Keris Jawa?

[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.

[A. G. Maisey]

*****

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I keep on telling you that you see things differently to the elite keris authorities of Central Jawa, and to me (but I am no Elite), but I have not yet explained how different.

Here is a short list of major indicators that we bring into consideration when trying to determine the classification of a keris blade.

Under each of these heads there are characteristics that can be representative of characteristics found in each established tangguh. I am not going to name these characteristics, nor attempt to explain them, the words & concepts are mostly Javanese and we need to adopt a Javanese frame of reference to achieve entry level understanding, usable understanding can only be achieved through personal tuition on a face to face basis and with access to good examples.

These days there is a multitude of tangguhs, and a lot of these have appeared over the last 30 or so years, they would not all have been recognised as legitimate, in Solo, during the 1980's.

Here I also provide a short list of major, recognised tangguh classifications.

Major Tangguh Classification Indicators as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo

Tanting
Besi
Pamor
Baja
Pawakan
Gonjo
Gandhik
Blumbangan
Sogokan
Ada-ada (odo-odo)
Kruwingan
Eluk-lukan
Wadidang

Major Tangguh Classifications as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo
Accepted as Javanese
Jenggolo
Pajajaran I
Pajajaran II
Mojopahit
Kahuripan
Pengging
Segaluh
Tuban
Pajang
Mataram Senopati
Mataram Sultan Agung
Tuban Mataram/Pajajaran/Mojopahit
Kartosuro
Surakarta
Koripan
Godean

Accepted as outside Jawa
Madura
Kupang
Bugis

It is important to note that these classification names cannot necessarily be understood in a way that the name itself would seem to indicate, classifications can refer to era, or geographic location, or society, or culture there are other un-named classifications.
Tangguh classification should be understood as the name of a classification only, other meanings should not be read into the name in the absence of expert guidance.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your elaborate response and the Tangguh summary.

My only aim at the beginning was to try to explain, why I don't believe the initial Keris of this thread could originate in South Sumatra, Palembang. I posted the three other Keris, because I (at this point or forever) guess, they all could be from roughly the same time period - end of 18th cent until at latest middle of 19th cent., and come from Central Java. I see and understand, why you doubt such geographical attribution for the initial Keris - oncemore thank you for your last three posts.

Just a clarification about the Keris from Wassing-Visser's book - it was part of King Willem's III collection, that means, most likely collected before 1860. She had help of K.R.T Hardjonegoro identifying items, so there is a possibility, that the identification of the Kinatah motif as orchid, and the estimation of blade as ancient type of Solo Keris be his.

And I have a question about Tungkakan. Can we indeed say, the initial Keris doesn't have one, in contrast to the other three? To me the size of it and at least that on Keris from V-W's book seems to be similar.

[Gustav]

On side line, regarding "early Pakualaman Keris" - perhaps I can imagine, why there is no classification for Keris from Pakualaman in Solo.

This one is later, already from around 1875. I am not sure we can say it looks like Godean.

If a long point on Keris Luk is a typical Godean characteristic, Karyodikromo's Keris don't have it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav for the images of keris for comparison.

At this point I'm a bit confused where this conversation is going, I sort of get the feeling that you are trying to demonstrate that the several keris that you have posted pics of all originate from the same place, and that place is the Pakulamanan in Jogja, and if that is correct, then the keris under discussion might also originate from the Pakualamanan in Jogja.

Is this correct?

If so, yes, it is a possibility, but to my eye none of them look like the keris under discussion, and I cannot form an opinion on the keris under discussion, nor of any of the keris of which you have posted photos. I have nothing to measure against, the photos are not particularly good, they have been through a printing process and then a second photographic process.

It is more than a little bit difficult to try to determine tangguh from a photo, and from my perspective all the keris you have posted photos of vary sufficiently to prevent me from forming an opinion on their relationship one to another, or on their point of origin.

Yes, the three keris you have posted images of do look to have originated somewhere in the Island of Jawa, I am reluctant to try to give any of these three keris a classification, but I do agree, they all appear to have originated in the Island of Jawa. None of the three have similarity to the keris under discussion, at least for me they do not.

Gustav, you keep on coming back to the gold work, but if we are trying to establish a classification for the blade, this gold work is totally irrelevant. The motifs are generic and can be found in multiple variation across a very wide area, I said something similar in an earlier post.

I just don't know where we're going.

I doubt that I can contribute anything further to this exchange that might be of some value.



However, just a couple of additional comments probably won't do any harm.


The keris on P.171 of "Royal Gifts" is certainly a Solo keris when it is dressed, however, looking at just the blade, the photos on P.171 are not big enough nor clear enough for me to be certain that the blade itself is a Surakarta blade.

This P.171 keris does not appear to have Surakarta rondha, and the blumbangan appears to be square rather than boto adeg. I've said "appears to be", the blumbangan form is very important, and both the photographic process and the printing process can alter this shape. The variation in shape only needs to be very, very tiny for it to change an opinion on origin.

