IVORY POMMEL MORO KRIS FOR ID PLEASE

[CharlesS]

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

[David]

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]

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]

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

[CharlesS]

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.

[chiefheadknocker]

Thanks for all your input , this sword is quite small compared with the one it came with ,total length of the blade is 49 cm , I have attached a picture of them together

[Sajen]

Lello Matt,

very nice Sulu kris! But the other one is very interesting as well, can you please post some more pictures?

Regards,
Detlef

[David]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

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.

Yes, i would agree that this kris is probably early 19th century and possibly even a bit earlier. I have never really liked the term "archaic" that Cato used for the even earlier blades, but this blade looks a little later than those and, as i stated already, a transition into a later style of kris blade.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by David

Yes, i would agree that this kris is probably early 19th century and possibly even a bit earlier. I have never really liked the term "archaic" that Cato used for the even earlier blades, but this blade looks a little later than those and, as i stated already, a transition into a later style of kris blade.

I think "transition" may be the perfect word here in indicating where this kriss fits into the Moro spectrum.