Wilah nr2 hope you can help with identification

Sajen · 7th January 2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amuk Murugul

The Sunda traditionally prefer their blades to be 'dry' looking. Hence they don't stain them.

As well interesting since I have read/heard this before. And I have done an observation: Many (if I am able to say so since I haven't seen so much) keris sheaths from this region are painted (look my first example) or coated with something I don't know so that you can't see the wood. Someone else are able to confirm this? And why is it like this?

Regards,

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 7th January 2012, 09:11 PM

Jean, I don't intend to be difficult, nor evasive here, but I'm afraid that you, and just about everybody else who contributes to discussion here look at keris in a different way to the way in which I look at a keris.

You have shown me photos of two keris, one of which (the full pendok) is probably able to be classified as Cirebon, the other of which is possibly Cirebon, however, in respect of the blades alone, I am not prepared to offer an opinion on origin.

It is very possible that the full pendok keris has a blade that might be able to be classified as Cirebon, and comparison with Ben's blade is worthwhile.

However, although I nearly always talk in terms of "classification", what I'm really talking about is tangguh. I use the English word "classification" because I am mostly addressing an English speaking audience, in Jawa I would use the word "tangguh".

I have often stated that in my opinion it is almost impossible to give an opinion on tangguh from photos. I say "almost impossible", this is because sometimes sufficient indicators are apparent in a photo to permit a supportable opinion to be given. That opinion could , of course, always be incorrect, and only if a blade is handled can a definite, defensible opinion be provided.

The question of classification becomes very, very much more difficult when a blade is a simple dhapur:- no greneng, no ron dha, no sogokan, no kembang kacang. Lacking these indicators it can sometimes approach extreme bravery to offer an opinion in respect of a classification --- or perhaps such opinions simply demonstrate a lack of understanding.

In the Solonese system of tangguh there is no tangguh Cirebon. Cirebon is included in tangguh Pajajaran, and tangguh Pajajaran has several numbered sub-divisions. To be certain of any blade that is suspected of being tangguh Pajajaran one definitely needs the blade in the hand. An opinion cannot be supported on the basis of what can be seen in a photo.

It is worthwhile remembering that the idea of tangguh arose in the ranks of the aristocracy of Central Jawa, principally amongst those who were attached to the Surakarta Karaton, and it arose for a defined purpose. That purpose was not simply to permit neat record keeping and the maintenance of a filing system.

At the present time there is a plethora of tangguh from which to choose, however, thirty years ago, and before that, the number of available tangguh was very much more limited. One may draw one's own conclusions from this. So, now we have tangguh Cirebon, however as I have already stated, I do not know what the indicators are for tangguh Cirebon. The notes in EK are totally inadequate, I can find nothing in any of the classic guidebooks. Who truly knows the indicators for Cirebon? Indicators that will permit the identification of blade if it is tangguh brojol, or tangguh tilam upih?

Now, you Jean, and Detlef have posted some keris as examples of Cirebon keris.

What I can see is four keris that have elements of dress that may, or may not be Cirebon, and four totally different blades.

Bear in mind:- when I am talking about a classification, or tangguh, I am addressing only the blade, and what I can see in these examples are four blades that bear not the slightest resemblance one unto the other.

I have mentioned "indicators" several times. What I am looking for in respect of indicators is, as a minimum, this:-

1) Tanting : perceived weight.

2) Besi : iron

3) Baja: steel

4) Pamor: the material used to create the contrasting pattern observed on a keris blade

5) Pawakan: the form of the body of the keris; the overall visual impression

6) Gonjo: the wider , separate section at the blade base

7) Gandhik: the swelling at the front of the blade base

8) Blumbangan: the depression at the blade base gripped between thumb and forefinger

9) Sogokan: the fuller or fullers sometimes found in the sorsoran of a keris

10) Ada-Ada: the central ridge

11) Kruwingan: the depressions running on either side of the ada-ada

12) Luk-lukan: the waves

13) Wadidang: the broad curve of the blade into the gonjo

Only about half of these indicators can be appraised from a photo, and some of the indicators do not exist in a keris with a simple dhapur.

