MORO KRIS HOW OLD IS THIS ONE

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?

Rick · 8th April 2008, 02:13 AM

This feature; on the old piece there is a pecetan to the left of blade center line and a sogokan to the right . They both come to a point and are deeply sculpted a la the Indo keris .

On the second example offered for discussion there is no real pecetan; but both sides of the blade's center line resemble the sogokan feature yet do not end in a point; they are squared off ; truncated, and are also fairly superficial compared to deep carving on the first example given .

Battara · 16th April 2008, 07:14 PM

You have a good point Rick and I agree.....

8th April 2008, 02:13 AM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	This feature; on the old piece there is a pecetan to the left of blade center line and a sogokan to the right . They both come to a point and are deeply sculpted a la the Indo keris . On the second example offered for discussion there is no real pecetan; but both sides of the blade's center line resemble the sogokan feature yet do not end in a point; they are squared off ; truncated, and are also fairly superficial compared to deep carving on the first example given . Attached Images

7th April 2008, 11:07 PM	#2
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	#3
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	#4
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	A trunkated what?

16th April 2008, 07:14 PM	#6
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,272	You have a good point Rick and I agree.....