East Javanese Keris(es) - Discussion

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, that's a lot better.

Re the blade. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the blade is a changeling. I'd need to handle it to know exactly how it was changed, but it is certain that the puthut is not original, and certain that the gonjo is not original.

As you remark, the blade grain does show good continuity, but if the smith had a full gonjo to work with it would be possible to create an impression of continuity by running the split gonjo up either side of the original gandhik, or as might have been done with this blade, using all the gonjo on one side only and reforging the base. Note how the carving goes into the core on one side of the blade?

This sort of thing that was done in the 19th and early 20th centuries was very, very skilful. I've got two singo barongs that are perhaps the most skilful forge work of this type that I've seen. I ran one of them past a gentleman who is an extremely experienced and very highly regarded keris authority, I told him there was something wrong with the blade, he homed in on the singo barong, because obviously if a simple blade has been played with and it has SB, that's where they've been playing. He could not find any fault with this blade --- not until I gave him a 3X loupe and pointed out the weld joint. Incidentally, I bought the blade as old and genuine, it was only when I examined it closely at home that I found the evidence of alteration. Those oldtime smiths were very, very clever.

Just because a blade is a bit old, and ron dha are worn, or other evidence of age is present, or it came from what might seem to be a genuine local source, that is absolutely no guarantee that we're looking at something old and genuine. It is my belief that this sort of alteration has been going on for at least 200 years. But as I've already said, I'm pretty sure it has not been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Its easier now for the shonks to build a fake from the ground up.

The gandar might be original to the atasan, or it might not. Yes, there is a bit of variation in the two pieces of material, but very often it is simply not possible for a carver to perfectly match the atasan and the gandar. To my mind this question over the wrongko is neither here nor there. Its OK. But as Jean has said, it is not original to the blade anyway --- again, no big deal. Its asking a bit much to expect to find totally original totally matched, totally perfect two hundred or 300 hundred year old ensembles in modern Indonesia.

Its not a bad keris, but its not what it pretends to be, and as a collectable it is valuable because it demonstrates the way in which blades can altered. I have kept all the really skilful alterations that I have encountered over the years as part of my core collection. They tell you things you'll never find in books.

[A. G. Maisey]

I've finally been able to get one of Jean's JPGs through Photoshop --- don't know why they wouldn't cooperate previously. Anyway, if you look at this pic you'll see the pamor grain comes to a peak just about where I've drawn a line, now look at the other side of the blade and you can see a lot of core material in this area of the blade.

Consider this:- take a nice little billet of gonjo material, weld it to one side of the blade and then even up the blade so that there is equal material on each side of a centre line. Result is you've got a thick little lump of material at the gandhik, so you then carve a puthut --- or whatever else you like--- into that thick little lump, but one side of the lump has pamor, the other side does not.

If the welded on lump is tapered down into the body of the blade it passes a cursory inspection as part of the original material.

[Jean]

Thank you very much Alan for this detailed inspection and evaluation of my blade, it is truly amazing and I did not notice anything abnormal myself except the clearer colour of the ganja and that the putut figure is not symmetrical!
Regarding the fact that you could not easily photoshop my pictures, it might be due to the compression software (Light Image Resizer 4) which I am using for reducing the picture size.
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, it would be unreasonable to expect that you would see this. Ric Furrer possibly would, and I can see it, but to understand a blade you need to know how to make a blade. That was the only reason I spent time learning how to make keris, so I would understand them.

But I you might be able to pick this sort of thing next time around. Yes?

The previous image files opened just fine and I could work on them in Photoshop, but when I transferred those files to My Pictures, they stayed locked. I had a close look at the properties on your images and there is a message there that says something about the files came from a different computer and might be protected. So I changed the name and did a few copies before I Photoshopped it, that seemed to get me around any problems.

[A. G. Maisey]

#2

Madura is fond of capu kagok as is Solo. This keris doesn't look Solo to me, I think maybe coastal East Jawa, wr. Madura.

