[kai]

Hello Alan,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

I, for one, wasn't necessarily suggesting Banten.

However, it is certainly interesting to have such an early blade with (apparently) its complete "original" fittings, even if these are of secondary importance...

In my opinion this is not a Banten blade.

Typically the Banten wilah has a boto adeg blumbangan, the blumbangan of this keris is square.

There are two possibilities:- Mataram or Pajajaran

Condition and garap of the blade implies Mataram, but the dress is contrary to this.

It is very difficult to consider Pajajaran as possible because I have never seen a blade accepted as Pajajaran in such fine condition as this one:- I have no basis for comparison. However, the slightly concave gandhik is not a feature usually found in a Mataram blade, and a ron dha of this style is not typically associated with Mataram. So, although difficult, my inclination is to give this blade as Pajajaran.

Dresden 2886 exhibits a concave gandik, too.

Any ideas how strictly controlled/enforced dapur was during the very early Mataram Senopaten court? During any major cultural transition, one might either expect pieces with mosaic features (alluding to different sources) or a (possibly fast evolving) "new style" to build a new social identity/cohesion?

Dresden 2886 has a Mataram blumbangan, square but not particulary large; the body cross section is the typical Tuban rotan, it does not have a ron dha that is classifiable, ie, it does have a ron dha but that ron dha cannot be aligned to an accepted form, however, I note that there is a possibility of corrosive damage to the greneng of 2886, which has impacted the ron dha; 2886 lacks kruwingan. However, the pawakan is similar to the pawakan of the keris under discussion.

I do see shallow kruwingan extending approx. to the third luk: The concave channels are more obvious next to the sogokan and rather quickly fading out after the 2nd luk or so (still, an ada-ada is visible between the kruwingan, too).

Kai, I can see no similarity at all between Dresden 2899 and the keris under discussion. Dresden 2899 even uses a metuk instead of mendak and is of totally different dhapur and garap. Can you please tell me what the similarities are?

I did not want to imply that these two keris have the same dapur nor that they are closely related. However, the concave gandik and very pronounced tikel alis appear to be similar features for a start. The apparently unique metuk (or metuk-like iron mendak?) does not preclude to compare this wilah with other keris blades, doesn't it?

Regards,
Kai