20th August 2012, 08:23 AM | #61 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Gustav, thanks for the pics.
Quote:
|
|
20th August 2012, 11:11 AM | #62 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
I'm presenting below a rehash of my earlier visuals. And this will enable me to outline more clearly my position. But lemme say at the outset that I'm not emotionally attached to this position In fact if my theory (or anybody else's theory) can be demolished soon, then I think we will all agree that that's progress. That is, the whole point of the discussion is to merely find the 'best fit' in the data vs. the interpretation. But first we have to agree on what defines a Moro kris. For me and simplistically speaking, a kris to be a Moro kris has to have the ffg.: (a) an assymetrical blade; (b) a ganya, i.e., the guard; and (c) that whole 'elephant trunk' assembly with the gaping 'mouth'. I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this. And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon. Thus the five items above would be the 'must have'. And the rest would merely be 'nice to have'. Using the above criteria, obviously the Bohol kalis is not a kris. Bec. though it satisfies four of the criteria, yet there's no "c". But I think all of us agreed already that the said kalis is not a kris. Yet still, for me that kalis is a key piece in the puzzle. And that's because the said kalis, planted the seeds of what will become the Moro kris. And so we now turn to the plate below. First the easy part -- the lower half of the plate pertains to what we already saw before: the leaf-shaped assymetrical double-blade over time and space was the classic form, both in our islands and abroad (Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, etc.). And I've made the thickness of the aqua horizontal line thinner as one reached the 19th century. What I'm implying there is that the volume of blades produced with that design declined, as more assymetrical and larger blades grabbed the limelight over the last 300 years or so. Now on the upper half of the plate -- The group of three hilts/blade should actually be on the lower half of the plate. But I just ran out of space. Anyway, it's good to also place that bunch up on top, because together with the Bohol kalis, we can see the seeds of what will aggregate to become a Moro kris: (1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown -- and as a side note, the round thing on the other side of the hilt is reminiscent of some Moro kampilan hilts, as well as other Indonesian hilt forms; (2) then the blade assymetry on the Bohol kalis ['A2' crossed out] is yet another baby step; (3) still on the Bohol kalis, the guard/ganya ['E'], and its greneng [also 'E'] would be further proofs; and (4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture. In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air). As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course). Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog? But as I mentioned, I'd also like to try and destroy my own theory, if only to find out what's a more plausible scenario. Hence, while we all await with bated breath and with great anticipation Alan's book, can you please comment on the following? (a) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, wherein we can see something like 'C' in the illustration below (in any weapon), and we are not looking for a whole keris, that is, just that particular design element -- once found, we then compare the age of that, vis-a-vis the 10th to 13th century dating of that gold Mindanao hilt bearing 'C'; (b) what would be the oldest Javanese artifact or image, where there's a ganja preferably with greneng, in an asymmetrical dagger -- again, we will then compare it with the 10th to 15th century Bohol kalis bearing those features; and (c) finally I've always been intrigued on what's supposed to be the oldest Javanese keris/es, as recovered from an archeological dig; can you please post pics of those? given Java's very rich cultural past, I've always wondered why I can't seem to find pics of those, which I'd really like to compare with ancient Phil. kalises. In summary, if certain key design elements will be found on earlier Javanese objects (as compared to the Phil. specimens), then I will happily move on and formulate a different hypothesis PS - My fearless forecast is that in between the Bohol kalis (10th to 15th C. AD) and the present Moro kris form (17th C.?), there ought to be another missing link in which either the leaf-shaped blade would have straightened already, and/or the gandhik would already be there on the opposite side of the greneng, with the gandhik design element most probably coming from Java, together with the janul, bungkur, lambeh gajah, etc.). BTW, 'B' in the plate refers to the sun-fire-bird motif, which can be traced to the ancient Austronesian religion that venerates those, as the icons of the Upperworld (and the naga or croc or turtle, etc., as the icons of the Underworld). And so we see a coherent picture, of how the archeological items provide evidence of a continous stream from the past to the present forms. |
|
20th August 2012, 11:18 AM | #63 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,877
|
There will be no book coming from me Miguel. I have consistently rejected that idea for more than 45 years.So luckily there is no need to abate your taking of breath.
