Keris Sundang Melayu with twist core

A. G. Maisey · 19th June 2013, 01:24 PM

Thank you Michael.

Yes, I can understand how length of this type of keris might influence one to think it was from an earlier period.

I'm not sure that the luk form tells us anything in the absence of documented comparison pieces. I note Kino's comment, but this is not a Moro keris.

I've seen perhaps 3 or 4 of these keris over the last 30 years or so, and the features in the sorsoran are always done in the same way.

To my eye, this miring pamor is the style of work I expect to see in later pieces. The techniques and technology required to weld this type of pamor and to achieve this degree of perfection did not develop until relatively recently in the areas of keris production with which I am familiar.

Frankly, I have very little knowledge of keris outside the core areas of keris tradition, however, applying the tells that I use in my own area of expertise, I would place this blade at no earlier than the first quarter of the 19th century, and the dress as somewhat later.(19th century = 1800's)

Just as a matter of interest, what is considered to be an early date for a Moro style keris? What would be the date attached to the earliest documented example?

VVV · 19th June 2013, 01:41 PM

Alan,

I will not be home with my reference works (like Scott's work on how the Spaniards described the Philippines in the 16th C) for two weeks but here are several reference krisses, datings and most of the earlier discussion on this issue on this forum.

"archaic kris threads"

I would consider the early 19th C kris as archaic and those krisses that closely resemble an Indonesian keris as proto- or transitional kerisses.
Here is an example of a "proto-kris" that I would date as earlier than the one in my first post (next to a regular-sized Madura keris).

Michael

A. G. Maisey · 19th June 2013, 10:48 PM

Thank you Michael.

So the period around 1800 is considered to be about the time when these Southern Philippine swords in the form of a keris began to appear?

Thanks. That's pretty much as I had thought.

I tried the "archaic" link you provided, but it took me nowhere.

I look forward to your further comments.

kai · 20th June 2013, 12:37 AM

Hello Alan,

Quote:

So the period around 1800 is considered to be about the time when these Southern Philippine swords in the form of a keris began to appear?

A bit earlier at least IMHO. How much this extends into the 18th century (and even earlier) is still not well researched yet; the main problem is the scarcity of reliably provenenced museum examples.

Here's an old discussion on archaic (Moro) kris:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=241

So, what would be your estimate when twistcore-like pamor appeared in, say, central Jawa?

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 20th June 2013, 01:58 AM

Thanks for your input Kai.

The question really is:-

when did complex pamor miring motifs begin to appear in Jawa?

My answer is:-

I do not know

My qualification is:-

perhaps complex pamor miring did not appear in Central Jawa until the late 18th, early 19th century; in other words at the time when the keris had already been reduced to an item of dress.

There are many reasons for this opinion, and I do not feel inclined to expand upon those reasons here, because to do so convincingly would require a very large number of words and very long time to write them. Probably complex pamor miring appeared in East Jawa and along the North Coast prior to being reasonably common in Central Jawa.

In any case, if a keris that dates from circa 1800, and of the type under discussion in this thread, is regarded as "archaic" then there is really no reason to doubt that twist pamors did exist in "archaic" keris of this type.

In any case, what seems to qualify as "archaic" for this type of keris is regarded as a rather young weapon in the core tradition of the keris.

VVV · 20th June 2013, 07:29 AM

Alan,

Sorry about the link, maybe the session expired.
Try yourself to search "archaic kris" on this forum and you will find several interesting threads and pictures of archaic kris.

On the dating I seem to have been unclear. I meant that the archaic kris survived into the first quarter of the 19th before being replaced by the next style in popularity. When it first appeared is more difficult to date but there seems to be a collector's consensus that it was produced at least from the early 18th C.

The kris sword is mentioned, but not pictured AFAIK, in much older sources but I do not have them with me when traveling.
Hopefully someone else can check them. Otherwise I will have a look and return to this thread in two weeks.
Scott's book would be a god start but there are several other sources that describes what the Philippines, Brunei, Borneo, North Malaysia and Sulawesi (= "the kris sword belt", the areas being close to the major Malay/Indonesian iron sources in Borneo and Sulawesi) looked like between 16 - 18th C. Both the kampilan and the kris are often mentioned in those travel descriptions from early European visitors.
At that time the kris sword still also was popular in the Central Philippines. I found this description in an extract on my computer, from Scott's book Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society, on the Visayas, page 148:

"There were two kind of swords - kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 or 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical flare at the end of the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill.The wavy kris was called kiwi-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement could not be predicted. Hilt were carved of any solid material - hardwood, bone, antler, even shell - and great datu warriors had them of solid gold, or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface - damascened or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao and Sulu, and in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades."

