Pandai Saras Luk 9
 

Dear All,

a week ago I succeeded in obtaining this blade. Alas, it isn't a work of art like some Keris Pandai Saras from forum archives, also material is (most possibly) average and so the state of preservation, with some deeper pitting. There are also welding faults.

Yet I am very fond of this blade, and that's why you see so many bad (I'm sorry) pictures here :)

Some questions: is this a blade from Patani (which I suppose) or Kelantan? Why, what are the differences? Is it possible to draw a general schema of development (in words of course), how features of ricikan have changed over the time?

Thank you very much.

More details:

Sampir is made from wood, which resembles Trembalo to me, there isn't the structural "hardness" of Kemuning. Chatoyance is nice, yet the balance of forms is a little bit awkward? It lasted some time, till I understud the importance of parallel lines of the back of gonjo and bottom of sampir, like a frame.

Buntut is unfortunately missing.

Hilt is actually a very nice one, Kemuning.

Hello Gustav,

I beg to differ: Looks like a genuine antique Pattani blade of good quality to me!

State of preservation may leave a bit to be desired; have seen more heavily corroded pandai Saras blades though. I think this will polish up nicely - have you tried to stain it?

Regards,
Kai

What you have there is a good Pattani Pandai Saras with a chevron quenched technique blade. The crosspiece looks kemuning to me. The sheath's shaft, of sena (angsana). :)

What kind of buntut should this have? Wood or what?

Thank you very much for comments.

Kai, his is how it looks after some days (careful) sanding, and two days in pineaple juice. I am to timid to do more polishing now (may be, when I will grow older :D ), the point where I stopped, is when the blackened, rough surface is being almost removed. When I would go further, I would end with a little bit smaller, smooth and shiny blade with some black welding fault lines and pitting (I felt). I simply don't have much experience, and now with this condition I am satisfied for a while.

Unfortunately I don't made pictures of the original condition, yet it was not a nice view.

Alam Shah, I think, I understand what you mean by chevron quenched, I wondered about these lines. Could you please tell more about it? I have never seen such before. I will try to make better pictures of sampir.

Battara, I think so. Bone or ivory one would be very slim, just a line. Will make a picture of a similar (yet existing) wooden buntut.

Hi Gustav,

You are going to hate me for this, but without being able to clearly articulate the defining factors, I'm going to say that the keris is most likely Pattani in origin. The hilt form is what strikes me as being very clearly Pattani. The blade too, though for a while, I was struggling to say that it is Kelantanese because of the thicker ganja. However, in the end, I think the Pattani features win out a bit more, particularly the "recessed" gandik style. The sheath is an interesting one. Some people tell me that it is the Pattani interpretation of the Riau sheath form. I don't know. This keris does have a similar look and feel to one I posted earlier - see the 2nd keris in this thread:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=12828

Hi Blu Erf,

thank you :) I also thought about the thicker gonjo, and belalai gajah is probably not so delicat as the most from Pattani, as I understand. Could this be a hint to a later age dating?

The luk style is what seems to be more Pattani to me.

Is hilt assignation as from Pattani becouse of the elongated body?

Your sampir is similar indeed, yet more classical, better shape. Mine seems to be "compressed" vertically, looks, like there was some lack of material at the bottom on right side. However the protruding back of gonjo balances it out, it looks after a while like intention.

What I like on mine are the two tips of sampir, really like "daun", turned a little bit more inwards.

The wood of sampir looks softer, more large-pored then Kemuning. Yet of course I could be wrong. I wish, it would be Kemuning.

Also a picture of (desired) buntut.

Gustav,
The "Bugis cup" looks too wide for the hilt base, is it original and what should be the correct type of pendokok for this hilt?
Best regards

Jean, it's fewer then 1 and half mm to wide. It came with this pendokok, I suppose it would be possible to regard this form as one of correct possible pendokok forms for such keris.

On hilt there are no visible traces from another pendokok.

Best regards

Hello Gustav,

congrats to this nice find. The sampir look to my eyes as beeing from kemuning. (So far I am able to see it by pictures. I have tried to learn the differences between kemuning and trembalo.)
The buntut you show in your picture look more buginese, I think a buntut like one from the both keris sheaths Kai Wee show in his link would look better for your keris.

Regards,

Detlef

Hello Detlef,

thank you. About buntut you are wright.

