variation of tok chu

David · 14th February 2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

if they are not made by Tok Chu, of course there are masterpiece out there which is made by Tok Chu and been duplicated. It's may be easy to duplicate but not easy to claim and used Tok Chu name if there are no basic or evidence to do that.

what i believed and most of Kelantanese keris lover believed, Tok Chu (pandai) did not produce only 1 type of keris. But it's have variations which also called as Keris tok Chu.

another luk 3 tok chu keris owned by a royal family. new sheath.credit cikgu nasir

You will have to forgive me KWP, but this is the very first time i have ever heard such a thing. Not that Tok Chu didn't have any other styles, that goes without saying, just that any style perceived to have once been made by him would be referred to by his name. Most famous mpus or pandai that are honored by having a keris dhapur named after them generally only get one. I have no doubt that this is what you believe or you wouldn't be this insistent, but if truly most Kelantanese keris lovers believe this i would have thought it would have been brought up before. Can someone please tell me when Tok Chu was supposed to have lived?
Gustav, your example is beautiful. Until now i would have assumed it to be a straight carita keris...

VVV · 14th February 2012, 08:23 PM

Gustav,

The keris you posted looks very "Danish"

Did you beat me on it?

Michael

Gustav · 14th February 2012, 08:57 PM

David and Michael,

it isn't mine. At that point I still wasn't aware Denmark would be such an interesting country for people interested in keris

A. G. Maisey · 14th February 2012, 10:07 PM

David, I apologise for the misunderstanding, the question I noted was the one raised by Karttikeya.

I'm not buying into the "Tok Chu" discussion, as I am not familiar with the Peninsula belief systems relating to keris, however, Javanese makers can have many different styles attributed to them. They may work in a particular style that relates to a particular tangguh, but within that tangguh there can be a relatively wide variation in style. We tend to look at the way in which material has been managed, the material itself, and where present, the cutting of the greneng and especially the ron dha to give an attribution. The pawakan --- overall visual impression --- is important, but not nearly as important as the fine detail.

Perhaps something similar might apply with Peninsula makers.

A. G. Maisey · 14th February 2012, 10:38 PM

Karttikeya.

We've moved into the realm of tangguh with your question, and when we do that we are in an area where a sensible answer is difficult to give within the constraints of any online discussion group.

The Javanese, or more specifically, the Surakarta, tangguh system was developed for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was not to simply categorise keris for the creation of a more ordered world.

It is a system of classification that is in turn a sub-system of the Javanese keris belief system, which is closely related to Kejawen.

Within the tangguh system, the closer we are to point of origin in time, the more likely it is that the name of the tangguh can be taken as representative of the historic era. Thus, if we are talking about Tangguh Surakarta, there is an extremely high probability that a keris given this tangguh was actually made in Surakarta, during the period of Surakarta. However, the further back in time we move from this point, the lesser is the probability that a keris given a tangguh of, for example , Majapahit, actually originated during the Majapahit era.

Time distorts perception.

Various keris have various characteristics, and equally experienced people in the field of tangguh will in most cases classify high quality keris according to the same tangguh, however, this classification is in accordance with a system of belief, rather than with any documented or verifiable evidence that the tangguh given to the keris actually relates to the historic era from which the tangguh takes its name.

This alignment of tangguh name with historic era is a cultural phenomenon, and as such it is perfectly acceptable. It is a part of the Javanese keris belief system, and as with any belief system, the followers of that belief system have a perfect right to believe whatever they will. But that does not make the belief an accurate representation of fact.

The keris did exist in Majapahit, and this era is a key period in the development of the Modern Keris (ie, the keris as we recognize it today), however, based upon the available evidence --- monumental, literature, descendant types --- the keris in Majapahit during the period 1293 to 1389, or even 1527 --- did not look anything like the keris which is classified as Majapahit within the Surakarta Tangguh System.

This is why so many people in Jawa with deep keris knowledge will say :- "Tangguh nggak sungguh"

They simply do not accept the relevance of the tangguh system to the historic age of the keris.

keriswarisanpattani · 15th February 2012, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

You will have to forgive me KWP, but this is the very first time i have ever heard such a thing. Not that Tok Chu didn't have any other styles, that goes without saying, just that any style perceived to have once been made by him would be referred to by his name. Most famous mpus or pandai that are honored by having a keris dhapur named after them generally only get one. I have no doubt that this is what you believe or you wouldn't be this insistent, but if truly most Kelantanese keris lovers believe this i would have thought it would have been brought up before. Can someone please tell me when Tok Chu was supposed to have lived?
Gustav, your example is beautiful. Until now i would have assumed it to be a straight carita keris...

dear dave,

no problem. since everybody have their own views base on what they have learnt , research etc. No doubt that tok chu keris famous with one type of keris which is broad, straight etc. But as a famous mpus , i can't believe he's only produce one type of keris during his time. Base on paperwork been discussed tok chu lived circa 1750++ or may be earlier. for detail can referred to ahmed Zaini in kelantan ...on characteristics of tok chu, he can explain better . not saying his 100% right but who knows something new can be found.

