Keris Jawa?

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for bringing me back into line David. Yes, I agree, I was a little sarcastic in my previous post. I did not intend to be, I was trying to be gentle, but sometimes my ideas of "gentle" do seem to be at variance with the ideas of some other people.

Gustav, please accept my apologies for any remark in my previous post that you perceived to be sarcastic. As I have said to David, I was trying to be gentle, sometimes I do fail to be as unjudgemental & as forgiving as I might like to be. I understand that we all do the best we can with what we have, and we do not all have the same, or even similar resources to call upon. If I only want to make a passing comment on something I do tend to assume that I do not need to write about things that sort of fall into the area of basic keris understanding.

Gustav, you have asked me to respond to your comments. It is not something I want to do, in my previous post I thought I had made it very clear that I was unable to form a defensible opinion upon the item depicted in the photographs presented by Green. I read your earlier posts #13 & #14 as opinions, and your style seemed to indicate that you wanted me to defend my non-opinions.

However, since you have repeated your request for a detailed response, I'll do what I can to oblige.

"--- curvature of the gonjo is unsuitable for Central Javanese dress --- "


here I was referring to curve in the face of the gonjo that is closest to the mendak. The curve in the gonjo of the keris under discussion is not very pronounced, additionally the gonjo itself appears to be rather short. These two characteristics tend towards a Pajajaran classification, as does the profile of the gonjo when we look down onto the upper face.

However, I am not able to classify this keris as Pajajaran because I have not ever seen an example of a Pajajaran keris that has other characteristics that clearly mark it as Pajajaran, and that align with the characteristics of this keris under discussion.

In a Javanese context, we expect somebody who has the beginning of keris understanding to be able to form an opinion (ie, to give a tangguh opinion) upon the basis of what he can see of a keris when it is still in the wrongko. In the case of the keris under discussion we could perhaps expect to see a Pajajaran keris when it was removed from the gonjo, but we would not see that at all, so we have a wilah that stylistically does not match the gonjo fitted to it.

Why?

The general belief seems to be that such a gonjo has been fitted to the keris to replace a missing gonjo, or for any one of a number of other reasons.

We are aware that West Javanese cultural influences can extend into South Sumatera, there is also stylistic influence on keris form from Central Jawa, and from Bugis culture. Palembang itself is a bit of a melting pot for cultural styles.

Now, a keris of clear Pajajaran classification can have Solo or Jogja dress made for it, and when worn, it will not look out of place, however, if we take one of the off-the-shelf Central Javanese wrongkos and fit a Pajajaran keris to it, what we usually find is that the curve in the gonjo of the keris is insufficient to provide a good mating to the curve in the top of the gambar. On the other hand, keris that have been made according to Central Javanese styles do have sufficient curve to permit a neat mating to an off-the-shelf wrongko.There are some measures we can take to offset a poor mating, but these measures involve adjustments to gambar/gandar angles and proportions, which can result in the keris in a dress position looking less harmonious than it should.

Currently I am working on a laptop, the screen of this machine does not have anywhere near the resolution and clarity of my desktop monitor. On my desktop monitor I can see quite clearly the degree of surface erosion on the wilah itself, and on the unadorned surfaces of the gonjo, ie, the surfaces that are visible between the areas of gold application. These unadorned gonjo surfaces appear to be quite clean, in most places there is no apparent erosion at all.

These indicators of a gonjo that is stylistically variant from the wilah it is attached to, that appears to display a lesser degree of erosion, & that carries gold work that varies from the gold work on the wilah all tend to point in the direction of a gonjo that has replaced the original.

" --- early Pakualaman Keris --- "

Gustav, your mention of "early Pakualamanan keris" is difficult for me to come to terms with. In terms of blade classification, we do not have a tangguh classification of "Pakualamanan", I have never handled a keris that was identified by anybody as "Tangguh Pakualam". Based upon photos I have seen of keris that are attributed to makers who worked for & in the residence of the Pakualam these keris seem as if they would probably be classifiable as Godean.


