my last keris

[kai]

Hello Marco ,

I'm sincerely trying to understand your comments and also noted that you doubt the cengkrong attribution might be suitable for this keris in post #27.

What I'm trying to bring across is that both dhapur examples were not chosen well since cengkrong/cundrik seem to be treated differently compared to all other keris blades (including mahesa/kebo and, fitting best for your keris, dhuwung). This seems also supported by quite a number of keris from these resembling dhapur families that I've seen.

Actually, I'd be very keen to see how large cengkrong/cundrik blades are fitted into scabbards - those I remember exhibited not as broad blade bases as shown in the reference book.

Thanks for bringing up this point for us all to learn!

Regards,
Kai

[GIO]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

I reported only the name of dapur that the seller indicated to me at my request

Please look at the enclosure.
From "Ilmu Keris" by S Lumintu 1994

[David]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

please don't misrepresent what i write... i posted the picture taken from the Daphur book just to show why the handle is inside out

Marco, as others are pointing out, i don't think we are looking at a cengkrong or cundrik, if for no other reason than your blade having what to my eye appears to be a rather well pronounced extra long gandik. Since the seller named this dhapur Maeso Slurung (correctly or not) they seem to have recognized that by placing it in the Mahesa/Kebo family. So the orientation of hilts on cengkrong/cundrik doesn't seem to apply here.
This is what this blade put me in mind of, lacking a kembang kacang of course. At the time of purchase it was identified to me as Kebo Giri Luk Telu. I have also seen Kebo Giri named Mahesa Kanthong.
I do also see much merit with Alan's suggestion of dhapur dhuwung luk lima. While the pakem drawings i have seen of dhapur dhuwung usually suggest a somewhat broader/wider blade the yours it still does seem to fit the suggest ricikan well.
Though it possible this is simply a dhapur that falls between the folds. There probably should be a point where we stop trying to squeeze a keris in per-existing categories and simply just enjoy the blade for whatever it is.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Marco ,

I'm sincerely trying to understand your comments and also noted that you doubt the cengkrong attribution might be suitable for this keris in post #27.

What I'm trying to bring across is that both dhapur examples were not chosen well since cengkrong/cundrik seem to be treated differently compared to all other keris blades (including mahesa/kebo and, fitting best for your keris, dhuwung). This seems also supported by quite a number of keris from these resembling dhapur families that I've seen.

Actually, I'd be very keen to see how large cengkrong/cundrik blades are fitted into scabbards - those I remember exhibited not as broad blade bases as shown in the reference book.

Thanks for bringing up this point for us all to learn!

Regards,
Kai

Kai I agree with the dapur name that the seller wrote to me. but I am just a collector, not a scholar

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by David

Marco, as others are pointing out, i don't think we are looking at a cengkrong or cundrik, if for no other reason than your blade having what to my eye appears to be a rather well pronounced extra long gandik. Since the seller named this dhapur Maeso Slurung (correctly or not) they seem to have recognized that by placing it in the Mahesa/Kebo family. So the orientation of hilts on cengkrong/cundrik doesn't seem to apply here.
This is what this blade put me in mind of, lacking a kembang kacang of course. At the time of purchase it was identified to me as Kebo Giri Luk Telu. I have also seen Kebo Giri named Mahesa Kanthong.
I do also see much merit with Alan's suggestion of dhapur dhuwung luk lima. While the pakem drawings i have seen of dhapur dhuwung usually suggest a somewhat broader/wider blade the yours it still does seem to fit the suggest ricikan well.
Though it possible this is simply a dhapur that falls between the folds. There probably should be a point where we stop trying to squeeze a keris in per-existing categories and simply just enjoy the blade for whatever it is.

I repeat: I put the figure taken from the dapur book just to show how the handle should be placed. Sorry for my English. I use goggle translate

[Marcokeris]

please, David can you show me how the keris is inserted in the gajaman?