Regards

Gustav, i do not believe that this is the appropriate pendokok form for a Pattani keris. I am sure that Shahrial or Kai Wee would have some good examples to show you. :shrug: :)

David, please take a look at this website, its Dave Henkel's:

http://kerisarchipelago.150m.com/pattani&singora.htm

You will found some keris with similar bugis style pendokok.

Also this one: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...=keris+pattani

And this: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...hlight=pattani

:shrug:

Perhaps it's acceptable then Gustav. I'm certainly no expert on Pattani keris. :o Still a bit too large though... :)

The pendoko style can be found in N Peninsula kerises, but this particular specimen is too big for the hilt. There shd be minimal gap between the rim of the pendoko and the round base of the hilt. :)

Kai Wee, I know, this is not an ideal fit, yet when I do rectify the position of hilt and pendokok to get the gap equal on all sides, the gap staying is about 1 mm, not more.

Hi Gustav,

I don't know why I didn't see this post of yours. As to the use of the features to give an estimate of age, I must admit that I can't do it. Very often, I do it based on look and feel, and I know it is highly inaccurate given that a well-cared old blade can look 'newer' than a poorly-maintained new blade.

Pattani luks are 'awkward', not sweet and sensuous like Terengganu kerises with luks.

The hilt's longer head, angle of the head, and the relatively larger buah pinang base suggests Pattani origin.

Afters years of owning this keris I suppose now, the blade and at least the sheath are coming from Kedah. The indicators are blade style, especially Gandhik/Belalai Gajah, and the missing, yet clearly elongated Buntut.

Hi Gustav, congratulations on the new keris. Unfortunately I know nothing about this type of keris apart that is frequently reffered to as Pandai Saras. Perhaps it is part of sinengker knowledge in the Malay keris world.

Can somebody enlighten us here on (1) the difference between a Pattani, Kelantan and Kedah (or from any other place) and (2) how the difference/characteristics are attributed to the places? Features or combination of features that when present, we say this definitely from say, Kedah - because 90% of keris from kedah have this characteristics - for example.

Rasdan, I am sure you have much more clues (and better reasoned) regarding styles from different Northern Malay Peninsula states then I. I like Malay Keris very much, yet I am very far from this part of world and have almost no exchange of information about these.

As I understand it at this moment, blades from Kelantan and Kedah are very similar, there are no big distinctions. I have a blade, which is surely provenanced from Kedah, and the powerful Belalai Gajah (compared to slim and gracious BG from Patani) and thicker Gonjo is very similar on my Pandai Saras.

More distincted is the sheath style from Kedah, yet I think, these variations are coming also from Perlis and Perak. Maybe one could speak of a Northern West coast style.

The quite long "foot" of the Batang of my Pandai Saras requires an elongated Buntut, and such possibility is the Buntut form from Kedah. Also there are some features in Sampir which let me think of Kedah.

Thanks Gustav, but really I am almost clueless on this.

If we stick on the name Pandai Saras, then we probably have a smaller problem. But once we have Pandai Mamat etc and we have to differentiate between Pattani, Kelantan and Kedah I think it gets a bit more problematic.

I agree, we can say that Kedah pieces are more rough and rugged compared to Pattani and Kelantan, but in some cases, I see these rugged keris are also being attributed to Pandai Mamat which is either from Kelantan or Pattani . Then we have other Pandai too.. :)

As for the dress, I think we can safely guess that yours are from Kedah. The buntut that you have on your keris is very interesting.

Below is a picture of a keris Pattani sorsoran from the "Senjata Pattani" facebook page which is strikingly similar to your keris.

Rasdan, thank you very much for the picture. There are similarities indeed, yet becouse of the deep Jenggot it looks like a blade from Narathiwat.

Attached the Sorsoran of a Keris, which is provenanced from Kedah. It isn't, of course, a Pandai Saras (there is no Ada-Ada, the cross section is hexagonal).

The Buntut of The PS Luk 9 is actually missing, the other picture is showing a Sulawesi sheath. 2011 I didn't know nothing about Buntut forms from Kedah, so this elongated Buntut was my only possibility to guess.

Like you, I also think, there are so much different features, which originaly could be distinctive for some talented smiths. There surely was an immense intermingling of influences, somewhere is a good post of DAHenkel about that. Clear archetypical forms are rare, perhaps almost impossible, and I feel at the moment, Kedah is bladewise especially "eclectical" - a lot of blade styles and mixing of elements from different locations.

