Dapur Carita?

[Sajen]

Dear members,

since I am still unsure by identify dapurs I want to ask you if I am correct by this blade. It has two sogokan and two lambe gajah, a kemban kacang, a ada ada and a petjetan by 11 luk. So I think that this dapur is Carita. I hope the pictures are clear enough.
Someone with mor knowledge than I am can confirm this?

Many thank's in advance,

Detlef

[PenangsangII]

looks like carita keprabhon to me....

[Greybeard]

Carita Keprabhon -- Sabuk Inten ... I always find it difficult to tell the difference between these two 11-luk dapurs. How to distinguish them?

Heinz

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Carita Keprabhon -- Sabuk Inten ... I always find it difficult to tell the difference between these two 11-luk dapurs. How to distinguish them?

Heinz

Dear Heinz,
Easy, see my book page 181... The difference is jenggot, tikel alis, kruwingan, and gusen.
Jean

[Greybeard]

Thank you, Jean. I will have a look this evening after coming home from work.

Heinz

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by PenangsangII

looks like carita keprabhon to me....

Thank you very much, Carita have been clear because this blade don't have jenggot but I have been unsure which sort of Carita. BTW, the blade still need a warangan, I have just cleaned it from corrosion.

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Jean

Dear Heinz,
Easy, see my book page 181... The difference is jenggot, tikel alis, kruwingan, and gusen.
Jean

Dear Jean,

yes, your book help affect a dapur but most of the time I look inside the book from Haryono Haryoguritno.

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Thank you, Jean. I will have a look this evening after coming home from work.

Heinz

Hello Heinz,

my way to affect a dapur is that I write down what the blade have and then look to the books I have.

Regards,

Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

I believe carita keprabon has two lambe gajah, and sabuk inten has one lambe gajah.

Sabuk inten need not carry kruwingan, but carita keprabon should carry kruwingan.

The 11 luk blade shown has kembang kacang, one jalen, one lambe gajah, greneng, and front & back sogokan. I am not able to see if it has kruwingan and I am only assuming it has tikel alis.

Carita keprabon should have gusen , but this is according to Surakarta pakem, and in other tangguh the gusen may be absent, and the jenggot is always optional.

Where a keris is following the Surakarta pakem, and it carries kruwingan, it naturally follows that it must have gusen, but if the kruwingan are not present, then it cannot have gusen.

Thus, if we set forth the ricikan that define a keris, we should also state the pakem that we are following. I have used two pakem here, one is the pakem presented in Haryono Haryoguritno's book, the other is the Surakarta Pakem.

Haryoguritno gives carita keprabon as:- kembang kacang 1, jalen 1, lambe gajah 2, pecetan, tikel alis, sogokan depan & belakang, sraweyan, greneng, kruwingan 2

The Surakarta Pakem gives carita keprabon as:- sekar kacang, lambe gajah 2, jalen, sogokan, tikel alis, sraweyan, greneng, ri pandan, gula milir

Haryonoguritno gives sabuk inten as:- kembang kacang 1, jalen 1, lambe gajah 1,pecetan, tikel alis, sogokan depan & belakang, sraweyan , greneng.

The Surakarta Pakem gives sabuk inten as:- sekar kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, sogokan, tikel alis, sraweyan, greneng

I've abbreviated the above by ommitting the obvious.

It can be fun to play the Name Game, but with keris there is some variation in those names according to who wrote the rules of the game. What this means is that if we wish to maintain our sanity it is best not to become too pedantic about what ricikan are found in what dhapur, because as soon as we think we know it all, somebody will come along and demonstrate that we don't know quite as much as we think we might.

Here is a diagram that gives names of ricikan according to a system that is accepted in Surakarta.

[Greybeard]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Heinz,

my way to affect a dapur is that I write down what the blade have and then look to the books I have.

Regards,

Detlef

Hello Detlef,

My method of determining a given dapur is probably very similar to yours: I compare the ricikan of my keris with the ricikan in the books ...

I think one of the problems of determining the dapur of older keris consists of their sometimes worn down ricikan.

I have four keris dapur Sabuk Inten, attributed to four different tangguh (Old Madura, Demak, Mataram Senopaten, and Yogyakarta), and the ricikan of each keris became more or less indistinct or have been completely gone. Thus it can be difficult to distinguish very similar dapur (e.g. Sengkelat vs. Parungsari) from each other.

