Here are close-ups of the tang. Does the cross-section appear round/oblong, or square/rectangular?

In determining whether the subject kris is an import (e.g., a battle trophy from Java or Indonesia), the other important consideration is knowing the burial practices of ancient Filipinos.

Based on Guthe's sketchy report of the kris' circumstance when it was found in a cave (per earlier post above), we can surmise that the context was that of a burial.

In the case of the other specimen which is a spear (mistaken by Guthe for a kris, per post above), it's very clear that there was a skeleton, with a presumable Chinese ("blue and white") plate over his face. Thus it's clearly a burial all right.

In the case of the subject kris, there was mention of lots of porcelain. But it was not indicated whether there was a skeleton found also.

In any case, the fact that those artifacts were found in caves points to burials. In the Philippines' ancient religion, caves were believed to be entrances to the Underworld.

Whereas Christianity views the netherworld as a place to be avoided, in the ancient Austronesian cosmology it's a nice place to be in -- that's where one gets reunited with his departed relatives and other deified ancestors.

It's often that the wooden coffins (or the huge jars, in case of secondary burials), would have images of serpents and other reptiles. And that's because the chief deities of the Underworld are the naga and the serpent. But we digress :)

Now in a male person's burial (especially if one was a warrior or a ruler), there are essentially two types of artifacts that get buried with him -- (a) his most intimate personal possessions, and (b) prestige items that are proof that he has helped his bayan (political unit) to become more prosperous.

Group 'a' would typically include his personal weapon, talismans (e.g., boar's or croc's teeth), etc. In some cases, the living wife and/or slaves also get buried with the VIP!

For group 'b' there will be gold objects, and prestige goods like imported porcelain, battle trophies, etc.

The whole point in having the 'b' objects with the dead is that the person would like to show his ancestors at the entrance to the Underworld that he had uplifted his community by his raiding and trading activities, and he's got proof.

The other proof would be his tattoos. As we know, in Austronesia one does not get a tattoo unless he's done exploits for the benefit of the community. In the case of females, once they had given birth/s they get tattoos also (because part of the women's job in community-building is to raise manpower, which was the scarce resource and not fertile land).

And these tattoos supposedly glow in the Underworld, to make them more recognizable to the gatekeepers of sorts (Borneo would have a similar belief).

So what's the above saying about the subject kris?

First of all, it has to be pointed out that the place as found by Guthe appears not to have been looted (the porcelains are still there).

For local grave robbers, porcelains would be on top of their list. Gold would be second only (the looters don't regard the ethnographic value; they actually melted most of the gold they found and sold them by the kilos). Rusty metal objects would be of least interest to them.

Given that there's only one metal blade found, most probably that's the only blade there was (i.e., the kris).

Now I'd like to think that the kris was a type 'a' object. For why would he not be buried with his own personal sword? And the porcelains would be type 'b'.

In a 1500s grave (drawing is below, from Laura Lee Junker's Raiding, Trading, & Feasting, and it's all about the Philippines' precolonial way of life), we precisely see a warrior with what we can conclude to be his personal weapon (the iron sword), and battle trophies (the bronze blade, as we didn't have bronze swords, then the enemies? skulls). Then there's the usual imported ceramics, etc.

In summary, given the cultural context as elaborated, it appears to me that the kris was owned by whoever person was buried in that cave. As such, it's mostly likely locally produced.

