Pak Ganja, you could well be right, however, we do need more images of this blade before we can be too certain of anything. I think I can see a distinct blumbangan, where the palemahan gradually rises up to the gonjo. If the gonjo were missing the palemahan would continue without a rise and give a sharp fall from the tampingan. If we had an image of the top of the gonjo, looking straight down onto it, we could see if we were looking at a gonjo, or at the end of a blade that had lost its gonjo. Similarly, if we had a nice clear close-up of the pesi where it enters the gonjo we would possibly be able to see evidence of a lost gonjo.
In respect of proportion, we need to understand the various proportions that can be correct for a blade. I agree with you totally, using the blade patterns that you have provided for comparison, the wadidang is far too short in the blade under discussion, however, your examples are one type of blade, the one we are discussing is a different type of blade.
The same proportions are not always correct for all blade styles.In fact, it is fairly usual for any gonjo iras blade to have a shorter wadidang than the wadidang to be found in a keris fitted with a gonjo. This is to a large degree unavoidable, because to forge the wadidang of a gonjo iras blade to the same length as the wadidang of a blade fitted with a gonjo, is very, very difficult; you need to increase the amount of material that you can forge out to form the wadidang to an unusual thickness, and this creates considerable difficulty in forging.To assess correctness or otherwise of proportion you need to look not just a part of the blade, but at the entire blade. Then of course, we need to consider the level of skill of the maker.
In any case, what we really need is more information. Then we might be able to be a little bit definite.
|