New Keris for info

David · 18th May 2019, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

David, I have absolutely no critisism of this keris at all.

None.

The blade is indeed finely crafted. No dispute about that at all.

Yes, in the society of origin, the keris panjang probably did have a status level attached to it, but did this status level transfer, along with the keris form, to other societies where the form appears? In so far as Central Jawa is concerned, I can pretty definitely say that it did not.

Alan, do i understand you correctly to say that keris panjang from Central Jawa made post 1850 and in the PBX era did not have any special societal applications as it did in Sumatra? Just anybody would order and carry a keris panjang in that society and time?
BTW, when i spoke of criticism of the blade i was directing my comment specifically to Jean's comments, not your own.

Frankly you seem far more generous with possible age than i would be here. to my eye this blade, though finely crafted, seems more likely to be a contemporary one, though, of course, an in-hand examination might make me decide otherwise. And if, as Jean and yourself point out, "the Palembangish sarong, Tagongish hilt, newish panjangish/ Javanish blade, and tambalish pamor", it seems far more likely to be that this ensemble came together more recently than not. 100 years ago i do not believe people were carving "Tagongish" hilts, were as today we find many carvers in both Madura and Jawa having a go at that style. Though admittedly i am not enough of an aficionado of tajong style to know if this hilt is a true Tajong hilt or not.

kai · 18th May 2019, 10:40 PM

This is not a genuine Tajong hilt - very likely an Indo copy.

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 18th May 2019, 11:22 PM

Pretty much so David.

During the PBX era, and I think beginning perhaps a little before that, those in the upper levels of society were collecting keris art, and weapon art. Pakubuwana X himself was a very enthusiastic collector, he liked unusual hilts, unusual keris, and he had his palace craftsmen copy weapons from Europe, the Indian Sub-Continent, and other places.

There is no place in Javanese society for a keris that falls outside the normal mode of wear. A great long keris that was unable to be worn in a style that was regarded as acceptable in Javanese society had no place in that society. Javanese nobles could not wander around the streets skewering people lower down in the societal hierarchy in order to test their new kerises, as reportedly the nobles of old Malaya did.

So, although there definitely were long keris made in Central Jawa, they did not form a part of the dress code.

It was not a matter of "just anybody" who could possess a long keris, it was more a matter of who had sufficient disposable income to own a keris for which there was purpose other than to make the possessor feel good. Pretty much the way we operate today. In 19th century Jawa, the whole thing of weapons as art and collectables appears to have begun in the kraton, and from there was picked up by others lower down in the pecking order.

The pamor on this keris is not a pamor that resembles a tambal pamor, it is a tambal pamor, and one of the names for the pamor contained in the applied patches is "koro welang", others might give it as "pandan iris", and there are possibly other names in use also.

However, the component parts of the dress seem to me to resemble the representative styles rather than to be authentic productions of those styles.

As to age of the blade, and separately, age of the complete keris.

I do not consider that I have been generous with my estimate of age, I have given a window of 100 years , beginning yesterday and continuing backwards for 100 years or so. That 100 years encompasses the revival period, which began in about 1975 and was in full swing by the 1980's.

I regard "current era" as the period that is identified by some as "Kemardikan" . I personally do not like this designation of Kemardikan, and if I'm out of step with most others, so be it.

If we are to place origin of this blade into Jawa, we need to identify a possible place of origin, and I cannot. If we regard Madura as a part of Jawa, yes, we can identify a possible place of origin. But I am reluctant to give this keris as a Madura, current era production, for the simple reason that I have not seen a similar keris that I knew had been produced in Madura, and this is the benchmark that I personally use when I give something as "Madura, current era". I prefer to be conservative, rather than to say something is so when I it might not be so.

However, all that said, the surface of this blade does look a lot like a blade that has been treated during the current era.

As to age of the dress. I'm not particularly interested in this. No matter when the dress was made, it is no more than something to house the keris. I doubt that the hilt and wrongko come from the geographic locations that generated these styles, but my measure of their desirability would be their quality, and I cannot really judge this from a photograph.

If one is an antique collector who likes keris, well, obviously the age and authenticity of dress is important, but if one is a collector and student of the keris, age and authenticity of dress comes a very distant second --- something to be considered , perhaps, and often, not even that.

mariusgmioc · 19th May 2019, 10:53 AM

Thank you very much for this very interesting and very educative discussion!

kayoba84 · 28th May 2019, 03:18 AM

Greetings guys,

I tend to agree with Kai. Am pretty sure that the Tajong hilt is an Indonesian copy, and thus, fairly current.

mariusgmioc · 28th May 2019, 10:49 AM

Thank you for all the comments!

