Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - Meteoric iron used for keris's vs. for Indian weapons

nechesh · 15th February 2005, 12:05 AM

Jim posted this quote from Stone: A note concerning aesthetics : from Stone (p.664)
"...the most brilliant watering is in Malayan blades made by piling alternate layers of mild steel and an alloy of iron and nickel containing about 3% nickel.
These are welded and twisted in various ways and then etched with a mixture of lime jiuc and arsenous acid".
"..in the old blades the nickel alloy was meteoric iron, in some of the later ones it was Krupps nickel steel".

With all due respect to Stone, the last part of this quote just is not correct. This is part of the problem with this subject, we can find many accounts by scholars of an earlier time that are misleading at best and just dead wrong at worst. There is just NO evidence for meteoric pamor before the 19thC. Period. Maybe Stone meant something else by the phrase "old blades", but i would say old means pre-19thC. Not only that, Prof. Paiskowski's research has proven conclusively that much of the contrasting pamor in early keris is actually created by the use of high and low phosphorous iron, NO nickel at all. This is an important point to consider in evaluating the evolution of the keris blade.
I think it is a good thing that we have the reference material that we do when studying this material. But some of this info needs to be taken with a grain of salt. On this matter i have seen various authors who seem to pick up and pass along the same misinformation on this subject in a continuous chain of reference material. We can't just accept something because it is written, as clearly, sometimes these writers are wrong.

15th February 2005, 12:05 AM	#62
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Jim posted this quote from Stone: A note concerning aesthetics : from Stone (p.664) "...the most brilliant watering is in Malayan blades made by piling alternate layers of mild steel and an alloy of iron and nickel containing about 3% nickel. These are welded and twisted in various ways and then etched with a mixture of lime jiuc and arsenous acid". "..in the old blades the nickel alloy was meteoric iron, in some of the later ones it was Krupps nickel steel". With all due respect to Stone, the last part of this quote just is not correct. This is part of the problem with this subject, we can find many accounts by scholars of an earlier time that are misleading at best and just dead wrong at worst. There is just NO evidence for meteoric pamor before the 19thC. Period. Maybe Stone meant something else by the phrase "old blades", but i would say old means pre-19thC. Not only that, Prof. Paiskowski's research has proven conclusively that much of the contrasting pamor in early keris is actually created by the use of high and low phosphorous iron, NO nickel at all. This is an important point to consider in evaluating the evolution of the keris blade. I think it is a good thing that we have the reference material that we do when studying this material. But some of this info needs to be taken with a grain of salt. On this matter i have seen various authors who seem to pick up and pass along the same misinformation on this subject in a continuous chain of reference material. We can't just accept something because it is written, as clearly, sometimes these writers are wrong.