Regards,

Heinz

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I believe carita keprabon has two lambe gajah, and sabuk inten has one lambe gajah.

Sabuk inten need not carry kruwingan, but carita keprabon should carry kruwingan.

The 11 luk blade shown has kembang kacang, one jalen, one lambe gajah, greneng, and front & back sogokan. I am not able to see if it has kruwingan and I am only assuming it has tikel alis.

Carita keprabon should have gusen , but this is according to Surakarta pakem, and in other tangguh the gusen may be absent, and the jenggot is always optional.

Where a keris is following the Surakarta pakem, and it carries kruwingan, it naturally follows that it must have gusen, but if the kruwingan are not present, then it cannot have gusen.

Thus, if we set forth the ricikan that define a keris, we should also state the pakem that we are following. I have used two pakem here, one is the pakem presented in Haryono Haryoguritno's book, the other is the Surakarta Pakem.

Haryoguritno gives carita keprabon as:- kembang kacang 1, jalen 1, lambe gajah 2, pecetan, tikel alis, sogokan depan & belakang, sraweyan, greneng, kruwingan 2

The Surakarta Pakem gives carita keprabon as:- sekar kacang, lambe gajah 2, jalen, sogokan, tikel alis, sraweyan, greneng, ri pandan, gula milir

Haryonoguritno gives sabuk inten as:- kembang kacang 1, jalen 1, lambe gajah 1,pecetan, tikel alis, sogokan depan & belakang, sraweyan , greneng.

The Surakarta Pakem gives sabuk inten as:- sekar kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, sogokan, tikel alis, sraweyan, greneng

I've abbreviated the above by ommitting the obvious.

It can be fun to play the Name Game, but with keris there is some variation in those names according to who wrote the rules of the game. What this means is that if we wish to maintain our sanity it is best not to become too pedantic about what ricikan are found in what dhapur, because as soon as we think we know it all, somebody will come along and demonstrate that we don't know quite as much as we think we might.

Here is a diagram that gives names of ricikan according to a system that is accepted in Surakarta.

Hello Alan,

thank you very much for the elaborate completion. And of course you are right that the blade has only one lambe gajah. And yes, it has tikel alis and no kruwingan and no gusen. So when I understand correct has this blade the dapur sabuk inten. So I have learned now (I hope) to difference between this two dapurs.

Best,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Hello Detlef,

My method of determining a given dapur is probably very similar to yours: I compare the ricikan of my keris with the ricikan in the books ...

I think one of the problems of determining the dapur of older keris consists of their sometimes worn down ricikan.

I have four keris dapur Sabuk Inten, attributed to four different tangguh (Old Madura, Demak, Mataram Senopaten, and Yogyakarta), and the ricikan of each keris became more or less indistinct or have been completely gone. Thus it can be difficult to distinguish very similar dapur (e.g. Sengkelat vs. Parungsari) from each other.

Regards,

Heinz

Hello Heinz,

yes, like you see (and special I see) it's indeed very difficult to define the correct dapur. And it's great to have this forum to learn and so knowledge members like Alan.

Regards,

Detlef

[Greybeard]

Hello Detlef,

I completely agree with you!

Regards,

Heinz

[ganjawulung]

Dear Heinz, Detlef,
One of the easiest way to differ 11 luks sabuk inten and carita is by examining the "lambe gajah". Carita must have two "lambe gajah", and Sabuk Inten must have only one "lambe gajah"... Of course, you may examining other details too.

It happens too, in examining the difference between dhapurs 13 luks of Parung Sari and Sengkelat. They have the same ricikans, except on "lambe gajah". Parung sari, definitely has two lambe gajah, while Sengkelat only one lambe gajah...

These two blades below, supposed to be Carita Keprabon (royal Carita, the one with ron dha nunut) and the other one, Carita Prasaja (simple Carita). You may see the two lambe gajah too..

Is it important, to know keris dhapur names? (More than 70 names of keris dhapurs). Yes, of course. This is one of what you may say as "intangible heritage" of our keris culture in Java, beside pamor (more than 120 kinds of pamor) and tangguh -- as mentioned too by the UNESCO in 2005...
The problem is, almost no one who could be regarded as "the most knowledgeable" in such knowledge. (In Kraton Solo now, at least such person as Pak Ngabei Sukat -- the Pengageng Reksa Pusaka -- the one who take care of the kraton pusakas -- is one of them. In Kraton Yogyakarta? Then, Mr Boedhy Adhitya knows better than me who is in charge of Pengageng Reksa Pusaka there...)

