[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your input Ganja.

Radyapustaka sounds pretty authoritative, but it still gets down to the opinion of one man.

Here is re-posting of an earlier post of mine:-

The SKA pakem cengkrong lacks kruwingan, whilst the SKA pakem dhuwung does have kruwingan, also a cengkrong does not need to have the back edge sharp, whereas the dhuwung does.

The subject keris has a sharp back edge and kruwingan.

Using the SKA pakem it cannot be anything other than dhuwung luk lima, but I have no idea at all what it might have been called at the time & in the place where it was made.

I do not think this is a Central Javanese keris, more likely East Jawa, and over there it could have a half dozen other names.

Actually, if we did allow that it was a cengkrong with 5 luk, in spite of the fact that it does not quite satisfy the requirements for a cengkrong, it would then be a Pandowo Cengkrong, not a Cengkrong Luk Lima.

I don't think I have a firm opinion in respect of dhapur, but its nice to see another genuine old example.

However, it is difficult to see detail of your example , I also have some photos of this display case, but my pics are maybe more indistinct than yours.

For me, it gets down to only one thing:- what does the SKA pakem say?

We can have 50 people look at the same thing and all come up with maybe 50 or more different opinions, it is always nice to be able to back up an opinion with some sort of authority.

Marco's keris (post #17) shows a back that in English we would call a pipe back, in the keris this pipe back blade is found in dhapur dhuwung, it is not found in any other dhapur.

Does the Radyapustaka example have a pipe back blade?

If so it is similar to Marco's blade and according to the SKA pakem it qualifies as dhuwung.

If it does not have a pipe back blade then it is not similar to Marco's keris and cengkrong might well apply, in which case the reverse mount is correct in the RP example, the comment in the SKA pakem is "--- ganja kuwalik".