Maguindanao twistcore Kris.

[Gustav]

Dear All,

something a bit unusual.

At 59,4 cm quite huge. It has 6 bars at the base of blade, the highest number I have seen on Kris so far, and 4 bars until the tip. The welding is done remarkably well.

Besides that it has two unusual features that distinguish it from the rather uniform group of similar Maguindanao blades - a slightly different fullering at the base (it concerns a feature called Tikel Alis in Javanese Keris terminology);
and the end of the middle panel - it's closed like an gothic arch, quite near to the tip.

The curl at the end of "elephants trunk" is done very finely.

[Lee]

Well, this is spectacular and gorgeous - but you already know that! I'll look forward to the comments of our kris experts.

There are some similarities with a kris I had presented previously that has 2 tracks except at the base where there are 3.

[kai]

Hello Gustav,

Wow, that's really, really nice! Did you win the lottery recently?

At 59,4 cm quite huge. It has 6 bars at the base of blade, the highest number I have seen on Kris so far, and 4 bars until the tip. The welding is done remarkably well.

Yes, excellent pamor control with a neat solution at the tip!

Also the shaping and fuller work is top notch. We do need a green with envy emoji!

Size is common for Maguindanao kris; looks like an early 20th century piece to me.

No scabbard surviving?

Regards,
Kai

[Pinoy Blade Hunter]

Truly beautiful example and nicely preserved (or restored?)

[Gustav]

Thank you Lee, Kai and PBH.

Until now I have noticed here 3 twistcore Kris with 4 bars running all the way through:

two older style Sulu with dense twists:

www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23692

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=moro+kris

and Dave's Sutton Hoo Kris:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...twistcore+kris

It's absolutely common for twistcores to have additional bars at the base of blade.

No lottery Kai. Just saw some blades I liked (after a longer time) and luckily was able to acquire them.

No sheath, you can't have it all. Would be difficult for it to be an early 20th cent. piece, as by 1898 it already was in Europe.

No restoration, just cleaned it thoroughly. It had a protective coating and minimal rust in usual places.

[Ian]

An outstanding example of a Mindanao battle kris--the simple hilt indicates it was for use rather than show. A high datu quality piece in my opinion, perhaps for a panglima. The style suggests late 19th C. with excellent preservation.

Congrats Gustav on finding such a high quality piece. Information about its provenance would be very helpful. You may be able to identify a particular owner, which would add greatly to its value.

Ian.

[CharlesS]

Congrats on one of the finest twistcores I have seen!

I believe it certainly pre-20th century.

[kino]

The sellers poor photos indicated a twist core blade. But I wasn't aware that it would be such a beauty.

I'm thinking that the hilt had been replaced.

Congrats.

[Sajen]

Beautiful blade!

[Spunjer]

congratulations on acquiring this particular kris! i've been trying to talk to the seller into selling it to me but he/she would not ship it overseas.
i'm mesmerized with the paneling on this particular piece. very beautiful!!!

[Gustav]

Ian, Charles, Albert, Detlef, Ron - thank you!

Albert - before I had it in my hands I also thought of hilt being a replacement.
Possibly it still is, but the "lamella" of Asang-Asang fits the bend of its head rather well, and the rattan winding (which surely looks like a temporarily solution) seems to be done in Philippines. So at least - if replacement, then an old one.

Does somebody of you have seen such an ending of middle panel on a Kris before?

[kino]

I should have been a little more concise with my assessment.
I meant to add that the hilt replacement is old, not recent.
The blade is just too nice for a plain unadorned hilt.

I agree with CharlesS that this is pre 20th cent.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Would be difficult for it to be an early 20th cent. piece, as by 1898 it already was in Europe.

Very impressive! I'm curious about the history of this kris. Can you please share its provenance?

Kind regards,

Fernando

[Gustav]

Thank you, Fernando.

With some bigger certainty it is possible to say it came to Spain in (or before) 1898.

With some less certainty - the person who brought it is (or could be) Don Enrique Garcia Dacal. He was born in 1838, 1876 - 1878 Lieutenant Colonel of Infantery in Philippines, likely served there already before that. Left Philippines in 1885. Later (already since 1890) he was the last Military Governor of Abra district in Luzon.

[Spunjer]

Originally Posted by kino

I should have been a little more concise with my assessment.
I meant to add that the hilt replacement is old, not recent.
The blade is just too nice for a plain unadorned hilt.

I agree with CharlesS that this is pre 20th cent.

nah brah, i have one that has a plain handle that seems to be original with the kris itself.
kinda makes me wonder sometimes if what we think as plain is not so back in the days

[kino]

Yeah, maybe. Yours hilt is finished compared to Gustav’s.

BTW did you get the panji?

