Is it a keris and from which island?

Sajen · 11th May 2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

A cousin to ?
Transitional form ?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=sadop

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ighlight=sadop

Now I know why I have had in mind a possible origin from Borneo. But I think that Alan is mostly correct by his statements.

Rick · 11th May 2010, 05:37 PM

I expect he is .
We'll keep the thread here even though it's not a keris .

Henk · 11th May 2010, 08:02 PM

Looking in the books by Tammens i see pictures of a keris cundrik. Also a keris blade with sword features. Could it be something like that??

Just a thought.

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2010, 01:15 PM

Yes Henk, there is no doubt that the form of the blade alone does bear a resemblance to both the dhapur cengkrong and cundrik, however, when we are dealing with the keris we have rather stringernt and restrictive parameters within which to work. The fact that a blade bears a resemblance to a keris does not make it a keris. In the case of this blade it appears that apart from the formless gonjo, also we have those ill placed ron dha.

Quite simply this blade alone lacks the characteristics required to make it a keris blade.

And that's if we consider only the blade.

When we consider the entire weapon, which we must, because it is an entire weapon that has been presented for comment, we have the blade mounted with a pedang hilt, not a keris hilt.

Based upon what can be seen in these photos, this weapon cannot be classified as a keris, but can be classified as pedang.

Because it is a pedang for stabbing, it is a pedang suduk, or pedang tusuk. We can call it a keris-like pedang, but cannot call it a pedang-like keris.

Henk · 12th May 2010, 01:34 PM

Alan,

Thank you for your answer. Very clear.

Sajen,

I'm very curious to the tang of the blade. Can you remove the hilt and make a picture of the tang?

Sajen · 12th May 2010, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henk

Alan,

Thank you for your answer. Very clear.

Sajen,

I'm very curious to the tang of the blade. Can you remove the hilt and make a picture of the tang?

Hello Henk,

the item isn't in my hands (until now) and the pictures also not taken with my camera. But I contact the owner and he told me that the handle is very strong fixed to the blade and it's impossible for him to open it.

But you're right, a picture from the tang/pesi would maybe helpful.

Best regards,

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2010, 11:02 PM

The tang could possibly give an indication as to the original mounting intent of this blade, however, whatever that original intent may have been, it cannot alter the nature of what we are looking at right now.

Additionally, if the tang were found to be other than round, this would confirm that the blade was not forged for mounting as a keris, however, if it were found to be round, this would not confirm that it was forged for mounting as a keris, because a pedang tang can be of either round section or flat side section.

It is not at all unusual to find this cross-over mounting of blades. I have had, and now have several examples of cross-over mounting, where a badik blade has been mounted as a keris, and where a keris blade has been altered to allow mounting as either a pedang suduk or a badik. This sort of thing is not common, but it is also not all that much of an oddity either.

11th May 2010, 05:37 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,347	I expect he is . We'll keep the thread here even though it's not a keris .

11th May 2010, 08:02 PM	#3
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Looking in the books by Tammens i see pictures of a keris cundrik. Also a keris blade with sword features. Could it be something like that?? Just a thought.

12th May 2010, 01:15 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	Yes Henk, there is no doubt that the form of the blade alone does bear a resemblance to both the dhapur cengkrong and cundrik, however, when we are dealing with the keris we have rather stringernt and restrictive parameters within which to work. The fact that a blade bears a resemblance to a keris does not make it a keris. In the case of this blade it appears that apart from the formless gonjo, also we have those ill placed ron dha. Quite simply this blade alone lacks the characteristics required to make it a keris blade. And that's if we consider only the blade. When we consider the entire weapon, which we must, because it is an entire weapon that has been presented for comment, we have the blade mounted with a pedang hilt, not a keris hilt. Based upon what can be seen in these photos, this weapon cannot be classified as a keris, but can be classified as pedang. Because it is a pedang for stabbing, it is a pedang suduk, or pedang tusuk. We can call it a keris-like pedang, but cannot call it a pedang-like keris.

12th May 2010, 01:34 PM	#5
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Alan, Thank you for your answer. Very clear. Sajen, I'm very curious to the tang of the blade. Can you remove the hilt and make a picture of the tang?

12th May 2010, 11:02 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,047	The tang could possibly give an indication as to the original mounting intent of this blade, however, whatever that original intent may have been, it cannot alter the nature of what we are looking at right now. Additionally, if the tang were found to be other than round, this would confirm that the blade was not forged for mounting as a keris, however, if it were found to be round, this would not confirm that it was forged for mounting as a keris, because a pedang tang can be of either round section or flat side section. It is not at all unusual to find this cross-over mounting of blades. I have had, and now have several examples of cross-over mounting, where a badik blade has been mounted as a keris, and where a keris blade has been altered to allow mounting as either a pedang suduk or a badik. This sort of thing is not common, but it is also not all that much of an oddity either.