|
20th August 2012, 11:27 AM | #64 | ||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
But didn't you say this? Quote:
|
||
20th August 2012, 12:23 PM | #65 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,246
|
Quote:
regarding the pictures I posted in#43, I would like to pose my opinion, which, of course has not much weight. The kris without gonjo is the one nearest to the Javanese/Balinese keris. Yet even this kris has features we never would see on Javanese/Balinese keris, regardless of their age. The kris with gold hilt is a big step towards typical Sulu kris. Ron's blade in my eyes has a very Mindano like Gandhik area, which even would not fit the features of the more Jav./Bal.-like Sulu Gandhik. Here I really don't understand, why it has to be made from am a smith from present day Indonesia territory - just becouse it has a roundish tang? |
|
20th August 2012, 01:37 PM | #66 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,246
|
[QUOTE=migueldiaz]
I think it's reasonable to add a 4th one: a greneng, i.e., the blade trap, as I know of no Moro kris that doesn't have this. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] It has little to do with the discussion of kris origin, yet here I would like to remark, there are Moro kris without greneng. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] And let's add a 5th and final one: the tang has to be non-circular, otherwise it won't be an effective slashing weapon. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] Yes, but without any doubts there simply are Moro kris with round tang. You can't ignore them. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] (1) the 'elephant trunk & mouth' ['C'] on the northern Mindanao gold hilt is for me a key evidence, that the Moro kris must have been homegrown [QUOTE=migueldiaz] These ornamentics/symbols are found at many places in SEAsia, as you do remark by yourself. With the same ease you say this feature is Gandhik with 'elephant trunk & mouth' someone could remark it resembles Greneng. For a key evidence of a theory this likeness is a very week point. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] (4) finally, the square or rectangular tang ['D'], starting with the 10th to 13th century pieces would round up the picture. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] As earlier mentioned, even early Javanese keris forms and pre-keris daggers also have a rectangular tang. It is absolutely nothing unusual&typical only for Philippines. [QUOTE=migueldiaz] In summary, since all these big ticket items can be found on archeological weapons artifacts in our country, then it is reasonable to conclude that most of the Moro kris' features are homegrown (the '70%', if we are to pick a number from the air). As for the 30% (the finer features of the kris, which can't be found on ancient Phil. kalises), that to me is just icing on the cake And I can attribute those to Java as the source of the design elements (and this is not to belittle Java in any way of course). Pls. correct me if I'm wrong. But my impression is that you are focusing on the 30% as proof that the Moro kris was not homegrown. But wouldn't that be a case of the tail wagging the dog? [QUOTE=migueldiaz] Here I would like to remark, all on Moro kris looks like a typical Keris-culture-periphery product: the symbolic details from Javanes/Balinese repertoire are taken and repeated in a increasingly ornamental way ("just icing on the cake"), with time progressing in features more and more typical for this peripheral region and mixing with the specifical ornamentics and symbols of this region. Such development per se is absolutely normal and absolutely typical. Regarding the object from Bohol, the ancient japanese spearheads would give a more appropriate forefather of kris: you could find there by far more features similar to Moro kris. As I see, there (Bohol-object) is no Gandhik (ricasso) at all, and terms Gonjo (in this case Gonjo Iras) and Greneng would be need to be very stressed to fit the features of this object. It distantly reminds the silhouette of Keris Sepang or perhaps Keris Puthut, yet there simply are no Moro Kris Sepang and Kris Puthut, and no Moro kris at all, which would look like the Bohol object. |
20th August 2012, 02:06 PM | #67 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,877
|
Miguel, I never at any time have mentioned a book, and I never at any time claimed that I was publishing anything, still in the not too far distant future there might be a small, inconsequential paper published that has been around 35 years in the making, that could possibly answer a few questions.
