![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]() Quote:
Some replies to your questions: 1: The top blade has 9 waves and the bottom one 5 waves so they have a different dapur type. The dapur of the top blade is Sempana with one exception? (greneng) and the bottom one is Pendawa Lare with two exceptions? (tikel alis & greneng). 2. The pics are poor so I am not sure but but the top blade seems to have a pamor pattern dwiwarna (Toya Mambeg/ Ngulit Semangka nggajih) and the bottom blade pamor Tambal Wengkon. 3. Both blades look old but their quality does not qualify them for attributing a tangguh, the top one is probably from East Java and the bottom one from Central Java. 4. Yes, a ladrang wrongko would be suitable for these blades. 5. A Javanese nunggak semi hilt is the best choice for matching with these blades and the ladrang wrongko but a Madurese hilt would be convenient also if desired. Regards |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,018
|
![]()
With my apologies Green, the images are simply not good enough to provide a clear idea of what we are looking at.
However, that said, and based upon what I believe I can see. Both keris are not current, nor recent, production, but both keris are eroded. When new they would have been of acceptable quality, but they are now old and tired. The top keris has 9 waves, using the Surakarta Pakem as the reference, it is probably able to be classified as Dhapur Sempana. Sempana possesses the following ricikan:- luk sanga, sekar kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, pejetan pamor appears to be dwi warna, from these images, and considering blade condition, I hesitate to name the motifs. The lower keris has 5 waves, using the Surakarta Pakem as the reference, this keris is diluar pakem, that is to say, it does not conform to a dhapur recognised by the Surakarta Karaton. However, using Haryoguritno as a reference, we can come close to an accepted dhapur. Haryoguritno lists Pandhawa Lare ricikan as:- kembang kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, pejetan, tikel alis, srawayan, greneng this keris under discussion does not appear to have srawayan, it might once have had greneng, but now does not, the tikel alis is dubious, it might or might not have tikel alis So using these two popular references, it is still diluar pakem. However, if we move away from classical standards, and adopt a current convention, we could give the name of "Sempana Luk Lima" to this lower keris. pamor appears to be tambal wengkon It is absolutely impossible to give a tangguh classification from these images, even if the images were professional studio photos, it would still be impossible to give a supportable opinion on tangguh classification. A rough guess, yes, that could perhaps be given from good photos, something worthwhile, no. In respect of dress, in broad terms, it is possible to dress any wilah in any wrongko, and fit any Javanese/Madurese hilt that one wishes to fit. However, if we wish to be more or less correct in our choice of dress, the hilt should harmonise with the wrongko. Generally speaking, the only acceptable hilt to fit with a Central Javanese ladrangan wrongko, is a Central Javanese planar hilt of the type that is intended to be worn with that wrongko. Exceptions can occur, especially if we look at the type of dress that is accepted as usual for a Canthangbalung, or for a display keris that is not really intended for wear. If the wrongko is a Madura or North Coast or Jawa Timur wrongko, a figural or highly carved hilt can sometimes be acceptable, but the height of such a hilt must be in harmony with the height of the wrongko. If we move away from the accepted and established forms of dress the result can very often be far from pleasing, it can create a feeling of unquiet, or restlessness in the person viewing the keris, and this is the exact opposite of the feeling that should be created. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 323
|
![]()
Thank you Jean and Alan for your comments.
Jean said that only a keris of suitable quality merit a tangguh. My understanding is that a tangguh merely denotes when (which era) a keris is made, irrespective of what quality it has, hence a badly made keris could be from say, mataram or segaluh era for example and it can be described as such Quality aside, if my keris is old, which possible era was it made ? can we make a rough estimate? Attached are a few more slightly better pics of close ups of the lower part of the blades and with possible hilts. Are they suitable? . I agree with Alan, a badly matched parts will make the keris look inappropriate and jarring at the very least. But my understanding of Javanese keris is too inadequate to make a good judgement if it is a good mix/fit or not. Would appreciate your comment. A follow up question on the Javanese deder. The one I fit to the blade with tambal wengkon pamor has full carvings and I have not seen this kind of full ornamentation on typical Javanese deder before. Is this a new whimsical style by carvers with too much time on their hand or a legitimate decorative motif? the hilt is made of some form of ivory or possibly deer horn? ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 323
|
![]()
here's the pics of the two blades with the hilts
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
Hello Green,
Thank you for the better pics. I will leave Alan to reply about the tangguh issue if he wishes, I would estimate that both blades were made during the 19th century, the 5 luk blade has pamor tambal only (no wengkon), and the 9 luk blade is quite worn-out and crudely made (pejetan, gonjo, upper pamor pattern). The carved javanese hilt is in a quite rare but legitimate style I think. The janggelan hilt looks too big for the 9 luk blade IMO. Best regards |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,218
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Germany, Dortmund
Posts: 9,214
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|