" --- pawakan is decidedly South Sumatera ---"

When I mentioned "pawakan" :- "--- pawakan is decidedly South Sumatera ---" I was referring to the overall perceived form of the blade, this idea of pawakan is always a subjective judgement, and it takes into account the feeling generated by the blade as much as just the physical appearance. We can liken the opinion of pawakan of a keris to the overall visual impression of a man:- we see something, we feel something, we form an opinion of the man. It is the same with a keris, if I look at a keris, the impression I receive of the pawakan of that keris is based upon all the keris I have seen and handled during my lifetime.

Pawakan alone is not sufficient to permit the formation of an opinion in respect of tangguh, it is only one of a number indicators that we need to use in order to form an opinion that we can defend.

I cannot defend an opinion that this keris is of South Sumateran origin, or, indeed, of any specific origin, thus I have not given an opinion on tangguh, only on pawakan.



In my post #12 my comments on the gold work are:-

" The gold work on the gonjo has been created by a different hand to the hand that created the gold work on the wilah (body of blade). The motifs used in the gold work are motifs I have not seen in Central Javanese kinatah work."


I cannot add to this, I do not recognise the motifs, the actual work has been done by at least two different people, undoubtedly at different times. I cannot even form a non-opinion about this goldwork.

Gustav it seems that you are very certain about this goldwork:-

"The execution of goldwork is also Javanese"

As for the execution of the goldwork being Javanese, well, you are entitled to your opinion, personally I cannot see anything in the actual execution of this gold work that identifies it as having been done in any particular spot.

You advise that;-

"Similar motifs can be found on Javanese Keris from the first half/middle of 19th cent."

The motifs are generic lung-lungan motifs, similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time, but nothing I can recall having seen on any keris is the same as what I can see on this one.

Gustav, you have said:-

" I have not seen any Keris with Kembang Kacang Bungkem outside Java until now."

Neither have I, but a kembang kacang is only one characteristic, and that is the problem with this keris:- it does not fit an accepted style, at least not one that I can recognise. A tangguh opinion is always formed upon the balance of indicators, with this keris the indicators are a dogs breakfast, I cannot form an opinion in respect of classification.

Gustav, you have also said:-

" In fact the execution of the single Sogokan here is Javanese, not South Sumatran."

Now, the sogokan. Gustav, all the carving work in the sorsoran appears to be of a high standard, how high I cannot tell from a photo, the overall appearance of this garap does indeed suggest that it could have been done in the Island of Jawa, but it could equally have been done by any skilled artisan anywhere, in fact, I myself am capable of duplicating this carving, and I am certainly not Javanese.

In the practice of tangguh, when we set out to form an opinion on the origin of a keris blade we begin our process of appraisal by eliminating the geographic areas, and/or the eras from which it could not have come.

The way in which I was taught to do this was by applying the major tangguh indicators in order to reach a decision on whether the keris is indeed Javanese, or whether it originated outside Jawa.

By "Javanese" what is meant is that it originates from within The Land of Jawa, not that it originates from within the Island of Jawa.

This is an important first step, because if it comes from outside the Land of Jawa, it has automatically gone into the "who cares?" box. The system is Jawacentric.

So, having eliminated non-Javanese keris by random application of the indicators used to determine a classification, we then look one by one at each blade and try to confirm our initial opinion that we do indeed have a bundle --- or one --- Javanese blades to deal with.

Often during this second step we will identify other blades that just do not fit into the system. At the conclusion of step two we should have blades that have a high possibility of being able to be classified into a Tangguh classification. This is the point where we can say that we are looking at one or more Javanese blades.

With the keris under discussion, using the tangguh system as I have been taught to use it, I possibly would not be able to move the keris under discussion past step one, I certainly could not move it past step two.

To move away from the blade and consider the mendak.

