keris palembang
 

I'd like to share some pictures with you from one of my Palembang keris, for your enjoyment / feedback…. :)

A sepokal blade with Pamor: keleng, and a sharply defined ada-ada running full length of the blade.

Text book Palembang, however, if we saw this blade alone, by itself only, no dress, what classification (ie, tangguh) would we be forced to give it?

Looks like a Balinese blade to my eyes ... But my beginning opinion could surely be wrong hahaha

No, not Bali.

Not a sepokal blade anyway IMO :)

True Jean, it is not, I'd give it as Sinom Robyong, but the interesting thing is the tannguh that it is not, but in a different suit of clothes, would be.

Thank you for the comment, I already understood that a keris from Palembang is not easy for me me to understand , as mentioned in an older post with a similar blade:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ight=palembang

Yes, Palembang is difficult.

The tangguh system that I use is the one I was was taught by Mpu Suparman. It addresses major tangguh classifications only. However, minor tangguh classifications can be accepted. The overriding requirement to give any blade as a tangguh classification is that it should be a style that can be regarded as representative of a geographic area or of a period of time, an era.

The problem with Palembang is that keris made in the area of Palembang were made in a number of styles that were copies of styles from other areas and other eras. For Palembang there is no hard-core dedicated style that we can associate only with Palembang. For this reason it is in my opinion impossible to have a "tangguh Palembang", but in recent years dealers in Jakarta, and I guess other places as well, have wanted to describe keris as "tangguh Palembang".

So this keris under discussion could resemble a Banten keris, or a keris from Central Jawa, but Banten keris seem to have a stylistic variation that might prevent classification as "tangguh", and keris from Central Jawa have several different tangguh classifications.

Any ideas about what might be appropriate for this particular keris?

The dapur of the blade looks Javanese but it may rather be from Palembang for the following reasons:
. The blade looks rather short, less than 35 cm?
. Pamor keleng
. Shape of the greneng, jenggot, twin lambe gajah, and gonjo (top view).
. The fitting of the blade into the scabbard is so neat that it looks original.
Regards

Hello Alan,

Well, the square blumbangan points to the Mataram line (including extant offspring substyles). The ron dha are very crisp - most old blades will exhibit worn down and restored greneng.

From the excellent state of preservation, I'd guess that this blade entered a colonial collection right after manufacture; there even seem to be some working scratches left at the base.

I believe that this blade got crafted in Palembang following old Mataram style; if the ri padan were not sharp on the inside curve (difficult to establish from the posted pics - an angled view would help), this would support the notion.

Regards,
Kai

Hello Jean,

You beat me to it! Seems we agree pretty much. :)

Palembang blades of this style can be very small to really large.

Pamor keleng is also not unheard of with keris Jawa that focus on garap; thus, I'd prefer to leave pamor out of the equation.

Yup, most Palembang blades seem to approach gonjo of nyirah cecak style. (Except for those keris Palembang which are obviously Bugis-influenced or based on Sumatran styles, pretty much all prabot details seem to be borrowed from keris Jawa or keris Sunda.)

Yes, the crosspiece fit seems original; however, it could have been crafted for an imported blade, too.

Regards,
Kai

Just to state the obvious: I believe this is a very neat status blade which is also confirmed by the high-quality timber selected for the scabbard crosspiece. (I can't see much of the stem - this may have been covered by a suasa pendok, anyway.)

My guess is that this keris dates back to the early period when the Dutch took over Palembang. However, the hilt and the selut seem to be much younger and of lesser quality. I'd put these in a box and look for a high-quality Palembang hilt to bring this ensemble back to its former glory. Luckily, Palembang hilts are not terribly rare - make sure to find one with a real Palembang selut and of suitable size to the blade though! (I don't recommend trying to upgrade any keris by default; I'm sure this isn't an original ensemble though.)

Regards,
Kai

Jean & Kai, I do find your comments interesting, but I do not wish to float my own general comments.