Peninsula keris are not really my thing, but some of the content in this thread does interest me sufficiently for me to raise some questions.

When the term Pandai Saras , or Pandai Mamat, or Pandai Somebodyelse is used, does that mean that for an authority on Peninsula keris, that the name given to the keris identifies the maker, or is it the name of a style?

If it is the name of a style, can that style be attributed to a particular span of time?

When making the decision to name a keris as Pandai Somethingorother, what indicators are taken into consideration?

Hey Alan, as you know this isn't really my area of concentration either, but from what i do understand there is no expectation that a keris that follows the form of a Keris Pandai Saras be actually made by the famed pandai himself. It is simply a style and dhapur of blade that was either originated by or made popular by that smith. The same can be said of Keris Tok Chu i believe. Hopefully if i am misled on this someone with more knowledge on the area will correct me.

Thanks David.

Since execution detail seems to vary pretty widely, as does material and dhapur, would it be reasonable to say that when the description "Pandai Saras" is used, what we are to understand is the style of workmanship?

Maybe a bit similar to tangguh in Javanese keris, except that with tangguh, material is one of the indicators.

Actually, when I look at a "Pandai Saras", and some other blades from outside Jawa, what I see is Madura Sepuh --- yeah, there are very slight differences, but overall:- Madura Sepuh.

Yes Gustav, the nearer a keris to our present time, the more intermingling features can be seen. I sometime feel that this type of keris are almost impossible to classify with some acceptable accuracy.

G'day Alan.

Pandai Saras, Pandai Mamat, Tok Chu etc are supposedly pandai keris that makes keris to a certain style. It is said that Pandai Saras came from Majapahit. The closest name of a Majapahit Empu to Pandai Saras that I had heard is Empu Ki Sarap. Some say we can attribute these names to certain time period, but I doubt it.

On a different note, I am most interested to a ricikan on the ganja of many pandai saras keris which we can also see on some later Balinese keris - some Bugis and Palembang keris also have this ricikan. I am not sure the name of the ricikan which I mark in the picture below (the Balinese keris is from your website).

Do you know the name of this ricikan and does this ricikan present in older tangguh say, prior to the 1800's? - if we associate tangguh with time.

Also, what are the characteristics of a Madura Sepuh keris present on the above keris?

G'day Alan, I just checked keris pictures in Den Indonesiske Keris, it appears that the ricikan I mentioned above is present in keris from the 1600s. It's just that the form ia different - in Javanse keris the ricikan is a line rather than a bulge on pandai saras keris. Sorry for the trouble Alan.

Rasdan, I do not know the name for the feature you identify.

In fact, I doubt that this feature has been given a name at any time in the recent past, at least in Jawa, and possibly in Bali also. I say this because I cannot find it as being identified by name in the half dozen or so recent books that I've just now looked at.

It may have had a name once, but apparently, not now.

I've looked at photos I have of a lot of pre-1700 keris in several European collections. Most of these keris are Javanese, with what I believe is a smattering of Balinese keris. There seems to be no universal rule as to when this feature appears and when it does not, also there is a variety of forms of the feature used in these older keris.

Where the feature does appear , it is sometimes just a line, at other times it is a raised, rounded ridge with a line cut through the middle of the ridge, at other times it is a ridge that is defined by a line above and a line below. There is no consistency as to how this feature is expressed, when it is used.

I am unable to show pictures of any of these keris, as I have signed undertakings with the museums concerned not to publish my photographs.

The principle thing that strikes me about these Pandai Saras keris , and which turns my thoughts to Madura Sepuh is the pawakan, the overall visual impression. Think of it this way:- if I see somebody who has Chinese features I immediately identify him as Chinese, but then when I speak with him I may discover that he is fourth generation Australian, and that only his father is Chinese.

Its the same with these P.S. keris, I glance at them, and I see an old style Madura blade, I see the ridged odo2, which is not at all elegant, I see the lack of definition in the blumbangan, I see the whispy kembang kacang, I see the long last luk, I see the overall stiffness and apparent fragility (note:- apparent, that does not mean that it is fragile), I see the form of the ron dha, which is often not much more than an undefined notch, not dissimilar to some older Balinese keris, and when it does have definition it is a very faint echo of a Majapahit ron dha, almost as if the maker has hesitated to make it a distinct copy of a Mojo ron dha.

