What pamor is this?
 

What do you think is the name of the pamor of this keris? It kinda looks like Wiji Timun, but then it has some sort of "wings" surounding the ellipses.

I think this is Bali origine Blade

I don't think so Asian. What makes you say so?
And it looks like a basic Wos Wutah to me, but maybe someone else knows differently. :shrug:

To me it looks to be a Javanese blade with dapur Pasopati.
Regarding the style of pamor, it is impossible to guess it accurately from the picture, we need more detailed ones to see the details, especially if the pamorless areas in the median part of the blade are due to wear or are original. :)
Best regards

I must say that I'm very impressed by your opiinion Asian keris.
I agree this tipe of pamor s belong to bali kerises.
the method of pamor appliace in bali keris is quite thick and only contains of a few layers of pamor.
I'm very pleased you can recognize this pamor. only a few people would directly recognize it.

Interesting Ferrylaki. To me there is almost nothing in the dhapur of this keris that would indicate it's origin as Balinese. It wouldn't be the first time i have been wrong of course, but if you could post some other provenanced Balinese examples that have ricikan that are executed in this manner i would love to see them. As for the pamor, i am impressed by your skills to be able to determine that much based on this one single overall image. Frankly i have based my opinion of origin more on the dhapur. :shrug:

this keris is not the example of young bali. this is an old bali keris.
I found that bali keris could be defided in two. the old one (circa majapahit) and the young ( the same periode with mataram and nomnoman).

the both has a quite different in size and dhapur. the old one usually smaller.
but...the both consistenly apply the same methode of making its pamor.
you can find in easily on pamor melumah. every layr is so thick and it would only a few pamor layers.

I hope you can understand my explanation.

and David, have you ever consider that this keris has already been modified from its original ?

Bali is an interesting thought.

Against it would speek the falling and quite narrow Gandhik. The majority of Bali kerisses don't have Pamor Gonjo.

If there is a bigger and somewhat rounded Bawang Sebungkul, this keris couldn't be Bali or very old. Unfortunately from this picture absolutely nothing could be said about the quality, even the shape of the features of Ricikan.

I understand your explanation, i just don't see how you can be making these observations based upon this one overall photograph. :shrug:
I do agree that with Mojopahit era Bali keris we would be likely to find more similarities between Javanese and Bali keris, but i am afraid that i do not have your skills to be able to determine that this particular keris is as old as that based on this one photo.

I find these exchanges very interesting.

In fact, so interesting that I'm going to refrain from comment. Its not often I get this level of entertainment.

I just found that this kris is shown on page 132 of the book "Tafsir Keris", and is said to have belonged to the late General Subroto. It is described as having a dapur Pasopati and pamor Wos Wutah and to have been made by Empu Supo in Blambangan. :)
Regards

I must say, I also have some reasons to be entertained now.

hmmm....interesting indeed... :)

well I must say I'd like to be entertained.
we must not consider the sandangan as a guide to 'tangguh'
lets just observe the keris.

Let us see the gandik, its tall and "rubuh"....which mean this gandik must have a "kembang kacang''. and it have kembang kacang indeed.
the question is " should it be POGOG or the normal shape?"
the front wadidang looks funny to me. I can imagine if only it has a normal shape of kembang kacang. it would be much-much better in shape. specially tha shape of front wadidang. its quite common that kembang kacang pogog would be a so nicely combined with a straight gandik. in other hand...kembang kacang pogog and a gandik rubuh (sloping gandik) like this one is a terrible combination.

then we can see the ODO-ODO.
it looks quite tall since the sogokan is also very very deep, tall, and looks wide also. the blade is thin so the odo-odo looks tall.

we can say that since the blade it self looks clean, (needs warangan).
but we can see the pamor is applied in a thin layers. this style of pamor application is very balinese .

how about the greneng? is it indicate an original shape or not? in my opinion its fine alright. its still original in shape.

honestly, I dont see any thing at all that indicate this keris revers to blambangan.