#3

mamas SW , complex pamor in light blade, probably Jatim/ Maduro


Post 8, keris #2 and keris #3

not a lot I can say about either of these.

#2 is pretty featureless; in the pics it seems to have a "fallen brick" blumbangan, which looks like about the only indicator I can see; the stain is not wonderful, and this might be material or might be the warangan or might be the lack of skill in the person who did it; top of the gonjo might give a clue, feel of the weight distribution and texture of material might give a clue.
Thinking in terms of major strands of influence, yes, Solo and Madura are both known for this scabbard form, but realistically it could be just about anywhere away from strong direct kraton influence.
The hilt is not Solo work, but it uses a Solo style for a model, it also doesn't strike me as Madura work.

I think I'd opt for "Javanese" only for this one.

#3 presents as a typical Madura blade both stylistically and in respect of pamor; the blumbangan looks to be "brick standing", the luk at the point is fairly longish which is not particularly known as a Madura characteristic, but is accepted as an East Jawa characteristic. Maybe a Madura blade made for East Jawa mainland ?
The scabbard form --- mamas SW --- is strongly associated with East Jawa.

I think I'll stay with my hip shot on this one:- East Jawa/Madura

[Jean]

Thank you Alan and I deeply appreciate your expert analysis as usual.
I have other supposedly East Javanese krisses to show but will leave the floor to others.
BTW do you consider Tuban style blades as Jatim or Jateng?
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually Jean, I consider Tuban blades as Tuban:- Tuban is a legit tangguh. This "Jatim"/"jateng" thing is an artificial construct that we're using here because it suits the way the collecting community here thinks, it really has very little --- maybe nothing --- to do with the way Javanese people classify keris.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Actually Jean, I consider Tuban blades as Tuban:- Tuban is a legit tangguh. This "Jatim"/"jateng" thing is an artificial construct that we're using here because it suits the way the collecting community here thinks, it really has very little --- maybe nothing --- to do with the way Javanese people classify keris.

Hello Alan,
Thanks, very clear and understood.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Post 9

#1

Jateng, Solo and maybe a Koripan wilahan --- can't be positive without physical insp.

post 10

#1

very tempted to give Jatim, wilah might be Pjjrn.:- pamor, boto adeg, but only stylistically and it might look different in the hand.


The keris in post 9 is overall a Solo keris, everything about it is Solo.
I’ve given the blade as possibly Koripan, which is a smithing village between Solo and Jogja. For a very long time the smiths in this village produced rough copies of M’ram SA keris, and very frequently these rough copies get sold as the real thing, ie, Mataram Sultan Agung.

Stylistically a Koripan keris has almost the same features as M’ram SA, but it is more crude and lacks refinement.

However, there are a number of other keris classifications that look very, very similar and it is not always possible to be absolutely certain what one of these generic Mataram blades should be classified as, so it is probably safer to dump them all in one basket and call them “late Mataram”.

I reckon “Surakarta/Late Mataram” is the safest classification for this keris.


Post #10
For the overall keris I’d be happy with just “Jawa”. The wrongko could be anywhere, it doesn’t look like Surakarta work, but it could be, just not under direct kraton influence. Could be East Jawa, could be anywhere in between.
But the blade is a pretty nice example of an older “everyman’s” keris.

The more I look at it the more Pajajaran seems likely, but if it truly is classifiable as Pjjrn., it is in remarkably good condition; it might be a Gresik copy of Pjjrn. You can usually pick Gresik by the pamor which has a greasy feel to it, it doesn’t grip your finger tips like most other pamor does, even though it might be quite worn.

The big fat-like exposure of pamor, the long gandhik, whispy kembang kacang, gonjo style, luk style:- to my eye everything about this blade looks Pjjrn., which of course places it as a West Jawa blade, and in the corresponding period, you could say north coast, so I guess a lot of people would give it as Cirebon these days.

