Very old Visayan kris

[Ian]

This is an interesting old sword. It is a high end, pre-1800 Moro blade with an old Waray scabbard and hilt. The scabbard is in a style seen on old garab, including the fluted carving and the small round insert near the toe on both sides. The mouth has been widened to accept the flared gangya area of the blade. The hilt is also of a style seen on some old garab.

The blade was a very good one, although much pitted over time. The central panel does not appear to be twist core, however the sinuous design with many small "stars" inset at regular intervals down the blade suggests that the central panel is depicting a centipede. IIRC, the centipede was an important creature in Maguindanao mythology.

The carved area at the base of the blade follows Indonesian keris from the late-Majapahit period, and is similar to that found on a 16th C Bugis keris that was discussed here.

Better pictures will come after it arrives.
.

[David]

Very nice old kris that seems to have been adopted for Visayan use.
I don't see any 16th century Bugis keris discussed in the link you provided. Which of the keris in that thread are you referring to?

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

Very nice old kris that seems to have been adopted for Visayan use.
I don't see any 16th century Bugis keris discussed in the link you provided. Which of the keris in that thread are you referring to?

Ian mean the one in post #8.

[Edster]

I've always enjoyed lurking on kris posts, but I have a technical question. I like the design and integration of the gangya.(cross guard)? and the blade. Likely some cultural reason. But mechanically why is the gangya made separate from the blade and apparently fastened to the blade by those "clips"? Is this a relatively weak connection? The gangya is thicker and wider of the blade, but would seem no great technical chore to forge as a single piece.

Best,
Ed

[kai]

Hello Ed,

I've always enjoyed lurking on kris posts, but I have a technical question. I like the design and integration of the gangya.(cross guard)? and the blade. Likely some cultural reason. But mechanically why is the gangya made separate from the blade and apparently fastened to the blade by those "clips"? Is this a relatively weak connection? The gangya is thicker and wider of the blade, but would seem no great technical chore to forge as a single piece.

There are kris/keris that have the gangya/gonjo forged integrally with the blade; the default is them being made as separate pieces though. This tradition is based on underlying symbolism/meaning going back for several centuries. Details would need an in-depth discussion since the interpretation underwent changes within the originating culture(s) as well as shifts till reaching (and possibly within) the Moro cultural sphere.

The clips/clamps are mainly to securing the gangya/katik to the blade (as well as helping to attach the hilt to the blade). The latter is a functional aspect; the former has more like a metaphysical reason.

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

An important question for me is how did a nobility Moro kris end up in Waray dress? I have chatted with another Forum member about this sword and how it might have ended up in the hands of a resident of the eastern Visayas.

There are several ways in which Moro swords might be found outside the original culture.

• As a gift
• Through trade or intermarriage
• As a result of armed conflict

We came to the conclusion that should a Waray have acquired this sword through means other than conflict (i.e., through trade, intermarriage, or as a gift) it would have remained in Moro dress. To re-dress a distinguished Moro sword with a local hilt and scabbard would be considered an "abomination" by the Moro, and definitely an unfriendly and insulting thing to do. Therefore, we might reasonably conclude in this case that the sword was taken from a fallen Moro as a result of armed conflict.

The quality and mysticism of the sword requires that it was owned by royalty or perhaps a panglima. This, in turn, suggests a significant battle between Moros and Visayans. Several such battles occurred in the Visayas between the Moros and Spanish forces during what has been termed the third phase of the Spanish-Moro War (see here). Between 1599 and 1634 several large scale punitive raids were conducted by the Moros against the Spanish-held areas in the Visayas:

