Dating the 3 identifiable ages of the Moro Kris ?

[nechesh]

Shelley, i think he is referring to this kris which he already posted:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234
As to your question, well we've been arguing this for quite some time. The evidence to support the dating on the first period (i.e. just how old are the first Moro kris?) is debatable at best. If you do a search i am sure you will find these debates and my guess is they will play out pretty much the same in this thread if we dare to go there.

[Federico]

Well, as Nechesh has mentioned that is debatable. There definitely seem to be major groupings in kris style (well 4 if we differentiate between pre-American eg. pre 1900 kris and post American kris pre-1900-30), but what those exact ages are has been up to debate. In his book Moro Swords, Bob Cato has it split as Archaic (well he doesnt use this term) as being anything pre-18th century, mid-point between 1800-around mid 19th century, and the the latter half of the 19th century. Well, we have been debating how far back particularly the Archaic style truly goes. Is it limited to the 18th century or did it appear as early as the 15th century. Was it developed in reaction to European arms, which would then limit it around the earliest the 16th-17th centuries? Or was it an initial interpretation of the keris by local tribes, which could then push us down to the formation of the Sultanates and the introduction of greater Malay culture in the 15th century? Now of course if the archaic style is older than the 18th century, then is the mid-point style older as well? When exactly did they stop making the archaic style? Perhaps they first started popping up as early as the 15th century, but continued to be made until the 18th?

Anyways, the mid-point style is fairly marked at ending at around the mid-19th century. Of note is an early American expedition to the region prior to the 1850s, and later European landings in the area. At least for me, I am satisfied with the evidence I have seen/heard of. However, the older archaic style...well we start getting sketchy provinance. Would be real interesting if someone could do another museum survey. I know Bob Cato did a very extensive survey for his book Moro Swords, covering museums in the US, Europe, SE Asia, and S. America. However, so far his work is about the only work in the field that has such extensive research. At least until Cecil's book gets published.

[Boswego]

Frederico,Nechesh,Laban-Thanks for the help ! This is my first Keris (found at a Flea Mkt).Aesthetically to Me,these are certainly some of the most beautiful weapons ever created-I can see how You'd get hooked on collecting them.Each one's a unique work of art,they combine the spritual with a complete utilitarian purpose.Its like finding an artifact that combines the exoticness of Atlantis or Conan with great tribal intensity.

[Rick]

This site will surely interest you .

http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html

[MABAGANI]

Of interest, early 16th and 17th century European explorers observed and wrote that the native warriors of the Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao sultanates carried swords and daggers, most likely the kampilan and kris. Now, when the kris turned into a sword is up for speculation. I'd still guess it was in the time of Sultan Kudrat and possibly earlier during his father's reign. During this period, Moro Sultanates were joining alliances to strengthen their Islamic faith and fend off foreign invasion. In Moro history, these were the only two leaders who were able to consolidate forces from the different regions and islands.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

Of interest, early 16th and 17th century European explorers observed and wrote that the native warriors of the Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao sultanates carried swords and daggers, most likely the kampilan and kris. Now, when the kris turned into a sword is up for speculation. I'd still guess it was in the time of Sultan Kudrat and possibly earlier during his father's reign. During this period, Moro Sultanates were joining alliances to strengthen their Islamic faith and fend off foreign invasion. In Moro history, these were the only two leaders who were able to consolidate forces from the different regions and islands.

Development, during the Kudrat period would seem to suggest reaction to Western impetus, so the 16th Century would be our early date. However, if as we discussed in previous threads, that the Maranao and Iranao (aka Iranun) people were key to the development and diffusion of kris in Moroland, then we have a varied stepping stone of development, with Maranao lands having the kris first, spreading to Maguindanao lands, and finally to Sulu. Which could give us a period between the 16th-18th century for the kris as sword to be completely diffused through the region. Which in turn could explain A. the tendency for Sulu blades as having the most keris like resemblence (eg. since they were introduced last they had the least time to develop into larger blades, and thus bare the most keris like elements) B. could explain why so many Archaic style seem to be Sulu blades via the trunk theory (as being later period pieces they would have the most chance of surviving). Then again, we're back to speculation in this regard. My gut feeling is that in the end we will not be able to prove anything concretely due to lack of provenance.

Anyways, this is part of what I posted on a different forum in regards to Hurley as a reference:

However, I would like to stress, while I often use Hurley myself as a reference in my research papers, he is not a very accurate account of events. There are a number of problems that Hurley's work contain. Firstly, Hurley's books are not primary sources when viewing early Philippine history, particularly prior to the US arrival to PI, and even then it is still largely put together from second hand accounts (eg. interviews with soldiers). For his early history he relies heavily on Blair and Robertson's History of the Philippines, in which he gets Legaspi's account. As a secondary source, the history presented in Swish of the Kris, is Hurley's interpretation of events, and particularly his editorial commentary on Spanish ineptitude is his opinion of events, not necessarily what really happened. Beyond being a secondary source, Hurley was not a trained historian. If you look into his background, Hurley was a wandering spirit, who tried his hand at many things, including what brought him to PI, dreams of owning a plantation in Zamboanga, however he was not a trained historian. That being the case, his interpretation of past historical events, beyond the problems in theoretical frameworks of the time, are further inhibited by his lack of training. Furthermore, Hurley was an adamant anti-Spaniard. You gotta remember he is part of a group of American settlers who came to PI to rid the country of what they felt was Spanish laxity and excess, and bring American rule and order. It is not surprising that he is so critical of Spanish occupation. Finally, Swish of the Kris was written by a man seeking to cast a flamboyant air to his stay in PI. It was written for popular consumption, and not hard research.

As I mentioned before I have cited Hurley in numerous papers. However, his work is most valuable as an insight into American perceptions of PI at the time, as well as being one of the few accounts that deal in some detail with the early American occupation of PI. He was close friends with Majorl Hugh Scott, a key player particularly in the numerous battles in the Southern Philippines, of particular note the Battle of Bud Dajo.

[MABAGANI]

[QUOTE=Federico]Development, during the Kudrat period would seem to suggest reaction to Western impetus, so the 16th Century would be our early date. However, if as we discussed in previous threads, that the Maranao and Iranao (aka Iranun) people were key to the development and diffusion of kris in Moroland, then we have a varied stepping stone of development, with Maranao lands having the kris first, spreading to Maguindanao lands, and finally to Sulu. Which could give us a period between the 16th-18th century for the kris as sword to be completely diffused through the region. Which in turn could explain A. the tendency for Sulu blades as having the most keris like resemblence (eg. since they were introduced last they had the least time to develop into larger blades, and thus bare the most keris like elements) B. could explain why so many Archaic style seem to be Sulu blades via the trunk theory (as being later period pieces they would have the most chance of surviving). Then again, we're back to speculation in this regard. My gut feeling is that in the end we will not be able to prove anything concretely due to lack of provenance.

Actually, the Maranao were the last to convert to Islam. Their favored sword being the kampilan. For the archaic kris to develop in such a uniform style there would have to be a convergence, which is why I point to Kudrat and his father, during the height of the Maguindanao's power.