variation of tok chu

A. G. Maisey · 11th February 2012, 12:32 AM

Thanks for your comment, Kai Wee.

I don't think there's any doubt that the keris came into the Peninsula from Jawa, but what I find of interest is its roots in Jawa. When I look at the way we would describe the characteristics of this keris, what I see is a Mojo description, but equally, such a description could also apply to Banten.

What it cannot apply to is Mataram, so my feeling is that we're looking at a beginning that perhaps precedes Mataram, and that coincides with the widely held belief of dispersion during the Mojo era, which can probably be screwed down a bit tighter, to dispersion pre- +/-1380, that's if we accept Mojo.

If we don't want to accept Mojo, then it can certainly go later, with the root as Banten, but then we'd be into probably post 1550-1600, and my feeling is that that's maybe a bit too late.

keriswarisanpattani · 11th February 2012, 03:41 PM

i think the best person to refer for keris tok chu is ahmad zaini from kelantan. he's doing research for so long,present paperwork,seminars and forum. At beginning, i was thought tok chu is a straight, broad and short. meanwhile we have been introduced with tok chu luk, normally with 3 n 5 luk. tokchu pamor..tok chu with 'belalai gajah' with atmost similar to keris malela.At least 10 variations of tok chu have been found.

it was said that tok chu is a pandai keris for the royal family. he was came later after pandai saras and settled at a place called palekbang now located at tumpat kelantan. if we refer to the modern kelantan kingdom, there is a placed called kota kubang labu (now pasir pekan) kelantan.. circa 1750 to 1800..The famous Kg Laut mosque also located at palekbang before it's relocated at Nilam Puri.

For variations of tok chu, take it this way. If i'm a royal family member, i do not like to see someone carry same keris as mine. that's one reason we should consider why there are variations of tok chu and why it's hardly found.but it's hard to prove with evidence that tok chu is a pandai keris only for the royal family and high ranking officer. but it's passed from one generation to others.

David · 11th February 2012, 07:58 PM

I asked a question earlier and i am still not sure it has been answered. When we refer to a keris as "Tok Chu", are we speaking of keris actually made by the pandai Tok Chu or are we talking about keris that seem to be merely in his style of making? Frankly the designation seems rather dubious at best without any hard provenance and i see more than variation difference between the three keris originally presented.

keriswarisanpattani · 13th February 2012, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I asked a question earlier and i am still not sure it has been answered. When we refer to a keris as "Tok Chu", are we speaking of keris actually made by the pandai Tok Chu or are we talking about keris that seem to be merely in his style of making? Frankly the designation seems rather dubious at best without any hard provenance and i see more than variation difference between the three keris originally presented.

hi david,

i believed nobody can claim this originally made by Tok Chu..same as for Keris Pandai Saras...nobody can claim it's made by pandai saras..but of course somebody can identify it's old or newly made....

A. G. Maisey · 13th February 2012, 11:10 AM

Jean, its all in the proportion, not the actual measurement, and to my eye this blade is slim and elegant.

As I have tried to say:- it looks like something made from a description or a quick look at a Mojo style blade:- the elements are there, but the result is different.

Additionally, let us not forget this:- what people think of as a Mojo blade today is not really the way Mojo blades were. Here we're into tangguh again, and I'm not going to go there, so please just accept my comment in the spirit in which I made it:- a personal observation, if you don't see this blade as I do, that's because you're looking at it with your eyes, not mine.

Karttikeya · 13th February 2012, 01:17 PM

I got interesting point here where I'd like to ask since so long regarding tangguh system. Pak Alan, once again figure out that keris Mojo in fact does not like what we are applying on playing tangguh till date which are longish, slim, elegant, waved gonjo, tall, narrow, upright blumbangan, tight greneng, two grooves starting at the blade base, kruwingan, another little greneng under the kembang kacang are features of Mojo blade. So if we assume that tangguh can represent production date of blade, these features should fit which era? I remember that you ever mentioned that most of keris today seems to have blossomed as an arm of the population as whole after the advent of Islam so there should be very less blade of Mojopahit period with uncommonly appearance and finally we may accept that blades above can be assumed as Mojo blade. The problem is most of the people, mainly here in Indonesia is still aligning tangguh with era.

David · 13th February 2012, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

hi david,

i believed nobody can claim this originally made by Tok Chu..same as for Keris Pandai Saras...nobody can claim it's made by pandai saras..but of course somebody can identify it's old or newly made....

Thank you for finally addressing this question. I understand that the term Keris Saras has come to be used to define a keris of a particular form which is said to be based upon a design created by Pandai Saras. We see many Keris Saras which obviously are not the creation of the famed pandai. It has also been my understanding that the same is true of Keris Tok Chu. My reason for pursuing this line is that in this thread you have presented 3 very different forms or dhapurs of keris and have claimed them to all be variations on Keris Tok Chu. I don't see how this is possible. None of them look like my own understanding of this dhapur which is more like the keris presented in BluErf's post #8. So i am wondering what possible claim these 3 keris have to the name Keris Tok Chu? If there was some provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu i could understand them holding the name (though they would still need some kind of name extension to distinguish them). But too my eye these look like 4 completely different dhapurs with BluErf's being the only one that fits the generally accepted design for this particular form.