This is a very interesting thread Miguel. Thanks so much for all the research.
I am having a difficult time seeing this as anything but an Indonesian keris, in spite of the rectangular tang. The blade bears little resemblance to any other Philippines kris we have seen, but has much in common with early keris such as the blade shape and the carvings which look very much like a double puthut form at the base. There is also, i believe, record of early Indo Keris with square or rectangular tangs. The only thing that remotely resembles a Moro kris here is the tang which isn't very decisive IMO. Clearly trade was in full swing at these times as is evident from the presence of Chinese ceramics also present. So clearly it is possible that this was a blade gained in trade. Even as a traded blade it might very well have become a choice "A" object for the person buried. There is just no telling here.
I would think that if these blades were prevalent in the area during this era that far more than this one single example would have turned up by now. Hardly enough evidence exists to form any opinion of the origin of this single blade let alone to completely reverse the generally accepted theory that the keris developed first in Java before making it's way to the Philippines. Even the evidence of a parallel development is lacking as this seems to be the only example of a "kris" from this time period in the Philippines. Where are all the other artifacts? :shrug:

me and lorenz has been discussing this topic. i agree with you david that trading was prevalent at that point in time, but one must not omit the fact that at that time, indonesia and philippines as we know it, didn't exist, just a bunch of islands forming an archipelago from china to australia. it's also a possibility that this particular form of weapon was common in bohol, as it is in jawa. it's true that this is the only specimen, but as lorenz have mentioned, an old rusting iron was number eleven on the porcelain hunter's top ten list. with all the gold dagger handles that has been found, who's to say that there was a rusty iron, or an imprint anyway, left behind? kris or keris, wasn't as important to the visayans, or the northern mindanawans, as opposed to the javans, which has more relevance, therefore it was given more attention. as an analogy, if i'm standing on the beach looking at a wave with someone from the midwest, i see a nice barreling left point, while he sees rough water with a shark or two lurking below...

An interesting thread, and one that has opened up several avenues of discussion.

1)--- geographic origin of this blade

in my opinion it is not Javanese nor Balinese ( I group these two places together because for much of the period under consideration they can be considered as closely related, if not part of the same area of political influence)

I have never seen an early Javanese keris that had been forged without a gonjo.

I have never seen any Javanese keris from any period that had a tang similar to the tang on the blade under discussion. Early Javanese tangs were more or less square in cross section; this tang has an oblong cross section.

I have never seen a Jawa/Bali blade with a similar treatment to the sorsoran. Yes, in profile the notches in the sorsoran could perhaps be likened to a puthut, but likened only. I can see no suggestion of a puthut, only notches that would form an effective blade trap.

The flat sided tang and forward weighted blade indicate that this blade was used primarily as a cutting weapon, not a thrusting weapon. Early Javanese keris were used as over-hand stabbing weapons, and developed into weapons used as short rapiers.

In short, this blade simply does not look like a Javanese blade, early or otherwise.

2)--- did trade links exist between Jawa and other areas of Maritime South East Asia in the period 10th to 15th centuries CE.

Yes, of course they did, and had for over 1000 years prior to the 15th century. (see Christie, J.W.)

3)--- where did the keris originate?

The form first appeared during the Early Classical Period in Central Jawa, it developed to its modern form in East Jawa after 1000CE and prior to 1500CE.
The expansion of Javanese trade during the period 10th to 13th centuries CE saw the keris, along with other Javanese produce introduced to other areas of Maritime South East Asia.
The further expansion of trade and political influence under Majapahit to around 1500CE saw an intensification of Javanese influence and trade throughout Maritime South East Asia. This was the period when the keris spread into other areas. In some societies it remained very close to its original Javanese form; in others it developed a different form that was more suitable to local conditions.

4)--- the Candi Sukuh stele, and the other monumental representations of the keris at Candi Sukuh.

Candi Sukuh dates from about 1437. It is by no means evidence of keris origin in Jawa, as there is ample evidence of the existence of the keris in Jawa that pre-dates Sukuh by several hundred years. Sukuh is a relatively late construction of this period.

5)--- the Knaud keris

amongst academic researchers of the keris, there are many questions that surround the Knaud. We need to be very, very wary of using this keris as an example of anything, except perhaps the gullibility of European colonials.

Hello David,

(Being slow and distracted while working on my response, Ron and Alan beat me to it - I'm keeping this unedited though.)

