Antique kalis for comment

[xasterix]

What makes Filipino and Bangsamoro traditional blades worth collecting and pondering over, are the odd ones or outliers that inspire further research.

By its measurements (22in blade, 5in hilt) this kalis would seem late 1800s; but there are some notable features that make me think twice.

There were two asang-asang that were placed in the past (the outlines are still visible).

The gangya separation line is angled, and the tang is square. The blade was loose and the tang was broken when I got it; I soldered in a similar tang that I cut from a modern blade, the length of the tang repair corresponding to the maximum depth of the hilt's "hole." The blade is light and springy. The heat treatment is better than most pre1900s I've encountered and it retains an edge effectively.

Conservatively I would place the blade at late 1800s; however I have a gut feel that the blade can be as old as mid 1800s, just an outlier for its size (and keeping in mind that nobility blades could adhere to user-preferred measurements). The seki kura hilt is late 1800s, I suspect this is already the 2nd or 3rd hilt installed. The current hilt had seen extensive use, as its cracks had been patched up. The cord wrap is already frayed on the repaired areas, and subsequent cord wraps were done.

The center-line delaminations that I usually observe on twistcore krises are absent on this piece, a testament to the skill of the blacksmith/s who made this. The blade was topographically etched in the past, and the nickel gives off a "reflector" effect when the blade is seen at a certain angle against light. I lightly etched it with white vinegar, keeping with Moro tradition (etch with organics, not FeCL) and to reveal the nickel highlights in the pattern weld.

Comments are welcome, TIA!

[xasterix]

Adding some pics of the ivory pommel, which I believe to be elephant tusk. The holes at the back and front of the pommel is likely part of the pulp cavity.

[kai]

The holes at the back and front of the pommel is likely part of the pulp cavity.

Yes, definitely.

[kai]

Thanks for sharing this beauty, Ray!

What makes Filipino and Bangsamoro traditional blades worth collecting and pondering over, are the odd ones or outliers that inspire further research.

D'accord!

By its measurements (22in blade, 5in hilt) this kalis would seem late 1800s

I agree with your estimate and it even could be early 20th century despite obvious wear. (OTOH, 22" is still on the smaller side and a blade like this could well be earlier IMHO.)

The gangya separation line is angled, and the tang is square.

Square or rectangular?

Regards,
Kai

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by kai

Thanks for sharing this beauty, Ray!



D'accord!



I agree with your estimate and it even could be early 20th century despite obvious wear. (OTOH, 22" is still on the smaller side and a blade like this could well be earlier IMHO.)



Square or rectangular?

Regards,
Kai

Thanks for the feedback Kai! Sorry for being unclear about the tang- I'm attaching a pic of the remaining piece before i did tang surgery. I was guessing that the original form of the whole tang narrowed into a point at the tip (like an elongated triangle) as opposed to being purely rectangular. So i soldered in a modern tang that also narrowed towards the tip, and ended in a sharp point.

[kai]

Apologies for being ambiguous, Ray!

I was trying to ask for the tang's cross-section - looks like it actually is rectangular (width greater than thickness) as typical for non-early Moro kris.

Regards,
Kai

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by kai

Apologies for being ambiguous, Ray!

I was trying to ask for the tang's cross-section - looks like it actually is rectangular (width greater than thickness) as typical for non-early Moro kris.

Regards,
Kai

Halloo again Kai, yes it is indeed rectangular cross section- consistent with other 1800s krises I've opened up before

[Ian]

Ray, thank you for sharing this interesting sword!

If we step back from the sword itself, and think about why Moro kris increased in length and width relative to "early" versions, the prevailing theory is that this was a response to longer and heavier Spanish swords. As you and I have discussed, the same response occurred with several Filipino weapons (e.g., barung) in response to the Japanese swords being used during WWII.

If these kris adaptations in response to Spanish swords are correct, why would the Moros wait until the 19th C to implement this change? Surely, one would expect this to occur earlier in the encounter. After all, the two sides had been fighting each other since the 16th C!

Looking at the history of the so-called Moro Wars between Spain and the Filipino Muslims, Spain tried to invade the Maguindanao Sultanate in 1591, briefly establishing a garrison in 1596 but abandoned it the following year under intense pressure.

The Maguindanao Moros then went on the offensive with several large-scale raids against early Spanish settlements in the Visayas. These were largely successful, and caused the Spanish to reconsider their strategies. A series of peace treaties were signed in 1605, 1608, 1609. War broke out again in 1628, but this time with the Sulu Sultanate following a provocative Spanish act against a Sulu envoy. Spain mounted several large-scale attacks on Jolo in 1628 and 1630, which were repelled. To this point, Spanish successes were few.

The Spanish changed tactics and decided to establish a forward base on enemy soil. In 1635, Spain captured Zamboanga and used it as a base for attacking the Sulu and Maguindanao sultanates. The Maguindanao capital of Lamitan was captured in 1637. Attacks against the Sulu capital resulted in the capture of Jolo in 1638. In 1644, the Spanish needed to break off the war and return their troops to Manila to defend against a threatened Chinese attack. A peace treaty was signed in 1645 between Spain and the Moros.

Spain returned to Zamboanga in 1728 and built a massive fort. This led to further conflict but the Moros could not expel the Spanish. A stalemate ensued. Eventually peace treaties were signed in 1737.

Spain still dreamed of conquest over the Moros. In 1851, a large Spanish force reinvaded Jolo. From then until the end of the Spanish rule there were numerous conflicts as Spain sought to destroy the remaining power bases of the Moros. This would continue under American Colonial rule.

So where in this (brief) history would the Moros have decided to modify their kris to combat the larger Spanish swords? Would they have waited until 1851, despite serious existential threats in preceding centuries? I think not. More likely, this was a change implemented when Spain was inflicting defeats on the Moros on their home soil. This might date from the early 18th C, when Spain established its forward base in Zamboanaga, or perhaps earlier when Spain had its initial successes within the Moro homelands during the 1630s and 1640s.

Necessity is the mother of invention. When your home is under attack, change is essential to survival. A case can be made, I believe, for significant modifications to the kris as a weapon in the 17th and early 18th C. That such changes might continue with swords made later is to be expected.

I have written elsewhere that the current trend in dating Moro sword styles almost exclusively to the 19th and 20th C is mistaken. While the production of some swords may be attributed to this period, I believe the styles are often from (much) earlier times, and we give too little credit to Moro innovation during periods of threat.

Returning to your sword, Ray, I don't know when it was made. Could it be 18th C? Perhaps. The pommel looks old enough. However, I think the blade is not that old. It is missing the sogokan and "arrowhead" features of early styles. That's not to say it could not predate 1800, perhaps it is a simpler battle style from that period, but it's more likely 19th C IMHO.