According to the book, this kris is deemed to have very strong magical powers and to select its owner, and it is only said to have been made in Blambangan by Empu Supo, not to be attributed to tangguh Blambangan.
I attach the picture of another kris with dapur Pasopati and having some similar features (and differences of course), it was made somewhere and some time ago by Empu Tartempion (well-known to French collectors only :D ) and it selected me as its new owner ;)

So Ferrylaki, if i understand you correctly, from this one overall photo viewed on a computer screen you have been able to determine the following:
1. The gandik has been re-formed
2. the pamor layers are thin, which means this is a Bali keris
3. the blade is thin which makes the odo-odo look tall
4. The sogokan are "very, very deep"
5. the greneng has not been re-formed (does this look like Bali greneng to you?)
6. the tagguh is not Blambangan (though that was never stated)

You can really see all that in this one photograph? I am quite impressed by this skill.
Do you have any provenanced Bali keris to show us to help support your belief that this is an old Bali keris? Can you support your ideas in any way other than your own observations based on this one photograph?
Do you have any response to the fact that the very keris in question apparently appears in a notable book on keris attributed to Mpu Supo and described as Dhapur Pasopati with pamor Wos Wutah?

Hi dear colector’s
I have found some time to do some research.
Found similarity in the book from karsten Jensen (1998) pg 136
And one in keris di Lombok from Djelenga (2000) pg 168
These are carita dapur one’s but have the same candik and ada-ada(rim)
This blade has been polished (typical bali)
counter is the pamor used for the ganja . On bali, ganja’s are black (or small stripes)
Pamor at the base beras wutah and stretched to the tip.
Still confused Or is this an recent mixture

Sorry Asian, i don't have any of these resource books. Can you find any examples to post here?
Frankly i don't think this is a recent mixture of anything. It looks like a classic Javanese dhapur executed in the usual manner. Of course, if i had it in my hand i might have some different thoughts on it. The pamor is impossible to discern absolutely from this one image. But i don't have Ferry's magic eye. Likewise the thinness or thickness of the blade or the depth of the sogokan is impossible to tell from this evenly lit over top viewpoint. But as a general overview it seems to present itself as a Javanese Pasopati dhapur with Wos Wutah pamor blade to me. :shrug:

I must say that
1. the gandik it just fine. it hasn't been re-formed.
2. the pamor is consist of only a few layers of thin pamor which indicate it is a bali keris. since bali keris applied this method of pamor making cinsistently.

3. yes I can see that all in a slight view from a photograph. and I've been study keris like crazy this last three years. I found that there is a very remarkable consistent keris making method is applied in each era and tangguh. even in the same periode of time and the same region as PBIX and mangkubumen the keris making methode on appliying pamor is quite different.

Lets continue abaout the picture of pasopati.I'd like to ask you all to observe the pamor. how many layers are they? howe thin every layer is. how is the tipe of wos wutah pamor applied? in point of view, the wos wutah is quuite different from javanese wos wutah , sultan agung or senopaten or majapahit tipe of wos wutah. off course this keris can't be a nomnoman .

these are some picture I found from the internet shiwing the consistent Bali wos wotah would look like.

Well Ferry, i would not argue that any of these examples you have now posted are from Bali (or Lombok). That much is clear in these examples though none of them are the same pasopati dhapur. I will continue to argue that the original example in this post is not from Bali....that there is very little you can discern from the one image we see about the true nature of the pamor...that it is a blade out-of stain anyway and could use some warangan to show it's true form and construction....that the dhapur of this original keris does not look Balinese and that when you compare the gandik, the form of the lambe-gajah, the form and shape of the greneng, the type of pamor present on the gonjo, the over shape of the gonjo.....sorry, this just does not read as a Bali blade to me at all. Even if it were possible to tell more about this pamor from the photo and it does use the lesser layers of the Balinese technique, i would still doubt a Bali origin for this.
Of course, you have also failed to address the fact brought forth by Jean that this very same keris is identified on page 132 in Tafsir Keris and that the blade apparently has some provenance. The book apparently lists not only the owner, but claims to know the Mpu as well. :shrug:

David,
If it is OK on the copyright point of view, I can scan and show the full page of the book, as Neo already showed the picture... The owner is identified by his initials only so it should not be a problem. The original picture in the book is good but the blade is quite dark and the pamor does not appear very clearly and is not a very fine nor a typical Beras Wutah.
Best regards

Thanks Jean. I don't think that you need to scan the entire page since we do already have the photo, but i would like to read what is actually written about this keris if you can rewrite it here. For educational purposes copying a bit of text with credit to authorship is just fine with copyright laws AFAIK.