[Alcina was an early 17th Jesuit missionary who researched and documented the Philippines.]
Unfortunately I only had the chapter about the Visayas on my computer but, unless anyone will claim that the kris sword originated on Panay, I hope it will be of interest as a source that some kind of kris swords existed already in the 16th - 17th C in the kris sword belt.

The importance of Scott's research of the 16th C Philippines (based on Spanish sources from the same century) is "slightly corresponding" to Pigeaud's for Java in the 14th C, so I think his book will interest you.

Michael

A. G. Maisey · 20th June 2013, 09:10 AM

Thank you for your clarification Michael, and for all the additional information.

Going back 50 or so years I did do a lot reading of early publications that dealt with Malaya, Borneo and other SE Asian countries, much of what I read was Oxford University Press reprints, in fact I still have maybe a dozen large boxes of these books stacked in my garage. I used to have a very good idea of what that part of the world was like from the time of first European contact through to the early 20th century. However as my focus narrowed I lost interest in these other areas, and I have forgotten much.

I never did have much interest in the Philippines, and still do not, and I guess we can blame this disinterest in the society and culture of these other areas for my lack of knowledge of the weaponry found in those places. However, one is undoubtedly linked to the other. After the collapse of Hindu Jawa the character of the Javanese keris changed, and its common dispersal by principally Islamic traders saw it introduced into other places in Maritime SE Asia as an artifact that had virtually no relationship at all to its original purpose. Thus my loss of interest in the keris in these non-core areas.

Moving away from my excuses for ignorance, and back to a question that does have some interest for me, that is emergence of the sword in the form of a keris. Would it be reasonable to date the earliest appearance of this "sword-keris" at around the beginning of the 18th century, rather than the beginning of the 19th century? If this is so, what are the available sources for confirmation of this? If we cannot confirm, what evidence is there to support the "collectors consensus" that you mention?

Do we have a language interpretation problem in relation to the sword in the form of a keris, or is there no doubt at all that when reference is made to this artifact that word does refer to what many now refer to as the Moro Keris? (or kris, or criss, or any other generally understood synonym)

Please excuse my variant approach to this matter. You see, I do not think in terms of "nice catches", or pretty pamors or scarce and unusual forms. I think in terms of history and societal relevance. This of course means that I tend to look for verification of opinions, or if not verification, then at least some sort of logical supporting argument for an opinion.

GUSTAV

Any pamor miring is difficult, and once you go to a pamor miring you can count on using vastly more material, fuel and time. The possibility of error increases many times, and the possibility of failure increases many times.

Assessed on the basis of these factors alone, any pamor miring is by its nature a complex pamor. However, some are more complex than others, and these are pamors that are produced by twisting, splitting, re-welding, or other manipulation of the entire body of the bakalan, rather than by manipulation of the surface alone.

As examples, udan (hujan) mas is the result of surface manipulation.

The pamor in the keris that we are looking at in this thread is the result of manipulation of the entire bakalan.

Gustav · 20th June 2013, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

My qualification is:-

perhaps complex pamor miring did not appear in Central Jawa until the late 18th, early 19th century; in other words at the time when the keris had already been reduced to an item of dress.

Alan, which kind of pamor would you consider as a complex pamor miring?

Has the kris in question a complex pamor miring?

Gustav · 20th June 2013, 09:57 AM

Alan, Kai, there are well known examples of Keris with Pamor Puntiran (twistcore), which are surely made before 1700. If this pamor wasn't popular in Central Java before 1800 (yet I think, the picture in Yogyakarta is another one then in Surakarta), it most probably has the reason, the technique of Pamor Puntiran is not coming from Central Java or Java at all.

So it would be wrong to conclude, Pamor Puntiran appeared on Krisses on Philippines only after they became popular in Central Java.

A. G. Maisey · 20th June 2013, 10:51 AM

Gustav, as you know, last year I looked at and photographed a number of very early keris held in several European museums.

In some cases I was unable to read the pamor, either because of the poor condition of the surface, or because the surface was polished.

In some cases the pamor was surface manipulated.

In only one keris was the pamor a miring pamor. This was keris EDB.16 held in Copenhagen. This keris probably entered the collection in 1674. My note reads:- "pamor skilfully manipulated, no name"

I am not prepared to say that pamor miring did not exist in Jawa prior 1700, but it was most certainly was not widespread.

I do not now possess, and I have never possessed a genuinely old Javanese keris, that is a keris that I have good reason to believe may date from before 1700, with a complex pamor miring. I cannot recall ever having seen such a keris.