Then with Cirebon we have the problem of makers.
Who were the known mpus in Cirebon?
I cannot answer this off the top of my head, I'd need to go back and plow through The genealogies extracted from the "Descent of the Mpus of the Land of Jawa", however, going just on memory, I cannot recall any notable mpus who were directly connected to Cirebon. No notable mpus can very possibly be interpreted as no distinct style, only dominant characteristics. This again makes it quite difficult to classify Cirebon.

As I said at the beginning of this post:- I look at keris in a somewhat different way to most other people. Because of this I regret that I am unable to provide a supportable opinion in response to the question you have raised in your post #10.

Jean · 8th January 2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

You have shown me photos of two keris, one of which (the full pendok) is probably able to be classified as Cirebon, the other of which is possibly Cirebon, however, in respect of the blades alone, I am not prepared to offer an opinion on origin.
In the Solonese system of tangguh there is no tangguh Cirebon.
Now, you Jean, and Detlef have posted some keris as examples of Cirebon keris.
What I can see is four keris that have elements of dress that may, or may not be Cirebon, and four totally different blades.
Bear in mind:- when I am talking about a classification, or tangguh, I am addressing only the blade, and what I can see in these examples are four blades that bear not the slightest resemblance one unto the other.

As I said at the beginning of this post:- I look at keris in a somewhat different way to most other people. Because of this I regret that I am unable to provide a supportable opinion in response to the question you have raised in your post #10.

Hello Alan,
Thank you very much for your detailed and logical reply. First I apologize for not having shown more detailed pictures of these blades as it is a bit difficult for me at present, but it would probably not have brought much additional information regarding their classification. However I can take additional pictures of the sorsoran and ganja if you deem it useful.
My question was supposed to be simple but it ended-up to be much more complex than I expected!
Regarding the straight blade, my point is as follows: I agree that it is not distinctive in terms of dapur and pamor but it seems an old blade measuring 47 cm long excluding the peksi, so could it originate from another area than Cirebon/Tegal? (such as a manufacturing center). Of course these blades are quite rustic ones and were not made by empus. I have and have seen several similar ones (see another example).
The Central Javanese tangguh system ignores Cirebon and Banten although these two centers constitute a very reliable source of genuine old krisses dating from the 17th century brought to Europe by the traders and now found in the museums and old collections as shown in Jensen's Krisdisk.
Best regards

A. G. Maisey · 8th January 2012, 10:38 AM

Jean, when we play the tangguh game there are certain things that I regard as givens.

For example, show me any blade with a Surakarta ron dha, a boto adeg blumbangan, and I'm going to say that it is Surakarta.

It might well not be, but if that is all the evidence I've got, I'll back Surakarta every time, UNTIL I GET IT IN MY HAND.

In my hand, my opinion could well change.

Now, if I am shown a photo of a blade that lacks any definitive characteristics, how is it possible for me to even give a very wild guess as to point of origin? It simply is not. Such a blade could be from anywhere.

Let me hold it, examine it properly, maybe think about it for a couple of days, I might be able to put forward an opinion that I can support. But from a photo? I regret I do not have psychic powers.

Further, the tangguh system was never, ever intended to be applied to low , or even middle quality blades. Everybody who follows this Forum should have realized this by now, as it has been stated a number of times, not only by myself, but also by others.

Its fine to present a complete keris and claim such and such a place as its point of origin. I don't have any problem at all with this. But to try to hang a tangguh on the blade of this keris, when there is absolutely no evidence to support the opinion of the tangguh is just not on.

What virtually everybody in the present day fails to realize is that the tangguh system was not devised for the purpose of being able to identify old blades, stick a label on them, and put them in the right pigeon hole. The purpose of the system was far more serious than that, for the people concerned. I will not expand on this remark, as I have a paper in the pipeline.

Yes, a lot of blades that entered Europe early were obtained in Cirebon and Banten, but this does not mean that they were made there. There was a very active trade network throughout Jawa and the rest of S.E. Asia long before and continuing past the 16th & 17th centuries. The major power in Jawa in the 17th century was Mataram, at least some of these early blades collected in Banten and Cirebon must be from Mataram. It would be illogical to think otherwise.

