Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12th September 2012, 03:34 PM   #31
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Koch
My vote still goes for bone, although I guess, it theoretically could be from the outer layers of the clamshell, where the material is more mottled and of lesser quality. In my experience though, craftsmen usually take from nearer the center, where the shell is harder and more compact.
Thor, did you look at the examples of Tridacna hilts that i linked to above. While the purity of the material might be of more importance in, say, the Japanese culture, it should certainly be clear from the examples in the thread that i posted that it is not that much of an issue in the Malay world.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 07:45 AM   #32
T. Koch
Member
 
T. Koch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mother North
Posts: 189
Default

*David* Thank you for drawing my attention to your link - again. I had indeed missed it the first time around. I see now, that the mottled parts of the shell are indeed being used - at least when we're talking keris hilts. I just find this peculiar. I have myself manually destroyed dozens of Tridacna-shells and even fairly small half-shells, say the size of your average popcorn bowl have maybe 6-7 cm thick shells. Especially the area near the umbo (hinge) of the clam, is comprised of plenty of dense, white material.

Atm. I tend to agree with Wouter: I'm still indecisive, but after seing the phtographs Rick linked to, I'm leaning more towards clam than bone. It's not however TOK-TOK. Bone against glass goes PLOK-PLOK, while clamshell against glass goes KLINK-KLINK. The problem with onomatopoeia is the same as with the hot/cold-distinction: They're both very subjective..

I still say torch it - it's the only way to know for sure! If dissassembly is not an option, I guess comparing it with the sound of a stone against glass, is the next-best thing: They should sound about the same: both harder than bone.

- Very cool discussion. I'm very grateful to have learned this and seen the above photos. Thanks everybody!


All the best, - Thor
T. Koch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 08:05 AM   #33
A.alnakkas
Member
 
A.alnakkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 1,340
Default

Hey Thor,

The best way to describe the voice I heard is that its similar to tapping 2 pieces of glass. There is a ring to it like a bell.
A.alnakkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 09:07 AM   #34
kai
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,237
Default

Hello Thor,

Quote:
I have myself manually destroyed dozens of Tridacna-shells
Aren't these auctioned off for the good cause?


Quote:
even fairly small half-shells, say the size of your average popcorn bowl have maybe 6-7 cm thick shells. Especially the area near the umbo (hinge) of the clam, is comprised of plenty of dense, white material.
I have wondered about this, too. While the large specimens may have been quite difficult to obtain, this may be more a matter of priorities for utilizing/trading the best pieces.


Quote:
I still say torch it - it's the only way to know for sure!
Is the smell really that different? (dense bone, tooth, and clam all retaining some amount of organic material)

If you have a good magnifying glass, you should be able to tell from the microstructure, especially with polished surfaces: clam does exhibit tiny, undulated growing rings which seem to be quite distinctive in the few examples I've closely examined.


Quote:
If dissassembly is not an option, I guess comparing it with the sound of a stone against glass, is the next-best thing: They should sound about the same: both harder than bone.
With either sound or touch, I agree that it would be good to utilize suitable pieces for comparision: polished marble vs. bone and ivory. Having said that, the difference in weight is pretty obvious if you're used to objects of similar size.

Regards,
Kai
kai is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 09:32 AM   #35
Ferguson
Member
 
Ferguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kernersville, NC, USA
Posts: 793
Default

These really small gunong are not uncommon. I have a couple. Here's my smallest. Yours looks nice.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=small+gunong

Steve
Ferguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 11:36 AM   #36
Indianajones
Member
 
Indianajones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 180
Default

Personally I am going towards the opinion it is tridacna, although that would be -I think; though am not an expert on Visayan/moro- quite more special n interesting than bone/ivory.

Thor; 'The problem with onomatopoeia is the . . . . '
I like mine hot and with some ketchup pls?
Whatever the material is bone or tridacna I would really leave it and not burn or wax it; its looking lovely as it is n its just a matter of time to know its real material.

Actually tridacna is/can be quite breakable material and not much used for large or long items. If it falls on a hard floor it will break. I only know this material from New Guinea shellmoney rings (socalled 'yua') and have seen only few tridacna Indonesian kerishandles.
Indianajones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 02:38 PM   #37
Royston
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Poole England
Posts: 441
Default shell and bone

Gents

I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example. My two are quite different from each other.

Regards
Roy
Attached Images
 
Royston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th September 2012, 04:26 PM   #38
Sajen
Member
 
Sajen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 8,616
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royston
Gents

I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example. My two are quite different from each other.

Regards
Roy
Hello Roy,

I think yours with the shell pommel isn't from Tridacna shell. Tridacna don't have this opalescence. At least I never have noticed this by Tridacna.

Regards,

Detlef
Sajen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2012, 04:56 PM   #39
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sajen
Hello Roy,

I think yours with the shell pommel isn't from Tridacna shell. Tridacna don't have this opalescence. At least I never have noticed this by Tridacna.