It is most probable that the skills to produce complex pattern welds were brought to Jawa by Muslim metal workers. These people settled on the North Coast and in parts of East Jawa, rather than in the hinterland. In my opinion the skills used by the people of the Southern Philippines to produce complex pattern welds were brought to the Southern Philippines by Muslim metal workers, just as they were brought to Jawa by Muslim metal workers.

However, the metal workers who took the skills to the Philippines were very probably descendants of the original craftsmen who came from outside Maritime SE Asia. The craftsmen who spread the skills through Maritime S.E. Asia very probably came from the North Coast of Jawa and Madura.

Whenever I have shown photos of the blade of my Brunei keris to knowledgeable Javanese keris authorities they have given the opinion that it is Madura work, and this is also my opinion. Not "Made in Madura", but made by a Madura craftsman, or a craftsman who was trained by a Madura craftsman.

I really do not think that Central Jawa plays a part in this spread of form and technique at all, in my opinion it all came from the North Coast, which followed on from the original trade routes of Majapahit --- which of course were a development of earlier trade routes.

Gustav · 20th June 2013, 03:17 PM

Alan, I agree, we are actually saying the same.

The discussion for me started actually with this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

To my eye, this miring pamor is the style of work I expect to see in later pieces. The techniques and technology required to weld this type of pamor and to achieve this degree of perfection did not develop until relatively recently in the areas of keris production with which I am familiar.

For me the pefection of twistcore Pamor in Moro pieces is almost inexplicable, even more, becouse this is almost the only one Miring pattern we see in Moro blades. Just like they weren't interested in something other.

And exactly this is the thing that lets me think about Turkish Yataghans, where we encounter the same thing. No other technicques, perhaps some exeptional Adeg (like in some rare Moro blades), only twistcore, yet quite perfect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Of the examples you list, the Sendai keris has pamor sanak I believe. It was examined by a Javanese gentleman --- Martowikrodo or a similar name --- and he states this in his report. I've read this somewhere, but I forget where. It might be on the net.

Actually I posted this article in the thread about Sendai Keris.
I can assure you, the pamor of it seems to be Miring, it could be even twistcore, yet it surely isn't Sanak. I am not allowed to show a picture of it.

A. G. Maisey · 26th June 2013, 12:14 AM

Gustav, I have now had the opportunity to examine perhaps the best screen photograph that is available of the Sendai keris. I have Photoshopped this image and reworked it to the limit of my capability, I have viewed the results on a high resolution screen, and then examined the screen image with a good quality magnifying glass; my eyes test at 20/20 wearing reading glasses.

In the sorsoran area of the Sendai Keris I can see some very faint, very slight white marks; in my opinion these marks, or traces, could be due to a number of reasons. I most definitely cannot see anything that would permit me to state categorically that the Sendai Keris has pamor miring.

Here is a link to the article by Wahyono Martokrido that you posted on 21st September 2012.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...6&page=2&pp=30

What Wahyono Martokrido says about the pamor in this keris is:-

The pamor is light grey in color, showing the patterns of curvy lines. The color of the pamor is not so contrast to that of the iron. This pamor can be categorized as pamor sanak, i.e. pamor made of different iron with so small difference in grain size and phosphorous (and arsenic) content in the metal.[13]
( the reference "13" is to Prof. Piaskowski's 1995 paper, a paper in which I had some involvement)

I think we might have to agree to disagree on this matter relating to the Sendai Keris Gustav, I can see no evidence of pamor miring, Martokrido could see only pamor sanak, and he held the thing in his hands.

I will accept that you can see firm evidence of pamor miring, but I cannot.

However, Martokrido does mention "---patterns of curvy lines---"; this indicates clearly that the pamor material has been folded and worked, but it cannot be taken as evidence that this working involved the miring technique.

Personally, I do not find the appearance of this twist pamor in Moro metal work to be so puzzling. Clearly it came from outside the area and was not an indigenous development.

There was solid, continuing trade and cultural contact between virtually all areas of Maritime SE Asia during the time in which this twist pamor in Moro weapons made its appearance; the most advanced smiths in the region during this period were those from Jawa/Madura (in this context Jawa and Madura can be considered as a single entity, the variation between the two places can be likened more to a district variation rather than anything else).

The style and execution of the pamor in the blade under discussion here, as well as other blades of this type that I personally have seen does appear to be Madurese. To my mind, this indicates a high probability that this pamor is a direct product of, or is linked to a smith, or smiths from Jawa/Madura, most likely Madura.

