Which of these are truly old keris?

David · 16th June 2018, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ridho pulungan

Owh ya..sorry for the picture David. I'll soon post more clear picture. Amd forgive me to use a word 'fake'. Is that any suggestion how to edit the titlle and my post?.if its a way to edit,i'll change it. Thank you so much for your attention.
Regards.

I changed the title for you Ridho.

ridho pulungan · 17th June 2018, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I changed the title for you Ridho.

Thank you so much for your help David.
I make a litlle change to the picture. I know its not perfect enough,but i hope the new pict can give Rick more clear about the keris. I really want to take another picture with new angle and lighting soon.
Thank you for your kind.

A. G. Maisey · 17th June 2018, 10:54 PM

Ridho, I'm not brave enough to jump in and declare that something in a picture on a screen is not old. By "old", I'm thinking in terms of pre-WWII.

But I will say this:- I have not seen, nor handled any keris that I knew to pre-date WWII that looked anything like any of these keris.

I began really looking at keris about 65 years ago, during that period I have handled literally thousands of keris, including many with genuine provenance that went back in some cases to pre-1700. No keris that I knew to pre-date WWII looked anything at all like any of these keris.

ridho pulungan · 17th June 2018, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ridho, I'm not brave enough to jump in and declare that something in a picture on a screen is not old. By "old", I'm thinking in terms of pre-WWII.
But I will say this:- I have not seen, nor handled any keris that I knew to pre-date WWII that looked anything like any of these keris.
I began really looking at keris about 65 years ago, during that period I have handled literally thousands of keris, including many with genuine provenance that went back in some cases to pre-1700. No keris that I knew to pre-date WWII looked anything at all like any of these keris.

Thank you so much Alan.
But can i ask you more further Alan?
Are the ricikan or shape or maybe the ornament or curve of blade from these keris follow on tangguh/period that you know? i can sure you that in magnifician lens,the layer of all these keris are made from many layer of forged.
Base on your experties. Can you judged the date of some keris with the form of forging layer on its blade? Are that layer give any clue that the keris are come from certain tangguh?
I'm really curios about how to determine the tangguh not only from the shape of ricikan,but maybe from the path of forging layer of its blade.
Many thank Alan.
Best regards.

Rick · 18th June 2018, 05:22 AM

I think using a neutral gray and not a black background will make things clearer; also photos taken in outside light will much improve things.

A. G. Maisey · 18th June 2018, 06:42 AM

Ridho, I do appreciate that you are trying to come to terms with a way in which to estimate blade age, but to the best of my knowledge there is no simple way or quick way or short way of doing this. It is not a matter of just looking what we can see in a picture, nor is it a matter of looking at what we can see with the blade in hand. I have handled more than a few pre-1700 blades in European museum collections, and many of those blades look as if they came off the work bench yesterday, mix them in with some kemardikan blades made in conventional forms and it would be more than a little bit difficult to say which are old and which are new.

There is no formula you can use.

According to traditional belief, some blades will have a greater or lesser number of layers that can be counted on either side of the core, however, how useful is this as an indicator when we know that we are looking at blades with varying levels or erosion?
About the only useful indicator that concerns layering of material in a blade, that I know is that Pajajaran blades often have the pamor layer very slightly separated from the layer beneath it, this is easy to see under magnification, but sometimes difficult to see without magnification.
There is a lot of belief that concerns iron types, supposed differences in forging , and differences in construction, in my opinion, most of this belief is simply that:- belief.
Learn the basics first, then learn how to actually make a blade, I do not mean theory from a book, I mean with a hammer in your hand, and then using chisels and other tools that you have made yourself. When you have done this, and you have many years of experience, you may have some chance of being able to estimate how old a blade is, and how to classify it.

Imagined differences in forge techniques will not help you at all.

When we build up layers of iron, or layers of iron and nickel, and then we polish that layered material it can be very difficult sometimes to see the layers, but if we then cause erosion of that layered surface we can see the layers easily, this is true of both newly forged material and old material.

If we begin the layering process with thick material we get thick layers, if with thin material, thin layers.

Within the tangguh system there are some indicators that do address number and thickness of material layers, but these indicators can only be used in combination with all the other indicators, never as stand alone indicators. As already mentioned, tangguh equates to classification, not necessarily age.

A. G. Maisey · 18th June 2018, 06:55 AM

Yes Rick, I agree 100%.

Neutral grey back cloth, natural light in open shade, light from the south in the Southern Hemisphere, from the north in the Northern Hemisphere, bounce boards to throw light as compensation for the shade, avoid big apertures, maybe 3 or 4 F stops smaller than biggest aperture, tripod and time release or remote release if possible.

Alternatively, full auto with the flash deactivated and full natural light, avoid direct sunlight. With a point and shoot this will normally give something usable.

As a minimum, in processing:- resize for net use, remove cyan,sharpen (unsharp mask)

ridho pulungan · 18th June 2018, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ridho, I do appreciate that you are trying to come to terms with a way in which to estimate blade age, but to the best of my knowledge there is no simple way or quick way or short way of doing this. It is not a matter of just looking what we can see in a picture, nor is it a matter of looking at what we can see with the blade in hand. I have handled more than a few pre-1700 blades in European museum collections, and many of those blades look as if they came off the work bench yesterday, mix them in with some kemardikan blades made in conventional forms and it would be more than a little bit difficult to say which are old and which are new.

There is no formula you can use.

