[A. G. Maisey]

Eric, I'm sorry, but I can neither confirm nor deny your supposition.

However, what I can say is this:- if this blade were to be presented to me for classification today, and never having previously seen it with the hilt attached, it would be very difficult for me to classify it in accordance with the parameters set forth in the Solonese classification system ie, Tangguh.

Moreover, because of the superb condition of the blade it would be highly unlikely that I could bring myself to assume an age of more than a couple of hundred years at the most.

It is only because we have provenance for this keris that we can assign its true age & origin.

The blumbangan indicates Majapahit, the sirah cecak, which cannot be seen in the photographs is Majapahit, the buntut urang is rounded, garap could be accepted as either Bali or Surakarta, the distinct ada-ada is something I would expect to see in a Bali-Lombok blade; at 35cm in length it is perhaps a little shorter than we would expect a Balinese blade to be; the ron dha can probably be accepted as falling within Majapahit parameters.

The indicators present a rather confusing picture, and Central Jawa keris protocol does not recognise Banten, but it does recognise several variations of Pajajaran and Segaluh.

Stepping back from the restrictions of the Solonese system , and recognising the historical background of both keris development and of the keris under discussion, I feel it must be classified as Banten.

However, for me, that is a side issue, what I find to be of interest is the migration of characteristics associated with the Majapahit keris in a West Jawa keris at a point in time that was very close to the removal of the Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom of Majapahit.