Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Battara
You bring up a good point, Nechesh. Although this is one mark of an early kris according to Cato, I have seen a few 17th century ones that do not have straight gangas. Thus I question this assumption as being a definitive mark of older Moro kris, although any one characteristic by itself is not as definitive as several features, like, for example, if this kris also had a smaller head and the blade were smaller as well. From what I have seen and according to what Cato says, the jungayan pommel like this one developed by about the late 19th century and most were Tausug or at least in use in the Sulu Sultanate.
By the way, I also have an early 17th century kris that has a small head, smaller thinner blade with elongated waves (luk or luks), mechanical damascus central panel, and deep chiseling at the base of the blade (thanks Rsword  ). Everything screams 17th century except one thing - the ganga - which is not straight. (May post pictures one day of it and the scabbard I made for it when I get the opportunity take pictures of it  ).
The waves on this kris are not the type seen on early Moro kris, although it is possible that the blade is older than the pommel. |
Certainly one of the biggest problems in the study of these swords is that everyone is somewhat dependant in Cato as the main point of authority. This is not to say that he is necessarily wrong, but we certainly need more reference books on the subject. How 'bout it boys! (you know who i'm talkin' to)
I am glad you made your last statement because i have some doubts that this junggayan is original to the blade, so it could be a poor indicator of age and/or origin.