There is a possibility that the link for this pamor could be to some other place, and some cultural root. However, in light of the available evidence of trade and cultural contact across Maritime SE Asia, I do feel that a link to anywhere other than Jawa/Madura must be regarded as an outside possibility, rather than a probability.

I do feel that we are both on the same track here, but I think we must agree to disagree in respect of the nature of the pamor in the Sendai keris.

RSWORD · 26th June 2013, 12:46 AM

When considering outside possibilities in regards to twistcore influences in the Philippines I would toss in China. You find very fine twistcore blades in Chinese swords, both in double edge jian swords as well as single edge dao swords. The question, however, for both China as well as any Middle Eastern source, such as the Turkish Yataghan, is in how far back do you find examples with twistcore. In both the Turkish and Chinese examples, you are hard pressed to find examples that date prior to the 18th century. Perhaps you could stretch this back a century and say 17th century. So perhaps in the Phillipines, the "perfection" of twistcore may have been a Chinese influence from the 18th or 19th centuries. Of course, twistcore dates a long ways back. You find early Viking swords with complex and fine twistcore blades and they were a nautical bunch so who is to say that technology didn't find it's way half way around the world. Then again, where did the Vikings learn and develop such complicated twistcore technology. I'm pretty sure it wasn't ancient aliens as some US shows would like to hypothesize. But in any event, I'm rambling but it sure is a fun ramble!

A. G. Maisey · 26th June 2013, 02:35 AM

Yes, twisted manipulation of iron is not unique. In fact, it is one of the basic methods used in times past in a number of places to remove impurities from iron in order to make it fit for use.

However, when we consider these Philippine or Moro blades we have one window in time, and a very limited number of windows in opportunity to transfer skills.

Within the convergence of these two windows the highest probability of source lays with Jawa/Madura. This probability is strengthened by the knowledgeable appraisal of the style and technique of manufacture.

Here we have the difference between possibility and probability:-

anything is possible, only a very limited number of things can ever be probable.

Gustav · 26th June 2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSWORD

So perhaps in the Phillipines, the "perfection" of twistcore may have been a Chinese influence from the 18th or 19th centuries. Of course, twistcore dates a long ways back. You find early Viking swords with complex and fine twistcore blades and they were a nautical bunch so who is to say that technology didn't find it's way half way around the world. Then again, where did the Vikings learn and develop such complicated twistcore technology. I'm pretty sure it wasn't ancient aliens as some US shows would like to hypothesize.

The aliens were, as in most cases in Europe, the Romans. One of the best sources for roman swords with elaborate welding patterns is the moor of Illerup. If you try to search "Illerup Adal swords", you perhaps will find something. There is also a very good book in two volumes.

Yet the most likeable, actually undisputable origin of twistcore and other elaborate patterns is the Middle East. The Romans adapted this technique only after the wars with Parthians, together with longer swords.

A. G. Maisey · 26th June 2013, 12:04 PM

Heaps of stuff out there.

Have a talk to Dr. Google

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...eich-0508.html

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...swords&f=false

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=me...w=1280&bih=907

DAHenkel · 26th June 2013, 03:54 PM

Properly speaking this sampir style in Kelantan is known as a sampir "pucuk kacang". My understanding at this point is that the term Ku Sriwa is an attribution to a group of kerises with this style of sheath to an aristocractic Kelantanese of that name. Ku (Tengku) Sriwa is supposed to have lived around the turn of the 20th century and is reported to be an historic figure. I have not however had a chance to follow up this in archival records. Hopefully I will get a chance to visit Kelantan soon and follow up.

Gustav · 26th June 2013, 08:24 PM

For me a problem to accept Madura smiths as initial propagators of twistcore on Philippine blades is, as I wrote, the lack of other more elaborate patterns. We see only twistcore with exeption of some very rare Adeg patterns.

I also doubt, there are Madura blades at all, which have rows of more then 3 twistcore stripes, seen on Kampilan and sometimes on Kris. Yet the normal keris blades are much narrower, of course.

Here is a thread about a twistcore Yataghan in SEA dress:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7622

Here is a thread about twistcore Mandau:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...4243&highlight

Also pictures of a Kampilan and two Yataghans, one of them (the upper one) dated 1592.

Regarding Sendai Keris, I have the same picture, the best available at the moment. The keris is out of stain, has a polished and in some areas slightly rusted surface, so it is difficult to be judged and no categorical statements can be made. Yet I would say, there is at least a possibility of a pattern welded Pamor Miring, even if the Pamor material isn't of high contrast.

A. G. Maisey · 27th June 2013, 12:47 AM

Yes, agreed, there is always the possibility of a miring technique having been used to weld the Sendai Keris.

There is always the possibility of anything.