• 1599: Datu Salikula and Datu Sirungan the chiefs of Maguindanao and Buayan, respectively, launched a joint force attacking a major Spanish base in the central Visayas (3,000 warriors with 50 paraw).
• 1602: Commanded by Datu Buisan, the successor of Datu Salikula, and Datu Sirungan (145 paraw – 50 vessels manned by the Ternatans, Sangil and Tagolanda; 60 by the Maguindanao; and 35 by the Yakans of Basilan)
• 1603: Rajah Buisan together with his allies from Sangil and Ternate led another invasion of Central Visayas. They invaded Dulag, Leyte a place where Rajah Buisan delivered his historic speech calling the Leyte datus to fight the Spaniards.
• 1605: Spanish-Moro Treaty was signed
• 1608: Following Spanish raids on Ternate, the Maguindanao chief construed this action a violation of the 1603 Treaty, and ordered the resumption of military raids of Spanish garrisons in the Central Visayas.
• 1608: A new Spanish-Moro Treaty was signed
• 1627: Rajah Bungsu the Sultan of Sulu led 2,000 warriors, and attacked the Spanish base and ship yard in Camarines Sur and Central Visayas. The attack was triggered by maltreatment suffered by a Sulu envoy, Datu Ache, returning home from Manila. His ships were intercepted by the Spaniards, and all of them were brought back to Manila and humiliated.
• 1629: Sulu forces commanded by Datu Ache attacked Spanish settlements in Camarines, Samar, Leyte, and Bohol.
• 1631: Sulu warriors launched another invasion aimed at Leyte, the seat of Spanish power in the Visayas.
• 1632: Sultan Qudarat (Sultan of Maguindanao) made a marriage alliance by marrying the daughter of Rajah Bungsu, the Sultan of Sulu.
• 1634: A joint alliance of the Sulu and Maguindanao Sultanates mobilized 1,500 warriors who landed at Dapitan, Leyte, and Bohol in the Visayas.

The challenge before the Spanish colonial regime was how to stop the Muslim invasion of its held-territories. After drawing lessons on the military behavior of the Muslims, the Spaniards changed their approach by establishing a forward force at the enemy’s territory so that the war’s trend could be reversed. This became the focus of the fourth stage of the Moro wars. The attacks on the Visayas did cease, and did not resume, as the Moros looked to expel the Spanish from their homelands.

I believe that this 35-year period of Moro incursions against the Spanish is the most likely time for this sword to have been collected by a Waray during conflict with Moro raiders. We have no record of the Waray coming into conflict with Moros elsewhere. Collection of the sword in the early 1600s would likely mean it was made towards the end of the 1500s or early 1600s. So late-16th to early-17th C would be my estimate for age.

If this estimate is correct, then the composition of the Moro kris had reached its standard form by this time and for about 250 years going forward.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by David

Very nice old kris that seems to have been adopted for Visayan use.
I don't see any 16th century Bugis keris discussed in the link you provided. Which of the keris in that thread are you referring to?

David, see post #8 in that thread.

[JeffS]

Are the star patterns on the blade unusual? They remind me of the patterns on this Visayan knife scabbard.

[kai]

Very nice garab, Jeff, congrats!

The motif on Moro blades (like Ian's here) is usually a bit asymmetrical. Thus, I believe they might be different.

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

David, see post #8 in that thread.

OK. Don't believe that keris is Bugis though.
Also, as Kai pointed out, 17th century (which is how that keris is described in the linked post) is far beyond the even the late Mojopahit period.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by David

OK. Don't believe that keris is Bugis though.
Also, as Kai pointed out, 17th century (which is how that keris is described in the linked post) is far beyond the even the late Mojopahit period.

David,

You may be correct. I am no keris expert. I was guided by Albert's description, which I posted with the pictures of that keris. Albert noted that it was the oldest item from the royal house that acquired it. The Dutch ancestor who collected the keris was the head of the VOC at the time, as noted in the thread I referenced.

Whether or not it was a Bugis or Java keris, it reflected the style of keris dating from the late Majapahit period. As noted in my reply to Kai above, contact of seafaring Sulu and Mindanao groups with various parts of the Majapahit Empire likely occurred well before the 16th C, so the rather late Bugis (?) example may be moot.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

David,

You may be correct. I am no keris expert. I was guided by Albert's description, which I posted with the pictures of that keris. Albert noted that it was the oldest item from the royal house that acquired it. The Dutch ancestor who collected the keris was the head of the VOC at the time, as noted in the thread I referenced.

Whether or not it was a Bugis or Java keris, it reflected the style of keris dating from the late Majapahit period. As noted in my reply to Kai above, contact of seafaring Sulu and Mindanao groups with various parts of the Majapahit Empire likely occurred well before the 16th C, so the rather late Bugis (?) example may be moot.

Well there is no question is my mind that this blade is NOT Bugis in origin, regardless of what dress it my have eventually ended up in or where it was collected. Since i had thought this discussion concerned the evolution of the Moro keris and what Indonesian cultures may have influenced it most i believe being accurate about the origin of this keris blade might be important to that conversation.

