Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 5th August 2006, 02:58 AM

Thanks Jeff.

I think you just confirmed what everybody else who understood the question had already said. Not in quite the same words perhaps, but the end result is the same.

What it comes down to is that there is no economically viable way to obtain a positive ID on meteoritic content in a keris.

There may be a way to determine if there is meteoritic content, but even that is not certain.

Testing would of course need to be non-destructive.

If the value of the object is $X, and its value might rise to $2X if it can be definitely proven to contain meteoritic material, its not really a proposition to carry out tests that could run to $X to the power of 10.

I reckon we`re just about back where we started as far meteors and keris go:- believe it if you will, its an item of faith, and who can criticise another`s faith?

5th August 2006, 02:58 AM	#16
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,697	Thanks Jeff. I think you just confirmed what everybody else who understood the question had already said. Not in quite the same words perhaps, but the end result is the same. What it comes down to is that there is no economically viable way to obtain a positive ID on meteoritic content in a keris. There may be a way to determine if there is meteoritic content, but even that is not certain. Testing would of course need to be non-destructive. If the value of the object is $X, and its value might rise to $2X if it can be definitely proven to contain meteoritic material, its not really a proposition to carry out tests that could run to $X to the power of 10. I reckon we`re just about back where we started as far meteors and keris go:- believe it if you will, its an item of faith, and who can criticise another`s faith?