it, don't think they would lose the knowledge. RSword: Didn't you once have a Bugis keris with the same pattern of the kris you sold me?

[David]

Originally Posted by Bill

They copied the style but never perfected it, don't think they would lose the knowledge.

Why do you think they lost the knowledge? IMO they chose not to perfect the style of the "archaic" stabbing blade. Rather they moved on to develop it into a larger, broader slashing weapon which they believed (as do i) to be a more effective fighting tool. Given the choice in battle i would certainly choose the larger slashing blade in an instant.
Hi Rick. I have to agree with Kai. It is not the level of execution in the chiselling, but the style in which the work is done which leads me to believe this is not Moro work. The Moro were certainly capable of fine quality chiselling. Also as Kai points out, this is not the twisted core that we are familar with seeing in some Moro keris. The constuction of this keris looks the same as in pamored Indo/Malay varieties.

[kai]

Hello Bill,

We know the "18thC" started out with round tangs & was for stabbing.

Ethnic Malay keris sundang also (often?) have a round pesi, even the large examples AFAIK.

I think the earliest "kris" was a "18C", if so, who made it. I'll stick with the Bugis as the most likely suspects. Just can't believe the "18thC" was a "starter" edition.

I've seen worse starter editions, for sure!

While it is tempting to single out the Bugis which certainly had a lot of contact with the Tausug (for better or worse ), I'm a bit weary with this hypothesis due to the lack of actual keris sundang (archaic, old and even not so old exmples...) with sound provenance from that region (or even from all over Sulawesi)!

For example, I think it will be hard to completely diss the northern link: Malaya - Brunei - Sulu. We also have to keep in mind that extensive trade contacts had been established for millennia throughout SE Asia. I think there are early sources that at least the Tausug were very active seafarers from early on. So, regardless wether the rulers happened to be in good terms or were enemies, it seems safe to assume that the Moro had close contact with about any other major player in the region and beyond.

Regards,
Kai