Gustav, you have mentioned the meniran polos as an exceptional feature.

This is usually found in the work of a jeweller rather than a specialist mendak maker. The granulation technique that produces the little "grains" or balls that we find on mendak is a technique that was not possessed by all jewellers but was possessed in the past by many makers of Central Javanese mendak.

We usually find this meniran polos treatment in lower quality mendak, I have also encountered it on horn & ivory mendak, but in the case of this mendak under discussion, we are dealing with a mendak of fine quality, there are a few details in the fabrication of this mendak that set it above the general run, I very much doubt that these details would be worthwhile attempting in brass, or even in silver. I would be a bit surprised if this mendak was not made of gold.

When keris appraisal is carried out correctly it is a very meticulous skill, perhaps "art" is a better word. We need to apply relatively rigid parameters to very fine details, details that the vast bulk of keris fanciers are not even aware of. We cannot adopt a freewheeling approach that produces nothing but good ideas and guesses. When it gets right down to it, with tangguh we are talking about value:- what is the value of a Kartosuro keris, as compared to a Mataram Sultan Agungan keris? What is the honour factor? What is the gold price? It is business, and if you make mistakes in your buying & selling, you will eventually go bankrupt. It is not a fun game to play to try to display just how clever you are, or to fill in empty time with ego trips.

All of the above is the reason I was not, & am not, prepared to offer a Tangguh classification for this keris. From a collector perspective its not a bad keris, in spite of comments to the contrary I do not consider the sale price to be beyond reason. But would I want it? No, I would not, and I have a number of reasons for this, which I am not prepared to waste time on setting forth.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your detailed response, and for being even more gentle then usual - I very much appreciate that.

I would like to say, that I never in my life have felt a wish to give Tangguh to something, and that includes this particular Keris. I only would like to try to find some clues which possibly could help to narrow down the time and space window for this Keris, and that in my childish approach includes an attempt to find some existing parallels.

I want to make some points, or better, add some details for possible discussion, and I will need a couple of posts for it, because I would like to address one such detail at time, with pictures.

At first, on goldwork, and goldwork on blade and Gonjo.

On the execution - as naive it sounds, I simply am not aware at this point of such meticulous execution of smallest details in high relief outside of island of Java. Of course there is more to Palembang goldwork on Keris then the frequently seen applied gold foil on spine of Gonjo and Gandhik, but this simply is outside of the Palembang capabilities. The closest example, which comes to my mind is the Sultans Keris from Museum Pusat, E 253/13957, close in many other aspects, but in fineness of goldwork detail it doesn't reach this Keris.

Now to the goldwork on Gonjo. As I said in #4 and Alan in #12, the goldwork has been done intwo different time periods. But that applies only to the flat applicated gold on sides and spine of Gonjo, and of course, sides and spine have been smoothened and prepared in some other way (more apparent on spine - in fact I wonder, if the goldwork on spine is yet from another, third period) to apply it. The goldwork on Gonjo under the Gandhik is stylistically and technically analogous to goldwork on blade, and, perhaps difficult to recognise from picture, but the surface here corresponds to the surface of blade.

[Gustav]

I would like to introduce three other blades. At first, an example from Robert Hales book, page 124. We see some correpondences in goldwork motifs, mainly - the lotus motif in the middle of blade, at the end of middle ridge at Gonjo;
- the ball with five rays; on blade discussed in this thread on Gandhik, on blade from book above Poyuhan.

We see a correspondence in execution of single Sogokan - in both cases the "middle ridge" actually goes slightly out of the middle to the other half of blade, so that we have impression, Odo-Odo starts from the middle of Sogokan and not from Janur. I am quite sure, such handling of single Sogokan we most likely wouldn't find on a Palembang blade.

It perhaps doesn't say anything and is just a coincidence, but there we have another old high quality Mendhak with Meniran Polos, which I haven't seen often so far (I also am quite sure the Mendhak of Keris in question is made from gold).