GANJAWULUNG

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

...(In Kraton Solo now, at least such person as Pak Ngabei Sukat -- the Pengageng Reksa Pusaka -- the one who take care of the kraton pusakas -- is one of them...

The gentleman I meant is Raden Ngabei Sukatno Purwosusastro...

[Greybeard]

[QUOTE=ganjawulung]Dear Heinz, Detlef,
One of the easiest way to differ 11 luks sabuk inten and carita is by examining the "lambe gajah". Carita must have two "lambe gajah", and Sabuk Inten must have only one "lambe gajah"... Of course, you may examining other details too.


Hello Ganjawulung,

Thank you for the valuable hint. One of my Keris dapur Sabuk Inten -- the oldest one, attributed to tangguh Old Madura -- also shows as an optional feature jenggot (and worn down ron dha nunut), something that is IMO not too often seen with this dapur.

Regards,

Heinz

[Sajen]

Hello Pak Ganjawulung,

terima kasih for the further informations, special about the dapur Senkelat/Parung Sari.

BTW, is the dapur Sabuk Inten a "special" or rare dapur or have it a special background?

Regards,

Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Pak Ganja, you are without any doubt absolutely correct:- nobody can be acknowledged as infallible in matters of dhapur.

Why is it so?

The names of the various dhapurs are rooted in the past.

What has been driven home to me again, and again, and again over the years by a number of people, is that keris art is Karaton art, thus only a Karaton has the right and the obligation to bestow a name for a dhapur, or a pamor, upon a keris. Similarly, only a Karaton can determine if a keris is legitimate in its interpretations, or not.

It follows that within the area where a Karaton is paramount, only those keris which fall within the guidelines accepted by that Karaton can be accepted as legitimate representations of the Karaton's art.

However, where we move to an area where a different Karaton is paramount, the parameters may change.

Then, if we move into an area where there is no active influence of any karaton, how do we determine what is correct and what is not correct?

For this reason, I believe that if ever we wish to involve ourselves in this most extreme of all Name Games, which is the naming of the dhapur and pamor of a keris, we must at all times quote the pakem or reference that we are using as our guide.

To simply give an opinion is less than useless, no matter who gives that opinion, because no person now living can over-rule the parameters that have been previously set by a Ruler, except the current Ruler, and if the source of the opinion is not based in a karaton's guidelines, then it is a very arrogant person indeed who is prepared to give an opinion without either quoting his reference, or providing an argument to support the opinion.

Now, this is not to say, that a knowledgeable individual, or a group of individuals , are prohibited from accepting some keris form that varies from the parameters set by a karaton, however, if we accept the opinion of that individual, or group of individuals, equally we must quote our source if we determine to follow that opinion.

An unsupported opinion, or an uninformed opinion, is in matters of dhapur and pamor, something that should be looked at very critically.

Why?

Because in these matters everything is already graven in stone.

However, let us pursue this line of thought just a little further.

Pak Ganja has written:-

"---Is it important, to know keris dhapur names? (More than 70 names of keris dhapurs). Yes, of course.---"

But why is it important?

Why exactly do we need to know these names?

It may facilitate discussion between people who hold equal levels of knowledge, but does this name of pamor, or dhapur, or any other name attached to the description of a keris, further our knowledge in even the slightest degree in respect of the nature of the keris?

It can be enormously impressive for somebody to pick up a blade, glance at it for a few moments, and then pronounce the dhapur, pamor, tangguh, and name of the maker. Impressive!!!

But what does this demonstrate except that that person has a lot of experience and a very good memory?

Remember Mary Poppins?

She had a good memory.

She could remember a wonderful word:-

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Impressive!!!

But does that word have any meaning?

And if it does , did our little Mary know it?

Or was it just a very impressive word that sounded extremely impressive to people who equally knew as little of its meaning as did sweet Mary?

A word that lacks meaning is no more more than a sound.

The purpose of words is to transfer a thought that is in one mind into other minds. If a word can only be used to convey a picture of something, its meaning is limited to the picture it conveys, it tells nothing of the nature of the object that it has conjured in the mind of the hearer.

The keris is an icon that encapsulates the soul of a people, and regretably that soul has at the present moment in time suffered so much loss , addition and alteration that it is probable we shall never understand its original nature.

