A gamble, your opinion?

[David]

Originally Posted by GIO

It is only my personal opinion, but I think the range of designs is rather big, and can be modified to a certain extent according to the taste of the maker.
It could be like the designs on the embossed pendoks: they follow certain base standards, but can be adapted to the maker's taste.

Gio, are you talking about traditional kinatah here or kinatah-like ornamentation?

[A. G. Maisey]

What I can remember about kinatah, without going back to my notebooks is this:-

following the Pati rebellion against Mataram and the victory of Mataram over Pati, kinatah was awarded to the various officers in the military forces:- a penewu was accorded a singo- gajah gonjo, a bupati kliwon was accorded kinatah kamarogan, a bupati dalem and a pangeran were accorded kinatah anggrek, singo barong and nogo.

Pati rebelled in 1617.

There are four types of kinatah kamarogan:- ranting, daun, bunga, buah. Bupatis are entitled to wear these motifs.

The family of a bupati dalem is entitled to kinatah anggrek, singo barong and manglar mongo.

Prior to the Pati expedition singo - gajah kinatah did not exist.

What I have written above refers to the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat. Other kratons may have different rules and different traditions.

Originally kinatah work was the prerogative of a ruler to award as recognition of honour, similar to the way we give medals and awards to people now --- in May this year Bob Dylan received the Medal of Freedom, USA's highest civilian honour, if Bobby Boy had lived in Mataram his keris probably would have received a kinatah award instead. That's the way it worked. Don't forget:- the keris is the symbol of the man:- honour the keris, you honour the man.

Since these kinatah awards were handed out by rulers, they needed to follow very strict rules that incorporated symbolism. It wasn't a haphazard daubing of gold, the kinatah motifs had meaning --- for instance, the singo barong is associated with warriors, just as the lion is associated with warriors in Hindu symbolism.

But all this went down the tubes when the kratons lost their power under Dutch colonial rule, and rich people outside the kraton decided it was OK to give themselves kinatah awards.

[rasjid]

Originally Posted by David

Looks beautiful and well executed regardless of age.

Hi David,

Thanks, the Kinatah i believe done probably after 1980's not very recent and definetely not done before 1900's. The execution / made is following the proper way for Kinatah workmanship and higher level of the quality from current maker for the last 10 years.
I'm still watching current Kinatah done these few years and will wait for few more years maybe to commision one


Indonesia has many good artist for Kinatah work and also wood carving. The problem with "all" artist i believe they only gives you the best when they are not under pressure (time frame limit, could be money, etc).

Alan, thank you for the information. One Collector also mentioned to me that Kinatah on the Gandik should follow certain design with the gonjo. Of course, there are not documented anywhere, this information is only coming from his years of collecting old Kinatah keris workmanship and is Limited to what he saw.

Regards

Rasjid

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Rasjid, I'm quite sure that the amount of leeway given to individual artists working according to kraton instructions would be pretty minimal. There might be a bit of tolerance to accommodate individual style and competence, but the kraton would definitely lay down what they wanted.

If a particular form should appear on the gandhik and gonjo, and the kraton was not happy with what was produced, you can bet it would have been sent back to do again and again, until they were happy.

[Jean]

Hello Alan,
Thank you for the detailed information. Have you got some pictures of representative specimens of the various and traditional types of kinatah to share with us? It would be great!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, I think you know my principles in respect of publishing photos of my personal keris:- I simply do not do it. I consider this practice to be disrespectful and in bad taste. This is a personal standard and is not intended as criticism of what others may do.

I am happy to publish photographs of keris I intend to sell, but I do not intend to sell any of my old kinatah keris at the present time.

Sorry.

[dbhmgb]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, I think you know my principles in respect of publishing photos of my personal keris:- I simply do not do it. I consider this practice to be disrespectful and in bad taste.

Alan,

When I read this line my first though was "Fascinating"! From my recent readings I can understand your position. I'll take this opportunity to thank you for pointing me in the right direction as far as my education.

Dan

[Jussi M.]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Since these kinatah awards were handed out by rulers, they needed to follow very strict rules that incorporated symbolism. It wasn't a haphazard daubing of gold, the kinatah motifs had meaning (...)

But all this went down the tubes when the kratons lost their power under Dutch colonial rule, and rich people outside the kraton decided it was OK to give themselves kinatah awards.