Cirebon has become a popular classification in recent years, but in Solo 30 years ago I never heard it mentioned. At that time it seemed that the focus of all the truly knowledgeable people was on the classic descent of kingdoms classifications(tangguhs) along with the well known copies of these, so mostly if something didn’t quite fit into the guidelines based on Pangeran Wijil’s “Turun Temuruning Para Empu Tanah Jawi” a blade got classified as “diluar Jawa” (outside Jawa) and pretty much disregarded or devalued. Possibly not a logical approach, but we need to remember that everything about keris in Central Jawa is part of a culturally based belief system, if something is outside the culture, it doesn’t count.

A good tell for Pajajaran is the edge of the pamor where it meets the steel core. In a genuine Pjjrn. blade there will be a microscopic separation of steel core and pamor. I use a 3X loupe to see this, its not really possible to see it with the naked eye --- well, its not possible for me, for some others it might be.

I’d be happy with a generic “Jawa” classification for this keris; I’m very tempted to give the blade as Pajaran, but I could not do this unless I handled it.

[simatua]

a several years in my collection, but still not figured it out. The wilah of this keris ca 30 cm. with a relative simple but with some very detailed parts (tooth) naga. Got it as it is. blades fits good, although the peksi is not exactly in the middle of the waranka. The blade seems to me Buginese ; curved shape and gusen. The dress seems to be more (East?) Java.

Maybe a composed keris, but not done lately by a collector or dealers choice imo.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by simatua

a several years in my collection, but still not figured it out. The wilah of this keris ca 30 cm. with a relative simple but with some very detailed parts (tooth) naga. Got it as it is. blades fits good, although the peksi is not exactly in the middle of the waranka. The blade seems to me Buginese ; curved shape and gusen. The dress seems to be more (East?) Java.

Maybe a composed keris, but not done lately by a collector or dealers choice imo.

You are correct, it is a composed keris. Also when the fit inside the sheath seems good there is to much free space, special in the back. Hilt and sheath are East Jawa/Madura and the very nice blade is Bugis IMHO.

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

post 11

capu kagok---Maduro

wilah very possibly Tuban, but cannot be definite unless handled, stylistcally a bit of a mix, wouldn't surprise if Tuban style but Maduro manuftr. Actually, this is a pretty interesting blade, I'm not sure, but I think I can see a "fallen brick" blumbangan, and this can point towards Pjjrn. but there are other things that do not say Pjjrn. As is often the case I'd really need to handle it.

Thank you very much for comment Alan. Someone else with a very good knowledge has told me before that this is a possible Tuban blade. So the attribution East Jawa seems correct. What do you mean by "fallen brick"? Maybe I can try to take different pictures to show it better.
How do you would call the pamor? Udan mas?

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The keris in post 9 is overall a Solo keris, everything about it is Solo.
I’ve given the blade as possibly Koripan, which is a smithing village between Solo and Jogja. For a very long time the smiths in this village produced rough copies of M’ram SA keris, and very frequently these rough copies get sold as the real thing, ie, Mataram Sultan Agung.

Stylistically a Koripan keris has almost the same features as M’ram SA, but it is more crude and lacks refinement.

However, there are a number of other keris classifications that look very, very similar and it is not always possible to be absolutely certain what one of these generic Mataram blades should be classified as, so it is probably safer to dump them all in one basket and call them “late Mataram”.

I reckon “Surakarta/Late Mataram” is the safest classification for this keris.

Also here, thank you very much for the detailed comment. This blade have been every time a a big interrogation mark for me. That it isn't a Mataram SA blade have shown me the lack of refinement so my best guess have been that it is a village made keris from East Java. So the Koripan attribution seems to my eyes nearby. Very very good learning lesson for me.

Regards,

Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

Fallen brick is when the blumbangan is wider than it is tall.

Yes, I'd give this pamor as udan mas, but it is possible that the blade is very thin, if this is the case it is most likely a Tuban blade that started life as a wos wutah and was turned into udan mas to make it more saleable.

Tuban was trading port and blades came from all over to sell as trade items both to locals and for export, styles change a bit depending on when made, but because Tuban blades were good beefy blades in their original form, they were also the blade of choice for re-manufacture when that was being done.

