variation of tok chu

David · 10th February 2012, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

just for sharing. some said variation of keris tok chu

I see 3 different keris in you post. Are you suggesting these were all made by the pandai Tok Chu?

keriswarisanpattani · 10th February 2012, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I see 3 different kerns in you post. Are you suggesting these were all made by the pandai Tok Chu?

hi david,

all 3 keris belong to a senior collector in kelantan. all 3 are the variations of keris tok chu (what have been told to me and opinions from other senior collecters as well).

Amuk Murugul · 10th February 2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

hi david,

all 3 keris belong to a senior collector in kelantan. all 3 are the variations of keris tok chu (what have been told to me and opinions from other senior collecters as well).

Hullo everybody,

Just a passing comment:
The first keris doesn't look to me to be Tok Chu. I suppose it all depends on how liberally one takes the term 'variantions'. I'd tend to look on it as more of a Saras variation
Perhaps one should ask someone like Cikgu Nasir for an opinion.

Best,

BluErf · 11th February 2012, 12:46 AM

Hello to all!

Alan - your comment is very interesting, because it resonates with the views of some native Kelantan keris collectors that keris makers in Northen Malay Peninsula trace their pedigree to Javanese pandai keris. There is even a "Kampung Java" in Kelantan (though I'd admit that this may not be definitive evidence of anything, because in Singapore, there is also a place named "Kampung Java", much like one can find Chinatown anywhere in the world). Further, we don't see much really old kerises in N. Malay Peninsula. It seems that kerises don't go back more than 300-400 years, which would seem to coincide with the end period of Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in Java.

I realize what I'm saying can not be supported by hard evidence, and is backed mainly by opinions of more senior keris collectors. But I'm just sharing it for what it is worth.

Specifically to the first keris in this post, I thought it would probably just be called a "carita" in the N. Malay context. The "Tok Chu" classification is really nebulous, and no one can definitively say what it covers. The main characteristic of "Tok Chu" kerises seem to be that they are really broad (I would even describe some as having "squat" proportions), have a massive feel, and use good quality steel with very tight grains.

I also thought that the greneng work in this keris reminds me of the sort found on the Terengganu keris unduk-unduk form. Is this a more recent greneng form compared to the more commonly seen "open" greneng form? I'm not sure. I have a keris which was found in a sheath that looked like Terengganu in origin, but was very large, and somewhat different. The keris was also very large, which seems to run against the general rule that Terengganu kerises are of a more "polite" size, and more refined. Could the keris (and by extension of its similarity to this keris posted here) be from certain regions in the Terengganu/Kelantan/Pattani area?

Apologies for raising more questions than giving answers. I realize that I don't really have any answer to anything...

After years of collecting, I feel with each passing year that I know less and less about the keris than I thought I did.

BluErf · 11th February 2012, 12:50 AM

Keris I was talking about. Note the striking similarities in the gandik area.

BluErf · 11th February 2012, 12:54 AM

This was said to be a Tok Chu.

A. G. Maisey · 11th February 2012, 01:32 AM

Thanks for your comment, Kai Wee.

I don't think there's any doubt that the keris came into the Peninsula from Jawa, but what I find of interest is its roots in Jawa. When I look at the way we would describe the characteristics of this keris, what I see is a Mojo description, but equally, such a description could also apply to Banten.

What it cannot apply to is Mataram, so my feeling is that we're looking at a beginning that perhaps precedes Mataram, and that coincides with the widely held belief of dispersion during the Mojo era, which can probably be screwed down a bit tighter, to dispersion pre- +/-1380, that's if we accept Mojo.

If we don't want to accept Mojo, then it can certainly go later, with the root as Banten, but then we'd be into probably post 1550-1600, and my feeling is that that's maybe a bit too late.

11th February 2012, 12:50 AM	#5
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Keris I was talking about. Note the striking similarities in the gandik area. Attached Images

11th February 2012, 12:54 AM	#6
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	This was said to be a Tok Chu. Attached Images

11th February 2012, 12:46 AM	#4
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Hello to all! Alan - your comment is very interesting, because it resonates with the views of some native Kelantan keris collectors that keris makers in Northen Malay Peninsula trace their pedigree to Javanese pandai keris. There is even a "Kampung Java" in Kelantan (though I'd admit that this may not be definitive evidence of anything, because in Singapore, there is also a place named "Kampung Java", much like one can find Chinatown anywhere in the world). Further, we don't see much really old kerises in N. Malay Peninsula. It seems that kerises don't go back more than 300-400 years, which would seem to coincide with the end period of Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in Java. I realize what I'm saying can not be supported by hard evidence, and is backed mainly by opinions of more senior keris collectors. But I'm just sharing it for what it is worth. Specifically to the first keris in this post, I thought it would probably just be called a "carita" in the N. Malay context. The "Tok Chu" classification is really nebulous, and no one can definitively say what it covers. The main characteristic of "Tok Chu" kerises seem to be that they are really broad (I would even describe some as having "squat" proportions), have a massive feel, and use good quality steel with very tight grains. I also thought that the greneng work in this keris reminds me of the sort found on the Terengganu keris unduk-unduk form. Is this a more recent greneng form compared to the more commonly seen "open" greneng form? I'm not sure. I have a keris which was found in a sheath that looked like Terengganu in origin, but was very large, and somewhat different. The keris was also very large, which seems to run against the general rule that Terengganu kerises are of a more "polite" size, and more refined. Could the keris (and by extension of its similarity to this keris posted here) be from certain regions in the Terengganu/Kelantan/Pattani area? Apologies for raising more questions than giving answers. I realize that I don't really have any answer to anything... After years of collecting, I feel with each passing year that I know less and less about the keris than I thought I did.

11th February 2012, 01:32 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,085	Thanks for your comment, Kai Wee. I don't think there's any doubt that the keris came into the Peninsula from Jawa, but what I find of interest is its roots in Jawa. When I look at the way we would describe the characteristics of this keris, what I see is a Mojo description, but equally, such a description could also apply to Banten. What it cannot apply to is Mataram, so my feeling is that we're looking at a beginning that perhaps precedes Mataram, and that coincides with the widely held belief of dispersion during the Mojo era, which can probably be screwed down a bit tighter, to dispersion pre- +/-1380, that's if we accept Mojo. If we don't want to accept Mojo, then it can certainly go later, with the root as Banten, but then we'd be into probably post 1550-1600, and my feeling is that that's maybe a bit too late.