[A. G. Maisey]

Dan, I don't claim my position on this to be the "right" position, but it is my position, and one that I learnt from those who have taught me.

These Javanese people who taught me much of what I know would no more think of displaying a personal keris to the entire world than they would think of sprouting wings and flying. You put something on the net and it is there for the entire world to see.

A personal keris is something very close to one's own personality,one's own inner self, in Javanese culture and society it symbolises its owner. There is no secret about this. Its not select knowledge, everybody knows it, even most western collectors. Given that this is so, how can it be proper to display one's personal keris for unknown people to gaze upon?

But my background and education in keris is a little bit different to that of most people. Most collectors, even present day Javanese collectors consider the keris that they keep as objects, perhaps art objects, perhaps esoteric objects, perhaps objects that represent wealth or prestige, but very rarely as extensions of themselves. Thus, for people who look at keris in this way there is clearly nothing wrong with showing everybody what they have.

Its just a bit of a difference in attitude:- if people wish to display their keris for all the world to see, by all means, go ahead and do so. But don't ask me to follow.

[GIO]

Originally Posted by David

Gio, are you talking about traditional kinatah here or kinatah-like ornamentation?

Hi David,
I am talking about traditional kinatah.
I have seen (in books and museums) so many and different designs that it would be difficult for me to immagine that a kind of code may exist.
On the other hand I must recognize that a number of examples show (mainly on the ganja) that certain designs have been followed. I refer mainly to the designs of leaves and/or flowers, which, though different, follow an almost identical base design.
I do have a few specimens which have kinatah on the ganja only, on part of the blade or on the whole blade, but my poor culture on keris does not allow me to compress all designs in a number of rules.

[Rick]

I have seen three recurring forms of kinatah applied to ganjas (the exposed top); they are usually either the Lion, the Elephant or the Buffalo .

I'm sure the symbolism is there for certain acts or deeds performed in the service of a Ruler .

[David]

Originally Posted by GIO

I have seen (in books and museums) so many and different designs that it would be difficult for me to immagine that a kind of code may exist.
On the other hand I must recognize that a number of examples show (mainly on the ganja) that certain designs have been followed. I refer mainly to the designs of leaves and/or flowers, which, though different, follow an almost identical base design.

But i believe Alan has already established that such a code did in fact exist, albeit, from his knowledge for one particular kraton. I does seem logical however that all kratons had a similar code, though the specification might be somewhat different from one to the other. This could allow for a good number of acceptable designs in general.

[Jean]

I would be interested to know if the kinatah motifs on the blades shown in some reference books such as "Keris Jawa" or the recent translation of Groneman's book are traditional or modern ones. The books are not with me at present so I can't pinpoint any specific example.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean. I'm afraid that I cannot answer your question.

I do not have an encyclopaedic knowledge of all possible variations of the motifs specified for use in the Kraton Surakarta, and then there are all the other specified motifs used in other kratons. In fact, I seriously doubt if anybody could answer your question.

If shown a particular kinatah motif I might be able to give an opinion as to whether it was a recent confection, or if it was something old. I can recognise older forms of singo barong, and naga, I can recognise older workmanship in lung-lungan motifs and sekar motifs, but I most certainly cannot ID everything either one way or the other. Haryonoguritno's book might not be a particularly good place to start, there is a lot of current era high art in that book.

One of the problems is this:- although a motif might be specified, the interpretation of the motif can vary from era to era , just the same as a keris dhapur can have exactly the same ricikan but totally different execution, which might be stylistc according to a maker, or stylistic according to an era.

I believe it would only be possible give a determination as to age and conformity with a set motif upon an individual basis, I don't think it would be possible to declare definitively that a certain example of a motif was the only valid way for that motif to be interpreted.

I have copies of the pattern books of several pendok craftsmen who work and who have worked in the Solo idiom. Throughout these books there are motifs that have the same name, but if you place each maker's pattern alongside the others, you will see significant variation in detail. All are valid renditions of the motif, but they vary. We can expect a similar thing in most, if not all craft work.

This variation becomes even greater when a motif transfers from one vehicle to another, for instance, a motif used in batik work and then used in some other form of decorative art. One such motif is the well known parang rusak. It is a common batik motif, and it is also a common pendok motif. The pendok motif contains the essential elements of the batik motif, but it varies greatly in detail. You can see the same thing over and over again in various motifs.

