Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Ethnographic Weapons

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 29th May 2022, 03:30 AM   #91
xasterix
Member
 
xasterix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 422
Default

Necro-ing this thread because I realized I have a kris with a cylindrical tang. Comments and assessments are welcome.

My notes on the matter:

1. The piece has 18.3in blade, measures 23.5in overall.

2. I removed the galgal near the tang (without meaning to reset) because the fragments were falling off. I decided to clear away all galgal near the blade base to secure the blade with easily-removable clear epoxy. It was an unexpected but fortunate surprise that I was able to see the upper part of the tang in the process.

3. Upon closer inspection, the asang-asang seemed to be retrofitted at a later date; the area under it did not have indentations for an asang at all, meaning the kris was built without an asang in mind.

4. The exposed tang is cylindrical, it had no angles (circular). Because of this feature, I believe (also based on the accumulated discussion in this thread andwith other collectors) is that this piece may be pre-1700 and fit into the "missing link" category.

5. The throat of the pommel was originally wrapped with torn copper wire; I removed it and replaced with hemp solidified by clear epoxy, to secure the pommel part.

6. I'm well aware that my aggressive restoration has reduced the value of the piece; however I've always been of the thought of striking a balance between a piece's provenance and future-proofing it. I know it's not everyone's cup of tea (especially of museums/provenance-particular collectors), but it is what it is. This piece is my lineage's pusaka already after all.

7. I'm attaching a comparative picture with 2 other pieces- a 23-in blade late 1800s kalis, and another archaic kris with 19.2in blade, which I think is late 1700s or early 1800s.
Attached Images
      

Last edited by xasterix; 29th May 2022 at 04:07 AM.
xasterix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2022, 02:46 AM   #92
Ian
Vikingsword Staff
 
Ian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Aussie Bush
Posts: 3,433
Default

Hi Xas,

Another lovely piece from your growing collection. Excellent blade with characteristics of pre-1800 manufacture. Whether pre-1700 is difficult to know, but the circular tang might suggest that. Perhaps carbon dating of the ivory pommel might help, but the pommel could have been added later or the part of the tusk from which the pommel came may have predated the animal's death by several decades.

Last edited by Ian; 30th May 2022 at 10:19 AM.
Ian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2022, 04:46 AM   #93
xasterix
Member
 
xasterix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian View Post
Hi Xas,


Another lovely piece from your growing collection. Excellent blade with characteristics of pre-1800 manufacture. Whether pre-1700 is difficult to know, but the circular tang might suggest that. Perhaps carbon dating of the ivory pommel might help, but the pommel could have been added later or the part of the tusk from which the pommel came may have predated the animal's death by several decades.
Thanks for the kind words Ian! I'm also on the fence just what percentage of the hilt is original. That's the tricky part about ascertaining the age estimate, I guess- different parts may have different ages, especially among the Moro as they were no strangers to repairing and maintaining their pusaka blades throughout the ages. Although I've no doubt that the blade would be the oldest part of this piece.
xasterix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th May 2022, 07:38 AM   #94
Anthony G.
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 377
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spunjer View Post
'found this nice little piece a couple weeks ago at the local gunshow. i thought it was neat in that it has a miniature pommel and shorter than usual blade. i would say this particular kris could be classified under "archaic".
looking back at the old threads, this has been discussed before:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=241

when i first saw it, i thought the pommel was a bit unusual; thinking it was some type of wood. it didn't have stirrups, and the handle was actually pretty wobbly.
I was told that upper class of this weapon is where pommels are made of ivory, silver or other exotic materials with handles wrapped in silver or gold alloy. Pommels before 19th century were small.
Anthony G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.