A. G. Maisey

Yes David, but much, much more than that.

The point of the sogokan (poyuhan) must be exactly, precisely the same distance from the blade base (ie wilah base, excludes gonjo) on each blade face, placement of each single feature must be precisely the same on each blade face.

The rondha and the greneng overall must be exactly the same on each side.

The work on a top level Surakarta blade is expected to be extremely precise, what we can see in these pics would indicate that if we had this blade in hand and examined it under magnification and measured it accurately we might find unacceptable variation. What I mean by "unacceptable" is unacceptable to permit this blade to be regarded as top level. Good, yes, but not good enough.

Gavin Nugent

Thanks Alan,

Your posts are very educational. The last paragraph above again helped me understand more on the subtleties, thank you for the perspective.

A lot of it all eludes me but every now and then I grasp a little. I can't claim any real credit or knowledge though. You proposed a question, I hit the books. I really wish I could read many other languages as it was Haryono Haryoguritno's work Keris Jawa that eventually got me on point, but not until I thumbed through every page a few times did things slot in to place... my kingdom for an English translation!

Gavin

A. G. Maisey

Gavin, when I asked that question I had in my mind that all anybody who could see needed to do was open up "Keris Jawa" and have a bit of a browse.

It is very seldom that we can give a halfway decent opinion of a keris classification from a photo. Segaluh is about the only one I can think of where just about anybody should get it. But with this Surakarta keris, probably made in Palembang, it was just so obvious that I was certain somebody would get it, and it is a really interesting blade. Worth the time to consider the nature of keris coming out of Sumatra.

Actually the very best book for any beginner in keris is not Haryoguritno, you need a pretty decent level of knowledge to sort the wheat from the chaff. The best beginner's book on Javanese keris is Garrett & Bronwen Solyom's "World of the Javanese Keris". If you want to understand keris, that's where you start.

When considering keris books written by Indonesians it is always worth remembering that the motivation for writing these books should not ever be considered to be the same as the motivation for somebody who is not Indonesian to write such a book.

Garrett & Bronwen's book was written purely to provide solid knowledge to people who lacked that knowledge. It has no error.

kai

Hello all,

Apologies for not responding in a timely manner - I’ve been too busy to catch up earlier.

Looking at the pics again, it’s well possible that I was far out in the left field, especially with bringing Madura into the discussion: The overview pic seems to be taken at an angle (blade tilted to the right) which results in some distortion; wide-eye lenses (mobile phones) tend to distort images even further. When looking at pics, I try to mentally correct for such distortions - this time I got stuck though.

However, if I go from the pics (especially the close-up of the base of the blade and this photographic representation is all we can go by on this forum), this blumbangan still seems to be very close to square. Whenever I measure from the enlarged close-up, I obtain a ratio of height/width very close to 1 (i.e. square shape), about 1.02 (range 1.075-0.966). [A standing brick would be expected to have a ratio well above 1, a lying brick well below 1.]

Alan, I’m sure, when assessing a keris blade, you go by a mental image (i.e. general impression) of the proportions rather than actual measurements; however, could you narrow down which measurements may be most suited though, please? (E.g. length of the left edge of the blumbangan and possibly shortest connection between upper left corner of blumbangan to centerline of the blade? Or does this connection need to be perpendicular to the ada-ada/janur or even perpendicular to the left edge of the blumbangan?)

It’s my understanding that the proportion of the blumbangan is of quite some importance; at least it is one of the least likely features to change after manufacture.

Greneng resembling this style are seen in keris from early European Kunstkammer collections, too. These may well hark back to Majapahit styles (if not originating from this era which seems less likely for most of these blades). Thus, this ron dha style is not restricted to Surakarta either.

I have absolutely no problems to accept your line of reasoning for the small keris Palembang shown by John in the thread referenced earlier (post #7) - you already mentioned the close relationship to Surakarta style back then (post #23 in the older thread).

With the current example, there seems to be too much conflicting evidence (ron dha, blumbangan, blade shape) to reach a safe conclusion in my very humble opinion. Perhaps you can tell us more about weighting possibly incongruous features, Alan? Thanks in advance!

Regards,
Kai

kai

Hello Alan,


If there was any evidence suggesting that this keris is an ensemble that was traditionally worn by a former owner as-is (or even a decent likelihood only), I’d fully agree not to change anything. However, very few keris have enough provenance to suggest them likely being genuine ensembles.

Usually we have to go by indicators when trying to estimate whether any given keris may survive as an original ensemble.