All we are left with is a shadow.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

...What has been driven home to me again, and again, and again over the years by a number of people, is that keris art is Karaton art, thus only a Karaton has the right and the obligation to bestow a name for a dhapur, or a pamor, upon a keris. Similarly, only a Karaton can determine if a keris is legitimate in its interpretations, or not.

It follows that within the area where a Karaton is paramount, only those keris which fall within the guidelines accepted by that Karaton can be accepted as legitimate representations of the Karaton's art.

However, where we move to an area where a different Karaton is paramount, the parameters may change.

Then, if we move into an area where there is no active influence of any karaton, how do we determine what is correct and what is not correct?

For this reason, I believe that if ever we wish to involve ourselves in this most extreme of all Name Games, which is the naming of the dhapur and pamor of a keris, we must at all times quote the pakem or reference that we are using as our guide..

To simply give an opinion is less than useless, no matter who gives that opinion, because no person now living can over-rule the parameters that have been previously set by a Ruler, except the current Ruler, and if the source of the opinion is not based in a karaton's guidelines, then it is a very arrogant person indeed who is prepared to give an opinion without either quoting his reference, or providing an argument to support the opinion..


Now, this is not to say, that a knowledgeable individual, or a group of individuals , are prohibited from accepting some keris form that varies from the parameters set by a karaton, however, if we accept the opinion of that individual, or group of individuals, equally we must quote our source if we determine to follow that opinion.

An unsupported opinion, or an uninformed opinion, is in matters of dhapur and pamor, something that should be looked at very critically.

Dear Alan,
First of all, I must try to read your post carefully, as usual, because English is not my native language. Everytime I must grasp word by word your post first, then understand it, and respond it as I could. It takes a lot of time and effort to respond -- especially on such serious questions as yours... So, again I apologize if I misunderstood your question. Or made a hard feeling of you, or who ever in this forum.

On this matter on "keris art" and "keris pakem", yes, I think we all agree on this. But if we "must at all times quote the pakem or reference that we are using as our guides", then we encounter big difficulties. Which pakem? Is it enough if I said this is "kraton pakem" without referring of certain sources, certain kraton book, certain time or period of kraton? IMHO, from time to time there were some different pakem in one kraton. And beside that, Am I deserved to say, that "this is the kraton pakem" although I'm an outsider of the kraton circle? I don't think I dare to say it. I don't dare, and not deserved to say so and of course I have no authority to say so. (IMHO, this is not the first time, a discussion on "keris art" and "keris pakem" in this forum).

(Everytime I join discussion in this forum, I am always thinking that I am an ordinary member. I am not thinking as a more knowledgeable than others. So if I have an opinion, this opinion is just an ordinary opinion of an ordinary member. Not an expert's opinion. Just sharing, as a javanese member, telling other people in other world of what I know as an ordinary javanese, what I know daily, or I hear daily in Java.)

I apologize, if I can not answer exactly what you really meant to ask me...

GANJAWULUNG

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, I apologise for making life difficult for you, and perhaps for some others as well. I know just how very difficult it can be to get to the core of a matter when we are forced to address that matter in a language other than our own. Personally, I consider that you handle the English language extremely well indeed, and I freely admit, some of the concepts I was skirting around in last night's post might be beyond the grasp of many native English speakers. It was a long post, and I was on my hobby-horse and enjoying the ride.

I'll try to simplify.

Opinion:-

anybody can have an opinion

but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

in any matter of weight only a fool will give an opinion and not wish for his opinion to receive respect

if we wish our opinion to be treated with respect we need to provide evidence or argument that our opinion is worthy of respect

when we are dealing with the keris, we can adopt at least two varying positions:- we can adopt the "social" position, where we make noises and give opinions simply to engage in conversation; opinions given whilst in this mode need not be taken too seriously and rejection need not cause offence

or, we can adopt the "serious" position, and when we do this we do need to provide evidence or argument to validate the opinion we give

with reference to the keris, this is relatively easy to do, because a number guidebooks and documents set forth the parameters by which we shall classify a keris

where such a guidebook or document has had the approval of a ruler, then the only variation that is permissable within the area where the dictates of that ruler are considered to be paramount, is a variation that has the approval of the current ruler of that area.

However,

where any group of people is not under the influence of any Ruler, that group of people may opt to classify a keris according to their own parameters, but we need to be aware that such system of classification will probably lack the bonds to tradition that adoption of a Karaton authorised system of classification virtually gaurantees.

