Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Ian · 19th June 2024, 06:58 PM

Gustav,

Thank you for your spirited comments. I take no offense from your description of "wildly speculative" and "amateurish attempts" to push back the dating of this kris. In fact, I fully expected to receive responses such as yours from several people. As a retired academic I understand your frustration with what I wrote above. However, as a longstanding visitor to the Philippines and collector of PH weapons, I am no less frustrated by statements from those outside the local cultures who wish to label so many older examples as 19th C when those indigenous cultures report that much older examples existed.

With respect to museum specimens, the apparent absence of provenanced pieces pre-1800 might be traced to the way many museums document their acquisitions. They can usually date when the item entered the museum's inventory, but there is no further information about the possible age of the item before its acquisition by the museum. As a result, the formal age of such items is dated from the when it was acquired. To try to gauge how old these items may actually be, it is necessary to speak with museum staff, and this is what Cato says he did. Museums also have far more items than are displayed. Simply looking at what is on display can be very misleading with regard to the breadth of the collection, and what is displayed over time can vary. What a curator chooses to display may be based as much on the condition of the item or its artistic merit as on the desire to display an historical perspective.

Thus, I believe your statement regarding no provenanced kris pre-1800 in Spanish museums is misleading. There may well be, and likely are, pre-1800 examples in those museums that are simply not described as such in museum documents or placed on display. I have not visited Spanish museums nor contacted staff at those museums to address pre-1800 kris in their collections. Perhaps you have. Cato says he did, and I give his efforts some credence.

Mr. Cato has not defended the criticisms of his work. I can understand that. Why get into acrimonious debate? He put his ideas and findings out there, and we can make of them what we wish. One should not decry his efforts for doing so. A lot of work went into his book and it is thought provoking.

My approach in presenting this kris for discussion has been to take a controversial position and to stimulate discussion of the age of an old kris example. I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong. However, I know of no firm data that would contradict what I have said here.

Xasterix has provided some of the (very limited) data available on old kris. In the plate he has posted of archeological findings, there is an example (j) that resembles a keris buda.

Regards,

Ian.

19th June 2024, 06:58 PM	#33
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Gustav, Thank you for your spirited comments. I take no offense from your description of "wildly speculative" and "amateurish attempts" to push back the dating of this kris. In fact, I fully expected to receive responses such as yours from several people. As a retired academic I understand your frustration with what I wrote above. However, as a longstanding visitor to the Philippines and collector of PH weapons, I am no less frustrated by statements from those outside the local cultures who wish to label so many older examples as 19th C when those indigenous cultures report that much older examples existed. With respect to museum specimens, the apparent absence of provenanced pieces pre-1800 might be traced to the way many museums document their acquisitions. They can usually date when the item entered the museum's inventory, but there is no further information about the possible age of the item before its acquisition by the museum. As a result, the formal age of such items is dated from the when it was acquired. To try to gauge how old these items may actually be, it is necessary to speak with museum staff, and this is what Cato says he did. Museums also have far more items than are displayed. Simply looking at what is on display can be very misleading with regard to the breadth of the collection, and what is displayed over time can vary. What a curator chooses to display may be based as much on the condition of the item or its artistic merit as on the desire to display an historical perspective. Thus, I believe your statement regarding no provenanced kris pre-1800 in Spanish museums is misleading. There may well be, and likely are, pre-1800 examples in those museums that are simply not described as such in museum documents or placed on display. I have not visited Spanish museums nor contacted staff at those museums to address pre-1800 kris in their collections. Perhaps you have. Cato says he did, and I give his efforts some credence. Mr. Cato has not defended the criticisms of his work. I can understand that. Why get into acrimonious debate? He put his ideas and findings out there, and we can make of them what we wish. One should not decry his efforts for doing so. A lot of work went into his book and it is thought provoking. My approach in presenting this kris for discussion has been to take a controversial position and to stimulate discussion of the age of an old kris example. I am perfectly willing to be proven wrong. However, I know of no firm data that would contradict what I have said here. Xasterix has provided some of the (very limited) data available on old kris. In the plate he has posted of archeological findings, there is an example (j) that resembles a keris buda. Regards, Ian.