This is in my opinion a keris ( I am speaking of the keris itself, not the keris + dress) from which more than a little might be learnt.

Are either of you prepared to nominate a classification, ie, tangguh, for this keris?

Sirek, what is the length of the bade (excluding the pesi) please?

Hi Jean, the length of the blade is 34cm

Hello Kai, are these pictures any help?

(and you are absolutely right, the hilt and the selut are of inferior quality and will definitely be replaced in the future :) )

Hello Sirek,

Yes, this confirms my suggestion that this blade most likely got crafted in Palembang (this feature seems to be restricted to blades from southern Sumatra (and, possibly, Sunda).

Thus, we may have a legitimate reason to assign this blade to "tangguh" Palembang/Lampung even if these blades happen to copy several other styles/eras.

I'll try to answer Alan's question which I understand to ask this: "If we were considering this blade as originating from the land of Jawa, which of the major tangguh can it be attributed to?"

Regards,
Kai

My impression is similar to Kai's that the blade is more probably from Palembang origin than from Central Java, so the tangguh identification may not be relevant? I am excluding the tangguh kamardikan as the blade does not look very recent.

Hello Alan,

Ok, let's assume for this mental exercise that this blade really was from the land of Jawa...

We're only looking at the major classifications and being Jawa-centristic pretty much ignore any peripheral origins...

I already stated that the blade clearly is from the Mataram line.

While the garap and some of the prabot may be a tad stiff (lambe gajah, gandik, etc.) and the greneng not cut to perfection, it might still be old Mataram; I'm just trying to imagine 2 centuries of maintenance by acid washing and just about all of these detractions will be pretty much gone for good or restored to current tastes!

The elephant trunk seems to have quite a bit of substance and will tend to loose less material from erosion; however, by modern standards it could be a bit heavier to begin with. This, coupled with a slight slant of the gandik, would make me to also consider Madura Sepuh. If this was an old survivor from any European kunstkammer, I'd need a lot more time for detailed comparisons. Given a more realistic timeframe of about 200 years, I'd be inclined to opt for the old Madura classification.


So, to wrap things up: Do we have a Madurese craftsman living in Palembang and trying to copy old Mataram style? ;)

Regards,
Kai

Sorry, some nit-picking: If really measured from gonjo (at the center of the pesi) to the tip of the blade, it will be in the range of 330-335mm - pretty much average if there is any such thing with Palembang blades.

As mentioned, this doesn't mean much: I've handled Palembang blades of this dhapur from close to 200mm (8") to well over 400mm (16")!

Regards,
Kai

Just adding pics in standard orientation:

I think I need to clarify exactly what I mean when I use the word "Tangguh".

Firstly, when I use the word "Tangguh" I am using it in the way that my teachers used it, and that means that it does not mean that just because a keris has been made in a particular place, or during a particular era, that automatically confers upon it the right to use the place where it was made, or the era during which it was made as its "Tangguh".

As an example:- I have made a number of keris myself, I have made a couple in styles other than the Surakarta style, but the only keris I made under Empu Suparman's direction was made in Surakarta style, and most others I have made have been made in Surakarta style too.
Several of these keris have been made in Australia, but does that mean that these keris are "Tangguh Old Toongabbie"? Old Toongabbie, a suburb of Sydney, being exactly where they were made.

No, it does not. These keris are Tangguh Surakarta because they are stylistically Surakarta.

In olden times the style of a keris usually indicated where it was made, so when we affix a Tangguh that relates to a particular geographic location we are basing that affixation of location upon style.

Within the Tangguh system that I was taught, there is room for classifications other than Javanese classifications, in the notebook that records my original instruction I can find Madura, Kupang, Bali, Bugis. If I take this a little further, what I find is that Tangguh Kupang actually does not refer to Kupang at all, it refers to keris that came from the islands to the east of Bali, the people who began to use "Tangguh Kupang" knew that these keris came from East of Bali, they knew Kupang was to the east of Bali, so these "East of Bali" keris got named as "Tangguh Kupang".