In light of the above, I believe it should be obvious that any opinion given whilst in the "serious" mode of keris discussion must be accompanied by evidence or argument to support the opinion.


Value of dhapur classification:-

dhapur names are a system of classification

however, although those names can be understood, and do have a superficial meaning, they fail to convey any sense

the philosophical meanings that are currently attached to many dhapur names are probably no more than a couple of hundred years old, in most cases, and have more to do with Javanese philosophy than with the origins of the keris as a social icon --- however, this is essentially a different subject and need not be addressed here.

any classification system only has value as a device to sort things into groups :- it does not imply any knowledge of the content of that which is classified, it only verifies knowledge of the system by which one classifies.As an example, a clerk in an inwards mail facilty can read a letter, or an email, and he can classify it according to its content and direct it to the person in his organisation who can deal with the matters therein. But that clerk knows nothing of those matters that need to be dealt with.

it is exactly the same when we classify a keris according to dhapur or pamor or tangguh or whatever:- we understand the classificatory system, but we fail to understand the keris that we have classified.

Because of this I hold the position that knowledge of the classifcatory systems used in dealing with the keris is knowledge of a very minor degree.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Pak Ganja, I apologise for making life difficult for you, and perhaps for some others as well. I know just how very difficult it can be to get to the core of a matter when we are forced to address that matter in a language other than our own. Personally, I consider that you handle the English language extremely well indeed, and I freely admit, some of the concepts I was skirting around in last night's post might be beyond the grasp of many native English speakers. It was a long post, and I was on my hobby-horse and enjoying the ride..

Language problem is one thing, and cultural barrier is another thing. Sometimes I encounter a strange situation, everytime I read keris books -- for instance -- which were published abroad, not in Indonesia. Or read keris forum such this. Really I must change my mindset, not as a javanese again, but as a global citizen which has a borderless culture. Global culture... And sometimes, not javanese culture anymore although we talk about javanese keris culture...

I can not describe furthermore on this, because of my limited ability to express exactly what I feel and think -- in English. In our javanese circle, if we want to be serious to "learn" the spirit of keris, then it is good too if we then learn from "tembang" (traditional recited poetry), the culture of keris. There are so many things about keris world, that were expressed in "tembang" literature in the past, that we can still recite until now. But of course, we must major reciting "tembang" first (as did the fantastic American researcher, Mrs Nancy Florida. You knew her already, and of course her desertation and book on certain kraton culture in Kraton Solo, "Writing the Past, Inscribing the Future". She is regarded "more javanese" than us, javanese people. She speaks javanese very fluently, understand very well, because she was living at certain time in the past, inside the Kraton Solo as one of King Paku Buwono's wives).

There are so many nuances that we can grasp, on keris, if we understand what people in the past said about keris, and not excluded too -- sometimes on dhapur, or on ricikan of kerises.

In some "keris discussions" in java -- even in Jakarta now -- sometimes people reciting "tembang", which contain some simple javanese narration on keris. But of course, we must understand to some way of how to express tembang. A "dandang gula " (a certain type of recitation) narration, of course must be recited in "dandang gula" way. Also, a "kinanti" recitation, or "megatruh", "pangkur", "sinom" must be recited in their specific way. The intonation of each "tembang" also could give the way to express the narration, and so we can memorize the recitation, and the meaning of the recitation.

I can not tell you further on this, because I'm not majoring much this habit except to understand what they recite the narration, in higher grade javanese language. Many thing I can learn from such recitation, the culture of keris in the past. On keris, in some recitations, sometimes we find descriptions of keris "ricikan", or keris dhapur in "tembang"... I don't think this habit is important for us in this forum, at all... But maybe important for me or us in Java, to learn further more on the javanese spirit, or deeper knowledge on keris spirit...

Then, if I read certain books on keris which were published abroad, sometimes I must change my attitude. And try to understand, for instance, if I read a "new" keris term to read -- as "durga hilt", for instance. That we never read such terminology in whatever literature in Java. Or if someone interpretes, that "karno tinanding" is a keris "with two ears". This is also something strange for us, javanese people. All we knew on "karno tinanding" is "karno in Baratayuda", which was (in the epic, legend) fighting against his own brother, Arjuna. As does to keris name such as "Bima Krodha" for instance. "Bima Krodha", of course could not be translated literally, but we must understand too, the nuance of the story of "The Angry Bima" in Baratayuda literature.