Javanese and Madurese blades do exist that display multiple bars of twisted material welded together. I have owned a number of these, mostly pedangs.

There is a possibility that the technology used to weld twist patterns in the Philippines did come from the Middle East --- as I have said:- anything is possible.

However, I do feel that we would need a a little more evidence of trade links between the areas where these Philippine blades were produced and the Middle East. I have never looked specifically at this local area, the Philippines, so I do not know what the trade links were.

If we wish to assign origin of technology to somewhere other than the obvious source then what we need is evidence of trade links. Not just itinerant preachers, but solid, continuing trade. If we can show that existed then there is a good chance that the technology came into the Philippines from the Middle East.

We know that there there were trade links between Jawa and virtually all of Maritime SE Asia. Why do we need to look further afield? The most obvious source of the technology is Jawa, but there is always the possibility that the technology could have come from somewhere else.

Spunjer · 27th June 2013, 04:09 PM

very informative and interesting thread so far!
the triangular trade between india, china and southeast asia in the mid 1700's in turn developed Sulu into a major trading center and transshipment for the zone (Warren, the sulu zone, 1768-1898).

19th June 2013, 01:41 PM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Alan, I will not be home with my reference works (like Scott's work on how the Spaniards described the Philippines in the 16th C) for two weeks but here are several reference krisses, datings and most of the earlier discussion on this issue on this forum. "archaic kris threads" I would consider the early 19th C kris as archaic and those krisses that closely resemble an Indonesian keris as proto- or transitional kerisses. Here is an example of a "proto-kris" that I would date as earlier than the one in my first post (next to a regular-sized Madura keris). Michael Attached Images Last edited by VVV; 19th June 2013 at 02:10 PM. Reason: added Scott's book for someone else to check and "early" before 19th C on dating archaic krisses

20th June 2013, 09:10 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you for your clarification Michael, and for all the additional information. Going back 50 or so years I did do a lot reading of early publications that dealt with Malaya, Borneo and other SE Asian countries, much of what I read was Oxford University Press reprints, in fact I still have maybe a dozen large boxes of these books stacked in my garage. I used to have a very good idea of what that part of the world was like from the time of first European contact through to the early 20th century. However as my focus narrowed I lost interest in these other areas, and I have forgotten much. I never did have much interest in the Philippines, and still do not, and I guess we can blame this disinterest in the society and culture of these other areas for my lack of knowledge of the weaponry found in those places. However, one is undoubtedly linked to the other. After the collapse of Hindu Jawa the character of the Javanese keris changed, and its common dispersal by principally Islamic traders saw it introduced into other places in Maritime SE Asia as an artifact that had virtually no relationship at all to its original purpose. Thus my loss of interest in the keris in these non-core areas. Moving away from my excuses for ignorance, and back to a question that does have some interest for me, that is emergence of the sword in the form of a keris. Would it be reasonable to date the earliest appearance of this "sword-keris" at around the beginning of the 18th century, rather than the beginning of the 19th century? If this is so, what are the available sources for confirmation of this? If we cannot confirm, what evidence is there to support the "collectors consensus" that you mention? Do we have a language interpretation problem in relation to the sword in the form of a keris, or is there no doubt at all that when reference is made to this artifact that word does refer to what many now refer to as the Moro Keris? (or kris, or criss, or any other generally understood synonym) Please excuse my variant approach to this matter. You see, I do not think in terms of "nice catches", or pretty pamors or scarce and unusual forms. I think in terms of history and societal relevance. This of course means that I tend to look for verification of opinions, or if not verification, then at least some sort of logical supporting argument for an opinion. GUSTAV Any pamor miring is difficult, and once you go to a pamor miring you can count on using vastly more material, fuel and time. The possibility of error increases many times, and the possibility of failure increases many times. Assessed on the basis of these factors alone, any pamor miring is by its nature a complex pamor. However, some are more complex than others, and these are pamors that are produced by twisting, splitting, re-welding, or other manipulation of the entire body of the bakalan, rather than by manipulation of the surface alone. As examples, udan (hujan) mas is the result of surface manipulation. The pamor in the keris that we are looking at in this thread is the result of manipulation of the entire bakalan. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 20th June 2013 at 09:18 AM. Reason: respond to Gustav

