Origin & Age

[A. G. Maisey]

Congratulations gentlemen.

In 1631 this keris entered the Medici collection in Firenze, and along with the rest of the extensive Urbino collection it remained a part of that collection until 1775.

If it existed in 1631 it seems to be highly likely that it pre-dates 1631 by at least some years. This would make it one of the earliest keris to enter Europe.

In the hand it is very substantial. Without the hilt it could easily be taken for a Balinese or Lombok-Bali keris from the 18th-19th century, however it is a keris that was very probably collected on the North Coast of Jawa, and prior to 1631.

Batavia was not founded until 1619, so this keris was most probably acquired in Jayakarta, the city that preceded Batavia, in the location of present day Jakarta.

The East Javanese kingdom of Majapahit finally imploded in 1525 --- or whatever date prior to that which can be reasonably supported --- and the physically stable elements of this keris can be read as representative of a Majapahit keris, or alternatively as a keris with Surakarta influences, however although the Surakarta keris does echo Majapahit style, Surakarta did not arise until long after this keris was made.

Lombok-Bali keris are Balinese keris that were made in Lombok, and sometimes display variations not found in mainline Balinese keris. Balinese keris entered Bali from Majapahit and East Jawa generally, prior to and immediately after the collapse of Majapahit. The Balinese keris has never been subjected to Islamic influence, so it may reasonably be assumed to be broadly representative of the Majapahit keris.

Following the collapse of Majapahit, and even during its years of dominance, smiths from Majapahit migrated along the North Coast of Jawa to as far as Banten, and even beyond, and the early North Coast and West Jawa keris resemble Balinese keris in many ways.

To my mind, this raises the question of exactly what the keris of Majapahit looked like when it was still new, and before the keris was subjected to Islamic influences that saw it changed in form and in nature.

I would welcome opinions & discussion relevant to this change from the early Modern Keris, to the Modern Keris of today. The term "Modern Keris" refers to the keris form that followed the Keris Buda.

About the quality of the photos.
Yes, the mendak is upside down.
When photographs have been hurriedly taken under very far from acceptable conditions, and with a shirt pocket camera, the result is sometimes unavoidably poor. Each of these photos has a minimum of 30 minutes Photoshop time in it, this was necessary because without that PS help about all that would have been able to be seen would have been that the photos were of a keris, no more.

Viewing on a good quality monitor vastly improves what is visible.

If I get time, I'll try to post some close-ups of the sorsoran.

[jagabuwana]

My guess prior to reading your post was Banten, but with little to inform it. The texture of the steel and carving made me lean that way. It's probably my brain unconsciously saying "I've seen ones like this, they were Banten, so this is Banten".

[Shieh]

Good morning gentlemen.

I think this keris is the same one in KrisDisk (Chapter 3 - Banten; pg. 26)?

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody!

- examples of above item (of same protocol) from as far back as early 16thC exist in vg condition and documented. Therefore, highly likely similar items , with the same protocol, existed even earlier.
- Banten existed, then, as a regional kingdom under SoendaPakwan.
Thus the item would've been manufactured under SoendaPakwan protocol.
Assuming the item shown, to be the real mccoy, it would, to me, be a Mahisah Toempeng.

Best,

[A. G. Maisey]

Eric, I'm sorry, but I can neither confirm nor deny your supposition.

However, what I can say is this:- if this blade were to be presented to me for classification today, and never having previously seen it with the hilt attached, it would be very difficult for me to classify it in accordance with the parameters set forth in the Solonese classification system ie, Tangguh.

Moreover, because of the superb condition of the blade it would be highly unlikely that I could bring myself to assume an age of more than a couple of hundred years at the most.

It is only because we have provenance for this keris that we can assign its true age & origin.

The blumbangan indicates Majapahit, the sirah cecak, which cannot be seen in the photographs is Majapahit, the buntut urang is rounded, garap could be accepted as either Bali or Surakarta, the distinct ada-ada is something I would expect to see in a Bali-Lombok blade; at 35cm in length it is perhaps a little shorter than we would expect a Balinese blade to be; the ron dha can probably be accepted as falling within Majapahit parameters.

The indicators present a rather confusing picture, and Central Jawa keris protocol does not recognise Banten, but it does recognise several variations of Pajajaran and Segaluh.

Stepping back from the restrictions of the Solonese system , and recognising the historical background of both keris development and of the keris under discussion, I feel it must be classified as Banten.

However, for me, that is a side issue, what I find to be of interest is the migration of characteristics associated with the Majapahit keris in a West Jawa keris at a point in time that was very close to the removal of the Hindu-Buddhist Kingdom of Majapahit.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Eric, I'm sorry, but I can neither confirm nor deny your supposition.

To me a good indicator that the 2 blades are the same is the inverted mendak unless Alan has pics of other blades from the Florence museum with this odd configuration.

[A. G. Maisey]

Anything is a possibility Jean, but I am unable to comment further.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Shieh

Good morning gentlemen.

I think this keris is the same one in KrisDisk (Chapter 3 - Banten; pg. 26)?

Very well observed Eric, congrats!