100% original Tuban blades are now pretty scarce, and because of this they seem to have been elevated a bit in price, simply because of scarcity.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Post #10
For the overall keris I’d be happy with just “Jawa”. The wrongko could be anywhere, it doesn’t look like Surakarta work, but it could be, just not under direct kraton influence. Could be East Jawa, could be anywhere in between.
But the blade is a pretty nice example of an older “everyman’s” keris.

The more I look at it the more Pajajaran seems likely, but if it truly is classifiable as Pjjrn., it is in remarkably good condition; it might be a Gresik copy of Pjjrn. You can usually pick Gresik by the pamor which has a greasy feel to it, it doesn’t grip your finger tips like most other pamor does, even though it might be quite worn.

The big fat-like exposure of pamor, the long gandhik, whispy kembang kacang, gonjo style, luk style:- to my eye everything about this blade looks Pjjrn., which of course places it as a West Jawa blade, and in the corresponding period, you could say north coast, so I guess a lot of people would give it as Cirebon these days.

Cirebon has become a popular classification in recent years, but in Solo 30 years ago I never heard it mentioned. At that time it seemed that the focus of all the truly knowledgeable people was on the classic descent of kingdoms classifications(tangguhs) along with the well known copies of these, so mostly if something didn’t quite fit into the guidelines based on Pangeran Wijil’s “Turun Temuruning Para Empu Tanah Jawi” a blade got classified as “diluar Jawa” (outside Jawa) and pretty much disregarded or devalued. Possibly not a logical approach, but we need to remember that everything about keris in Central Jawa is part of a culturally based belief system, if something is outside the culture, it doesn’t count.

A good tell for Pajajaran is the edge of the pamor where it meets the steel core. In a genuine Pjjrn. blade there will be a microscopic separation of steel core and pamor. I use a 3X loupe to see this, its not really possible to see it with the naked eye --- well, its not possible for me, for some others it might be.

I’d be happy with a generic “Jawa” classification for this keris; I’m very tempted to give the blade as Pajaran, but I could not do this unless I handled it.

And again, thank you very much for the time you have taken to comment. And also here I have learned something i don't have known before. The separation from pamor and core for a good tell to to attribute a blade to Pajajaran is new for me. This blade have it indeed but not the greasy feel.
So it could be indeed a genuine Pjjrn. blade.
So maybe I should change the hilt by a Cirebon hilt which would fit more better for this keris?

Thank you again,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Fallen brick is when the blumbangan is wider than it is tall.

Yes, I'd give this pamor as udan mas, but it is possible that the blade is very thin, if this is the case it is most likely a Tuban blade that started life as a wos wutah and was turned into udan mas to make it more saleable.

Tuban was trading port and blades came from all over to sell as trade items both to locals and for export, styles change a bit depending on when made, but because Tuban blades were good beefy blades in their original form, they were also the blade of choice for re-manufacture when that was being done.

100% original Tuban blades are now pretty scarce, and because of this they seem to have been elevated a bit in price, simply because of scarcity.

Now I understand! Yes, blumbangan is a little bit wider than it is tall, maybe 1,5 until 2 mm. The blade is still thick. I get this keris with a other handle but with this sarung in very poor condition and was very astonished when I have seen the blade new stained. The sarung was restored much later because it was also in a very very poor condition.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Sajen

You are correct, it is a composed keris. Also when the fit inside the sheath seems good there is to much free space, special in the back. Hilt and sheath are East Jawa/Madura and the very nice blade is Bugis IMHO.

Regards,

Detlef

I am not sure that the naga figure is original, it looks odd as well as the front side of the ganja which is too short?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Detlef, any blade can go into any dress, and once there, you match the hilt to the scabbard, and you call it a such& such keris in accordance with the scabbard & hilt, but if you then remove the blade so it can be seen, you classify the blade into the appropriate tangguh.

Bearing in mind that we don't really know exactly where this scabbard is from, it is probably OK to fit a north coast hilt.

