Pandai Saras Luk 9

[rasdan]

G'day Alan, I just checked keris pictures in Den Indonesiske Keris, it appears that the ricikan I mentioned above is present in keris from the 1600s. It's just that the form ia different - in Javanse keris the ricikan is a line rather than a bulge on pandai saras keris. Sorry for the trouble Alan.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I do not know the name for the feature you identify.

In fact, I doubt that this feature has been given a name at any time in the recent past, at least in Jawa, and possibly in Bali also. I say this because I cannot find it as being identified by name in the half dozen or so recent books that I've just now looked at.

It may have had a name once, but apparently, not now.

I've looked at photos I have of a lot of pre-1700 keris in several European collections. Most of these keris are Javanese, with what I believe is a smattering of Balinese keris. There seems to be no universal rule as to when this feature appears and when it does not, also there is a variety of forms of the feature used in these older keris.

Where the feature does appear , it is sometimes just a line, at other times it is a raised, rounded ridge with a line cut through the middle of the ridge, at other times it is a ridge that is defined by a line above and a line below. There is no consistency as to how this feature is expressed, when it is used.

I am unable to show pictures of any of these keris, as I have signed undertakings with the museums concerned not to publish my photographs.

The principle thing that strikes me about these Pandai Saras keris , and which turns my thoughts to Madura Sepuh is the pawakan, the overall visual impression. Think of it this way:- if I see somebody who has Chinese features I immediately identify him as Chinese, but then when I speak with him I may discover that he is fourth generation Australian, and that only his father is Chinese.

Its the same with these P.S. keris, I glance at them, and I see an old style Madura blade, I see the ridged odo2, which is not at all elegant, I see the lack of definition in the blumbangan, I see the whispy kembang kacang, I see the long last luk, I see the overall stiffness and apparent fragility (note:- apparent, that does not mean that it is fragile), I see the form of the ron dha, which is often not much more than an undefined notch, not dissimilar to some older Balinese keris, and when it does have definition it is a very faint echo of a Majapahit ron dha, almost as if the maker has hesitated to make it a distinct copy of a Mojo ron dha.

I do understand that for many people, especially those who prize Peninsula keris, these P.S. keris are highly regarded, but when I apply Javanese standards I do not see a particularly wonderful keris.

This is the reason why we must never appraise a keris by any standard other than the standard which applies to that particular keris.

We cannot apply Surakarta standards to a Pajajaran keris, and we cannot apply Javanese standards to a Peninsula keris. We can only measure the quality of a P.S. keris against another P.S. keris.

It is never a very good idea to use the tangguh classifications as exact indicators of time, as most people understand the concept of time. In general, a keris that can be classified as an old tangguh will be older than a keris that can be classified as a more recent tangguh, but that does not mean that the name of the tangguh necessarily aligns with the historic period of the same name. Tangguh was brought into being for purposes other than to help 20th century collectors put a date on things, and it was only ever intended to apply to keris of very high quality. Keris that could be depended upon to preserve wealth.

I believe that it is entirely possible that the maker who originated the P.S. keris form could have come from the Majapahit kingdom. If we look at the history of the empus of the Land of Jawa, we find that they tended to move around quite a bit, and when they moved they often changed names, or maybe were just known by another name --- a Javanese characteristic even today. Maybe when Majapahit collapsed some of the smiths who moved from Blambangan back west to Banten, just kept on going and finished up on the Peninsula, and in other places. I seem to recall I heard a story about a shipwreck, where a ship from Mojo got blown off course and was wrecked on the cost of the Peninsula, and one or more smiths continued to live there.

Alternatively, maybe the P.S. keris form is not quite as old as we might like to believe. I have a Brunei keris that was made in 1842 that displays very distinct Madura style. Was this style already in existence in Brunei for a long time prior to 1842, along with a puntiran pamor that we tend to think of as a more recent development, something that came into being along with the migration of smiths into North Coast Jawa that occurred after Islamic domination, or did the Madura style come into Brunei not too long before that 1842 keris was made?

I cannot answer any of these questions, but perhaps they bear thinking about.

[rasdan]

Thank you for the explanation Alan. I guess that ricikan will be a mystery forever.

One Javanese keris that I had thought to have a faint resemblance of pandai saras keris is this pesisir from kris disk dated 1690. The resemblance is stronger at the sosoran, but the way the blade tapers to the tip is different. I agree with you that along with the current belief of Mojo origin, there is a possibility that these type of keris is relatively recent.

I guess the only way to estimate the time period for these keris is by identifying it’s material. But I am clueless in this area.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan, I cannot see anything in this keris from Mr. Jensen's publication that I would identify as qualifying it for a Majapahit classification.

I'm not going to list and discuss every feature, but Mojo keris should be light, this keris is heavy, Mojo keris should have boto adeg blumbangan, this keris appears to have a square blumbangan, Mojo keris have more taper to the point, Mojo keris should have a shortish gonjo.

This keris does look like north coast, but more to the west, based on what I believe I can see in the picture, I'd be inclined to give this keris as more or less Banten.

However, we are getting into a tangguh discussion here, and that is really not a good idea when we are using pictures to base opinions on. In any case, there is one thing above all else that must be remembered about the tangguh system:- it is a system of classification in which some of the classifications share their names with historic eras, but that does not mean that the keris concerned originates from that era.

In Jawa we have a saying:-

tangguh ngak sungguh = tangguh is not real

if we care to believe that a keris of say, Kahuripan origin actually originated in the Kingdom of Kahuripan, well, that's fine --- provided we accept that this can only ever be a belief, as is virtually all keris "knowledge".

Keris knowledge is not knowledge as the concept of knowledge is understood in the modern world. Keris knowledge is a mixture of myth, legend, and popular belief.

Keris knowledge depends upon having an understanding of these myths, legends and beliefs that is more or less in agreement with the majority of people with whom one discusses keris.

[rasdan]

Thanks Alan. Yes, that keris does not qualify as Mojo, I just somehow sees a faint resemblance of that keris to PS keris (probably because of the greneng and ada2). Actually I think PS keris that we know today is a mixture of multiple keris forms. Ok, Alan, I wont go into tangguh discussion here.

Gustav, I'm sorry I dragged your thread to a different direction than what you originally asked about. I'll stop here.

[Gustav]

Rasdan, absolutely no problem with that.

I also always thought, the pre-1700 keris you posted reminds Keris Pandai Saras. There also is the question, if the lanky PS form with long Luk from Patani is the earliest one. Perhaps it could be seen as a development of a certain taste.