For keris Palembang, we have a pretty good number of extant examples to reconstruct how original status ensembles looked like; this one doesn’t feel right to me at all…

As already mentioned (post #12), it is wise to keep any replaced parts. And to pass them on to any future owners so that any changes are fully reversible.

I believe the majority of keris in collections worldwide got sold/traded (usually via several middlemen) and many ensembles got altered during this process. While there are certainly genuine examples with fittings that are of thoroughly mixed origins and also reflect the genuine choice of the last traditional owner within his(/her) cultural environment, this seems to be a bit farfetched as a default assumption for most extant ensembles with strong discrepancies in style and/or quality, I believe.

(I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey

Yes Kai, you're right, if I look at a blade it is measured against a mental template, initial appraisal is always based on overall impression that takes into account the dominant feeling of the pawakan, and any particular characteristic that is only attributable to a particular classification.

Once you have that you then examine more closely to try to disprove the initial evaluation. If you cannot disprove that initial evaluation, it stands.

Blumbangan is of relative importance but it cannot over-rule everything else.

Blade classification in my terms is "tangguh" in the terms of just about everybody else, I use "classification" because I have yet to meet anybody from a western culture who truly understands all the things that "keris tangguh" expresses to a Javanese ahli keris. Use of the word "classification" simplifies things and brings the whole concept back to something that people who are outside Javanese culture can more or less understand.

Never forget this:- the Solonese tangguh system was initiated for very specific reasons, reasons that I will not go into here, it was not initiated so that keris collectors would have something to talk about. This tangguh system should only be applied to very high quality blades of investment quality. Yes everybody now wants to stick a tangguh onto everything, but that is not really the way things are supposed to work.

When we look very closely at a high quality blade we base our judgement on the impression , some things are measurable, I mean able to measured precisely with verniers, things like the width of a kruwingan, other things are close to impossible to measure accurately, or perhaps can be part measured and then we gauge placement and impression.

The greneng is the maker's signature. Look at the illustrations in KJ.

It is not only the signature of the maker, but also a major indicator of classification. The ron dha used in a Surakarta keris is similar to the ron dha used in a keris that is classifiable as Mojo, but it is not the same.

We need to be pay extremely close attention to detail when we look at quality keris.

Surakarta echoes Mojo, but it is very far from being the same, and within the Surakarta classification there is variation between periods and makers, and vast variation in quality.

To even begin to understand this we need a very great deal of experience. There is no easy way, there is no formula, there is nothing that can be written down as a set of rules. We need to handle one hell of a lot of keris in the presence of and under the guidance of somebody who really does understand.

The judgement of a blade classification is an opinion. Sometimes that opinion will be based on a 99% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be based on a 51% agreement with indicators, sometimes it will be 50/50.

Whether the opinion is accepted or not is usually based upon the generally agreed position of the person giving the opinion. This is exactly the same as applies in the world of art in general where an appraiser is generally agreed as being the greatest living authority on the work of a particular period, or artist within a period.

A. G. Maisey

I understand "genuine ensemble" as meaning a keris that is in the dress that it had when it left the culture of origin. If that keris was with a custodian who actually wore it, or whether it was with a dealer or agent within the culture of origin, I accept that ensemble as genuine.

Why do I include dealers and agents?

Because in the societies with which I am familiar, many people buy a keris fully dressed from a dealer or agent and never touch it as long as they have it.

This can vary of course, sometimes a keris will be redressed to suit an occasion, often a single blade can have half a dozen different forms of dress, for example dress to attend an evening function, dress to inspect ricefields, dress to go to an afternoon of dance practice, dress to appear less than one really is, dress to appear more than one really is.

To form an opinion on the "genuiness" of keris dress based upon a keris seen out of context is unwise and cannot be substantiated. It is an opinion formed without knowledge. We need to see the keris within its context in order to form an opinion that can be substantiated.

The idea of keeping replaced parts on a keris may be something that would appeal to a collector who is based in a society outside the area of origin, but it is something that within society of origin would be regarded as being at best something to smile at. Something like keeping a worn out suit of clothes, or the suit that you wore when you were a junior clerk, as opposed to the suit that you wear when you attend a board meeting.

Frankly, I do not see this keris as a "status" keris. It is made in a particular style, but it is almost a caricature of that style, as if the style has been described and noted, but the maker has perhaps never seen more than one or two of that style in his life.

It is a nice keris, but to paint it as "status" is more than a bit extreme.

Kai, in respect of this:-

" (I'm not sure what you refer to regarding to Si Ginjei or Palembang vs Jambi - feel free to expand, please!)"