Yes, it does look like puthut style but during that time frame, this style might not have been limited to what we today know as Indonesia. (And half of modern Indonesia apparently never had any keris culture...)

However, I see some features that make me think that this might be at best a copy of this style rather than being an expression of a genuine tradition (wether locally crafted or coming to Bohol as trade or as a gift from a foreign power):
1. This blade is essentially flat - no thickening at the gonjo area nor at the puthut areas while the tang is a mere extension of the blade.
2. The details of the putative puthut carvings don't fit any anthropomorphic features but appear to be merely geometrical by design.


Yes, and its proportions aren't typical "Moro" either - I don't think we can closely link it with the surviving kris tradition in the area.


In basically any warrior culture a blade is much more than a weapon. The choice of what constitutes the most important personal piece for someone of status (and, thus, being able to afford more than a very few blades) may very well be the perceived talismanic/magic/religious properties which most likely would also make treasured gifts from powerful foreign sources eligible. From the length I believe it's safe to assume that this most likely wasn't the person's primary war sword but rather something more "personal" anyway.


I believe we need to be more patient and remember that iron is prone to fast corrosion (as well as getting overlooked by non-professionals just trying to make a living). Iron artefacts do turn up but since so little archeology is actually being done throughout SEA, good evidence accumulates at a slow pace (and subsequent analysis/publishing being even slower).

Regards,
Kai

Messrs. David, spunjer, AG Maisey, and kai, many thanks for your comments! :)

Thanks most especially to Alan for the exhaustive commentary covering the various aspects of the discussion at hand. Coincidentally, I was reviewing the other day Alan's article on the origin of the keris.

Dr. Dizon also saw this thread by the way. And he mentioned that we should also consider the situation at the time -- i.e., that ancient Filipinos, Indonesians, and Malaysians were all maritime people, and there was really no distinct boundaries amongst them. Being genetically and culturally close relatives, he added that these peoples freely shared metal technologies among them.

On the subject kris, I also noticed that it was described that it appears that the blade's edge has more carbon content. Am mentioning this for whatever it is worth.

Lorenz

Double-edged symmetrical blades with a 'pinched' portion near the hilt, and a 'swollen' part near the tip, are actually common in precolonial Philippines (pre-16th century).

The Boxer Codex painting (1590) shows Zambals of Luzon (northern Philippines) using such a blade. The excavated Cebu blade (central Philippines) shown is likewise precolonial. The subject kris was found in Bohol incidentally, and Bohol is Cebu's neighbor (they speak the same language).

Finally, the blade shown in the other pic is most probably precolonial, too.

Hence the subject kris with a very similar blade profile is very much Filipino in this respect.

The other Filipino prehispanic blades have a more regular taper from the guard, to the point. The pic of the lone dagger is from 'nacho'.

From Laos/Cambodia/Thailand, we also see a similar blade profile. The pic below (and the ones to follow) are from the book, Images of the Gods: Khmer Mythology in Cambodia, Laos & Thailand.

To put the above blade in context, the other blade types that can be seen in those ancient [Thai/Laotian/Cambodian] temples are below. The longer blades, as well as the captions of the daggers shown, can be found in this album.

Dr. Dizon was kind enough to see me the other day. Here's some of the things he mentioned to me:

[1] on the bent tip of the Visayan kris -- he said that it is a sign that the blade owner willed when he was alive that the blade will be buried with him; bending the tip was a gesture that the blade is not to be used anymore -- in effect, this is another sign to look for when one is assessing the authenticity of an alleged excavated blade; he said that this practice was also done in other regions

[given the practice of ancestral worship then, these desires of the old folks were surely followed to the letter; the success of harvests and business enterprises were believed then to be heavily dependent upon the benevolent intervention of the departed forefathers]

[2] the similarity of the Visayan kris with old Javanese kerises, etc., is not surprising because there were really no borders then amongst what is now Phils., Indo., & Malaysia

