Another Moro Barung on ebay:)
 

Beunos dias amigos,

Sorry, but the only thing I can do right now is ask part of my learning proscess. Another Moro espadas/Barung? but it has ingravings? are this funtional? or just display? a little thicker and heavier too.
ebay # 6626899179.

gracias:)

There is some speculationi that these type of Moro kris were made for early tourist market. Certainly seems that the hilt ornamintation was stripped long ago. May have been a datu piece. Hard to say.

Well Well .......
 

I have one of those ; they're heavy and very nicely made . :)
I would say quite functional . :eek:

My gut feeling based on the shape of the luks is a newly made tourist piece. They seem to "sharp" and unrefined to me, I don't get a 19th C feel at all.

Kris, not Barung
 

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/...tem=6626899179

I'd have assumed this blade from Mindanao to be fairly young, possibly between 1930 and 1950. The engraving seems pretty unusual to me and was, I'd suppose, what attracted several forumites. Punal, Kino, Adni would you mind to comment? Better pics after arrival (and etching) appreciated, too!

BTW, the handle/clamp look almost older than the blade?

Ok, I was slow to work on the reply... ;)

Rick, does your piece also have similarly extensive engraving?

It's older than you think and better quality, too.

Sorry Kai, I didn't bid on it. But, I have this Kampilan with an engraved blade that's published in Cato's book. Like Rick's Kris, my Kampilan is quite heavy and functional. Although you can't see it in the photo's, the blade is laminated. What bothers me about it is the size of the crossguard, it's small and not as refined as other Kampilan crossguards. It does have a Spanish coin attached to the hilt.

I have seen a Kampilan that belongs to a collector/dealer named Dave, (Hi Dave), that has a 3 luk/wave and engraved blade. His blade is etched and it definitely is laminated. Cato has stated that the wave bladed Kampilans were made for the tourist market. I find it hard to believe that Dave's Kampilan was made for the tourist market. There is too much work involved in the blade process just to make a few Pisos on it. Sorry no photos of Dave's Kamp.

Hey Kino, I have an engraved blade kampilan as well. The blade is laminated and the okir goes down the entire length of the blade. It's too well made to be a tourist piece. In fact, I got it with an old junggayan barung as a part of a lot brought back by a soldier returning from the Spanish American war. Definately not tourist.

Yes.

This is why I was hesitant. There are older references that have these as examples before or during the US occupation.

I remember seeing photo's of Rick's Kris awhile back. Back then I thought it was built too nice to be tourist fodder.

Zel, got photos of your Kamp.

I don't think that I'm qualified to make a decision as to whether this is tourist fodder ; if it is then it is fodder of the highest quality .
It handles well , has the proper fit and balance , steel asang asang ; there is no doubt as to its functionality .
It's a fine strong substantial weapon .

The hilt is a bit puzzling in its simplicity compared to the blade ; but that coarse rattan grip would not slide around in a wet hand .

I'd love to see better pictures and get your hands on opinion. Hope I didn't upset anybody, I just was giving my thoughts on what I was seeing. Having looked at Ricks blade I see differences in shape.

Shrug :( I tought I had a decent piece :confused:
Welp, can't do anything now, I just paid it off.
Honestly, what ever the finding is, I like it, it is a solid fighting kris with no separate gangya which susceptible to cracks. My thoughts, it's a no tourist piece even the luks.

As soon as I get it, I will post close up photos.

Thanks for the info, Zel. What period would you place it and what signs do you look for? Do you assume there's a separate gangya hidden or is it one of those rare 19th c. examples without one? BTW, can anyone identfy the wood used for the hilt?

The engraving does look decent (difficult to tell the depth of the engraving from pics) but the luks and, especially, ricikan details didn't strike me as similarly sophisticated. But this may be just a matter of taste (and missing experience on my part)... :o

I think nobody assumed this to be one of the flimsy tourist repros made by stock removal - it does look like a serviceable blade. But would this blade fit into Cato's ceremonial category with main emphasis placed on "show" rather than battle-value?

