Origin & Age

A. G. Maisey · 26th May 2021, 02:54 PM

I'm beginning to feel that our little keris discussion group has become a victim of the Covid Curse.

Here are two very poor photos of a keris.

This keris does not belong to me.

Would anybody care to hazard a guess as to what its place of origin might be, and approximately how old it is?

Rafngard · 26th May 2021, 03:15 PM

I looks like it might be one of the early keris in a European museum, but I can't quite tell from the picture.

I suspect this is might be the point.

Thanks,
Leif

Athanase · 26th May 2021, 05:23 PM

Hello,
The handle is very close to my 17th century Keris which is also in the same style as that of Dresden and of a Keris by Jean.
The blade is also very close to several of those of the Keris which arrived very early in European collections.

David · 26th May 2021, 05:44 PM

Hi Alan. Yep, i agree about the possible Covid malaise which seems to have descended upon the forum.

While i love a good guessing game i am afraid i would not want to say too much based upon what you have already identified as "very poor photos". I just can't see the details in this keris well enough to create any kind of an informed opinion.
Is the mendak upside down on this keris? I really can't tell for sure from the photos.

Sajen · 26th May 2021, 09:59 PM

You'd think it was an early West Javanese keris.
But because of the bad pictures, you can't be sure.

A. G. Maisey · 27th May 2021, 12:04 AM

Congratulations gentlemen.

In 1631 this keris entered the Medici collection in Firenze, and along with the rest of the extensive Urbino collection it remained a part of that collection until 1775.

If it existed in 1631 it seems to be highly likely that it pre-dates 1631 by at least some years. This would make it one of the earliest keris to enter Europe.

In the hand it is very substantial. Without the hilt it could easily be taken for a Balinese or Lombok-Bali keris from the 18th-19th century, however it is a keris that was very probably collected on the North Coast of Jawa, and prior to 1631.

Batavia was not founded until 1619, so this keris was most probably acquired in Jayakarta, the city that preceded Batavia, in the location of present day Jakarta.

The East Javanese kingdom of Majapahit finally imploded in 1525 --- or whatever date prior to that which can be reasonably supported --- and the physically stable elements of this keris can be read as representative of a Majapahit keris, or alternatively as a keris with Surakarta influences, however although the Surakarta keris does echo Majapahit style, Surakarta did not arise until long after this keris was made.

Lombok-Bali keris are Balinese keris that were made in Lombok, and sometimes display variations not found in mainline Balinese keris. Balinese keris entered Bali from Majapahit and East Jawa generally, prior to and immediately after the collapse of Majapahit. The Balinese keris has never been subjected to Islamic influence, so it may reasonably be assumed to be broadly representative of the Majapahit keris.

Following the collapse of Majapahit, and even during its years of dominance, smiths from Majapahit migrated along the North Coast of Jawa to as far as Banten, and even beyond, and the early North Coast and West Jawa keris resemble Balinese keris in many ways.

To my mind, this raises the question of exactly what the keris of Majapahit looked like when it was still new, and before the keris was subjected to Islamic influences that saw it changed in form and in nature.

I would welcome opinions & discussion relevant to this change from the early Modern Keris, to the Modern Keris of today. The term "Modern Keris" refers to the keris form that followed the Keris Buda.

About the quality of the photos.
Yes, the mendak is upside down.
When photographs have been hurriedly taken under very far from acceptable conditions, and with a shirt pocket camera, the result is sometimes unavoidably poor. Each of these photos has a minimum of 30 minutes Photoshop time in it, this was necessary because without that PS help about all that would have been able to be seen would have been that the photos were of a keris, no more.

Viewing on a good quality monitor vastly improves what is visible.

If I get time, I'll try to post some close-ups of the sorsoran.

26th May 2021, 02:54 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Origin & Age I'm beginning to feel that our little keris discussion group has become a victim of the Covid Curse. Here are two very poor photos of a keris. This keris does not belong to me. Would anybody care to hazard a guess as to what its place of origin might be, and approximately how old it is? Attached Images

26th May 2021, 03:15 PM	#2
Rafngard Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Minneapolis,MN Posts: 340	I looks like it might be one of the early keris in a European museum, but I can't quite tell from the picture. I suspect this is might be the point. Thanks, Leif

26th May 2021, 05:23 PM	#3
Athanase Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Paris (France) Posts: 408	Hello, The handle is very close to my 17th century Keris which is also in the same style as that of Dresden and of a Keris by Jean. The blade is also very close to several of those of the Keris which arrived very early in European collections.

26th May 2021, 05:44 PM	#4
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,123	Hi Alan. Yep, i agree about the possible Covid malaise which seems to have descended upon the forum. While i love a good guessing game i am afraid i would not want to say too much based upon what you have already identified as "very poor photos". I just can't see the details in this keris well enough to create any kind of an informed opinion. Is the mendak upside down on this keris? I really can't tell for sure from the photos.

26th May 2021, 09:59 PM	#5
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 8,781	You'd think it was an early West Javanese keris. But because of the bad pictures, you can't be sure.

27th May 2021, 12:04 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Congratulations gentlemen. In 1631 this keris entered the Medici collection in Firenze, and along with the rest of the extensive Urbino collection it remained a part of that collection until 1775. If it existed in 1631 it seems to be highly likely that it pre-dates 1631 by at least some years. This would make it one of the earliest keris to enter Europe. In the hand it is very substantial. Without the hilt it could easily be taken for a Balinese or Lombok-Bali keris from the 18th-19th century, however it is a keris that was very probably collected on the North Coast of Jawa, and prior to 1631. Batavia was not founded until 1619, so this keris was most probably acquired in Jayakarta, the city that preceded Batavia, in the location of present day Jakarta. The East Javanese kingdom of Majapahit finally imploded in 1525 --- or whatever date prior to that which can be reasonably supported --- and the physically stable elements of this keris can be read as representative of a Majapahit keris, or alternatively as a keris with Surakarta influences, however although the Surakarta keris does echo Majapahit style, Surakarta did not arise until long after this keris was made. Lombok-Bali keris are Balinese keris that were made in Lombok, and sometimes display variations not found in mainline Balinese keris. Balinese keris entered Bali from Majapahit and East Jawa generally, prior to and immediately after the collapse of Majapahit. The Balinese keris has never been subjected to Islamic influence, so it may reasonably be assumed to be broadly representative of the Majapahit keris. Following the collapse of Majapahit, and even during its years of dominance, smiths from Majapahit migrated along the North Coast of Jawa to as far as Banten, and even beyond, and the early North Coast and West Jawa keris resemble Balinese keris in many ways. To my mind, this raises the question of exactly what the keris of Majapahit looked like when it was still new, and before the keris was subjected to Islamic influences that saw it changed in form and in nature. I would welcome opinions & discussion relevant to this change from the early Modern Keris, to the Modern Keris of today. The term "Modern Keris" refers to the keris form that followed the Keris Buda. About the quality of the photos. Yes, the mendak is upside down. When photographs have been hurriedly taken under very far from acceptable conditions, and with a shirt pocket camera, the result is sometimes unavoidably poor. Each of these photos has a minimum of 30 minutes Photoshop time in it, this was necessary because without that PS help about all that would have been able to be seen would have been that the photos were of a keris, no more. Viewing on a good quality monitor vastly improves what is visible. If I get time, I'll try to post some close-ups of the sorsoran.