Regards,

Detlef
I Think Roy is suggesting that the larger one might be Tridacna, not the other one. The smaller one is obviously M.O.P.
Looks nice BTW.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 08:54 AM   #40
T. Koch
Member
 
T. Koch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mother North
Posts: 189
Default

I think Roy means it as he says it. If the small one of Roy's is indeed Tridacna it looks very similar to the material of this keris-hilt from the Tridacna-thread you linked to, David:



Notice the similar haze'y streaks? Couldn't it be that some parts of the clam-shell exhibit these bands - maybe the inner part of the shell near the animal itself? As you point out David, the material looks a lot like mother of pearl (MOP), however Tridacna doesen't produce MOP per sé, but the shell does get very porcelain-like layers on the very inside. I also seem to remember seing Go-stones with similar bands. The problem is that I've never actually made anything out of Tridacna, I've only whacked it with a hammer.

- Thanks for sharing them Roy - they look awesome!!

*Lotfy* If it sounds like glass or similar hard and mineral-like, I'm now 100% on the Tridacna-wagon as well.

*kai* Hi my friend! Please allow me to get back to your questions later when I have more time.


For now best wishes, - Thor
T. Koch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 09:13 PM   #41
Indianajones
Member
 
Indianajones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 180
Default

Hi Roy,
to me your larger gunonghandle certainly looks like shell and most possibly tridacna. Tridacna will get a lovely 'milky' color when handled much. This may be the difference with the initial small dagger of this thread which may not been handled much and just stored long (hence the different patine).

Depending on the size of your handle it may also be the core of another large shell; a type of conchshell (also often used as artifacts in Tibet/Nepal) which does get opalescent features after intense use/bodycontact. This type of shell is more intens or intrinsically white (while tridacna is more 'milky' 'broken' white as we call it). They can have a massive core but am not sure of small cavities in it.
Indianajones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th September 2012, 11:23 PM   #42
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T. Koch
I think Roy means it as he says it. If the small one of Roy's is indeed Tridacna it looks very similar to the material of this keris-hilt from the Tridacna-thread you linked to, David:



Notice the similar haze'y streaks? Couldn't it be that some parts of the clam-shell exhibit these bands - maybe the inner part of the shell near the animal itself? As you point out David, the material looks a lot like mother of pearl (MOP), however Tridacna doesen't produce MOP per sé, but the shell does get very porcelain-like layers on the very inside. I also seem to remember seing Go-stones with similar bands. The problem is that I've never actually made anything out of Tridacna, I've only whacked it with a hammer.
Yes Thor, i agree, Roy means it as he says it. Please read his words again.
"I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example."
In other words, if the "bone" (the larger one) looks very similar to Lofty's example, and Lofty's example is indeed tridacna, then perhaps the Roy's larger hilt is also tridacna.
I am as sure as i can possibly be without having it in hand that Roy's smaller example is indeed MOP and i completely disagree that this material looks like the higher grade tridacna keris hilt that is in the thread i linked to. That hilt is a cream color (not white like Roy's) and does not exhibit the opalescence seen in Roy's smaller gunong.
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 06:54 AM   #43
VANDOO
(deceased)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
Smile THE PEARL OF ALLAH

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/edi...9_11_pick.html

THIS ATTACHMENT IS THE STORY OF THE LARGEST PEARL IN THE WORLD. IT CAME FROM A TRIDACNIA GIGAS SHELL AND IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY HEARD THE STORY IT IS A GOOD ONE. AND NO ONE HAS TOPPED THIS 14 POUND PEARL YET.
THESE SHELLS CAN GET UP TO AT LEAST 5 FEET LONG AND CLOSE TO 500 POUNDS. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN TWO THIS SIZE ONE ALIVE AND ONE DEAD AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS IN THE 200 TO 300 POUND RANGE.
THE PURITY OF THE SHELL DEPENDS ON THE LOCATION AND PURITY OF THE WATER WHERE THE CLAM GROWS. INSIDE LAGOONS IN SHALLOW WATER IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE INCLUSIONS LIKE YOUR EXAMPLE. OUTSIDE REEFS WHERE THERE IS GOOD CURRENTS MAKES FOR BETTER SHELL. I VOTE CLAM SHELL FOR THE HILT. ANTLER AND BONE MAY GET CONTAMINATION IN THE PORES BUT IT IS VERY SELDOM AN INCLUSION AND THE FINISH IS DIFFERENT FROM CLAM SHELL.
VANDOO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th September 2012, 05:29 PM   #44
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,055
Default

Thanks Barry. Here is another link. It's a shame that this pearl isn't iridescent like regular pearls are. Now that would be a sight. Still the size is amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Lao_Tzu
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2012, 10:40 AM   #45
T. Koch
Member
 
T. Koch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mother North
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kai
Hello Thor,


Aren't these auctioned off for the good cause?
Yes, that is indeed the approach of the CITES Management Authority (M.A.) of many countries. The legislation as such allows for the M.A. to auction off confiscated effects from species listed on CITES Appendix II/EU Annex B or lower. Personally, I think this is a great approach and I would love the possibility of making my own department at least partly self-sustaining like that.

