Origin & Age

A. G. Maisey · 27th May 2021, 02:09 PM

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 · 27th May 2021, 07:40 PM

Quote:

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 · 27th May 2021, 10:37 PM

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

jagabuwana · 28th May 2021, 06:44 AM

Hi Amuk -
By Soenda Pakwan / Sunda Pakuan, are you referring to the seat of power/core of the Sunda Kingdom that is Pakuan Pakujajar, or something else?

Are you able to point me to somewhere I can learn more about the Soenda Pakwan protocol or pakem that you mentioned? This is a topic I'm interested to learn more about.

Alan -
The feature migration is indeed an interesting thing, which I guess is part of the "pande migration" theory.

Supposing it's true, it might indicate to me some things in relation to the questions I have for Amuk. Namely, that Sunda probably didn't have a protocol or "pakem" with regards to keris making. If it did, it seems unlikely that it would have accepted or recognised very obviously Majapahit elements. It would also entail that Sunda culture cared about keris making and the keris as a socio-spiritual artefact to a comparable degree compared to their Javanese neighbours, but I'm not sure that that is true.

I realise this is all circumstantial given the shortage of historical and other empirical sources, or maybe more reflective of my ignorance of them.

Nevertheless I'm interested in these topics and encourage discussion on it. Thanks to all contributors so far!

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2021, 06:57 AM

Things might not be as simple as most of us seem to think Jaga. I've been working on something for a while now that when I publish will probably upset a lot of people. I suggest that it might not be a good idea to try to tie Amuk down to pakems & etc too tightly, all this pakem stuff came along much later.

jagabuwana · 28th May 2021, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Things might not be as simple as most of us seem to think Jaga. I've been working on something for a while now that when I publish will probably upset a lot of people. I suggest that it might not be a good idea to try to tie Amuk down to pakems & etc too tightly, all this pakem stuff came along much later.

Thanks, Alan. Looking forward to it.

Yes upon reading my question more it does seem like I might be cornering Amuk somewhat, or at least constraining the discussion in a way that might not be helpful. Sorry about that Amuk - that wasn't my intention at all.

I'll leave the question up unedited for what it's worth.

Shieh · 28th May 2021, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Things might not be as simple as most of us seem to think Jaga. I've been working on something for a while now that when I publish will probably upset a lot of people. I suggest that it might not be a good idea to try to tie Amuk down to pakems & etc too tightly, all this pakem stuff came along much later.

I do not know enough about the pakem 'system(s)' and yet what little I have gathered about it so far has had me confounded. Either I have to read up (much) more or I have to 'unlearn' everything and start over again.

So, I'm looking forward to what you are going to publish.

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2021, 10:18 PM

Eric, a "pakem" is simply a guide book. We can have pakems for cooking, for cage birds, for keeping our financial affairs in order, for many things, and for the classification of a keris blade.

We classify keris blades jn accordance with the guidelines that have been accepted by some entity or other, and although these guidelines can vary from entity to entity, they are all broadly in agreement.

Using these guidelines we can then provide a personal opinion on what the classification of a keris blade might be. It is not certain, it is not inarguable, it is not carved in stone. It is just one person's opinion of the name that we can use to express our opinion. This is "Tangguh".

However, the actual meaning of the opinion we form might be somewhat different to that which many people believe it means.

Don't hold your breath for publication of what I am currently working on. From the first seed planted in my understanding of pre-Islamic Javanese keris, until my publication on this subject it took more than 30 years for the tree to grow --- and it is still growing. What I am now working on has very little to do with blade classification, it concerns development.

27th May 2021, 02:09 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	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. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 27th May 2021 at 02:39 PM.

27th May 2021, 10:37 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Anything is a possibility Jean, but I am unable to comment further.

28th May 2021, 06:44 AM	#4
jagabuwana Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 290	Hi Amuk - By Soenda Pakwan / Sunda Pakuan, are you referring to the seat of power/core of the Sunda Kingdom that is Pakuan Pakujajar, or something else? Are you able to point me to somewhere I can learn more about the Soenda Pakwan protocol or pakem that you mentioned? This is a topic I'm interested to learn more about. Alan - The feature migration is indeed an interesting thing, which I guess is part of the "pande migration" theory. Supposing it's true, it might indicate to me some things in relation to the questions I have for Amuk. Namely, that Sunda probably didn't have a protocol or "pakem" with regards to keris making. If it did, it seems unlikely that it would have accepted or recognised very obviously Majapahit elements. It would also entail that Sunda culture cared about keris making and the keris as a socio-spiritual artefact to a comparable degree compared to their Javanese neighbours, but I'm not sure that that is true. I realise this is all circumstantial given the shortage of historical and other empirical sources, or maybe more reflective of my ignorance of them. Nevertheless I'm interested in these topics and encourage discussion on it. Thanks to all contributors so far!

28th May 2021, 06:57 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Things might not be as simple as most of us seem to think Jaga. I've been working on something for a while now that when I publish will probably upset a lot of people. I suggest that it might not be a good idea to try to tie Amuk down to pakems & etc too tightly, all this pakem stuff came along much later.

28th May 2021, 10:18 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Eric, a "pakem" is simply a guide book. We can have pakems for cooking, for cage birds, for keeping our financial affairs in order, for many things, and for the classification of a keris blade. We classify keris blades jn accordance with the guidelines that have been accepted by some entity or other, and although these guidelines can vary from entity to entity, they are all broadly in agreement. Using these guidelines we can then provide a personal opinion on what the classification of a keris blade might be. It is not certain, it is not inarguable, it is not carved in stone. It is just one person's opinion of the name that we can use to express our opinion. This is "Tangguh". However, the actual meaning of the opinion we form might be somewhat different to that which many people believe it means. Don't hold your breath for publication of what I am currently working on. From the first seed planted in my understanding of pre-Islamic Javanese keris, until my publication on this subject it took more than 30 years for the tree to grow --- and it is still growing. What I am now working on has very little to do with blade classification, it concerns development.