Dating the 3 identifiable ages of the Moro Kris ?

[Boswego]

Generally,what centuries relate to the first two ages of the Moro Kris,ie: The Archaic and the Mid-Point (the 3rd seems obvious-19th-early 20th Cent.).Trying to get a rough date on my kris.Thanks for all the help.

[LabanTayo]

hello,
if you can post pics of your kris, it will give us an idea about the date.
thanks,

[nechesh]

Shelley, i think he is referring to this kris which he already posted:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=234
As to your question, well we've been arguing this for quite some time. The evidence to support the dating on the first period (i.e. just how old are the first Moro kris?) is debatable at best. If you do a search i am sure you will find these debates and my guess is they will play out pretty much the same in this thread if we dare to go there.

[Boswego]

Frederico thought this piece looked like it was from the Mid Point in Moro Keris history.I've done a fair amount of surfing and I cant find a dated timeline that gives the approximate dates (ie: circa 15th-18th Cent) to define this period.I know theres probably some bleed-over from period to period (and expert debate of course),just looking for the currently most agreed on dating.
-Thanks

[Federico]

Well, as Nechesh has mentioned that is debatable. There definitely seem to be major groupings in kris style (well 4 if we differentiate between pre-American eg. pre 1900 kris and post American kris pre-1900-30), but what those exact ages are has been up to debate. In his book Moro Swords, Bob Cato has it split as Archaic (well he doesnt use this term) as being anything pre-18th century, mid-point between 1800-around mid 19th century, and the the latter half of the 19th century. Well, we have been debating how far back particularly the Archaic style truly goes. Is it limited to the 18th century or did it appear as early as the 15th century. Was it developed in reaction to European arms, which would then limit it around the earliest the 16th-17th centuries? Or was it an initial interpretation of the keris by local tribes, which could then push us down to the formation of the Sultanates and the introduction of greater Malay culture in the 15th century? Now of course if the archaic style is older than the 18th century, then is the mid-point style older as well? When exactly did they stop making the archaic style? Perhaps they first started popping up as early as the 15th century, but continued to be made until the 18th?

Anyways, the mid-point style is fairly marked at ending at around the mid-19th century. Of note is an early American expedition to the region prior to the 1850s, and later European landings in the area. At least for me, I am satisfied with the evidence I have seen/heard of. However, the older archaic style...well we start getting sketchy provinance. Would be real interesting if someone could do another museum survey. I know Bob Cato did a very extensive survey for his book Moro Swords, covering museums in the US, Europe, SE Asia, and S. America. However, so far his work is about the only work in the field that has such extensive research. At least until Cecil's book gets published.

[Boswego]

Frederico,Nechesh,Laban-Thanks for the help ! This is my first Keris (found at a Flea Mkt).Aesthetically to Me,these are certainly some of the most beautiful weapons ever created-I can see how You'd get hooked on collecting them.Each one's a unique work of art,they combine the spritual with a complete utilitarian purpose.Its like finding an artifact that combines the exoticness of Atlantis or Conan with great tribal intensity.

[Rick]

This site will surely interest you .

http://www.bakbakan.com/swishkb.html

[MABAGANI]

Of interest, early 16th and 17th century European explorers observed and wrote that the native warriors of the Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao sultanates carried swords and daggers, most likely the kampilan and kris. Now, when the kris turned into a sword is up for speculation. I'd still guess it was in the time of Sultan Kudrat and possibly earlier during his father's reign. During this period, Moro Sultanates were joining alliances to strengthen their Islamic faith and fend off foreign invasion. In Moro history, these were the only two leaders who were able to consolidate forces from the different regions and islands.

[Federico]

Originally Posted by MABAGANI

Of interest, early 16th and 17th century European explorers observed and wrote that the native warriors of the Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao sultanates carried swords and daggers, most likely the kampilan and kris. Now, when the kris turned into a sword is up for speculation. I'd still guess it was in the time of Sultan Kudrat and possibly earlier during his father's reign. During this period, Moro Sultanates were joining alliances to strengthen their Islamic faith and fend off foreign invasion. In Moro history, these were the only two leaders who were able to consolidate forces from the different regions and islands.

Development, during the Kudrat period would seem to suggest reaction to Western impetus, so the 16th Century would be our early date. However, if as we discussed in previous threads, that the Maranao and Iranao (aka Iranun) people were key to the development and diffusion of kris in Moroland, then we have a varied stepping stone of development, with Maranao lands having the kris first, spreading to Maguindanao lands, and finally to Sulu. Which could give us a period between the 16th-18th century for the kris as sword to be completely diffused through the region. Which in turn could explain A. the tendency for Sulu blades as having the most keris like resemblence (eg. since they were introduced last they had the least time to develop into larger blades, and thus bare the most keris like elements) B. could explain why so many Archaic style seem to be Sulu blades via the trunk theory (as being later period pieces they would have the most chance of surviving). Then again, we're back to speculation in this regard. My gut feeling is that in the end we will not be able to prove anything concretely due to lack of provenance.