Jean · 8th January 2012, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, when we play the tangguh game there are certain things that I regard as givens.
Yes, a lot of blades that entered Europe early were obtained in Cirebon and Banten, but this does not mean that they were made there. There was a very active trade network throughout Jawa and the rest of S.E. Asia long before and continuing past the 16th & 17th centuries. The major power in Jawa in the 17th century was Mataram, at least some of these early blades collected in Banten and Cirebon must be from Mataram. It would be illogical to think otherwise.

Hello Alan,
Actually I am not playing the tangguh game (estimated manufacturing period and area of origin) for these long straight blades which I showed since they are not very old and there are no reliable indicators for tangguh Cirebon as you say, but simply to confirm their area of origin; this should be much simpler like for Balinese or Minangkabau krisses, etc. Unfortunately I never visited the area so I have no personal evidence to offer.

Regarding the blades collected during the 16th/ 17th century especially in Banten, there is evidence from the travellers that at least some of them were made locally. These luk blades are very strong and thick and do not look like at all the contemporary ones attributed to tangguh Mataram and I find it very disturbing for accepting the indicators attributed to tangguh early Mataram (or Majapahit since the smiths from Banten were supposed to have migrated from the collapsed Majapahit kingdom).
Best regards

A. G. Maisey · 9th January 2012, 05:32 AM

Jean, as soon as we begin to discuss the origin of a blade we are playing tangguh.

Tangguh is not dependent upon age, it is a system of classification, and it applies to all periods up until the present day.

If your objective is to confirm geographic area of origin, then you are most certainly playing tangguh.

There is no way that an area of origin opinion can be given except by reference to the indicators used in tangguh.

In respect of the blades so far shown in this thread, we have a number of blades of varying quality, varying age, varying state of preservation, and varying style and form. I am totally unable to say whether one or more of these blades originated in the Cirebon area . I simply do not know, and at present I have no way of knowing.

I do recall that Gonjo Wulung appears to have some knowledge of blades that at the present time are generally accepted as being of Cirebon origin. He may be able to answer your question. I cannot.

Away, and apart from anything else. the system that I learnt does not provide for a Cirebon classification, this system effectively says that Cirebon is pretty unimportant from the perspective of the original purpose of tangguh classification, and thus can be disregarded for practical purposes, it is able to be classified as one of the variations of Pajajaran.

If you wish to confirm origin of the hilts and scabbards, this is a different matter, and to the best of my knowledge I could not disagree with a Cirebon attribution for one of the scabbards, a couple are possibles, one I know as Tegal, one looks rather East Jawa. These are impressions based upon experience, I am not prepared to be absolutely definite in this matter because we are into an area of kerisology that is truly of very, very limited interest to me.

Regarding Banten blades, yes, I think it would be reasonable to assume that some blades were made in Banten, and we do have a reasonably good idea what the characteristics of a Banten blade are.

The practice of blade classification known as tangguh did not begin until well into the colonial period, at which time the blades that were attributed to early Mataram were already around 300 years old. What was being classified as Mataram was in fact only a shadow of Mataram. If we look at Mataram blades that were removed from area of origin when they were still young, we have a totally different blade.

I've said this many times already, but it does bear repetition:-

Tangguh is a system of classification; it uses the names of historical eras or geographic locations as the names of the various classifications; in the case of the recent past those names very probably bear some genuine relationship to the era, and to the geographic location, an example of this would be keris of tangguh Surakarta; in the case of long distant historical eras the name used for the tangguh and the actual historical era very probably have only a passing relationship, one that owes as much to popular belief and court poets as it does to fact.

A great number of Javanese and other keris fanciers will disagree with what I am saying here, and that is their prerogative, but when the various tangguhs are viewed objectively, and any sort of logical association is attempted between the blade and the historic era, the burden of reasonable proof must rest with those who wish tangguh to be a true identification with the relevant historic era.

It is best not to unquestioningly accept a tangguh classification as meaning that the blade to which that tangguh has been assigned did in fact originate in, for example, the realm of Majapahit, during the ascendancy of Majapahit.

