Hello IP,
Finally got some time to sit down and write you a response. Apologies for the considerable delay. I put this together over the last few weeks and notice that you have just posted another example, which I will get to in the next day or so.
I labeled your examples 1, 2, and 3 (equivalent to Xasterix’s A, B, And C) and have resized some of the pics to fit the narrative.
To address nomenclature, I would refer you to the discussion in the thread,
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=292932, which you have likely read already.
I will focus on the blades you have shown and their dress. These are my own views, and others may well disagree.
Blade # 1.
This is a long, straight-bladed,
kris with no prominent midline ridge, fuller, or “arrow head” features. It has two plain
asang asang/baca baca. In my experience, twin
asang asang are mostly found on Sulu decorated swords, and less commonly on swords of the Mindanao groups. This blade may be the slimmest and oldest of the three you have shown.
The
gangya/sampir/katik area has some interesting features. The “elephant trunk” area shows a particularly tall
gandhik for a Moro sword (
gandhik, Indon., indicated by the vertical white line, extending from the “tusk” down to the line of separation between the blade and
katik). The vast majority of Moro kris have a noticeably shorter
gandhik. A relatively tall
gandhik, such as shown here, is often found on Indonesian
keris, and on the heavier Malayan
sundang (like this one). Malayan (
i.e., Malaysian) culture uses both the
keris and
sundang.
Another feature of the elephant trunk area is that the shape of the area enclosed by the elephant trunk and
gandhik is elliptical. Also, the tusk is angled down with respect to the
gandhik. These two features usually reflect a blade of Sulu or Malayan manufacture. This is not surprising given the longstanding trade and geographic proximity of the two. There are also Maguindanao examples that resemble this arrangement, and it’s unclear whether these are Sulu blades dressed in a Maguindanao manner, or Maguindanao-made blades with some Sulu influence. I agree with Xasterix's observation that Moro gentry would take good quality blades made by another tribal group and dress them in their own group’s fashion. Xas has given reasons for this, and his information fits with my own research.
The angle between the midline axis of the hilt and the midline axis of the blade is very small on this example, such that the orientation of the hilt is close to the midline axis of the blade. The midline axis of the hilt is virtually perpendicular to the top of the
katik. I think these features, along with the blade length and width, indicate a somewhat older blade.
A Malayan-made blade, or Sulu-made blade showing strong Malayan influence. First half of the 19th C.
Dress # 1.
As noted above, twin
baca baca are often associated with Sulu
kris, but not exclusively so.
The hilt is lacking the covering of its grip, and the hilt appears to be a two-piece arrangement with a separate pommel. The pommel is what I would call a “standard, mid-size
kakatua” that is found widely on some Sulu
kris, as well as some Mindanao
kris and some Malayan
sundang.
The scabbard is in two parts. The cross piece is probably original to the sword and appears to have been a nice piece of
banati wood that has seen better days. The remainder is likely a replacement and made from wood of lesser quality. The shape of the cross piece is consistent with Malayan work and also found on some Sulu
kris.
I would call this one a Sulu
kris or
kalis tulid (according to Cato’s information), with evidence of Malayan influence (possibly having a Malayan-made blade).
Blade # 2.
This is a long, straight-bladed,
kris with no prominent midline ridge, fuller, or “arrow head” features. It has two
asang asang/
baca baca. This appears to be a longer and heavier blade than Example # 1.
The “elephant trunk” region shows a circular orientation of the space bounded by the trunk and
gandhik. This suggests a blade of Maguindanao manufacture.
The orientation of the hilt to the blade shows a downward tilt to the hilt, and therefore a slightly greater angle than Example # 1 between the midline axis of the hilt and the midline axis of the blade.
Dress # 2.
Both the pommel and the scabbard are missing from this sword. Without the full ensemble, I have trouble assigning the dress to a particular tribal group. The blade is most likely Maguindanao in manufacture.
I would call this a Maguindanao
matidto based on the blade and Cato’s terminology. End of 19th C/early 20th C.
Blade # 3.
This is a long, straight-bladed,
kris with no prominent midline ridge, fuller, or “arrow head” features. It has two
asang asang/
baca baca which appear to be made of a copper alloy. This looks a heavier blade than Example # 1.
The “elephant trunk” region shows a circular orientation of the space bounded by the trunk and
gandhik. Again, this suggests a blade of Maguindanao manufacture.
The orientation of the hilt to the
gangya is a right angle, but the blade is down-turned and slightly down-curved creating a larger angle between the long axes of the hilt and blade than the other two examples.
Dress # 3.
The hilt is wrapped in plaited wire strands with a brass ferrule, a central brass band, and a terminal band. The wooden pommel is a diminutive, “minimalist”
kakatua with no crest and the merest hint of a beak. I believe this hilt reflects Sulu work in its style and the use of materials.
A Sulu attribution is reflected in the scabbard also, with the cross piece having prominently rounded shoulders and “rolled over” ends.
I would call this one a Sulu
kalis tulid with a Maguindanao blade. End of 19th C/early 20th C.