Yes, we know that "karna" means "ear", But what I heard always, that "karna tinanding" here is Karno in Baratayuda. Two "sekar kacang" is not two ears, is it? Sekar kacang does not represent ear. But elephant trunk. But I must accept, that's the easier way to understand the "karno tinanding", although we in Java usually not understand it that way.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

....anybody can have an opinion

but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

in any matter of weight only a fool will give an opinion and not wish for his opinion to receive respect

if we wish our opinion to be treated with respect we need to provide evidence or argument that our opinion is worthy of respect

when we are dealing with the keris, we can adopt at least two varying positions:- we can adopt the "social" position, where we make noises and give opinions simply to engage in conversation; opinions given whilst in this mode need not be taken too seriously and rejection need not cause offence

or, we can adopt the "serious" position, and when we do this we do need to provide evidence or argument to validate the opinion we give......

All I know, there are only two positions in this forum. The moderator -- Rick and David -- and the others are ordinary members. I didn't know that there is a differentiation in "social position" and "serious position". How can we differentiate? Are the serious position members, have a special status?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

....with reference to the keris, this is relatively easy to do, because a number guidebooks and documents set forth the parameters by which we shall classify a keris

where such a guidebook or document has had the approval of a ruler, then the only variation that is permissable within the area where the dictates of that ruler are considered to be paramount, is a variation that has the approval of the current ruler of that area.......

I don't think it is easy. We will get more difficult, if we must do this. Which reference guide books? Can we use that guide books to consider parameters in any keris? I don't think so. It is impossible, if you want to understand Cirebonese kerises with Kraton Solo guidance only.. Even if we want to understand more details on keris Solo, we must specify which pakem? Which Paku Buwono? We can not always use the latest guidance, for appreciating the older kerises although still in the same Kraton...

We know already, for instance, that since Gianti Treaty (February 13, 1755) -- Mataram was splitted in to two ways Solonese and Yogyakartan. Can we appreciate Solonese nom-noman (younger era keris) with Yogyakartan guidance? Or vice versa, can we appreciate Yogyakartan nom-noman such as famous kerises from HB VII with Solonese kraton guidance? Sometimes, contradiction happens...

Those were the problems, IMHO, encountered by Haryono Guritno's team (consist of certain respected keris people, IMHO) when they were preparing the keris proposal for UNESCO, and his book on "Keris Jawa". Which pakem they will use? And we can see from his book -- Mr Guritno accomodate some pakem in certain footnote, of the keris details matrix, for instance). I am not Guritno's follower, but I can respect him, respect his team's effort...

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

....dhapur names are a system of classification

however, although those names can be understood, and do have a superficial meaning, they fail to convey any sense

the philosophical meanings that are currently attached to many dhapur names are probably no more than a couple of hundred years old, in most cases, and have more to do with Javanese philosophy than with the origins of the keris as a social icon --- however, this is essentially a different subject and need not be addressed here.

any classification system only has value as a device to sort things into groups :- it does not imply any knowledge of the content of that which is classified, it only verifies knowledge of the system by which one classifies.As an example, a clerk in an inwards mail facilty can read a letter, or an email, and he can classify it according to its content and direct it to the person in his organisation who can deal with the matters therein. But that clerk knows nothing of those matters that need to be dealt with.

it is exactly the same when we classify a keris according to dhapur or pamor or tangguh or whatever:- we understand the classificatory system, but we fail to understand the keris that we have classified.

Because of this I hold the position that knowledge of the classifcatory systems used in dealing with the keris is knowledge of a very minor degree.

For a certain extent, I agree. But me as javanese, we are different. We have different perception in some way. For us, we learn other way....

GANJAWULUNG

[PenangsangII]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello Pak Ganjawulung,

terima kasih for the further informations, special about the dapur Senkelat/Parung Sari.

BTW, is the dapur Sabuk Inten a "special" or rare dapur or have it a special background?

Regards,

Detlef

The smell of the keris being called "sangkelat" is different - be it 13 luks or even dapur leres.... sangkelat is tempered by dipping into betel leaves juice, so the smell of "sireh" will be prevalent.....

[A. G. Maisey]

I thank you for your detailed response Pak Ganja, but frankly, I am a little disappointed. I acknowledge that my post # 18 may have been a bit of a struggle to comprehend, and I apologise for that, however, I wrote my post # 20 in as simple and straight forward a manner as I can manage, and you still seem to have gaps in your understanding of the message I have been attempting to convey.

