Codes / Motifs
 

I have seen three recurring forms of kinatah applied to ganjas (the exposed top); they are usually either the Lion, the Elephant or the Buffalo .

I'm sure the symbolism is there for certain acts or deeds performed in the service of a Ruler .

But i believe Alan has already established that such a code did in fact exist, albeit, from his knowledge for one particular kraton. I does seem logical however that all kratons had a similar code, though the specification might be somewhat different from one to the other. This could allow for a good number of acceptable designs in general.

I would be interested to know if the kinatah motifs on the blades shown in some reference books such as "Keris Jawa" or the recent translation of Groneman's book are traditional or modern ones. The books are not with me at present so I can't pinpoint any specific example.
Regards

Jean. I'm afraid that I cannot answer your question.

I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of all possible variations of the motifs specified for use in the Kraton Surakarta, and then there are all the other specified motifs used in other kratons. In fact, I seriously doubt if anybody could answer your question.

If shown a particular kinatah motif I might be able to give an opinion as to whether it was a recent confection, or if it was something old. I can recognise older forms of singo barong, and naga, I can recognise older workmanship in lung-lungan motifs and sekar motifs, but I most certainly cannot ID everything either one way or the other. Haryonoguritno's book might not be a particularly good place to start, there is a lot of current era high art in that book.

One of the problems is this:- although a motif might be specified, the interpretation of the motif can vary from era to era , just the same as a keris dhapur can have exactly the same ricikan but totally different execution, which might be stylistc according to a maker, or stylistic according to an era.

I believe it would only be possible give a determination as to age and conformity with a set motif upon an individual basis, I don't think it would be possible to declare definitively that a certain example of a motif was the only valid way for that motif to be interpreted.

I have copies of the pattern books of several pendok craftsmen who work and who have worked in the Solo idiom. Throughout these books there are motifs that have the same name, but if you place each maker's pattern alongside the others, you will see significant variation in detail. All are valid renditions of the motif, but they vary. We can expect a similar thing in most, if not all craft work.

This variation becomes even greater when a motif transfers from one vehicle to another, for instance, a motif used in batik work and then used in some other form of decorative art. One such motif is the well known parang rusak. It is a common batik motif, and it is also a common pendok motif. The pendok motif contains the essential elements of the batik motif, but it varies greatly in detail. You can see the same thing over and over again in various motifs.

The information you are seeking is just too diverse to pin down to some sort of easily accessible formula or matrix, to understand the answers to the question you have raised we need to look at many, many examples that spread over many years and many forms, then we may be able to make a reasonable guess.

Hello Alan,
Thank you and I realize that my question is impossible to reply but you actually confirmed that many of the kinatah blades shown in the book "Keris Jawa" are recent pieces. Upon my return I will try to show more specimens of kinatah emas blades and I encourage other members to do the same just for sharing this nice art work, whether old or not. :)
Regards

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, A BIT OVER MY HEAD AS ONE NOT TOO SCHOOLED IN THE KERIS BUT INTERESTING AND I CAN CERTIANLY ENJOY THE PICTURES ALONG WITH EVERYONE. :)
THE ONE EXAMPLE PICTURED INCORPORATES 4 DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND COVERS THE BLADE FROM FORTE TO TIP. IS THIS A RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THE ARTIST WANTED TO INCORPORATE AS MANY HONORS AS POSSIBLE ON ONE BLADE? I SUSPECT THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE ON A GOOD OLD EXAMPLE AS EACH METAL /HONOR WOULD LIKELY BE AWARDED SEPARATELY NOT LUMPED TOGETHER. THIS LOOKS ALL RIGHT AS ART BUT WOULD IT BE LIKELY AS AN HONOR AWARDED?.
WHAT ANIMALS ARE TRADITIONALY USED? THE EXAMPLE STATED ABOVE HAS A LION,DEER, WATER BUFFALOW OR COW AND AN ELEPHANT. THE ONLY OTHER ONES I CAN THINK OF ARE NAGAS/ DRAGONS AND PEOPLE OR BUDDA. ARE THESE THE ONLY TRADITIONAL DESIGNS USED OR ARE THERE OTHERS?
DOES THE FLORAL DESIGNS REPRESENT SOME HONOR OR ARE THEY THERE JUST TO EMBELISH THE DESIGN AND HONORED FIGURES.
THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ALWAYS ASK THE MOST QUESTIONS
HOPEFULLY AT BEST THEY WILL BE GOOD QUESTIONS. :D

Have received the keris and it is not so good as supposed but also not bad as many I have seen before. Here some first fast taken pictures.