From what I believe I can see in this P.171 photo I think that upon close examination, this keris might prove to be Mataram --- generic, but still Mataram pattern.

As to identification of the kinatah motif, and the involvement of Goh Tik Swan (ie, Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.)).

The caption under the photo 162 on P.171 does not say that the blade of this complete keris is ancient, it says that the keris in the photo, ie, the entire keris, is an ancient type of keris. Yes, it is an old type, the ladrangan wrongko looks like a type that runs back into the 18th-19th century at least. But the blade? We do not have an opinion on the blade, only on the complete keris.

When we describe a keris in English, we only have one word --- "keris" --- to use for the keris + dress, and for the bare blade of the keris, an advanced collector will understand that if he wishes correctly describe a keris he must separate the description of the blade from the scabbard, would a writer who is a generalist have the same degree of understanding?

Wassing-Visser has shown a complete keris, blade + scabbard, the word "ancient" has been applied to both. I personally feel that the original word used in Dutch might have been "old", or even "very old", and the translator or proof reader has used "ancient", possibly for the sake of style. I have had exactly this same experience myself.

Wassing-Visser acknowledges the assistance of large number of people in production of "Royal Gifts", GTS might have been involved, he might not have been involved, but whether he was or not, no mention is made of the blade of the keris, and the motif might be interpreted as one of the million & one variations of this motif by anybody with some knowledge of Javanese motifs and a motif pattern book --- you need the book, there are far too many motifs & motif variations for anybody to remember. Wassing-Visser could well have interpreted this kinatah motif herself.

In another caption attached to photo 161, a close-up of the sorsoran of this same keris Wassing-Visser names the sogokan as a blood groove. This does not sound like the GTS whom I knew. I strongly suspect that the involvement of Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.) might have been marginal. The inclusion of noted personalities in an acknowledgement list is always a strong support for the material put forward in a published work.


Tungkakan?

I blew it. I was wrong.

The keris under discussion does indeed have a tungkakan. I failed to check the close-ups before writing, I only looked at the full length photo on the rather inadequate laptop screen I was using yesterday, and on this screen I was not able to see the tungkakan. I'm back to my desktop monitor and can see it clearly.

But in any case, sloppy work on my part, I should have looked at the close-ups, I did not.

Why does the list of major (& for that matter, minor) possible keris tangguh classificiations not include the name "Pakualam"?

Nobody has ever told me why, but I do have a pretty firm opinion, and that is because it seems to be very difficult for members of the Surakarta Hadiningrat Karaton hierarchy to even acknowledge the existence of the Karaton Ngayogyakarta, let alone the minor line of Pakualam.

The Pakualamanan is a very minor entity, in English terms it can be thought of as a duchy. The guidelines that set the standards for tangguh classification do not extend to an entity such as the Pakualamanan:- it is very recent (1810 est'd or 1813, I'm not sure which), there is no honour attached to it, it is even less important than the Mangkunegaraan in Solo, and that does not get included in worthy classifications either. Both these houses are simply not good investments from a Javanese point of view.

A whole swath of other minor nonentities are left out of consideration too, the only objective is in applying a classification that can carry some degree of honour, which will ensure that the keris concerned can act as a vehicle for protection of wealth. This is the reason why we only focus on major entities, or at least use the names of major entities.

I've tried to explain, I'll try again:-

the use of the Solo Tangguh Classification system is not to keep collectors happy by giving them something to do on empty Sunday afternoons. It has absolutely nothing to do with collectors from the perspective of the involved Javanese nobility. It has to do with wealth and how to hold wealth in a way that is both socially acceptable and likely to prevent erosion of that wealth.


Regarding the characteristic of a long point on a Godean keris with luk.

Did Karyodikromo make any keris with luk for Groneman?

I don't think I've seen a photo of a Karyodikromo keris with luk.

My memory is that Groneman commissioned 5 keris & his focus was pamor, not dhapur, all 5 keris --- again from memory --- were straight. I think I've still got the KITLV publication of a few years back, I'll see if I can find it and check. (NB, I have now checked, yes, Groneman commissioned five straight keris)

I do remember that when I first saw the kerises that Groneman had had made I thought that they looked a bit like Solo keris (I still do). Maybe Karyodikromo was using a Solo blak.

In my experience every smith of any kind, including keris makers, always use a blak --- ie, pattern, template --- when they make something, but in the case of keris, in the finished product we can usually find characteristics that indicate the school from which the maker has come.

So we can have a Koripan keris that displays the indicators of a M'ram SA keris, in a photo that Koripan keris could be identified as M'ram SA, but once it is in the hand it usually becomes clear that it is Koripan. Exactly the same with Godean, the base characteristics come shining through, but we cannot pick these up from a photo, we need to handle the object.


Incidentally Gustav, what is the source of the photos in your post #28?