keriswarisanpattani · 13th February 2012, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Thank you for finally addressing this question. I understand that the term Keris Saras has come to be used to define a keris of a particular form which is said to be based upon a design created by Pandai Saras. We see many Keris Saras which obviously are not the creation of the famed pandai. It has also been my understanding that the same is true of Keris Tok Chu. My reason for pursuing this line is that in this thread you have presented 3 very different forms or dhapurs of keris and have claimed them to all be variations on Keris Tok Chu. I don't see how this is possible. None of them look like my own understanding of this dhapur which is more like the keris presented in BluErf's post #8. So i am wondering what possible claim these 3 keris have to the name Keris Tok Chu? If there was some provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu i could understand them holding the name (though they would still need some kind of name extension to distinguish them). But too my eye these look like 4 completely different dhapurs with BluErf's being the only one that fits the generally accepted design for this particular form.

dear david,

like my earlier post, at beginning i was taught keris tok chu is a straight, broad as same like Bluerf's posting. but after met few seniors, attending seminars, forum about keris tok chu, it's have variations. And it's accepted here. it is believed that Tok Chu same like pandai saras did not produce only 1 type/dapur of keris. The problem and different with javanese keris, most northern keris, pattani etc did not classified according to dapur...if it's been classified, like keris tok chu dapur aaa, keris tok chu dapur bbb, it's much easier to understand.

my private collection for keris tok chu with wifiq/arabic

David · 13th February 2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

dear david,

like my earlier post, at beginning i was taught keris tok chu is a straight, broad as same like Bluerf's posting. but after met few seniors, attending seminars, forum about keris tok chu, it's have variations. And it's accepted here. it is believed that Tok Chu same like pandai saras did not produce only 1 type/dapur of keris. The problem and different with javanese keris, most northern keris, pattani etc did not classified according to dapur...if it's been classified, like keris tok chu dapur aaa, keris tok chu dapur bbb, it's much easier to understand.

my private collection for keris tok chu with wifiq/arabic

Could you please explain then what indicators are used to identify it as a Tok Chu blade?

11th February 2012, 07:58 PM	#3
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	I asked a question earlier and i am still not sure it has been answered. When we refer to a keris as "Tok Chu", are we speaking of keris actually made by the pandai Tok Chu or are we talking about keris that seem to be merely in his style of making? Frankly the designation seems rather dubious at best without any hard provenance and i see more than variation difference between the three keris originally presented. Last edited by David; 12th February 2012 at 02:41 PM.

11th February 2012, 12:32 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Thanks for your comment, Kai Wee. I don't think there's any doubt that the keris came into the Peninsula from Jawa, but what I find of interest is its roots in Jawa. When I look at the way we would describe the characteristics of this keris, what I see is a Mojo description, but equally, such a description could also apply to Banten. What it cannot apply to is Mataram, so my feeling is that we're looking at a beginning that perhaps precedes Mataram, and that coincides with the widely held belief of dispersion during the Mojo era, which can probably be screwed down a bit tighter, to dispersion pre- +/-1380, that's if we accept Mojo. If we don't want to accept Mojo, then it can certainly go later, with the root as Banten, but then we'd be into probably post 1550-1600, and my feeling is that that's maybe a bit too late.

11th February 2012, 03:41 PM	#2
keriswarisanpattani Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 12	i think the best person to refer for keris tok chu is ahmad zaini from kelantan. he's doing research for so long,present paperwork,seminars and forum. At beginning, i was thought tok chu is a straight, broad and short. meanwhile we have been introduced with tok chu luk, normally with 3 n 5 luk. tokchu pamor..tok chu with 'belalai gajah' with atmost similar to keris malela.At least 10 variations of tok chu have been found. it was said that tok chu is a pandai keris for the royal family. he was came later after pandai saras and settled at a place called palekbang now located at tumpat kelantan. if we refer to the modern kelantan kingdom, there is a placed called kota kubang labu (now pasir pekan) kelantan.. circa 1750 to 1800..The famous Kg Laut mosque also located at palekbang before it's relocated at Nilam Puri. For variations of tok chu, take it this way. If i'm a royal family member, i do not like to see someone carry same keris as mine. that's one reason we should consider why there are variations of tok chu and why it's hardly found.but it's hard to prove with evidence that tok chu is a pandai keris only for the royal family and high ranking officer. but it's passed from one generation to others.

13th February 2012, 11:10 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Jean, its all in the proportion, not the actual measurement, and to my eye this blade is slim and elegant. As I have tried to say:- it looks like something made from a description or a quick look at a Mojo style blade:- the elements are there, but the result is different. Additionally, let us not forget this:- what people think of as a Mojo blade today is not really the way Mojo blades were. Here we're into tangguh again, and I'm not going to go there, so please just accept my comment in the spirit in which I made it:- a personal observation, if you don't see this blade as I do, that's because you're looking at it with your eyes, not mine.

13th February 2012, 01:17 PM	#6
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	I got interesting point here where I'd like to ask since so long regarding tangguh system. Pak Alan, once again figure out that keris Mojo in fact does not like what we are applying on playing tangguh till date which are longish, slim, elegant, waved gonjo, tall, narrow, upright blumbangan, tight greneng, two grooves starting at the blade base, kruwingan, another little greneng under the kembang kacang are features of Mojo blade. So if we assume that tangguh can represent production date of blade, these features should fit which era? I remember that you ever mentioned that most of keris today seems to have blossomed as an arm of the population as whole after the advent of Islam so there should be very less blade of Mojopahit period with uncommonly appearance and finally we may accept that blades above can be assumed as Mojo blade. The problem is most of the people, mainly here in Indonesia is still aligning tangguh with era.