26th June 2013, 12:14 AM	#12
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Gustav, I have now had the opportunity to examine perhaps the best screen photograph that is available of the Sendai keris. I have Photoshopped this image and reworked it to the limit of my capability, I have viewed the results on a high resolution screen, and then examined the screen image with a good quality magnifying glass; my eyes test at 20/20 wearing reading glasses. In the sorsoran area of the Sendai Keris I can see some very faint, very slight white marks; in my opinion these marks, or traces, could be due to a number of reasons. I most definitely cannot see anything that would permit me to state categorically that the Sendai Keris has pamor miring. Here is a link to the article by Wahyono Martokrido that you posted on 21st September 2012. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...6&page=2&pp=30 What Wahyono Martokrido says about the pamor in this keris is:- The pamor is light grey in color, showing the patterns of curvy lines. The color of the pamor is not so contrast to that of the iron. This pamor can be categorized as pamor sanak, i.e. pamor made of different iron with so small difference in grain size and phosphorous (and arsenic) content in the metal.[13] ( the reference "13" is to Prof. Piaskowski's 1995 paper, a paper in which I had some involvement) I think we might have to agree to disagree on this matter relating to the Sendai Keris Gustav, I can see no evidence of pamor miring, Martokrido could see only pamor sanak, and he held the thing in his hands. I will accept that you can see firm evidence of pamor miring, but I cannot. However, Martokrido does mention "---patterns of curvy lines---"; this indicates clearly that the pamor material has been folded and worked, but it cannot be taken as evidence that this working involved the miring technique. Personally, I do not find the appearance of this twist pamor in Moro metal work to be so puzzling. Clearly it came from outside the area and was not an indigenous development. There was solid, continuing trade and cultural contact between virtually all areas of Maritime SE Asia during the time in which this twist pamor in Moro weapons made its appearance; the most advanced smiths in the region during this period were those from Jawa/Madura (in this context Jawa and Madura can be considered as a single entity, the variation between the two places can be likened more to a district variation rather than anything else). The style and execution of the pamor in the blade under discussion here, as well as other blades of this type that I personally have seen does appear to be Madurese. To my mind, this indicates a high probability that this pamor is a direct product of, or is linked to a smith, or smiths from Jawa/Madura, most likely Madura. There is a possibility that the link for this pamor could be to some other place, and some cultural root. However, in light of the available evidence of trade and cultural contact across Maritime SE Asia, I do feel that a link to anywhere other than Jawa/Madura must be regarded as an outside possibility, rather than a probability. I do feel that we are both on the same track here, but I think we must agree to disagree in respect of the nature of the pamor in the Sendai keris. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 26th June 2013 at 12:25 AM. Reason: clarification.

26th June 2013, 08:24 PM	#18
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	For me a problem to accept Madura smiths as initial propagators of twistcore on Philippine blades is, as I wrote, the lack of other more elaborate patterns. We see only twistcore with exeption of some very rare Adeg patterns. I also doubt, there are Madura blades at all, which have rows of more then 3 twistcore stripes, seen on Kampilan and sometimes on Kris. Yet the normal keris blades are much narrower, of course. Here is a thread about a twistcore Yataghan in SEA dress: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7622 Here is a thread about twistcore Mandau: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...4243&highlight Also pictures of a Kampilan and two Yataghans, one of them (the upper one) dated 1592. Regarding Sendai Keris, I have the same picture, the best available at the moment. The keris is out of stain, has a polished and in some areas slightly rusted surface, so it is difficult to be judged and no categorical statements can be made. Yet I would say, there is at least a possibility of a pattern welded Pamor Miring, even if the Pamor material isn't of high contrast. Attached Images Last edited by Gustav; 26th June 2013 at 09:12 PM.

19th June 2013, 01:24 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you Michael. Yes, I can understand how length of this type of keris might influence one to think it was from an earlier period. I'm not sure that the luk form tells us anything in the absence of documented comparison pieces. I note Kino's comment, but this is not a Moro keris. I've seen perhaps 3 or 4 of these keris over the last 30 years or so, and the features in the sorsoran are always done in the same way. To my eye, this miring pamor is the style of work I expect to see in later pieces. The techniques and technology required to weld this type of pamor and to achieve this degree of perfection did not develop until relatively recently in the areas of keris production with which I am familiar. Frankly, I have very little knowledge of keris outside the core areas of keris tradition, however, applying the tells that I use in my own area of expertise, I would place this blade at no earlier than the first quarter of the 19th century, and the dress as somewhat later.(19th century = 1800's) Just as a matter of interest, what is considered to be an early date for a Moro style keris? What would be the date attached to the earliest documented example?

19th June 2013, 10:48 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you Michael. So the period around 1800 is considered to be about the time when these Southern Philippine swords in the form of a keris began to appear? Thanks. That's pretty much as I had thought. I tried the "archaic" link you provided, but it took me nowhere. I look forward to your further comments.