According to traditional belief, some blades will have a greater or lesser number of layers that can be counted on either side of the core, however, how useful is this as an indicator when we know that we are looking at blades with varying levels or erosion?
About the only useful indicator that concerns layering of material in a blade, that I know is that Pajajaran blades often have the pamor layer very slightly separated from the layer beneath it, this is easy to see under magnification, but sometimes difficult to see without magnification.
There is a lot of belief that concerns iron types, supposed differences in forging , and differences in construction, in my opinion, most of this belief is simply that:- belief.
Learn the basics first, then learn how to actually make a blade, I do not mean theory from a book, I mean with a hammer in your hand, and then using chisels and other tools that you have made yourself. When you have done this, and you have many years of experience, you may have some chance of being able to estimate how old a blade is, and how to classify it.

Imagined differences in forge techniques will not help you at all.

When we build up layers of iron, or layers of iron and nickel, and then we polish that layered material it can be very difficult sometimes to see the layers, but if we then cause erosion of that layered surface we can see the layers easily, this is true of both newly forged material and old material.

If we begin the layering process with thick material we get thick layers, if with thin material, thin layers.

Within the tangguh system there are some indicators that do address number and thickness of material layers, but these indicators can only be used in combination with all the other indicators, never as stand alone indicators. As already mentioned, tangguh equates to classification, not necessarily age.

Alan,what you've wrote in this thread makes me suddenly feel very sad. After all these time i try find an Indonesian Mpu after mpu Djeno alm. (I meet him onces with my father when i'm at colledge) that really understand aboutt all things that you've described. It's a long way and i'm not sure i can deeply understanding keris like you're. Keris is the only one that Indonesia have as its legacy to the history of humanity. Not batik, nor Tempe or Toffu. But No Indonesian ever said like you do.huffft. Is the class to learn about keris already dismiss in my time now?how about my son,my grandson?hiks..so sad.
Any way Alan. Thank you so much for give me a path to a journey that seems to imposible to complish. I hope you've educate someone/many Indonesian to become your 'prenjak' in future time.
Thank you David, Rick,Kai, Bjorn,Jean and all the member in this forum for being so kind and nice to me.
I think this thread already answer my question.
Best warm regards to you all.
Ridho Pulungan.

ridho pulungan · 18th June 2018, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

I think using a neutral gray and not a black background will make things clearer; also photos taken in outside light will much improve things.

Thank you Rick..i'll soon post another picture of these keris. I'm so happy to join this informative
forum.
Please kindly comment on my posts. Your comments will be very helpful.

17th June 2018, 10:54 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,017	Ridho, I'm not brave enough to jump in and declare that something in a picture on a screen is not old. By "old", I'm thinking in terms of pre-WWII. But I will say this:- I have not seen, nor handled any keris that I knew to pre-date WWII that looked anything like any of these keris. I began really looking at keris about 65 years ago, during that period I have handled literally thousands of keris, including many with genuine provenance that went back in some cases to pre-1700. No keris that I knew to pre-date WWII looked anything at all like any of these keris.

18th June 2018, 05:22 AM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,339	I think using a neutral gray and not a black background will make things clearer; also photos taken in outside light will much improve things.

18th June 2018, 06:42 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,017	Ridho, I do appreciate that you are trying to come to terms with a way in which to estimate blade age, but to the best of my knowledge there is no simple way or quick way or short way of doing this. It is not a matter of just looking what we can see in a picture, nor is it a matter of looking at what we can see with the blade in hand. I have handled more than a few pre-1700 blades in European museum collections, and many of those blades look as if they came off the work bench yesterday, mix them in with some kemardikan blades made in conventional forms and it would be more than a little bit difficult to say which are old and which are new. There is no formula you can use. According to traditional belief, some blades will have a greater or lesser number of layers that can be counted on either side of the core, however, how useful is this as an indicator when we know that we are looking at blades with varying levels or erosion? About the only useful indicator that concerns layering of material in a blade, that I know is that Pajajaran blades often have the pamor layer very slightly separated from the layer beneath it, this is easy to see under magnification, but sometimes difficult to see without magnification. There is a lot of belief that concerns iron types, supposed differences in forging , and differences in construction, in my opinion, most of this belief is simply that:- belief. Learn the basics first, then learn how to actually make a blade, I do not mean theory from a book, I mean with a hammer in your hand, and then using chisels and other tools that you have made yourself. When you have done this, and you have many years of experience, you may have some chance of being able to estimate how old a blade is, and how to classify it. Imagined differences in forge techniques will not help you at all. When we build up layers of iron, or layers of iron and nickel, and then we polish that layered material it can be very difficult sometimes to see the layers, but if we then cause erosion of that layered surface we can see the layers easily, this is true of both newly forged material and old material. If we begin the layering process with thick material we get thick layers, if with thin material, thin layers. Within the tangguh system there are some indicators that do address number and thickness of material layers, but these indicators can only be used in combination with all the other indicators, never as stand alone indicators. As already mentioned, tangguh equates to classification, not necessarily age.

18th June 2018, 06:55 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,017	Yes Rick, I agree 100%. Neutral grey back cloth, natural light in open shade, light from the south in the Southern Hemisphere, from the north in the Northern Hemisphere, bounce boards to throw light as compensation for the shade, avoid big apertures, maybe 3 or 4 F stops smaller than biggest aperture, tripod and time release or remote release if possible. Alternatively, full auto with the flash deactivated and full natural light, avoid direct sunlight. With a point and shoot this will normally give something usable. As a minimum, in processing:- resize for net use, remove cyan,sharpen (unsharp mask)