The Tourist Item/Souvenier in arms antiquities

motan · 15th March 2019, 11:30 AM

Hi,
This is a good subject, but as said, a real minefield. Huge grey areas and few truths, like other subjects related to authenticity. Everyone has different standards. In a way, it is parallel to restoration of damaged pieces. Some go for full restoration, including replacement of missing part, while others are minimalists and swear that anything but cleaning would compromise the authentic value of a piece.

Collectors of weapons that are still made and used, or were made until recently, and those who can not afford more expensive items, like myself, deal with these issues all the time. I personally rate authenticity above quality (to certain limits), because I am interested in the ethnographic attributes as much as in the weapon itself. These are my personal guidelines for collecting in this order (although I don't adhere to them 100%):

1. True to type: if a piece is not very old for its kind, it should at least resemble the original type. Many makers were tempted to adjust the style to what the buyers want - usually more ornaments. Whole styles have been invented for the tourist market. Many daggers that I collect have no described type, so I have to rely on intuition. However, for Koummiyas this works well. Original, 19th c. Koummiyas were made in around 5 basic types, which are described in several threads on this forum. Other styles were probably invented for the tourist market.

2. Signs of use: I see signs of actual use as a good thing, even if they compromise the quality of a piece to a degree. This is because they are the best proof of authenticity. Also this is not a universal truth. The best Mughal and Ottoman pieces, which are the pinnacle of Islamic weapons, are often presentation pieces/gifts and were kept safely on the shelf all their life.

3. Quality. Quality comes for me only in third place. If all things equal and the price tag is not to high, I prefer quality, of course. But quality is often not related to authenticity, contrary to what many people think. In daggers like Koummyas, Shibriyas and Arabian Jambiyas/Khanjars, low quality, or "village type" pieces are not necessarily younger or less authentic.

In the pictures, a Shibriya from Sinai which is authentic, but definitely below mine and most collectors' standards. It shows that the value of authenticity has limits, even for me. Below, 3 Koummiyas I bought recently that are not very old, but true to type, have reasonable quality blade and show signs of use, so I consider them as authentic.

Ian · 15th March 2019, 12:56 PM

Just to add to the topic of modern barung made for use or decoration, there is an older thread "Modern Barung" from about a year ago that discussed some of these issues also. It can be found here. Perhaps Xasterix could inform us more fully about some of the examples shown in that thread.

Ian.

ariel · 15th March 2019, 01:11 PM

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

A. G. Maisey · 16th March 2019, 01:00 AM

I'm coming into this discussion a little later than I would have preferred, but I've been "off the planet" for a few days, and that has restricted my ability to communicate.

I have just now read through all the posts to date, and what I have read seems to be mostly presented from the perspective of the collector, which of course is reasonable, since most of us who contribute to this forum are indeed, collectors.

I'd like to make a couple of comments from a slightly different perspective, and limited to the objects that are my prime focus, which is to say, keris and associated edged weaponry.

I find the concept of "tourist" weaponry difficult to understand in terms of the present time.

If I wish to import the type of weaponry that interests me, into the state of Australia in which I live, I need to obtain a certificate from the state police that states I that I am permitted to import and to possess that weapon. I then present this certificate to the Australian Customs service, and they permit me to take possession of the imported weapon. This applies whether I personally carry the item, or whether I have it sent to me.

I know that many, if not most countries now have import restrictions applying to edged weapons that are similar to the Australian restrictions. From personal knowledge of what tourists to Indonesia buy at the present time, compared with what tourists to Indonesia bought during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, my opinion is that the preparation and sale of keris and other weapons to foreign tourists to Indonesia does not exist any longer, it has simply become too difficult for Mr. Good Citizen to take swords and daggers back to his home country.

It may have existed at times in the past, but the only dedicated tourist style of keris of which I am aware is a particular type of Balinese keris that began life as a keris that was popular for dance performances and ended its existence in the marketplace as a travesty of a keris with a cut-out sheet metal blade and incredibly poorly carved dress.

Those old-time "tourist keris", when of fair to good quality, have now become collector's items in their own right.

My own position on the designation of a weapon as a "tourist" or "souvenir" is quite simply that where a traditional weapon that still fulfils a function in today's society is manufactured for use in today's society, then that weapon is a genuine ethnographic artifact of the society, and its value is directly related to its quality.

