Backwards hit on WWII-era Moro Kris. Mistake?

[DaveA]

Hello,

In a recent post of my new Moro Kris, from Sulu, several esteemed members of the forum said the hilt was mounted "backward."

I suppose that whether a hilt appears mounted "backward" is a judgement in reference to a standard set by some set of other examples, whether historical or contemporary.

What if the owner deliberately wanted the hilt positioned that way for reasons of his own, e.g., fighting style? Especially if one sees many examples of backward hilts contemporary with the item in question, I would suspect it is due to a practical reason, not a mistake.

In the case of kris, the "upside down" position of the longer portion of the ganja might protect the fingers better if one's downward slash attack was blocked by a sword -- or a rifle barrel/bayonet -- meeting it in an upward stroke and sliding down the blade. While there are many possible attacks with a sword (and defenses), typically a rifle (with or without bayonet) is most effective when pointed directly at an enemy. An upward block to a downward slash makes sense in this case. Furthermore, IMHO, the attacker has a better chance of catching the bayonet, or hooking the rifle barrel, and redirecting it in this backward configuration.

In WWII, I imagine there may have been many such encounters between sword and rifle.

Form follows function.

A theory, but one without evidence. Any thoughts?

Best Regards,

Dave A.

[Andrew]

Occam's Razor would suggest the most likely reason is someone removed the hilt to clean, examine or replace a missing hilt, and did not know how to correctly put it back.

[VANDOO]

THAT IS SOMETHING I HAVE OFTEN WONDERED ABOUT TOO. I HAVE SEEN MANY EXAMPLES OVER THE YEARS AND IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THEY WERE ALL DONE BY AMATEURS WHO TOOK OUT A BLADE AND PUT IT BACK IN WRONG ACCIDENTALLY. NOT MANY COLLECTORS OR ADVENTURERS WHO BROUGHT BACK A SOUVENIR OR WAR TROPHY EVER TOOK OUT THE BLADES AND REMOUNTED THEM. A LOCAL MORO SWORD SMITH WHO MADE, REPAIRED AND SOLD SWORDS REGULARLY WOULD NOT BE MAKING MISTAKES.
EACH INDIVIDUAL OR SCHOOL HAD THEIR OWN FIGHTING STYLES WHICH ARE MOSTLY UNKNOWN TODAY SO SUCH A VARIATION OF BLADE ORIENTATION MAY HAVE BEEN USED. PERHAPS THEY HAD SOME WARRIORS LIKE SOME NORTH AMERICAN INDIANS WHO DID EVERYTHING BACKWARDS. EVEN GOING SO FAR AS TO RIDE THEIR HORSE FACING BACKWARDS A HANDY THING IF SHOOTING AT ENEMIES WHO ARE CHASING YOU. DISCLAIMER (THIS MAY BE A STORY MADE UP FOR WESTERN MOVIES OR A REAL STORY ?)
OFTEN WE ARE TOO QUICK TO JUDGE THINGS BASED ON A NORM OR ON EXAMPLES FROM THE FEW REFERENCE BOOKS AVAILABLE.

[Ian]

Hi Dave:

I think it is unlikely that a person brought up as a Moro (meaning the various Muslim tribal groups that are found in the southern Philippines and nearby areas) would deliberately mount a hilt in a manner that goes against tradition. The orientation of the hilt is in harmony with the curves of the blade, such that the terminal luk results in the tip pointing downwards with the normal orientation of the hilt. The Moro also adopted a blade that was tilted downward from the hilt such that a chopping strike would be enhanced. The orientation of the hilt is therefore central to the orientation of the blade and to the manner in which a Moro sundang is used in combat.

I would also point out that the Indonesian keris, on which the Moro kris is likely based or at least shares some common ancestry, has the same arrangement for the hilt and blade.

Replacing the hilt in the opposite direction might well appeal to someone from a different culture for the very reasons you mentioned.

Ian.

[DaveA]

Thanks for the comments. You have both nicely framed the question. In times of desperation, does one turn to tradition (which may not be working very well), or innovation?

[Battara]

Not only do I agree with Ian, but I will add that I have known that later owners take off the hilts and re-hilt then in the wrong direction. I have seen this for kris, kerns, and even Igorot head axes.

