Quote:
|
... 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.
|
Hi Kai. Care to elaborate on these various points. I have been going through a number of online sites looking at what might be considered archaic kris. It is difficult to define a "typical" archaic
kris based on the criteria you listed.
As to Cato's description, he did research older
kris, visiting museums in various countries, talking to Moro informants, etc. While there are areas where he may be a bit off the mark, I don't think he was wildly off with his view of archaic
kris. The man put in some serious hours getting his book together, probably more than you or I have in actual research of items in hand and in collections.
I understand your skepticism. However, the concerns you raise are not well validated and carry assumptions also. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I see a lot of cautious statements about the age of Moro weapons, lumping many into late-19th C or early-20th C pieces, when they may well be considerably older.
Returning to the sword at the top of this thread. There are several questions to answer if an alternative time frame is proposed. Most importantly is how and when did this old
kris get re-dressed in an old-style Waray scabbard and hilt? I have pointed to the fact that such an action performed on a nobility
kris would be seen as a hostile act by Moros. Why was this done? What was the historical relationship between Waray and Moro at that time? IMHO these questions are no less important in answering how old this
kris may be than the finer details of the features of the
kris itself.