Where a weapon no longer fulfils a function in its society of origin, but continues to be made, and then purchased by persons either within or outside of the society of origin, as a keepsake, ornament, toy or souvenir, then that weapon can legitimately be classified as something prepared for tourists, or as a souvenir. I think perhaps a good example of this type of "tourist weapon" would be the Australian boomerang, especially the hunting boomerang:- still made, but no longer used for its originally intended purpose.

I very much doubt that it is ever possible to classify any weapon as "tourist" just on the basis of type, style or quality, I feel that it is necessary to have an in depth understanding of the society of origin of that object, before it can be classified as "tourist" or "souvenir".

xasterix · 16th March 2019, 03:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ariel

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

Hi, just to emphasize, the barungs I've posted aren't 'allegedly' authentic; they are DEFINITELY authentic. They are sold by a Yakan friend, and several previous members of this forum have verified that she's selling the real thing, as sourced from Basilan, Zamboanga, Jolo, and Tawi Tawi. Like me, they also frown upon the ba-wrongs of the Maranao, because those things can't even be sharpened properly, or fail to hold an edge after a couple of cuts. Why? Because they're not even heat treated.

Coming from the perspective of someone who practices the Moro Fighting Arts, I'll use your analogy. Which would I prefer, a car that performs well, is faithful to culture of the people who invented it- or a toy car that looks amazing, is a mishmash of various cultural motifs, but doesn't even run on batteries?

Please do not forget that the best people to ask about these weapons, aside from the ones who produced them, are actually the ones who are able to USE them. A blade is meant to be thrust or swung. I'm wondering how you would have been able to assess that the 'ba-wrong' is more practical than my legit barungs, when you haven't even held them yet.

Lastly, these things aren't just art forms. They are meant to be functional and deadly works of art. Hopefully we will be a little considerate and discerning of the argument and proof I have established.

Battara · 17th March 2019, 06:04 AM

First, we have addressed the barong in many threads. I have mentioned the same thing over the years because each Moro tribe has it's own unique version of okir/ukkil. I agree with Xasterix's comments on this barong.

As for the rest, that is why I make the distinction between tourist and recently made weapons.

Bob A · 17th March 2019, 10:01 PM

Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army.

xasterix · 18th March 2019, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob A

Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army.

Piece with significant provenance. Bunti wood semi darkened with age, may indeed be from early 1900s...I saw this being sold on an online auction. May have been used by someone committing 'Parang Sabil'.

Bob A · 18th March 2019, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xasterix

Piece with significant provenance. Bunti wood semi darkened with age, may indeed be from early 1900s...I saw this being sold on an online auction.

Yes, that's where I found it.

May have been used by someone committing 'Parang Sabil'.

Suicide attack with sheathed blade?

That begs the question: just where would that fired round strike the attacker's body in such a situation?

Inspection of the bullet hole leads me to believe it occurred quite some time ago.

15th March 2019, 11:30 AM	#1
motan Member Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Jerusalem Posts: 274	Hi, This is a good subject, but as said, a real minefield. Huge grey areas and few truths, like other subjects related to authenticity. Everyone has different standards. In a way, it is parallel to restoration of damaged pieces. Some go for full restoration, including replacement of missing part, while others are minimalists and swear that anything but cleaning would compromise the authentic value of a piece. Collectors of weapons that are still made and used, or were made until recently, and those who can not afford more expensive items, like myself, deal with these issues all the time. I personally rate authenticity above quality (to certain limits), because I am interested in the ethnographic attributes as much as in the weapon itself. These are my personal guidelines for collecting in this order (although I don't adhere to them 100%): 1. True to type: if a piece is not very old for its kind, it should at least resemble the original type. Many makers were tempted to adjust the style to what the buyers want - usually more ornaments. Whole styles have been invented for the tourist market. Many daggers that I collect have no described type, so I have to rely on intuition. However, for Koummiyas this works well. Original, 19th c. Koummiyas were made in around 5 basic types, which are described in several threads on this forum. Other styles were probably invented for the tourist market. 2. Signs of use: I see signs of actual use as a good thing, even if they compromise the quality of a piece to a degree. This is because they are the best proof of authenticity. Also this is not a universal truth. The best Mughal and Ottoman pieces, which are the pinnacle of Islamic weapons, are often presentation pieces/gifts and were kept safely on the shelf all their life. 3. Quality. Quality comes for me only in third place. If all things equal and the price tag is not to high, I prefer quality, of course. But quality is often not related to authenticity, contrary to what many people think. In daggers like Koummyas, Shibriyas and Arabian Jambiyas/Khanjars, low quality, or "village type" pieces are not necessarily younger or less authentic. In the pictures, a Shibriya from Sinai which is authentic, but definitely below mine and most collectors' standards. It shows that the value of authenticity has limits, even for me. Below, 3 Koummiyas I bought recently that are not very old, but true to type, have reasonable quality blade and show signs of use, so I consider them as authentic. Attached Images

