Dagger for Identification

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, what I said in my initial post was that I have never seen even a photo of badik that looks like this one.

In spite of the photos of Sulawesi badiks that Detlef posted, I still have not seen a photo of a badik that looks like this one.

Yes, I agree there is a very approximate, very broad similarity in overall form, but also outstanding significant differences, not only in the blade, but also in the hilt & the scabbard.

I'm guessing that the reason I cannot come right out and give you my total agreement with you is that with weaponry that has an agreed standard form, when I see variation from that standard form my mind tells me I'm seeing something different. Possibly the reason for this mindset is my strong background in Javanese keris & weaponry. If it doesn't fit, it is different.

I definitely do not have any suggestions in respect of where or when this item under discussion might have originated, and I definitely do not have intention of trying to convince you & Detlef that it is not what you believe it to be.

But for me, it is a one off.

[naturalist]

Would love to see the fullered badik is really pamor badik. Since i guess, the origin of the blade might be repurposed from mass produce machetes such as Crocodile (Martindale?) brand that has several fullers..

[kai]

Originally Posted by naturalist

Would love to see the fullered badik is really pamor badik. Since i guess, the origin of the blade might be repurposed from mass produce machetes such as Crocodile (Martindale?) brand that has several fullers..

Thanks, Anton!

To me these fullers look too irregular to be remnants of machine-ground fullers as in some machetes. This also seems true for a few other multi-fullered badik blades I saw.

Would certainly like to see these blades etched though!

Regards,
Kai

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Kai, what I said in my initial post was that I have never seen even a photo of badik that looks like this one.

In spite of the photos of Sulawesi badiks that Detlef posted, I still have not seen a photo of a badik that looks like this one.

Yes, I agree there is a very approximate, very broad similarity in overall form, but also outstanding significant differences, not only in the blade, but also in the hilt & the scabbard.

Hello Alan,

I see what you mean, starting by the blade, the edge by the one in question is straight, by the by me posted examples belly. And of course the notch. And the spine differs as well.
Handle is by the example from JM round at the outer end, by the from me posted examples tapered, also the bend is different.
By the scabbard the bulge is very different too.
So I have to agree with you, it's a different animal.
But why did I think it is from same family? It will be the overall appearance by superficial examination.

Regards,
Detlef

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your response!

Kai, what I said in my initial post was that I have never seen even a photo of badik that looks like this one.

In spite of the photos of Sulawesi badiks that Detlef posted, I still have not seen a photo of a badik that looks like this one.

Yes, I agree there is a very approximate, very broad similarity in overall form, but also outstanding significant differences, not only in the blade, but also in the hilt & the scabbard.

I'm guessing that the reason I cannot come right out and give you my total agreement with you is that with weaponry that has an agreed standard form, when I see variation from that standard form my mind tells me I'm seeing something different. Possibly the reason for this mindset is my strong background in Javanese keris & weaponry. If it doesn't fit, it is different.

I definitely do not have any suggestions in respect of where or when this item under discussion might have originated, and I definitely do not have intention of trying to convince you & Detlef that it is not what you believe it to be.

But for me, it is a one off.

That certainly helps to understand your perspective! I definitely agree that there are differences - most of which I am willing to attribute to an assumed/estimated younger age. For example, there are loads of current era keris from the land of Jawa which fall short of any established pakem and/or exhibit fittings that are not conforming to any keraton standard. Still, I'd be inclined to regard these as keris (at least those with a reasonable amount of craftsmanship put into them and possibly excluding any pieces that are intentionally breaking with tradition and meant to be pure pieces of art only) - as much as I'm inclined to call this piece a badik.

Please also note that the pics referred to above are far from comprehensive - there is more variation. Moreover, despite badik taking the place of keris in the cultures from SW Sulawesi, they don't seem to have been under similarly strong stylistic regulation by the local ruling classes. While we certainly see some regional styles most likely based on long-standing traditions, these apparently were not enforced by the local elites/palace in the recent centuries. We also see lots of mixing or pieces popping up at distant places, most likely due to the political turmoils, long distance trading and traveling (not to mention the many expat communities across SE Asia).

When trying to establish the origin of any piece, differences hardly ever help except to alert oneself to be more cautious with any conclusions. For establishing an origin for anything that doesn't perfectly fit with known examples, we rather have to look for shared similarities, especially those which have a high likelihood to be uniquely based on shared cultural/historic roots:

1. I still feel that the blade shape is quite convincing: There is a bit of variation with clearly antique examples and I'm not aware of any other badik (or other SE Asian blade) coming close; there are some pretty hefty badik blades with belly from elsewhere but this belly has a rounder curve without a sharp point. The waist also varies quite a bit but a distinct choil might well be a (non-traditional) one-off (there are some other SE blades with choil-like features which appear to be unrelated though).
2. The extremely curved hilt seems to point to Gowa but comes in quite some variations as seen in extant antique pieces (see Senjata Pusaka Bugis p.329).
3. The scabbard does not really help - it is missing the typical triangular extension at the mouth (also not present in some antique examples though - see reference above). Also the foot, especially if a separate piece, can vary widely with badik. I agree that this scabbard is not very well crafted as already mentioned by Anton; it might even be younger than I suggested for the badik.
4. Badik like the antique examples mentioned above are generally referred to as either Makassarese or specifically of Lompobattang style. I'm not sure if this style was really limited to the Lompobattang region or whether this may have been just the last notable/remaining production center. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that similar and possibly slightly variant styles might originate from neighbouring areas.

Thus, let me re-phrase my original suggestion:

Yes, it definitely is a badik from Sulawesi: This blade shape with a pronounced belly as well as the steeply angled/curving hilt suggest that it originates from the region of Lompobattang.

I believe this to be a badik from Sulawesi: This blade shape with a pronounced belly and a pretty sharp point as well as the steeply angled/curving hilt suggest that it most likely originates from the sphere of influence of Gowa, possibly from the wider region of Lompobattang. The scabbard is not of a very typical form and of lesser quality; this may attest to its later manufacture (maybe DIY).

Regards,
Kai