A Very Old Kris

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by Battara

The tang is a square and tapers to a point at the distal end.

Jose, thanks for the info. Would you or anybody have any idea as to which one is harder to make -- a square tang or round tang?

Originally Posted by Spunjer

...please keep it up. i really thought we could get together for some sarsi and sisig this coming january for my bro's wedding...

Ron, well you throw me so many curved balls and so I have to keep up! Hope to bump into you one of these days here in Manila so we can further refine these theories (or reject some, and develop another). Or if I can have a US trip soon (but there's no plan yet), then maybe we can just have the sisig there in Ohio.

Originally Posted by David

I'm not sure who is sharpening whom here, but you have certainly presented much food for thought. I am certainly grateful for all this info on Visayan swords and daggers, but i do wonder just how much connection we can truly draw to Ron's kris that started this post or the Moro kris in general as we know it today. While i am not in a position to debate whether or not there is any real connection between your Visayan examples and the Moro kris, simply from observation the similarities are rather superficial. When we look at at Ron's sword we are able to draw very clear and solid connects to the Javanese and/or Balinese keris. These similarities are rather exacting, down to minute detail of the various features of these blades. We see in these early "archaic" Moro kris both a gonjo and a gandik. But even more we see most of the detailed feature that are contained in the diagram of Javanese keris that you posted in earlier in this thread. Clearly we see a developed kembang kacang (whether or not meant to be an elephant). We see a well developed double sogokan and greneng. So while i would not discount that Visayan swords may have had some influence on the development of the Moro kris, it is clear to my eyes at least that these early "archaic" Moro kris developed directly from the form of Javanese and/or Balinese keris. It's about so much more than the shape of the tang for me and i am afraid that all you have stated here has done little to invalidate the theory that the Moro kris is a direct development of the Javanese form. You have to look at the entire design of the keris/kris, not just the shape of the tang. I am afraid that i remain unconvinced that the Bohol kalis is the proto-type of the Moro Kris.

David, thanks. I agree with you that the subject matter has much more to do than the shape of the tang. And with regard to the 'invalidation' thing I mentioned, I was definitely not referring to the Indonesian keris' influence on the development of the Moro kris.

What was invalidated to my mind via what I presented, is the theory that the 'smoking gun' insofar as the inferred transition from a Javanese keris to a Moro kris must have been a Moro kris with a round tang.

That can't be, because as we've seen our square or rectangular tang came about centuries even before our kris was born.

I also agree with you on the Javanese influence on the development of what eventually became the Moro kris (and earlier, on the Javanese influence on the development of the Luzon, Visayan, and Mindanao-Sulu kalises).

I'm now reading a nice book on numbers and units in Old Tagalog by Dr. Jean-Paul Potet. And in there (see excerpts below), the very close ties between our islands and Java was mentioned several times. We can also see that he also mentioned that there was a period where our forefathers were using Javanese currency, given the far-reaching influence of the Javanese economy. Thus, we can surmise from all these that there must have been a tremendous amount of cross-fertilization going on within our region (which region eventually became Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines).

And so I think we should always remember that it was and will always be a two-way street.

When I had the opportunity to interview the weapons expert of Museo del Ejercito in Toledo, Spain in 2010 (and our subject was antique Phil. blades), he suggested to me that one important area of study is the influence of Filipino sword design on Spanish blades. Because precisely he is emphasizing that the influence of one region to another will always be reciprocal.

Thus in my humble opinion the proper perspective is to think in grayscale and not in black and white. Or put another way, the approach is to think in percentages, rather than all or nothing.

To put it more concretely and by way of an example, I think the Moro kris' origin is 70% local (with the Visayan kalis, as my personal proof, which kalis form must have also existed in Luzon and in Mindanao-Sulu, and perhaps even before the advent of Islam in our islands) and 30% Javanese.

I suppose the alternative view is to think that it's lopsided the other way around -- e.g., the Moro kris' origin is 90% Javanese and only 10% local.

I don't have any problem with the two views above, hypothetically. My only issue is for anybody to claim that the influence on the any design is 100% local, or 100% Javanese, or 100% whatever

Next, I'll present some more info why I believe that the influence on the development of the Moro kris' design must have been predominantly homegrown.

