Pattern Welded Straight Kris

[Ian]

Detlef:

As I noted in my initial response, Cato describes the shape of the "mouth" of the elephant on Lee's kris as being Maranao in origin (see B in attached pic from Cato). I agree that the pommel is similar to those seen on a number of Maguindanao kris, but the same style is also found mounted on blades that have Maranao characteristics. So we have a possible mix of tribal influences in the case of Lee's sword.

I think the hilt is not as old as the blade. Perhaps we have a Maguindanao remount of a Maranao kris, but I can't rule out an entirely Maranao sword. This raises the question, what determines the tribal designator for a Moro kris--is it the blade or the dress (hilt, scabbard, etc.)? And a corollary, if a Moro blade is refitted by another culture, say the T'boli, is it still a Moro kris?

Ian.

A. Sulu
B. Maranao
C. Maguindanao
D. "Crossover"

.

[Spunjer]

excellent question, Ian. Based on Cato's classification, I'm with you on the blade style that of Maranao origin.
with that said, i would like to add this: a lot of pandays travel from town to town. this has always been the custom from time immemorial. so if a Maranao panday travels to Sulu and decided to stay there for awhile, would his blade be considered Maranao even tho it was commissioned by a Tausug?

[Battara]

Ron brings out a good point.

I will add that the Marano and Maguindanao regions are adjacent, so cross influences should not be shocking, and the styles, even okir styles, are subtle and difficult to differentiate.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Spunjer

excellent question, Ian. Based on Cato's classification, I'm with you on the blade style that of Maranao origin.
with that said, i would like to add this: a lot of pandays travel from town to town. this has always been the custom from time immemorial. so if a Maranao panday travels to Sulu and decided to stay there for awhile, would his blade be considered Maranao even tho it was commissioned by a Tausug?

Ron, we could take this further and perhaps with a clearer answer. If a Japanese swordsmith created a katana in, say, Thailand, would it still be a Japanese katana or would it be a version of a Thai daab? The sword would be indistinguishable from those he created in Japan, so how would one distinguish where it was made? The answer, clearly, is the katana is a katana wherever it is manufactured.

I would therefore say that if a Maranao craftsman created a Maranao kris in, say, Tawi Tawi, it would still be a Maranao kris because the nature of the kris is imbued by its creator and not by its place of manufacture.

To take this in a different direction. If a Maranao craftsman created a kris blade in the Maranao homeland and traded that blade to a Tausug in Jolo who then dressed it in traditional Sulu fashion, does that kris then become a Tausug kris or is it still a Maranao kris? Is it the blade or its hilt/scabbard that is the essential determinant of the culture to which this sword belongs? Or does it come down to whoever owns the sword and the culture/ethnic group in which it is being used?

I don't wish to hijack Lee's thread with these philosophical thoughts, so perhaps someone could start a new thread where these questions can be pursued in a more general way. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples from elsewhere that could be drawn into such a discussion. Charles has shown us a number of his cross-cultural pieces in the past that would be good subjects for this discussion.

Ian.