The study of the Javanese keris cannot be accomplished by a study of the keris itself, one needs to read extensively in at least anthropology, sociology, history and art; in addition, more than a little time in the field won't do any harm. As a starting point, my favourite recommendation is Margaret Wiener's "Visible and Invisible Realms", that could well be followed by the five volume work of Dr. Th. Pigeaud:- "Java in the Fourteenth Century". A working knowledge of Old Javanese (language) is pretty useful too. You must understand that it is not possible to separate an icon of a culture from the culture itself. The entire culture must be examined, as well as the society in which that culture blooms. I like what you're trying to do here. I don't think you're moving in the right direction, but you are thinking in a line away from the norm, and that is to be respected. In the long term, I feel you might add something to our understanding. |
20th August 2012, 05:04 PM | #68 | ||||||||||
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Miguel, Gustav has already answered some of what you have presented, but i will also give it a go.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by David; 25th August 2012 at 08:26 PM. |
||||||||||
6th September 2012, 11:08 PM | #69 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Gustav, Alan, & David, many thanks for the replies
I'm still traveling at the moment (in Europe), and I continue to sift through hundreds of pics I've taken and counting (all about edged weapons, and which I'll post on separate threads later -- but just the ones I'm allowed to post). Hence, it may take some time before I can reply in more detail. But here's a few quick ones -- 1. first of all, I'm glad that these friendly 'debates' amongst forum members can be made: as said, if people are always agreeing, then no new knowledge can possibly arise; 2. I still think that your (Gustav & David's) definition on what makes a blade a keris-kris is very restrictive; and 3. but rather than debate on my no. 2 above, would there be a 3rd party definition we can all resort to? (e.g., from an authoritative book on kerises, so that it's not my own definition vs. your own definition) -- but this is not to say that I doubt what anybody here is saying; I'm just trying to borrow a principle that's used in business, wherein whenever there's disagreement, then one resorts to common industry practice or to a third party definition (e.g., via the judicial courts' previous clarifications). On the other hand, I also realize that defining what a keris-kris is, can be tricky even among experts. But still, it might be worth a try. Also, another way to resolve the matter (at least in the case of Moro krises), is to ask the old timers & smiths (i.e., Moros), on what makes a Moro kris a Moro kris. And whatever definition they'll give will have to be it I guess, since these are the very people that make these. I'm really meaning to interview Moro old timers soon. Thus, everybody please wish me 'luck'! Finally, I just like to kindly reiterate that coming up with a definition as to what makes a bladed weapon a 'keris' [Javanese] or a 'kris' [Moro], etc., is the crux of the matter. And my humble assessment of the current state of the 'debate' is this, and I'd like to use an analogy: a. first, let's liken the kingdom of blades into the animal kingdom, where you have all sorts of birds, insects, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, etc.; b. now for me, I define a "keris-kris" to be like the "primates", i.e., apes of all sizes & variations (all the guys we see below), that is, even though there are variations in these apes' looks, yet they are unique enough compared to the other mammals, & much more vs. the other animals; c. and if I may be a little redundant just for the avoidance of doubt, I similarly think that the keris-kris form factor is unique enough vs. other blades, such even though the Bohol kalis may not have the finer details of a Javanese keris of the same age, yet compared to all the other blades out there, the differences between the Bohol kalis & Javanese keris will not be that significant relatively speaking; and d. but on the other hand, my understanding of what David & Gustav are saying, is that they are alternatively defining a "keris-kris" (and still using my same analogy), to be a "gorilla" and nothing short of it. In summary, in my own view a keris or kris stands out enough within the 'blade kingdom' by virtue of its unique shape. In the same manner, primates by virtue of their unique features, similarly stand out enough. And for somebody to define a primate as equal to a gorilla only, is being too restrictive Thus in conclusion, a definition [of a keris-kris] that would be the consensus of most experts should be had first IMHO, before further meaningful discussions can continue. Just my two cents, and thanks to all. PS - Like all analogies, at a certain point my analogy will fail. But I do hope that my little illustration above helps clarifies things a little. Thanks. |