[migueldiaz]

The following are excerpts from the book Philippine Ancestral Gold, which deals mainly with local 10th to 13th century AD artifacts.

We can see that in the area of craftsmanship then, only Philippines was at par with Java in the region.

I understand that this is not a direct proof with regard to the subject of this thread. I guess my only point is that the Philippines too must have had influenced Java a lot, in the general area of design of cultural objects, which included weapons.

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

The following are excerpts from the book Philippine Ancestral Gold, which deals mainly with local 10th to 13th century AD artifacts.

We can see that in the area of craftsmanship then, only Philippines was at par with Java in the region.

I understand that this is not a direct proof with regard to the subject of this thread. I guess my only point is that the Philippines too must have had influenced Java a lot, in the general area of design of cultural objects, which included weapons.

Miguel, there is no doubt of the skill of early craftsmanship of these old gold artifacts. I have been aware of this work for some time. However, it is still apples and oranges.
If you can show me a Moro kris that can be legitimately dated to this same period (13th or 14th century) of time that has all the features of the Javanese keris of that same period, that might be a game changer. Frankly i have never seen one that can be dated earlier than the 16th or 17th century at best (Cato is more conservative and calls these 18th century, but i think they must date a little older than that).
Getting back to tangs, these really early ("archaic") Moro kris that i have seen have not really developed yet into the slashing weapon they were to become. They are smaller (many not much longer than the blade length of many Bali keris) with much thinner width and a pointiness which infers that stabbing was still the main function. I have not had the opportunity to examine the tangs on these very early kris, but they could probably still be fairly effective as stabbing weapons if they still had a round or even square tang. It is only as the weapon gets larger and more intended for slashing that a rectangular tang becomes more necessary. Ron's kris shows that at least some of these early kris retained the round tang of their Indonesian cousins, though i would image that Moro smiths were probably trying different things at the time to develop a more effective weapon to use against the Spaniards.

[A. G. Maisey]

With regard to those two distinctive features of kerises and krises (encircled in the attached pic, which pic I merely hastily snatched from the Internet), what would be the latest views on which century or centuries those first appeared?

Miguel, the most recent opinions relating to the development of the Modern Keris (ie, the keris form that followed the Keris Buda) have not yet been published. With God's blessing perhaps later this year they may see daylight.

[migueldiaz]

Gustav, thanks for the pics.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Which leads us back to Ron's very old kris with a round tang that defied the trend. Well, I'm still scratching my head on that one. Can it be that the smith was Indonesian? Could the prematurely broken 'elephant trunk' be another sign that the smith was not that familiar with the finer points of making a Moro kris? Just thinking out loud ...

Given said pics posted by Gustav, then all the more I'm led to speculate that Ron's kris must have made by an Indonesian also, with the roundish tang and all ...

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Gustav, thanks for the pics.

Given said pics posted by Gustav, then all the more I'm led to speculate that Ron's kris must have made by an Indonesian also, with the roundish tang and all ...

Dear Migueldiaz,

regarding the pictures I posted in#43, I would like to pose my opinion, which, of course has not much weight.

The kris without gonjo is the one nearest to the Javanese/Balinese keris. Yet even this kris has features we never would see on Javanese/Balinese keris, regardless of their age.

The kris with gold hilt is a big step towards typical Sulu kris.

Ron's blade in my eyes has a very Mindano like Gandhik area, which even would not fit the features of the more Jav./Bal.-like Sulu Gandhik. Here I really don't understand, why it has to be made from am a smith from present day Indonesia territory - just becouse it has a roundish tang?

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by David

Given that early ("archaic") Moro kris seem to incorporate all the exact same minute details of design that we find on the Javanese keris (gandik, gonjo, sogokan, blumbangan, kembang kacang, greneng w/ rondha, lambe-gajah, etc.) and that none of these features are visible on any of the examples of these ancient kalis that you have posted i have a very difficult time accepting the Moro kris as 70% homegrown as you have suggested.

David, thanks again for the comments.

I'm presenting below a rehash of my earlier visuals. And this will enable me to outline more clearly my position. But lemme say at the outset that I'm not emotionally attached to this position

In fact if my theory (or anybody else's theory) can be demolished soon, then I think we will all agree that that's progress. That is, the whole point of the discussion is to merely find the 'best fit' in the data vs. the interpretation.

