Ethnographic Arms & Armour

Ethnographic Arms & Armour (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/index.php)
-   Ethnographic Weapons (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Too Tiny? (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=16088)

Indianajones 16th September 2012 09:13 PM

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.

David 16th September 2012 11:23 PM

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:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/attach...id=26325&stc=1

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. :D

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.

VANDOO 17th September 2012 06:54 AM

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.

David 17th September 2012 05:29 PM

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

T. Koch 23rd September 2012 10:40 AM

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... :rolleyes: (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!

T. Koch 23rd September 2012 10:51 AM

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

Ferguson 4th October 2012 11:30 PM

2 Attachment(s)
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

A.alnakkas 5th October 2012 12:15 AM

Hey Steve,

I am really glad you like it! atleast now I know the normal size of a gunong with that comparison picture hehe

Battara 5th October 2012 01:33 AM

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.

Ferguson 5th October 2012 01:49 AM

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 :D Those are the extremes of my collection.

Steve

A.alnakkas 5th October 2012 01:57 AM

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.

David 5th October 2012 02:53 AM

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... :shrug:


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, 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.