Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
Hi Xas,
I think I have commented previously about the similarities between Sulu and Malay kris.
The area that you highlight, in Javanese keris terms, is the greneng. (I don't know a Moro term for this feature.) Typically, the file work extends above and below the line of separation between the gangya and the blade. What you are pointing to is a shorter distance of file work above the line of separation on your kris. I have not looked at this feature specifically. My impression is that the length of the greneng above the line of separation is variable on keris, and not standardized in terms of the number of ron dah, etc. We need a keris expert for that one.
However, your point is well taken. This could indeed be an atypical Sulu blade (as I did mention above), but I think it shows Malay influence for reasons already stated.
As I look at the most recent picture of your kris, which shows the carved area clearly, I note that what the Javanese call lambe gajah (elephant lips) appear on its gandhik. This is very unusual for Moro kris. In the vast majority of Moro kris, going back to "early" kris, that I have looked at the "upper lip" is found at the bottom of the gandhik and the "lower lip" is at the top of the gangya—thus the lambe gajah span the line of separation between the gandhik and the gangya. This contrasts with the "Modern Javanese Keris," which has the lambe gajah towards the base of the gandhik (as also shown on your kris).
If you look at the examples you show of Malay sundang, the one with the ivory pommel has its lambe gajah completely on the gandhik (similar to the "Modern Indonesian Keris" and your kris). This may seem a small esoteric point, but it adds to my assessment of Malay influence for your Sulu kris.
|
Halloo Ian,
Thanks for your points, I understand where you're coming from. A kalis with Malay influence is an acceptable label for me. With the close proximity of Moro and Malay interactions during the pre1900s eras (trade, intermarriage, shared territories, migration, etc), such Malay influences are to be expected in Moro blades, and vice versa (Moro influence on Malay blades). Admittedly I know too little of Malay-made keris sundang to make further differentiations; the only references I've studied were by Gardner (1936) and Frey (1989), plus really helpful inputs from my Malaysian friends, who collect various keris, including Moro kris and kalis.
As a final emphasis- I'd like to focus on the hilt to solidify this sword as being Sulu-identified. From the POV of the peoples of PH and their tradblades, the dress is the "latest ID" for a sword. For example- a Mindanao kris that was captured and re-dressed with Visayan hilt and scabbard (a hybrid one from a semantics POV), ceases to be a Moro kris- from the POV of both Visayan and Moro groups, it's now a Visayan kris.
In a similar manner, a Sulu kalis that was re-dressed with Lumad hilt and scabbard ceases to be kalis, but rather is recognized as a Lumad kris. A Samar-made garab that was re-dressed in Tagalog nobility style is now an itak, or a tabak.
Though the blade may have been originally made by a different ethnolinguistic group or a foreign area- the dress indicates the ID of the last owner, and thus assumes the appropriate ethnolinguistic affiliation and equivalent sword ID (if there is any) for that group.
So, in my mind- the blade may indeed be Sulu-made, Malay-made, Sulu with Malay influence, (or vice versa) or even Mindanao-made. But its undoubtedly Sulu-made hilt identifies the last owner as a Suluanon- and in the POV of Sulu, the equivalent term for keris sundang (Malay) or kris sundang (Mindanao) would be kalis
