Very old Visayan kris

[kai]

Hello Ian,

This is an interesting old sword. It is a high end, pre-1800 Moro blade

Very nice blade, indeed - congrats!

It is obviously old. However, what features do you base the pre-1800 dating on?

with an old Waray scabbard and hilt. The scabbard is in a style seen on old garab, including the fluted carving and the small round insert near the toe on both sides. The mouth has been widened to accept the flared gangya area of the blade. The hilt is also of a style seen on some old garab.

Gorgeous fittings!

I'd have assumed that the scabbard got made for this blade? (There seem to be losses at the opening.)

The central panel does not appear to be twist core, however the sinuous design with many small "stars" inset at regular intervals down the blade suggests that the central panel is depicting a centipede. IIRC, the centipede was an important creature in Maguindanao mythology.

This inlaid motif is commonly seen on Moro blades; centipedes are sometimes inlaid, too, but tend to be less stylized. Do we have any information from within the cultures for this interpretation (i.e. connecting this motif with centipedes)?

The carved area at the base of the blade follows Indonesian keris from the late-Majapahit period, and is similar to that found on a 16th C Bugis keris that was discussed here.

Actually, there are significant differences between the features exhibited by these 2 blades. Granted, there seem to be more keris features extant than in some later Moro blades. IMHO, we need a much more detailed discussion for establishing time lines. (BTW, mid-17th century is a long time after the end of Majapahit and with the Mojo power already declining for an extended time before its final demise.)

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Ian,

... It is obviously old. However, what features do you base the pre-1800 dating on? ...

The pre-1800 designation comes from Cato following his study of museum pieces (including Spanish examples), plus statements he obtained from Moro informants.

... I'd have assumed that the scabbard got made for this blade? (There seem to be losses at the opening.) ...

Definitely the scabbard was made for this sword. The opening losses are relatively minor.

This inlaid motif is commonly seen on Moro blades; centipedes are sometimes inlaid, too, but tend to be less stylized. Do we have any information from within the cultures for this interpretation (i.e. connecting this motif with centipedes)?

Kai, I don't have information from within the culture but I have seen somewhat similar designs labeled previously as representing a centipede. I don't recall chapter-and-verse of where I saw that comment, but I think it is the interpretation that best fits the markings. If someone has a more plausible explanation, then I would welcome hearing their views.

... IMHO, we need a much more detailed discussion for establishing time lines. (BTW, mid-17th century is a long time after the end of Majapahit and with the Mojo power already declining for an extended time before its final demise.)

Regards,
Kai

Kai, I agree that it would be nice to have a clear timeline, but we don't. The appearance of the kris in the Philippines could well have pre-dated the arrival of Islam. The Sultanate of Sulu was the first organized Islamic body, and was created in 1450 by Sharif Hassim Abubakar. However, this followed about 200 years of Arab visitation and spread of the Q'ran to the masses.

Seafaring groups from the Sulu Archipelago and Mindanao (notably the Sama and Ilanun) established contact with Borneo and the Celebes, and even parts of Java, in the time of the Majapahit Empire. The use of the term "Rajah" for early leaders in the southern Philippines would argue that lingering Majapahit influence was quite strong. There was ample time for the Majapahit-style "modern" keris to have been brought to Sulu and Mindanao by pre-Islamic Philippine tribal groups. Subsequent development of the Javanese keris into the Philippines kris, and its use by those who would later convert to Islam, could have occurred over a 200-year period, or even longer, well preceding the arrival of Spaniards. Thus, to find a well developed Moro kris form attributable to the late-16th or early-17th C may be expected. I believe that is what we see in this sword.

As a corollary, I would not be surprised if we found prototypes of the Moro kris dating from the 14th C or 15th C, or even earlier.

In thinking about the early development of the kris in the southern Philippines, I believe that we may underestimate just how old the kris and other weaponry may be. This reflects, in part, the general lack of extant written history for the era prior to the Spanish arrival in the mid-16th C, and the paucity of good archeological research conducted throughout the Philippines.


Regards, Ian

[kai]

Hello Ian,

The pre-1800 designation comes from Cato following his study of museum pieces (including Spanish examples), plus statements he obtained from Moro informants.

I have the book; and was asking for the features your opinion is based on.

I believe we already established here quite some time ago that Cato's dating for archaic Moro kris needs to be reconsidered and probably revised.

I agree that it would be nice to have a clear timeline, but we don't.

I wasn't asking for exact dating - that's tough to establish.

to find a well developed Moro kris form attributable to the late-16th or early-17th C may be expected. I believe that is what we see in this sword.

I beg to differ: This is not a typical archaic blade and I guess this actually is a later variant. I base this on the separation line, the blade proportions, the pronounced luk, the greneng style, etc. In addition, this type of inlay also seems later.

It's a really nice, old status blade. IMHO not an archaic Moro kris though.

As a corollary, I would not be surprised if we found prototypes of the Moro kris dating from the 14th C or 15th C, or even earlier.

As mentioned in my posting #20, this may be too much of a stretch.

In thinking about the early development of the kris in the southern Philippines, I believe that we may underestimate just how old the kris and other weaponry may be. This reflects, in part, the general lack of extant written history for the era prior to the Spanish arrival in the mid-16th C, and the paucity of good archeological research conducted throughout the Philippines.

Due to the non-extant (Chinese) and non-existing (European) nobility/museum acquisitions, we'll have to wait for properly documented and dated archeological finds.

Regards,
Kai