Since I get paid for writing the English language in a simple and easily understood form, your failure to understand what I have written is a very disappointing for me. It signals that I need to have a very hard look at the way in which I express myself.

Again I see that I owe you an apology for my failure to present my ideas in an easily understood form.

I will, however, make this small recommendation to you:- when you read what I shall now write, please read the words and accept them at face value; these words are saying exactly what I want them to say, no more, and no less. There are no inferences, nor hidden messages in my words.

It may be of assistance if I begin by identifying the matters that I feel need to be addressed.

Firstly there is the concept of "knowledge"

then we have the idea of "classification"

and lastly we have the matter of "opinion".


Knowledge

In the second half of 1955 I began my study of Javanese culture and society. During the time between 1955 and now I have had a number of teachers, all Indonesians, and most of these Indonesians have been Javanese, additionally I have carried out text-book studies and completed specific areas of study into various matters that have caught my interest.

I am sure that you will understand when I say, that in spite of the fact that I am innately stupid and very slow to learn, as well as being a bule ( although it is likely that my skin is actually darker than yours) I have managed to gain a small understanding of the Javanese world view and the way in which the Javanese value system functions.

In the period between 1982 and 1995 I was fortunate enough to have an excellent teacher of the keris and Javanese keris culture. This gentleman taught me very well in respect of the functioning of the system of knowledge that is accepted as the benchmark for knowledge of the Javanese keris. So it is Pak Ganja, that when you speak of tembang and wayang and dandang gula and so forth, I do understand precisely what you are talking about.

Indeed, I can go further. I have subjected the system that governs Javanese keris knowledge to a searching analysis, and I am in a position to be able to demonstrate that in fact, this system of knowledge conforms exactly to the requirements of a system of belief..

It is based in myth, legend, and tradition .

I have not the slightest problem with this. In any culture, when the mass of the people accept their myths, legends and traditions as fact, for those people those myths, legends and traditions are fact. They become the facts upon which the culture and society is based.

The Javanese knowledge of the Javanese keris is without doubt fact that is beyond challenge, provided it stays in Jawa.

Now, what this means for me is that if I am in Jawa , or if I am dealing with Javanese people, that Javanese fact that is based in tradition, is also my fact. I accept everything that is said, and I accept it without debate.

However, when I move from the Javanese environment into the logical world, I act in a rational and logical fashion, not in a Javanese fashion.

In this Forum, I consider that I am in the rational world, thus I state my views from a rational viewpoint.

Pak Ganja, I understand very well the way in which you and other Javanese people see the world, and apply that world view to the keris, however, although I do understand your point of view, it only becomes my point of view when I need to function in a Javanese environment.

I accept without question the right of a people to own their own culture, so if you or any other Javanese person tells me that something is so from your point of view, I accept that it is so, from your point of view. It is not my right nor my place to question your understanding of your own culture.

However, the knowledge that I seek goes beyond a mere understanding of the way in which you and other Javanese people of the 19th to 21st centuries see the world, and understand the keris. My investigations over the last 15 to 20 years have focused on the way in which people in pre-Islamic Jawa saw the world and understood the keris.

So you see Pak Ganja, there is no conflict between us in this matter of knowledge. Whatever you care to state as a true Javanese understanding of the keris, I will accept. It is your culture, it has its own rules, and it is of absolutely no interest to me to challenge the belief system that applies to the keris, within that culture.

When I talk about "keris knowledge", I am talking about a concept which varies considerably from your own concept of knowledge, but does embrace your concept as one of the subsidiary fields.

As a simple example of the variance in our approaches, let us consider the matter of our beloved dhapur karnotinanding, which you have transported from a previous thread to this one.

You make the very relevant point that the two kembang kacang that we find on in this keris form do not represent ears, rather they are representations of elephant trunks. Nobody will debate you on this point. You have stated something that is, I dare say, known to everybody who has had an active interest in the keris for longer than a few months.

However, although you can very accurately state that the kembang kacang in a keris represent the trunk of the elephant, can you tell why this elephant trunk was placed upon the keris ? Can you tell the meaning of this elephant trunk, not in terms of current Javanese keris belief nor Javanese philosophy, but in terms of the understanding that applied in pre-Islamic Jawa?

I am certain that you can provide a detailed explanation in current terms, but can you provide any explanation at all in terms of the mindset of your ancestors living in pre-Islamic Jawa?

