Two old Maguindanao kris--with some differences related to age

[Ian]

David, you raise a very good point. There likely is more specific terminology in the original Moro cultures for the features that I have labeled with Indonesian terms. If I had a reliable lexicon for those terms, I would certainly use them. For example, I have used the Maguindanao terms gangya consistently for Moro swords because that is a term used by the Maguindanao and is sufficiently close to ganja to be understood. The term asang asang is Maguindanao, and I have also used the Maguindanao terms for a straight kris (matidto) and a fully-waved kris (lanti), as recorded by Cato (p. 60).

As for the carved features for which I use keris-related terms, I have no information as to what they may be called in the various local languages. Hence, I use common Javanese terms for these. This decision was made after corresponding with Alan Maisey, who recommended an accepted set of keris terms that would be understood widely among the keris community.

I also use the Indonesian terms because I want to remind people about the origins of the Moro kris, and what those features originally meant. No doubt there has been some re-interpretation of those features over time among the Moro communities. Again, I'm not privy to how Moro peoples have interpreted the Indonesian keris symbolism that they adopted and adapted over time. There are some suggestions in the Western literature, but frustratingly little scholarship on that subject.

Yes, it would be nice to have more information about local terms and interpretations. I would use such terms if I could find them. However, I'm aiming for clarity and how to communicate the features of these swords in a way that can be understood widely. The Javanese naming system seems a place to start until more accurate terms are available.

[xasterix]

Halloo, just as an aside- according to a Maguindanaon culture-bearer of the Salipada lineage, the proper terminologies should be:

If it's a straight kris, it's called "kris sundang."
If the kris has waves, then it's called "kris a lanti."

These terms are different from Sulu's, since kalis has its own proper terminologies, as asserted by modern-day Tausug culture-bearers:

If it's a straight kalis, it's called "kalis buntul."
If it has waves, then it's "kalis ____ siku," the number of waves is specified.

As for the age estimates for the krises, I believe the first one is late 1800s-early 1900s, while the second one is early 1900s-preWW2. I based these estimates by checking the trend of several provenanced museum samples (date of acquisition).

[Ian]

Xas, thank you the terminology. While it differs a little from what Robert Cato collected from his informants in the 1990s, I shall revise my data accordingly.

Originally Posted by xasterix

... As for the age estimates for the krises, I believe the first one is late 1800s-early 1900s, while the second one is early 1900s-preWW2. I based these estimates by checking the trend of several provenanced museum samples (date of acquisition).

This is a difficult issue. I've written elsewhere on these pages about the problems with using accession dates of items in museums. There is an inherent bias with such dating. Even with the very best provenance one can find, it tells us only about that particular sword, but does not necessarily tell us when that particular style of sword arose and was used. To further complicate matters, older battle styles can still be made even in the presence of preferred newer styles—perhaps until all the warriors who preferred the older form and the panday who made them have died.

I believe strongly that we often underestimate the historical age of sword styles (and thereby the age of the swords themselves) by referencing when they were found, a date usually recorded by individuals outside the sword's culture who "collected" them. To better understand why weapons of war change over time in a poorly documented environment (such as the Moro areas), I've chosen instead to look at the conflicts. What features of a (potential) conflict would lead to warriors requesting panday to change the fighting characteristics (such as length, weight, balance, etc.) of a weapon?

Xas, the dates you are proposing would suggest that the events which influenced the style of the swords shown above were the war(s) with Spain, renewed in 1851, and the conflict with the U.S. that started in the very early years of the 1900s. Personally, I don't see any major difference between the edged weapons used by Spain and the U.S. that would warrant an increase in the size of the kris around 1900. The major threat during the Moro-U.S. conflicts was modern firearms, which was not a reason to modify the kris to make it heavier and bigger at that time.