The kinatah seems to be from brass and very thin gold washed.

And here, since Jean asked for, pictures of an IMHO old kinatah blade.

By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked. :shrug:

And here recent Madura work.

Hello Detlef,
You may test the presence of gold at a jeweller's shop or by using a gold test kit. I don't see clearly the presence of brass on these pictures as the kinatah looks shiny. May be low carat and thin gold coat? High gold content kinatah (22 kt) has a deeper colour. :)
Regards

Hello Detlef,
Thank you for the detailed pictures. This specimen is interesting because I am not sure that the Singo Barong is original to the blade: from the pictures there seems to be a discontinuity in the pamor lines at the interface of the blade and the singa, the pamor lines of the singa look denser than on the blade itself and the colour of the iron is a bit different. So the singa may have been welded later on the blade, what do you think?
I have a similar Singo Barong blade but it is more difficult to determine if the singa is more recent than the blade or not because it is more covered by gold, I will send detailed pictures in the next days.
This is my impression from the pictures but other opinions are of course welcome! :)
Regards

Hello Jean,

have a look at the last picture, at the gonjo you can clearly see the brass at some places where the gold is gone. And I have cleaned the green copper compound which is clearly a sign for brass.

Regards,

Detlef

Hello Jean,

have had the same thoughts before but I am very very unsure by this. When it is like you suppose someone have done a good work.

Regards,

Detlef

In the period between 1812 and 1818 Stamford Raffles, who was Governor of Jawa during the period it was under British control, remarked that the keris in Jawa had become an item of dress . He said something like:-

" the keris in Jawa now occupies a position similar that of the small sword in Europe 50 years ago".

So 200 years ago the keris in Jawa had to a very great extent already lost the societal position it had held during the Majapahit era and the period concurrent with the rise of Islam in Jawa. If we consider the line of dominant kingdoms in Jawa, through to perhaps the mid 17th century, when the involvement of the Dutch began to have a very real erosive effect on Javanese power and culture, we can very easily understand that the position of the keris in Jawa had already undergone significant change during the more than 150 years to 1812 when Raffles made his observation.

So, when we talk about "old keris", and "new keris", exactly what sort of time frame are we talking about in respect of Jawa?

Many Javanese people consider keris that can be classified as Mataram , Sultan Agung to be the last of the "old keris", or if not that, then the first of the "new keris".

In other words "old keris" roughly pre-date 1650.

When the Japanese occupied Jawa during WWII an era came to an end. Under Dutch colonialism the Central Javanese kingdoms were still accorded a token level of power and traditional Javanese kraton culture was still alive, although to a much lesser degree than had been the case a couple of hundred years earlier. There were still great empus working under the aegis of the ruler of Surakarta. WWII put a lid on all of that, and keris culture did not really revive until the mid-1970's.

So the other landmark date that attaches to keris is 1942.

Javanese keris of the period prior to 1942 can be considered to still be "old keris" in one interpretation of the concept.


In respect of the "traditional" motifs used in keris kinatah work, my understanding of this use of the word "traditional" is that the motifs involved should be motifs that also occur in the descendents of the keris of Majapahit which have continued in unpolluted form, that is, the keris of Bali.

Many of the motifs used in keris ornamentation and other Javanese ornamentation can be associated with Islamic or European roots, not indigenous nor Hindu roots.

So, for me a traditional keris motif is one that can be associated with either a Javanese indigenous root or a Hindu root. Admitted, this is a personal opinion, but if we look at the traditional motifs used in kraton keris culture, my opinion seems to reflect the stance adopted by at least the senior kraton of Jawa, the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat.

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

This may be an "old" blade", but the winged figure appears to my eyes to be a much later addition, as then would be the kinatah. Doesn't seem like the type of workmanship i would expect from older kinatah, though the material may well be real gold. :shrug:

OK Detlef, you cleaned it very well! :)

Hello Alan,
Yes, this is a difficult question and subject to endless discussion. Personally I classify as old a blade estimated to date from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the ones estimated as older , I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.
And regarding the traditional kinatah motifs, I agree with your definition (Hindu or Javanese origin and endorsed by the kratons). :)
Best regards
Jean

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue. :shrug:

Good possible but the figure and with it the kinatah work is certainly not added recently, have a look to the gonjo where the gold is majoritarian gone. This blade isn't a great work of art but the kinatah is done with 22 carat gold when I remember correct.

