Gustav's Discovery

[rasdan]

I have drawn this diagram to help with our discussion in this thread, but I have left out the gunungan and buntut mimi part.

I think originally the top and bottom ri pandan have the same shape (hence the similar name) - hooked thorn; with the top one facing up, the bottom one facing down. In time, the bottom one gets modified with a notch on top of it.

Please correct me if there are any mistakes/disagreements. I could miss some things discussed above as I browsed through it rather quickly.

[Gustav]

Very interesting.

Just an observating remark - Rasdan, you got something wrong regarding the Keris 5.

Keris 5 isn't the "latest version for Balinese Keris". It is in fact quite early.

Regarding the Balinese cutting unintentional "North Coast Dha's" besides a normal one on it, I will leave it to Balinese.

Also Keris 6 isn't "a slightly later Balinese keris".

But that's not so important.

[rasdan]

Thanks Gustav. Yes keris 6 is probably not Balinese, I said "unless keris in Figure 6 a slightly later Balinese keris". I think I've seen keris 6 somewhere in Kris Disk, so it may be from 1600s-1700, but I think I haven't seen keris 5 before. Can you please provide us with the estimated age of keris 5? Any possibility that keris 5 is not Balinese but dressed in Balinese dress?

Yeah, what I put up is just my quick observation I didn't align it with the estimated age (which will probably show that I am wrong) as I am quite occupied right now.

The reason I think the north coast people used the "bump Dha" is because of the influence of the shallow and wide Pajajaran type dha shown in the diagram in post #10 above.

BTW, if the gap in keris 6 is actually a Dha, then we can probably conclude that the "north coast" dha theory to rest. Unless we can justify having two types of dha on a set of greneng- which i think is unlikely.

[Gustav]

Rasdan, I see, now I got some questions from you.

Before making questions, I would suggest you to do some home work. I have done mine, and that quite meticulously - please do yours.

Actually instead of "I didn't align it with the estimated age" as you described it now, you simply declared the Keris 5 as "much later Balinese Keris", in picture "latest version for Balinese Keris", to fit in your theory. That is a not so fine difference.

Regarding the whole "Bump Dha" thing, I think, at first we must be able to differentiate between external and internal details, which should be not so complicated, because on all Kerisses in question, as distinguished from most Nem-Neman Keris, the Greneng itself is external.

Ron Dha is an indentation, your "Bump Dha" on these Kerisses is an protrusion. You are searching for Ron Dha in wrong place.

[Gustav]

For people lowing questions, finally a couple from me:

If you look at Kembang Kacang on Keris 2, 4 and 6, and compare it proportionally to its Gandhik, what do you see?

Do we associate such proportion on Keris with full Ricikan with North Coast Java (except for Keris 4. Or perhaps it's also a NCJ dressed as Balinese?)?

Or do we associate it perhaps with an other region?

Is the proportion of KK compared to Gandhik (and Greneg/Jenggot) the only conspicuous thing we notice on Keris 4, not associated with common 19th cent. Bali Keris?

Where have we seen something similar?

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I do appreciate the thought you have put into your posts, and you have raised a couple of interesting points.I'm still thinking about what you have put up, and I'll get back to what you propose later.

Gustav has not given full length images of the keris he has posted, and speaking for myself, if these truly did come into Europe several hundred years ago, I would not know if they were old or new from a photo. In fact, even in the hand I probably could not guess age.

Again, speaking only of the keris, that is the blade, for early keris, keris from the period immediately following the Mojo era, that narrow little strip of water between Jawa and Bali meant nothing in terms of contact:- water was/is a highway, not a barrier. Other things were barriers, but not the water.

Sure, we can look at the dress and we can say the handle or the scabbard demonstrates style that is attributable to a particular area, but we cannot do that with early blades, it is not until Islamic influence got a good strong foothold in Jawa that blade style of Javanese and Balinese keris began to vary.

So lets not try to categorise any of these very small parts of keris, that have no provenance, into "Jawa" or "Bali" or anywhere else. Even if they did have provenance, any provenance is always open to question in the final analysis, and trying to draw too many conclusions from images of keris is perhaps the ultimate folly:- it simply cannot be done, in fact most of the people I learnt from in Solo would not give more than a cursory comment to an image of a keris, they needed it in their hand to form any supportable opinion, and to a large degree, I'm pretty much the same.

All this is a diversion from focus on this newly revealed feature that Gustav has given us.

Might it be possible to return our attention to the difficult matter of identification of this design element?

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So lets not try to categorise any of these very small parts of keris, that have no provenance, into "Jawa" or "Bali" or anywhere else.

Thanks for your reply Alan. Yes, it is very difficult to come up with a hypothesis about keris that does not have exact provenance and age.

The problem about the keris that have the element that you showed above is that it seems that it was put together very quickly to be sold. The warangka is Palembang, pendok probably Solo, Minangkabau hilt cup, hilt is probably Palembang and ganja from a Bugis keris. It comes from Pennsylvania University Museum collection. It was a gift probably from 1942. I think the website was now updated with larger pictures as the images that I looked before were smaller in size. (Image below) and the link:

https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/244340

Even the ones in KrisDisk, in my opinion we can only use the date it came into the collection. The geographical origin can be diverse as those keris can be brought to the place of collection from anywhere.

About the particular design you mentioned above, an issue that probably may raise is the legitimacy to use a design. Does the design really have a meaning or it simply come from a creative mind that does not need authority to create new designs on a keris?

Actually a greneng somewhat similar to this appeared in Malay kerises where the "gap" is actually a dha (or it becomes a dha) - as far as I am concerned, I think Malay pandai keris does not need authority to introduce new designs.

Then, if the design does has a meaning or it was a Dha copied from Pajajaran, does it have to be in a specific style/location?

To answer/hypothesize these questions, we need something solid to tie it to. and at the moment I have none. I look forward on your insights about this Alan. Thank you.

[Paul Duffy]

Gentlemen, this is a fascinating discussion. I'll have to go somewhere quiet while I contemplate the issues raised.