Keris Blambangan Pamor Nyekrak

A. G. Maisey · 13th December 2011, 08:51 AM

Thanks for that explanation Ferry. As I've said, I'd never heard the word used in relation to pamor, but it does make perfect sense, however, I feel that the word is "nyekerak", not "nyekrak". Pronunciation would be virtually the same, but "nyekrak" simply makes no sense. "nyekerak" makes a lot of sense. I have run this past several native speakers of Javanese since I first tendered my opinion on the confusion attached to this word, and all have said pretty much what I'm saying now. None are keris people, but they all speak Javanese every day of their lives.

Karttikeya, the tangguh game is essentially a system of classification, and it involves giving an opinion. However, when we give an opinion that results in classifying a keris as one tangguh or another, we need to be able to substantiate that opinion. When I said that I thought your keris was likely to be Tuban, rather than Blambangan, I was drawing upon a dozen or so indicators that in a perfect example of a Tuban blade would be found to exist. Because I'm only looking at a photo, not holding the blade in my hand, I cannot apply all of the indicators, however, in the case of a blade with tangguh Tuban, the top of the gonjo is very hard to ignore as a primary indicator of tangguh, add to that the cross section of the blade, and there is probably enough evidence from the photo to say I'm better than 90% sure that a classification of Tuban for your blade would be very difficult to disallow.

Now, if we look at tangguh Blambangan, Ki Darmosoegito provides 8 indicators for tangguh Blambangan. The very first of those indicators is:

wangunipun ganja, sebit lontar = the form of the gonjo is sebit lontar

for your keris we need read no further, because quite clearly the gonjo of your keris is not sebit lontar.

You see, it is not sufficient to say --- well my friend has a Blambangan keris, and my keris looks like his keris.

Just maybe your friend's keris is not Blambangan either --- well, at least not by the standards set by the great ahli keris of the past, such as Ki Darmosoegito, and Mas Ngabehi Wirasoekadgo .

If we wish to classify a keris as any tangguh, we need to be able to give the reasons why we favour one particular tangguh above others, and that supportive argument usually includes a number of specific reasons, reasons that we can back up by reference to a recognized past authority. My own usual authority is Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, and he drew upon Darmosoegito and Wirasoekadgo.

With some tangguh classifications we may not be able to quote a past authority, a very sticky tangguh in this regard is Banten, if this is the case, that we cannot quote an authority, then we need to be able to support our opinion with a logical argument.

Yes, tangguh is just opinion, but if that opinion is to have any value, and to be respected by others, it needs to be able to be substantiated.

Karttikeya · 13th December 2011, 01:43 PM

Pak Alan, thank you for your explanations. I am sorry, in my understanding this ganja type is sebit rontal, correct me if I am wrong, if not sebit rontal then what type of ganja can be addressed on this ganja form? May I know how do you recognise primary indicator of tangguh from the top of the ganja? Does the top of the ganja mean sirah cecak? Thank you in advance..

A. G. Maisey · 13th December 2011, 08:53 PM

The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris.

Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang).

The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point.

The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square.

There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo.

The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo.

Sajen · 13th December 2011, 10:02 PM

Hello Alan,

only for my better understanding, do you mean a shape like shown in my pictures? I don't want to say that this is a Tuban blade but think that this is the shape you referring about.

Regards,

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 13th December 2011, 10:42 PM

That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle.

Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion.

My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

Sajen · 13th December 2011, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle.

Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion.

My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

Like I have written was it my intention to know if I understand you correct. But here two pictures of the blade and a picture direct from up to the gonjo without handle.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 12:59 AM

Detlef, your photo is at an angle, I can't see any more from this than from the previous ones. What you are looking for is a straight line, without any inward curve, between gendhok and buntut urang. If you have that there is a very strong probability you're looking at Tuban, if do not have that, you might have Tuban, you might have something else.

All I can say is that you are moving towards the Tuban form.

A real life example is actually pretty useless for this game, because what we are trying to do is to set a standard and a standard is best set from a drawing. In an actual example there can a very great range of variation that can still fit within the parameters.

Clip the buntut urang square on a nguceng mati, and that is Tuban.It has the appearance of having been foreshortened.

ferrylaki · 14th December 2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris.

Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang).

The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point.

The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square.

There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo.

