Evidence for fake Moro Kris / Keris Sundang? - Page 2

Federico · 6th August 2005, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamboanga

From a friend's collection and not for sale. Newly made sulu piece specially commissioned for a child.

Separate gangya. 15.5 inches blade, 21 inches overall. with silver fittings.

It has a larger brother which I hope to have in due time.

I also have an older one (post ww2) with separate gangya but i cannot post it here in deference to forum rules.

Thanks for the pics. I noticed this one and the older one both have separation lines that end a little steeper than the 45 degrees we normally associate with 19th early 20th century pieces, almost 90 degrees. Now this brings to question, is this a re-emergence of the separate gangya, or did they never dissappear. Why the loss of the separate gangya for some? Any more info behind these swords?

zamboanga · 8th August 2005, 04:09 AM

Concerning modern made Sulu krises, I understand that among the questions a mananasal (smith) asks an owner when commissioning a kris is whether if it is for show or for use . If it is for show, a separate gangya is produced - much like the boy's kris shown. But there are of course many other options depending on the request of the owner.

Which leads me to the question : how will a good kris with a separate gangya stand-up to a direct blow (to the gangya) from a good barong?

Federico · 8th August 2005, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamboanga

Concerning modern made Sulu krises, I understand that among the questions a mananasal (smith) asks an owner when commissioning a kris is whether if it is for show or for use . If it is for show, a separate gangya is produced - much like the boy's kris shown. But there are of course many other options depending on the request of the owner.

Which leads me to the question : how will a good kris with a separate gangya stand-up to a direct blow (to the gangya) from a good barong?

Very interesting stuff. Is the kris with the separable gangya hardened? On a related note, heard from someone that they were told that the separable gangya dissappeared during WWII, and only because it was too much work to add in wartime. Story, sound familiar to anyone else? Anymore details/variations?

ThePepperSkull · 23rd July 2010, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zamboanga

Hi everyone,

Been away from the forum for some due to a local dengue outbreak and a typhoon (that's 3rd world conditions for you.)

here's my question: if kris cutlery krises were to be available in the local market (here in zamboanga, basilan or jolo) will the tausugs buy them and keep them as they would a locally-made kris? i really doubt it. they would not even buy a yakan-made pira, how much more for a christian made reproduction.

kai, as to your question on whether there are newly made krises with separate gangyas, yes there are and the ones i have seen come from jolo and not basilan.

as to the datus, they would commission a kris or a barong whether times were good or bad. for a good sword is a status symbol and nothing is as important to a moro as showing of his status.

Is this a statement on the quality of the pira or the region being innapropriate/not native to the blade shape? I was under the impression that the Pira was a native blade to the Yakan. At least I see a lot of older Yakan-made Pira.

kai · 23rd July 2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Is this a statement on the quality of the pira or the region being innapropriate/not native to the blade shape?

Sorrily, Caloy hasn't been active for quite a long time, so I'll try to answer: A Tausug would prefer a Tausug piece rather than a sword perceived to be typical for another ethnic group (e. g. Yakan).

Regards,
Kai

Battara · 24th July 2010, 02:32 AM

Also, the reproduction/non-traditionally made ones do not interest the Moros today.

ThePepperSkull · 25th July 2010, 05:12 PM

Noted. Thank you kai and battara!

technically the pira I own is not a reproduction, however. It's not the nicest piece in terms of finishing, either, but it is traditionally made and it's a great conversation piece. No power tools were used to make it, which in the Phillippines is a very very rare thing. Grind marks from sharpening on a stone can still be seen in fact.

I am diverting from the topic at hand, however. I apologise. perhaps I may begin a new conversation about this at a later time.

(Does Caloy have an E-mail address that I may contact him with? I would love to get his perspective on various things. Someone let me know please and thanks!)

I do think a lot of this discussion begs the question: "What do you consider a fake"? We have all discussed various definitions: low-quality blades made to be buried in the dirt to speed up some artificial patination, Modern-made blades made outside of the appropriate culture, anriques refitted with more luxuious materials in addition to a forced patination. Which is a definition of 'fake' that most of us can agree upon? I think (if there are any willing participants) we can have a more enriched (or at least more streamlined) discussion about Fakes if we can find time to define the term in one specific way (or multiple specific ways even, so as not to be vague in our discussion) so we have a point of reference.

David · 28th July 2010, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePepperSkull

I do think a lot of this discussion begs the question: "What do you consider a fake"? We have all discussed various definitions: low-quality blades made to be buried in the dirt to speed up some artificial patination, Modern-made blades made outside of the appropriate culture, anriques refitted with more luxuious materials in addition to a forced patination. Which is a definition of 'fake' that most of us can agree upon? I think (if there are any willing participants) we can have a more enriched (or at least more streamlined) discussion about Fakes if we can find time to define the term in one specific way (or multiple specific ways even, so as not to be vague in our discussion) so we have a point of reference.

It a good and fair question Pepper. For me "fake" is a matter of representation. There are certainly a lot of reproductions being made these days, but if they are being presented in the marketplace as antique, that's a fake. If a weapon is manufactured for a collectors market, not for ethnographic use, an presented as such, i would call it a reproduction. This is not a statement on quality, as repros can be very nice or not. I think it's a repro even if it's made by Filipinos in a tradtional manner if it is made for the collectors market and not for use. Of course there is a fine line there i suppose, because i have seen photos of modern Moro guerillas in the jungles with what look like modern versions of traditional blades. Certainly these are not "fakes" and they are in use.
As for refitted old blades again i think representation is the issue when deciding what is fake. When an old beater is fixed up with an elaborate hilt with silver and ivory and passed off as a datu kris i would call that a "fake". If the seller is clear that the blade is a rehilted old beater i would just call it inappropriate and misguided.

8th August 2005, 04:09 AM	#32
zamboanga Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: zamboanga city, philippines Posts: 132	Concerning modern made Sulu krises, I understand that among the questions a mananasal (smith) asks an owner when commissioning a kris is whether if it is for show or for use . If it is for show, a separate gangya is produced - much like the boy's kris shown. But there are of course many other options depending on the request of the owner. Which leads me to the question : how will a good kris with a separate gangya stand-up to a direct blow (to the gangya) from a good barong?

24th July 2010, 02:32 AM	#36
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,139	Also, the reproduction/non-traditionally made ones do not interest the Moros today.

25th July 2010, 05:12 PM	#37
ThePepperSkull Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 338	Noted. Thank you kai and battara! technically the pira I own is not a reproduction, however. It's not the nicest piece in terms of finishing, either, but it is traditionally made and it's a great conversation piece. No power tools were used to make it, which in the Phillippines is a very very rare thing. Grind marks from sharpening on a stone can still be seen in fact. I am diverting from the topic at hand, however. I apologise. perhaps I may begin a new conversation about this at a later time. (Does Caloy have an E-mail address that I may contact him with? I would love to get his perspective on various things. Someone let me know please and thanks!) I do think a lot of this discussion begs the question: "What do you consider a fake"? We have all discussed various definitions: low-quality blades made to be buried in the dirt to speed up some artificial patination, Modern-made blades made outside of the appropriate culture, anriques refitted with more luxuious materials in addition to a forced patination. Which is a definition of 'fake' that most of us can agree upon? I think (if there are any willing participants) we can have a more enriched (or at least more streamlined) discussion about Fakes if we can find time to define the term in one specific way (or multiple specific ways even, so as not to be vague in our discussion) so we have a point of reference.