Regards,

Detlef

BTW, I think that the "winged figure" is a nymph, a blade with a similar gandhik figure is shown in "Keris Jawa antara Mistik dan Nalar" from Haryono Haryoguritno on page 167 (Gbr. 4.20r) labeled as gandhik WIDADARI. Widadari is a heaven nymph so far I know.

Regards,

Detlef

Hello David,
Thank you for your valid comment; I could not find a better term and the confusion comes from the French language in which one definition of antique is just very old/ very ancient without any specific age in mind. Any suggestion for a replacement term?
Regards

hmmm....by your standard, perhaps "very, VERY old"? ;) :D

hmmm....i'm not sure i see anything in the gonjo area that tells me one way or another when this decoration was added. The simple fact that some of it is now gone does not determine the age of the work for me. As you point out, this blade is no great work of art. My suspicion here is that the carving and gold were added in recent times to increase the interest and resale of this blade. It is, of course, just a suspicion. I don't want to take away from your joy of this blade, but you did present it as an "old" example of kinatah and i still have serious doubts to that. :shrug:

Old keris.

When we begin to attempt to put an actual age on a keris blade we really are digging ourselves further and further into a mire.

How is it possible to estimate the age of a keris blade?

Javanese people have overcome this problem by simply ignoring the actual age of a blade in years and opting to classify a blade in stylistic and material terms:- the dreaded tangguh.

But this is not particularly reliable when attempting to estimate age of a blade, as throughout history, copies of keris from earlier eras have been made. The materials used in early keris are still available today, as they have been throughout history. If a talented maker were to make a keris of Majapahit pattern today, using the type of materials used in tangguh Majapahit keris, in two or three hundred years, who could know if this was a well preserved keris from the 15th century, or a copy from the 21st century?

It is possible to distress a blade to make it look positively archaic.

Less than honest dealers have found this to be a particularly valuable technique, especially to assist sales to those people who prize age above excellence and who have a very confused and minimal understanding of the keris.

A couple of months ago I had the opportunity to examine a good number of very early keris held in European museums. Many of these keris had a recorded provenance dating back to the beginning of the 1600's. Most were in perfect condition, some were in as brand new condition. Some displayed a style that is usually associated with later periods. A couple bore extremely complex pamor, a feature that we do not expect to see in truly old keris.

I would defy anybody to examine these keris and in the absence of any prior knowledge of provenance, date them to the 1600's.

Many years ago I was able to handle a number of Javanese keris that were kept in the Surakarta Karaton storage rooms. Many of these keris were well over 100 years old, but they looked as if they had come off the work bench the day before I saw them.
So how do we estimate the age of a keris blade?

In my opinion there is only one certain way, and that is by knowledge of provenance.

Lacking this knowledge we can turn to tangguh, which will give a stylistic guide to era, which can then be matched to some degree against material type. We can feed the impression of overall condition into the equation, but as already pointed out, this is not at all reliable.

For an experienced person, tangguh will give an indication --- only an indication --- of the era when a blade might have been made. A blade that is classifiable as a recent tangguh is more likely to be from the related era than a blade that is classified as an archaic tangguh.

In other words, Mataram Amangkurat is more likely to be from around 1700 than Janggala is to be from around 1200.

Surakarta can be relied on to date from after the middle of the 1700's, but Mataram Senopaten is likely to be a little later than 1600 --- perhaps as much as one generation later.

This gives some indication of the accuracy with which we can date a keris blade when using tangguh:- a Surakarta blade from, say, 1800, if in perfect condition is virtually indistinguishable from a Surakarta blade of the early 20th century. Thus, extending the approximate age of a Mataram Senopaten blade by a generation is really being very conservative.

But one thing does seem to be true:- if we take a group of people knowledgeable in tangguh, they will invariably classify more recent blades according to more recent eras and older blades according to older eras. In other words, a Surakarta blade will never be classified as Majapahit, nor a Pajang blade as Hamengkubuwanaan.

So although tangguh has been horribly corrupted by the current generation of slippery shonks with whom we are all familiar, it is still the only base that may give us some guidance in respect of the age of a keris blade.

It is totally useless for anybody to just look at a blade and then form the opinion that it is "old".

I think we've all heard the jokes about the thirty year old gigolo who was mistaken for an old man of 70. He had had a hard life. The same can apply to keris.

Hello Detlef,
Yes, good work indeed. I attach the pictures of my own Singabarong kris, the kinatah work is not very fine and partly gone as seen on the detailed pictures and there is a welded patch on the paws.
The singa does not obviously seem to have been added later because the pamor lines appear quite continuous but I am not sure about it. Any comment?
Regards

Never mind the ancient pointy things - I´d like to hear more of this subject! :D