The information you are seeking is just too diverse to pin down to some sort of easily accessible formula or matrix, to understand the answers to the question you have raised we need to look at many, many examples that spread over many years and many forms, then we may be able to make a reasonable guess.

[Jean]

Hello Alan,
Thank you and I realize that my question is impossible to reply but you actually confirmed that many of the kinatah blades shown in the book "Keris Jawa" are recent pieces. Upon my return I will try to show more specimens of kinatah emas blades and I encourage other members to do the same just for sharing this nice art work, whether old or not.
Regards

[VANDOO]

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, A BIT OVER MY HEAD AS ONE NOT TOO SCHOOLED IN THE KERIS BUT INTERESTING AND I CAN CERTIANLY ENJOY THE PICTURES ALONG WITH EVERYONE.
THE ONE EXAMPLE PICTURED INCORPORATES 4 DIFFERENT ANIMALS AND COVERS THE BLADE FROM FORTE TO TIP. IS THIS A RECENT EXAMPLE WHERE THE ARTIST WANTED TO INCORPORATE AS MANY HONORS AS POSSIBLE ON ONE BLADE? I SUSPECT THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN DONE ON A GOOD OLD EXAMPLE AS EACH METAL /HONOR WOULD LIKELY BE AWARDED SEPARATELY NOT LUMPED TOGETHER. THIS LOOKS ALL RIGHT AS ART BUT WOULD IT BE LIKELY AS AN HONOR AWARDED?.
WHAT ANIMALS ARE TRADITIONALY USED? THE EXAMPLE STATED ABOVE HAS A LION,DEER, WATER BUFFALOW OR COW AND AN ELEPHANT. THE ONLY OTHER ONES I CAN THINK OF ARE NAGAS/ DRAGONS AND PEOPLE OR BUDDA. ARE THESE THE ONLY TRADITIONAL DESIGNS USED OR ARE THERE OTHERS?
DOES THE FLORAL DESIGNS REPRESENT SOME HONOR OR ARE THEY THERE JUST TO EMBELISH THE DESIGN AND HONORED FIGURES.
THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW MUCH ALWAYS ASK THE MOST QUESTIONS
HOPEFULLY AT BEST THEY WILL BE GOOD QUESTIONS.

[Sajen]

Have received the keris and it is not so good as supposed but also not bad as many I have seen before. Here some first fast taken pictures.

[Sajen]

The kinatah seems to be from brass and very thin gold washed.

[Sajen]

And here, since Jean asked for, pictures of an IMHO old kinatah blade.

[Sajen]

By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked.

[Sajen]

And here recent Madura work.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

The kinatah seems to be from brass and very thin gold washed.

Hello Detlef,
You may test the presence of gold at a jeweller's shop or by using a gold test kit. I don't see clearly the presence of brass on these pictures as the kinatah looks shiny. May be low carat and thin gold coat? High gold content kinatah (22 kt) has a deeper colour.
Regards

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

By this blade i am unsure. I think that the blade is original but the gold is newly reworked.

Hello Detlef,
Thank you for the detailed pictures. This specimen is interesting because I am not sure that the Singo Barong is original to the blade: from the pictures there seems to be a discontinuity in the pamor lines at the interface of the blade and the singa, the pamor lines of the singa look denser than on the blade itself and the colour of the iron is a bit different. So the singa may have been welded later on the blade, what do you think?
I have a similar Singo Barong blade but it is more difficult to determine if the singa is more recent than the blade or not because it is more covered by gold, I will send detailed pictures in the next days.
This is my impression from the pictures but other opinions are of course welcome!
Regards

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Detlef,
You may test the presence of gold at a jeweller's shop or by using a gold test kit. I don't see clearly the presence of brass on these pictures as the kinatah looks shiny. May be low carat and thin gold coat? High gold content kinatah (22 kt) has a deeper colour.
Regards

Hello Jean,

have a look at the last picture, at the gonjo you can clearly see the brass at some places where the gold is gone. And I have cleaned the green copper compound which is clearly a sign for brass.

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Jean

Hello Detlef,
Thank you for the detailed pictures. This specimen is interesting because I am not sure that the Singo Barong is original to the blade: from the pictures there seems to be a discontinuity in the pamor lines at the interface of the blade and the singa, the pamor lines of the singa look denser than on the blade itself and the colour of the iron is a bit different. So the singa may have been welded later on the blade, what do you think?