[kai]

Hello Marco,

No worries - we're pretty much all students here...

I repeat: I put the figure taken from the dapur book just to show how the handle should be placed.

Yes, but my suggestion is that this specific hilt position is only applicable to cengkrong/cundrik. Not to the mahesa=kebo family of dhapur (including dhuwung).

For example, all blades in Haryoguritno's book "Keris Jawa ..." are shown in standard orientation except for cengkrong/cundrik.

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

I repeat: I put the figure taken from the dapur book just to show how the handle should be placed. Sorry for my English. I use goggle translate

Sorry if you were not able to understand what i was attempting to communicate in my previous post.
As Kai has repeated, the position of the hilt that you show is ONLY correct (at least according to this diagram) for cengkrong and cundrik. I personally do not believe that your blade is either one of those dhapurs, so your diagram does not apply to your keris.
I am sorry that i do not have any better images at this moment to show you how my Kebo Giri fits into the wrongko, but i can assure you it is in the usual manner. You may be able to tell that from this over all image though.
Again, i have NEVER seen a keris fitted to the wrongko in the reverse manner of your keris. I have no idea why anyone would do this.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by David

Sorry if you were not able to understand what i was attempting to communicate in my previous post.
As Kai has repeated, the position of the hilt that you show is ONLY correct (at least according to this diagram) for cengkrong and cundrik. I personally do not believe that your blade is either one of those dhapurs, so your diagram does not apply to your keris.
I am sorry that i do not have any better images at this moment to show you how my Kebo Giri fits into the wrongko, but i can assure you it is in the usual manner. You may be able to tell that from this over all image though.
Again, i have NEVER seen a keris fitted to the wrongko in the reverse manner of your keris. I have no idea why anyone would do this.

because otherwise it is impossible to insert the blade (my blade) correctly in a jogya gayaman and I think it is also impossible in a solo gajaman. It might be possible to fit it into a custom made scabbard...but that would be not a sacrilege but a very great mistake

[kai]

i have NEVER seen a keris fitted to the wrongko in the reverse manner of your keris. I have no idea why anyone would do this.

Well, to be fair, cengkrong/cundrik are (always?) fitted in such a reversed position. And these dhapur are arguably close to the mahesa=kebo family (including dhuwung). I see how it could happen nowadays; I don't think any experienced tukang from tanah Jawa would do this though. But, as mentioned above, I'd be very interested to see examples of cengkrong/cundrik with wide base being fitted!

On a side note, a significant proportion of cengkrong/cundrik coming onto the market in western countries are missing scabbards for whatever reason (arguably, this is also true for antique keris in general and seemingly higher proportions of cengkrong/cundrik may only be a sampling artefact since they are not common). Also quite some seem to come out of western Java: I have no idea what customs regarding these specific dhapur apply for orang Sunda.

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Originally Posted by kai

(I've also seen a cengkrong/cundrik with regular gandhik and kembang kacang on the shorter side - kinda with dhungkul vibes.)

Here's the interesting blade with long cengkrong/cundrik-like gandhik and shorter regular gandhik (with kembang pogog).

It is fitted in reverse position as expected for regular cengkrong/cundrik.

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

My understanding for the reversed hilt position of cengkrong blades is that in the far distant past this cengkrong form was much favoured by religious gentlemen, ulamas & suchlike, and to indicate their gentle nature, as opposed to the more unrefined, warlike, aggressive nature of the general populace they wore the hilt in the reverse position, thus making it unsuited to instant use.

A similar practice also applied in Bali.

By mounting the keris in such a way that the hilt is reversed, but when fitted to the scabbard it appears to be in correct dress orientation, the whole point of reverse mount of the hilt has been negated. Whoever did this reverse mount did not know such a hell of a lot about keris tradition, if indeed this blade can be classified as cengkrong.

Any keris with any blade angle can be fitted to any scabbard, this is achieved by altering the angle of the gandar to the atasan/gambar.