Anyways, this is part of what I posted on a different forum in regards to Hurley as a reference:

However, I would like to stress, while I often use Hurley myself as a reference in my research papers, he is not a very accurate account of events. There are a number of problems that Hurley's work contain. Firstly, Hurley's books are not primary sources when viewing early Philippine history, particularly prior to the US arrival to PI, and even then it is still largely put together from second hand accounts (eg. interviews with soldiers). For his early history he relies heavily on Blair and Robertson's History of the Philippines, in which he gets Legaspi's account. As a secondary source, the history presented in Swish of the Kris, is Hurley's interpretation of events, and particularly his editorial commentary on Spanish ineptitude is his opinion of events, not necessarily what really happened. Beyond being a secondary source, Hurley was not a trained historian. If you look into his background, Hurley was a wandering spirit, who tried his hand at many things, including what brought him to PI, dreams of owning a plantation in Zamboanga, however he was not a trained historian. That being the case, his interpretation of past historical events, beyond the problems in theoretical frameworks of the time, are further inhibited by his lack of training. Furthermore, Hurley was an adamant anti-Spaniard. You gotta remember he is part of a group of American settlers who came to PI to rid the country of what they felt was Spanish laxity and excess, and bring American rule and order. It is not surprising that he is so critical of Spanish occupation. Finally, Swish of the Kris was written by a man seeking to cast a flamboyant air to his stay in PI. It was written for popular consumption, and not hard research.

As I mentioned before I have cited Hurley in numerous papers. However, his work is most valuable as an insight into American perceptions of PI at the time, as well as being one of the few accounts that deal in some detail with the early American occupation of PI. He was close friends with Majorl Hugh Scott, a key player particularly in the numerous battles in the Southern Philippines, of particular note the Battle of Bud Dajo.

[MABAGANI]

[QUOTE=Federico]Development, during the Kudrat period would seem to suggest reaction to Western impetus, so the 16th Century would be our early date. However, if as we discussed in previous threads, that the Maranao and Iranao (aka Iranun) people were key to the development and diffusion of kris in Moroland, then we have a varied stepping stone of development, with Maranao lands having the kris first, spreading to Maguindanao lands, and finally to Sulu. Which could give us a period between the 16th-18th century for the kris as sword to be completely diffused through the region. Which in turn could explain A. the tendency for Sulu blades as having the most keris like resemblence (eg. since they were introduced last they had the least time to develop into larger blades, and thus bare the most keris like elements) B. could explain why so many Archaic style seem to be Sulu blades via the trunk theory (as being later period pieces they would have the most chance of surviving). Then again, we're back to speculation in this regard. My gut feeling is that in the end we will not be able to prove anything concretely due to lack of provenance.

Actually, the Maranao were the last to convert to Islam. Their favored sword being the kampilan. For the archaic kris to develop in such a uniform style there would have to be a convergence, which is why I point to Kudrat and his father, during the height of the Maguindanao's power.

[Federico]

[QUOTE=MABAGANI]

Originally Posted by Federico

Actually, the Maranao were the last to convert to Islam. Their favored sword being the kampilan. For the archaic kris to develop in such a uniform style there would have to be a convergence, which is why I point to Kudrat and his father, during the height of the Maguindanao's power.

While the last to convert, they are still converted to Islam by our earliest potential birth of the archaic style, the 16th century (albeit by the latter part of the 16th century). Also, the Maguindanao favored the kampilan as well (as many pictures of Maguindanao courts, and the invariable kampilan bearers would attest), which in relation to the Maranao favor of the weapon, I would consider similar. I do believe that, while the idea of convergence during the Kudarat period, could explain diffusion through Mindanao, it falls short when considering Sulu. Kudarat had definitely strong control over much of Mindanao, but the extent of his and Mindanao cultural influence over Sulu during this period is questionable. I still feel that the most likely introduction point for the kris into Sulu would be the advent of Iranun colonists into the Sulu sultanate. Warren, in his works, suggests there was considerable cultural change in the Sulu sultanate during this period, in particular due to the Iranun infusion. Then again, we also have the question, was the change from keris to kris a rapid change or a gradual? If rapid, then Maranao origins could still be applicable despite a late introduction of Islam (then again we are also still working on the premise that Islam brought with it Malay culture, something I feel is defendable, particularly when looking at Lumad tribes, particularly those related to Moro groups such as the Tirruray), but then if not rapid what kind of time-line are we dealing with, and would the Kudarat period be enough time?

