The Tourist Item/Souvenier in arms antiquities

[ariel]

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm coming into this discussion a little later than I would have preferred, but I've been "off the planet" for a few days, and that has restricted my ability to communicate.

I have just now read through all the posts to date, and what I have read seems to be mostly presented from the perspective of the collector, which of course is reasonable, since most of us who contribute to this forum are indeed, collectors.

I'd like to make a couple of comments from a slightly different perspective, and limited to the objects that are my prime focus, which is to say, keris and associated edged weaponry.

I find the concept of "tourist" weaponry difficult to understand in terms of the present time.

If I wish to import the type of weaponry that interests me, into the state of Australia in which I live, I need to obtain a certificate from the state police that states I that I am permitted to import and to possess that weapon. I then present this certificate to the Australian Customs service, and they permit me to take possession of the imported weapon. This applies whether I personally carry the item, or whether I have it sent to me.

I know that many, if not most countries now have import restrictions applying to edged weapons that are similar to the Australian restrictions. From personal knowledge of what tourists to Indonesia buy at the present time, compared with what tourists to Indonesia bought during the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's, my opinion is that the preparation and sale of keris and other weapons to foreign tourists to Indonesia does not exist any longer, it has simply become too difficult for Mr. Good Citizen to take swords and daggers back to his home country.

It may have existed at times in the past, but the only dedicated tourist style of keris of which I am aware is a particular type of Balinese keris that began life as a keris that was popular for dance performances and ended its existence in the marketplace as a travesty of a keris with a cut-out sheet metal blade and incredibly poorly carved dress.

Those old-time "tourist keris", when of fair to good quality, have now become collector's items in their own right.

My own position on the designation of a weapon as a "tourist" or "souvenir" is quite simply that where a traditional weapon that still fulfils a function in today's society is manufactured for use in today's society, then that weapon is a genuine ethnographic artifact of the society, and its value is directly related to its quality.

Where a weapon no longer fulfils a function in its society of origin, but continues to be made, and then purchased by persons either within or outside of the society of origin, as a keepsake, ornament, toy or souvenir, then that weapon can legitimately be classified as something prepared for tourists, or as a souvenir. I think perhaps a good example of this type of "tourist weapon" would be the Australian boomerang, especially the hunting boomerang:- still made, but no longer used for its originally intended purpose.

I very much doubt that it is ever possible to classify any weapon as "tourist" just on the basis of type, style or quality, I feel that it is necessary to have an in depth understanding of the society of origin of that object, before it can be classified as "tourist" or "souvenir".

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by ariel

I cannot agree more with Motan. Each collector establishes HIS own criteria based on HIS own overarching vision of the purpose of HIS collection.

Here is somewhat subversive idea: One can legitimately collect modern versions of a particular weapon extending its evolution beyond its practical use. Weapons are living objects and were modified by each succeeding generation of their owners.
Thus, the question of how the modern masters extend the trajectory of such a process, choosing the most important and attractive features of past examples and creating what they imagine as an ideal form is a legitimate one. It informs us not about actual history of examples but about their potential ideal in the imagination of its creators. In a way, it is a futurology of weapons. It is necessarily subjective but that’s the history of art and design. Actually, slave imitation of long-forgotten forms is rejected in the design of cars, clothes or watches, to name a few. I’d rather buy a concept modern Toyota than a a faithful replica of Ford T.

Personally, I like Bob A’s barung much more than the allegedly authentic versions of Xasterix. The former is elegant, artistic and practical whereas the latter look like shoddily imitated compilations of old details but look ... fake and cheap.

But then, either you like Picasso, or you do not like Picasso.

Hi, just to emphasize, the barungs I've posted aren't 'allegedly' authentic; they are DEFINITELY authentic. They are sold by a Yakan friend, and several previous members of this forum have verified that she's selling the real thing, as sourced from Basilan, Zamboanga, Jolo, and Tawi Tawi. Like me, they also frown upon the ba-wrongs of the Maranao, because those things can't even be sharpened properly, or fail to hold an edge after a couple of cuts. Why? Because they're not even heat treated.

Coming from the perspective of someone who practices the Moro Fighting Arts, I'll use your analogy. Which would I prefer, a car that performs well, is faithful to culture of the people who invented it- or a toy car that looks amazing, is a mishmash of various cultural motifs, but doesn't even run on batteries?

Please do not forget that the best people to ask about these weapons, aside from the ones who produced them, are actually the ones who are able to USE them. A blade is meant to be thrust or swung. I'm wondering how you would have been able to assess that the 'ba-wrong' is more practical than my legit barungs, when you haven't even held them yet.

Lastly, these things aren't just art forms. They are meant to be functional and deadly works of art. Hopefully we will be a little considerate and discerning of the argument and proof I have established.

[Battara]

First, we have addressed the barong in many threads. I have mentioned the same thing over the years because each Moro tribe has it's own unique version of okir/ukkil. I agree with Xasterix's comments on this barong.

As for the rest, that is why I make the distinction between tourist and recently made weapons.

[Bob A]

Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Bob A

Perhaps opinions can be developed regarding this barong, purportedly dating from the Phillippine revolt around 1900. The bullet hole appears to be .38 caliber. It was noted at the time that this round did not have adequate stopping power; the wounded would continue to advance. This prompted the move to .45 caliber handguns by the US Army.

Piece with significant provenance. Bunti wood semi darkened with age, may indeed be from early 1900s...I saw this being sold on an online auction. May have been used by someone committing 'Parang Sabil'.

[Bob A]

Originally Posted by xasterix

Piece with significant provenance. Bunti wood semi darkened with age, may indeed be from early 1900s...I saw this being sold on an online auction.

Yes, that's where I found it.

May have been used by someone committing 'Parang Sabil'.

Suicide attack with sheathed blade?

That begs the question: just where would that fired round strike the attacker's body in such a situation?

Inspection of the bullet hole leads me to believe it occurred quite some time ago.

[xasterix]

Originally Posted by Bob A

Inspection of the bullet hole leads me to believe it occurred quite some time ago.

Hi Bob. You'll have to read up a bit on 'Parang Sabil' as there's a lot of misconception / misinterpretation about that. But in summary, Parang Sabil is a religious and patriotic commitment to defend the Moro homeland. It's not actually a suicide attack; it's a commitment and implementation to duty, to drive out foreign invaders / threats to the Sultanate. During the time Parang Sabils were committed against the Americans, however, the odds were against the Moros; that's why the Americans viewed it as a senseless, random suicide attack.

Regarding your bullet hole, since it has a corresponding mark on the scabbard, I'd say it was probably made on an unsuspecting / unprepared Moro. The weapon can be placed three ways, based on the pictures I've seen: tied at the waist, slung across one's chest, or tied near one's armpit.