15th March 2019, 01:11 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection. Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners. Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T. Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap. But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso. Last edited by ariel; 15th March 2019 at 05:49 PM.

16th March 2019, 01:00 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	I'm coming into this discussion a little later than I would have preferred, but I've been "off the planet" for a few days, and that has restricted my ability to communicate. I have just now read through all the posts to date, and what I have read seems to be mostly presented from the perspective of the collector, which of course is reasonable, since most of us who contribute to this forum are indeed, collectors. I'd like to make a couple of comments from a slightly different perspective, and limited to the objects that are my prime focus, which is to say, keris and associated edged weaponry. I find the concept of "tourist" weaponry difficult to understand in terms of the present time. If I wish to import the type of weaponry that interests me, into the state of Australia in which I live, I need to obtain a certificate from the state police that states I that I am permitted to import and to possess that weapon. I then present this certificate to the Australian Customs service, and they permit me to take possession of the imported weapon. This applies whether I personally carry the item, or whether I have it sent to me. I know that many, if not most countries now have import restrictions applying to edged weapons that are similar to the Australian restrictions. From personal knowledge of what tourists to Indonesia buy at the present time, compared with what tourists to Indonesia bought during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, my opinion is that the preparation and sale of keris and other weapons to foreign tourists to Indonesia does not exist any longer, it has simply become too difficult for Mr. Good Citizen to take swords and daggers back to his home country. It may have existed at times in the past, but the only dedicated tourist style of keris of which I am aware is a particular type of Balinese keris that began life as a keris that was popular for dance performances and ended its existence in the marketplace as a travesty of a keris with a cut-out sheet metal blade and incredibly poorly carved dress. Those old-time "tourist keris", when of fair to good quality, have now become collector's items in their own right. My own position on the designation of a weapon as a "tourist" or "souvenir" is quite simply that where a traditional weapon that still fulfils a function in today's society is manufactured for use in today's society, then that weapon is a genuine ethnographic artifact of the society, and its value is directly related to its quality. Where a weapon no longer fulfils a function in its society of origin, but continues to be made, and then purchased by persons either within or outside of the society of origin, as a keepsake, ornament, toy or souvenir, then that weapon can legitimately be classified as something prepared for tourists, or as a souvenir. I think perhaps a good example of this type of "tourist weapon" would be the Australian boomerang, especially the hunting boomerang:- still made, but no longer used for its originally intended purpose. I very much doubt that it is ever possible to classify any weapon as "tourist" just on the basis of type, style or quality, I feel that it is necessary to have an in depth understanding of the society of origin of that object, before it can be classified as "tourist" or "souvenir". Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 16th March 2019 at 04:28 AM. Reason: objectionable content

17th March 2019, 10:01 PM	#7
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 435	Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army. Attached Images

15th March 2019, 12:56 PM	#2
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,361	Just to add to the topic of modern barung made for use or decoration, there is an older thread "Modern Barung" from about a year ago that discussed some of these issues also. It can be found here. Perhaps Xasterix could inform us more fully about some of the examples shown in that thread. Ian.

17th March 2019, 06:04 AM	#6
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,270	First, we have addressed the barong in many threads. I have mentioned the same thing over the years because each Moro tribe has it's own unique version of okir/ukkil. I agree with Xasterix's comments on this barong. As for the rest, that is why I make the distinction between tourist and recently made weapons.