[3] he added that blacksmiths then were itinerant, and thus all the more that we should see similarity in designs

[4] as far as artifacts found in ship wrecks in the country are concerned, he said he has never seen a bladed weapon [except for the katanas in the San Diego wreck, 1600, near Batangas] -- his conclusion is that the bladed weapons of ancient Phils. were not imported; we made our own

[5] he has also never seen blade artifacts in the country that are wavy -- all are straight [thus we can tentatively conclude here that the wavy/naga blade is a relatively recent concept]

[6] rather than mining iron ore and then smelting them, it's always easier to recycle old iron or steel as less effort is required

[7] also, as steel gets recycled (and heated and pounded once more to get the slag [impurities] out), all the more that the quality of the steel gets better

[8] thus it was quite popular in the olden days to use "drift iron", i.e., metal coming from various sources and then recycled.

Again thanks Miguel for all the research. It seems to me that this dating from 10th-15th century is a bit wide. Have they been unable to refine this dating a bit given the artifacts found. I personally would find 10th C date unlikely, but could see 15th C date. :shrug:

"Long Live! Year of Siyaka 822, month of Waisaka, according to astronomy. The fourth day of the waning moon, Monday. On this occasion, Lady Angkatan, and her brother whose name is Buka, the children of the Honourable Namwaran, were awarded a document of complete pardon from the Commander in Chief of Tundun, represented by the Lord Minister of Pailah, Jayadewa.

By this order, through the scribe, the Honourable Namwaran has been forgiven of all and is released from his debts and arrears of 1 katî and 8 suwarna before the Honourable Lord Minister of Puliran, Ka Sumuran by the authority of the Lord Minister of Pailah.

Because of his faithful service as a subject of the Chief, the Honourable and widely renowned Lord Minister of Binwangan recognized all the living relatives of Namwaran who were claimed by the Chief of Dewata, represented by the Chief of Medang.

Yes, therefore the living descendants of the Honourable Namwaran are forgiven, indeed, of any and all debts of the Honourable Namwaran to the Chief of Dewata.

This, in any case, shall declare to whomever henceforth that on some future day should there be a man who claims that no release from the debt of the Honourable... "

that's the translation of the small document pictured below that was hammered on an 8" by 12" copper plate, written in Jawi. curiously, the language used is similar to a mixture of sanskrit, old javanese, old malay, and old tagalog. as a matter of fact, it mentioned a few towns that still exist to this day: Tundun (Tondo), Pailah (Paila), Puliran (Pulilan), and Binwangan, which are in Luzon, the town of Dewata in Mindanao which is not far from where those gold dagger handles pictured above were excavated, and Medang, which is possibly the town of Medan in Sumatra. the date mentioned in that document was later translated to april, 21, 900 A.D. this particular document was found in manila around 1989.

i thought i'd add this in the context of the artifacts posted above...


this is very interesting! seems as if the moro pandays of later years were still practicing this, hence we see a lot of cross-tribal blades...

Miguel Diaz, I cannot disagree with anything you have presented. I am of the opinion that the blade under discussion here is a Philippine blade.

However, is it a keris (or kris, or creese, or cris, or crist, or dhuwung or any of the other variations) as we would recognise a keris today?

Over the years there has been much discussion about exactly how we identify a keris.

Speaking only for myself, and setting to one side the obvious aberrations, I believe that for a blade to be considered a keris it must have gandhik and gonjo as a bare minimum.

For me, the blade under discussion is not a keris.

It has certain keris-like features, which could indicate some early experimentation with the keris form, but it lacks the essential features that would give it the spiritual characteristics of a keris, and since the keris is a spiritual object, these features are essential in any keris, especially an early one.

As far as I am concerned, this blade you have shown us is indisputably of Philippine origin.

David, thanks too. The use of associated imported ceramics (Chinese, Vietnamese, etc.) does give very accurate periodization. But as you said, sometimes the time period indicated can be very wide.

