![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,269
|
![]() Quote:
you foget to give the link! Regards, Detlef |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,269
|
![]()
This swords called Golok, your blade is very nice. But it seems like the hilt is from a newer date, please show us the sheat.
Regards, sajen |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16
|
![]()
Hi guys, thanks so much for the additional info and the links. Lots of info in there, I'll be digesting them slowly.
![]() As for this sword, to my amateurish eyes, the hilt and the scabbard seem to be made of a similar kind of wood (don't know the wood type). One side of the scabbard is lighter color than the other. Also the scabbard and hilt look like they're of around the same age. Don't know if this means that they came with the original blade or if they were replaced around the same time. The tang does not come out of the end of the hilt though, unlike the examples I see in the links posted. The first two photos I posted above shows the sword next to its wooden scabbard. I'm posting more pics below: ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kaboejoetan Galoenggoeng Mélben
Posts: 473
|
![]()
Hullo everybody!
The blade appears to be made in the village/district of Tjikeroeh, which still exists today and is now spelt Cikeruh (any other form of current spelling is either born out of ignorance or a simple typo). It appears to be of good quality, considering the era and the fact that the manufacturing was a small village operation, which also turned out everyday utensils (i.e. not an armourer). In fact, the operation was generally a sort of village cooperative, with different households being involved in different parts of the manufacturing process. The blade was made at the end of the period when the village was producing swords for the colonial Dutch para-military/military (the Dutch shifted production of swords to Europe in 1898). The motif and the clip-point suggests that it was probably made for a European and not as a run-of-the-mill product. I call it a pedang as it does not follow the golok protocol. The hilt and scabbard are also atypical for a local pedang. Best, |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 16
|
![]()
Hi Amuk, thanks for the additional info, much appreciated!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,209
|
![]()
Because this type of daggers was made for the Dutch and after european standards I wouldn't call this nor a Golok nor a Pedang.
The shape of this dagger is more that of a Hartsvanger (Dutch) or as the Germans call it a Hirschfanger. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,235
|
![]()
I agree with Henk.
These weapons where not made for indonesian people. In that case I can not Imagine that there would be a date and name. The shape is indeed of a hartsvanger and also the handguards often follow hartvangers designs. Ps. this summer I visted family in France and I saw a golok with also a inscription, but then tjikeru or something like that. The owner told me that he bought it in the 70' and that it was made before his own eyes in a workshop in Jakarta, using old car springs. So I can imagine that the name Tjikeroeh was also used in other locations. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|