Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
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.  |
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
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spunjer
i thought i'd add this [laguna copperplate inscription] in the context of the artifacts posted above...
|
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).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
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.
|
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
