IVORY POMMEL MORO KRIS FOR ID PLEASE

Battara · 28th September 2018, 12:12 AM

I would place this as possibly from the late 1700s or early 1800s, Sulu region, and is of chieftain class.

If the moderators would move this to the Ethno section where we can continue the discussion.

Ian · 28th September 2018, 01:40 AM

Agree with Jose that this is probably an early 19th C. Sulu kris. The traditional finish on the blade would be to polish it with very fine sandpaper and then etch the blade to show its pattern. There are many threads here that discuss etching Moro kris, and I would suggest using the search function on this site to obtain a wealth of more information.

Ian.

CharlesS · 28th September 2018, 12:13 PM

A lovely example of this "archaic" type! Congrats!

David · 28th September 2018, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesS

A lovely example of this "archaic" type! Congrats!

Charles, this is not what i think of when i use the term "archaic" as i thought it was proscribed by Cato. I thought those are the thinner style with the deep winding luks. This blade is clearly a slasher with a wider blade and much more shallow luks and looks more like a transition to the more modern style to me.

Battara · 28th September 2018, 04:44 PM

David I thought of that, but there aspects of the Ganga and the forte areas that are very early and appear archaic. This blade is either an anomaly or later blade with archaic styles (unheard of so far).

Rick · 28th September 2018, 05:22 PM

Maybe we might consider this kris as a 'transitional' style.
Do I see activity in the core of this sword?

CharlesS · 28th September 2018, 05:40 PM

David,

I see your point. The blade is wider than typical with far more shallow luks, but when I look at the whole thing in its entirety it strikes me as archaic, even more so if it etches out to a twistcore. We can surely agree that it is at least early 19th century.

I think Battara may have a good point as well...that it is a variation of the "archaic" form.

I hate getting tied into jargon that is too "rule-making" on these type of issues because it has been my experience that every time we think we have found a line or defining feature, there can be an exception to the rule.

28th September 2018, 12:12 AM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	I would place this as possibly from the late 1700s or early 1800s, Sulu region, and is of chieftain class. If the moderators would move this to the Ethno section where we can continue the discussion.

28th September 2018, 01:40 AM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Agree with Jose that this is probably an early 19th C. Sulu kris. The traditional finish on the blade would be to polish it with very fine sandpaper and then etch the blade to show its pattern. There are many threads here that discuss etching Moro kris, and I would suggest using the search function on this site to obtain a wealth of more information. Ian.

28th September 2018, 12:13 PM	#3
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	A lovely example of this "archaic" type! Congrats!

28th September 2018, 04:44 PM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	David I thought of that, but there aspects of the Ganga and the forte areas that are very early and appear archaic. This blade is either an anomaly or later blade with archaic styles (unheard of so far).

28th September 2018, 05:22 PM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Maybe we might consider this kris as a 'transitional' style. Do I see activity in the core of this sword?

28th September 2018, 05:40 PM	#7
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	David, I see your point. The blade is wider than typical with far more shallow luks, but when I look at the whole thing in its entirety it strikes me as archaic, even more so if it etches out to a twistcore. We can surely agree that it is at least early 19th century. I think Battara may have a good point as well...that it is a variation of the "archaic" form. I hate getting tied into jargon that is too "rule-making" on these type of issues because it has been my experience that every time we think we have found a line or defining feature, there can be an exception to the rule.