Hello Jose,
Quote:
|
I'm wondering if the kris in question is a transitional piece.
|
That's apparently what Zel was implying above - would love to hear him discussing the reasons for his assertion.
Quote:
|
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
|
AFAIK post-1930s luk vary quite a bit - so I'd be weary to use them to argue a pre-1930s origin...
Quote:
|
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.
|
BTW, wasn't it Stone bringing up this issue? (Hadn't time to check with the local library copy...)
Quote:
|
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.
|
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...
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