[MABAGANI]

The territory of the Maranao being geographically inland does not support a keris to kris origin, further neither early mythologies, the Darangen nor the Indapatra mention the use of the kris. Like Islam, the keris diaspora would have been through Brunei, Sulu to Mindanao, but the impetus for change from keris to kris point to the Maguindanao and their rise to power.
Of note, all the Moro courts including Sulu had kampilan bearers.
Warren's works concentrate heavily on Sulu in a later period after the Maguindano decline.
Look back to the works by Majul and Laarhoven, they specifically note Sulu/Mindanao alliances during the reign of Buisan and Kudrat, two generations of father and son, consolidating forces among the Moro sultanates including Sulu, Basilan, Brunei, Ternate, Makassar, even the Iranun and Maranao during this period fell under Sultan Kudrat's sphere. During Buisan's time Sulu and Mindanao joined forces to fight over control of the Visayas against the Spanish, these relationships carry over to Kudrat, who becomes one of the most powerful leaders in Moro history.

[Federico]

I still feel the cultural exchange, during the Kudarat/Buisan period, from Maguindanao to Sulu questionable. As you have noted, this is a period of alliances with other Sultanates, however these Sultanates retained their own sense of cultural/political sovereignty. Whereas in Mindanao, the Maguindanao under Kudarat held political and cultural hegemony. What comes to question in the Maguindanao/Sulu relationship in this period, is that if the Sultanates retained their own, and there were multiple Sultanates involved (as you noted Ternate, Makassar, etc...) why was the kris sword vs. keris dagger limited in its diffusion to Sulu, and not Ternate? Also, as you would note in Majul and Laarhoven, these points of convergence were not necessarily contiguous events during both ruler's reigns, but rather intermittent and need based in nature. Would this be enough for the necessary cultural/technological diffusion necessary? Not necessarily a negating factor, but still a factor. Finally, do not both the Darangen and Indapatra stem from pre-Islamic roots? As such, if we assume the kris to be rooted in Islamic introduction into Moro society, then it would of course be natural that there would be no mention of the kris, but rather the kampilan (which existed prior to Islamic/Malay cultural introduction).

[MABAGANI]

The same can be asked of Makassar and Ternate, an explanation can be they both fall to foreign rule, while Brunei, Sulu and Mindanao remain independent. If you've read either the Darangen or the Indapatra, they both had pre-Islamic roots but in the Darangen, there began a mix of Islamic culture intertwined with earlier beliefs, yet still no mention of the kris, a curiousity...
So where does Sulu/Tausug and the barung in your opinion fall into place, if the Maranao and Iranun retain the kampilan early on as their weapon of choice with the kris coming at some later point. Again it is in the 17th century where I find first mention of the barung and strangely it is in relation to Maguindanao history. In regards to the diffusion of the keris to kris, I don't see it only limited to Sulu, there are clear examples of the early form transcending the major Moro regions that remained independent including Brunei, Sulu, Maguindanao and Maranao each carrying their own characteristics but only one verifiable point in history where they converge, during the rise of the Maguindanao Sultanate, an explanation for the uniform shape of the early kris form. This does not point to an exclusive origin to the Maguindanao but a joint effort among the various Sultanates to consolidate culturally. The barung became favored among the Tausug and was later used to indentify themselves as a distinct group as they began their rise to power while the Maguindanaos declined.
btw After studying Tausug Silat and the traditional use of the barung, I see no relation to what I've heard repeated over and over among some eskrima and arnis practitioners and the short stick or close range fighting systems, that their art is based on the barung, its been passed on as truth for as long as I can remember but needs a good hard look at reality among FMA teachers.

[Federico]