But first we have to agree on what defines a Moro kris. For me and simplistically speaking, a kris to be a Moro kris has to have the ffg.: (a) an assymetrical blade; (b) a ganya, i.e., the guard; and (c) that whole 'elephant trunk' assembly with the gaping 'mouth'.

I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this. And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon.

Thus the five items above would be the 'must have'. And the rest would merely be 'nice to have'.

Using the above criteria, obviously the Bohol kalis is not a kris. Bec. though it satisfies four of the criteria, yet there's no "c". But I think all of us agreed already that the said kalis is not a kris.

Yet still, for me that kalis is a key piece in the puzzle. And that's because the said kalis, planted the seeds of what will become the Moro kris. And so we now turn to the plate below.

First the easy part -- the lower half of the plate pertains to what we already saw before: the leaf-shaped assymetrical double-blade over time and space was the classic form, both in our islands and abroad (Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.).

And I've made the thickness of the aqua horizontal line thinner as one reached the 19th century. What I'm implying there is that the volume of blades produced with that design declined, as more assymetrical and larger blades grabbed the limelight over the last 300 years or so.

Now on the upper half of the plate --

The group of three hilts/blade should actually be on the lower half of the plate. But I just ran out of space. Anyway, it's good to also place that bunch up on top, because together with the Bohol kalis, we can see the seeds of what will aggregate to become a Moro kris:

(1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown -- and as a side note, the round thing on the other side of the hilt is reminiscent of some Moro kampilan hilts, as well as other Indonesian hilt forms;

(2) then the blade assymetry on the Bohol kalis ['A2' crossed out] is yet another baby step;

(3) still on the Bohol kalis, the guard/ganya ['E'], and its greneng [also 'E'] would be further proofs; and

(4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture.

In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air).

As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course).

Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog?

But as I mentioned, I'd also like to try and destroy my own theory, if only to find out what's a more plausible scenario. Hence, while we all await with bated breath and with great anticipation Alan's book, can you please comment on the following?

(a) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, wherein we can see something like 'C' in the illustration below (in any weapon), and we are not looking for a whole keris, that is, just that particular design element -- once found, we then compare the age of that, vis-a-vis the 10th to 13th century dating of that gold Mindanao hilt bearing 'C';

(b) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, where there's a ganja preferably with greneng, in an asymmetrical dagger -- again, we will then compare it with the 10th to 15th century Bohol kalis bearing those features; and

(c) finally I've always been intrigued on what's supposed to be the oldest Javanese keris/es, as recovered from an archeological dig; can you please post pics of those? given Java's very rich cultural past, I've always wondered why I can't seem to find pics of those, which I'd really like to compare with ancient Phil. kalises.

In summary, if certain key design elements will be found on earlier Javanese objects (as compared to the Phil. specimens), then I will happily move on and formulate a different hypothesis

PS - My fearless forecast is that in between the Bohol kalis (10th to 15th C. AD) and the present Moro kris form (17th C.?), there ought to be another missing link in which either the leaf-shaped blade would have straightened already, and/or the gandhik would already be there on the opposite side of the greneng, with the gandhik design element most probably coming from Java, together with the janul, bungkur, lambeh gajah, etc.).

BTW, 'B' in the plate refers to the sun-fire-bird motif, which can be traced to the ancient Austronesian religion that venerates those, as the icons of the Upperworld (and the naga or croc or turtle, etc., as the icons of the Underworld). And so we see a coherent picture, of how the archeological items provide evidence of a continous stream from the past to the present forms.

[A. G. Maisey]

There will be no book coming from me Miguel. I have consistently rejected that idea for more than 45 years.So luckily there is no need to abate your taking of breath.

[migueldiaz]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

There will be no book coming from me Miguel. I have consistently rejected that idea for more than 45 years.So luckily there is no need to abate your taking of breath.

What?

But didn't you say this?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Miguel, the most recent opinions relating to the development of the Modern Keris (ie, the keris form that followed the Keris Buda) have not yet been published. With God's blessing perhaps later this year they may see daylight.

Incidentally, for somebody starting to study the archeology and history of the Javanese keris, what would be a good reference, if any? Thanks! PS - So who's the author of the forthcoming book you mentioned, if the info can be divulged already? Thanks again.

