[A. G. Maisey]

No Ian, I have never seen this sword, and I did not know that the seller lives only a couple hundred kilometers from me.

I also have next to nil knowledge with this type of Indonesian weapon.

I have no idea at all about the correctness or otherwise of the various details, as you have pointed out in the original post that began the thread.

However, over the years I have seen many similar swords in Solo (ie, Surakarta/Soerakarta), I've seen them in market stalls (warungs), I've seen and handled them in the Kraton Surakarta storerooms, I've seen them in museums, I've seen them worn by Kraton soldiers.

When I say "similar swords", I mean that they are not exactly the same as this one, but all of a similar style and not of a uniform style, many looking like they have been cobbled together from two or more other swords.

The PBX is 100% OK from my perspective, in fact all the blade etchings are OK.

I can appreciate that you, and other people who are expert in the field of Dutch Colonial Model M.1898 Klewangs may look at this sword and compare it with a known genuine model in perfect condition and form the opinion that you are looking at a false Model 1898, but if I look at it and form the opinion that it is genuinely from the Surakarta Kraton, then my parameters of judgement are very different. I only ask:- " does this appear to be a sword that was used in the Kraton?" and my answer to this question must be that yes, it does.

You see, the Kraton makes its own rules. You question the orientation of the blade etching, both the PBX and maker's mark. It is entirely possible that this sword was put together by Kraton craftsmen from a combination of locally made parts and remnants of other swords, if a Dutch maker's mark was required on the finished product, there would be no problem in providing that, the people who did this would not have any idea of what was supposed to be correct in Holland, and what was not correct, and even if they did know, would they care? I strongly doubt it. The sword would have been one of many poorly maintained weapons issued to Kraton abdi dalem (literally "inside servants", but the generic term for all the non noble Kraton employees and volunteers) for use in parades. You could think of it as a theatrical prop.

You have raised the question of the missing riveted tang. In Central Jawa the riveted tang end is not a usual way in which to secure a hilt, hilts are normally secured with either jabung (think "cutler's wax"), or where something is strictly for show, wooden wedges for a flat tang, wound thread for a round tang.

For something like this a factor that would raise my doubts about authenticity would be if somebody such as yourself told me it was perfect example of the type. My reaction would be:- "oh yeah? How did that happen?"

When I use the word "authenticity", the authenticity I am looking for is whether or not this sword was used within the Kraton, I am not the smallest bit interested in whether or not it is a legitimate example of the Dutch type it purports to be.

In the market in which it was originally sold, once it left Kraton hands, the value of this sword would be rooted in the previous Kraton ownership, not at all in whether or not it was a good example of a particular type of sword, its European heritage would be of less than passing interest to a local buyer, and it is usually a local buyer who buys this sort of thing, most especially so in Solo (Surakarta) which has very, very few tourists and is not a particularly tourist friendly place to visit or stay.

In view of the many discrepancies between this sword under discussion, and the genuine Model 1898, I think that what we have here is a locally made copy, put together by Kraton craftsmen, and once again, on the local market, that would raise its authenticity, and its value, for a local buyer.

What I can see in the photos fits perfectly with the many examples of this type of thing I have seen in the past.