MORO KRIS HOW OLD IS THIS ONE

Andrew · 6th April 2008, 10:10 PM

I thought this was an "archaic" blade type (per Cato)?

Is it a later blade in an older style?

David · 6th April 2008, 11:11 PM

My take Andrew is that it is one of the later blades that showed up in the early 20th century that attempted to recreate the features that were found on the archaic models.

Andrew · 7th April 2008, 02:02 AM

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

David · 7th April 2008, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

It's the style in which the features are carved. If you put this blade side-by-side with an "archaic" one i think you would instantly. I am afraid i don't have an "archaic" example myself to put (though i am excepting donations and offers

). The same features are there; the Indo style sogokan and what i have heard others on this forum refer to as the "arrowhead" that surrounds it. The carving is generally deeper and better executed on the older ones though. And there are some stylistic differences. The work tends to look closer to the style of the ricikan on an Indonesian keris on the "archaic" kris. Closer to it's source design i would imagine.

Battara · 7th April 2008, 11:07 PM

Andrew one of the big indicators for me about being more recent is the okir used on the ganga - it not what was used until the 1920s or later. Before 1915 okir does not seem to be used. By the 1940s it seems that the okir was present but not the lamination. This piece may be a transition piece of sorts.

Rick · 8th April 2008, 12:35 AM

I think one of the giveaways to me is the truncated "sogokan" to use the Javanese term . I would expect to see a complete "sogokan" in an archaic sword .
I guess I am reiterating David's post .

Only my tuppence tho .........

Battara · 8th April 2008, 01:46 AM

A trunkated what?

6th April 2008, 10:10 PM	#1
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	I thought this was an "archaic" blade type (per Cato)? Is it a later blade in an older style?

6th April 2008, 11:11 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	My take Andrew is that it is one of the later blades that showed up in the early 20th century that attempted to recreate the features that were found on the archaic models.

7th April 2008, 02:02 AM	#3
Andrew Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: USA Posts: 1,725	That's what it sounded like from the discussion. Anything, in particular, that leads one in that direction, David?

7th April 2008, 11:07 PM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	Andrew one of the big indicators for me about being more recent is the okir used on the ganga - it not what was used until the 1920s or later. Before 1915 okir does not seem to be used. By the 1940s it seems that the okir was present but not the lamination. This piece may be a transition piece of sorts.

8th April 2008, 12:35 AM	#6
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	I think one of the giveaways to me is the truncated "sogokan" to use the Javanese term . I would expect to see a complete "sogokan" in an archaic sword . I guess I am reiterating David's post . Only my tuppence tho .........

8th April 2008, 01:46 AM	#7
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	A trunkated what?