The large crystals would be achieved by slow cooling from very high heat - not ideal properties for a practical blade - but would produce the decorative effect.

This pattern is similar to what you would see on a micrograph for an austenitic stainless steel after etching.

Here's some speculation for you - I am guessing that the blade material was sourced from a nickel-iron meteorite. I did some digging and came up with an image of this - go and look at the following URL:

http://classweb.howardcc.edu/astronomy/Presentations/Chapter11/sld042.htm

What do you think?

I do agree though that this effect must come from slow cooling the blade which will allow time for crystiline structures to form in the blade. The same principle that forms the crystaline structure of granite for instance. Such large crystals as this must have been formed by extremely slow cooling indeed. It does not follow though that this piece came from meteorite though as Wyvern has suggested. As Empu Kumis and others have already sufficiently proven in previous discussions - the use of metorite was extremely rare in kerismaking. At any rate any "dirty" piece of iron - that is, iron with lots of impurities, carbon, nickel etc. would do. The effect would be accomplished by deliberately slow cooling the billet.

As an aside - the hilt on this piece is indeed for a keris and isn't appropriate for a badik. In fact it is a relatively rare form of hilt from Banjarmasin - the good ones gilded brass with settings of low grade Kalimantan diamonds. I'd love one of these for my collection but have yet to come across one that I could afford. I am traveling to Kuching this summer though so there is some hope for me yet!

I’m sure our estimated Justin who, I seem to remember, works in the aluminium casting business, will find this familiar…

The “glittering” effect is due to the fact that each “colony” is composed of particles aligned in a slightly different direction, and each of them consequently reflects the light in a slightly different direction, too; so each of them appears dark or shiny depending on the direction we look at them.

I reiterate that I’m with Mr. Henkel, here, this is the product of a skilled artisan who knew what he was looking for. And meteoritic material has probably nothing to do with its composition. Meteorites are relatively hard to come by, and those who study them or collect them tend to keep them in the state they were found. Besides, I have to point out that Amphoterite is a type of meteorite with a very low content of iron and metal.

Of course, all this can’t deny the fact that we are in front of a beautiful and skilfully made blade, my congratulations for a most interesting find.
Oh, BTW, let me advise against giving it any kind of harsh treatment, like trying to test its flexibility. Due to its structure this blade is extremely fragile and can snap without a warning. Additionally, any attempt to sharpening or carless polishing can easily destroy the effect of the pattern. In the last case, of course, would the pattern be lost, a professional can restore it.

I hope this helps

Marc

First, on the use of iron-nickel alloys from meteorites. The following quote is support for the theory that a primitive people could use this source of iron for manufacture of weapons. The quote can be found as a footnote in "Engineering Materials 2: An Introduction to Microstructures, Processing and Design" - authors: Michael F Ashby and David R H Jones, Engineering Department, Cambridge University, England. Published by Pergamon Press, 1988.

"People have sometimes been able to avoid the tedious business of extracting iron from its natural ore. When Commander Peary was exploring Greenland in 1894 he was taken by an Eskimo to a place near Cape York to see a huge, half-buried meteorite. This had provided metal for Eskimo tools and weapons for over a hundred years. Meteorites usually contain iron plus about 10% nickel: a direct delivery of low-alloy iron from the heavens."

Second, I don't support the theory outlined in earlier posts that this grain structure could be achieved with any old bit of dirty iron. It takes a micrograph to reveal similar patterns with high carbon content iron (steel) - i.e. you have to examine the grain structure under a microscope after etching. The structure on this knife blade is clearly visible with the naked eye and on a much larger scale. The posted pictures of grain are misleading as they are either of a different metal (Aluminium) or on a different scale - both key criteria.

I am interested in comments on the estimated age of the knife based on other factors. This would lead to a line of reasoning concerning the state of metallurgy at the time of the knife's manufacture. Would the people group that made this knife have had the skill to manufacture an iron alloy from scratch (i.e. not from a handy source of iron-nickel alloy such as a meteorite) at that time?

Also, another interesting point is the lack of corrosion on the blade in the photographs. Perhaps suggestive of an alloy with Nickel rather than merely high carbon iron ...

Please don't take any of this as combative - but I don't think that the idea of this being made from an iron-nickel meteorite should be dismissed.

The points risen by wyvern are not unreasonable at all, on the contrary, they're absolutely valid. But I'm afraid I can't help but to disagree in some aspects:

- Mr Henkel has pointed out that the use of metoritic iron in keris making has been vastly overestimated over the years by mysticism and marketing. I tend to have confidence in his more than demostrabel expertise in this area and in the reliability of his sources on regard of this point. Taking aside the fat that is NOT a keris blade, properly said.

- I took Aluminium as a quick visual reference, but this phenomenon happens equally in iron, zinc, nickel, cooper... No need even of being highly alloyed, though in some circumstances it helps.

- As I said, this blade don't has to be iron. It can be nickel or zinc. Karmeng, is it magnetic? It would help to know if a magnet sticks to the blade.

- If you take a look at the first picture that I posted, the scale shows grains that are 1mm or more across. They can be bigger(in fact, in the first picture some are indeed bigger, and in the second picture the peripheric, radial grains are indeed 3 or 4 mm big), it depends, again, on the cooling rate and the alloying. This is a macroscopic phenomenon: if the effect is there, it only needs a careful polish and a proper etching to become evident to the naked eye. I've done it myself when preparing samples to illustrate this phenomenon to the students. I'm sure that if karmeng provides us with some measurments for the blade we'll find that many of the grains present on the blade are not much bigger than a few mm across. Some will be bigger, some will be smaller, depending, yet again, on the overall conditions of the casting.

- Let me reiterate that this phenomenon is equally apreciable in steel. BTW, one don't need to have a high content of carbon to consider the alloy Iron/Carbon as steel, a proportion as low as 0.2% C in weight can give you some degree of hardenability and other key features of steel. But I disgress... The point is that this can be acieved with "regular" steel, at a a macroscopic level without the need of elaborate alloying.

Of course, this discussion would be in a much more solid ground would we be able to handle the piece. But given that we only have some pictures plus the benevolent collaboration of its owner, I have to take in mind that I'm moving in the realm of the reasonable hypothesis...

this piece is indeed a conversation starter, that's for sure.

Take care

Marc

Dear Sir,

My Answer: A magnet will stick to the blade. The blade is very hard and strong. The blade is not fragile. The blade is not laminated. The blade is made of one piece of metal. I will provide measurement and take close-up photos of the blade during day light (every single part) tomorrow and will post it through Mr Lee Jones.

Could I ask you to try one more test with the magnet? Please could try you testing your magnet on a piece of steel - and also on the blade.

Since the we know that the magnet is attracted to the blade it is not zinc.

If the magnet is only weakly attracted to the blade it may be nickel. If the magnet shows the same attraction to the blade as to a piece of steel then the blade is iron or an iron based alloy.

The magnet's attraction to iron will be roughly 10x stronger than to nickel.

3

4

5

6

Width measurement is in (mm) while length is in (cm).

Four items were tested using a magnet. One is an old keris with high nickel content, second, a very hard iron meteorite,
third: a stainless steel knife and fourth the blade in question.

A magnet is placed on a scale. Almost all four items showed similar reation at the same spot against the magnet. That`s what we got. I didn`t see any of these four items displaying a visible stronger force.