My Maguindanao Kris

[xasterix]

Nice kris! I agree that it's likely Maguindanao. Unique hilt too.

I've seen around 2 archaic krises that don't have a separate gangya, both are in the Philippines. They both have round tangs. They've made me think about the widely accepted assumption that krises with separate gangya are automatically older. I jokingly call these as "mono-gangya" krises.

There are also kalis (Sulu) being made nowadays that still have the separate gangya feature; they retained that knowledge even without outside intervention or Internet access, from what I understand.

Of course I'll need more samples (and preferably disassembled archaic ones with mono-gangya) to prove this hypothesis that separate-gangya krises aren't necessarily older, but it's an interesting thing to consider, IMHO.

[David]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Nice kris! I agree that it's likely Maguindanao. Unique hilt too.

I've seen around 2 archaic krises that don't have a separate gangya, both are in the Philippines. They both have round tangs. They've made me think about the widely accepted assumption that krises with separate gangya are automatically older. I jokingly call these as "mono-gangya" krises.

There are also kalis (Sulu) being made nowadays that still have the separate gangya feature; they retained that knowledge even without outside intervention or Internet access, from what I understand.

Of course I'll need more samples (and preferably disassembled archaic ones with mono-gangya) to prove this hypothesis that separate-gangya krises aren't necessarily older, but it's an interesting thing to consider, IMHO.

As they say (whoever "they" are ), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by David

As they say (whoever "they" are ), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide.

Point taken and agreed on sir.

I have a trick to check if it's really separate gangya...I aim a heat gun around 4 inches above the line. After around 15 seconds at 400 Celsius setting, the galgal should start to melt, and if it's a 2-part kris, you'll see a telltale sign from the line. Either liquefied black ooze, or in other cases smoke (for those that only had minimal adhesive placed).

There's always the risk of melting the adhesive at the hilt with this tactic, that's why I keep it at 15 seconds tops (usually it takes 30-70 seconds for the hilt's adhesive to wear off in my experience).

[kai]

I have a trick to check if it's really separate gangya...I aim a heat gun around 4 inches above the line. After around 15 seconds at 400 Celsius setting, the galgal should start to melt, and if it's a 2-part kris, you'll see a telltale sign from the line. Either liquefied black ooze, or in other cases smoke (for those that only had minimal adhesive placed).

There's always the risk of melting the adhesive at the hilt with this tactic, that's why I keep it at 15 seconds tops (usually it takes 30-70 seconds for the hilt's adhesive to wear off in my experience).

Ray raises a really interesting point here though: Most Moro kris - even those with a near perfect fit that hardly leaves any visible line - do seem to have been additionally secured by galgal (natural resin mix). This is not traditionally done in any Indonesian keris culture that I'm aware of - not sure about Malay keris sundang though?

In worn, old blades, resin and nowadays often epoxy have been utilized to fill gaps that developed by material loss and can't be readily improved during blade maintenance/restoration.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Milandro,

Your blade does strike me as certain 20th century blade: the waves are quite pointy and the base features with no apparent wear; also stylistically the thick gandik side does look quite modern (at a high level of craftsmanship for any later period though!).

If I had to guess, I'd expect this to be an engraved "separation" line rather than real: The bold line (of consistent width and wide even for worn blades) and an invisible line at the distal greneng is a bit much to swallow, I'm afraid. As already pointed out, this is not a definite time indicator though.

All fittings are typical for what got exported from Mindanao during the late 20th and early 21st centuries (often via Davao or Manila); presumably mostly Maranao work. They did this restoration/upgrading with whatever pieces became available: Certain antiques, vintage, more recent and apparently also new blades. The wooden pommel looks pretty good - while I tend towards a modern origin, I can't rule out a fully refurbished older piece from the pics. I understand that quite some of these pieces were for local use and not only export.

Regards,
Kai

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by kai

Your blade does strike me as certain 20th century blade: the waves are quite pointy and the base features with no apparent wear; also stylistically the thick gandik side does look quite modern (at a high level of craftsmanship for any later period though!).

If I had to guess, I'd expect this to be an engraved "separation" line rather than real: The bold line (of consistent width and wide even for worn blades) and an invisible line at the distal greneng is a bit much to swallow, I'm afraid. As already pointed out, this is not a definite time indicator though.

All fittings are typical for what got exported from Mindanao during the late 20th and early 21st centuries (often via Davao or Manila); presumably mostly Maranao work. They did this restoration/upgrading with whatever pieces became available: Certain antiques, vintage, more recent and apparently also new blades. The wooden pommel looks pretty good - while I tend towards a modern origin, I can't rule out a fully refurbished older piece from the pics. I understand that quite some of these pieces were for local use and not only export.

Have to agree with all points Kai mentioned. I think the sharp luks are the giveaway.
Also newer blades can be laminated and very substantial, see this piece from my own collection, blade is laminated, the kris is 73cm long and quite heavy with 890 gram.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=kris

Regards,
Detlef

[milandro]

I won't try to detach the hilt or anything else on my kris.

This is a 20th century blade, well , so be it. I just don't think this was made yesterday (in fact it was in the previous owner possession for over 50 years and the person wasn't a dealer and I know him to be a reliable person) and regardless of its age , I like it.


Having said this, I would show some of the pictures of Moro krises (only/ the Ganja for the purpose of this discussion over ganjas and age), which seem to have some age to it and no obvious separation.

I am not saying that my blade is therefore older, I am just showing what I've talked about and which was part of my research on such swords.

The first and last picture look like the the ganjas are made of different metals compared to the rest of the blade BUT the separation (not just a line) is invisible, at least , to me, the other two don't have it or have just a vestigial separation while looking like krises of some age.