Jean, how good is the provenance on that keris?

How certain are we of the dating?

How certain are we that it is from Banten?

At this point I am not arguing against Banten, but I will say that it appears to tick all the boxes for a Surakarta keris, and it lacks characteristics that we would normally be looking for in a Banten keris.

Would it be possible to do a close-up as near to 90 degrees as possible of the wadidang side greneng, and also straight down onto the top of the gonjo?

Also a full length shot so we can see the pawakan.



Kai, I apologise if you consider that my use of words was too sparing Kai, Frankly I just don't understand what you're getting at or what your question is. But if I was sparing in my use of words, perhaps it was because I had nothing of any great importance to say, so I most gently suggest that you ignore that which you find confusing or objectionable. Just leave my terse comments to sit wherever they might be and languish in loneliness.

Hello Alan,
I said "possibly originating from Banten and dating from the 17th century" because of the large similarities between this blade and the specimens shown in the Krisdik from Jensen and in the Dresden and Copenhagen collections, especially the dapur/ ricikan and the size of the blade.
I will shot more pics but am not sure that they will give more accurate evidence.

My supporting arguments for the Banten or Blambangan origin and estimated age are as follows:
. Unfortunately the blade was shortened and only has 9 or 11 luks against probably 13 originally and measures only 31.5 cm instead of 38-40 cm estimated as the typical blades from Banten. (see pics)
. The dapur and ricikan are extremely similar to the reference blades from Banten/ Blambangan.
. The blade is significantly heavier (thicker and wider) than the standard Surakarta blades including the PB ones.
. The attached hilt is typical of the 17th century pieces from Banten or Blambangan.
. The blade was sheathless as you would expect from a very old piece from an uncommon origin (a Surakarta blade would more probably have a scabbard).
Regards

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

Hello Alan,
I attach the pics as requested and hope that they are adequate.
I would like to add the following indicators which point to a 17th century blade rather than a Surakarta one IMO:
. The blade remains wide to almost the point, the width is still 2.2 cm at the last luk (29 cm from the base of the blade).
. The kembang kacang is very strong.
. The short kruwingan depan & belakang (or long tikel alis & sraweyan) are very typical of these 17th century blades.
. If the blade had originally 13 luks as I would expect, there is no Surakarta dhapur matching with this one (Parungsari and Sengkelat being the closest).
. Last but not least, the thin twin lines on the sirak cecak of the ganja are very typical of these 17th century blades and not (or very rarely) seen on Surakarta blades to my best knowledge.
Regards

Thanks Jean, yes, I agree with you, this can be classified as Banten. I think this demonstrates just how difficult it can be to classify from photos. There is so much that cannot be adequately appraised from photos, that it is silly to even try in most cases. I'd still like this in my hand to be absolutely certain, but I can now see sufficient to be reasonably confident that we're not looking at Surakarta.

Thank you Alan and I am glad that you could confirm my opinion with some certainty. It is a pity that the blade was damaged, it mat be younger than the 17th Century although it has kept the original features of these blades brought to Europe at that time. I am personally amazed by the quality of the pamor pattern and carving of the ricikan considering the presumed age of this piece.
Regards