As stated above, I think the change to bigger and heavier kris occurred within the second half of the 19th C, in response to Spanish actions starting in 1851, and that the somewhat smaller kris shown above may have related to Spanish-Moro conflicts over a century earlier. There are many reasons why provenanced pieces for similar kris might date to a later time. However, that does not exclude the hypothesis outlined above.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Ian

Xas, thank you the terminology. While it differs a little from what Robert Cato collected from his informants in the 1990s, I shall revise my data accordingly.

This is a difficult issue. I've written elsewhere on these pages about the problems with using accession dates of items in museums. There is an inherent bias with such dating. Even with the very best provenance one can find, it tells us only about that particular sword, but does not necessarily tell us when that particular style of sword arose and was used. To further complicate matters, older battle styles can still be made even in the presence of preferred newer styles—perhaps until all the warriors who preferred the older form and the panday who made them have died.

I believe strongly that we often underestimate the historical age of sword styles (and thereby the age of the swords themselves) by referencing when they were found, a date usually recorded by individuals outside the sword's culture who "collected" them. To better understand why weapons of war change over time in a poorly documented environment (such as the Moro areas), I've chosen instead to look at the conflicts. What features of a (potential) conflict would lead to warriors requesting panday to change the fighting characteristics (such as length, weight, balance, etc.) of a weapon?

Xas, the dates you are proposing would suggest that the events which influenced the style of the swords shown above were the war(s) with Spain, renewed in 1851, and the conflict with the U.S. that started in the very early years of the 1900s. Personally, I don't see any major difference between the edged weapons used by Spain and the U.S. that would warrant an increase in the size of the kris around 1900. The major threat during the Moro-U.S. conflicts was modern firearms, which was not a reason to modify the kris to make it heavier and bigger at that time.

As stated above, I think the change to bigger and heavier kris occurred within the second half of the 19th C, in response to Spanish actions starting in 1851, and that the somewhat smaller kris shown above may have related to Spanish-Moro conflicts over a century earlier. There are many reasons why provenanced pieces for similar kris might date to a later time. However, that does not exclude the hypothesis outlined above.

Halloo Ian,

There was a indeed a trigger for the evolution to bigger, heavier, and longer kris and kalis towards the turn of the century- but it's not been discussed here before. With earnest apologies, I'll have to delay the "reveal" until my current research and next write-up is concluded

[Ian]

Thanks Xas. AFAIK the only major Moro change in the style of conflict of the late 19th/early 20th C was the increasing actions of those employing magsabil, who were called juramentados by the Spanish (similar to the concept of suicide bombers today). However, juramentados had been encountered before the end of the 19th C. This was a relatively small number of individuals compared with the numbers of heavier swords that were made into the 20th C, many of which are still around today, and the kris was not the only weapon used for that purpose (the barung was used also). I look forward to reading your new evidence relating to the kris at the end of the 19th C.

[David]

Originally Posted by Ian

Yes, it would be nice to have more information about local terms and interpretations. I would use such terms if I could find them. However, I'm aiming for clarity and how to communicate the features of these swords in a way that can be understood widely. The Javanese naming system seems a place to start until more accurate terms are available.

Ian, please understand that i was not criticizing your usage of these Javanese terms in this regard, simply making a call for more vigorous research to discover the proper names for these features in at least one, if not more, of the Moro languages. We do have at least a few native Filipino members here who may be able to make some inroads on this study. It just seems that we have for some time assumed that this knowledge is not available, which i suppose could be the case. But i would hate to see Moro collectors give up on this search altogether because language is such an important part of any culture and understanding deeper or hidden meanings that might be lurking there. Despite the obvious fact that the Moro kris descended from the Indonesian keris, clearly these two weapons were treated in very different ways by these respective cultures and the specific names used for the various features can help us understand better how these people related to these weapons.

[Ian]

David, I agree completely. It would be very helpful to have the culturally appropriate terminology, and that could indeed give insights into how different features of the Moro kris have been absorbed into the local cultures and what they mean in regard to local traditions.