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

[Ian]

These two Moro kris are recent acquisitions and are still in "as found" condition. I'm posting them now in light of some recent discussion about the dating of Moro kris, and some of the style characteristics of Maguindanao asang asang.

Most Moro kris collectors would label these two as 19th C in origin. However, there are differences in style that suggest one likely predates the other.

1. Maguindanao matidto (straight blade)

Blade length (incl. gangya): 55.5 cm (21.9 in.)
Width of blade (mid-point): 3.25 cm
Hilt length: 10.6 cm
OAL: 66.1 cm (26 in.)
Width of gangya (tip to tip): 10.6 cm
Height of gangya at tang: 6.5 mm
Thickness of gangya at tang: 7.0 mm

This blade is of laminated construction (as shown by prior etching with ferric chloride). The ricikin shows a secah kasang (elephant trunk), gandhik, praen (tusk), and lambe gajah (elephant lips). The orientation of these features is similar to the "Modern Indonesian Keris" although the lambe gajah straddle the line of separation between the gandhik and the gangya, instead of appearing low on the gandhik. There is no sogokan or blumbanggan. Greneng and jenggot are present, and both show wear. There is a single, one-piece, asang asang. The hilt is a single piece of carved banati wood, topped with a very small kakatua pommel, having a beak but no crest. The grip is bound with criss-crossing rattan, which also secures the extension of the asang asang. The scabbard is made of bamboo over wood and bound with plaited rattan strips.
.





2. Maguindanao lanti (fully-waved blade)

Blade length (incl. gangya): 58.2 cm (22.9 in.)
Width of blade (mid-point): 4.5 cm
Hilt length: 11.0 cm (4.3 in.)
OAL: 69.2 cm
Width of gangya (tip to tip): 12.25 cm
Height of gangya at tang: 10.2 mm
Thickness of gangya at tang: 9.0 mm

A fully-waved blade of nine luk (luk 11 by current Indonesian keris convention) with an acutely angled point. The ricikin show a secah kacang, praen, gandhik, and lambe gajah; greneng and jenggot are also present and are well preserved. The sogokan and blumbanggan are absent. The space formed by the secah kacang and gandhik is circular (consistent with late Maguindanao representation) and occurs later than the more traditional forms resembling the "Modern Indonesian Keris" (Cato* has commented on this feature as a guide to Maguindanao kris of the second half of the 19th C and later). There is a single, one-piece asang asang. The hilt is wrapped in black thread and widens from the gangya to the pommel. The wooden pommel is an octagonal shape that is an uncommon style of "horse hoof" pommel seen on some Maguindanao kris. There is no scabbard.
.





Comparing these two Maguindanao kris.

The two swords differ somewhat in length and weight. The second one feels "heavier" in the hand, while the first, although by no means a light sword, feels less "heavy." The slightly shorter, narrower, and thinner blade of the first one contribute to this.

Significant differences in the ricikin and gangya point to the first one being the older sword. The "elephant trunk-gandhik" area of the first sword is a more traditional style that predates the more recent style of the second one. The length, height, and thickness of the gangya of the first are all smaller than the second one. The height of the gangya, in particular, can be a useful guide to age IMHO, with older swords having shorter gangya than late 19th C ones.

Also contributing to the age assessment is the style of pommel. The very small kakatua without a crest, as seen on the first sword, is often seen on swords pre-dating 1800. The flared hilt and "horse hoof" pommel on Maguindanao kris seem to be features of the second half of the 19th C and later.

It is interesting to note a one-piece asang asang is present on both these swords. Recent discussion here noted that this feature appears to have arisen in the second half of the 19th C. It's presence on the first sword seems out of place, and perhaps it was a later replacement.

Lastly, I would draw your attention to the tips of each blade. The first example has a rounded tip that does not come to an acute point, while the second has an acute point and is less rounded. The latter feature is seen almost exclusively from the late 19th C on.

I believe that the first sword was made no later than the early 19th C, and the second no earlier than the mid-19th C.

These are both "no frills" fighting swords. At roughly 22 and 23 inches in overall length, respectively, both are on the larger end of the kris spectrum.
.



If we look at the history of the Moro Wars outlined in a recent post in another thread, there was a gap in Spanish aggression between 1737 (a peace treaty signed) and 1851 (renewed Spanish attacks). During this period, the two sides were evenly matched and conflict favored neither side. The Spanish made improvements in their military equipment, particularly the acquisition of steam-powered gunships capable of navigating the rivers of Mindanao and Sulu. This development gave them a considerable advantage by the mid-19th C. Hence the renewed assault on Moro strongholds.

The second sword above corresponds, I believe, to the Spanish-Moro conflicts resuming in 1851. It represents a small increase in length, width, and thickness relative to the first sword from pre-1850. However, the difference in size and weight between the two swords is not great. The measurements of the kris from pre-1850 shows it is a large kris also. So, to what era of conflict did this kris correspond. Perhaps we need to go back to the prior period of Spanish-Moro fighting in the first half of the 18th C to find the origin of this version of the Maguindanao kris. Or perhaps it is necessary to go even further back to the 17th C in the history of these wars to identify the modifications made to the earliest Moro kris to arrive at the bigger and heavier versions shown here.

Please note that I am not saying that the first kris shown above was made in the early 18th C, but rather that it represents a style that perhaps was used at that time.

Reference:

* Robert Cato. "Moro Swords." Graham Brash, Singapore. 1996.

[David]

Two nice old warriors for sure.
Reading the descriptions has raised a question for me. Ricikan, sekar kacang, praen, gandhik, lambe gajah, greneng, jenggot, sogokan and blumbangan are all Javanese words for parts or aspects of the Javanese keris. Gangya is the one word here that has obviously had some carry over to the Moro kris/kalis as a variation of their word gonjo (ganja). This terminology has, to a greater extent, been adopted and applied to keris from outside the Javanese culture, though i have run across numerous diagrams that show the more culturally correct terminology for various other Indonesian and Malay cultures as well. While i do understand that using one lexicon to describe the features of keris makes communication a bit easier it still seems a shame to allow more specific cultural identities to fade away from lack of use. But rarely have i seen this many Javanese keris terms used to describe a Moro kris. I have to wonder if we are not doing the Moro culture a bit of a disservice by not seeking out the terminology used by their smiths and people to describe the parts of their own weapons. I has seen a few diagrams that attempt to lists these culturally correct terms, but none seem to be as extensive as the Javanese lexicon for keris parts. I have attached what little i have seen in this regard even though i am fairly sure that you all have seen them as well.
I am also attaching a few diagrams showing some of the variations on keris terminolgy that can be found in various places around the archipelago that are different from the generally embraced Javanese terms.

[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).

[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.

[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.