The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo.

Alan, I always admire the way you explain on tangguh. I have no doubt this keris is a tuban, and I quite sure of it.
Blambangan keris are quite famous between keris collectors and keris dealers here ini Indonesia. in my 6 years experience in keris, I only met a few blambangan keris which I can really sure it is indeed a blambangan.
I met The most magnificent blambangan keris in 2009, the dhapur is sepokal and the pamor is blarak.
I have some indication which that make me sure it is blambangan keris. and it has sebit rontal gonjo, the buntut urang is wide, the iron just similar to a good majapahit.
Since the keris was come with a splendid sandangan that I just cant afford.
the pendok was bunton krawang with 160 gram of 23 karat gold, the selut and mendak is 20 gram of 23karat gold. and the warangka is an original aromatic sandal wood surakarta ladrang iras. that's what I call A perfect harmony in a keris dress. and I just can't afford it. what a tragic story I have.
There's no picture, sorry .

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 02:52 AM

Yeah Ferry, I think its Tuban too, but I really dislike being too positive when I don't have the thing in my hand.

Photos can lie.

What happens if you get it your hand and you find it is short? or a thin, wimpy little thing? or the iron is wrong? there are a heap of keris out there that look like something in a pic, but as soon as you pick them up you realise you've got something made by some village smith in back of beyond, and you really couldn't give it a justifiable tangguh at all --- not that that stops a lot of people.

Yes, keris that can be classified as Blambangan are pretty few and far between.

The dress on that one you missed sounds quite exceptional, but its a fact of life that we can't have everything we might like.

Deprivation is good for the soul.

Karttikeya · 14th December 2011, 03:34 AM

Pak Alan ,thank you for your explanations. Detlef, thank you for sharing nice keris photographs.
In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture. The people who told me that this ganja is sebit rontal are experienced, surely more experienced than me because I am beginner on this. Pak Alan, I have no doubt with your knowledges and experiences in keris and Javanese culture, because you have said that you are 90% sure that this is Tuban blade, I appreciate your opinion.
Secondly I have not found Tuban keris with pamor nyekrak like this. If any member has Tuban blade with pamor nyekrak like my blade, kindly share with us, I am glad to learn much more in this forum. I have a blade, supposed to be Tuban, but I noticed this keris totally different different with this blade, iron, pamor, style are different.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 06:40 AM

Yes, the pamor is a problem. No doubt of it.

This is one reason why I say "90%'. Playing tangguh is difficult enough at any time, but from photos?

This is the reason I always qualify my statements:- "based on what I can see in the photograph ---"

Jean · 14th December 2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karttikeya

In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture.

Sebit Ron versus Sebit Ron Tal
According to the EK (page 413), the term Sebit Ron designates a ganja with a "waist" on the back side when looked from the top and as shown by Alan, while the term Sebit Ron Tal designates a ganja which has a shape which curves downwards on the back side when looked from the front. So the 2 terms designate different features.
IMO the kris from Karttikeya has a gonjo wuwung (see EK page 537) in which the top and bottom lines are more or less parallel when looked from the front.
Best regards

13th December 2011, 08:53 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris. Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang). The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point. The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square. There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo. The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo. Attached Images

13th December 2011, 10:02 PM	#4
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,272	Hello Alan, only for my better understanding, do you mean a shape like shown in my pictures? I don't want to say that this is a Tuban blade but think that this is the shape you referring about. Regards, Detlef Attached Images