[Emanuel]

Hello,

The pommels on kris are traditionally aligned with the greneneg carving on the base of the blade. The elephant trunk is the front, and the "dragon tail" is back. If the blade is sheathed in the scabbard in the manner appropriate for a correct draw, with the elephant head still pointed forward, would it make sense for the pommel decoration (the cokatua head or horse hoof) to face backwards?

If the handle was intentionally kept "backwards" then the pommel would point into the body when the sword is sheathed and worn in the traditional manner, thrust through a sash.

A backward position also digs into the wrist when held with the "tail" guarding the back of the hand. I don't see the sense in this disposition

Emanuel

[Sajen]

Have all a look to this threads, by the first one the handle is turned also in the "wrong" direction and the "show"-side of the scabbard is the one which is normally the back side: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris
Here is the handle in the correct direction but the show side of the scabbard is again unusual: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris
I think I have asked this question before: Why is the show side of the scabbard mainly by this kris with MOP from WWII area turned around?

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by DaveA

In the case of kris, the "upside down" position of the longer portion of the ganja might protect the fingers better if one's downward slash attack was blocked by a sword -- or a rifle barrel/bayonet -- meeting it in an upward stroke and sliding down the blade. While there are many possible attacks with a sword (and defenses), typically a rifle (with or without bayonet) is most effective when pointed directly at an enemy. An upward block to a downward slash makes sense in this case. Furthermore, IMHO, the attacker has a better chance of catching the bayonet, or hooking the rifle barrel, and redirecting it in this backward configuration.

I don't think you gain significant hand protection from your attack being blocked by reversing the grip. Also, if you're close enough to hit them, they're not facing you in a classic bayonet fencing stance - not enough room. Having your hand hit by a bayonet blocking your attack is not the problem; the problem is being bayoneted while getting into range.

If you decide that a kris is used like a European smallsword, for parry-riposte modern style European fencing, then the reversed grip looks attractive. But that isn't how the weapon is traditionally used, and it won't be a very effective style of using the weapon (unless one has rules in place to make it so).

I don't think reversed grips are mostly accidental. I think a lot of it is "Stupid natives can't even put their handles the right way around; I'll fix it." Reversing the grip can do bad things to the ergonomics of the weapon, but perhaps armchair fencing theoreticians don't notice.

More generally, "guards" on swords, especially on simple crucifom hilts (the classic European Medieval style), have much less protective "guarding" function than commonly supposed. You don't block with it. It won't protect your hands when your attacks are blocked. They're very good for making it harder for your opponent to disengage to continue an attack - long guards are nice on large heavy swords because you want the opponent to take as long as possible to make that second attack so that you have time to move the sword (or move around the sword - a really big sword, say about 2.5-3kg is a dance partner).

But guards have disadvantages. They offer handholds to the opponent when grappling, can snag when drawing the weapon, and more. If you don't fight in a way that uses it, it's of little benefit but still has the drawbacks. So sometimes no guard is better.

[Rick]

As far as I can figure on a properly hilted kalis the forehand stroke would be the Chop and the backhand the Draw stroke. or slash .
Possibly the re-oriented hilt was meant as a symbol of peaceful intent since it rendered the sword virtually useless .

[DaveA]

I am grateful to Timo for analyzing my line of thinking on possible sword fighting reasons for the reverse handle. As an armchair (at one time, standing) fencer myself, it is a good reminder to me and my ilk how little we know of the actual historical use of these weapons, and how important that might (or might not) be in understanding their form.

Is it known whether kris-bearing fighters carried a knife or other weapon in their offhand?

Rick's thought about a reversed hilt as a symbol of peace reminded me of something I read about an Indonesian weapon (can't remember keris or badik or something else with a prominent directional hilt). One would typically wear the weapon with the hilt facing the "wrong way". In a dispute, rotating the weapon in one's sash was a way of escalating the dispute by suggesting imminent violence without actually drawing the weapon.

To bolster Rick's thought, if we assume most days were peaceful, and if following Indonesian custom, the well-decorated (prestigious) side of the scabbard would not be visible if the entire weapon were reversed. Solution: just reverse the hilt and one can demonstrate both peaceful intent and display the decorated side of the scabbard. Evidence for this theory might be a relative disparity in the numbers of reversed handles found on prestigious kris versus more ordinary kris whose primary purpose was clearly fighting, not display of wealth.

