Maguindanao twistcore Kris.

Ian · 15th August 2024, 08:27 PM

I'm bringing this one back up because of my recent interests in dating Moro kris and distinguishing Moro from non-Moro work. The original post by Gustav shows a beautiful sword. Much comment was made about the excellent forging of the blade and its twist core central areas. Less attention was given to the cold work on this blade, which I think is of a very high standard.

Gustav noted two unusual features of this blade.

The tikel alis
The projection of the central twist core panel almost to the blade tip, ending in a pointed rather than a rounded curved manner

These are both unusual features for a Moro kris. To these uncommon findings, I would add three more.

The squared-off ends of the sogokan
The closure of the arrowhead area and formation of an acute point
The projection of the curved upper edge and greneng onto the gangya which has been hollowed out to the same curve as the adjacent blade (I'm unsure how this feature would be named)—this finding was described in another recent thread here.

It could be said that these are stylistic variations adopted by a particular craftsman. However, put together, I think they indicate a non-Moro blade. The treatment of the gangya (grooved area adjacent to greneng) is seen fairly commonly on Malay blades from the (late) 19th C and later, for example, as are the squared off sogokan. I have not seen these features on other Moro blades, but do see it on Malay kris. Similarly, the long, central, twist-core panel is quite common on Malay sundang but not seen on Moro versions. Lastly, the arrow head area just doesn't look quite right for Moro work.

My conclusion is that this beautiful blade has more Malay features than Moro features.

And then there is the plain old hilt atop this high quality blade. The pommel seems much older than the blade, judging from the age cracks, and the minimal kakatua pommel (without a crest or side panel) is an old style that likely predates 1800. The rattan wrap also seems mundane for this blade. Perhaps this is a pusaka hilt of significance to the owner. The hilt style is consistent with either Moro or Malay origin. We don't have a scabbard, which would have provided more information about the style of dress.

I think this is probably a Malay blade that ended up in the Philippines (maybe a custom order?), something that seems to have happened fairly commonly in the 19th C.

RobT · 16th August 2024, 11:56 PM

CharlesS,

You consider the blade to be pre 20th century. The baca baca is the one piece form which I have always thought first appeared at the very end of the 19th century and continued on into the 20th century. I have asked on this forum for confirmation of my assumption but I don’t believe I have ever gotten an answer so I would be very interested your take (and other forum members opinions) on when the one piece baca baca appeared. (Taking into account of course that the baca baca currently on the blade may not have been the original.)

Sincerely,
RobT

Ian · 17th August 2024, 11:58 AM

Rob,

This is an old thread. I have not seen CharlesS posting here for some time, so you may not get a reply from him. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a baca baca being "a one piece form."

RobT · 17th August 2024, 02:21 PM

Ian,

A two piece baca baca has a closed “stirrup” (usually steel) that fits around the blade. The second piece is a strap (brass in every example in my collection) that is looped around the the stirrup and extends up under the hilt wrap. As you can see in Gustav’s example, the stirrup isn’t closed off on the top and the two legs that fit under the hilt wrap are of a piece with the stirrup. I believe that the baca baca were originally added to stabilize the blade/hilt connection against shock and torque stresses when a blow is struck and the one piece design offers a mechanical advantage over the two piece version. In support of this I will mention that I have never seen a kris with a pair of one piece baca baca. I assume that is because the one piece design is strong and rigid enough to make a pair unnecessary.

Sincerely,
RobT

kino · 17th August 2024, 06:36 PM

RobT, Are these the 2 types that you’re referring to?

RobT · 18th August 2024, 12:54 AM

kino,

Your example on the left is the one piece and the right example is the two piece (albeit with a broken brass strap).

Sincerely,
RobT

Rick · 18th August 2024, 03:41 AM

One is steel and one is silver.

15th August 2024, 08:27 PM	#1
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	I'm bringing this one back up because of my recent interests in dating Moro kris and distinguishing Moro from non-Moro work. The original post by Gustav shows a beautiful sword. Much comment was made about the excellent forging of the blade and its twist core central areas. Less attention was given to the cold work on this blade, which I think is of a very high standard. Gustav noted two unusual features of this blade. The tikel alis The projection of the central twist core panel almost to the blade tip, ending in a pointed rather than a rounded curved manner These are both unusual features for a Moro kris. To these uncommon findings, I would add three more. The squared-off ends of the sogokan The closure of the arrowhead area and formation of an acute point The projection of the curved upper edge and greneng onto the gangya which has been hollowed out to the same curve as the adjacent blade (I'm unsure how this feature would be named)—this finding was described in another recent thread here. It could be said that these are stylistic variations adopted by a particular craftsman. However, put together, I think they indicate a non-Moro blade. The treatment of the gangya (grooved area adjacent to greneng) is seen fairly commonly on Malay blades from the (late) 19th C and later, for example, as are the squared off sogokan. I have not seen these features on other Moro blades, but do see it on Malay kris. Similarly, the long, central, twist-core panel is quite common on Malay sundang but not seen on Moro versions. Lastly, the arrow head area just doesn't look quite right for Moro work. My conclusion is that this beautiful blade has more Malay features than Moro features. And then there is the plain old hilt atop this high quality blade. The pommel seems much older than the blade, judging from the age cracks, and the minimal kakatua pommel (without a crest or side panel) is an old style that likely predates 1800. The rattan wrap also seems mundane for this blade. Perhaps this is a pusaka hilt of significance to the owner. The hilt style is consistent with either Moro or Malay origin. We don't have a scabbard, which would have provided more information about the style of dress. I think this is probably a Malay blade that ended up in the Philippines (maybe a custom order?), something that seems to have happened fairly commonly in the 19th C. Last edited by Ian; 18th August 2024 at 01:25 PM. Reason: Edited some text for clarity

16th August 2024, 11:56 PM	#2
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 534	Baca Baca Question CharlesS, You consider the blade to be pre 20th century. The baca baca is the one piece form which I have always thought first appeared at the very end of the 19th century and continued on into the 20th century. I have asked on this forum for confirmation of my assumption but I don’t believe I have ever gotten an answer so I would be very interested your take (and other forum members opinions) on when the one piece baca baca appeared. (Taking into account of course that the baca baca currently on the blade may not have been the original.) Sincerely, RobT

17th August 2024, 02:21 PM	#4
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 534	One Piece Vs Two Piece Ian, A two piece baca baca has a closed “stirrup” (usually steel) that fits around the blade. The second piece is a strap (brass in every example in my collection) that is looped around the the stirrup and extends up under the hilt wrap. As you can see in Gustav’s example, the stirrup isn’t closed off on the top and the two legs that fit under the hilt wrap are of a piece with the stirrup. I believe that the baca baca were originally added to stabilize the blade/hilt connection against shock and torque stresses when a blow is struck and the one piece design offers a mechanical advantage over the two piece version. In support of this I will mention that I have never seen a kris with a pair of one piece baca baca. I assume that is because the one piece design is strong and rigid enough to make a pair unnecessary. Sincerely, RobT

17th August 2024, 06:36 PM	#5
kino Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,018	RobT, Are these the 2 types that you’re referring to? Attached Images

18th August 2024, 12:54 AM	#6
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 534	Exactly kino, Your example on the left is the one piece and the right example is the two piece (albeit with a broken brass strap). Sincerely, RobT

17th August 2024, 11:58 AM	#3
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Rob, This is an old thread. I have not seen CharlesS posting here for some time, so you may not get a reply from him. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a baca baca being "a one piece form."

18th August 2024, 03:41 AM	#7
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	One is steel and one is silver.