Well David. I have to admit that I 've fail to give you a reasonable explanation. I'm pleased to have this discussion with you. Let's continue this fun .
I do have a picture old dhapur pasopati with similar over all shape. and I guess its has the same majapahit tangguh.only with a slight different tipe of pamor. the gonjo also fill with pamor, which I can guarantee for sure that its gonjo is the original. I also attach the picture taken from the gonjo. to show you all the peksi hole which still has its "peg" . and I must say it is a very nice shape of "wuwungan gonjo" hope you enjoy it. but plesa do not put any comment about its kembang kacang.

But I do agree the keris we discussed could be categorized as majapahit era .
once again I must admit that I was too hasty laying my eyes to the thin pamor layers.
Please continue this remarkable discussion. I will always feel pleased to join keris warung kopi.
I hope Alan would like to join us here. What You say Alan?

The English version of the text in the book is as follows:
"A kris titled Kanjeng Kyahi Seneng Pareng, which according to several verbal informations I gathered, was formerly the property of (the late) General Gatot Subroto (?). However the scabbard is already replaced. This kris has a Pasopati dhapur and a Wos Wutah pamor, and it is the work of Empu Supo while he was still in Blambangan. This can be verified from the sloping gandhik (collapsing backwards), and the lambe gajah occuring in the middle of the gandhik. This kris had been in the preservation of a collector from Surakarta named Hong An. Then the kris moved from one hand to the other. KRRA. Sukatno Purwoprojo, a former penjamas or bather of the Keraton Surakarta heirlooms (2004-2008) who had once menjamasi (bathed this kris), explained that the Kanjeng Kyahi Seneng Pareng always chooses its own master. Not everybody is suitable to keep it. Its warangka is of the gayaman bener design made of timoho wood (Kleinhovia hospita) with a diamond studded silver pendoq blewaq. Its hilt is a Tunggak Semi of the wanda (model) Yudhawinatan made of tayuman wood (Cassia laevigata)."

I take this opportunity to recommend to the forum members to purchase this excellent book from Toni Junus!
Regards

Dear Ferrylaki, if we are looking only on Blumbangan on both keris (your latest picture and the initial one): I am fairly sure, yours isn't Boto Adeg, and the initial one also don't look like boto adeg. Tangguh Majapahit should have Boto Adeg Blumbangan.

I must say that mboto adeg and mboto rubuh is a fair expression for gandik.

Dear Ferrylaki, may I turn your attention to #4 here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...adeg+majapahit

and to the page 166 in Haryoguritnos "Keris Jawa"?

well we got the point Gustav.
is this what you mean with majapahit has boto ngadeg blumbangan?

I'm sorry Ferry, are you still maintaining that this original keris is from Bali in spite of what seems like a very well provenanced history provide for the keris in Tafsir Keris? Are you denying that history? You're right, this is fun! :D

am I denying that history? off course I am.
am I maintaining that this original keris is from Bali? this one I have to make my sefl clear. OK then It might not from bali. but I do have to agree it was made some time around majapahit period. let's just call it tangguh majapahit.
BUT for further information about the empu who made the keris. that's a little bit too far. I will not address that pasopati as a blambangan keris. not even close.
let's make this more fun then David, this discussion off course.