In the case of Makassar and Ternate, while one could argue why the kris eventually falls to dis-use in relation to European colonialism, at the time of Maguindanao assedency under Kudarat, they still have a largely autonomous range. If the kris diffused under Kudarat allied groups, they would have still been independent enough to adopt it during the time. However, as evidenced in the Wilhelm keris, discussed in previous kris evolution threads, if we assume the keris to have the older date of 1650s which would be in the Kudarat period, it is definitely still a keris and not an archaic kris. So what archaic kris do we have from this period in allied areas, to support the Maguindanao diffusion theory in the Kudarat period? It comes back to the circular argument of provenance, and beyond provenance context. As you know, colonies of Iranun and Balangingi were wide spread far beyond the old Sultanates rings of hegemony, and ethnic memory has been diffused in larger populations in as short as 50-100 years. Then, do we even have a archaic example that can be dated to the Kudarat period of the 17th century. The most famous depiction of Kudarat is him with a Kampilan, which would have and has been a campaign sword of war. The diffusion of the archaic kris is dependent on an early origin of the kris, but is it possible at this early date the kris could still be a keris? Again, back to provenance. Anyways, if we adopt Majul's notion of the Islamization of Mindanao, we adopt a viewpoint of varying waves of Islamic proselization (Sp?), in which ever greater waves of Islamic culture begins to be brought in at differing points, culminating in the formation of Sultanates. Is it possible then, that the Islamic trends in the Darangen could A. be later insertions (legends change over time, perhaps such a nationalist epic would have had inserted Islamic themes to satisfy later audiences Islamic Identity). B. have been written at a point in which early Islamic themes had been introduced, but still prior to the full introduction of Malay culture. Finally is cultural diffusion dependent on State sponsorship, such as official Maguindanao ascendency? There are many examples that would suggest no (eg. Western cultural diffusion into the former Communist block), so would later loose raiding during the 18th century be a potential point of diffusion amongst groups, that while not officially state allied, out of practicality come into contact? Anyways, I still feel the answer lies in a survey of provenanced collections added to our theoretical history/cultural debate. Without one or the other, it is lacking, but with both I think we can find answers. Now, who wants to sponsor this survey

[MABAGANI]

Provenance can also come into question, I've seen many artifacts mislabeled, so how would can they be judged as accurate. Provenanced pieces that are labeled with a year, place and battle are convincing, these are rare, but there are many swords that are mislabeled even by scholars now and from the past. My main point about the era of Buisan and Kudrat is that there was a convergence in the Islamic faith among the Moro Sultanates and of interest in the archaic kris was that there was an uncanny convergence and resemblance in form, generations to follow at later periods I would expect vast regional changes in style and interpretation, which we find. btw I wouldn't expect Kudrat to pick a kris (archaic) over a kampilan...he was Maguindanao after all, but as a royal he would have known the significance of the kris and its unifying symbol among Malay Muslims. Here again, it would have been the royals presenting a form and the warrior class adapting it in battle, tests in fighting itself would have been enough for rapid change. Note re: the Darangen, the kampilan was so revered that even if other swords were present through the ages the Maranao may have not wanted to change their oral tradition, the epic is currently endangered to time til this day because much of its writings go against Islamic ideology but the Moros of Mindanao and Sulu have always been considered different and have long practiced what is considered "folk Islam" meaning practicing a mixture of early beliefs intertwined in the faith.
Back to the dating question, in early Spanish chronicles during the conquest for Luzon it was written that the bladed weapons used in Manila were small and ineffective, could they have meant the early kris? Supposedly the kris and kampilan were known thoughout the islands. Northern Luzon actually has legends about the kampilan written in epics. Also of note during the time of PI revolution the Katipunan among the educated elite began adapting the kris of old into their weaponry.
I'll let my theory rest at this point until I can get an alien to slingshot me back in time to validate my hunches...
At that, here is an odd keris/kris small in size and weight compared to the archaic kris but the same form blade with flat rounded almost oval tang, latter misfitted with a Visayan hilt...could this have been the type made prior to the archaic kris? I could use the archaic kris effectively as a sword but this one is too light and dagger like. I found it online from the PI and thought it was worth examining and studying.

[tom hyle]

Is the sheath made for it, or is that a garab sheath? The hilt is markedly similar (though not identical) to one I recently acquired, which seems to have had a full-length wrapping on the grip part in the fashion usually associated with Moro work. Yours?

[MABAGANI]

No, the sheath does not fit and not particularly garab in form, the hilt is actually similar to one of Vandoo's and Labantayo's Visayan kris from old threads, but with this keris/kris the hilt nor the scabbard fit, they look like they were just matched at a later point. Strange about the "dagger", the thickness of its tang does not leave room for the guard which looks like its missing in form but may have been intentionally made that way. IMHO, the type seems Brunei to me which makes sense if they were introducing them into Sulu, Mindanao, the Visayas and Luzon, noting Brunei's early connection to the Moros of Manila and the Brunei's later alliances with the Mindanao and Sulu sultanates in their struggle to control the Visayas. "If" this is in fact an early prototype keris/kris it would be safe to push the origin dates to around early/mid 16th century, where written accounts can be found about Brunei and their native dagger/keris?, this leaves approximately a century to the era of Buisan and Kudrat, for the keris to kris to develop into a sword or what we call the archaic type kris, when convergence in faith and kris type can be found among the Moro regions.
Again if this doesn't fly, we could always fall back on an alien origin...