7th September 2012, 12:02 AM | #70 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Quote:
As for the primate analogy, i think perhaps you are destroying your own argument there. For a blade to be a keris/kris, i have stipulated only that: 1. it have a asymmetric blade 2. it has a gonjo (separate or iras) 3. it has a gandik The bohol "kalis" has only an asymmetric blade. Now, to be considered a primate here is a short list for you: 1. Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception) 2. Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears 3. Color vision 4. Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects) 5. Grasping fingers aid in power grip 6. Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits 7.Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones 8. Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars 9. Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex 10. Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire 11. Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes 12. Prolongation of postnatal life periods 13. Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young) 14. Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest 15. Complicated social organization So it would seem to me at least that the requirements necessary to be considered a primate are far greater than those for determining a keris. And i'm not even getting into the necessary similarity in DNA structure. Clearly we all understand that keris vary in form quite a bit, just as we see in all these different varieties of primates. This has to do with many factors, including, but not restricted to geographic location, era of production, purpose (talismanic, use as a weapon, art and/or prestige, status, etc.). But no matter how much they might vary, they still all have the 3 features i specified above. |
|
7th September 2012, 05:55 AM | #71 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS MUCH MONKYING AROUND ON A TOPIC BEFORE. A FUN AND INFORMATIVE TOPIC REGARDLESS
AS REGARDS THE KERIS WHY AND WHEN THESE FEATURES THAT SET IT APART EVOLVED CAN ONLY BE APROXIMATED UNTIL SOME ARCHEOLOGIST MAKES A DIG IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND PERHAPS WE WILL GET SOME ANSWERS. I SUSPECT THE CHANGES MADE TO THE MORO KRIS LIKELY CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF FIGHTING PREFRENCES AND STYLES OF THE TRIBES IN THAT AREA. THEY DESIRED A LARGER MORE ROBUST WEAPON BUT ALSO WANTED TO KEEP MANY OF THE FEATURES OF THE KERIS. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE LEGENDS AND STORIES ABOUT THE POWER AND MAGIC OF THE KERIS AS WELL AS IT BEING A TRADITIONAL FORM SO THEY INCORPORATED AND MODIFIED ITS FEATURES TO FULFILL THEIR NEEDS. BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE MORO KRIS AND THE WAY IT WAS USED A ROUND TANG WAS NOT AS GOOD AS THE SQUARE ONE. I SUSPECT EARLIER SWORDS OF THE REGION WERE SQUARE TANGED AND CLOSER TO THE SINGLE EDGED FORMS, MANDAU,/KAMPILIAN AND POSSIBLY THE BARONG MAY PREDATE THE MORO KRIS. I HAVE TRIED TO FIND AN OLD POST ON A OLD AND UNIQUE KRIS BUT SO FAR HAVE FAILED SO WHEN I CAN I WILL TRY AND TAKE SOME MORE PICTURES TO POST HERE TO SEE WHERE IT WILL FIT INTO YOUR CLASSIFICATION. PERHAPS ITS A MISSING LINK OF SORTS. JUST CONJECTURE BUT NOT MONKEY BUSINESS |
7th September 2012, 09:10 AM | #72 | ||||
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,254
|
Hello Lorenz,
Just a few notes (I'll try to expand on some other points raised when I finally find some time): Quote:
Quote:
It would be great to obtain and preserve as much input by those old folks as long as we are lucky to have them around! Quote:
Quote:
Regards, Kai |
||||
15th September 2012, 02:43 AM | #73 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: OKLAHOMA, USA
Posts: 3,138
|
HERE ARE SOME PICTURES OF THE OLD AND UNUSUAL KRIS. IT IS 28 INCHES OVERALL, BLADE IS 22 AND 11/16IN. LONG. 4 AND 15/16 IN WIDE ACROSS TOP. HANDLE IS CARVED OF HORN WITH SILVER FITTINGS. IN THE FORM OF SOME DEAMON OR DIETY WITH TONGUE PROTRUDING. IT SHOWS A LOT OF AGE AND HAD A OLDER BLADE FORM LIKE A MALAYSIAN OR INDONESIAN KERIS. WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON IT IN THE OLD ARCHIVED FORUMS BUT I COULD FIND NO TRACE OF THE POST.
|
15th September 2012, 07:17 PM | #74 |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
That's a very cool old kris Barry. I suspect that it is not Moro, but a Malay form. Seem obvious that this one was not made to incorporate asang-asang. If anyone can locate the old thread on this i'd like to read it. That hilt is very, very awesome!
|
20th September 2012, 05:32 PM | #75 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
David, Barry, & Kai, thanks for all the comments.