Then we have "Tangguh Bugis", and the basis for that Tangguh is the keris that is stylistically Bugis, it does not matter where it was made, what matters is its style.

Same with Madura, if a keris has the stylistic attributes of a keris that is KNOWN to have been made in Madura, that keris is Tangguh Madura, even though it may have been made in Malang, on the mainland of Jawa.

One keris that I made was made in the Surakarta style, but with a Balinese level of craftsmanship and finish. Several ahli keris from Solo commented on it in almost the same words:_"This is a Surakarta keris, but it was made in Bali" actually it was made in Australia, but when I gave it to these men for comment I did not initially tell them that I had made it.

Tangguh is NOT the keris equivalent of "Made in China", or "Made in USA".

Tangguh is an opinion of a keris classification that may or may not TRULY relate to the place where the keris was made, or the era from which it came, and it is based upon the style of the keris.

For example, Tangguh Pengging is often given as "Tangguh Pengging Witaradya(Witorodyo)".

Pengging is a real location, it is near Solo airport in the present day district of Banudono and during late Majapahit it was a small administrative area, probably about equivalent to a kabupaten these days. However Pengging Witaradya or Wikaradya is purely mythical and is probably placed in 9th century Central Jawa.

Tangguh is an opinion that is part of a belief system and to understand what it does mean, might mean and can mean we need to be able to think about the concept of tangguh in a Javanese way.

Now, Kai has decided that my original question relating to tangguh was not phrased sufficiently clearly and he has decided to rephrase it in a form that he feels is more correct. Regrettably Kai was unable to understand my question, which was:-

" --- if we saw this blade alone, by itself only, no dress, what classification (ie, tangguh) would we be forced to give it?"

In the above text I have done my best to try to explain what the concept of "tangguh" is and how we need to consider and apply it.

Anybody feel like answering my question?

I have impression that tangguh is towards Jawa. Sorry for my poor knowledge. Is gut feel.

My guess-timate is tangguh Lombok/Sumbawa, but my knowledge is surely worse than yours.....

One complex world indeed.

tangguh Surakarta for what my 10 cents is worth.... although, and I write this without any real classification working knowledge, just a "stab" in the dark so to speak.... I'd say compared to the example presented, the Surakarta are with a subtle narrowing in the middle where as this example seems to taper more over its whole length.... but its as good as my references and working knowledge go...

Gavin

Well Gavin, you're not bad.

Got no kewpie dolls to hand out, but for a non-keris sort of bloke that's a real good ten cents worth.

Yes, Surakarta.

If we were to work through the indicators one by one we would see that it agrees very heavily with Surakarta. The only questionable indicator is the blumbangan. Kai tells us it is square, but on my monitor it is just marginally elongated. Camera angles and monitors can distort the exact proportions, and it is not the classic long narrow blumbangan that is typically Surakarta.

But putting that blumbangan to one side, everything else is there, however, it is there in what I would call a "comic book" rendition, as if the maker has heard all about what the Surakarta blade looks like, but maybe is not very familiar with them in his hand.

For a Surakarta blade, I could not consider this blade to be high quality work, there is too much variation in the ron dha sections of the greneng. These ron dha are definitely Surakarta and are primary indicators, once we see this ron dha form we then begin to look for something that will tell us that the keris cannot be Surakarta, something that will without argument eliminate Surakarta. In this keris there is no negative indicator that will positively eliminate Surakarta.

The variation that is very obvious in the ron dha sections possibly indicates that there will be considerable variation in placement and execution of the features on opposite faces of the blade. High quality workmanship demands that the features perfectly echo each other on each blade face. Perfect means exactly that:- perfect. Almost perfect is not good enough in this case.