I don't have time to go looking for what I wrote, and since I wrote what has piquied your interest I have probably written something like 25,000 words about a number of subjects and for different purposes.

Could you please direct me to the passage concerned and frame your question as precisely as possible? I'll do my best to respond.

Jean

Yes Alan, I fully agree and I would propose that from now on we should use "classification" instead of "tangguh" in this forum to avoid confusion and misunderstanding such as using the tangguh concept for blades from outside Java/ Madura.
In my book and after having failed to properly understand and describe the tangguh concept, I have used the word "style" which may not be fully appropriate but is easily understandable by Western collectors.
BTW I just checked the book "The World of the Javanese Keris" and noticed that unless I miss a few mentions the authors did not use the word "tangguh" at all but referred the age of the blades to the historical periods such as Majapahit, Pajajaran, and Mataram. I feel that the age estimate of some blades is overestimated but this is only my personal opinion.
Regards

Jean

Just for reference, pics of the sorsoran of a blade possibly originating from Banten and dating from the 17th century, before and after the warangan treatment.
Regards

Attached Images

  

kai

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your responses - I'll try to tackle other topics later.



Rather to the contrary, your original statement at the end of post #26 in this thread was too terse for me, I'm afraid. I suppose that you refer to your last post (#15 in the referenced thread) but I fail to see the connection to the current discussion. (If a discussion Palembang style vs Jambi style is deemed relevant, I guess my first question would be who attributed those old keris to Palembang and on what reason?)

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey

Jean, how good is the provenance on that keris?

How certain are we of the dating?

How certain are we that it is from Banten?

At this point I am not arguing against Banten, but I will say that it appears to tick all the boxes for a Surakarta keris, and it lacks characteristics that we would normally be looking for in a Banten keris.

Would it be possible to do a close-up as near to 90 degrees as possible of the wadidang side greneng, and also straight down onto the top of the gonjo?

Also a full length shot so we can see the pawakan.



Kai, I apologise if you consider that my use of words was too sparing Kai, Frankly I just don't understand what you're getting at or what your question is. But if I was sparing in my use of words, perhaps it was because I had nothing of any great importance to say, so I most gently suggest that you ignore that which you find confusing or objectionable. Just leave my terse comments to sit wherever they might be and languish in loneliness.

Jean

Hello Alan,
I said "possibly originating from Banten and dating from the 17th century" because of the large similarities between this blade and the specimens shown in the Krisdik from Jensen and in the Dresden and Copenhagen collections, especially the dapur/ ricikan and the size of the blade.
I will shot more pics but am not sure that they will give more accurate evidence.

My supporting arguments for the Banten or Blambangan origin and estimated age are as follows:
. Unfortunately the blade was shortened and only has 9 or 11 luks against probably 13 originally and measures only 31.5 cm instead of 38-40 cm estimated as the typical blades from Banten. (see pics)
. The dapur and ricikan are extremely similar to the reference blades from Banten/ Blambangan.
. The blade is significantly heavier (thicker and wider) than the standard Surakarta blades including the PB ones.
. The attached hilt is typical of the 17th century pieces from Banten or Blambangan.
. The blade was sheathless as you would expect from a very old piece from an uncommon origin (a Surakarta blade would more probably have a scabbard).
Regards

Attached Images

  

A. G. Maisey

Thanks Jean, but I still need those other shots.

This looks more Banten than your first pics.

Jean

Hello Alan,
I attach the pics as requested and hope that they are adequate.
I would like to add the following indicators which point to a 17th century blade rather than a Surakarta one IMO:
. The blade remains wide to almost the point, the width is still 2.2 cm at the last luk (29 cm from the base of the blade).
. The kembang kacang is very strong.
. The short kruwingan depan & belakang (or long tikel alis & sraweyan) are very typical of these 17th century blades.
. If the blade had originally 13 luks as I would expect, there is no Surakarta dhapur matching with this one (Parungsari and Sengkelat being the closest).
. Last but not least, the thin twin lines on the sirak cecak of the ganja are very typical of these 17th century blades and not (or very rarely) seen on Surakarta blades to my best knowledge.
Regards

Attached Images

   

A. G. Maisey

Thanks Jean, yes, I agree with you, this can be classified as Banten. I think this demonstrates just how difficult it can be to classify from photos. There is so much that cannot be adequately appraised from photos, that it is silly to even try in most cases. I'd still like this in my hand to be absolutely certain, but I can now see sufficient to be reasonably confident that we're not looking at Surakarta.