Origin of my "mystery keris"

[Greybeard]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Hi all,

Some time ago I got a rather interesting keris from Malaysia (Sarawak). According to the seller this keris was made in the WW II era -- and it was allegedly used as an "execution knife"!

The keris has 13 pronounced luk. Some of its basic features resemble Sengkelat or Parungsari. It has a rather broad, heavy, thick blade and deep sogokan. Greneng and jenggot are very sharp and distinct. The central ridge is similar to a Naga`s body (simply made, nothing fancy; bordered by deep grooves). There is no visible pamor (I see one or two very faint lines, but I cannot tell whether these might be some hint of pamor).

The keris appears to be well made and very sturdy, functional like a tool (or a weapon, of course). It has apparently seen a lot of hard use as it is well worn. The blade is freckled with small shallow corrosion pits, and the edges show light uniform erosion.

The hilt (large planar type) and the sheath (gayaman type; plain brass pendok) appear quite Javanese in style; simple but of good quality.

When I got the keris it showed much neglect with the whole blade being rust-brown and dirty. When removing the hilt, I found some completely rotten material wrapped around the rusty pesi! I thoroughly cleaned the blade from all rust and dirt; now it shows lightly pitted grey metal and -- as mentioned -- no pamor.

While I do not at all believe the "execution knife story", I really wonder whether some kerises might have seen service during World War II in Malaya and/or Borneo (e.g. as some sort of "partisan" weapon ... ).


Best regards,

Greybeard

Last year I started above thread. Now I can provide some pictures. Any idea where this blade might come from? Some of its carved features remind me of Bali/Lombok. The ada-ada seems quite unusual to me; the condition is rough with ragged edges. The blade is thick and heavy. Length without pesi: 40 cm.

Regards,

Heinz

[Gustav]

Actually the cenral ridge IS pamor, also the line on gonjo (possibly ).

A pitty the proportions in the pics are distorted (?).

Is this keris Madurese or East-Javanese? What are the similarities, what the differences? I have never heard something substantial about East Javanese keris.

Are the rust holes over the entire blade, also the difference of the edge at sorsoran and elsewhere suspicious?

[PenangsangII]

I think I can understand why this keris is thought to be tangguh east Jawa (Blambangan), and why it is also thought from Madura. The pamor and the luk rengkol suggest this 2 area. maybe some more knowledgeables out there can enlighten us further. I got a feeling this keris could be from around the border between Central and East of Java - around Jipang area.

[Greybeard]

Hello Gustav, Penangsang,

Thank you for your inputs. Sorry for the distorted pictures. This happened by scaling down the images; the original photos are far too large. In reality the blade is a bit more elongated and a bit less wavy, although the luk are indeed of the rengkol type.

If the ada-ada is pamor, might it be some sort of Sodo saler then?

Madura or East Java -- could this keris be recent and artificially aged by acid? This was my first thought when this keris arrived one year ago: The rust pitting is regularly distributed over the entire blade, and the edge corrosion appears too extreme to be "natural" -- yes, the corrosion seems suspicious to me!

Regards,

Heinz

[kulbuntet]

I think its a good one. Genuine and not realy suspicious, maybe it have been etched. But i have seen much worse on some old blades(seen below). Yours is Dapur Senkelat? Iff you dont want it anny more...I can PM you my adres..

[Greybeard]

Hello Kulbuntet,

Thank you. I was never really sure about the authenticity, the origin, and the age of this blade, but I've always liked it. I would just like to learn a little bit about it, and I think I'll keep it for awhile. Its dapur might be Parungsari (has two lambe gajah).

Regards,

Heinz

[sirek]

interesting,
I can see some resemblance(s) between Heinz and my own keris
it looks very similar
-heavy, thick blade and deep sogokan
-Greneng and jenggot are very sharp and distinct
-central ridge
-Length without pesi: 35 cm

what also struck me is the bright/Clear sound when you tap against it.

I would like to hear your opinion, or someone who can give a comment on it.

any comment is welcome

[Greybeard]

Hello Sirek,

You have a very nice keris which is indeed very similar to mine, but it is apparently in better condition. Could the pamor of your keris be kelap lintah?
Unfortunately, mine does not make a particularly nice sound when tapping against it ...

Regards,

Heinz

[Gustav]

Apparently this thread is a wonderful ilustration of what Alan mentioned under "opinion", informed or uninformed, in the thread Sabuk Inten, and also about using Javanese terminology.