I believe this keris was made in Sumatera, but that does not make it Tangguh Palembang or Tangguh Jambi. However, the entire ensemble is a very nice example of a Palembang keris.

If it were mine I would not change a thing on it, everything hangs together nicely exactly as it is.

There are solid cultural reasons, apart from personal preferences, why men choose to wear humble clothing and non-ostentatious accoutrements, and when such a nice example as this comes our way it is perhaps a little arrogant of somebody who is not a part of the originating culture to take it upon himself to override the taste of the previous owner.

This thread might be of interest:-

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ghlight=GINJEI

Gavin, your comments on the overall form of the blade are quite perceptive, a Surakarta blade should ideally have a defined "chest" on the front edge, and on the back edge and placed a little lower, more towards the gonjo, there should be a defined swelling that is the "back". It is not so much a narrowing in the centre but a swelling that protrudes beyond the line of the edge, front higher, back lower.

Awesome Gavin. Thanks Alan for sharing..........

Thanks Alan. This isn't new to me as you have described this many times in the past. But this approach to tangguh is one that seems to be consistently ignored these days. You have laid this out rather concisely and clearly here i believe. :)

Thank you all for the informative contribution! :)

Hi Alan
you mention Am I right in thinking you mean if you flip the blade over the ron dha section should look exactly the same, effectively that would mean that the cuts are exactly level with no taper or tilt OR are you contrasting the right hand side with the left hand side
thanks
David

Yes David, but much, much more than that.

The point of the sogokan (poyuhan) must be exactly, precisely the same distance from the blade base (ie wilah base, excludes gonjo) on each blade face, placement of each single feature must be precisely the same on each blade face.

The rondha and the greneng overall must be exactly the same on each side.

The work on a top level Surakarta blade is expected to be extremely precise, what we can see in these pics would indicate that if we had this blade in hand and examined it under magnification and measured it accurately we might find unacceptable variation. What I mean by "unacceptable" is unacceptable to permit this blade to be regarded as top level. Good, yes, but not good enough.

Thanks Alan,

Your posts are very educational. The last paragraph above again helped me understand more on the subtleties, thank you for the perspective.

A lot of it all eludes me but every now and then I grasp a little. I can't claim any real credit or knowledge though. You proposed a question, I hit the books. I really wish I could read many other languages as it was Haryono Haryoguritno's work Keris Jawa that eventually got me on point, but not until I thumbed through every page a few times did things slot in to place... my kingdom for an English translation!

Gavin

Gavin, when I asked that question I had in my mind that all anybody who could see needed to do was open up "Keris Jawa" and have a bit of a browse.

It is very seldom that we can give a halfway decent opinion of a keris classification from a photo. Segaluh is about the only one I can think of where just about anybody should get it. But with this Surakarta keris, probably made in Palembang, it was just so obvious that I was certain somebody would get it, and it is a really interesting blade. Worth the time to consider the nature of keris coming out of Sumatra.

Actually the very best book for any beginner in keris is not Haryoguritno, you need a pretty decent level of knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff. The best beginner's book on Javanese keris is Garrett & Bronwen Solyom's "World of the Javanese Keris". If you want to understand keris, that's where you start.

When considering keris books written by Indonesians it is always worth remembering that the motivation for writing these books should not ever be considered to be the same as the motivation for somebody who is not Indonesian to write such a book.

Garrett & Bronwen's book was written purely to provide solid knowledge to people who lacked that knowledge. It has no error.

Hello all,

Apologies for not responding in a timely manner - I’ve been too busy to catch up earlier.

Looking at the pics again, it’s well possible that I was far out in the left field, especially with bringing Madura into the discussion: The overview pic seems to be taken at an angle (blade tilted to the right) which results in some distortion; wide-eye lenses (mobile phones) tend to distort images even further. When looking at pics, I try to mentally correct for such distortions - this time I got stuck though.

