Very old Visayan kris

[kai]

Hello Ian,

Interesting thoughts:

We came to the conclusion that should a Waray have acquired this sword through means other than conflict (i.e., through trade, intermarriage, or as a gift) it would have remained in Moro dress. To re-dress a distinguished Moro sword with a local hilt and scabbard would be considered an "abomination" by the Moro, and definitely an unfriendly and insulting thing to do. Therefore, we might reasonably conclude in this case that the sword was taken from a fallen Moro as a result of armed conflict.

The quality and mysticism of the sword requires that it was owned by royalty or perhaps a panglima. This, in turn, suggests a significant battle between Moros and Visayans. Several such battles occurred in the Visayas between the Moros and Spanish forces during what has been termed the third phase of the Spanish-Moro War (see here). Between 1599 and 1634 several large scale punitive raids were conducted by the Moros against the Spanish-held areas in the Visayas:
<snip>

I believe that this 35-year period of Moro incursions against the Spanish is the most likely time for this sword to have been collected by a Waray during conflict with Moro raiders. We have no record of the Waray coming into conflict with Moros elsewhere. Collection of the sword in the early 1600s would likely mean it was made towards the end of the 1500s or early 1600s. So late-16th to early-17th C would be my estimate for age.

This all is based on quite a few assumptions. Just as an example, fittings will usually rot away within several decades; in such case, even a revered gift blade will get refitted in local fittings rather than new fittings made in the original style.

Regards,
Kai

[Ian]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Ian,

Interesting thoughts:

This all is based on quite a few assumptions. Just as an example, fittings will usually rot away within several decades; in such case, even a revered gift blade will get refitted in local fittings rather than new fittings made in the original style.

Regards,
Kai

Yes, scabbards and hilts do wear out and need replacing. However, there are examples where very old hilts remain and scabbards can be well preserved for centuries, even in the tropics. As far as a lot of assumptions, I think the arguments are plausible and provide the most coherent story for this sword. I doubt that we will find "smoking guns" for the history of the Moro kris. Rather, it will be like this one, drawing inferences based on history and judgement. There may be some items hidden away in Spanish or Filipino collections that could help, and one always hopes to find a gem in an auction. The information contained on this Forum's pages may be a rich source for future researchers also.

What I'm trying to do is put out reasoned ideas (hypotheses) that others can support or refute with new evidence. My main message with this sword is that the elements of what Cato calls "archaic kris" might be traced back to early in the 17th C, and possibly before. That's about 200 years earlier than Cato's "pre-1800" statement might suggest. I think that is an important point to pursue when thinking about the development of the Moro kris.

[Ian]

... 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.

Hi Kai. Care to elaborate on these various points. I have been going through a number of online sites looking at what might be considered archaic kris. It is difficult to define a "typical" archaic kris based on the criteria you listed.

As to Cato's description, he did research older kris, visiting museums in various countries, talking to Moro informants, etc. While there are areas where he may be a bit off the mark, I don't think he was wildly off with his view of archaic kris. The man put in some serious hours getting his book together, probably more than you or I have in actual research of items in hand and in collections.

I understand your skepticism. However, the concerns you raise are not well validated and carry assumptions also. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I see a lot of cautious statements about the age of Moro weapons, lumping many into late-19th C or early-20th C pieces, when they may well be considerably older.

Returning to the sword at the top of this thread. There are several questions to answer if an alternative time frame is proposed. Most importantly is how and when did this old kris get re-dressed in an old-style Waray scabbard and hilt? I have pointed to the fact that such an action performed on a nobility kris would be seen as a hostile act by Moros. Why was this done? What was the historical relationship between Waray and Moro at that time? IMHO these questions are no less important in answering how old this kris may be than the finer details of the features of the kris itself.