Kris with a repaired ganya?

[kai]

Hello Nik,

Please add dimensions for your new toy! When you receive it, please check the materials utilized for the ferrule (white brass or brass?) and the clamps (aluminium or white brass?)!

The seller dated this kris as 1930 although some people I showed the pics to said it could have been somewhat later (early post WWII?) is 1930 reasonable?

Well, the seller apparently relies on Cato (who argues for a date of "circa 1930 and later" for kris with integral gangya) and is a tad optimistic...

Of course, there never was a pan-Moro conference in late 1929 which decreed that from 1930 on kris were forbidden to have a separate gangya (even if there had been such a conference, I bet there would have been more than a few Moro panday happy to ignore any order of the day... )

We know that some kris with integral gangya do already show up earlier (from about the turn of the 19th century or possibly even a few years earlier). There is also convincing evidence that at least in some parts of the Sulu archipelago the production of kris with separate gangya never really ceased. On Mindanao production of kris with separate gangya started again in the (very?) late 20th century; I don't have any exact dates but it seems to coincide with increased demand for blades of somewhat higher quality (probably from the global antique market and, especially, ePrey). Most "antique" kris coming out of the Philippines in those days were old blades with replaced/upgraded fittings to raise a higher price; however, as supply of old blades waned, new production set in - most of these were artificially aged and sold as "old."

Despite these more general disclaimers, the shift from usually separate gangya to almost universal integral gangya seems to have been astonishingly fast on Mindanao, so Cato's rule of thumb of kris with separate gangya being pre-1930 held quite well for Maranao and Maguindanao pieces when the book was written.

However, one really needs to take a close look on a given kris and keep the whole picture in mind when trying to place and date it.

1) The fitting of the gonjo to the blade looked very much as if it was repaired to me. See yellow arrows in one of the pic. The lines did not match.

This look to me as though the part of the ganya (circled red) was broken and reattached? Is this assumption correct?

I don't see any hints suggesting a reattached tail end of the gangya: The typical gangya line (lower arrow) is just engraved and the upper arrow points to a forging flaw.

2) I like the look of the markings on the blade. Is this typical markings/decorations specific to a particular tribe?

3) I was told that this type of marking is a later style and only occur in blades from early 20th century onwards. Is this true? meaning that we can date a blade based on absence/presence of this type of decoration?

That's a tough one, especially if you try to define "this type of marking" as there are certainly different motifs, styles, and many levels of quality/workmanship.

The motif at the fullers is an old, traditional one and reasonably well done. OTOH, the lines at the base of the blade and the scroll work on the whole gangya area are rather poorly done. On Mindanao, a similar blade would definitely be post-1930; OTOH, workmanship around WW2 until quite some time after was often of much worse quality.

4) What tribe produce this syle of blade?... check on old posts in this forum mentioned Sulu or Miguindanao.

We can firmly place this kris in the Sulu archipelago: fittings are typical and I'd also argue that the blade is of local production.

Considering that blacksmithing traditions continued in a more conservative fashion in the Sulu archipelago, I'd estimate this blade to be from the WW2 period at the earliest based on the workmanship as discussed above and its stocky proportions; it could well be even considerably younger as a "worst case" scenario. However, the well-done fuller would make me lean towards an earlier period within the given time frame.

Looking at the fittings, I'd posit that the scabbard as well as the pommel does show some genuine age and decent workmanship (the grip braiding is traditionally done but doesn't show any wear and might be a later replacement). Thus, WW2 might be a reasonable guesstimate. Mind you, this is juggling with probabilities! It certainly is a nice example of a more modern kris and I'd certainly try etching it to bring out the laminations.

BTW, note that there are several ethnic Moro groups within the realm of the Sulu Sultanate (Tausug, Samal, Yakan, etc.). I don't think we have enough data to try placing non-antique kris to any specific group though.

Regards,
Kai