[A. G. Maisey]

In any field of art, or collectables, when the buying public becomes aware that reproductions and forgeries are present in the market place they tend be very cautious in accepting as old and original any piece that fails to fit the pre-determined ideas of what is truly old and original.

This is particularly true of keris. Going back some years there was a very respected and indeed, famous connoisseur of Javanese art, and especially keris who lived in Solo. This gentleman was well known in the keris trade as being a very soft touch for any keris that looked old, original and unusual. As a consequence a little sub-industry grew up that specialised in creating and marketing exactly this type of forgery to this gentleman. At the time this was happening it was knowledge that was well known in the trade, but totally unknown outside the trade. In fact, I doubt that it was even suspected by the mass of keris buyers outside the trade.

Those who are familiar with the greater art market, the world market in paintings and sculpture, will be very familiar with the ideas I am presenting here. Very often there are only one or two people worldwide who are recognised as being reliable identifiers of works that have been prepared with intent to defraud --- and there are many instances on record where even these highly regarded authorities have later changed their mind about something.

With the rise of the Madura and East Jawa artisans, the revival of interest in the keris, and addition of new collectors to the ranks of those who buy keris, there is now a widespread awareness that there are deliberate forgeries in the market place, and very often those forgeries take an unusual form, deliberately created to tempt the buyer.

However, it is a regrettable truth that in the present day world of keris collecting there is a vast well of ignorance. The great holders of knowledge from before WWII are now no longer with us. Most of these men failed to pass their knowledge to the generation that followed, and where that knowledge was passed on, it was incomplete. The senior people of this generation simply do not have the same, or even similar foundations upon which to base their opinions of what is and what is not a legitimate keris.

How many people in today's generation of ahli keris in Jawa have ever heard of Bp. Pawirodihardjo, or know what his name within the keris trade was? If somebody does know who this man was, do they have any idea at all of what he was capable of? Yet this man was probably responsible for more, let us say "misleading" keris than any other person in the period following WWII. His creations were mostly special orders from less than honest dealers, and he was a master of his craft. But even he had limits to what could be done in order to create a forgery. This man moved to a different level quite a few years ago now, and so has his wife, his children are about as distant from the keris trade as it is possible to be, and that is the reason I have no problem with mention of his formal name.

The point I wish to make is this:- it is simply not possible for any person who is not an insider in the keris trade of Central Jawa to know with any degree of certainty what is likely to be a forgery and what is not likely to be a forgery. I use the word "likely" because the only way to be certain is if the forgery was observed whilst in production. It is not possible for any collector, and most second or third level dealers to have any certainty at all in what is and is not a forgery.

Then there is the problem of defining exactly what constitutes a "forgery".

Is a changeling necessarily a forgery, or can it be the result of cultural necessity, or personal belief?

So it is that when an unusual keris is seen, many if not most people err on the side of caution and pronounce it a forgery, or at least a changeling (robahan), but without really understanding the circumstances that can apply in the creation of a changeling.

Of course one way of gaining relative certainty of the authenticity or otherwise of a keris , or other art work, is to know where it came from. If we know that, then we can probably also predict with a fair degree of certainty whether it is, or is not what it purports to be.

After that rather rambling discourse on the intricacies of keris falsification, let me now address a couple of matters relating to this keris under discussion.

The question of dhapur.
At the present time it seems that Jack is as good as his master and anybody at all can create a keris and give it a name.

This is the modern attitude. It is not the traditional attitude.

Within traditional belief, the names of keris forms are locked into Javanese cultural mores. It is not the right, nor the privilege of any person other than a ruler to decree what the name of any keris form may be. I stress the term "Javanese cultural mores". The cultural mores of Indonesia outside the Land of Jawa are in many ways as foreign to Javanese thought as are the cultural mores of London, Paris and Rome.

It is incorrect to combine the names of various dhapurs and claim that by combination of these names we have named the dhapur of a keris that possesses the features of two or more dhapur. This practice is absolutely wrong. We may not do this.

What we can do is to say that an unusual keris has certain features that are similar to the features found in legitimate dhapurs.

In respect of the question of talismanic properties of this keris under discussion, or of any keris for that matter. The tuah of a keris comes in major part from its dhapur. In the absence of being able to give a keris a legitimate dhapur it is very difficult to determine its tuah. A person with psychic powers may be able to give an indication of tuah but it is not possible to do this from a photograph, only from making the acquaintance of the keris.

An adequate description of pamor for this keris is wos wutah.

Is this keris a new production, a changeling, a falsification of some sort, or is it a legitimate keris?

Unless I handled this keris I could not give an answer that I could rationally support, however, based upon the presented photos this is what I think I can see:-

The grain of the pamor follows the luk form

The material has the appearance of older material

The way in which the pamor has been made has the appearance of a traditional manufacturing process

The topographic features of the blade have the appearance of having been put in place at the time of manufacture

The gandhik area may have been altered to create a sepang-like appearance; I am reluctant to regard this as something that removes authenticity from a keris, as it may have been done (if it was done at all) because of personal belief. Consider the talismanic implications of the sepang form. Such an alteration would be unlikely to be done as an attempt to raise value or deceive, a simple cost : benefit analysis will demonstrate this very clearly.

The gonjo is unlikely to be original to the wilah. The material is different to the wilah and the degree of erosion to the underside of the gonjo is not consistent with overall blade erosion.

This keris could have been re-manufactured from a much larger keris, that possibility exists, but the only type of keris that I know of that could give sufficient material to create what we see in this keris is the very large old Tuban keris, and the material in this keris is nothing like old Tuban material.

All of us have opinions, and we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, if we want others to accept our opinion we do need to present evidence or logical argument to support that opinion.

My opinion in respect of this keris is that it is an older keris, most likely from East Jawa, during its life it may have had some alteration carried out on it, this is not certain, it is only a possibility, but if this work was done it was more likely to be in the nature of an expression of belief rather than any attempt to falsify.

I am further of the opinion that what we now see in the body of the keris is original to the keris. I do not know of any older keris form of sufficient size and similar material that would permit the re-manufacture of this keris.

The gonjo appears to be a replacement.

Now my usual qualification:- my opinion could alter if I were to handle this keris; the opinion I have expressed here is based upon what I can see in the photographs.