Twisted rods

A. G. Maisey · Yesterday, 12:02 PM

Possibly.

David · Yesterday, 05:34 PM

I don't know. I am inclined NOT to see a Balinese blade here. I would be interested in knowing what aspects of this Blade point to Bali for those that think so.
Gustav, do we have a blade length for this keris?

RobT · Yesterday, 06:40 PM

Alan Maisey,

Thanks for your response. I realize that there should be a ninth luk as you indicated. The problem I had was, although the center ridge appears to curve to show luk nine, the blade edges don’t. That was what prompted me to wonder if the tip of the blade hadn’t been modified.

Sincerely,
RobT

Gustav · Yesterday, 11:18 PM

David, there was only the overall length given - 61 cm. So I think, the blade length could be about 40 cm or just a little bit more.

A. G. Maisey · Yesterday, 11:59 PM

Rob, there almost never is a visible 9th luk in a keris, Javanese, Balinese or otherwise, the final luk at the leading end of the blade is an imaginary luk, put there because the number of luk MUST be a MALE number, that is, an uneven number. It must be a male number because the keris itself is a male entity.

If the luk of this blade were to be counted in the Hindu-Javanese manner then the luk count would be 7, which is the number of TRUE luk in this blade, but because Javanese society has been the dominant society in the region for so long, Javanese societal norms have replaced some other norms over time, this is something that other peoples in the region have been complaining about for a very long time.

So now the Islamic count dominates.

When this blade was made, the maker would have been following a pattern that would have required the point of the blade to be offset a specific distance from a vertical line beginning at the center point of the pesi (tang) at the point of its entry to the blade body (or alternatively, the gonjo) and proceeding to the point of the blade. To achieve this offset it would have been necessary to return to the forge and use hot-work, or if he was lucky, to use stock removal only. In any case, the offset dominates the required work.

This blade has suffered erosion from the time it left the maker's hands, that erosion has taken a few millimeters from its original length, but it has not been intentionally shortened by a sufficient amount for it to lose a full luk, this can be very easily seen by simply looking at proportion & what we refer to as "pawakan" (overall visual perception).

The above is the reason that the central weld line is not central to the blade edges.

A keris maker, be he an empu/Empu/mpu or a pandai keris or a pandai besi will in 99.9% of cases be working to a required pattern. This might not have been the case more than 500 years ago, but in more recent times it has been the case. Keris makers do not just pick up their tools & make whatever they please, they always have certain parameters to work to, & have had for a very long time.

A. G. Maisey · Today, 07:41 AM

Gustav, in respect of your post #7.

I have now had a chance to examine my photographs and notes of EDb16.

I cannot recall that we had an argument about the way in which this pamor had been produced, but we probably did discuss it, I say this because in my notes I commented:-

"The pamor in this K. is skillfully manipulated"

as you have remarked, this pamor pattern was very difficult to see, it did not come through in my photographs, which were not particularly big images, I was using a Canon S95 & in raw, this produced images that were adequate for what I was doing at the time, but even with more modern (this was 2012 I think) & more sophisticated equipment, I doubt that the pamor could have been captured.

In fact, that pamor was so difficult to see that I sketched the motif, & here below is that sketch. I've forgotten what my impressions were at the time, but looking at the sketch, my impression now is that if a bar was used to produce this pamor, that bar was probably tightly twisted & then bent into a series of "S" bends, something similar a lawe setukal pamor, but in different orientation.

This was a large, strongly made keris, ample evidence that by the 17th century smiths in Jawa did have more than adequate skills to produce very refined blades.

After that visit to the museum's stored collections I did exchange some correspondence with the curator there, & in that correspondence I was advised that this keris was in the collection from at least 1674, possibly earlier.

Yesterday, 06:40 PM	#3
RobT Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 589	The Reason for My Question Alan Maisey, Thanks for your response. I realize that there should be a ninth luk as you indicated. The problem I had was, although the center ridge appears to curve to show luk nine, the blade edges don’t. That was what prompted me to wonder if the tip of the blade hadn’t been modified. Sincerely, RobT

Today, 07:41 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,099	Gustav, in respect of your post #7. I have now had a chance to examine my photographs and notes of EDb16. I cannot recall that we had an argument about the way in which this pamor had been produced, but we probably did discuss it, I say this because in my notes I commented:- "The pamor in this K. is skillfully manipulated" as you have remarked, this pamor pattern was very difficult to see, it did not come through in my photographs, which were not particularly big images, I was using a Canon S95 & in raw, this produced images that were adequate for what I was doing at the time, but even with more modern (this was 2012 I think) & more sophisticated equipment, I doubt that the pamor could have been captured. In fact, that pamor was so difficult to see that I sketched the motif, & here below is that sketch. I've forgotten what my impressions were at the time, but looking at the sketch, my impression now is that if a bar was used to produce this pamor, that bar was probably tightly twisted & then bent into a series of "S" bends, something similar a lawe setukal pamor, but in different orientation. This was a large, strongly made keris, ample evidence that by the 17th century smiths in Jawa did have more than adequate skills to produce very refined blades. After that visit to the museum's stored collections I did exchange some correspondence with the curator there, & in that correspondence I was advised that this keris was in the collection from at least 1674, possibly earlier. Attached Images

Yesterday, 12:02 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,099	Possibly.

Yesterday, 05:34 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,251	I don't know. I am inclined NOT to see a Balinese blade here. I would be interested in knowing what aspects of this Blade point to Bali for those that think so. Gustav, do we have a blade length for this keris?

Yesterday, 11:18 PM	#4
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,298	David, there was only the overall length given - 61 cm. So I think, the blade length could be about 40 cm or just a little bit more.

Yesterday, 11:59 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,099	Rob, there almost never is a visible 9th luk in a keris, Javanese, Balinese or otherwise, the final luk at the leading end of the blade is an imaginary luk, put there because the number of luk MUST be a MALE number, that is, an uneven number. It must be a male number because the keris itself is a male entity. If the luk of this blade were to be counted in the Hindu-Javanese manner then the luk count would be 7, which is the number of TRUE luk in this blade, but because Javanese society has been the dominant society in the region for so long, Javanese societal norms have replaced some other norms over time, this is something that other peoples in the region have been complaining about for a very long time. So now the Islamic count dominates. When this blade was made, the maker would have been following a pattern that would have required the point of the blade to be offset a specific distance from a vertical line beginning at the center point of the pesi (tang) at the point of its entry to the blade body (or alternatively, the gonjo) and proceeding to the point of the blade. To achieve this offset it would have been necessary to return to the forge and use hot-work, or if he was lucky, to use stock removal only. In any case, the offset dominates the required work. This blade has suffered erosion from the time it left the maker's hands, that erosion has taken a few millimeters from its original length, but it has not been intentionally shortened by a sufficient amount for it to lose a full luk, this can be very easily seen by simply looking at proportion & what we refer to as "pawakan" (overall visual perception). The above is the reason that the central weld line is not central to the blade edges. A keris maker, be he an empu/Empu/mpu or a pandai keris or a pandai besi will in 99.9% of cases be working to a required pattern. This might not have been the case more than 500 years ago, but in more recent times it has been the case. Keris makers do not just pick up their tools & make whatever they please, they always have certain parameters to work to, & have had for a very long time.