Personally, I'm prepared to accept just about any name that somebody comes up with for this dhapur, the seller clearly did not think it qualified as "cengkrong" --- according to his standards --- neither do I, but maybe somebody else might disagree, that's OK, its that person's opinion, and when there can be so much variation in keris terminology --- legitimate or not --- why pursue discussion about something so insignificant?

Is perhaps the social significance of a reversed hilt of slightly more significance?

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

My understanding for the reversed hilt position of cengkrong blades is that in the far distant past this cengkrong form was much favoured by religious gentlemen, ulamas & suchlike, and to indicate their gentle nature, as opposed to the more unrefined, warlike, aggressive nature of the general populace they wore the hilt in the reverse position, thus making it unsuited to instant use.

A similar practice also applied in Bali.

By mounting the keris in such a way that the hilt is reversed, but when fitted to the scabbard it appears to be in correct dress orientation, the whole point of reverse mount of the hilt has been negated. Whoever did this reverse mount did not know such a hell of a lot about keris tradition, if indeed this blade can be classified as cengkrong.

Any keris with any blade angle can be fitted to any scabbard, this is achieved by altering the angle of the gandar to the atasan/gambar.

Personally, I'm prepared to accept just about any name that somebody comes up with for this dhapur, the seller clearly did not think it qualified as "cengkrong" --- according to his standards --- neither do I, but maybe somebody else might disagree, that's OK, its that person's opinion, and when there can be so much variation in keris terminology --- legitimate or not --- why pursue discussion about something so insignificant?

Is perhaps the social significance of a reversed hilt of slightly more significance?

My blade stays in the reverse position when she's in the bed. The handle fits between the fingers on the right side when the kris wants to see outside

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by kai

Here's the interesting blade with long cengkrong/cundrik-like gandhik and shorter regular gandhik (with kembang pogog).

It is fitted in reverse position as expected for regular cengkrong/cundrik.

Regards,
Kai

yes, but from your last pic, it's no possible to understand the verse of the blade inside the sheath

[A. G. Maisey]

As you wish Marco.

But it does sometimes assist in understanding keris tradition if one attempts to understand the position of the keris within the society from which it comes, and that understanding must take account of time.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

As you wish Marco.

Sure: simple.. intuitive and fast

[A. G. Maisey]

Marco, my own intuition comes from the society & culture in which I was raised, I live in Australia, my ancestors came from Ireland, Cornwall & Scotland, with one outsider from Spain or Portugal (he was a bit of a ring in).

But in order to understand Javanese intuition, or for that matter, the intuition of any society & culture other than our own, we do need to devote a large part of our time to the relevant study.

This keris under discussion is a Javanese keris, in order to gain an understanding of this keris, should we try to apply a Javanese paradigm, or a paradigm that comes from a different culture & society?

[Marcokeris]

sorry..."sure, intuitive and fast" ...to put a book on sale years ago beside of this kerisforum.. NO!

[Marcokeris]

Alan of course, certainly a Javanese paradigm! .. A paradigm from which I am far from and aware of it.... and I love listening to the Javanese when they teach me somethings about keris

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

Alan of course, certainly a Javanese paradigm! .. A paradigm from which I am far from and aware of it.... and I love listening to the Javanese people when they teach me somethings about keris

n

[A. G. Maisey]

So it seems we are in agreement Marco, however, it is wise to be rather careful when selecting a teacher.

This applies to all disciplines, not only the matter of keris.


Edit

"discipline" in the sense of a branch of knowledge

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

n

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So it seems we are in agreement Marco, however, it is wise to be rather careful when selecting a teacher.

This applies to all disciplines, not only the matter of keris.

Yes, i agree with you Alan about disciplines and wise

[David]

Originally Posted by kai

Here's the interesting blade with long cengkrong/cundrik-like gandhik and shorter regular gandhik (with kembang pogog).

It is fitted in reverse position as expected for regular cengkrong/cundrik.