And to 'monkey' with the topic some more, earlier there was a comment on why is there only one such example of a proto-Philippine kris (i.e., the Bohol kalis) per my assertion or speculation. My answer to that is that discoveries of archeological blade artifacts are really few and far between. Also, if an evolutionist would have finally found his half-ape/half-man missing link and he found only one, I don't think people will question why there is only one example. Btw, I don't believe in evolution (but that's going off-topic). On the dating of the Bohol kalis as being supposedly no good -- because it's very wide (a 500-year range, between 10th to 15th century AD) -- I don't agree with the 'no good' objection We have to distinguish between precision and accuracy (see illustration below). If while traveling around New York and New Jersey I lost my bag and a reliable person told me I lost it for sure within Central Park, that tip won't certainly be no good. The info is admittedly not precise (Central Park is about 3.5 sq-km). But on the other hand the info is very accurate (at least I'd know that the bag is not in Brooklyn, and for sure it's not in Jersey). And if somebody will add that my bag was last seen at Strawberry Fields (the Lennon memorial inside Central Park), then that would not only be accurate but also very precise. The 10th to 15th century dating is surely accurate -- there's consensus amongst experts that it's within that age range. But we need more precision as we all said. And a radiocarbon dating or any other suitable lab procedure is the next step, as far as getting a tighter age range is concerned. So what am I trying to say? Haha, I lost my train of thought ... PS'es -- Barry, nice examples you posted there. It's now clear that the blade profile ('waisted') used in the Bohol kalis still lives. David, I think my primate analogy didn't come out that clearly. It's my fault. So I'll rehash the analogy, and make another post very soon (just fixing the revised 'planet of the apes' illustration). Thanks. Kai, and I still think it's all about definitions |
20th September 2012, 06:22 PM | #76 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,246
|
Quote:
this blade shape is not something reserved for Bohol object. This is the picture of a keris with provenance. It came to Japan at 1620. |
|
21st September 2012, 06:25 AM | #77 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Just a quick one on one of Barry's posted pics above ... I just found out that if you google the pic's filename (e.g., "ev01a monster kris.jpg" for that smallest pic), then it'll lead you right to the webpage. Thus, voilà! --
'HELP WITH IDENTIFICATION OF SWORD KERIS' However, Google didn't work for the two other pics .... Perhaps the forum moderators can ask the techie who maintains the forum as to how we can do a global search within EAAF, using any search string (i.e., whether keywords, or photo file names, etc). I think setting up this search function will be a piece of cake ... if it's not already there |
21st September 2012, 06:47 AM | #78 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
But may I know what the point is? Because at first blush, it appears to me that you are giving me 'ammo' instead That is, these objects were supposedly picked up in Manila (i.e., Philippines) back then, in the early 1600s. Hence, presenting these objects only help me bolster my contention that the 'waisted' kalis blade, just like the Bohol kalis, is an ancient Phil. blade shape (but for sure, there's no exclusivity, as this blade shape is also found in many other cultures) ... Thus you need to make more explicit your points, please. Thanks again. |
|
21st September 2012, 06:58 AM | #79 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
But I'm sure nobody among us will claim that certain Nepalese blades are therefore related to the Southeast Asian keris-kris. And it's because we cannot analyze these things on a mere superficial level. I'm sure we are all in agreement on this point. And so the blade shape is just the starting point. And we all look deeper -- trade routes, ancient religions which are the ones that bring forth design motifs, etc. To recap, I think there's no argument here at all But hey, I still owe David that reply ... PS - If I can get past this discussion on this 'very old kris', I'll also be starting another thread soon on blade forms found on stone carvings, statues, etc. And the pic below will be one of them. |
|
21st September 2012, 07:31 AM | #80 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,246
|
Quote:
the point is, this blade is absolutely clearly Javanese/Balinese and has nothing to do with Philippines. That this blade was aquirred in Philippines is only one possibility, and this possibility is touched only in a wikipedia article. And I must say, I very possibly have read all existing publications about this keris. |
|
21st September 2012, 08:50 PM | #81 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Quote:
I am completely open to examining evidence to the contrary if and when it arrives. Still waiting... |
|
22nd September 2012, 03:55 AM | #82 | ||
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