20th June 2013, 01:58 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thanks for your input Kai. The question really is:- when did complex pamor miring motifs begin to appear in Jawa? My answer is:- I do not know My qualification is:- perhaps complex pamor miring did not appear in Central Jawa until the late 18th, early 19th century; in other words at the time when the keris had already been reduced to an item of dress. There are many reasons for this opinion, and I do not feel inclined to expand upon those reasons here, because to do so convincingly would require a very large number of words and very long time to write them. Probably complex pamor miring appeared in East Jawa and along the North Coast prior to being reasonably common in Central Jawa. In any case, if a keris that dates from circa 1800, and of the type under discussion in this thread, is regarded as "archaic" then there is really no reason to doubt that twist pamors did exist in "archaic" keris of this type. In any case, what seems to qualify as "archaic" for this type of keris is regarded as a rather young weapon in the core tradition of the keris.

20th June 2013, 07:29 AM	#6
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Alan, Sorry about the link, maybe the session expired. Try yourself to search "archaic kris" on this forum and you will find several interesting threads and pictures of archaic kris. On the dating I seem to have been unclear. I meant that the archaic kris survived into the first quarter of the 19th before being replaced by the next style in popularity. When it first appeared is more difficult to date but there seems to be a collector's consensus that it was produced at least from the early 18th C. The kris sword is mentioned, but not pictured AFAIK, in much older sources but I do not have them with me when traveling. Hopefully someone else can check them. Otherwise I will have a look and return to this thread in two weeks. Scott's book would be a god start but there are several other sources that describes what the Philippines, Brunei, Borneo, North Malaysia and Sulawesi (= "the kris sword belt", the areas being close to the major Malay/Indonesian iron sources in Borneo and Sulawesi) looked like between 16 - 18th C. Both the kampilan and the kris are often mentioned in those travel descriptions from early European visitors. At that time the kris sword still also was popular in the Central Philippines. I found this description in an extract on my computer, from Scott's book Barangay: Sixteenth Century Philippine Culture and Society, on the Visayas, page 148: "There were two kind of swords - kris (Visayan kalis) and kampilan, both words of Malay origin. The kris was a long double-edged blade (modern specimens run to 60 or 70 centimeters), either straight or wavy but characterized by an asymmetrical flare at the end of the hilt end, called kalaw-kalaw after the kalaw hornbill.The wavy kris was called kiwi-kiwo, and so was an astute, devious man whose movement could not be predicted. Hilt were carved of any solid material - hardwood, bone, antler, even shell - and great datu warriors had them of solid gold, or encrusted with precious stones. Blades were forged from layers of different grades of steel, which gave them a veined or mottled surface - damascened or "watered." But even the best Visayan products were considered inferior to those from Mindanao and Sulu, and in turn were less esteemed than imports from Makassar and Borneo. Alcina thought the best of them excelled Spanish blades." [Alcina was an early 17th Jesuit missionary who researched and documented the Philippines.] Unfortunately I only had the chapter about the Visayas on my computer but, unless anyone will claim that the kris sword originated on Panay, I hope it will be of interest as a source that some kind of kris swords existed already in the 16th - 17th C in the kris sword belt. The importance of Scott's research of the 16th C Philippines (based on Spanish sources from the same century) is "slightly corresponding" to Pigeaud's for Java in the 14th C, so I think his book will interest you. Michael

20th June 2013, 09:57 AM	#9
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	Alan, Kai, there are well known examples of Keris with Pamor Puntiran (twistcore), which are surely made before 1700. If this pamor wasn't popular in Central Java before 1800 (yet I think, the picture in Yogyakarta is another one then in Surakarta), it most probably has the reason, the technique of Pamor Puntiran is not coming from Central Java or Java at all. So it would be wrong to conclude, Pamor Puntiran appeared on Krisses on Philippines only after they became popular in Central Java.