[A. G. Maisey]

You might be right Jean. I haven't been able to have a good look at this blade yet, I've exceeded my usage allowance and the net has slowed to a crawl. I won't comment on this blade until I can download it and play around a bit with it in PS

[simatua]

another figural keris...... Iam nor sure this is an old one ( modifacation ?) or an kamardikan Madura keris.

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody!

Just a few thoughts which occurred while reading this thread.
I decided to post them, just in case something means something to somebody. . On the other hand, everything may be totally irrelevant!
If it's all useless info, i.e. garbage, then my post can be deleted:

- As I often like to mention, there are a lot of different keris protocols out there.
Some older than others.

Alan, I believe, adheres to the Kartasura/Surakarta protocols.
The governing manuscripts are composed no earlier than 19thC.(with the exception of one of those dealing with keris forms; attributable(?) to Sunan Kalijaga composed in c.1482).
It appears that they have become the de facto, de jure, protocol of the mainstream.
It saddens me that even those who have their own protocols choose to abandon them and join the mainstream.
But, I suppose that's the way of the world today.

- Pangeran Wijil's manuscript on the history of empus was composed c. 1726-45. So not long ago in terms of keris history.

- As regards Cirebon:
The Sunda still regard Cirebon as Sunda, albeit considered to be highly 'Jawa-nized'. It is interesting though that many members of its royal family still consider themselves Sunda, while a majority(?) of the people consider themselves as 'Cirebon'.
It was a centre of Muslim power and recognized the political sovereignty of Mataram via a treaty in 1590.
Hanyokrokusumo referred to the Sultan of Cirebon (who also became his father-in-law) as 'teacher'.

- Pajajaran: I consider a Jawa-construct. There is no reference to a 'Pajajaran' kingdom in Sunda manuscripts.
The name only appears in Jawa manuscripts, of anonymous authorship and composed/compiled no earlier than late 19thC.

- Bear in mind that many 'primary sources' may be 'anonymous' and 'oral tradition' as well as historiology.

- Again, it boils down to what one believes in/ has faith in or what one wants to believe in/wants to have faith in.


Please excuse the interruption.

Best,

[A. G. Maisey]

I doubt that anybody who has looked closely at keris related matters will argue with much of what you've written, Amuk Murugul. In fact, I think most of what you've said has been published in various past threads on this forum.

However, none of it has a lot to do with what this thread was supposed to be about, which was the possible identification of keris from East Jawa.

Admitted, I've given tentative classifications of a some of the keris shown, and these classifications are based on the Surakarta mainstream. That mainstream has become wider in recent years, with the inclusion of quite a few classifications that do not seem to have been part of the original Surakarta system, but admitted, the mainstream system still has at its foundations the system that was developed in Surakarta.

Back in the 1970's Garrett Solyom made this same point, that the system which is mostly used in the study of keris is a Solonese, rather than an all encompassing Javanese system.

Whether or not this is a valid approach is a question that could generate unending discussion, however, it is beyond question that the Karaton Surakarta is the senior royal house of Jawa, and as such its protocols and beliefs do tend to take precedence, as they have done for a long time.

The way in which the keris has developed as a societal icon in Jawa has resulted in it becoming a part of, and possibly central to the beliefs which form a part of Kejawen beliefs. This does not mean that we need to disregard other systems of belief, but if I were to start talking about the keris as it is now, in terms that ceased to apply after the demise of Javanese-Hindu society, nobody would have the slightest idea of what I was raving about. Thus, if I wish to be understood it is probably adviseable that I try to couch what I write in terms that most people will understand.

That keris knowledge, as it exists within Javanese society, is a system of belief is undoubtedly true.

However, in this thread, we are not really addressing keris knowledge as such knowledge is understood in Jawa, rather, we are using a recogniseable geographic area and attempting to identify the keris types which may originate from that area.

My little forays into Tangguh Land are really a side issue.

[Bjorn]

I'm curious, are or were bondolan hilts ever used in East Java? I seem to recall reading that they were and that they are squat and thick, like the bondolan found on Madura. But perhaps I simply remembered incorrectly?