Anyway, it's just a thought from an armchair theorist. Thank you everyone for your keen observations.

Dave A.

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by DaveA

I am grateful to Timo for analyzing my line of thinking on possible sword fighting reasons for the reverse handle. As an armchair (at one time, standing) fencer myself, it is a good reminder to me and my ilk how little we know of the actual historical use of these weapons, and how important that might (or might not) be in understanding their form.

Is it known whether kris-bearing fighters carried a knife or other weapon in their offhand?

In the old days, if you went out to fight in battle, you would take your shield.

For when you have no shield with you, then what do you do with the off-hand? I don't know of any good historical written sources. What about modern martial arts? The relevant art would be silat, which is, alas, probably the major Asian martial arts family I know the least about. I don't know about two-weapons in silat, but can say something about off-hand with single weapon. For short swords, if you're not using a shield or a second weapon, the off-hand is useful for trapping and deflecting, and grappling. For trapping, the ideal target is the upper arm near the elbow - push against the body, and the motion of the weapon arm is greatly restricted. For deflecting/blocking/parrying with the off-hand, if their weapon can reach your body, you can reach their forearm with your off-hand to deflect/block/parry (of course, you can do the same with your weapon, which is much more effective than blocking their weapon).

All this is possible, important, and/or essential because of the body-to-body distance when in weapon range. It's even more important with knife. It's this short range that makes European-style parry-riposte fencing non-optimal - the opponent can trap and move in to very close range; using the weapon this way also exposes the forearm a lot. This kind of stuff with the off-hand starts to get harder to do when you exceed about 24" of blade, but can work for longer weapons as an occasional technique.

Escrima/arnis/kali of the northern Philippines is big on two-weapons, either sword and knife or two short swords, or sticks originally acting as substitutes for such. But one of its roots is Spanish rapier and dagger, so it doesn't tell us that much about the use of the off-hand with kris.

A lot of Chinese martial arts are big on two weapons. There, it's mostly as an equaliser for short weapons against spear (in my opinion, the spear still has a large advantage, ceteris paribus, but two short weapons against spear is much better than one; against a naive spearman, it can work very well).

[kai]

Hello Timo,

In the old days, if you went out to fight in battle, you would take your shield.

Yes, definitely. After having spent your arrows, a spear would usually be the primary weapon before closing in (or in an ambush situation).

For when you have no shield with you, then what do you do with the off-hand?

Grab a backup weapon when already close in. For barung it seems to have been common to hold the scabbard along the forearm as an impromptu security measure.

All this is possible, important, and/or essential because of the body-to-body distance when in weapon range. It's even more important with knife. It's this short range that makes European-style parry-riposte fencing non-optimal - the opponent can trap and move in to very close range; using the weapon this way also exposes the forearm a lot. This kind of stuff with the off-hand starts to get harder to do when you exceed about 24" of blade, but can work for longer weapons as an occasional technique.

Yup. Long story short, the Moro kris is not meant for fencing. And it worked well enough to keep the Spanish at bay.

Escrima/arnis/kali of the northern Philippines is big on two-weapons, either sword and knife or two short swords, or sticks originally acting as substitutes for such. But one of its roots is Spanish rapier and dagger, so it doesn't tell us that much about the use of the off-hand with kris.

I believe it's fair to assume that quite a bit of what we see in traditional Visayan styles has specifically been developed to counter Moro raiders.

A lot of Chinese martial arts are big on two weapons. There, it's mostly as an equaliser for short weapons against spear (in my opinion, the spear still has a large advantage, ceteris paribus, but two short weapons against spear is much better than one; against a naive spearman, it can work very well).

With so many Chinese styles obviously based on the spear, having to face a naive spearman would be akin to a lottery win though. In the old days that is...

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Dave,

Rick's thought about a reversed hilt as a symbol of peace reminded me of something I read about an Indonesian weapon (can't remember keris or badik or something else with a prominent directional hilt). One would typically wear the weapon with the hilt facing the "wrong way". In a dispute, rotating the weapon in one's sash was a way of escalating the dispute by suggesting imminent violence without actually drawing the weapon.

In a kraton setting, reversing the grip of a keris may have been enforced in a few cases in Indonesia. All other weapons have tightly set hilts as have been keris hilts in cultures which actually preserved the use of the keris as weapon. Any Moro datu (or sultan to village chief throughout the archipelago) had retainers with him - bodyguards who made it very clear that they would make sure that any unwise move were your last one.