[Federico]

I will be the first to admit that provenance, particularly regarding this era, is shaky ground at the best. But I feel if we adopt an cultural-anthropological frame-work of analysis, combing provenanced artifacts, cross-referenced with historical research, and all that cross-referenced to modern salvage-anthropological interviews with living members or ancestors from the culture, we can get closer than only doing one part. So many of the old (and many new) researchers only combined one, or at best two aspects. Then again, the amount of actual academic research done on weaponry is rare (how many of the books we collect and read are merely made but laymen such as ourselves operating in the dark). But I can hardly think of any, especially considering Moro weaponry, that combined all three. However, I still feel provenance, in the very least time and location of collection (something which most Western museum collections can provide as many were made under the impetus of government surveys of the regions), can provide us a starting date for when the archaic form first appeared. What the impetus, and how it spread then becomes part of theoretical interpretation, but a time of collection gives us a date from where to start. Unfortunately, sometimes it is the case (I know this is part of the debate amongst many history students) that certain information just does not plain exist in record. So if we have to eliminate pieces as improperly provenanced, that is a sad but necessary fact. And, well it is possible without a time machine, the raw data is just non-existant for anything conclusive to be made. That being the case, then we have to rely on what we have, and possibly just consign ourselves to never knowing for sure. However, considering the lack of academic sholarship in the field, as well as the countless number of collections that have not properly been accessed in relation to the subject, I refuse to believe that we cannot learn at least something (if only to say that for sure these pieces existed before X date) that we currently do not know. Anyways, whenever one considers a primary source (be it a catalog card of an artifact, an diary of a period observer, etc...) there are many more factors that can be learned, than what is explicitly said. Often, what is explicitly said may in fact be more mis-leading than what can be learned when the account is taken into larger context. As such, it is only through peer review of our research that we can ever hope to move forward, and ascertain the quality of the research/theories being done. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems many are more eager to move forward, regardless of the actual merit of the theory/research, that any attempt at objectivity is resisted.

Anyways, beyond this vague diatribe on the process of research, I cannot help but suspect that we will need to divide further the "archaic" kris category. I suspect with my own questionable example, that the change to cutting kris from keris, was the first change with other features, such as the rectangular tang, coming later (again without provenance this is just a guess). From the mere handling of my own kris, I have found blade rotation in the hilt when cutting to be a problem. Perhaps the features we so attribute to the kris, such as rectangular tang, baca-baca, were not attempts to secure the blade to the hilt from falling out, but rather to prevent blade rotation when cutting. If barong and kampilan are secure enough with just pitch alone, why the extra security in the kris? Anyways, perhaps the tang shape is a pertinent clue in marking the progression of kris evolution (round, semi-rounded, to full rectangular), it would be interesting to see what provenance research would reveal. Perhaps, Leaf was right in his assertion that the archaic style, was in fact a regional variation and not a temporal variation (though oral history would seem not to support this theory). Anyways, I know my own archaic version does not handle like a more modern kris. It is definitely more comfortable cutting vs. thrusting, however it behaves more like a barong in feel/mechanics of the cut. Anyways, I have been very interested in the Brunei connection to this form of kris. Aside from the mysterious Alan Maissey kris, do we have any other Brunei kris attributable to this style? In general, until that kris, all the Brunei keris I have seen have been, well keris. Anyways, as Scott notes in his work Barangay, Spanish observers observed the keris in the southern islands, middle islands, and Islamic parts of Northern islands in the 16th/17th centuries. Does this imply a earlier introduction of the keris style prior to Islam? Perhaps, but there has been some argument made that Visayas bore more Islamic elements during this time, than has been previously given to them. Also of note, Scott notes, that the keris in Visayas were largely crude in comparisson the keris being made in Mindanao. Early attempts at mimickry? Kudarat's appeal to Visayan datus to join him and throw off Spain, during his reign suggests that even by his day there was some form of remembered cultural commonality stll between the Visayas and Moro groups. Is this commonality from pre-Islamic roots, or were there proto-Islamic inroads into the Visayas, that were just not established to the degree of the Southern Islands on first Spanish contact. As such, the theory of keris traveling with Islam, could be defendable. But then again, this is just speculation.

[MABAGANI]

I started reading through Majul's "Muslims in The Philippines" again, interestingly at the end he writes about the interconnections between Brunei, Sulu, the Maranao, Iranun and Maguindanao including the era of Buisan and Kudrat, also states the Brunei Sultanate was the oldest in relation to their ties by marriage.