However, from the Ministry administration (under which the Danish M.A. belongs) there is a wish as to "not to send confusing signals to the population". You see, here in Europe our governments do all the thinking for us, and of course the common citizen simply wouldn't be able to grasp the good intentions behind such an auction or the benefits it could potentially bring... (and I use this smiley very sparingly)

So no, unfortunately no auctions here. Confiscated effects that are in some way unique, educational or may serve as a taxonomical reference are stored for the purpose of lending out to schools, museums or as a later reference for ourselves and then we whack the crap out of the rest.

The educational part I'm really all for and I'm also happy that we in that regard have around 15 large metal trunks filled with different confiscated effects and each accompanied by an educational pack consisting of books and DVD's. These trunks are continuously lent out to public schools in the country and I think this is very valuable from a conservationist point of view. -You've gotta catch 'em while they're young!


All the best, - Thor


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear mods, I'm sorry for going so very much off topic here and I realize that I could have written kai a pm instead. However, I thought it might be of interest to others too, to hear how we do in at least one country. If you mods feel like it, you are more than welcome to delete this post. No hard feelings from here at all!

Last edited by T. Koch; 23rd September 2012 at 10:53 AM.
T. Koch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2012, 10:51 AM   #46
T. Koch
Member
 
T. Koch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mother North
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David
Yes Thor, i agree, Roy means it as he says it. Please read his words again.
"I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example."
In other words, if the "bone" (the larger one) looks very similar to Lofty's example, and Lofty's example is indeed tridacna, then perhaps the Roy's larger hilt is also tridacna.
I am as sure as i can possibly be without having it in hand that Roy's smaller example is indeed MOP and i completely disagree that this material looks like the higher grade tridacna keris hilt that is in the thread i linked to. That hilt is a cream color (not white like Roy's) and does not exhibit the opalescence seen in Roy's smaller gunong.
Aha David, I see what you mean now. The first time around I had considered the opalescence to be an artifact of the camera's flash, but after seing it on a real screen, as opposed to my laptop, I see what you mean! Do you have a guess at which species could have supplied the shell on Roy's little gunong?

Vandoo, you are indeed right. On the biochemical level formation of molluscan shells is an extremely complex network of processes that all influence the outcome of each other. Like you say, purity of the water plays an enormous difference as well as temperature, currents, availability of oxygen and food, the mollusc's own hormonal fluctuations etc. all resulting in a wide range of possible shell qualities.


Best wishes, - Thor
T. Koch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2012, 11:30 PM   #47
Ferguson
Member
 
Ferguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kernersville, NC, USA
Posts: 793
Default

This one decided to come to live with me. It's the smallest I have. The shell hilt is .307" thick (7.8mm). the diameter of the ferrule just behind the guard is .278" (7.04mm). It has a nicely made monosteel blade that is .076" thick (1.93mm).

I'm not sure if it's a childs piece or a miniature. The materials and workmanship are good. Thanks to Lotfy for letting it come home with me.

Steve
Attached Images
  
Ferguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2012, 12:15 AM   #48
A.alnakkas
Member
 
A.alnakkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 1,340
Default

Hey Steve,

I am really glad you like it! atleast now I know the normal size of a gunong with that comparison picture hehe
A.alnakkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2012, 01:33 AM   #49
Battara
EAAF Staff
 
Battara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferguson
This one decided to come to live with me. It's the smallest I have. The shell hilt is .307" thick (7.8mm). the diameter of the ferrule just behind the guard is .278" (7.04mm). It has a nicely made monosteel blade that is .076" thick (1.93mm).

I'm not sure if it's a childs piece or a miniature. The materials and workmanship are good. Thanks to Lotfy for letting it come home with me.

Steve
Glad you have it. It is a child's gunong. I have seen a picture of such a piece on a Moro datu son in the arms of an American.
Battara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2012, 01:49 AM   #50
Ferguson
Member
 
Ferguson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kernersville, NC, USA
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Battara
Glad you have it. It is a child's gunong. I have seen a picture of such a piece on a Moro datu son in the arms of an American.
Thanks Jose. That's good to know.

Lotfy, that's not a normal gunong, it's the biggest one I've ever seen. LOL Those are the extremes of my collection.

Steve
Ferguson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2012, 01:57 AM   #51
A.alnakkas
Member
 
A.alnakkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kuwait
Posts: 1,340
Default

LOL well if its a child's gunong would it be safe to assume that it was to an important child? considering the rare hilt material.. other fittings seem normal though.
A.alnakkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2012, 02:53 AM   #52
David
Keris forum moderator
 
David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.alnakkas
LOL well if its a child's gunong would it be safe to assume that it was to an important child? considering the rare hilt material.. other fittings seem normal though.
I would think so...probably a datus child...
David is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.