13th December 2011, 08:51 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Thanks for that explanation Ferry. As I've said, I'd never heard the word used in relation to pamor, but it does make perfect sense, however, I feel that the word is "nyekerak", not "nyekrak". Pronunciation would be virtually the same, but "nyekrak" simply makes no sense. "nyekerak" makes a lot of sense. I have run this past several native speakers of Javanese since I first tendered my opinion on the confusion attached to this word, and all have said pretty much what I'm saying now. None are keris people, but they all speak Javanese every day of their lives. Karttikeya, the tangguh game is essentially a system of classification, and it involves giving an opinion. However, when we give an opinion that results in classifying a keris as one tangguh or another, we need to be able to substantiate that opinion. When I said that I thought your keris was likely to be Tuban, rather than Blambangan, I was drawing upon a dozen or so indicators that in a perfect example of a Tuban blade would be found to exist. Because I'm only looking at a photo, not holding the blade in my hand, I cannot apply all of the indicators, however, in the case of a blade with tangguh Tuban, the top of the gonjo is very hard to ignore as a primary indicator of tangguh, add to that the cross section of the blade, and there is probably enough evidence from the photo to say I'm better than 90% sure that a classification of Tuban for your blade would be very difficult to disallow. Now, if we look at tangguh Blambangan, Ki Darmosoegito provides 8 indicators for tangguh Blambangan. The very first of those indicators is: wangunipun ganja, sebit lontar = the form of the gonjo is sebit lontar for your keris we need read no further, because quite clearly the gonjo of your keris is not sebit lontar. You see, it is not sufficient to say --- well my friend has a Blambangan keris, and my keris looks like his keris. Just maybe your friend's keris is not Blambangan either --- well, at least not by the standards set by the great ahli keris of the past, such as Ki Darmosoegito, and Mas Ngabehi Wirasoekadgo . If we wish to classify a keris as any tangguh, we need to be able to give the reasons why we favour one particular tangguh above others, and that supportive argument usually includes a number of specific reasons, reasons that we can back up by reference to a recognized past authority. My own usual authority is Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, and he drew upon Darmosoegito and Wirasoekadgo. With some tangguh classifications we may not be able to quote a past authority, a very sticky tangguh in this regard is Banten, if this is the case, that we cannot quote an authority, then we need to be able to support our opinion with a logical argument. Yes, tangguh is just opinion, but if that opinion is to have any value, and to be respected by others, it needs to be able to be substantiated.

13th December 2011, 01:43 PM	#2
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Pak Alan, thank you for your explanations. I am sorry, in my understanding this ganja type is sebit rontal, correct me if I am wrong, if not sebit rontal then what type of ganja can be addressed on this ganja form? May I know how do you recognise primary indicator of tangguh from the top of the ganja? Does the top of the ganja mean sirah cecak? Thank you in advance..

13th December 2011, 10:42 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle. Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion. My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

14th December 2011, 12:59 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Detlef, your photo is at an angle, I can't see any more from this than from the previous ones. What you are looking for is a straight line, without any inward curve, between gendhok and buntut urang. If you have that there is a very strong probability you're looking at Tuban, if do not have that, you might have Tuban, you might have something else. All I can say is that you are moving towards the Tuban form. A real life example is actually pretty useless for this game, because what we are trying to do is to set a standard and a standard is best set from a drawing. In an actual example there can a very great range of variation that can still fit within the parameters. Clip the buntut urang square on a nguceng mati, and that is Tuban.It has the appearance of having been foreshortened.

14th December 2011, 02:52 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yeah Ferry, I think its Tuban too, but I really dislike being too positive when I don't have the thing in my hand. Photos can lie. What happens if you get it your hand and you find it is short? or a thin, wimpy little thing? or the iron is wrong? there are a heap of keris out there that look like something in a pic, but as soon as you pick them up you realise you've got something made by some village smith in back of beyond, and you really couldn't give it a justifiable tangguh at all --- not that that stops a lot of people. Yes, keris that can be classified as Blambangan are pretty few and far between. The dress on that one you missed sounds quite exceptional, but its a fact of life that we can't have everything we might like. Deprivation is good for the soul.

14th December 2011, 03:34 AM	#10
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Pak Alan ,thank you for your explanations. Detlef, thank you for sharing nice keris photographs. In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture. The people who told me that this ganja is sebit rontal are experienced, surely more experienced than me because I am beginner on this. Pak Alan, I have no doubt with your knowledges and experiences in keris and Javanese culture, because you have said that you are 90% sure that this is Tuban blade, I appreciate your opinion. Secondly I have not found Tuban keris with pamor nyekrak like this. If any member has Tuban blade with pamor nyekrak like my blade, kindly share with us, I am glad to learn much more in this forum. I have a blade, supposed to be Tuban, but I noticed this keris totally different different with this blade, iron, pamor, style are different.

14th December 2011, 06:40 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes, the pamor is a problem. No doubt of it. This is one reason why I say "90%'. Playing tangguh is difficult enough at any time, but from photos? This is the reason I always qualify my statements:- "based on what I can see in the photograph ---"