[Gustav]

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this.
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

It has little to do with the discussion of kris origin, yet here I would like to remark, there are Moro kris without greneng.

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon.
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

Yes, but without any doubts there simply are Moro kris with round tang. You can't ignore them.

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
(1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

These ornamentics/symbols are found at many places in SEAsia, as you do remark by yourself. With the same ease you say this feature is Gandhik with 'elephant trunk & mouth' someone could remark it resembles Greneng. For a key evidence of a theory this likeness is a very week point.

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
(4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture.
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

As earlier mentioned, even early Javanese keris forms and pre-keris daggers also have a rectangular tang. It is absolutely nothing unusual&typical only for Philippines.

[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air).

As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course).

Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog?
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]

Here I would like to remark, all on Moro kris looks like a typical Keris-culture-periphery product: the symbolic details from Javanes/Balinese repertoire are taken and repeated in a increasingly ornamental way ("just icing on the cake"), with time progressing in features more and more typical for this peripheral region and mixing with the specifical ornamentics and symbols of this region. Such development per se is absolutely normal and absolutely typical.

Regarding the object from Bohol, the ancient japanese spearheads would give a more appropriate forefather of kris: you could find there by far more features similar to Moro kris. As I see, there (Bohol-object) is no Gandhik (ricasso) at all, and terms Gonjo (in this case Gonjo Iras) and Greneng would be need to be very stressed to fit the features of this object. It distantly reminds the silhouette of Keris Sepang or perhaps Keris Puthut, yet there simply are no Moro Kris Sepang and Kris Puthut, and no Moro kris at all, which would look like the Bohol object.

[A. G. Maisey]

Miguel, I never at any time have mentioned a book, and I never at any time claimed that I was publishing anything, still in the not too far distant future there might be a small, inconsequential paper published that has been around 35 years in the making, that could possibly answer a few questions.

The study of the Javanese keris cannot be accomplished by a study of the keris itself, one needs to read extensively in at least anthropology, sociology, history and art; in addition, more than a little time in the field won't do any harm. As a starting point, my favourite recommendation is Margaret Wiener's "Visible and Invisible Realms", that could well be followed by the five volume work of Dr. Th. Pigeaud:- "Java in the Fourteenth Century". A working knowledge of Old Javanese (language) is pretty useful too.

You must understand that it is not possible to separate an icon of a culture from the culture itself. The entire culture must be examined, as well as the society in which that culture blooms.

I like what you're trying to do here. I don't think you're moving in the right direction, but you are thinking in a line away from the norm, and that is to be respected. In the long term, I feel you might add something to our understanding.

[David]

Miguel, Gustav has already answered some of what you have presented, but i will also give it a go.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

I'm presenting below a rehash of my earlier visuals. And this will enable me to outline more clearly my position. But lemme say at the outset that I'm not emotionally attached to this position

This is good to hear. I also have no emotional attachment here, no horse in this race, so to speak. I am not tied to the present accepted theory of development, but do need to see solid evidence to the contrary before i would change my own opinion.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

But first we have to agree on what defines a Moro kris. For me and simplistically speaking, a kris to be a Moro kris has to have the ffg.: (a) an assymetrical blade; (b) a ganya, i.e., the guard; and (c) that whole 'elephant trunk' assembly with the gaping 'mouth'.
I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this. And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon.

I can accept all of these except the last. As Gustav has pointed out there are indeed examples of Moro kris with round or rounded tangs. They cannot be ignored and they are not going away.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Using the above criteria, obviously the Bohol kalis is not a kris. Bec. though it satisfies four of the criteria, yet there's no "c". But I think all of us agreed already that the said kalis is not a kris.

Perhaps we need to define our terms better, but on the Bohol kalis i not only do not see an "elephant trunk", but also NO gonjo/ganya, NO greneng and NO proper gandik. Please keep in mind that we are looking at this weapon in a very 2-dimensional format, but the blade appears very flat to me. I do not see a gandik by it's Javanese application on this blade.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Yet still, for me that kalis is a key piece in the puzzle. And that's because the said kalis, planted the seeds of what will become the Moro kris. And so we now turn to the plate below.

I would also like to point out that this is the only example of this exact blade form which seems to have surfaced in the Philippines. That seems odd to me for the "seed" of what was to become the prevalent sword of the Moros. Where are the others and all the transitional forms?