I am a novice in terms of knowledge about the keris. However, I noticed very often that kerises we see today are in most cases mixtures of different elements and influences, to the point it becomes very difficult to point the origin of a keris. So, we have "Balinese" kerises that are in fact Javanese but in a Balinese dress, we have "Buginese" kerises made in Solo and so on...

So a Sumatran keris with a Tajong style hilt, shouldn't come as a surprise.

Or am I wrong in my conclusion as it is based on my ignorance and a flawed observation?!

PS: I am certain this is a fairly new keris (maybe around 50-60 years old as it was in a collection for the last 40+ years).

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2019, 01:08 PM

Marius, the component parts that make up a complete keris have always been a case of "mix & match". Always.

Mostly we see Javanese blades in dress from various other places, this is so because Jawa was a major exporter of keris and other weapons, but the people of the Archipelago also moved all over the place, traders, farmers looking for land, craftsmen looking for employment, men marrying into a different society, women marrying into a different society, mercenaries hired by lords both great and small. So, movement of trade goods, and movement of people.

The various societies and groups of people did not stay in separate, exclusive little groups. They mixed.

Trade goods moved from one place to another.

Where a society or a group within a society --- such as a kraton and its members --- had influence over a society, keris tended to be uniform in their various component parts, or at least in their dress styles. But the further you get from the influence of a kraton, the greater the variation in the component parts of a keris.

In small, isolated groups of people, such as fishing villages or isolated farming communities you will often find complete keris that have been made up from component parts that come from every point of the compass.

I think that it is perhaps an almost universal desire of keris collectors to have all component parts of a keris matching the geographic point of origin. But in the real world things are a bit different to this.

In Bali, what we find is that the pusaka keris or krises held by a family are quite often Javanese keris, in Balinese dress, certainly, but the blades are Javanese.

This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.

David · 28th May 2019, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.

I certainly have no argument with anything that Alan has said here, but feel it is important to emphasize this last sentence since, after all, it is THIS keris that Marius has brought to us and asked questions about.
I do really like this blade Marius and yes, i believe it is of the contemporary era. Malaysian keris are not my forte, but since a couple of others have chimed in that they feel the tajong hilt on this keris is relative new and not carved by a Malaysian i will tend to agree with my first suspicion. While Alan is completely correct about how and why various mixed dress keris have come into being over the centuries, i believe what we have here is a relatively new ensemble that has simply been dressed in a mix of relatively new parts that very possibly were all made in Jawa. I think that is quite a different thing from the scenario that Alan has described for keris that have actually seen a societal life in places isolated from centers of keraton power.
One thing i have noted with modern era keris making is a tendency to homogenized keris form across the archipelago. I have seen many new blades that mix elements for different areas of keris making and it is becoming more difficult with some of these new forms to easily identify their place of origin. Frankly i find this a bit sad, but maybe that is just me. I suppose when this keris was assembled that they saw nothing wrong with placing a blade with many Javanese indicators into a sheath that is somewhat Palembang with a hilt that is clearly meant to be a Malaysian form. I know a lot of Malaysian collectors who would particularly scream over this since the tajong form is rather specific to both the type of sheath and blade that it belongs with. And many of them are not too fond of Javanese and Madurese made copies of their traditional Malay hilt form.
All this said, this is your keris now and you should dress it as you will and see fit. For my own personal sensibilities i would probably swap out the tajong hilt for something more appropriate for the keris panjang form as i already showed since that is a pretty easy "fix". But i don't thing anyone would blame you for keeping it as is. It's still a beautiful keris in my eyes.

28th May 2019, 03:18 AM	#5
kayoba84 Member Join Date: Apr 2017 Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia Posts: 9	New Keris for info Greetings guys, I tend to agree with Kai. Am pretty sure that the Tajong hilt is an Indonesian copy, and thus, fairly current.