I just have a feeling, if I wood say something what I think about these 2 keris, it would be like a blind man guiding another blind men, excuse me please. It seems to me also, I am not the only one with this feeling, regarding the number of people who visited this thread and the number of responses.

The only thing, these two keris to me are similar just as two Luk 13 with nearly the same Ricikan are, thats all.

[Greybeard]

Dear Gustav,

O.k., I must admit that I'm still a relatively new and thus "uninformed" keris collector with "uninformed" opinions. It would, therefore, be most appreciated if you experienced and informed collectors would enlighten us and share your valuable informed opinions with us. So we can learn something and become informed collectors with informed opinions, too!

Thank you and best regards,

Heinz

[A. G. Maisey]

Gentlemen, I have taken the liberty of doing a little bit of alteration to the way in which the images of these keris were presented.

What you see now is the orientation that I , and probably most other keris conscious people need to enable us to make relevant comments on a blade:- the blade should be upright and the gandik should be to the viewer's left. I have resized the images to a height of 600 pixels, this size will usually let us see the complete image in one viewing, without scrolling.

However, as has been pointed out in another current thread, we are not looking at keris, we are looking at images of keris.

Those images represent the keris, and we try to get some sort of an idea of what the real keris actually looks like from that image.

If the image is not a true representation of the keris, it becomes virtually impossible to draw supportable conclusions

Regretably neither of these keris have been photographed in a way that makes supportable comment possible --- well, at least I can't make any comment that I can support.

The images need to be produced with the camera focussed on about the middle of the blade and at 90 degrees to it, that way you get an image that retains the true proportions of the blade.

Greybeard has mentioned that the image of his keris became distorted during processing. This distortion makes it very difficult for us to get any sort of a clear idea of what sort of blade it is that we are looking at.

Sirek appears to have photographed his keris with the camera pointed along the blade, rather than mid-blade at 90 degrees.By photographing at this angle, the proportions of the blade are also distorted.

I would guess that many of us have some ideas about these blades, but if others are like me, nobody is going to commit himself to an opinion because there is insufficent accuracy in the images to be able to say too much about these blades with any degree of certainty.

[Greybeard]

Thank you, Alan. I see the problem now.

Heinz

[Greybeard]

Gentlemen,

I posted inadequate pictures. As I cannot provide better pictures, I would like to suggest: Let this useless thread die!

Thank you all for participation and best regards,

Heinz

[sirek]

all thanks for your comment,

I take the picture again, but now taken as discussed, and see if I have understood it correctly.
So the next time I place a picture, I hope it's good enough to be discussed.

Like Heinz i'm also relatively new and a "uninformed" keris collector and we always want to learn and increase our knowledge if possible

and in my opinion that is what counts, to learn from others what yourself do not know, or put in the right direction

[A. G. Maisey]

Hienz, I do not consider this to be a useless thread, on the contrary, I consider it to be quite valuable, because it has allowed us to come to terms with a recurring problem.

That problem is the presentation of images of keris that will permit a fair comment to be made in respect of the keris.

The problem with the images that you posted is not so much in the actual photography, but in the processing of the image data after you took the photograph. Regrettably much of what we see in a digital photograph depends upon what we do with the image data that the camera has collected.

What you need to do is to crop, re-size and rotate your image before you post it.

To do this you need some sort of software.

I use Photoshop, which is pretty much like using a 12 gauge shotgun to kill a mouse, but there are a number of free photo processing programs that can be downloaded from the web.

Perhaps somebody with more knowledge in this subject than I have can make some recommendations?

Sirek

Thanks for your new image. Yes, that's good, we can now see pretty much what this keris looks like.

However, as I have already noted:- it is an image of a keris, not a keris.

Because of this any remarks that are made are always subject to the caution that an opinion can be altered if the actual keris were to be examined.

For me, there are several slightly confusing elements in your keris. Some of these elements point to a Madura origin, some point to a Central Javanese origin, some could be interpreted as East Javanese, but not Madura --- Madura is a part of East Jawa.

Based upon what I can see, I would only be prepared to say that this keris is probably Javanese --- which doesn't really tell you any more than you knew before we started.


EDIT re software

Hienz, you may care to have a look at this page:-

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pix...eephotoedw.htm

[Rick]

I see a lot of pitting in Heinz's blade; pitting that is not seen on other examples shown in this thread .