Thus I asked Dr. Dizon earlier on what else can be done. He said that there's a US company, Beta Analytic, which does non-destructive dating of steel ("AMS" is the process as I recall). Since recycled iron can't be dated accurately, AMS instead dates the embedded carbon in the steel.

The downside is that it costs Usd 700. If only say 70 of us here can chip in Usd 10 each ;) then the query on the date of the Visayan kris will be settled once and for all (i.e., as to which point within 10th to 15th C it belongs).

Or maybe I'll try requesting first the university to do it at their own cost, in aid of alleviating the miseries of krisophiles :D

Spunjer, this is an excellent context you've added to the picture, i.e., the Luzon-Java connection as far back as the 9th to 10th century AD. As you also mentioned, the proper paradigm is to view the region as closely-knit groups (and not as compartmentalized entities).

Alan, many thanks for your expert opinion! Your assessment surely counts a lot to us.

Thanks again to all. And if I (or anybody among us) can find related info, let's post it here please :)

I don't really have any expertise to add anything, but thanks for all the information and discussion! It really impresses me just how much culture and sophistication was in so many places before colonialism and imperialism... and the Philippines being such a cultural center... something I did not know, but am not surprised by. Learn something new everyday! :)

Hello Lorenz, count me in! :)

AMS is a destructive method though. A bit of metal will have to be sacrificed and since the carbon content of iron/steel is low, maximum accuracy may not be feasible. Still it would be really nice to narrow down the age of this unique piece!

BTW, does Dr. Dizon possibly have a list of carbon-dated Philippine pieces?

Regards,
Kai

Thanks too, Vinny. We are all here to learn, that's for sure :)

Thanks, Kai! I'll let everybody know later what will be the university's response, as to them footing the bill. You're right about AMS - it is a destructive method. Regarding the list of carbon-dated pieces, I'll ask Dr. Dizon when I'll have the chance to talk to him again.

I actually visited him in his office earlier today. He showed me a 1973 publication by Karl Hutterer, entitled An Archeological Picture of a Pre-Spanish Cebuano Community. Excerpts can be seen below. At least one of the two blades appear to have been the one photographed in the earlier posts above.

Anyway, Dr. Dizon said that these blades in Hutterer's paper were dated to be from the 14th century AD. And what's particularly interesting for me here is that the blade likewise has that profile where we see a 'waist' (i.e., a narrowing down of the blade's width near the hilt, and 'bulging' of the width near the point).

Still on the 'waisted' blade shape as found in Phil. archeological artifacts dating back from the 10th to 15th century, once again through the kindness of Dr. Bong Dizon we just got even more info to chew on.

The additional info comes from his book, Faces from Maitum. Maitum is located in Mindanao, and it's a very important archeological spot in Southeast Asia. For a brief background, please refer to this and to this.

Going straight to the point, once again we find a blade profile (per attached, and it's that of a spear, but which Dr. Dizon also said can be that of a dagger), that's waisted. And this time around, the blade is from A.D. 70 to 370 (or alternatively, from 5 B.C to A.D. 225).

Attached are the radiocarbon dating data (they are Greek to me, but perhaps some of us here in the forum can appreciate these stuff).

Would anybody have any idea why this ('waisted') blade shape persisted for at least about 1,500 years? What would be the advantages of such blade profile? It must have worked so well, such that it remained in vogue for such a very long time.

According to Rawson this blade shape goes back a very long time and is a "common heritage of the Indo-Aryan peoples".

It is likely that it entered use in the Philippines from an Indian source, either directly, or indirectly..

Its mechanics of use are that in a blade designed for use as a cut weapon , it gives forward weight --- the khukri effect, in a blade designed for thrust it allows a broad wound for more effective hemorrhage, and easier extraction from the wound.

It has been in use for so long because it is a very good design.

Thank you for the comments :)