Identification of an indonesian dagger

Rick · 4th July 2006, 07:29 PM

Well , I'm willing to eat my words .

But what ?
Plug bayonet ?

Henk · 4th July 2006, 07:37 PM

Tim,

Now that I'm looking a bit better to the pictures you can read the mark with the point towards you as PM and with the angle towards you as NJ or something. I really cann't make anyting of it and better pictures than these are not possible.

Tim Simmons · 4th July 2006, 07:45 PM

I still do not see a European bayonet. The mark, what we can see is not recognisably European. The brown bess type bayonets have thinner cutting edges.? They are not made of this type of steel. There seems to be no grinding on the blade? I suppose there is a wild chance that it could be some really early rich persons bayonet. Did rich people stand in line with bayonets?

Henk · 5th July 2006, 06:31 PM

Not that I know, Tim. As far as I know farmers did join the battles of their lords in the middle ages. But their weapons where more their tools they used to work with on the fields. In the ages after the middle ages the battles where fought by armies with trained soldiers. But i don't know enough about this subject to give a good answer on that.

A. G. Maisey · 6th July 2006, 09:18 AM

Thanks for your invitation to comment further, Henk, but I really have nothing further to contribute.

I know nothing more, and I dislike hypothesis without evidence or logical argument.

I do have a couple of these things around somewhere, if I can locate them I`ll post pics.

drdavid · 6th July 2006, 10:12 AM

Hi all,
Just to put one thread of this to bed. I collected bayonets for quite a number of years and have owned a number of the triangular form bayonets (still have one on the shelf). This item is not a modified bayonet from any form I have ever seen, the cross section is all wrong. It is most certainly not a Brown Bess.
cheers
DrD

Henk · 6th July 2006, 08:45 PM

Alan,

I hoped that the mark and the pictures of the tang could give any further information. I completely agree with you that speculating without evidence or logical arguments is useless. I invited you to comment because i highly appreciate your input and knowledge.
If you can manage to show some pics of a sangkuh to compare, it would be very nice.

DrD,

I agree with you that it is not a bayonet. It is just not right. I stay with the names Alan gave us for this weapon. Sangkuh or Buntut Mimi.

A. G. Maisey · 23rd July 2006, 08:40 AM

I undertook to post some pics of sangkuh in my possession. I have located one of these, and here are the pics.

Harsrinuksmo has an entry for a tombak of this triangular shape that he calls a "lingiran". In Javanese the word "lingiran" simply means something with sharp sides.

Any of these blades that I have seen have not been tombak, as all have lacked a metuk.

Harsrinuksmo notes that some people are of the opinion that this form was inspired by old-time bayonets.

Henk · 24th July 2006, 10:15 AM

Thanks for posting pics of your sangkuh, Alan.

The similarity on the second picture is the forging pattern of the blade above the pamor. That is what is vissible on mine example too.

The difference between your sangkuh and mine is the base. The peksi of your example is round and the base is worked out with rings where the peksi ended and the blade begins, like a methuk then the blade is getting smoothly broader. Mine peksi is square and between the peksi and the base of the blade there is no transition.
As you wrote: Harsrinuksmo notes that some people are of the opinion that this form was inspired by old-time bayonets.
I did find out that the dutch army used such triangular bajonets. But those bajonets certainly weren't forged and made of plain steel.

4th July 2006, 07:29 PM	#1
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,366	European Well , I'm willing to eat my words . But what ? Plug bayonet ?

6th July 2006, 10:12 AM	#6
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 372	No bayonet Hi all, Just to put one thread of this to bed. I collected bayonets for quite a number of years and have owned a number of the triangular form bayonets (still have one on the shelf). This item is not a modified bayonet from any form I have ever seen, the cross section is all wrong. It is most certainly not a Brown Bess. cheers DrD

23rd July 2006, 08:40 AM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	I undertook to post some pics of sangkuh in my possession. I have located one of these, and here are the pics. Harsrinuksmo has an entry for a tombak of this triangular shape that he calls a "lingiran". In Javanese the word "lingiran" simply means something with sharp sides. Any of these blades that I have seen have not been tombak, as all have lacked a metuk. Harsrinuksmo notes that some people are of the opinion that this form was inspired by old-time bayonets. Attached Images

24th July 2006, 10:15 AM	#9
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Thanks for posting pics of your sangkuh, Alan. The similarity on the second picture is the forging pattern of the blade above the pamor. That is what is vissible on mine example too. The difference between your sangkuh and mine is the base. The peksi of your example is round and the base is worked out with rings where the peksi ended and the blade begins, like a methuk then the blade is getting smoothly broader. Mine peksi is square and between the peksi and the base of the blade there is no transition. As you wrote: Harsrinuksmo notes that some people are of the opinion that this form was inspired by old-time bayonets. I did find out that the dutch army used such triangular bajonets. But those bajonets certainly weren't forged and made of plain steel. Attached Images

4th July 2006, 07:37 PM	#2
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Tim, Now that I'm looking a bit better to the pictures you can read the mark with the point towards you as PM and with the angle towards you as NJ or something. I really cann't make anyting of it and better pictures than these are not possible.

4th July 2006, 07:45 PM	#3
Tim Simmons Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: What is still UK Posts: 5,886	I still do not see a European bayonet. The mark, what we can see is not recognisably European. The brown bess type bayonets have thinner cutting edges.? They are not made of this type of steel. There seems to be no grinding on the blade? I suppose there is a wild chance that it could be some really early rich persons bayonet. Did rich people stand in line with bayonets?

5th July 2006, 06:31 PM	#4
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Not that I know, Tim. As far as I know farmers did join the battles of their lords in the middle ages. But their weapons where more their tools they used to work with on the fields. In the ages after the middle ages the battles where fought by armies with trained soldiers. But i don't know enough about this subject to give a good answer on that.

6th July 2006, 09:18 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Thanks for your invitation to comment further, Henk, but I really have nothing further to contribute. I know nothing more, and I dislike hypothesis without evidence or logical argument. I do have a couple of these things around somewhere, if I can locate them I`ll post pics.

6th July 2006, 08:45 PM	#7
Henk Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 1,209	Alan, I hoped that the mark and the pictures of the tang could give any further information. I completely agree with you that speculating without evidence or logical arguments is useless. I invited you to comment because i highly appreciate your input and knowledge. If you can manage to show some pics of a sangkuh to compare, it would be very nice. DrD, I agree with you that it is not a bayonet. It is just not right. I stay with the names Alan gave us for this weapon. Sangkuh or Buntut Mimi.