This is the level of knowledge to which I devote my interest.

So you see, there is no conflict, we are just pursuing different concepts of knowledge.





Classification


It would appear that to a degree we are in agreement in respect of what I have said about the value of the dhapur system, so I will not pursue this subject.

As you have said :-

"--- We have different perception in some way. For us, we learn other way ---"

Yes, of course you do, you seek a different kind of knowledge, you seek it in a different way, and the knowledge you gain is different.

Again, we are not in conflict. You want knowledge of your myth and tradition , as this is your fact.

I want a different kind of fact, so I seek it in a different way, and the result that I obtain is different to your result.

However, a part of my own search for knowledge must necessarily embrace your traditions and myths, and in respect of the keris, above all, your systems of classification.

When you have turned to the subject of classification in your response, you seem to have gone off on a tangent that has precious little to do with the subject under discussion.

When we address the subject of classification, we are not considering "appreciation" of a keris, we are simply classifying a keris according to a certain set of standards.

Where we can identify the point of origin of a keris, it is fitting to use the set of standards that are generally accepted in that area.

Where we cannot identify the point of origin of the keris, we can still classify, but in any serious context we should quote the standards that we are drawing upon.

I've re-read what I have written on this previously, and I cannot see how it is possible for there to be any misunderstanding of what I have written. May I most respectfully suggest that you go back and read my statements again, and if you have any questions, address them to me by PM, rather than use any more space here.


Opinion

Pak Ganja, I regret to advise that you have absolutely, completely and utterly misunderstood what I have written under this head in my previous post.

I apologise once more for my inability to make my point in a manner that is able to be easily understood by all.

This is what I wrote:-


but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

in any matter of weight only a fool will give an opinion and not wish for his opinion to receive respect

if we wish our opinion to be treated with respect we need to provide evidence or argument that our opinion is worthy of respect

when we are dealing with the keris, we can adopt at least two varying positions:- we can adopt the "social" position, where we make noises and give opinions simply to engage in conversation; opinions given whilst in this mode need not be taken too seriously and rejection need not cause offence

or, we can adopt the "serious" position, and when we do this we do need to provide evidence or argument to validate the opinion we give......

This is your response to my comments:-

All I know, there are only two positions in this forum. The moderator -- Rick and David -- and the others are ordinary members. I didn't know that there is a differentiation in "social position" and "serious position". How can we differentiate? Are the serious position members, have a special status?

Permit me to attempt to correct your misunderstandings.

but everybody's opinion is not equal

there is the informed opinion, and there is the uniformed opinion

This is a generality. It is a commonly used idea in English conversation and discussion. Here is a simple example of how it may be applied:-
I have a problem with my motor vehicle. I take it to my mechanic. He tells me I need to have my brake system bled. But my next door neighbour , who is an accountant, told me that his brother's ex-girl friend had a similar problem , and it was the computer on the way out, so in his opinion, I probably need a new black box.
The mechanic's opinion is an informed opinion.
My next door neighbour's opinion is an uninformed opinion.
Which opinion should I accept?
Well, as I've already admitted, I'm a little bit slow, so although I recognize that my mechanic has been working on cars for nearly 45 years, and I know that my next door neighbour pays to get his oil topped up, I've heard of those computers that cars have, and I know that they are mysterious and expensive things and that when one goes out, it can cause all sorts of problems, so I ask my mechanic for evidence that it is only my brake system that needs to bled.
My mechanic does better than just supply evidence, he tells me that if I give him ten or fifteen minutes he'll bleed the system, and if that doesn't fix my problems, he won't charge me for the job, and further, he'll fix whatever the problem may prove to be for free.
Needless to say, my mechanic proves to right and my next door neighbour proves to be wrong.
This is the difference between informed and uninformed opinion, and it applies in whatever field you may care to consider.

Now, my use of the word "position".
You have interpreted this in the sense of position within a hierarchy.
This is an incorrect understanding.
In the context in which I have used the word it carries the meaning of the stance, or attitude that may be adopted in a conversation or discussion.
"serious position" can be read as "serious attitude", and "social position" can be read as "social attitude".
Used in the context that I have used it, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the position of any person who is associated with this forum in any way.
May I respectfully suggest that with this new understanding, you re-read what I have written about "opinion"?

[Sajen]

Hello,

the blade has get a new stain and I want to share the result with you, all comments are welcome.

Regards,

Detlef