18th May 2019, 10:40 PM	#2
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	This is not a genuine Tajong hilt - very likely an Indo copy. Regards, Kai

18th May 2019, 11:22 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Pretty much so David. During the PBX era, and I think beginning perhaps a little before that, those in the upper levels of society were collecting keris art, and weapon art. Pakubuwana X himself was a very enthusiastic collector, he liked unusual hilts, unusual keris, and he had his palace craftsmen copy weapons from Europe, the Indian Sub-Continent, and other places. There is no place in Javanese society for a keris that falls outside the normal mode of wear. A great long keris that was unable to be worn in a style that was regarded as acceptable in Javanese society had no place in that society. Javanese nobles could not wander around the streets skewering people lower down in the societal hierarchy in order to test their new kerises, as reportedly the nobles of old Malaya did. So, although there definitely were long keris made in Central Jawa, they did not form a part of the dress code. It was not a matter of "just anybody" who could possess a long keris, it was more a matter of who had sufficient disposable income to own a keris for which there was purpose other than to make the possessor feel good. Pretty much the way we operate today. In 19th century Jawa, the whole thing of weapons as art and collectables appears to have begun in the kraton, and from there was picked up by others lower down in the pecking order. The pamor on this keris is not a pamor that resembles a tambal pamor, it is a tambal pamor, and one of the names for the pamor contained in the applied patches is "koro welang", others might give it as "pandan iris", and there are possibly other names in use also. However, the component parts of the dress seem to me to resemble the representative styles rather than to be authentic productions of those styles. As to age of the blade, and separately, age of the complete keris. I do not consider that I have been generous with my estimate of age, I have given a window of 100 years , beginning yesterday and continuing backwards for 100 years or so. That 100 years encompasses the revival period, which began in about 1975 and was in full swing by the 1980's. I regard "current era" as the period that is identified by some as "Kemardikan" . I personally do not like this designation of Kemardikan, and if I'm out of step with most others, so be it. If we are to place origin of this blade into Jawa, we need to identify a possible place of origin, and I cannot. If we regard Madura as a part of Jawa, yes, we can identify a possible place of origin. But I am reluctant to give this keris as a Madura, current era production, for the simple reason that I have not seen a similar keris that I knew had been produced in Madura, and this is the benchmark that I personally use when I give something as "Madura, current era". I prefer to be conservative, rather than to say something is so when I it might not be so. However, all that said, the surface of this blade does look a lot like a blade that has been treated during the current era. As to age of the dress. I'm not particularly interested in this. No matter when the dress was made, it is no more than something to house the keris. I doubt that the hilt and wrongko come from the geographic locations that generated these styles, but my measure of their desirability would be their quality, and I cannot really judge this from a photograph. If one is an antique collector who likes keris, well, obviously the age and authenticity of dress is important, but if one is a collector and student of the keris, age and authenticity of dress comes a very distant second --- something to be considered , perhaps, and often, not even that.

19th May 2019, 10:53 AM	#4
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	Thank you very much for this very interesting and very educative discussion!

28th May 2019, 10:49 AM	#6
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,911	Thank you for all the comments! I am a novice in terms of knowledge about the keris. However, I noticed very often that kerises we see today are in most cases mixtures of different elements and influences, to the point it becomes very difficult to point the origin of a keris. So, we have "Balinese" kerises that are in fact Javanese but in a Balinese dress, we have "Buginese" kerises made in Solo and so on... So a Sumatran keris with a Tajong style hilt, shouldn't come as a surprise. Or am I wrong in my conclusion as it is based on my ignorance and a flawed observation?! PS: I am certain this is a fairly new keris (maybe around 50-60 years old as it was in a collection for the last 40+ years).

28th May 2019, 01:08 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Marius, the component parts that make up a complete keris have always been a case of "mix & match". Always. Mostly we see Javanese blades in dress from various other places, this is so because Jawa was a major exporter of keris and other weapons, but the people of the Archipelago also moved all over the place, traders, farmers looking for land, craftsmen looking for employment, men marrying into a different society, women marrying into a different society, mercenaries hired by lords both great and small. So, movement of trade goods, and movement of people. The various societies and groups of people did not stay in separate, exclusive little groups. They mixed. Trade goods moved from one place to another. Where a society or a group within a society --- such as a kraton and its members --- had influence over a society, keris tended to be uniform in their various component parts, or at least in their dress styles. But the further you get from the influence of a kraton, the greater the variation in the component parts of a keris. In small, isolated groups of people, such as fishing villages or isolated farming communities you will often find complete keris that have been made up from component parts that come from every point of the compass. I think that it is perhaps an almost universal desire of keris collectors to have all component parts of a keris matching the geographic point of origin. But in the real world things are a bit different to this. In Bali, what we find is that the pusaka keris or krises held by a family are quite often Javanese keris, in Balinese dress, certainly, but the blades are Javanese. This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.