However, if I go from the pics (especially the close-up of the base of the blade and this photographic representation is all we can go by on this forum), this blumbangan still seems to be very close to square. Whenever I measure from the enlarged close-up, I obtain a ratio of height/width very close to 1 (i.e. square shape), about 1.02 (range 1.075-0.966). [A standing brick would be expected to have a ratio well above 1, a lying brick well below 1.]

Alan, I’m sure, when assessing a keris blade, you go by a mental image (i.e. general impression) of the proportions rather than actual measurements; however, could you narrow down which measurements may be most suited though, please? (E.g. length of the left edge of the blumbangan and possibly shortest connection between upper left corner of blumbangan to centerline of the blade? Or does this connection need to be perpendicular to the ada-ada/janur or even perpendicular to the left edge of the blumbangan?)

It’s my understanding that the proportion of the blumbangan is of quite some importance; at least it is one of the least likely features to change after manufacture.

Greneng resembling this style are seen in keris from early European Kunstkammer collections, too. These may well hark back to Majapahit styles (if not originating from this era which seems less likely for most of these blades). Thus, this ron dha style is not restricted to Surakarta either.

I have absolutely no problems to accept your line of reasoning for the small keris Palembang shown by John in the thread referenced earlier (post #7) - you already mentioned the close relationship to Surakarta style back then (post #23 in the older thread).

With the current example, there seems to be too much conflicting evidence (ron dha, blumbangan, blade shape) to reach a safe conclusion in my very humble opinion. Perhaps you can tell us more about weighting possibly incongruous features, Alan? Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Kai

Hello Alan,

If there was any evidence suggesting that this keris is an ensemble that was traditionally worn by a former owner as-is (or even a decent likelihood only), I’d fully agree not to change anything. However, very few keris have enough provenance to suggest them likely being genuine ensembles.

Usually we have to go by indicators when trying to estimate whether any given keris may survive as an original ensemble.

For keris Palembang, we have a pretty good number of extant examples to reconstruct how original status ensembles looked like; this one doesn’t feel right to me at all…

As already mentioned (post #12), it is wise to keep any replaced parts. And to pass them on to any future owners so that any changes are fully reversible.

I believe the majority of keris in collections worldwide got sold/traded (usually via several middlemen) and many ensembles got altered during this process. While there are certainly genuine examples with fittings that are of thoroughly mixed origins and also reflect the genuine choice of the last traditional owner within his(/her) cultural environment, this seems to be a bit farfetched as a default assumption for most extant ensembles with strong discrepancies in style and/or quality, I believe.

(I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)

Regards,
Kai

Refer Post 34
 

Yes Kai, you're right, if I look at a blade it is measured against a mental template, initial appraisal is always based on overall impression that takes into account the dominant feeling of the pawakan, and any particular characteristic that is only attributable to a particular classification.

Once you have that you then examine more closely to try to disprove the initial evaluation. If you cannot disprove that initial evaluation, it stands.

Blumbangan is of relative importance but it cannot over-rule everything else.

Blade classification in my terms is "tangguh" in the terms of just about everybody else, I use "classification" because I have yet to meet anybody from a western culture who truly understands all the things that "keris tangguh" expresses to a Javanese ahli keris. Use of the word "classification" simplifies things and brings the whole concept back to something that people who are outside Javanese culture can more or less understand.

Never forget this:- the Solonese tangguh system was initiated for very specific reasons, reasons that I will not go into here, it was not initiated so that keris collectors would have something to talk about. This tangguh system should only be applied to very high quality blades of investment quality. Yes everybody now wants to stick a tangguh onto everything, but that is not really the way things are supposed to work.

When we look very closely at a high quality blade we base our judgement on the impression , some things are measurable, I mean able to measured precisely with verniers, things like the width of a kruwingan, other things are close to impossible to measure accurately, or perhaps can be part measured and then we gauge placement and impression.

The greneng is the maker's signature. Look at the illustrations in KJ.

