Gustav's Discovery

Gustav · 5th August 2017, 04:57 PM

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 · 5th August 2017, 05:13 PM

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 · 5th August 2017, 09:09 PM

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 · 5th August 2017, 10:42 PM

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 · 5th August 2017, 11:49 PM

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 · 6th August 2017, 02:34 AM

Quote:

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.

A. G. Maisey · 6th August 2017, 03:30 AM

Thank you very much Rasdan, we now have some idea of the background of the keris that appears to be the best presented example of this variant element.

An excellent contribution to this investigation. Again I thank you.

My inclination is to disregard the hilt and scabbard, and even the gonjo, and just focus on the body of the keris. We still have no usable provenance, but at least we now know that there is no usable provenance.

My current opinion is that we have a North Coast Jawa blade, possibly able to be categorised as Banten. I may be wrong, but for the moment that is where my thoughts will start.

Anything in a European collection can only be dated as before the date that it was first catalogued. There can be assumed provenance for a period before this, such as we have with the kerises in the Bargello that came from the Medicis, but prior to a catalogue date, we're really only guessing.

You have raised the question as to whether we have an artistic contribution to keris design, or whether we have a socio-religious contribution to design, that is to say, do we have art, or do we have symbolism that can be tied to belief?

Certainly, after Islam much of the Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was corrupted and often interpreted in a different way to the way in which it was understood as a Hindu-Buddhist icon. Of course, this probably occurred even before Islamic domination also, so the question is always there:- art or symbol?

Then again, as in Western artistic traditions we can have art and symbol:- elements of a work of art that are most certainly artistic elements can very often be interpreted also as symbols, and carry a message that can only be read by those people who have been educated in this symbolism.

At the moment we have a few keris with examples of a design element that has not previously been commented upon by people who are qualified to do so.

Actually, that's all we have.

But from my perspective this is more than enough to commence a determined effort to try to align this new element --- for the sake of convenience, let's call it Gustav's Element --- yes, let's try to align Gustav's Element with known forms from old Jawa, say, pre-1700 Jawa.

I at least intend to follow this route. A few months, or years of keeping this form as a template in my mind may some day result in a match with something. There is no hurry, we have a form, let's see if we can find out what that form is.

The last thing we need is to get bogged down with non-productive quibbling.

Paul Duffy · 14th August 2017, 11:55 PM

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

Johan van Zyl · 15th August 2017, 06:59 AM

This goes to show how new collectors can become swept up in the enthusiasm of the old collectors: when the old collectors become engrossed in their fascinating discussions over "every pimple", we newbies get enthused and want to participate in like fashion. I, as a retired lecturer, who frequently made use of practical examples in classroom discussion, was however quick to bring in an actual keris so that what can be said about the greneng is directed to a point. (Recall our posts concerning the Penn Museum keris?)

I don't think the ENTIRE subject has become confused; what might need to be done is that the confusion where it surfaces should be addressed. We now & then tend to leave discussions hanging in the air.

I glean from what has been said about the greneng in the pic, that there ARE indeed three elements of which two are ron dhas and one cannot be interpreted. Especially appreciated is the bold statement by Alan that "the greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."

5th August 2017, 05:13 PM	#2
rasdan Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Kuala Lumpur Posts: 369	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. Last edited by rasdan; 5th August 2017 at 05:41 PM.

5th August 2017, 09:09 PM	#3
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	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. Last edited by Gustav; 5th August 2017 at 10:17 PM.

5th August 2017, 10:42 PM	#4
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	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? Attached Images

5th August 2017, 11:49 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	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? Attached Images

5th August 2017, 04:57 PM	#1
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,280	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. Last edited by Gustav; 5th August 2017 at 05:08 PM.

6th August 2017, 03:30 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Thank you very much Rasdan, we now have some idea of the background of the keris that appears to be the best presented example of this variant element. An excellent contribution to this investigation. Again I thank you. My inclination is to disregard the hilt and scabbard, and even the gonjo, and just focus on the body of the keris. We still have no usable provenance, but at least we now know that there is no usable provenance. My current opinion is that we have a North Coast Jawa blade, possibly able to be categorised as Banten. I may be wrong, but for the moment that is where my thoughts will start. Anything in a European collection can only be dated as before the date that it was first catalogued. There can be assumed provenance for a period before this, such as we have with the kerises in the Bargello that came from the Medicis, but prior to a catalogue date, we're really only guessing. You have raised the question as to whether we have an artistic contribution to keris design, or whether we have a socio-religious contribution to design, that is to say, do we have art, or do we have symbolism that can be tied to belief? Certainly, after Islam much of the Hindu-Buddhist symbolism was corrupted and often interpreted in a different way to the way in which it was understood as a Hindu-Buddhist icon. Of course, this probably occurred even before Islamic domination also, so the question is always there:- art or symbol? Then again, as in Western artistic traditions we can have art and symbol:- elements of a work of art that are most certainly artistic elements can very often be interpreted also as symbols, and carry a message that can only be read by those people who have been educated in this symbolism. At the moment we have a few keris with examples of a design element that has not previously been commented upon by people who are qualified to do so. Actually, that's all we have. But from my perspective this is more than enough to commence a determined effort to try to align this new element --- for the sake of convenience, let's call it Gustav's Element --- yes, let's try to align Gustav's Element with known forms from old Jawa, say, pre-1700 Jawa. I at least intend to follow this route. A few months, or years of keeping this form as a template in my mind may some day result in a match with something. There is no hurry, we have a form, let's see if we can find out what that form is. The last thing we need is to get bogged down with non-productive quibbling.

14th August 2017, 11:55 PM	#8
Paul Duffy Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 31	Gentlemen, this is a fascinating discussion. I'll have to go somewhere quiet while I contemplate the issues raised.

15th August 2017, 06:59 AM	#9
Johan van Zyl Member Join Date: Sep 2016 Location: I live in Gordon's Bay, a village in the Western Cape Province in South Africa. Posts: 126	This goes to show how new collectors can become swept up in the enthusiasm of the old collectors: when the old collectors become engrossed in their fascinating discussions over "every pimple", we newbies get enthused and want to participate in like fashion. I, as a retired lecturer, who frequently made use of practical examples in classroom discussion, was however quick to bring in an actual keris so that what can be said about the greneng is directed to a point. (Recall our posts concerning the Penn Museum keris?) I don't think the ENTIRE subject has become confused; what might need to be done is that the confusion where it surfaces should be addressed. We now & then tend to leave discussions hanging in the air. I glean from what has been said about the greneng in the pic, that there ARE indeed three elements of which two are ron dhas and one cannot be interpreted. Especially appreciated is the bold statement by Alan that "the greneng is not the typical Javanese greneng we are accustomed to, and the element that takes the place of the kanyut is not nameable under present convention."