To bolster Rick's thought, if we assume most days were peaceful,

Nah, Moro is a warrior culture. Infighting may have been more common than raiding parties...


No self-respecting Moro would have carried a kris (his alter ego and sign of manhood) in a crippled "fashion" - no way. Most average folks could only afford to own a single kris and the Moro kris hilt can only be changed with quite some effort. Do the math...

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Detlef,

Have all a look to this threads, by the first one the handle is turned also in the "wrong" direction and the "show"-side of the scabbard is the one which is normally the back side: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris
Here is the handle in the correct direction but the show side of the scabbard is again unusual: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris
I think I have asked this question before: Why is the show side of the scabbard mainly by this kris with MOP from WWII area turned around?

I believe we need a poll on this to get some numbers; on old as well as on MOP kris (seperately)...

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Well, if we are taking a poll my vote falls squarely on "mistake". Dave made a comment in the posting of the kris that brought about this thread and again here about "form following function", but as others have already responded, the hilt on backwards in this manner does not make any sense from a practical martial standpoint. I think we see this happen in the same way we sometimes see Javanese planar hilts often turned around backwards on keris, because uninformed western collectors and/or dealers incorrectly believe that is the way they are supposed to be. Of course, it's much easier to simply turn them around to the proper orientation.

[kai]

Yes, David, I'm with you!

IMHO Timo put it quite nicely:

Originally Posted by Timo

I don't think reversed grips are mostly accidental. I think a lot of it is "Stupid natives can't even put their handles the right way around; I'll fix it." Reversing the grip can do bad things to the ergonomics of the weapon, but perhaps armchair fencing theoreticians don't notice.

Short attention spans of wanna-be restorers will also often give the same result...

What I meant would be nice to have better numbers on is Detlef's observation that the display side of later MOP scabbards may favor a different way of carrying the sword in the sash. I'm not convinced yet since I've seen quite a few antique scabbards with the same "upside down" configuration (i. e. the lower edge with the elephant/eagle facing upwards).

BTW, does anyone have an antique pic of a Moro carrying his sword for use with the left hand? To make sure that the negative didn't just got reversed, there needs to be some kind of letters visible on the scene itself or, more likely, western military personell with asymmetric uniforms.

Regards,
Kai

[Sajen]

Hello Kai,

in this thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=WWII+kris (post #20) is a old picture with a "upside down" scabbard and here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=kalis are shown two old blades with later replacement scabbards in the same fashion. Actually is a WWII or later kris listed by ebay with a "upside down" scabbard, Will post pictures when the auction is ended. I've seen some more in the last years but unfortunately I haven't saved the pictures.

Regards,
Detlef

[Timo Nieminen]

Originally Posted by kai

Grab a backup weapon when already close in. For barung it seems to have been common to hold the scabbard along the forearm as an impromptu security measure.

Do you know any sources describing this? Or, more generally, technical details of fighting by Moros. It's easy to find descriptions of the preparation and appearance of juramentados, Moro fearlessness, etc., but hard to find anything technically useful about the way they fought.

In most photos of Moros with 2 weapons that I've seen, one of the weapons is a spear. (Could be small knives I don't see.) I can only remember one photo of a Moro with two swords (modern photo, an old man with 2 barong).

Originally Posted by kai

I believe it's fair to assume that quite a bit of what we see in traditional Visayan styles has specifically been developed to counter Moro raiders.

Yes. Many people push myth about escrima/kali/arnis descending from Moro martial arts, but that doesn't seem to have more substance than other empty martial arts origin myths. Instead, anti-Moro, with indigenous and Spanish elements.

N. R. Nepangue & C. C. Machador, "Cebuano Eskrima: Beyond the Myth", Xlibris, 2007, discusses this and the myths. I don't think they like the myths or the myth-makers very much.

Originally Posted by kai

With so many Chinese styles obviously based on the spear, having to face a naive spearman would be akin to a lottery win though. In the old days that is...

Serious Chinese martial artists would not be naive about spears, from either end of the spear. But most people who carried spears at some time in their life in China were probably not serious martial artists. It takes so little training to make somebody dangerous with a spear, so it isn't necessary to train them intensively for most purposes.