Regards,
Kai

Well i suppose, however incorrect i might be about it, i was considering cengkrong/cundrik as outside the category of the standard keris. And again, i do personally would not consider Marco's example to be a cengkrong or cundrik. So i still have never seen a keris fitted to a sheath in that manner.
I am not sure that i agree that i see cengkrong/cundrik as part of the Maheas family.
As to the example you posted next, which i assume you posted to illustrate your point (?), it is a confusing one because it also present a kembang pogog on one side. And if i am not mistaken, both the hilt and the kembang pogog are oriented in the normal manner in the wrongko, not reversed.
If you have any examples of how regular cengkrong/cundrik are oriented in their sheaths i would love to see them as i don't believe i have ever seen one with its sheath.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Personally, I'm prepared to accept just about any name that somebody comes up with for this dhapur, the seller clearly did not think it qualified as "cengkrong" --- according to his standards --- neither do I, but maybe somebody else might disagree, that's OK, its that person's opinion, and when there can be so much variation in keris terminology --- legitimate or not --- why pursue discussion about something so insignificant?

Exactly! As i stated in post #33, "Though it possible this is simply a dhapur that falls between the folds. There probably should be a point where we stop trying to squeeze a keris in per-existing categories and simply just enjoy the blade for whatever it is."
I think we sometimes spend too much time debating about names and categories, many of which possibly didn't even exist at the time the blade was actually made. And sometimes we miss the forest for the trees.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by David

Exactly! As i stated in post #33, "Though it possible this is simply a dhapur that falls between the folds. There probably should be a point where we stop trying to squeeze a keris in per-existing categories and simply just enjoy the blade for whatever it is."
I think we sometimes spend too much time debating about names and categories, many of which possibly didn't even exist at the time the blade was actually made. And sometimes we miss the forest for the trees.

my post was based not on the terminology of the dapur which, honestly, I don't care that much, but on the correct insertion of that type of blade in the sheath

[David]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

my post was based not on the terminology of the dapur which, honestly, I don't care that much, but on the correct insertion of that type of blade in the sheath

Well Marco, MY post was not a response to you at all, but rather to Alan's comments concerning the debate about what dhapur to name your blade and the great variations we encounter in keris terminology these days. So i am confused as to why you felt the need to respond to me at all, least of all with a rolled eye emoji, which i consider rather rude.
And i should hope that none of your posts were based on the terminology of kitchens. Is there some reason you continue to insist on using that spelling?

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

please, David can you show me how the keris is inserted in the gajaman?

Hello Marco,

Maybe the given pictures of three from my keris are helpful!
I feel the sarung for your keris is wrong, sorry.

Regards,
Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

Marco, in respect of your post #55.

Please see my post #42.

If we accept that Javanese belief & tradition is correct, rather than the ideas of some craftsman, or salesman then this keris under discussion has been incorrectly mounted to the wrongko.

In my post I have written "--- my understanding ---" that understanding was gained from several keris literate people in Solo whom I knew during the 1980's, all have now left us, and all these people were members of the hierarchy of the Karaton Surakarta Hardiningrat, equally, all these people were devout followers of Javanese tradition.

This keris is most certainly unusual, it is a nice addition to a collection if for no other reason than that it demonstrates the erosion of cultural understanding over time, but it is incorrectly mounted.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by David

Well Marco, MY post was not a response to you at all, but rather to Alan's comments concerning the debate about what dhapur to name your blade and the great variations we encounter in keris terminology these days. So i am confused as to why you felt the need to respond to me at all, least of all with a rolled eye emoji, which i consider rather rude.
And i should hope that none of your posts were based on the terminology of kitchens. Is there some reason you continue to insist on using that spelling?

sorry David. I wanted to put the smiley with the eye that winks ... I clicked wrong. I'm sorry. What does terminologists of kitchens mean? I'm Italian and I don't know the meaning

[A. G. Maisey]

Marco, please see my post #23