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown -- and as a side note, the round thing on the other side of the hilt is reminiscent of some Moro kampilan hilts, as well as other Indonesian hilt forms;

I'd say there is little doubt that this gold hilt shows some of the stylistic flourishes that would be added to the Moro kris from the original Javanese design. But the "elephant trunk & mouth" were features well in place in Javanese keris centuries before they appear on "archaic" Moro kris.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(2) then the blade assymetry on the Bohol kalis ['A2' crossed out] is yet another baby step;

The assymetric blade is classic to the area and did not originate in the Philippines. Certainly this ancient form influenced the early development of the Javanese keris as we can more clearly see in the keris buda.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(3) still on the Bohol kalis, the guard/ganya ['E'], and its greneng [also 'E'] would be further proofs; and

I hate to keep repeating myself, but i do not recognize any greneng nor a gonjo/ganya on the Bohol kalis. A simple widening of the blade at the base is not what defines a gonjo. It is a separte piece that has both width and specific shape. Even when gonjo iras, it is defined by an incised line.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

(4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture.

As both Gustav and myself have pointed out, square and rectangular tangs are not the invention of the Philippines. They were used long before the 10th century examples you post.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air).
As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course).

I am afraid that it is these "finer features" that you refer to here that is what actual make a keris/kris a keris/kris. They are not flourishes, they are the meat of the matter. You seemed locked a the rather superficial, 2-dimensional overall assymetric leaf-shaped blade. Also the blades must be examined in 3-dimensions to truly understand the shape and design of these features.

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

In summary, if certain key design elements will be found on earlier Javanese objects (as compared to the Phil. specimens), then I will happily move on and formulate a different hypothesis

As i mentioned before, i think we can safely say the the "modern" keris emerged in the Mojopahit period, though elements such as the gonjo and kembang kacang may have developed earlier. Since no known Moro kris with these features seem to have been created until a couple of centuries later and when they do emerge that look almost identical in features to their smaller Javanese/Balinese cousins i have little else to go in as to which preceded and influenced the other. If you can show me a 13th-14th century Moro kris with all these features intact that might be a game changer.

[migueldiaz]

Gustav, Alan, & David, many thanks for the replies

I'm still traveling at the moment (in Europe), and I continue to sift through hundreds of pics I've taken and counting (all about edged weapons, and which I'll post on separate threads later -- but just the ones I'm allowed to post). Hence, it may take some time before I can reply in more detail.

But here's a few quick ones --

1. first of all, I'm glad that these friendly 'debates' amongst forum members can be made: as said, if people are always agreeing, then no new knowledge can possibly arise;

2. I still think that your (Gustav & David's) definition on what makes a blade a keris-kris is very restrictive; and

3. but rather than debate on my no. 2 above, would there be a 3rd party definition we can all resort to? (e.g., from an authoritative book on kerises, so that it's not my own definition vs. your own definition) -- but this is not to say that I doubt what anybody here is saying; I'm just trying to borrow a principle that's used in business, wherein whenever there's disagreement, then one resorts to common industry practice or to a third party definition (e.g., via the judicial courts' previous clarifications).

On the other hand, I also realize that defining what a keris-kris is, can be tricky even among experts. But still, it might be worth a try.

Also, another way to resolve the matter (at least in the case of Moro krises), is to ask the old timers & smiths (i.e., Moros), on what makes a Moro kris a Moro kris. And whatever definition they'll give will have to be it I guess, since these are the very people that make these. I'm really meaning to interview Moro old timers soon. Thus, everybody please wish me 'luck'!

Finally, I just like to kindly reiterate that coming up with a definition as to what makes a bladed weapon a 'keris' [Javanese] or a 'kris' [Moro], etc., is the crux of the matter.

And my humble assessment of the current state of the 'debate' is this, and I'd like to use an analogy:

a. first, let's liken the kingdom of blades into the animal kingdom, where you have all sorts of birds, insects, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, etc.;

b. now for me, I define a "keris-kris" to be like the "primates", i.e., apes of all sizes & variations (all the guys we see below), that is, even though there are variations in these apes' looks, yet they are unique enough compared to the other mammals, & much more vs. the other animals;

c. and if I may be a little redundant just for the avoidance of doubt, I similarly think that the keris-kris form factor is unique enough vs. other blades, such even though the Bohol kalis may not have the finer details of a Javanese keris of the same age, yet compared to all the other blades out there, the differences between the Bohol kalis & Javanese keris will not be that significant relatively speaking; and

d. but on the other hand, my understanding of what David & Gustav are saying, is that they are alternatively defining a "keris-kris" (and still using my same analogy), to be a "gorilla" and nothing short of it.