You are, of course, welcome to call this blade any tangguh you wish Ferry. That is your right to opinion that all individuals have. But's you should hold off on the "Let's". There is no "us" in your opinion. Personally i prefer not to make assumptions based upon a single overall photograph of a somewhat out of stain blade that does not possibly allow a close enough examination to come to such a conclusion. You are unable to determine the weight of the blade, the color of the iron when properly stained, the nature of the pamor material or the true depth of the sogokan or height of the ada-ada from this photograph.
As for who the mpu may have been, i too would be skeptical of his identity. I am not familiar with the history of Mpu Supo, when he was supposed to have worked, etc. But the identity of the Mpu has never been a real subject of discussion here, has it. This does seem to be a well chronicled keris however. It seems to be a keris with a name (Kanjeng Kyai Seneng Pareng) and a history. Past owners are known. But the accuracy of the account of this keris is also not important to the main contention of debate here. I think that it would be irresponsible to claim the knowledge of the tangguh of this keris based upon the photograph, but one thing that seems absolutely clear about it form this image is that it is NOT a Bali keris. Other than that this debate has been rather circular. I have not seen any evidence that supports a Bali origin for this keris, period. Now you seem to be waffling on that assertion so i guess the debate is over and we agree. :)

Sorry Ferrylaki, these things aren't so easy to handle. Becouse of such attitude of many people the term and system Tangguh has become pretty incredible.

OK Gustav. I understand

I do Agree the keris is not from bali.
It's a tipical java keris.

hmmmm.....i'm glad to see that we do indeed agree....so what exactly were we debating about for the past 10 days then... :rolleyes:

OK, the bus is leaving and I've just jumped in the back door.

Thanks for your invitation Ferry, but I'm still not going to get too much involved in this.

Every week I get several queries into my personal email box asking for opinions on keris. This has gone on for years. Over the last few years, since people in the western world have become aware of tangguh the queries often include a request for a tangguh opinion. My usual response is that I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to try to classify a blade on the basis of a photo or photographs, no matter how good those photos are, because there is much, much more to giving a supportable tangguh on a blade than just looking at form. If you are going to give an opinion that you can defend on a blade you need to hold it in your hands and let it talk to you --- sorry for the phrasing, but I'm in Solo right now and this sort of thing rubs off on you after a few weeks.

Ferry, I know you to be an intelligent man, and a man with at least one foot in the modern world. Your other foot is probably poised halfway between a kampung in Solo and the modern world of Jakarta. You have undoubtedly heard "tangguh ngak sungguh" , and this is an absolutely correct position to take, when tangguh is applied as a method of blade dating. The fact is that tangguh is a method of blade classification that forms a part of the keris belief system, and that belief system in the 21st century cannot be divorced from the Kejawen world view.

The way I was taught tangguh was to look for indicators in a blade and then to make a decision based upon the weight of the indicators, but the man who taught me was 100% Kejawen in his beliefs and totally Surakarta Karaton orientated. I never, ever debated anything with him, when I was with him I adopted a world view that was in complete agreement with his own. However, when I stepped out of that world and back into my own world I reverted to my normal rational, logical, investigative nature.

When we consider tangguh we need to ask ourselves a few questions, beginning with the probable point in history when the Modern Keris, ie, the keris as we know it now, came into being, and we place that into a historical context.

Then we need to consider when the tangguh system began to be applied and why it came into being.

These are just starting points, if we wish to understand the keris as it truly is.

However, another quite valid way of looking at the keris is to accept the Keris Belief System. Why do I say a system of belief is a valid way to look at the keris? Because perception is reality for the people who accept the beliefs.

Good Christians do not question their beliefs. Nor do good Muslims, nor Buddhists, nor Hindus. If somebody needs a belief to complete their life it is their business alone and no concern of anybody else to try to convince them otherwise.

So you choose your path:-

if you wish to understand the keris in a supportable, rational way, you do the research and form ideas of your own

if you wish to be a fellow traveler on the road of Javanese Keris Belief you accept what older, more experienced and respected people tell you and you do not question it.

It all depends upon your own chosen path.

Very wise response Alan.
Thank you.

very wise indeed. thank you

I thank you, gentlemen, but I'm not so sure that you see wisdom at play here, rather a wish to survive in a difficult environment.