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Rick, so do I, and it is fairly uniform pitting, however, I'm not prepared to guess at origins based only on this pitting--- I'd like to see what the blade really looks like before I make any comment.

[Rick]

That's why it was just an observation Alan .

[A. G. Maisey]

Yep. Understood.

[Greybeard]

Originally Posted by Rick

I see a lot of pitting in Heinz's blade; pitting that is not seen on other examples shown in this thread .

Yes, I have never seen this kind of pitting on another keris in my collection.


Thank you, Alan, for your valuable recommendations regarding posting pictures. I'll try it again later.

Heinz

[sirek]

thank you all for your effort,

To adjust the size or improve photo's you can try:
PICASA is a easy to use program and it's free.

http://picasa.google.com

[Greybeard]

Many thanks, Sirek. Actually, my son took the photos with his mobile phone (maybe a good digital camera would be better ...) and tried to process them. He will visit me this weekend, so we'll see what can be done. Nice side-effect: My son is starting to be interested in keris,
too ...

Regards,

Heinz

[A. G. Maisey]

I had decided that I would not comment further in this thread, but I have taken your most recent image Sirek, and run it through Photoshop, and what I can now see probably does deserve a few words.

A great many of posts that we see in this Forum are aimed at identfying the origin of a keris, or a keris blade.

When we begin to discuss origin of a keris blade we are involving ourselves in a Javanese --- or possibly originally a Solonese --- system of classification that evolved for certain specific purposes. Originally the system was very probably only meant to be applied to blades that could be considered as a store of wealth in Javanese society. It was never meant to be applied to every blade ever made. However, in recent years collectors and dealers alike seem to want to stick a tangguh name on everything. Naturally this has distorted and lessened the value of this system of classification.

There are a number of indicators that somebody who understands tangguh will use to classify a blade.

The reason that I have decided to comment further on this blade of Sirek's is that his blade displays quite clearly some of these indicators.

In this blade we can see a high and distinct ada-ada that continues to the point, an elongated blumbangan that has the approximate shape of a brick that has been stood on end, a weak kembang kacang, an external ron dha that has a form approximating the Surakarta form, there is kruwingan in the blade, there is kusen, there is tungkakan and build up of rust between blade and ganja has pushed the ganja away from the blade base, the blade itself is proud and of good proportions (its pawakan---overall appearance), the length from the last luk to the point is marginally too long, the sogokan appears to be undercut and to have a round bottom, the poyuhan is neatly pointed, the curve of the sogokan is gentle like wading bird's beak, the pamor is mlumah (wos wutah), but in the main body of the blade that pamor has been reduced to a narrow strip covering the ada-ada, the jenggotan and greneng are either residual, or extremely badly cut--- I cannot judge which from the photos.

If I consider all these factors , there are two that for me are the most important:- the shape of the blumbangan, and the overall look of the blade, what we call the pawakan.

The major classifications of keris from within the Island of Jawa that have an elongated blumbangan are Majapahit, Surakarta, Banten ( usually), Kartosuro (sometimes), and generic East Jawa (sometimes)

The pawakan of this keris eliminates all possibilities except Surakarta, Kartosuro and Banten.

The kembang kacang, greneng and the elongated point eliminate Surakarta.

The pawakan seems to be too proud to be Kartosuro.

Based only on what I can see in the photos I am inclined to give this blade as Banten, and possibly from around the period 1800.


I've done something here that I am very, very loathe to do, because you can be as wrong as it is possible to be when you try to play this game based on pictures, and I could come to an entirely different opinion if I handled this blade. The quality of the blade is not high, its condition seems not to be particularly wonderful:- these factors can contribute to severe error.

However, in these photos we can see clearly many of the things that we need to consider when we set out to classify a blade according to geographic point of origin, and because of this I thought it would serve as a good example to illustrate what it is that we look at to try to classify a blade.

It should be noted that I have only identified some of the indicators here, the ones I can see from the photos.

[sirek]

Many thanks Alan, that you still willing to give a comment
and I welcome your comments only based on what you see in the picture

I know it is very difficult to express an opinion only based on a picture.

but for now I must try to translate it well to understand as it is interpreted.

But I'm sure there are many members who appreciate your opinion!

Thank you and best regards,

Sirek