In summary, in my own view a keris or kris stands out enough within the 'blade kingdom' by virtue of its unique shape. In the same manner, primates by virtue of their unique features, similarly stand out enough.

And for somebody to define a primate as equal to a gorilla only, is being too restrictive

Thus in conclusion, a definition [of a keris-kris] that would be the consensus of most experts should be had first IMHO, before further meaningful discussions can continue.

Just my two cents, and thanks to all.

PS - Like all analogies, at a certain point my analogy will fail. But I do hope that my little illustration above helps clarifies things a little. Thanks.

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

2. I still think that your (Gustav & David's) definition on what makes a blade a keris-kris is very restrictive; and

3. but rather than debate on my no. 2 above, would there be a 3rd party definition we can all resort to? (e.g., from an authoritative book on kerises, so that it's not my own definition vs. your own definition) -- but this is not to say that I doubt what anybody here is saying; I'm just trying to borrow a principle that's used in business, wherein whenever there's disagreement, then one resorts to common industry practice or to a third party definition (e.g., via the judicial courts' previous clarifications).

Well Miguel, for me it simply is what it is. While your idea of a third party definition might work well in some cases, it seems somewhat impractical in the case of keris/kris. Just because it is is a book doesn't make it so and i cannot personally think of any "authoritative" book on keris that spends that much time on the specifics of what technically makes a keris a keris. Perhaps someone can think of one that does.
As for the primate analogy, i think perhaps you are destroying your own argument there. For a blade to be a keris/kris, i have stipulated only that:

1. it have a asymmetric blade
2. it has a gonjo (separate or iras)
3. it has a gandik
The bohol "kalis" has only an asymmetric blade.

Now, to be considered a primate here is a short list for you:

1. Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
2. Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
3. Color vision
4. Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
5. Grasping fingers aid in power grip
6. Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits
7.Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
8. Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
9. Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
10. Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
11. Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
12. Prolongation of postnatal life periods
13. Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
14. Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
15. Complicated social organization

So it would seem to me at least that the requirements necessary to be considered a primate are far greater than those for determining a keris. And i'm not even getting into the necessary similarity in DNA structure. Clearly we all understand that keris vary in form quite a bit, just as we see in all these different varieties of primates. This has to do with many factors, including, but not restricted to geographic location, era of production, purpose (talismanic, use as a weapon, art and/or prestige, status, etc.). But no matter how much they might vary, they still all have the 3 features i specified above.

[kai]

Hello Lorenz,

Just a few notes (I'll try to expand on some other points raised when I finally find some time):

I still think that your (Gustav & David's) definition on what makes a blade a keris-kris is very restrictive;

I'm afraid that this "strict" definition is the de facto consensus among the specialized collectors/researchers, even for those focused on non-Javanese keris or, like me, with a strong Moro bias.

Also, another way to resolve the matter (at least in the case of Moro krises), is to ask the old timers & smiths (i.e., Moros), on what makes a Moro kris a Moro kris. And whatever definition they'll give will have to be it I guess, since these are the very people that make these. I'm really meaning to interview Moro old timers soon. Thus, everybody please wish me 'luck'!

I'm wishing you lots of luck in your quest and a safe return!
It would be great to obtain and preserve as much input by those old folks as long as we are lucky to have them around!

Finally, I just like to kindly reiterate that coming up with a definition as to what makes a bladed weapon a 'keris' [Javanese] or a 'kris' [Moro], etc., is the crux of the matter.

I don't think any definition is really that important: names/definitions as well as concepts/ideas/hypotheses are just there to help communication/thinking. When discussing origin and evolution of a cultural phenomenon, we need to concentrate on the details rather than broad definitions. Moreover, definitions/conventions (even within a single culture while the keris has been influenced by a multitude of cultures, ethnic groups and religions) are bound to change over time.

Thus in conclusion, a definition [of a keris-kris] that would be the consensus of most experts should be had first IMHO, before further meaningful discussions can continue.