20th June 2013, 10:51 AM	#10
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Gustav, as you know, last year I looked at and photographed a number of very early keris held in several European museums. In some cases I was unable to read the pamor, either because of the poor condition of the surface, or because the surface was polished. In some cases the pamor was surface manipulated. In only one keris was the pamor a miring pamor. This was keris EDB.16 held in Copenhagen. This keris probably entered the collection in 1674. My note reads:- "pamor skilfully manipulated, no name" I am not prepared to say that pamor miring did not exist in Jawa prior 1700, but it was most certainly was not widespread. I do not now possess, and I have never possessed a genuinely old Javanese keris, that is a keris that I have good reason to believe may date from before 1700, with a complex pamor miring. I cannot recall ever having seen such a keris. It is most probable that the skills to produce complex pattern welds were brought to Jawa by Muslim metal workers. These people settled on the North Coast and in parts of East Jawa, rather than in the hinterland. In my opinion the skills used by the people of the Southern Philippines to produce complex pattern welds were brought to the Southern Philippines by Muslim metal workers, just as they were brought to Jawa by Muslim metal workers. However, the metal workers who took the skills to the Philippines were very probably descendants of the original craftsmen who came from outside Maritime SE Asia. The craftsmen who spread the skills through Maritime S.E. Asia very probably came from the North Coast of Jawa and Madura. Whenever I have shown photos of the blade of my Brunei keris to knowledgeable Javanese keris authorities they have given the opinion that it is Madura work, and this is also my opinion. Not "Made in Madura", but made by a Madura craftsman, or a craftsman who was trained by a Madura craftsman. I really do not think that Central Jawa plays a part in this spread of form and technique at all, in my opinion it all came from the North Coast, which followed on from the original trade routes of Majapahit --- which of course were a development of earlier trade routes.

26th June 2013, 12:46 AM	#13
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,086	When considering outside possibilities in regards to twistcore influences in the Philippines I would toss in China. You find very fine twistcore blades in Chinese swords, both in double edge jian swords as well as single edge dao swords. The question, however, for both China as well as any Middle Eastern source, such as the Turkish Yataghan, is in how far back do you find examples with twistcore. In both the Turkish and Chinese examples, you are hard pressed to find examples that date prior to the 18th century. Perhaps you could stretch this back a century and say 17th century. So perhaps in the Phillipines, the "perfection" of twistcore may have been a Chinese influence from the 18th or 19th centuries. Of course, twistcore dates a long ways back. You find early Viking swords with complex and fine twistcore blades and they were a nautical bunch so who is to say that technology didn't find it's way half way around the world. Then again, where did the Vikings learn and develop such complicated twistcore technology. I'm pretty sure it wasn't ancient aliens as some US shows would like to hypothesize. But in any event, I'm rambling but it sure is a fun ramble!

26th June 2013, 02:35 AM	#14
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes, twisted manipulation of iron is not unique. In fact, it is one of the basic methods used in times past in a number of places to remove impurities from iron in order to make it fit for use. However, when we consider these Philippine or Moro blades we have one window in time, and a very limited number of windows in opportunity to transfer skills. Within the convergence of these two windows the highest probability of source lays with Jawa/Madura. This probability is strengthened by the knowledgeable appraisal of the style and technique of manufacture. Here we have the difference between possibility and probability:- anything is possible, only a very limited number of things can ever be probable.

26th June 2013, 12:04 PM	#16
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Heaps of stuff out there. Have a talk to Dr. Google http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...eich-0508.html http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...swords&f=false http://www.google.com.au/search?q=me...w=1280&bih=907

26th June 2013, 03:54 PM	#17
DAHenkel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 125	Properly speaking this sampir style in Kelantan is known as a sampir "pucuk kacang". My understanding at this point is that the term Ku Sriwa is an attribution to a group of kerises with this style of sheath to an aristocractic Kelantanese of that name. Ku (Tengku) Sriwa is supposed to have lived around the turn of the 20th century and is reported to be an historic figure. I have not however had a chance to follow up this in archival records. Hopefully I will get a chance to visit Kelantan soon and follow up.

27th June 2013, 12:47 AM	#19
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes, agreed, there is always the possibility of a miring technique having been used to weld the Sendai Keris. There is always the possibility of anything. Javanese and Madurese blades do exist that display multiple bars of twisted material welded together. I have owned a number of these, mostly pedangs. There is a possibility that the technology used to weld twist patterns in the Philippines did come from the Middle East --- as I have said:- anything is possible. However, I do feel that we would need a a little more evidence of trade links between the areas where these Philippine blades were produced and the Middle East. I have never looked specifically at this local area, the Philippines, so I do not know what the trade links were. If we wish to assign origin of technology to somewhere other than the obvious source then what we need is evidence of trade links. Not just itinerant preachers, but solid, continuing trade. If we can show that existed then there is a good chance that the technology came into the Philippines from the Middle East. We know that there there were trade links between Jawa and virtually all of Maritime SE Asia. Why do we need to look further afield? The most obvious source of the technology is Jawa, but there is always the possibility that the technology could have come from somewhere else.

27th June 2013, 04:09 PM	#20
Spunjer Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Witness Protection Program Posts: 1,730	very informative and interesting thread so far! the triangular trade between india, china and southeast asia in the mid 1700's in turn developed Sulu into a major trading center and transshipment for the zone (Warren, the sulu zone, 1768-1898).