![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 476
|
![]()
CharlesS,
You consider the blade to be pre 20th century. The baca baca is the one piece form which I have always thought first appeared at the very end of the 19th century and continued on into the 20th century. I have asked on this forum for confirmation of my assumption but I don’t believe I have ever gotten an answer so I would be very interested your take (and other forum members opinions) on when the one piece baca baca appeared. (Taking into account of course that the baca baca currently on the blade may not have been the original.) Sincerely, RobT |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,167
|
![]()
Rob,
This is an old thread. I have not seen CharlesS posting here for some time, so you may not get a reply from him. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a baca baca being "a one piece form." |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 476
|
![]()
Ian,
A two piece baca baca has a closed “stirrup” (usually steel) that fits around the blade. The second piece is a strap (brass in every example in my collection) that is looped around the the stirrup and extends up under the hilt wrap. As you can see in Gustav’s example, the stirrup isn’t closed off on the top and the two legs that fit under the hilt wrap are of a piece with the stirrup. I believe that the baca baca were originally added to stabilize the blade/hilt connection against shock and torque stresses when a blow is struck and the one piece design offers a mechanical advantage over the two piece version. In support of this I will mention that I have never seen a kris with a pair of one piece baca baca. I assume that is because the one piece design is strong and rigid enough to make a pair unnecessary. Sincerely, RobT |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 999
|
![]()
RobT, Are these the 2 types that you’re referring to?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 476
|
![]()
kino,
Your example on the left is the one piece and the right example is the two piece (albeit with a broken brass strap). Sincerely, RobT |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,287
|
![]()
One is steel and one is silver.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 4,167
|
![]()
Hi Rob,
I see what you are referring to from the subsequent pictures. It is not a feature that I have followed in my records of several hundred Moro kris found online. Looking just at those that appear in the Sold section on the older Oriental Arms web site (over 200 examples), the single-piece asang asang (baka baka) appears to make a relatively late appearance on Mindanao kris with one asang asang. I could not find any kris with two asang asang that had single-piece constructions--that effectively excludes most Sulu kris. As to dating when this feature appeared, judging from the swords on which it appears it seems to correspond with the second half of the 19th C and later (i.e., mainly on longer and heavier kris from that period, including straight and waved blades). Examples of two-piece asang asang predate the appearance of the single-piece feature, and are contemporaneous with it well into the 20th C. I think the single-piece construction is limited almost entirely to some Mindanao kris from the second half of the 19th C and later. These are mainly Maguindanao kris judging from the "elephant trunk" area and the dress of the sword. Because we still see a majority of two-piece asang asang on Maguindanao/Mindanao kris during the same period, I would say that the single-piece version is probably more of a style variant than a functional variant. As best I can judge, the single-piece construction is not a Sulu feature. Cheers, Ian. Last edited by Ian; 18th August 2024 at 01:09 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|