When we try to reconcile the Javanese idea of "history" and the past with the Euro-centric idea of history and the past, we can only do so if we adopt a Javanese mindset, and in today's world, it seems to me that more and more Javanese people are moving towards a western mindset, and away from the mindset of their forefathers.

Jean · 9th January 2012, 10:50 AM

Hello Alan,
Thank you for your detailed reply and I am sorry that you had to repeat your views regarding the tangguh classification which I fully share and I admit that I am looking at it with a purely Western historical point of view.
It is clear that the krisses from Cirebon/ Northern Java were not studied in detail and constitute one area of missing kris knowledge. Considering them as one variant of the Pajajaran krisses looks a simplification to me since the Cirebon Sultanate was independent from the 16th century.
I looked into my reference books and the only one referring to the Cirebon krisses in some detail is the Krisdisk from K.S Jensen but he focuses mainly on the hilts, and the kris blades shown are very diversified and some may not originate from Cirebon except the ones from the museums which can be traced back to the 16th/ 17th century. However I found one specimen of a long straight blades similar to mine on page 14 of the Cirebon chapter (figure 29a, lenght 42 cm, and estimated from 19th century). I also found another similar blade in volume 2 of the book "De Kris" from Tammens on page 260 (attributed to Tegal, 47 cm long, and estimated from Majapahit period, haha!). For the meantime and unless somebody can advise otherwise, I will continue to believe that these long straight blades with dapur Tilam Upih and full & indistinct pamor are one of the types of blades from the Cirebon/ Tegal area.
And regarding the distinctive blades brought from Banten and Cirebon to Europe during the 16th & 17th century, I am still waiting a valid theory for linking them with the contemporary Javanese krisses.
I have reached my limits on these subjects, other views will be welcome!
Best regards

7th January 2012, 09:11 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Jean, I don't intend to be difficult, nor evasive here, but I'm afraid that you, and just about everybody else who contributes to discussion here look at keris in a different way to the way in which I look at a keris. You have shown me photos of two keris, one of which (the full pendok) is probably able to be classified as Cirebon, the other of which is possibly Cirebon, however, in respect of the blades alone, I am not prepared to offer an opinion on origin. It is very possible that the full pendok keris has a blade that might be able to be classified as Cirebon, and comparison with Ben's blade is worthwhile. However, although I nearly always talk in terms of "classification", what I'm really talking about is tangguh. I use the English word "classification" because I am mostly addressing an English speaking audience, in Jawa I would use the word "tangguh". I have often stated that in my opinion it is almost impossible to give an opinion on tangguh from photos. I say "almost impossible", this is because sometimes sufficient indicators are apparent in a photo to permit a supportable opinion to be given. That opinion could , of course, always be incorrect, and only if a blade is handled can a definite, defensible opinion be provided. The question of classification becomes very, very much more difficult when a blade is a simple dhapur:- no greneng, no ron dha, no sogokan, no kembang kacang. Lacking these indicators it can sometimes approach extreme bravery to offer an opinion in respect of a classification --- or perhaps such opinions simply demonstrate a lack of understanding. In the Solonese system of tangguh there is no tangguh Cirebon. Cirebon is included in tangguh Pajajaran, and tangguh Pajajaran has several numbered sub-divisions. To be certain of any blade that is suspected of being tangguh Pajajaran one definitely needs the blade in the hand. An opinion cannot be supported on the basis of what can be seen in a photo. It is worthwhile remembering that the idea of tangguh arose in the ranks of the aristocracy of Central Jawa, principally amongst those who were attached to the Surakarta Karaton, and it arose for a defined purpose. That purpose was not simply to permit neat record keeping and the maintenance of a filing system. At the present time there is a plethora of tangguh from which to choose, however, thirty years ago, and before that, the number of available tangguh was very much more limited. One may draw one's own conclusions from this. So, now we have tangguh Cirebon, however as I have already stated, I do not know what the indicators are for tangguh Cirebon. The notes in EK are totally inadequate, I can find nothing in any of the classic guidebooks. Who truly knows the indicators for Cirebon? Indicators that will permit the identification of blade if it is tangguh brojol, or tangguh tilam upih? Now, you Jean, and Detlef have posted some keris as examples of Cirebon keris. What I can see is four keris that have elements of dress that may, or may not be Cirebon, and four totally different blades. Bear in mind:- when I am talking about a classification, or tangguh, I am addressing only the blade, and what I can see in these examples are four blades that bear not the slightest resemblance one unto the other. I have mentioned "indicators" several times. What I am looking for in respect of indicators is, as a minimum, this:- 1) Tanting : perceived weight. 2) Besi : iron 3) Baja: steel 4) Pamor: the material used to create the contrasting pattern observed on a keris blade 5) Pawakan: the form of the body of the keris; the overall visual impression 6) Gonjo: the wider , separate section at the blade base 7) Gandhik: the swelling at the front of the blade base 8) Blumbangan: the depression at the blade base gripped between thumb and forefinger 9) Sogokan: the fuller or fullers sometimes found in the sorsoran of a keris 10) Ada-Ada: the central ridge 11) Kruwingan: the depressions running on either side of the ada-ada 12) Luk-lukan: the waves 13) Wadidang: the broad curve of the blade into the gonjo Only about half of these indicators can be appraised from a photo, and some of the indicators do not exist in a keris with a simple dhapur. Then with Cirebon we have the problem of makers. Who were the known mpus in Cirebon? I cannot answer this off the top of my head, I'd need to go back and plow through The genealogies extracted from the "Descent of the Mpus of the Land of Jawa", however, going just on memory, I cannot recall any notable mpus who were directly connected to Cirebon. No notable mpus can very possibly be interpreted as no distinct style, only dominant characteristics. This again makes it quite difficult to classify Cirebon. As I said at the beginning of this post:- I look at keris in a somewhat different way to most other people. Because of this I regret that I am unable to provide a supportable opinion in response to the question you have raised in your post #10.