Regards,
Kai

G'day everyone.... :)
It may help if the proud new owner of the piece were to put everyone out of their speculative misery:D j/k...
Where ARE you, Arnie?!

You're a funny man Ed :D
How's the weather in OZ :cool:

You've got to have a sense of humour (warped or otherwise) in this game, otherwise you'll be tearing your hair out (starting at your head) every time you lose a bid:D.
It's autumn/fall over here... need to start putting the brass monkey away... just in case it gets too cold:)).

Well, I'm not saying it is the cheapo tourist crap. For one thing, blades made for US soldiers at the turn of the 20th century were probably better than what you would think. Also, it could be a more ceremonial, though the jury is out on that one. I would think that the engravings would be more talismanic if it is a true battle piece.

One other possiblity that I wonder about (not mentioned in Cato) is that it and others could have been true battle pieces that were later engraved either for talismanic or sales purposes. Although this hypothesis would place such a piece in the market place, it would not catagorize these as pieces made for the tourist market (only adapted for it).

I hear you, boss :)

check out this webpage: http://1-22infantry.org/history/hartpagetwo.htm

now compare the luks on both ingraved krises.

yep, you have a point(sharp luk) they do look similiar, I could very well be wrong, that's why I here to learn.

Nice historic link, how did you find it?

Nice historic link, how did you find it?[/QUOTE]


it was once posted some time ago by a guy named spunjer under Moro weapons. . . :confused:

Well , that pushes the integral gangya back to at least 1906 if we are to believe the info on the site .
Another thing that is pushed back some more is the sharper corners on the seki(sp?) which I had equated more with the mid 20thC. era .

Interesting .......... :cool:

So does this mean that Cato's 1930's seperate gangya guideline is out the window ?
Or are these two kalis just anomalies ?

Nah, it's just a rule of thumb that Moro kris with separate gangya will be usually pre-1930's. There are some later examples - haven't seen any of these though (except Indonesian pieces).

That doesn't imply that kris with integral gangya are necessarily later than 1930 (although many are). Obviously, there must have been a transition phase during which both types were produced - possibly about 1900-1930? Some examples may be late 19th century. I wouldn't be too surprised if there even were a few older oddballs with integral gangya. After all, an integral gangya isn't too uncommon in keris Bugis - so it's not a new invention and the concept will have been known to Moro panday well before the 20th c.

Regards,
Kai

I'm wondering if the kris in question is a transitional piece. The luk on it are sharp, yes, but not as sharp and pointed as those I have seen on post-1930s krises which have very sharp points (like the one on my head :D ).

Regarding the separable ganga issue, I haven't seen much evidence yet to alter Cato's thesis other than there may be exeptions to the rule in non-separable kris before 1900. Certainly the craftmanship used on earlier kris is unnecessary for later kris post-1930 when guns were even more plentiful than before. It would certainly cost more money to create a separable ganga especially when the demand for kris as an everyday weapon drops in later years.

Hello Jose,

That's apparently what Zel was implying above - would love to hear him discussing the reasons for his assertion. :cool:

AFAIK post-1930s luk vary quite a bit - so I'd be weary to use them to argue a pre-1930s origin...

BTW, wasn't it Stone bringing up this issue? (Hadn't time to check with the local library copy...)

I think you're mixing at least 2 separate issues here:
Apparently it wasn't uncommon to utilize kris in warfare/resurgence attacks well into the 1970s. However, one could argue that an integral gangya will be even stronger than the traditional one - so I don't think the lack of martial use (wether assumed or real) is a convincing reason for the different gangya construction.

Economic reasons may be more prevalent although I'd expect the more well-off patrons to continue favoring the traditional version... :confused:

Cato seems to imply that traditional forging skills/traditions got lost during about the same period but are there any convincing reasons for such a hypothesis? Is it possible that the successful US invasion let to an landslide loss of the recognition of talismanic/mystic properties of a blade? I doubt this, too, but would like to hear people with better knowledge of Filipino and, especially, Moro beliefs/customs/history to discuss pros and cons!

Regards,
Kai

Photos.