Another Moro Barung on ebay:)

[mross]

Originally Posted by kai

I'd have assumed this blade from Mindanao to be fairly young, possibly between 1930 and 1950. The engraving seems pretty unusual to me and was, I'd suppose, what attracted several forumites. Punal, Kino, Adni would you mind to comment? Better pics after arrival (and etching) appreciated, too!

BTW, the handle/clamp look almost older than the blade?

I'd love to see better pictures and get your hands on opinion. Hope I didn't upset anybody, I just was giving my thoughts on what I was seeing. Having looked at Ricks blade I see differences in shape.

[punal]

Shrug I tought I had a decent piece
Welp, can't do anything now, I just paid it off.
Honestly, what ever the finding is, I like it, it is a solid fighting kris with no separate gangya which susceptible to cracks. My thoughts, it's a no tourist piece even the luks.

As soon as I get it, I will post close up photos.

[Battara]

Originally Posted by punal

Shrug I tought I had a decent piece
Welp, can't do anything now, I just paid it off.

Well, I'm not saying it is the cheapo tourist crap. For one thing, blades made for US soldiers at the turn of the 20th century were probably better than what you would think. Also, it could be a more ceremonial, though the jury is out on that one. I would think that the engravings would be more talismanic if it is a true battle piece.

One other possiblity that I wonder about (not mentioned in Cato) is that it and others could have been true battle pieces that were later engraved either for talismanic or sales purposes. Although this hypothesis would place such a piece in the market place, it would not catagorize these as pieces made for the tourist market (only adapted for it).

[punal]

Originally Posted by Battara

Well, I'm not saying it is the cheapo tourist crap. For one thing, blades made for US soldiers at the turn of the 20th century were probably better than what you would think. Also, it could be a more ceremonial, though the jury is out on that one. I would think that the engravings would be more talismanic if it is a true battle piece.

One other possiblity that I wonder about (not mentioned in Cato) is that it and others could have been true battle pieces that were later engraved either for talismanic or sales purposes. Although this hypothesis would place such a piece in the market place, it would not catagorize these as pieces made for the tourist market (only adapted for it).

I hear you, boss

[jarhead]

Originally Posted by mross

I'd love to see better pictures and get your hands on opinion. Hope I didn't upset anybody, I just was giving my thoughts on what I was seeing. Having looked at Ricks blade I see differences in shape.

check out this webpage: http://1-22infantry.org/history/hartpagetwo.htm

now compare the luks on both ingraved krises.

[mross]

Originally Posted by jarhead

check out this webpage: http://1-22infantry.org/history/hartpagetwo.htm

now compare the luks on both ingraved krises.

yep, you have a point(sharp luk) they do look similiar, I could very well be wrong, that's why I here to learn.

Nice historic link, how did you find it?

[jarhead]

Nice historic link, how did you find it?[/QUOTE]


it was once posted some time ago by a guy named spunjer under Moro weapons. . .

[Rick]

Well , that pushes the integral gangya back to at least 1906 if we are to believe the info on the site .
Another thing that is pushed back some more is the sharper corners on the seki(sp?) which I had equated more with the mid 20thC. era .

Interesting ..........

So does this mean that Cato's 1930's seperate gangya guideline is out the window ?
Or are these two kalis just anomalies ?

[kai]

Originally Posted by Rick

So does this mean that Cato's 1930's seperate gangya guideline is out the window ?

Nah, it's just a rule of thumb that Moro kris with separate gangya will be usually pre-1930's. There are some later examples - haven't seen any of these though (except Indonesian pieces).

That doesn't imply that kris with integral gangya are necessarily later than 1930 (although many are). Obviously, there must have been a transition phase during which both types were produced - possibly about 1900-1930? Some examples may be late 19th century. I wouldn't be too surprised if there even were a few older oddballs with integral gangya. After all, an integral gangya isn't too uncommon in keris Bugis - so it's not a new invention and the concept will have been known to Moro panday well before the 20th c.

Regards,
Kai

[Battara]

I'm wondering if the kris in question is a transitional piece. The luk on it are sharp, yes, but not as sharp and pointed as those I have seen on post-1930s krises which have very sharp points (like the one on my head ).

Regarding the separable ganga issue, I haven't seen much evidence yet to alter Cato's thesis other than there may be exeptions to the rule in non-separable kris before 1900. Certainly the craftmanship used on earlier kris is unnecessary for later kris post-1930 when guns were even more plentiful than before. It would certainly cost more money to create a separable ganga especially when the demand for kris as an everyday weapon drops in later years.