MORO KRIS HOW OLD IS THIS ONE

Dajak · 5th April 2008, 06:38 PM

Like to now if this is an old one .

Thanks
Ben

Battara · 5th April 2008, 10:08 PM

IMHO - I would place this at around 1930s based on the style of okir used at the base of the blade near the hilt. The pommel is bone. I am wondering if the line is a fake or indicative of a truly separable ganga. Also the pointed tip of the blade leads me to think this is later as well. I don't see any lamination on this either, also often indicative of laster pieces.

It looks Maguindanao to me.

Dajak · 5th April 2008, 10:30 PM

Hi Battara the blade is laminated

and ganjar separated

Ben

David · 5th April 2008, 10:30 PM

Hi Ben. Better pictures would help. It's really hard to make any judgement on the ganja line when the photo isn't sharp.
That said i think Jose's assessment probably isn't that far off. I think the hilt might be a latter addition.

Dajak · 5th April 2008, 10:58 PM

Look at the needle

Ben

David · 5th April 2008, 11:17 PM

Well, that settles that then.....

Battara · 6th April 2008, 09:40 PM

Ok then.....I would now say the early 1920s if is laminated and ganga is separate. David has a good point about the hilt - I agree.

Andrew · 6th April 2008, 11:10 PM

I thought this was an "archaic" blade type (per Cato)?

Is it a later blade in an older style?

David · 7th April 2008, 12:11 AM

My take Andrew is that it is one of the later blades that showed up in the early 20th century that attempted to recreate the features that were found on the archaic models.

Andrew · 7th April 2008, 03:02 AM

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

David · 7th April 2008, 03:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

It's the style in which the features are carved. If you put this blade side-by-side with an "archaic" one i think you would instantly. I am afraid i don't have an "archaic" example myself to put (though i am excepting donations and offers

). The same features are there; the Indo style sogokan and what i have heard others on this forum refer to as the "arrowhead" that surrounds it. The carving is generally deeper and better executed on the older ones though. And there are some stylistic differences. The work tends to look closer to the style of the ricikan on an Indonesian keris on the "archaic" kris. Closer to it's source design i would imagine.

Battara · 8th April 2008, 12:07 AM

Andrew one of the big indicators for me about being more recent is the okir used on the ganga - it not what was used until the 1920s or later. Before 1915 okir does not seem to be used. By the 1940s it seems that the okir was present but not the lamination. This piece may be a transition piece of sorts.

Rick · 8th April 2008, 01:35 AM

I think one of the giveaways to me is the truncated "sogokan" to use the Javanese term . I would expect to see a complete "sogokan" in an archaic sword .
I guess I am reiterating David's post .

Only my tuppence tho .........

Battara · 8th April 2008, 02:46 AM

A trunkated what?

Rick · 8th April 2008, 03:13 AM

This feature; on the old piece there is a pecetan to the left of blade center line and a sogokan to the right . They both come to a point and are deeply sculpted a la the Indo keris .

On the second example offered for discussion there is no real pecetan; but both sides of the blade's center line resemble the sogokan feature yet do not end in a point; they are squared off ; truncated, and are also fairly superficial compared to deep carving on the first example given .

Battara · 16th April 2008, 08:14 PM

You have a good point Rick and I agree.....

5th April 2008, 06:38 PM	#1
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	MORO KRIS HOW OLD IS THIS ONE Like to now if this is an old one . Thanks Ben Attached Images

5th April 2008, 10:30 PM	#3
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	Hi Battara the blade is laminated and ganjar separated Ben Last edited by Dajak; 5th April 2008 at 10:55 PM.

5th April 2008, 10:58 PM	#5
Dajak Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 951	Look at the needle Ben Attached Images

8th April 2008, 03:13 AM	#15
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,291	This feature; on the old piece there is a pecetan to the left of blade center line and a sogokan to the right . They both come to a point and are deeply sculpted a la the Indo keris . On the second example offered for discussion there is no real pecetan; but both sides of the blade's center line resemble the sogokan feature yet do not end in a point; they are squared off ; truncated, and are also fairly superficial compared to deep carving on the first example given . Attached Images

5th April 2008, 10:08 PM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	IMHO - I would place this at around 1930s based on the style of okir used at the base of the blade near the hilt. The pommel is bone. I am wondering if the line is a fake or indicative of a truly separable ganga. Also the pointed tip of the blade leads me to think this is later as well. I don't see any lamination on this either, also often indicative of laster pieces. It looks Maguindanao to me.

5th April 2008, 10:30 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,121	Hi Ben. Better pictures would help. It's really hard to make any judgement on the ganja line when the photo isn't sharp. That said i think Jose's assessment probably isn't that far off. I think the hilt might be a latter addition.

5th April 2008, 11:17 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,121	Well, that settles that then.....

6th April 2008, 09:40 PM	#7
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	Ok then.....I would now say the early 1920s if is laminated and ganga is separate. David has a good point about the hilt - I agree.

6th April 2008, 11:10 PM	#8
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I thought this was an "archaic" blade type (per Cato)? Is it a later blade in an older style?

7th April 2008, 12:11 AM	#9
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,121	My take Andrew is that it is one of the later blades that showed up in the early 20th century that attempted to recreate the features that were found on the archaic models.

7th April 2008, 03:02 AM	#10
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

8th April 2008, 12:07 AM	#12
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	Andrew one of the big indicators for me about being more recent is the okir used on the ganga - it not what was used until the 1920s or later. Before 1915 okir does not seem to be used. By the 1940s it seems that the okir was present but not the lamination. This piece may be a transition piece of sorts.

8th April 2008, 01:35 AM	#13
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,291	I think one of the giveaways to me is the truncated "sogokan" to use the Javanese term . I would expect to see a complete "sogokan" in an archaic sword . I guess I am reiterating David's post . Only my tuppence tho .........

8th April 2008, 02:46 AM	#14
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	A trunkated what?

16th April 2008, 08:14 PM	#16
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	You have a good point Rick and I agree.....