Sepang Buda

A. G. Maisey · 22nd February 2012, 11:28 AM

The name is a very, very difficult question.

What we think of as a "keris" is very probably a relatively modern idea. If we look at the words that might have been used for daggers in Old Javanese we have a number to choose from, and we don't really know what form the word "keris" was applied to.

It is a comfortable convention for us to tag some of these daggers as "keris buda", because they are similar to what we now know as a keris. Its what we call them now. But what is the name that was used pre-1600? We simply do not know.

If this dagger truly is an archaic weapon, and I feel that this is in question, and perhaps even the very best photos will not settle it, then I personally would not attempt to classify it as anything, other than an archaic dagger. I would not attempt to put a Javanese name on it.

GIO · 23rd February 2012, 03:37 PM

This weapon recalls me the images of the weapons depicted at Borobudur, at Chandi Sukuh, or at Prambanan Temple. These weapons are often referred to as "early keris forms", derived from the well-known "Dong-Son dagger". In fact, the only element which brings us to a kris, is the separate element on the blade (a kind of simmetrical ganja), but this weapon, IMHO, cannot be called a kris. Possibly "an early weapon from which the kris has developed"

Karttikeya · 26th February 2012, 12:08 PM

Here I uploaded another photo of the blade. I need your opinion to know whether this dagger truly is an archaic weapon or not. I realized that this photo seems cannot deliver informative element on iron or something else however at least I will get something new knowledge from your sharing experiences.

Thanks Gio for your information, I just checked the paper written by Pak Alan "ORIGIN OF THE KERIS AND ITS DEVELOPMENT TO THE 14TH CENTURY", according to the shape, this dagger may recall us physical characteristics of the weapon which held by monkey warrior but leaking a distinct central ridge.

A. G. Maisey · 26th February 2012, 09:56 PM

Does this blade have a core, or is the metal the same all the way through, IE, no pamor layer?

Karttikeya · 27th February 2012, 03:21 AM

This blade does not have core or slorok. Yes, the metal is the same all the way through and no pamor layer.

A. G. Maisey · 27th February 2012, 04:42 AM

Thanks.

My gut feeling is that this is something that has been re manufactured from a big, old tombak or something similar.

But that is feeling, based on experience, rather than what I can see in the pics.

In the pics it looks pretty OK, but perhaps a bit too neat. I've got maybe 10 or a dozen archaic keris and other pieces, and none are as neat as this one.

It might be genuine, but I'd probably need it with for at least a week to give any answer I was relatively certain of.

Karttikeya · 27th February 2012, 06:18 AM

Thanks Pak Alan for your explanation. Yes, the blade is quite neat. It does not look like mostly keris buda, mainly from excavation. Recently, I saved other photos, probably it will give you more informative image. I cannot examine whether its iron is genuine old or not or the blade is remanufactured from old one. Could you please tell me how to distinguish between original shape or material with remanufactured or new iron? It is possible if old blade has neatly shaped?

26th February 2012, 12:08 PM	#3
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Here I uploaded another photo of the blade. I need your opinion to know whether this dagger truly is an archaic weapon or not. I realized that this photo seems cannot deliver informative element on iron or something else however at least I will get something new knowledge from your sharing experiences. Thanks Gio for your information, I just checked the paper written by Pak Alan "ORIGIN OF THE KERIS AND ITS DEVELOPMENT TO THE 14TH CENTURY", according to the shape, this dagger may recall us physical characteristics of the weapon which held by monkey warrior but leaking a distinct central ridge. Attached Images

27th February 2012, 06:18 AM	#7
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Thanks Pak Alan for your explanation. Yes, the blade is quite neat. It does not look like mostly keris buda, mainly from excavation. Recently, I saved other photos, probably it will give you more informative image. I cannot examine whether its iron is genuine old or not or the blade is remanufactured from old one. Could you please tell me how to distinguish between original shape or material with remanufactured or new iron? It is possible if old blade has neatly shaped? Attached Images

22nd February 2012, 11:28 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	The name is a very, very difficult question. What we think of as a "keris" is very probably a relatively modern idea. If we look at the words that might have been used for daggers in Old Javanese we have a number to choose from, and we don't really know what form the word "keris" was applied to. It is a comfortable convention for us to tag some of these daggers as "keris buda", because they are similar to what we now know as a keris. Its what we call them now. But what is the name that was used pre-1600? We simply do not know. If this dagger truly is an archaic weapon, and I feel that this is in question, and perhaps even the very best photos will not settle it, then I personally would not attempt to classify it as anything, other than an archaic dagger. I would not attempt to put a Javanese name on it.

23rd February 2012, 03:37 PM	#2
GIO Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 328	This weapon recalls me the images of the weapons depicted at Borobudur, at Chandi Sukuh, or at Prambanan Temple. These weapons are often referred to as "early keris forms", derived from the well-known "Dong-Son dagger". In fact, the only element which brings us to a kris, is the separate element on the blade (a kind of simmetrical ganja), but this weapon, IMHO, cannot be called a kris. Possibly "an early weapon from which the kris has developed"

26th February 2012, 09:56 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Does this blade have a core, or is the metal the same all the way through, IE, no pamor layer?

27th February 2012, 03:21 AM	#5
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	This blade does not have core or slorok. Yes, the metal is the same all the way through and no pamor layer.

27th February 2012, 04:42 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Thanks. My gut feeling is that this is something that has been re manufactured from a big, old tombak or something similar. But that is feeling, based on experience, rather than what I can see in the pics. In the pics it looks pretty OK, but perhaps a bit too neat. I've got maybe 10 or a dozen archaic keris and other pieces, and none are as neat as this one. It might be genuine, but I'd probably need it with for at least a week to give any answer I was relatively certain of.