A Very Old Kris

[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.

[VANDOO]

I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS MUCH MONKYING AROUND ON A TOPIC BEFORE. A FUN AND INFORMATIVE TOPIC REGARDLESS

AS REGARDS THE KERIS WHY AND WHEN THESE FEATURES THAT SET IT APART EVOLVED CAN ONLY BE APROXIMATED UNTIL SOME ARCHEOLOGIST MAKES A DIG IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND PERHAPS WE WILL GET SOME ANSWERS.
I SUSPECT THE CHANGES MADE TO THE MORO KRIS LIKELY CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF FIGHTING PREFRENCES AND STYLES OF THE TRIBES IN THAT AREA. THEY DESIRED A LARGER MORE ROBUST WEAPON BUT ALSO WANTED TO KEEP MANY OF THE FEATURES OF THE KERIS. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE LEGENDS AND STORIES ABOUT THE POWER AND MAGIC OF THE KERIS AS WELL AS IT BEING A TRADITIONAL FORM SO THEY INCORPORATED AND MODIFIED ITS FEATURES TO FULFILL THEIR NEEDS.
BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE MORO KRIS AND THE WAY IT WAS USED A ROUND TANG WAS NOT AS GOOD AS THE SQUARE ONE. I SUSPECT EARLIER SWORDS OF THE REGION WERE SQUARE TANGED AND CLOSER TO THE SINGLE EDGED FORMS, MANDAU,/KAMPILIAN AND POSSIBLY THE BARONG MAY PREDATE THE MORO KRIS.
I HAVE TRIED TO FIND AN OLD POST ON A OLD AND UNIQUE KRIS BUT SO FAR HAVE FAILED SO WHEN I CAN I WILL TRY AND TAKE SOME MORE PICTURES TO POST HERE TO SEE WHERE IT WILL FIT INTO YOUR CLASSIFICATION. PERHAPS ITS A MISSING LINK OF SORTS.
JUST CONJECTURE BUT NOT MONKEY BUSINESS

[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

[VANDOO]

HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE OLD AND UNUSUAL KRIS. IT IS 28 INCHES OVERALL, BLADE IS 22 AND 11/16IN. LONG. 4 AND 15/16 IN WIDE ACROSS TOP. HANDLE IS CARVED OF HORN WITH SILVER FITTINGS. IN THE FORM OF SOME DEAMON OR DIETY WITH TONGUE PROTRUDING. IT SHOWS A LOT OF AGE AND HAD A OLDER BLADE FORM LIKE A MALAYSIAN OR INDONESIAN KERIS. WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON IT IN THE OLD ARCHIVED FORUMS BUT I COULD FIND NO TRACE OF THE POST.

[David]

That's a very cool old kris Barry. I suspect that it is not Moro, but a Malay form. Seem obvious that this one was not made to incorporate asang-asang. If anyone can locate the old thread on this i'd like to read it. That hilt is very, very awesome!

[migueldiaz]

David, Barry, & Kai, thanks for all the comments.

And to 'monkey' with the topic some more, earlier there was a comment on why is there only one such example of a proto-Philippine kris (i.e., the Bohol kalis) per my assertion or speculation.

My answer to that is that discoveries of archeological blade artifacts are really few and far between. Also, if an evolutionist would have finally found his half-ape/half-man missing link and he found only one, I don't think people will question why there is only one example. Btw, I don't believe in evolution (but that's going off-topic).

On the dating of the Bohol kalis as being supposedly no good -- because it's very wide (a 500-year range, between 10th to 15th century AD) -- I don't agree with the 'no good' objection We have to distinguish between precision and accuracy (see illustration below).

If while traveling around New York and New Jersey I lost my bag and a reliable person told me I lost it for sure within Central Park, that tip won't certainly be no good. The info is admittedly not precise (Central Park is about 3.5 sq-km). But on the other hand the info is very accurate (at least I'd know that the bag is not in Brooklyn, and for sure it's not in Jersey). And if somebody will add that my bag was last seen at Strawberry Fields (the Lennon memorial inside Central Park), then that would not only be accurate but also very precise.

The 10th to 15th century dating is surely accurate -- there's consensus amongst experts that it's within that age range. But we need more precision as we all said. And a radiocarbon dating or any other suitable lab procedure is the next step, as far as getting a tighter age range is concerned.

So what am I trying to say? Haha, I lost my train of thought ...

PS'es --

Barry, nice examples you posted there. It's now clear that the blade profile ('waisted') used in the Bohol kalis still lives.

David, I think my primate analogy didn't come out that clearly. It's my fault. So I'll rehash the analogy, and make another post very soon (just fixing the revised 'planet of the apes' illustration). Thanks.

Kai, and I still think it's all about definitions

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by migueldiaz

Barry, nice examples you posted there. It's now clear that the blade profile ('waisted') used in the Bohol kalis still lives.

Dear Migueldiaz,

this blade shape is not something reserved for Bohol object.

This is the picture of a keris with provenance. It came to Japan at 1620.