IMHO the most important step for discussing this Bohol blade would be to narrow down its dating (the current guess is pretty much useless). Have you received any response from the curator wether a donation will speed up a reanalysis with modern techniques?

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

David, thanks. I agree with you that the subject matter has much more to do than the shape of the tang. And with regard to the 'invalidation' thing I mentioned, I was definitely not referring to the Indonesian keris' influence on the development of the Moro kris.

What was invalidated to my mind via what I presented, is the theory that the 'smoking gun' insofar as the inferred transition from a Javanese keris to a Moro kris must have been a Moro kris with a round tang.

That can't be, because as we've seen our square or rectangular tang came about centuries even before our kris was born.

I also agree with you on the Javanese influence on the development of what eventually became the Moro kris (and earlier, on the Javanese influence on the development of the Luzon, Visayan, and Mindanao-Sulu kalises).

I'm now reading a nice book on numbers and units in Old Tagalog by Dr. Jean-Paul Potet. And in there (see excerpts below), the very close ties between our islands and Java was mentioned several times. We can also see that he also mentioned that there was a period where our forefathers were using Javanese currency, given the far-reaching influence of the Javanese economy. Thus, we can surmise from all these that there must have been a tremendous amount of cross-fertilization going on within our region (which region eventually became Malaysia, Indonesia, and Philippines).

And so I think we should always remember that it was and will always be a two-way street.

When I had the opportunity to interview the weapons expert of Museo del Ejercito in Toledo, Spain in 2010 (and our subject was antique Phil. blades), he suggested to me that one important area of study is the influence of Filipino sword design on Spanish blades. Because precisely he is emphasizing that the influence of one region to another will always be reciprocal.

Thus in my humble opinion the proper perspective is to think in grayscale and not in black and white. Or put another way, the approach is to think in percentages, rather than all or nothing.

To put it more concretely and by way of an example, I think the Moro kris' origin is 70% local (with the Visayan kalis, as my personal proof, which kalis form must have also existed in Luzon and in Mindanao-Sulu, and perhaps even before the advent of Islam in our islands) and 30% Javanese.

I suppose the alternative view is to think that it's lopsided the other way around -- e.g., the Moro kris' origin is 90% Javanese and only 10% local.

I don't have any problem with the two views above, hypothetically. My only issue is for anybody to claim that the influence on the any design is 100% local, or 100% Javanese, or 100% whatever

Next, I'll present some more info why I believe that the influence on the development of the Moro kris' design must have been predominantly homegrown.

Again, interesting information on coins, but i can't help but remark that this seems like an apples vs. oranges argument and i don't really see the connection you are attempting to make with the coins. Firstly the Mojophahit Empire was indeed the dominate force in that area at the time and parts of what are now considered the Philippines were vassal states of that empire. So it is no surprise that Mojopahit currency can be found there. However it must also be considered that when currency is made of gold and silver it hardly matters what government has stamped it's mark upon it. It retains value by it's weight regardless.
I do look forward to the evidence you will soon be presenting that will show why you believe the Moro kris is predominately homegrown. Given that early ("archaic") Moro kris seem to incorporate all the exact same minute details of design that we find on the Javanese keris (gandik, gonjo, sogokan, blumbangan, kembang kacang, greneng w/ rondha, lambe-gajah, etc.) and that none of these features are visible on any of the examples of these ancient kalis that you have posted i have a very difficult time accepting the Moro kris as 70% homegrown as you have suggested. What does seem homegrown is the development of this uniquely Javanese design from a stabbing dagger into a slashing sword, which certainly makes the Moro variety of kris/keris a different beast, a one to be seriously reckoned with. In order to effectively do this the change from a round tang to a rectangular one seems a necessity for the effectiveness of the weapon. Such shaped tangs were not a mystery to the Javanese either. They just were just not a necessity for the stabbing function of the keris.
Alan will be able to answer the question you posed to him better than i, but it is my understanding that the features you are questioning about are at least as old as the Mojopahit Empire when all this contact between Jawa and the southern Philippines was taking place. I have attached a map of the Mojopahit Empire for some context. Certainly when you have contact between peoples their is an exchange of ideas. However, one must also keep in mind which was the dominate culture at the time. Vassal states tended to adopt the styles and directions of the keraton in power.