Hello Ian,
Quote:
|
The pre-1800 designation comes from Cato following his study of museum pieces (including Spanish examples), plus statements he obtained from Moro informants.
|
I have the book; and was asking for the features your opinion is based on.
I believe we already established here quite some time ago that Cato's dating for archaic Moro kris needs to be reconsidered and probably revised.
Quote:
|
I agree that it would be nice to have a clear timeline, but we don't.
|
I wasn't asking for exact dating - that's tough to establish.
Quote:
|
to find a well developed Moro kris form attributable to the late-16th or early-17th C may be expected. I believe that is what we see in this sword.
|
I beg to differ: This is not a typical archaic blade and I guess this actually is a later variant. I base this on the separation line, the blade proportions, the pronounced luk, the greneng style, etc. In addition, this type of inlay also seems later.
It's a really nice, old status blade. IMHO not an archaic Moro kris though.
Quote:
|
As a corollary, I would not be surprised if we found prototypes of the Moro kris dating from the 14th C or 15th C, or even earlier.
|
As mentioned in my posting #20, this may be too much of a stretch.
Quote:
|
In thinking about the early development of the kris in the southern Philippines, I believe that we may underestimate just how old the kris and other weaponry may be. This reflects, in part, the general lack of extant written history for the era prior to the Spanish arrival in the mid-16th C, and the paucity of good archeological research conducted throughout the Philippines.
|
Due to the non-extant (Chinese) and non-existing (European) nobility/museum acquisitions, we'll have to wait for properly documented and dated archeological finds.
Regards,
Kai