Origin & Age

[A. G. Maisey]

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

[jagabuwana]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jean]

Just a short comment about the origin of these blades: they were imported to Europe from Banten (or Blambangan according to Jensen) but is it certain that they were manufactured there?
There is a well-known drawing of the Banten port dating from the 17th century showing a kris-making workshop but is it a sufficient source of information?
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Banten is at one end of the Island of Jawa, Blambangan at the other. I have nominated Banten for two reasons, firstly it was the most likely place for such items keris to have been collected at that early point, secondly, the overall characteristics of the blade match other keris that some people classify as Banten. If Jensen wants it to be Blambangan I would never argue against this, Blambangan is right on the doorstep of Mojo, this keris displays some accepted Mojo characteristics.

However, no geographic location can be accurately affixed in the absence of personal observation of manufacture, so we are talking opinion, and just as I will not argue against Jenson's opinion, neither will I argue against any other opinion that places in somewhere in Jawa.

Perhaps the most sensible classification might be to give it an alpha numeric classification, say JN3, if we were to go this route we could chuck our precious tangguh system right out the door:- JN3, JN5, CJ23, CB6 --- the possibilities are endless.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Jean

Just a short comment about the origin of these blades: they were imported to Europe from Banten (or Blambangan according to Jensen) but is it certain that they were manufactured there?
There is a well-known drawing of the Banten port dating from the 17th century showing a kris-making workshop but is it a sufficient source of information?
Regards

Sorry, I should have said Banten and Blambangan, Jensen distinguishes the 2 supposed locations of origin, the blades of these krisses are very similar but the hilts look a bit different.
Regards