keris palembang

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

Hello Alan,
I attach the pics as requested and hope that they are adequate.
I would like to add the following indicators which point to a 17th century blade rather than a Surakarta one IMO:
. The blade remains wide to almost the point, the width is still 2.2 cm at the last luk (29 cm from the base of the blade).
. The kembang kacang is very strong.
. The short kruwingan depan & belakang (or long tikel alis & sraweyan) are very typical of these 17th century blades.
. If the blade had originally 13 luks as I would expect, there is no Surakarta dhapur matching with this one (Parungsari and Sengkelat being the closest).
. Last but not least, the thin twin lines on the sirak cecak of the ganja are very typical of these 17th century blades and not (or very rarely) seen on Surakarta blades to my best knowledge.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, yes, I agree with you, this can be classified as Banten. I think this demonstrates just how difficult it can be to classify from photos. There is so much that cannot be adequately appraised from photos, that it is silly to even try in most cases. I'd still like this in my hand to be absolutely certain, but I can now see sufficient to be reasonably confident that we're not looking at Surakarta.

[Jean]

Thank you Alan and I am glad that you could confirm my opinion with some certainty. It is a pity that the blade was damaged, it mat be younger than the 17th Century although it has kept the original features of these blades brought to Europe at that time. I am personally amazed by the quality of the pamor pattern and carving of the ricikan considering the presumed age of this piece.
Regards