Allure of the Core

A. G. Maisey · 27th May 2010, 11:41 PM

I'm out of my depth here, because I have very little knowledge of the development of the Philippine style of keris.

However, considered upon a logical basis I would suggest that in early keris the hilt was purely functional, and the status of its owner was not attached to outward appearance of his keris.

Do we know that there was a switch from blade to hilt as a status indicator?

Or are we assuming this because early keris have what we would consider to be high quality blades with ordinary hilts, and the reverse is true with later keris?

Possibly the keris as an active status indicator may not have been in place in earlier years.

Possibly the use of the keris as a status indicator was something that developed over time.

I have a keris that although not Philippine is related in appearance to the Philippine keris. It is a keris which served as the state execution keris of Brunei dating from 1842. In other words, it is a state keris. The dress of this keris is very plain, the hilt is simply wound with red cord and has silver ferrule.

This is suggestion only, and a supportable answer to the question could only be provided by an in depth study of the subject.

Battara · 28th May 2010, 12:07 AM

2 things about status kris:

a) datus had several kris, which meant that the "status" kris were not used as much for battle but for statement of wealth and status wear

b) the twistcore kris declined over time perhaps in part because of the increased use of other weapons (like modern firearms) and thus not as needed, and perhaps the technique even forgotten in the beginning of the 20th century.

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2010, 12:43 AM

Yes Battara, that sounds reasonable.

In other places where elaborate manipulated patterns in blade material emerged, those pattern welded blades tended to decrease in number, or to disappear, when better quality material became readily available for weapons.

This was not the case in some areas of Indonesia, where the patterns had a social and talismanic application, rather than a weapon application.

Rick · 28th May 2010, 01:35 AM

Which brings us to a crux (IMO) .

What are we to make of this ?
This Kris is how old ?

(It has been polished by Philip)

What class ?

Dressed as a combat blade, IMO .

Fancy, or functional ?

Is this pamor as known in the Indonesian/Malay sense ??

Battara · 28th May 2010, 03:08 AM

I agree that this particular kris is probably earlier and rehilted at a later date by I would think some one or a family who did not have the same means as earlier in their history. Why rehilt?

1. Damage to the original hilt?

2. Need for the family later to sell off the expensive materials and replace with lesser?

In most cases the family would want to keep the blade since it has a spirit of it's own - the dress is of somewhat lesser value spiritually (though not to the same extent as the Indonesians).

These are my thoughts on this piece.

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2010, 05:35 AM

Rick, I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the major indicators of an early blade was its size:- smaller blades, sometimes about the same as a Bali blade size were supposedly older.

As to pamor, this blade looks like it has a steel core.

If this is so, I would certainly be happy in calling the pattern welded outer skin of the blade "pamor".

Even if it did not have a core, I feel that the name "pamor" is still OK, as the word has the idea of "mix" inherent in it, and this material is definitely mixed.

mross · 28th May 2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Rick, I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the major indicators of an early blade was its size:- smaller blades, sometimes about the same as a Bali blade size were supposedly older.

As to pamor, this blade looks like it has a steel core.

If this is so, I would certainly be happy in calling the pattern welded outer skin of the blade "pamor".

Even if it did not have a core, I feel that the name "pamor" is still OK, as the word has the idea of "mix" inherent in it, and this material is definitely mixed.

Alan,
Yes, your read correctly. I have several of the archaic style blades. They almost seem like toys they are so small. In fact I have a large budik that is the same size if not a bit bigger then the whole sword, and a keris that comes real close. I believe a real short history is the keris evolving into the archaic style kris, then these became progressively bigger as they evolved into the current weapon we call a kris.

mross · 28th May 2010, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Battara

I agree that this particular kris is probably earlier and rehilted at a later date by I would think some one or a family who did not have the same means as earlier in their history. Why rehilt?

1. Damage to the original hilt?

2. Need for the family later to sell off the expensive materials and replace with lesser?

In most cases the family would want to keep the blade since it has a spirit of it's own - the dress is of somewhat lesser value spiritually (though not to the same extent as the Indonesians).

These are my thoughts on this piece.

I agree with Jose on this. It would appear to be a re-hilt. But I suspect not very recent. The silver wire weave is beautiful. The piece is top-notch, Rick you been holding out on us?

Why I think the hilt job is older. There seems to be a definite scarcity of anyone who can do the weave.

28th May 2010, 01:35 AM	#4
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	Which brings us to a crux (IMO) . What are we to make of this ? This Kris is how old ? (It has been polished by Philip) What class ? Dressed as a combat blade, IMO . Fancy, or functional ? Is this pamor as known in the Indonesian/Malay sense ?? Attached Images Last edited by Rick; 28th May 2010 at 01:48 AM.

27th May 2010, 11:41 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I'm out of my depth here, because I have very little knowledge of the development of the Philippine style of keris. However, considered upon a logical basis I would suggest that in early keris the hilt was purely functional, and the status of its owner was not attached to outward appearance of his keris. Do we know that there was a switch from blade to hilt as a status indicator? Or are we assuming this because early keris have what we would consider to be high quality blades with ordinary hilts, and the reverse is true with later keris? Possibly the keris as an active status indicator may not have been in place in earlier years. Possibly the use of the keris as a status indicator was something that developed over time. I have a keris that although not Philippine is related in appearance to the Philippine keris. It is a keris which served as the state execution keris of Brunei dating from 1842. In other words, it is a state keris. The dress of this keris is very plain, the hilt is simply wound with red cord and has silver ferrule. This is suggestion only, and a supportable answer to the question could only be provided by an in depth study of the subject.

28th May 2010, 12:07 AM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,310	2 things about status kris: a) datus had several kris, which meant that the "status" kris were not used as much for battle but for statement of wealth and status wear b) the twistcore kris declined over time perhaps in part because of the increased use of other weapons (like modern firearms) and thus not as needed, and perhaps the technique even forgotten in the beginning of the 20th century.

28th May 2010, 12:43 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes Battara, that sounds reasonable. In other places where elaborate manipulated patterns in blade material emerged, those pattern welded blades tended to decrease in number, or to disappear, when better quality material became readily available for weapons. This was not the case in some areas of Indonesia, where the patterns had a social and talismanic application, rather than a weapon application.

28th May 2010, 03:08 AM	#5
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,310	I agree that this particular kris is probably earlier and rehilted at a later date by I would think some one or a family who did not have the same means as earlier in their history. Why rehilt? 1. Damage to the original hilt? 2. Need for the family later to sell off the expensive materials and replace with lesser? In most cases the family would want to keep the blade since it has a spirit of it's own - the dress is of somewhat lesser value spiritually (though not to the same extent as the Indonesians). These are my thoughts on this piece.

28th May 2010, 05:35 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Rick, I seem to recall reading somewhere that one of the major indicators of an early blade was its size:- smaller blades, sometimes about the same as a Bali blade size were supposedly older. As to pamor, this blade looks like it has a steel core. If this is so, I would certainly be happy in calling the pattern welded outer skin of the blade "pamor". Even if it did not have a core, I feel that the name "pamor" is still OK, as the word has the idea of "mix" inherent in it, and this material is definitely mixed.