I've just read and reread your latest post on the Sendai kris, from the other thread, which I've cross-quoted in full below for the reader's convenience. The portions therefrom which I'd like to quote are these: "The blade is straight the size is too big or too long compared to Javanese kerises ... The features of the keris blade are very much similar to those of the Balinese keris."In summary, I think the researcher is saying that: (a) he's sure the Sendai kris is not Javanese; (b) he's positive it's Balinese; and (c) he's sort of scratching his head on how the Christian design elements figured into the scabbard. And if I understood his article correctly, I think he's supposing that the Japanese traveler got the kris in Europe from a Christian there, then he took it back home to Japan. Obviously I'm incompetent to critique on points 'a' and 'b' since I'm no keris expert. But I'm really wondering why there's no mention of Manila at all in his discussion of 'c', as another possibility. Manila (most of the Philippines, that is), is the only Christian country in Asia, then and now. And the Japanese traveler who acquired the Sendai keris did stay in Manila for two years(?) before finally heading back to Japan. Thus the question to my mind is, why go to Christian Europe halfway around the globe for the explanation of the Christian motifs when Christian Philippines was just right there. And to me it's very unlikely that said Japanese traveler did not collect any blade from the Philippines -- however, there's this quasi-Christian keris-kris he got but he did not get it from Christian Manila where he stayed for two years, but it was from Europe instead where he picked up the kris?! If the article's author mentioned Manila as a possible pick-up point for the kris, and then debunked it, that would have been better. But the silence is deafening! --- Quote:
|
||
22nd September 2012, 04:16 AM | #83 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
The connection between our neighbor Japan and its samurais vis-a-vis the Philippines, has long been there, even before the Spaniards arrived in the mid-1500s.
Off-hand, I can think of three solid evidences: 1. the Japanese word katana is a common synonym for sword for the ancient Tagalogs, as found for instance in San Buenaventura's 1613 Spanish-Tagalog dictionary; thus the presence of such loan word from the Japanese is sold proof that relations between our two countries had long been there; 2. when the Dutch had a naval battle with the Spaniards off the coast of Manila in 1600, the Spaniard galleon ('San Diego') which the Dutch sank was found later to have lots of tsuba (crossguard of katana) in the relics; I think there were also records that indicate that the Spaniard leader (Morga) hired lots of Japanese samurai mercenaries in that engagement; and 3. when some of the Japanese started converting to Christianity at that time, some of them sought sanctuary in Philppines which has become a Christian country by that time. One of those refugees was a samurai warlord, which statue is right in the heart of the city of Manila (see pics). The name of this little park is Plaza Dilao (literally, yellow plaza). And here in Manila, we colloquially refer to the Japanese as having yellow skin, even up to now. So what's my point? It's what I already mentioned in my previous post -- that Christian Manila (where the Japanese had a significant presence then, and even earlier) could have very well been the pick-up point for the quasi-Christian Sendai keris-kris. |
22nd September 2012, 04:22 AM | #84 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Here's pic of portions of a katana and tsubas salvaged from San Diego, from the Philippine National Museum.
|
22nd September 2012, 04:51 AM | #85 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
I can think of another illustration to visualize your scenario: let's imagine a figurative tree where the trunk is Indian Hinduism, the source of it all. Then there would be an older and lower branch and that would be Nepalese Hinduism. Then there would be a higher and younger other branch, and that would be Indonesian Hinduism (and a twig off this branch would be Philippine Hinduism, because we got our Hinduism by way of Indonesia). Now to my mind if your hypothesis is to be plausible (that that Nepalese kris-like sword was derived from India, in the same manner that the Javanese keris had its ultimate roots from India), we should see lots of examples of Indian proto-kerises in ancient stone carvings, metal statues, etc. But so far I haven't seen any (and I've been looking, too). So at the moment, I think it's just purely coincidental that that Nepalese blade resembles the Southeast Asian kris. But as you also said, let's all continue to look for evidences, to either prove or disprove the theory, thereby continuing to make progress. |
|
22nd September 2012, 05:31 AM | #86 | |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
Quote:
I can perhaps come up with other evidences, but unless we have a resolution on the definition of a keris-kris, then we will not really be resolving anything. So I think it's absolutely necessary that we first go back to the topic of defining what a keris or kris is. And allow me to rehash that animal kingdom and blade kingdom analogy. Very quickly, once more (and my animal kingdom sub-classification is not meant to be taxonomically sound): Birds & insects = Arrows, spears, & other projectiles Aquatic animals & fishes = Shields of all sorts Reptiles = Axes, clubs, maces, etc. Amphibians = long swords Mammals = shorts swords, daggers, & knives - Mammal sub-group A (rodents, marsupials, etc.): blades of certain types - Mammal sub-group B (primates, pachyderms, etc.): blades of another type Now, the last sub-group B is still a big ball of wax. And since we all want to segregate further the 'primates' from within that sub-group, we have to make a narrower definition of what primates are. My definition of what primates are: 'somewhat man-like in anatomy, and thus does not definitely look like an elephant, or a giraffe, or a dolphin, etc.' Hence the result of my definition of primates would be all of the guys below. Now to my mind, you are defining what a primate is somewhat strictly, such that you will end up with just the gorilla, marmoset, and the chimp. But this is not to say nor imply that since in reality all of the animals below are primates, then you are wrong As mentioned, this is just an illustration and all illustrations fail at some point. Ok, moving now directly to the kris-keris world -- my definition of what a Phil. kris is: 'often has wavy blades, whether symmetrical or assymetrical, and/or is assymetrical and has at least one triangular 'blade catch' on the guard, and it does not matter at all whether the guard is separate from the blade or not'. Thus to me all of the blades below would be krises. Now in my understanding of your definition, only the Javanese, Malay, and Sulawesi krises in the illustration below are real krises. After the 1930s (if Cato is right), most of the Moro krises did not have separate guards anymore. Now let me ask you please, are those latter Moro krises not real krises anymore? Also, I can practically guarantee that in the entire Philippines, once they see a wavy-bladed weapon, it will be regarded locally as a kris in the fullest sense of the word. And once anybody sees that Bohol kalis, they will also regard that as a kris. In summary, I now think that we all have to accept the fact that Philippines has a more liberal definition on what a kris or keris is (and that would be the whole caboodle below). I would even venture to say that if we ask an Indonesian or a Malaysian and show them the Luzon and Visayan krises below, they would most likely say that it's those are krises all right, but they are the Philippine varieties. Thus, in your definition of a kris or keris, wouldn't that be like defining the classical Indo-Malaysian keris more than anything else? Hey, I have to leave now as I'm meeting in a few minutes 'Nacho' and Nonoy Tan. In fact I'll be late already but I'll have a good excuse! |
|
22nd September 2012, 06:25 AM | #87 | ||||||
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
22nd September 2012, 09:57 AM | #88 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,254
|
Hello Lorenz,
Great to have you back - am looking forward to hearing some more thought-provoking discoveries from your travels! I also believe that those Visayan/Luzon "kris" don't qualify as a genuine keris/kris/kalis. The problem with comparing culture (or cultural artifacts) with evolution is that while cultures may (d)evolve they also, in many cases, receive important influences from other cultures. You may be able to specify where such an outside influence came from but this is very different from a clear-cut ancestor/descendant relationship that dominates biological evolution: For example, there seems little doubt that the Visayan/Luzon kris is based on the (Moro) keris/kris. Usually the blades are locally crafted but also some Moro blades got recycled (trade/battle pick-ups); however, the slender and wavy blade profile (which doesn't define a keris but rather is just what an outsider might consider as "cool") was obviously transplanted into the common Visayan or Luzon weapon styles (crossguard, hilt, scabbard). It is not the "whole package" with the essential associated baggage of beliefs and concepts that got accepted within another culture (and possibly happens later to be developed further). I also would like to point out that you can't utilize the contemporary concept/definition of a word to discuss cultural developments that happened many centuries earlier, especially if you ask "cultural outsiders" like Christian Filipinos what they happen to use the word kris for, even if this has been going on for quite some time. Regards, Kai |
22nd September 2012, 02:23 PM | #89 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,113
|
Quote:
|
|
20th October 2012, 02:42 PM | #90 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Manila, Phils.
Posts: 1,042
|
David & Kai, I easily get distracted and that's the reason why I'm posting here only now. And this time that distraction came in the form of a Weird Philippine sword/bolo. And so that's my lame excuse But seriously, please allow me to first accurately understand the points you elaborate above, before I make a reply. Thank you.
|
|
|