Please help me identify this Keris.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Oh dear me Gustav.

Am I being a little too subjective?

Please forgive me. I guess I've spent to much time in Jawa and around people from that place, and sometimes what I say depends on what side of the bed I get out of.

However, maybe you have enough objectivity for the both of us, so yes, of course both these keris are ordinary, and both are old, and both are nice.

But Scott did not ask for a comparison his keris with any other keris, and it is very obvious from his post that he has maybe never seen any keris other than this one, not only that, but it was given to him by his dad.

So what is my preferred response to his question?

What should my evaluation be?

If I were responding to somebody with a reasonable degree of experience my response would be calculated to encourage that person to try to aim just a little bit higher with his next acquisition.

However, in responding to a newcomer to keris, especially one who has asked for some information on a gift from his father, my response will be calculated to encourage him, and to endorse the integrity of the item presented.

It would be very nice if Scott were to become a member of our small community and develop an interest in keris, such a thing would be extremely unlikely to occur were we to denigrate a gift from his father, especially a gift about which many good things can be said.

Gustav, any teacher who is worth his salt will only ever provide information at the level that the student is ready, and able, to assimilate.
The student's level of existing knowledge is indicated by his questions.

Alan, I understand your points, thank you.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Scott's blade has no lambe gajah

Maybe yes, maybe not. The Gandhik is not cylindrical, and if you blow up the picture, there seems to be a tiny bulge and indentation at the place they should be.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I know of no Balinese pakem, but Djelenga does list a dhapur (angun-angunan) for a dhapur that he calls "sempana sanga" (sanga = 9), in other words a 9 luk sempana, but there is a bit of a problem in using Djelenga's indicators, because he does not differentiate between what the Javanese refer to "lambe gajah " and "Jalen", he dumps them both into the same basket:- do both need to exist to be a lambe gajah, or is one sufficient? Do both have the same value, or can one exist alone and still be a lambe gajah, if so, which one --- or either one?

There is a further problem. Djelenga seems to consider that ripandan is the same as greneng (jambul, raeng), but in Javanese terminology a ripandan is only a part of the greneng, so in Djelenga's eyes, is it sufficient for only a ripandan to exist for a keris to have greneng, or is the Balinese concept of raeng and jambul different to the Javanese concept of greneng, or ripandan?

Djelenga is using Lomboknese terms for Keris parts in his book; there are also some Javanese ones in his "Lombok" diagram - I don't know, if they are traditionally used in Lombok, or simply have substituted the original Lombok ones. Or there were none at all.

The Balinese terms are different, I can imagine nobody is using them today. A good diagram (of course quite rudimental comparing to Javanese) can be found in Jasper&Mas Pirngadie, p. 224.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Are flat luk usual for dhapur sempana?

I rather think not, the form of luk depends upon the period during which the blade was made, not upon the dhapur.

Do you know of some other Dhapur we could find flat Luk so constantly?

In which time period or periods flat Luk are favored?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So Gustav, when we try to apply dhapur to a Balinese keris, we're up the creek without a paddle. This is the reason I personally prefer not to try to get too specific with names of dhapur, pamor, or ricikan outside of Jawa. In fact, it is perhaps wise not to get too involved in trying to tie dhapurs onto any blade, except those made by Kraton Surakarta mpus after about 1900. One tiny variation in ricikan from a pakem disallows the affixation of any dhapur, and the keris automatically becomes "diluar pakem". It’s a bit like the girl who forgot when to say "STOP":- you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you are not. A keris has a defined dhapur, or it does not.

I completely agree. Maybe I should use something like Balinese "Sempono type" Keris

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, at this remove we do not know the name of this particular dhapur in Bali, and it is entirely possible that each of the kingdoms may have had different names.

I think you are aware of my hatred of the "name game".

In my opinion pursuit of the elements of the name game is tantamount to stamp collecting.

One can either become a student of the keris and study those things that are of some importance, or one can become a stamp collector and stick names on things, and then graduate to a file clerk, label the things and put them in pigeon holes.

I prefer to use my very limited time in pursuing knowledge of those things which I consider to be of some importance. This is not to say that we should all have the same priorities, different people are attracted to different pursuits, but the name game has almost no attraction for me.

The point I attempted to make in the post that you have so studiously dissected was that we are perhaps best advised not to try to draw conclusions based upon insufficient evidence, and in respect of Bali the available evidence for things related to keris is very lacking. I regret that I failed to make this point.

Regarding the terms used for the various characteristics (ricikan) of a keris. Even within Jawa there is a very wide variation in terminology. Some terms are more frequently used than others, and terms vary from place to place and even person to person. Seen through the distortion of time, these terms become subject to even wider variation. The various terms are not important, what is important in my opinion is the way in which the ricikan are seen, and how the terms are applied. The way in which the ricikan are understood is where the focus should be, not upon the variation in terms.

I am not aware that flat luk occur more frequently in one dhapur than in any other dhapur. If this is the case, I would suggest that it is so because more of any particular dhapur were made at the time when one of the general characteristics of the classification system (tangguh) was a flat luk. As is usual with the keris, this generalisation can become confused by the practice of making early patterns at later periods.

In general terms we can expect to see flattish luk forms in the older classifications of Javanese keris, once we move into the Surakarta period the luk form becomes more pronounced. In the Surakarta Pakem illustration of dhapur sempana the luk form is typical Surakarta, that is, quite deep. In Mataram S.A. the luk became somewhat deeper, but then during Kartosuro the form reverted to the previous flattish one.

[Gustav]

Alan, I hate the name game perhaps as much as you, and I absolutely didn't wanted to get involved in it here.

My only mistake was to say, both blades are Sempono, I should have said instead, these both Balinese blades are resembling the Javanese Dhapur Sempono, as there is no such Balinese Dhapur, and both have Ricikan, which aren't in accordance with Surakarta Pakem of this Dhapur.

This was my only excursion in the realms of name game, all the rest goes on your account.

Jasper&Mas Pirngadie was brought in by me simply, becouse Djelenga with his terminology, mentioned by you, may be a good source regarding Lombok Keris, but not Bali Keris.

Thank you very much for your response regarding flat Luk.