Well, the attribution of Mr. Hales for this blade is Yogyakarta, 18th cent.

[Gustav]

Why I post yet another Keris - on this example, mounted in Solo style, we see the same rendition of single Sogokan, and above the Poyuhan the same motif as on Keris of this thread, yet reversed. Wassing-Visser identifyes it as an orchid - we may argue about it, but she apparently had assistance of K.R.T. Hardjonegoro on some matters.

As different as this Keris may be, in overall shape of Sorsoran it has similar feeling of a little bit high and too short Gonjo, but of course much less extreme then Keris from this thread.

[Gustav]

The last Keris of this row may be superfluous - it may not share much characteristics with Keris from this thread, the goldwork of it is less in quality, yet I nevertheless see some relation between them. The closest point it gets similar in execution is the motif above Poyuhan. Overall in motifs and overall picture of goldwork, prominent longer lines combined with some "old style" vegetal motifs, it goes close to the Keris from Mr. Hale's book. The goldwork on Gonjo belov the Gandhik is identical to it.

The hilt of this Keris and the original of this thread have very similar elongated shape, not only regarding Bungkul.

[Gustav]

Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.

From my side thanks for your last post #18, that's all perfectly clear for me.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, you have commented:-

''Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.''

No Gustav, this is not quite so, the photos you have shown do make sense, these example keris do have indicators that would probably get them accepted as originating from somewhere in the Island of Jawa. However, these keris do not have sufficient indicators to tip the balance in favour of a specific tangguh classification.

The Wassing-Visser keris you have presented in two photographs, in one photo it looks like a poor attempt at a Surakarta style, in the other photo I would probably give it as generic Mataram --- I'm talking style here, not origin .

I have had to look at these two photos several times to confirm that I am in fact looking at the same keris.

This keris also has characteristics that place it outside Surakarta and also exclude it from Mataram, but do tend towards the group of keris that bear characteristics congruent with production of a "rare & unusual" keris produced especially for the collector market.

Harjonegoro was well known in the dealer community in Solo as a buyer for this type of keris. In addition he was not always, let us say, ''open'', evidence of this can be found in published works, evidence that is perfectly obvious as falsehood to some people but would be accepted as gospel by others.

The Robert Hales example is regrettably a very indistinct photo --- it might be a bit easier to see detail when I get home and can use a decent monitor. However, yes, I would accept the Hales keris as originating in the Island of Jawa, but I cannot see much agreement between the Hales keris and the keris we have been discussing, in simple terms they do not look similar, the major sticking point is pawakan.

A full length photo would be useful, an initial indicator for all keris is pawakan.

The keris with the loose gonjo I can also accept as Island of Jawa, but again no similarity with the keris under discussion.

To my eye, and using the parameters I was taught to work with, the three examples of keris that you believe to be similar in some way to the keris under discussion are not very similar to this keris at all.

The major deviation is pawakan, but there is also another, the three keris you have posted as examples all have tungkakan, the keris under discussion does not.

All three examples you have posted have greneng, there is very significant variation in these greneng.

Gustav, the things that you consider as binding indicators are not the things that I have been taught to use as binding indicators. For example, gold work of any type can be considered in a similar way to the way we consider dress, it is just makeup. We would never use either gold work or dress as an indicator for determination of blade classification.

In a previous post I wrote this:-

"--- similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time ---"

I do accept that all three examples you have posted have similarities, I also accept that all three examples you have posted might be able to be considered as originating within the Island of Jawa, however, my position with the keris under discussion is unaltered, I am not prepared to attempt a classification, there are too many conflicting indicators.

I have said that I cannot classify this keris and then defend that classification, this is so:- I cannot.

But equally, I cannot disallow a point of origin, the keris under discussion could be from almost anywhere, but I fail to see how a specific point of origin could be nominated and then that opinion defended --- at least defended in a way that would be accepted by people who have some understanding of the way in which the Central Javanese keris classification systems are used.