Sepang Buda
 

Hi all, I have attached a photo for discussion, comments would be very appreciated..I myself think that this keris is quite interesting because I have never seen it before..

Are photos under good natural light possible?

Neutral background, open shade.

Full length both sides and close ups of the blade that will give some indication of material.

I am sorry I cannot provide photos as you requested at this time, Pak Alan..But I have attached other 2 photos, probably it can help you to identify. Additional information is the blade length is about 22 cm..The blade looks like leaf shaped keris.

Thank you Karttikeya, but I'm sorry, I cannot see what I would like to be able to see from these photos.

I cannot provide more photos at this time, later on I will provide more photos of the blade. In terms of shape of the blade, can we classify the blade as keris? I personally think that the blade does not look like a keris however rather seen as a knife..dunno yet..

The name is a very, very difficult question.

What we think of as a "keris" is very probably a relatively modern idea. If we look at the words that might have been used for daggers in Old Javanese we have a number to choose from, and we don't really know what form the word "keris" was applied to.

It is a comfortable convention for us to tag some of these daggers as "keris buda", because they are similar to what we now know as a keris. Its what we call them now. But what is the name that was used pre-1600? We simply do not know.

If this dagger truly is an archaic weapon, and I feel that this is in question, and perhaps even the very best photos will not settle it, then I personally would not attempt to classify it as anything, other than an archaic dagger. I would not attempt to put a Javanese name on it.

This weapon recalls me the images of the weapons depicted at Borobudur, at Chandi Sukuh, or at Prambanan Temple. These weapons are often referred to as "early keris forms", derived from the well-known "Dong-Son dagger". In fact, the only element which brings us to a kris, is the separate element on the blade (a kind of simmetrical ganja), but this weapon, IMHO, cannot be called a kris. Possibly "an early weapon from which the kris has developed"

Here I uploaded another photo of the blade. I need your opinion to know whether this dagger truly is an archaic weapon or not. I realized that this photo seems cannot deliver informative element on iron or something else however at least I will get something new knowledge from your sharing experiences.

Thanks Gio for your information, I just checked the paper written by Pak Alan "ORIGIN OF THE KERIS AND ITS DEVELOPMENT TO THE 14TH CENTURY", according to the shape, this dagger may recall us physical characteristics of the weapon which held by monkey warrior but leaking a distinct central ridge.

Does this blade have a core, or is the metal the same all the way through, IE, no pamor layer?

This blade does not have core or slorok. Yes, the metal is the same all the way through and no pamor layer.

Thanks.

My gut feeling is that this is something that has been re manufactured from a big, old tombak or something similar.

But that is feeling, based on experience, rather than what I can see in the pics.

In the pics it looks pretty OK, but perhaps a bit too neat. I've got maybe 10 or a dozen archaic keris and other pieces, and none are as neat as this one.

It might be genuine, but I'd probably need it with for at least a week to give any answer I was relatively certain of.

Thanks Pak Alan for your explanation. Yes, the blade is quite neat. It does not look like mostly keris buda, mainly from excavation. Recently, I saved other photos, probably it will give you more informative image. I cannot examine whether its iron is genuine old or not or the blade is remanufactured from old one. Could you please tell me how to distinguish between original shape or material with remanufactured or new iron? It is possible if old blade has neatly shaped?

Sorry Karttikeya, its not that easy. There's no magic formula that you can apply to a piece and then be able say real or fake. Doesn't work that way. I can't tell much at all from even the very best photos in this sort of case. I'd need the piece with me a week or so, I'd look at it stripped of hilt, I'd look at it in sunshine, shadow, play with when I was watching TV. Totally familiarise myself with it. Handle it a lot. Use a loupe.Maybe after a time doing this my experience would kick in and I'd notice something, or feel something, maybe not. One thing is certain:- the very best gaurantee of anything doubtful is its provenance. If you know for sure it was dug up by a farmer in a rice field, odds are its probably genuine, no matter what it looks like. If you have any reason at all to doubt the seller, its probably not the real thing.

Thanks Pak Alan, I realize that this is not the thing that simply say real or fake by looking at even very best photo without handling it, but i just wanna know your reason by saying remanufactured blade. I wanna know how to see the blade has been remanufactured or probably other factors are considered so that you have feeling fake on this blade. Thank you.

One word Karttikeya:-

experience

There is absolutely no way I can list everything that is entailed in that , that helps me to pick real from imaginary --- and I can also be fooled.

I'm sorry.