David · 15th February 2012, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

But as a famous mpus , i can't believe he's only produce one type of keris during his time.

Thanks for the date...i am not questioning whether Tok Chu produced other forms of keris during his lifetime. I would be surprised if he didn't. I am just wondering if it is a good idea to refer to ALL of those possible different styles as "Keris Tok Chu". Seems like it can only lead to confusion. I am also uncertain that it is possible to know with any reliability which of these forms the Pandai had a hand in developing. Given the timeline of his activity is there any surviving documentation that would show that Tok Chu was responsible for these dhapurs? Does anything like a pakem exist for this era and area?

khalifah muda · 20th February 2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

Thanks for the date...i am not questioning whether Tok Chu produced other forms of keris during his lifetime. I would be surprised if he didn't. I am just wondering if it is a good idea to refer to ALL of those possible different styles as "Keris Tok Chu". Seems like it can only lead to confusion. I am also uncertain that it is possible to know with any reliability which of these forms the Pandai had a hand in developing. Given the timeline of his activity is there any surviving documentation that would show that Tok Chu was responsible for these dhapurs? Does anything like a pakem exist for this era and area?

Unfortunately, there's no surviving documentation to my knowledge. It is still a legend.

14th February 2012, 08:23 PM	#2
VVV Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden Posts: 1,637	Gustav, The keris you posted looks very "Danish" Did you beat me on it? Michael

14th February 2012, 08:57 PM	#3
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,273	David and Michael, it isn't mine. At that point I still wasn't aware Denmark would be such an interesting country for people interested in keris

14th February 2012, 10:07 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	David, I apologise for the misunderstanding, the question I noted was the one raised by Karttikeya. I'm not buying into the "Tok Chu" discussion, as I am not familiar with the Peninsula belief systems relating to keris, however, Javanese makers can have many different styles attributed to them. They may work in a particular style that relates to a particular tangguh, but within that tangguh there can be a relatively wide variation in style. We tend to look at the way in which material has been managed, the material itself, and where present, the cutting of the greneng and especially the ron dha to give an attribution. The pawakan --- overall visual impression --- is important, but not nearly as important as the fine detail. Perhaps something similar might apply with Peninsula makers.

14th February 2012, 10:38 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Karttikeya. We've moved into the realm of tangguh with your question, and when we do that we are in an area where a sensible answer is difficult to give within the constraints of any online discussion group. The Javanese, or more specifically, the Surakarta, tangguh system was developed for a very specific purpose, and that purpose was not to simply categorise keris for the creation of a more ordered world. It is a system of classification that is in turn a sub-system of the Javanese keris belief system, which is closely related to Kejawen. Within the tangguh system, the closer we are to point of origin in time, the more likely it is that the name of the tangguh can be taken as representative of the historic era. Thus, if we are talking about Tangguh Surakarta, there is an extremely high probability that a keris given this tangguh was actually made in Surakarta, during the period of Surakarta. However, the further back in time we move from this point, the lesser is the probability that a keris given a tangguh of, for example , Majapahit, actually originated during the Majapahit era. Time distorts perception. Various keris have various characteristics, and equally experienced people in the field of tangguh will in most cases classify high quality keris according to the same tangguh, however, this classification is in accordance with a system of belief, rather than with any documented or verifiable evidence that the tangguh given to the keris actually relates to the historic era from which the tangguh takes its name. This alignment of tangguh name with historic era is a cultural phenomenon, and as such it is perfectly acceptable. It is a part of the Javanese keris belief system, and as with any belief system, the followers of that belief system have a perfect right to believe whatever they will. But that does not make the belief an accurate representation of fact. The keris did exist in Majapahit, and this era is a key period in the development of the Modern Keris (ie, the keris as we recognize it today), however, based upon the available evidence --- monumental, literature, descendant types --- the keris in Majapahit during the period 1293 to 1389, or even 1527 --- did not look anything like the keris which is classified as Majapahit within the Surakarta Tangguh System. This is why so many people in Jawa with deep keris knowledge will say :- "Tangguh nggak sungguh" They simply do not accept the relevance of the tangguh system to the historic age of the keris.