It is not only the signature of the maker, but also a major indicator of classification. The ron dha used in a Surakarta keris is similar to the ron dha used in a keris that is classifiable as Mojo, but it is not the same.

We need to be pay extremely close attention to detail when we look at quality keris.

Surakarta echoes Mojo, but it is very far from being the same, and within the Surakarta classification there is variation between periods and makers, and vast variation in quality.

To even begin to understand this we need a very great deal of experience. There is no easy way, there is no formula, there is nothing that can be written down as a set of rules. We need to handle one hell of a lot of keris in the presence of and under the guidance of somebody who really does understand.

The judgement of a blade classification is an opinion. Sometimes that opinion will be based on a 99% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be based on a 51% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be 50/50.

Whether the opinion is accepted or not is usually based upon the generally agreed position of the person giving the opinion. This is exactly the same as applies in the world of art in general where an appraiser is generally agreed as being the greatest living authority on the work of a particular period, or artist within a period.

Refer post 35
 

I understand "genuine ensemble" as meaning a keris that is in the dress that it had when it left the culture of origin. If that keris was with a custodian who actually wore it, or whether it was with a dealer or agent within the culture of origin, I accept that ensemble as genuine.

Why do I include dealers and agents?

Because in the societies with which I am familiar, many people buy a keris fully dressed from a dealer or agent and never touch it as long as they have it.

This can vary of course, sometimes a keris will be redressed to suit an occasion, often a single blade can have half a dozen different forms of dress, for example dress to attend an evening function, dress to inspect ricefields, dress to go to an afternoon of dance practice, dress to appear less than one really is, dress to appear more than one really is.

To form an opinion on the "genuiness" of keris dress based upon a keris seen out of context is unwise and cannot be substantiated. It is an opinion formed without knowledge. We need to see the keris within its context in order to form an opinion that can be substantiated.

The idea of keeping replaced parts on a keris may be something that would appeal to a collector who is based in a society outside the area of origin, but it is something that within society of origin would be regarded as being at best something to smile at. Something like keeping a worn out suit of clothes, or the suit that you wore when you were a junior clerk, as opposed to the suit that you wear when you attend a board meeting.

Frankly, I do not see this keris as a "status" keris. It is made in a particular style, but it is almost a caricature of that style, as if the style has been described and noted, but the maker has perhaps never seen more than one or two of that style in his life.

It is a nice keris, but to paint it as "status" is more than a bit extreme.

Kai, in respect of this:-

" (I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)"

I don't have time to go looking for what I wrote, and since I wrote what has piquied your interest I have probably written something like 25,000 words about a number of subjects and for different purposes.

Could you please direct me to the passage concerned and frame your question as precisely as possible? I'll do my best to respond.

Yes Alan, I fully agree and I would propose that from now on we should use "classification" instead of "tangguh" in this forum to avoid confusion and misunderstanding such as using the tangguh concept for blades from outside Java/ Madura.
In my book and after having failed to properly understand and describe the tangguh concept, I have used the word "style" which may not be fully appropriate but is easily understandable by Western collectors.
BTW I just checked the book "The World of the Javanese Keris" and noticed that unless I miss a few mentions the authors did not use the word "tangguh" at all but referred the age of the blades to the historical periods such as Majapahit, Pajajaran, and Mataram. I feel that the age estimate of some blades is overestimated but this is only my personal opinion.
Regards

Just for reference, pics of the sorsoran of a blade possibly originating from Banten and dating from the 17th century, before and after the warangan treatment.
Regards

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your responses - I'll try to tackle other topics later.


Rather to the contrary, your original statement at the end of post #26 in this thread was too terse for me, I'm afraid. I suppose that you refer to your last post (#15 in the referenced thread) but I fail to see the connection to the current discussion. (If a discussion Palembang style vs Jambi style is deemed relevant, I guess my first question would be who attributed those old keris to Palembang and on what reason?)

Regards,
Kai