This is my impression from the pictures but other opinions are of course welcome!
Regards

Hello Jean,

have had the same thoughts before but I am very very unsure by this. When it is like you suppose someone have done a good work.

Regards,

Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

In the period between 1812 and 1818 Stamford Raffles, who was Governor of Jawa during the period it was under British control, remarked that the keris in Jawa had become an item of dress . He said something like:-

" the keris in Jawa now occupies a position similar that of the small sword in Europe 50 years ago".

So 200 years ago the keris in Jawa had to a very great extent already lost the societal position it had held during the Majapahit era and the period concurrent with the rise of Islam in Jawa. If we consider the line of dominant kingdoms in Jawa, through to perhaps the mid 17th century, when the involvement of the Dutch began to have a very real erosive effect on Javanese power and culture, we can very easily understand that the position of the keris in Jawa had already undergone significant change during the more than 150 years to 1812 when Raffles made his observation.

So, when we talk about "old keris", and "new keris", exactly what sort of time frame are we talking about in respect of Jawa?

Many Javanese people consider keris that can be classified as Mataram , Sultan Agung to be the last of the "old keris", or if not that, then the first of the "new keris".

In other words "old keris" roughly pre-date 1650.

When the Japanese occupied Jawa during WWII an era came to an end. Under Dutch colonialism the Central Javanese kingdoms were still accorded a token level of power and traditional Javanese kraton culture was still alive, although to a much lesser degree than had been the case a couple of hundred years earlier. There were still great empus working under the aegis of the ruler of Surakarta. WWII put a lid on all of that, and keris culture did not really revive until the mid-1970's.

So the other landmark date that attaches to keris is 1942.

Javanese keris of the period prior to 1942 can be considered to still be "old keris" in one interpretation of the concept.


In respect of the "traditional" motifs used in keris kinatah work, my understanding of this use of the word "traditional" is that the motifs involved should be motifs that also occur in the descendents of the keris of Majapahit which have continued in unpolluted form, that is, the keris of Bali.

Many of the motifs used in keris ornamentation and other Javanese ornamentation can be associated with Islamic or European roots, not indigenous nor Hindu roots.

So, for me a traditional keris motif is one that can be associated with either a Javanese indigenous root or a Hindu root. Admitted, this is a personal opinion, but if we look at the traditional motifs used in kraton keris culture, my opinion seems to reflect the stance adopted by at least the senior kraton of Jawa, the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat.

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sajen

And here, since Jean asked for, pictures of an IMHO old kinatah blade.

This may be an "old" blade", but the winged figure appears to my eyes to be a much later addition, as then would be the kinatah. Doesn't seem like the type of workmanship i would expect from older kinatah, though the material may well be real gold.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Jean,

have a look at the last picture, at the gonjo you can clearly see the brass at some places where the gold is gone. And I have cleaned the green copper compound which is clearly a sign for brass.

Regards,

Detlef

OK Detlef, you cleaned it very well!

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Perhaps when we wish to use the words "old", or "traditional" in respect of the Javanese keris, we might wish to consider exactly what we mean with these two concepts.

Hello Alan,
Yes, this is a difficult question and subject to endless discussion. Personally I classify as old a blade estimated to date from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the ones estimated as older , I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.
And regarding the traditional kinatah motifs, I agree with your definition (Hindu or Javanese origin and endorsed by the kratons).
Best regards
Jean

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Personally I classify as old a blade dating from about 1860 to WWII (Javanese nem-neman period). For the older ones (or supposed to be so), I classify them as very old (1600-1860 i.e Mataram and early Yogyakarta & Surakarta periods), antique (1300-1600 or Majapahit, Pajajaran to Pajang periods), and early krisses (before Majapahit period). This may not be correct but in absence of a better definition from the experts (which I would welcome) it suits my requirements.

I think we all have our own unique guidelines for this Jean, which is perhaps part of the problem. I don't really question yours in general, though you might want to re-consider your use of the word "antique" in this regard. I say this because "antique" does have a fairly commonly accepted definition of items which are over 100 years old. Since you use that term to describe only items that are 400-700 years old specifically you might find that when you use the term in this manner that confusion might ensue.