[kai]

Hello Ian,

Whether or not it was a Bugis or Java keris, it reflected the style of keris dating from the late Majapahit period.

Actually, we don't know for sure!

There is no doubt that Mojopahit cultural influences carried over into subsequent ruling houses on Java (and elsewhere).

However, there are no extant "modern" keris blades (as the one early "collected" by the VOC) whose origin can be safely established to predate Mataram. Aside from the keris buda (a type which probably was already around in even earlier times), there is no specific style of keris that is surely known from the period when Mojo culture widely influenced much of maritime SE Asia.

Regards,
Kai

[Interested Party]

Congratulations. That is a very nice keris with a story to tell!!! I would love to have an example like that in my collection one day.

[kai]

Hello Ian,

This is an interesting old sword. It is a high end, pre-1800 Moro blade

Very nice blade, indeed - congrats!

It is obviously old. However, what features do you base the pre-1800 dating on?

with an old Waray scabbard and hilt. The scabbard is in a style seen on old garab, including the fluted carving and the small round insert near the toe on both sides. The mouth has been widened to accept the flared gangya area of the blade. The hilt is also of a style seen on some old garab.

Gorgeous fittings!

I'd have assumed that the scabbard got made for this blade? (There seem to be losses at the opening.)

The central panel does not appear to be twist core, however the sinuous design with many small "stars" inset at regular intervals down the blade suggests that the central panel is depicting a centipede. IIRC, the centipede was an important creature in Maguindanao mythology.

This inlaid motif is commonly seen on Moro blades; centipedes are sometimes inlaid, too, but tend to be less stylized. Do we have any information from within the cultures for this interpretation (i.e. connecting this motif with centipedes)?

The carved area at the base of the blade follows Indonesian keris from the late-Majapahit period, and is similar to that found on a 16th C Bugis keris that was discussed here.

Actually, there are significant differences between the features exhibited by these 2 blades. Granted, there seem to be more keris features extant than in some later Moro blades. IMHO, we need a much more detailed discussion for establishing time lines. (BTW, mid-17th century is a long time after the end of Majapahit and with the Mojo power already declining for an extended time before its final demise.)

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Ian,

... It is obviously old. However, what features do you base the pre-1800 dating on? ...

The pre-1800 designation comes from Cato following his study of museum pieces (including Spanish examples), plus statements he obtained from Moro informants.

... I'd have assumed that the scabbard got made for this blade? (There seem to be losses at the opening.) ...

Definitely the scabbard was made for this sword. The opening losses are relatively minor.

This inlaid motif is commonly seen on Moro blades; centipedes are sometimes inlaid, too, but tend to be less stylized. Do we have any information from within the cultures for this interpretation (i.e. connecting this motif with centipedes)?

Kai, I don't have information from within the culture but I have seen somewhat similar designs labeled previously as representing a centipede. I don't recall chapter-and-verse of where I saw that comment, but I think it is the interpretation that best fits the markings. If someone has a more plausible explanation, then I would welcome hearing their views.

... IMHO, we need a much more detailed discussion for establishing time lines. (BTW, mid-17th century is a long time after the end of Majapahit and with the Mojo power already declining for an extended time before its final demise.)

Regards,
Kai

Kai, I agree that it would be nice to have a clear timeline, but we don't. The appearance of the kris in the Philippines could well have pre-dated the arrival of Islam. The Sultanate of Sulu was the first organized Islamic body, and was created in 1450 by Sharif Hassim Abubakar. However, this followed about 200 years of Arab visitation and spread of the Q'ran to the masses.

Seafaring groups from the Sulu Archipelago and Mindanao (notably the Sama and Ilanun) established contact with Borneo and the Celebes, and even parts of Java, in the time of the Majapahit Empire. The use of the term "Rajah" for early leaders in the southern Philippines would argue that lingering Majapahit influence was quite strong. There was ample time for the Majapahit-style "modern" keris to have been brought to Sulu and Mindanao by pre-Islamic Philippine tribal groups. Subsequent development of the Javanese keris into the Philippines kris, and its use by those who would later convert to Islam, could have occurred over a 200-year period, or even longer, well preceding the arrival of Spaniards. Thus, 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.

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.

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.


Regards, Ian

[kai]

Hello Ian,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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