[Spunjer]

no, never heard back from the guy, lol. would've been sweet!

[Ian]

Originally Posted by kino

... The blade is just too nice for a plain unadorned hilt. ...

Hi Kino.

In an earlier comment here I suggested that this was a sword used by a panglima. A panglima was employed by a Sultan as his military chief, perhaps the equivalent of a general in western armies. Elsewhere on this site it has been suggested that twist core blades on a kris were a sign of rank for the panglima. If so, some of these blades would have been for use as a weapon and perhaps some were for "show." Therefore, finding a rather plain hilt on a high quality twist core blade should not be uncommon or surprising if many of these were intended for "field use" rather than "parade swords."

Ian.

[F. de Luzon]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Thank you, Fernando.

With some bigger certainty it is possible to say it came to Spain in (or before) 1898.

With some less certainty - the person who brought it is (or could be) Don Enrique Garcia Dacal. He was born in 1838, 1876 - 1878 Lieutenant Colonel of Infantery in Philippines, likely served there already before that. Left Philippines in 1885. Later (already since 1890) he was the last Military Governor of Abra district in Luzon.

Thanks for the information Gustav! There's a view that the length of a Moro kris is an indicator of the time when it was made. At least, your example proves that Moro krises +/- 60 cm long (24 inches) were already being made by the turn of the 20th century.

[Gustav]

yes, for Kris from Mindanao it's not unusual already at the time.

[Ian]

I'm bringing this one back up because of my recent interests in dating Moro kris and distinguishing Moro from non-Moro work. The original post by Gustav shows a beautiful sword. Much comment was made about the excellent forging of the blade and its twist core central areas. Less attention was given to the cold work on this blade, which I think is of a very high standard.

Gustav noted two unusual features of this blade.

• The tikel alis
• The projection of the central twist core panel almost to the blade tip, ending in a pointed rather than a rounded curved manner

These are both unusual features for a Moro kris. To these uncommon findings, I would add three more.

• The squared-off ends of the sogokan
• The closure of the arrowhead area and formation of an acute point
• The projection of the curved upper edge and greneng onto the gangya which has been hollowed out to the same curve as the adjacent blade (I'm unsure how this feature would be named)—this finding was described in another recent thread here.

It could be said that these are stylistic variations adopted by a particular craftsman. However, put together, I think they indicate a non-Moro blade. The treatment of the gangya (grooved area adjacent to greneng) is seen fairly commonly on Malay blades from the (late) 19th C and later, for example, as are the squared off sogokan. I have not seen these features on other Moro blades, but do see it on Malay kris. Similarly, the long, central, twist-core panel is quite common on Malay sundang but not seen on Moro versions. Lastly, the arrow head area just doesn't look quite right for Moro work.

My conclusion is that this beautiful blade has more Malay features than Moro features.

And then there is the plain old hilt atop this high quality blade. The pommel seems much older than the blade, judging from the age cracks, and the minimal kakatua pommel (without a crest or side panel) is an old style that likely predates 1800. The rattan wrap also seems mundane for this blade. Perhaps this is a pusaka hilt of significance to the owner. The hilt style is consistent with either Moro or Malay origin. We don't have a scabbard, which would have provided more information about the style of dress.

I think this is probably a Malay blade that ended up in the Philippines (maybe a custom order?), something that seems to have happened fairly commonly in the 19th C.

[RobT]

CharlesS,

You consider the blade to be pre 20th century. The baca baca is the one piece form which I have always thought first appeared at the very end of the 19th century and continued on into the 20th century. I have asked on this forum for confirmation of my assumption but I don’t believe I have ever gotten an answer so I would be very interested your take (and other forum members opinions) on when the one piece baca baca appeared. (Taking into account of course that the baca baca currently on the blade may not have been the original.)

Sincerely,
RobT

[Ian]

Rob,

This is an old thread. I have not seen CharlesS posting here for some time, so you may not get a reply from him. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by a baca baca being "a one piece form."

[RobT]

Ian,

A two piece baca baca has a closed “stirrup” (usually steel) that fits around the blade. The second piece is a strap (brass in every example in my collection) that is looped around the the stirrup and extends up under the hilt wrap. As you can see in Gustav’s example, the stirrup isn’t closed off on the top and the two legs that fit under the hilt wrap are of a piece with the stirrup. I believe that the baca baca were originally added to stabilize the blade/hilt connection against shock and torque stresses when a blow is struck and the one piece design offers a mechanical advantage over the two piece version. In support of this I will mention that I have never seen a kris with a pair of one piece baca baca. I assume that is because the one piece design is strong and rigid enough to make a pair unnecessary.

Sincerely,
RobT

[kino]

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

[RobT]

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]

One is steel and one is silver.

[Ian]

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]

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]

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.