Catalogue of my collection

[Mans]

Originally Posted by nechesh

Mans, why would the snout have to protrude more to be hanuman. It still looks like a monkey to me. We often see Ganesha, Siva and other deities and demons depicted in a variety of forms. I don't see how you can say this could not possibly be a hauman because it's snout isn't long enough.

Indeed, very difficult to identified about the Abstract hilt. So many arguments and interpretations which came out from our mind...
I just thought that the Hanuman smiles not like this one
But, what ever it was, This hilt is very impressive, isn't it ?
---


Kai, I agree that the Old Balinese keris resemble with Javanese. But I think the Balinese has the histories it self although any the Javanese touch So, the Balinese keris still has characteristic it self.

Here the link for example the old Javanese Keris (before Majapahit Era):
http://keris.fotopic.net/c684298.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c450928.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c618304.html

Majapahit Era (1300-1500s):
http://keris.fotopic.net/c645331.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c669644.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c785067.html

Mataram Era (1600-1700s) :
http://keris.fotopic.net/c451023.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c710134.html
http://keris.fotopic.net/c461570.html

We can see that the Javanese keris still different with Balinese, specifically at some Ricikans on Sorsoran.
I think the 1st keris which you posted is an impressive old Balinese keris on Early Mataram period 1500-1600s). Very beautiful workmanship. Same with your Balinese kris which you collected

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by Mans

I just thought that the Hanuman smiles not like this one
But, what ever it was, This hilt is very impressive, isn't it ?

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that ALL the hilts displayed in this thread have been impressive.
Still, i'm not sure i even see the smile on this one the way that you do and i think we would need more angles and better pictures to ever begin to come to any real conclusions here.
Thanks for the links to all those beautiful keris. I would like to point out the difficulty in using these keris in comparision to keris which have been in collections for as long as the ones in Jensen's book have. The examples you display show the wear and erosion of centuries of acid baths and staining, while Jensen's examples are pristine as if recently made, having not received such treatment. Certainly many of the blades you show were once much more robust with the ricikan more intact and better developed. These blades would have once been polished in the way Balinese keris typically are, but that look went out of style in Jawa and the rough etch appearance came into mode. So comparisons are tough. Therefore, i think i'll sit on the fence awhile on this one. With one low quality photo of only a part of the blade we really don't have enough information to argue about. I suppose that even if this blade were collected in Northern Jawa it could still have had a Balinese origin. But i have seen Javanese blades of similar character. I wouldn't bet the farm either way.

[Mans]

Originally Posted by nechesh

............
The examples you display show the wear and erosion of centuries of acid baths and staining, while Jensen's examples are pristine as if recently made, having not received such treatment.
I suppose that even if this blade were collected in Northern Jawa it could still have had a Balinese origin. But i have seen Javanese blades of similar character. I wouldn't bet the farm either way.

Yes you right that to distinguishing of the Javanese keris is too difficult. So that why many people must doing hard to learn about its .... and often some of them has frauded, kept strong them firm although they has a wrong knowledge We can't say anything because the keris is also bring the convictions on each of them, aren't they ?

Usually, I used so many keris to learning its. It is a method which can make us esier to learn and distinguishing the Javanese keris. We'll know the keris which has a good workmanship (Garap), Good ironwork and pamor, also we can know about the Tangguh and Pakem (estimated made).. but still difficult, isn't it

About the Acid Bath (Warangan), it is an a part of the whole on the Keris Cultures. To give the warangan, we must do some phase from Mutih/Methak, nyelup 'till give it the keris oil. It is a very difficult activities and complicated too. We must know well about the characteristic of the iron and pamor material and when we should take away the keris from Warangan in order to get the optimal output. So that why just a few people can and wish to do it.

[nechesh]

Originally Posted by Mans

About the Acid Bath (Warangan), it is an a part of the whole on the Keris Cultures. To give the warangan, we must do some phase from Mutih/Methak, nyelup 'till give it the keris oil. It is a very difficult activities and complicated too. We must know well about the characteristic of the iron and pamor material and when we should take away the keris from Warangan in order to get the optimal output. So that why just a few people can and wish to do it.

Hi Mans. I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if you just wanted to add the above information. I wasn't implying that the examples in Jensen's book would not have received warangan treatment, but since they have been in museum collections since the 1600s they did not while the Javanese blades you show from the same era were washed over centuries with much blade erosion. Hard to compare physical attributions between them comsidering. It is also my understanding that Javanese blades were once polished in the manner that we gererally see Balinese blades. This makes comparison even more difficult since these Jensen examples appear to have such a polished finish while your examples have the rough etched finish that has become the custon in Jawa as well as other islands.
Having spent the last few years working on my skills with warangan i can attest first hand to the difficulties of blade staining. I have had to stain some s few times before getting them "right" and still have a few i've done that need reworking. But when you get it right it is very satisfying.

[BluErf]

I think it is wholly possible that different regions of Java had different styles of kerises at the same time. Java is a big place and can hold many courts, many kingdoms at the same time, and I believe at least a couple of them did co-exist in different parts of Java at the some time. The kerises in Jensen's book were, I believe, collected in the coastal areas (Pasisir), which could have keris styles similar to the Balinese courts - big robust blade with prominent ricikan. The kerises in the other areas could have been like what Mans have been posting - relatively petite blades with wide sor-soran and narrow middles and tips. I've seen these in some keris books as been attributed to 16-17th century too.

[Mans]

Originally Posted by nechesh

Hi Mans. I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or if you just wanted to add the above information.

I mean, I just need to add informations that if we need to learn about the Javanese keris, we must indentifying and know when the keris came not or with warangan, because warangan process is a part of the whole the keris culture at Jawa. Rough or smooth condition also shown where the keris from. For example, if keris from Majapahit and Sedayu era, it must be smooth although it give Warangan. But if the keris from Madura Pamekasan, Cirebon, or Pajajaran, usually more rough. So, the conditions of the blade shown the technique of iron and pamor work, then we can distinguishing each keris from period and regional. The conditions of the blade is just 1 from many aspects to analysing the keris