Sepang Buda

A. G. Maisey · 21st February 2012, 12:06 PM

Thank you Karttikeya, but I'm sorry, I cannot see what I would like to be able to see from these photos.

Karttikeya · 22nd February 2012, 10:10 AM

I cannot provide more photos at this time, later on I will provide more photos of the blade. In terms of shape of the blade, can we classify the blade as keris? I personally think that the blade does not look like a keris however rather seen as a knife..dunno yet..

A. G. Maisey · 22nd February 2012, 12:28 PM

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, 04:37 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, 01:08 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, 10:56 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, 04:21 AM

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

26th February 2012, 01:08 PM	#5
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

21st February 2012, 12:06 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	Thank you Karttikeya, but I'm sorry, I cannot see what I would like to be able to see from these photos.

22nd February 2012, 10:10 AM	#2
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	I cannot provide more photos at this time, later on I will provide more photos of the blade. In terms of shape of the blade, can we classify the blade as keris? I personally think that the blade does not look like a keris however rather seen as a knife..dunno yet..

22nd February 2012, 12:28 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	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, 04:37 PM	#4
GIO Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 331	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, 10:56 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	Does this blade have a core, or is the metal the same all the way through, IE, no pamor layer?

27th February 2012, 04:21 AM	#7
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.