Antique kalis for comment

[Ian]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Halloo Ian,

Thanks for your points, I understand where you're coming from. A kalis with Malay influence is an acceptable label for me. With the close proximity of Moro and Malay interactions during the pre1900s eras (trade, intermarriage, shared territories, migration, etc), such Malay influences are to be expected in Moro blades, and vice versa (Moro influence on Malay blades). Admittedly I know too little of Malay-made keris sundang to make further differentiations; the only references I've studied were by Gardner (1936) and Frey (1989), plus really helpful inputs from my Malaysian friends, who collect various keris, including Moro kris and kalis.

As a final emphasis- I'd like to focus on the hilt to solidify this sword as being Sulu-identified. From the POV of the peoples of PH and their tradblades, the dress is the "latest ID" for a sword. For example- a Mindanao kris that was captured and re-dressed with Visayan hilt and scabbard (a hybrid one from a semantics POV), ceases to be a Moro kris- from the POV of both Visayan and Moro groups, it's now a Visayan kris.

In a similar manner, a Sulu kalis that was re-dressed with Lumad hilt and scabbard ceases to be kalis, but rather is recognized as a Lumad kris. A Samar-made garab that was re-dressed in Tagalog nobility style is now an itak, or a tabak.

Though the blade may have been originally made by a different ethnolinguistic group or a foreign area- the dress indicates the ID of the last owner, and thus assumes the appropriate ethnolinguistic affiliation and equivalent sword ID (if there is any) for that group.

So, in my mind- the blade may indeed be Sulu-made, Malay-made, Sulu with Malay influence, (or vice versa) or even Mindanao-made. But its undoubtedly Sulu-made hilt identifies the last owner as a Suluanon- and in the POV of Sulu, the equivalent term for keris sundang (Malay) or kris sundang (Mindanao) would be kalis

This is very important cultural context! I must admit that I focus on the blade and less on the dress of Moro weapons, particularly kris.

Your point is very important with respect to the notion of last ownership defining what a Moro kris is. It has its logic. This differs, I understand, from the Indonesian keris where the dhapur, based on features and style of the blade defines the keris, which may be in various ethnic forms of dress. Even though a keris may have, say, a Bugis hilt and scabbard, if the blade is Javanese it is still a Javanese keris (that happens to be owned by a Bugis). I suppose one could say that it is a Bugis' keris, but not a Bugis keris (a subtle point but important for how the object is described).