Maguindanao twistcore Kris.

kino · 17th August 2024, 06:36 PM

RobT, Are these the 2 types that you’re referring to?

RobT · 18th August 2024, 12:54 AM

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

Rick · 18th August 2024, 03:41 AM

One is steel and one is silver.

Ian · 18th August 2024, 04:57 AM

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.

RobT · 19th August 2024, 12:25 AM

Ian,

Save for the functional superiority issue, your conclusions and mine generally agree. I would have put the one piece version’s first appearance as in the last quarter of the 19th century if not later because five of my examples have a ganja iras and the other three have ganja fitted very closely to the blade (think crankshaft bearing tolerances). However, I’m not really sure whether these ganja iris and tightly fitted ganja first appeared in the mid or in the late 19th century.
I am not very good when it comes to using the Cato classification but, of the eight kris in my collection with a one piece baca baca, five appear to be Maguindanao, two appear to be Maranao, and one appears to be a crossover. One of the Maranao blades tapers distally in width from 2” (5.08 cm) at the baca baca to 1.5” (3.81 cm) at the last luk and has 19 luk in its 22.75” (57.785 cm) length. An odd looking blade for sure.
My reasons for thinking that the one piece baca baca was deliberately created as an improvement over the two piece version are as follows: I don’t think that there can be any question that, all other things being equal, the one piece design would provide greater torque resistance than a two piece version. A blow struck with a large and wide blade can be expected to generate more impact and torque forces than a blow struck with a smaller and narrower blade. As you noted, the one piece baca baca appears most often on large, wide blades and, in the examples I have, only the crossover is of average size. The other seven blades are large and wide. A closely fitted ganja (or better yet a ganja iras) would also have helped the kris hang together during the rigors of combat. I suspect that the one piece baca baca was more than just a style and the smiths were trying to sell the notion that a single one piece version could perform as well as a pair of the two piece kind but were perfectly willing to fit a pair of the two piece baca baca should the customer be unconvinced.

Sincerely,
RobT

Ian · 19th August 2024, 02:06 AM

Hi Rob, I think that it is really difficult to pin down 19th C kris to a specific part of the 19th C. Pre-1800 styles may still have been made in the first half of the 19th C, or perhaps even later, and more "modern" versions might date back to the mid-19th C or earlier. I do think we underestimate the age of some Mindanao kris that are on the larger side. Unfortunately, these swords carry no dated inscriptions like some Eastern swords do.

The paucity of clearly provenanced pieces always makes it hard to know when these were made. Of course, when a kris was made and when it was collected can be very different times. Obviously, a sword may be already old when collected. Thus, a kris entering a Spanish collection in the 19th C, for example, will be given a date for its acquisition but not for when it was made (which is almost always unknown). For this reason, I believe there is a systematic bias to attributing an age to swords that is less than their true age. Such bias might be out by decades or more than a century in individual cases.

I find it difficult to talk more specifically about age than a sword likely coming from the first or second half of the 19th C.

RobT · 19th August 2024, 11:36 PM

an,

Your belief that there is a tendency to underestimate the age of kris is supported by the fact that there are a large number of blades still available today. This argues for a period of manufacture a lot longer than early 19th to mid 20th century (even when factoring in good preservation of existing swords within the culture). Since earlier styles persist and coexist with later styles, I have to agree with you that early and later 19th century or later 19th into 20th century is the best age estimate we can give for most kris

Sincerely,
RobT

17th August 2024, 06:36 PM	#1
kino Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 999	RobT, Are these the 2 types that you’re referring to? Attached Images

18th August 2024, 12:54 AM	#2
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 476	Exactly 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

18th August 2024, 04:57 AM	#4
Ian 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.

19th August 2024, 12:25 AM	#5
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 476	We Pretty Much Agree Ian, Save for the functional superiority issue, your conclusions and mine generally agree. I would have put the one piece version’s first appearance as in the last quarter of the 19th century if not later because five of my examples have a ganja iras and the other three have ganja fitted very closely to the blade (think crankshaft bearing tolerances). However, I’m not really sure whether these ganja iris and tightly fitted ganja first appeared in the mid or in the late 19th century. I am not very good when it comes to using the Cato classification but, of the eight kris in my collection with a one piece baca baca, five appear to be Maguindanao, two appear to be Maranao, and one appears to be a crossover. One of the Maranao blades tapers distally in width from 2” (5.08 cm) at the baca baca to 1.5” (3.81 cm) at the last luk and has 19 luk in its 22.75” (57.785 cm) length. An odd looking blade for sure. My reasons for thinking that the one piece baca baca was deliberately created as an improvement over the two piece version are as follows: I don’t think that there can be any question that, all other things being equal, the one piece design would provide greater torque resistance than a two piece version. A blow struck with a large and wide blade can be expected to generate more impact and torque forces than a blow struck with a smaller and narrower blade. As you noted, the one piece baca baca appears most often on large, wide blades and, in the examples I have, only the crossover is of average size. The other seven blades are large and wide. A closely fitted ganja (or better yet a ganja iras) would also have helped the kris hang together during the rigors of combat. I suspect that the one piece baca baca was more than just a style and the smiths were trying to sell the notion that a single one piece version could perform as well as a pair of the two piece kind but were perfectly willing to fit a pair of the two piece baca baca should the customer be unconvinced. Sincerely, RobT

19th August 2024, 11:36 PM	#7
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 476	I Agree...Regretfully an, Your belief that there is a tendency to underestimate the age of kris is supported by the fact that there are a large number of blades still available today. This argues for a period of manufacture a lot longer than early 19th to mid 20th century (even when factoring in good preservation of existing swords within the culture). Since earlier styles persist and coexist with later styles, I have to agree with you that early and later 19th century or later 19th into 20th century is the best age estimate we can give for most kris Sincerely, RobT

18th August 2024, 03:41 AM	#3
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,287	One is steel and one is silver.

19th August 2024, 02:06 AM	#6
Ian Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Aussie Bush Posts: 4,167	Hi Rob, I think that it is really difficult to pin down 19th C kris to a specific part of the 19th C. Pre-1800 styles may still have been made in the first half of the 19th C, or perhaps even later, and more "modern" versions might date back to the mid-19th C or earlier. I do think we underestimate the age of some Mindanao kris that are on the larger side. Unfortunately, these swords carry no dated inscriptions like some Eastern swords do. The paucity of clearly provenanced pieces always makes it hard to know when these were made. Of course, when a kris was made and when it was collected can be very different times. Obviously, a sword may be already old when collected. Thus, a kris entering a Spanish collection in the 19th C, for example, will be given a date for its acquisition but not for when it was made (which is almost always unknown). For this reason, I believe there is a systematic bias to attributing an age to swords that is less than their true age. Such bias might be out by decades or more than a century in individual cases. I find it difficult to talk more specifically about age than a sword likely coming from the first or second half of the 19th C.