8th January 2012, 10:38 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Jean, when we play the tangguh game there are certain things that I regard as givens. For example, show me any blade with a Surakarta ron dha, a boto adeg blumbangan, and I'm going to say that it is Surakarta. It might well not be, but if that is all the evidence I've got, I'll back Surakarta every time, UNTIL I GET IT IN MY HAND. In my hand, my opinion could well change. Now, if I am shown a photo of a blade that lacks any definitive characteristics, how is it possible for me to even give a very wild guess as to point of origin? It simply is not. Such a blade could be from anywhere. Let me hold it, examine it properly, maybe think about it for a couple of days, I might be able to put forward an opinion that I can support. But from a photo? I regret I do not have psychic powers. Further, the tangguh system was never, ever intended to be applied to low , or even middle quality blades. Everybody who follows this Forum should have realized this by now, as it has been stated a number of times, not only by myself, but also by others. Its fine to present a complete keris and claim such and such a place as its point of origin. I don't have any problem at all with this. But to try to hang a tangguh on the blade of this keris, when there is absolutely no evidence to support the opinion of the tangguh is just not on. What virtually everybody in the present day fails to realize is that the tangguh system was not devised for the purpose of being able to identify old blades, stick a label on them, and put them in the right pigeon hole. The purpose of the system was far more serious than that, for the people concerned. I will not expand on this remark, as I have a paper in the pipeline. Yes, a lot of blades that entered Europe early were obtained in Cirebon and Banten, but this does not mean that they were made there. There was a very active trade network throughout Jawa and the rest of S.E. Asia long before and continuing past the 16th & 17th centuries. The major power in Jawa in the 17th century was Mataram, at least some of these early blades collected in Banten and Cirebon must be from Mataram. It would be illogical to think otherwise.