I do understand that for many people, especially those who prize Peninsula keris, these P.S. keris are highly regarded, but when I apply Javanese standards I do not see a particularly wonderful keris.

This is the reason why we must never appraise a keris by any standard other than the standard which applies to that particular keris.

We cannot apply Surakarta standards to a Pajajaran keris, and we cannot apply Javanese standards to a Peninsula keris. We can only measure the quality of a P.S. keris against another P.S. keris.

It is never a very good idea to use the tangguh classifications as exact indicators of time, as most people understand the concept of time. In general, a keris that can be classified as an old tangguh will be older than a keris that can be classified as a more recent tangguh, but that does not mean that the name of the tangguh necessarily aligns with the historic period of the same name. Tangguh was brought into being for purposes other than to help 20th century collectors put a date on things, and it was only ever intended to apply to keris of very high quality. Keris that could be depended upon to preserve wealth.

I believe that it is entirely possible that the maker who originated the P.S. keris form could have come from the Majapahit kingdom. If we look at the history of the empus of the Land of Jawa, we find that they tended to move around quite a bit, and when they moved they often changed names, or maybe were just known by another name --- a Javanese characteristic even today. Maybe when Majapahit collapsed some of the smiths who moved from Blambangan back west to Banten, just kept on going and finished up on the Peninsula, and in other places. I seem to recall I heard a story about a shipwreck, where a ship from Mojo got blown off course and was wrecked on the cost of the Peninsula, and one or more smiths continued to live there.

Alternatively, maybe the P.S. keris form is not quite as old as we might like to believe. I have a Brunei keris that was made in 1842 that displays very distinct Madura style. Was this style already in existence in Brunei for a long time prior to 1842, along with a puntiran pamor that we tend to think of as a more recent development, something that came into being along with the migration of smiths into North Coast Jawa that occurred after Islamic domination, or did the Madura style come into Brunei not too long before that 1842 keris was made?

I cannot answer any of these questions, but perhaps they bear thinking about.

Thank you for the explanation Alan. I guess that ricikan will be a mystery forever.

One Javanese keris that I had thought to have a faint resemblance of pandai saras keris is this pesisir from kris disk dated 1690. The resemblance is stronger at the sosoran, but the way the blade tapers to the tip is different. I agree with you that along with the current belief of Mojo origin, there is a possibility that these type of keris is relatively recent.

I guess the only way to estimate the time period for these keris is by identifying it’s material. But I am clueless in this area.

Rasdan, I cannot see anything in this keris from Mr. Jensen's publication that I would identify as qualifying it for a Majapahit classification.

I'm not going to list and discuss every feature, but Mojo keris should be light, this keris is heavy, Mojo keris should have boto adeg blumbangan, this keris appears to have a square blumbangan, Mojo keris have more taper to the point, Mojo keris should have a shortish gonjo.

This keris does look like north coast, but more to the west, based on what I believe I can see in the picture, I'd be inclined to give this keris as more or less Banten.

However, we are getting into a tangguh discussion here, and that is really not a good idea when we are using pictures to base opinions on. In any case, there is one thing above all else that must be remembered about the tangguh system:- it is a system of classification in which some of the classifications share their names with historic eras, but that does not mean that the keris concerned originates from that era.

In Jawa we have a saying:-

tangguh ngak sungguh = tangguh is not real

if we care to believe that a keris of say, Kahuripan origin actually originated in the Kingdom of Kahuripan, well, that's fine --- provided we accept that this can only ever be a belief, as is virtually all keris "knowledge".

Keris knowledge is not knowledge as the concept of knowledge is understood in the modern world. Keris knowledge is a mixture of myth, legend, and popular belief.

Keris knowledge depends upon having an understanding of these myths, legends and beliefs that is more or less in agreement with the majority of people with whom one discusses keris.

Thanks Alan. Yes, that keris does not qualify as Mojo, I just somehow sees a faint resemblance of that keris to PS keris (probably because of the greneng and ada2). Actually I think PS keris that we know today is a mixture of multiple keris forms. Ok, Alan, I wont go into tangguh discussion here.

Gustav, I'm sorry I dragged your thread to a different direction than what you originally asked about. I'll stop here. :)

Rasdan, absolutely no problem with that.

I also always thought, the pre-1700 keris you posted reminds Keris Pandai Saras. There also is the question, if the lanky PS form with long Luk from Patani is the earliest one. Perhaps it could be seen as a development of a certain taste.