9th January 2012, 05:32 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,056	Jean, as soon as we begin to discuss the origin of a blade we are playing tangguh. Tangguh is not dependent upon age, it is a system of classification, and it applies to all periods up until the present day. If your objective is to confirm geographic area of origin, then you are most certainly playing tangguh. There is no way that an area of origin opinion can be given except by reference to the indicators used in tangguh. In respect of the blades so far shown in this thread, we have a number of blades of varying quality, varying age, varying state of preservation, and varying style and form. I am totally unable to say whether one or more of these blades originated in the Cirebon area . I simply do not know, and at present I have no way of knowing. I do recall that Gonjo Wulung appears to have some knowledge of blades that at the present time are generally accepted as being of Cirebon origin. He may be able to answer your question. I cannot. Away, and apart from anything else. the system that I learnt does not provide for a Cirebon classification, this system effectively says that Cirebon is pretty unimportant from the perspective of the original purpose of tangguh classification, and thus can be disregarded for practical purposes, it is able to be classified as one of the variations of Pajajaran. If you wish to confirm origin of the hilts and scabbards, this is a different matter, and to the best of my knowledge I could not disagree with a Cirebon attribution for one of the scabbards, a couple are possibles, one I know as Tegal, one looks rather East Jawa. These are impressions based upon experience, I am not prepared to be absolutely definite in this matter because we are into an area of kerisology that is truly of very, very limited interest to me. Regarding Banten blades, yes, I think it would be reasonable to assume that some blades were made in Banten, and we do have a reasonably good idea what the characteristics of a Banten blade are. The practice of blade classification known as tangguh did not begin until well into the colonial period, at which time the blades that were attributed to early Mataram were already around 300 years old. What was being classified as Mataram was in fact only a shadow of Mataram. If we look at Mataram blades that were removed from area of origin when they were still young, we have a totally different blade. I've said this many times already, but it does bear repetition:- Tangguh is a system of classification; it uses the names of historical eras or geographic locations as the names of the various classifications; in the case of the recent past those names very probably bear some genuine relationship to the era, and to the geographic location, an example of this would be keris of tangguh Surakarta; in the case of long distant historical eras the name used for the tangguh and the actual historical era very probably have only a passing relationship, one that owes as much to popular belief and court poets as it does to fact. A great number of Javanese and other keris fanciers will disagree with what I am saying here, and that is their prerogative, but when the various tangguhs are viewed objectively, and any sort of logical association is attempted between the blade and the historic era, the burden of reasonable proof must rest with those who wish tangguh to be a true identification with the relevant historic era. It is best not to unquestioningly accept a tangguh classification as meaning that the blade to which that tangguh has been assigned did in fact originate in, for example, the realm of Majapahit, during the ascendancy of Majapahit. When we try to reconcile the Javanese idea of "history" and the past with the Euro-centric idea of history and the past, we can only do so if we adopt a Javanese mindset, and in today's world, it seems to me that more and more Javanese people are moving towards a western mindset, and away from the mindset of their forefathers.

9th January 2012, 10:50 AM	#7
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Alan, Thank you for your detailed reply and I am sorry that you had to repeat your views regarding the tangguh classification which I fully share and I admit that I am looking at it with a purely Western historical point of view. It is clear that the krisses from Cirebon/ Northern Java were not studied in detail and constitute one area of missing kris knowledge. Considering them as one variant of the Pajajaran krisses looks a simplification to me since the Cirebon Sultanate was independent from the 16th century. I looked into my reference books and the only one referring to the Cirebon krisses in some detail is the Krisdisk from K.S Jensen but he focuses mainly on the hilts, and the kris blades shown are very diversified and some may not originate from Cirebon except the ones from the museums which can be traced back to the 16th/ 17th century. However I found one specimen of a long straight blades similar to mine on page 14 of the Cirebon chapter (figure 29a, lenght 42 cm, and estimated from 19th century). I also found another similar blade in volume 2 of the book "De Kris" from Tammens on page 260 (attributed to Tegal, 47 cm long, and estimated from Majapahit period, haha!). For the meantime and unless somebody can advise otherwise, I will continue to believe that these long straight blades with dapur Tilam Upih and full & indistinct pamor are one of the types of blades from the Cirebon/ Tegal area. And regarding the distinctive blades brought from Banten and Cirebon to Europe during the 16th & 17th century, I am still waiting a valid theory for linking them with the contemporary Javanese krisses. I have reached my limits on these subjects, other views will be welcome! Best regards