What Constitutes a Kraton Keris?

nechesh · 21st May 2006, 04:22 PM

OK folks, here it is, the long awaited Kraton Keris thread!!!

Kai Wee gave this a good start in the now locked thread so i will just copy his questions over:

1. Are kraton kerises referring to the royal pusaka, or simply any keris that may be used/worn by a person working in the kraton, including the guards?

2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality?

3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu?

4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece?

5. "Rejected" kerises made by empu associated to a kraton - are these kraton pieces?

And also, just to share - there is a book published by the Yogya kraton. It has good pictures of the principal keris attributed to the Sultan, the crown prince, the Eldest son and the chief minister. The Sultan's own keris is a rather 'unspectacular' straight keris with a little bit of kinatah work and a combong. And I have seen the keris blade of the super gold Bugis keris on the cover of "Court Arts of Indonesia". That is a "normal-looking" 7-waved Bugis blade. No doubt a good tough blade with good form, but nothing fancy that we would imagine.

So what does it mean to be a kraton piece? And what are the conceptions that we have of the way a kraton piece must look?

Personally i have no preconceived notions of how a kraton blade must look. I do usually assume that the quality will be good, but it needn't be anything fancy. As Kai Wee points out, there are some rather unassuming blades to be found within the fancy dress of some highly provenenced court pieces.

Satria · 21st May 2006, 05:16 PM

In my humble opinion.....kraton keris means Royal Pusaka which having a name ( ex.Kanjeng Kyai Sengkelat...etc ), having history and having "silsilah" (family tree? ).

That is my opinion..correct me if I am wrong.

doecon · 21st May 2006, 05:51 PM

Royal Pusaka are found in many forms. It doesn’t even have to be a keris. Pusaka are items inherited trough generations that are said to contain certain powers. In case it’s a keris it could still come from anywhere or being made by anybody.

nechesh · 21st May 2006, 08:26 PM

Doecon, Satria is saying that he believes that in order to be called a Kraton keris that it must be a royal pusaka. He is not saying that ALL pusaka are keris, a fact that i believe most of us here are aware. Somehow i doubt that most royal pusaka would "come from anywhere or be made by anyone". Of course, just as people are bound to have different opinions about what a karton keris is they are also bound to have varying opinions on pusaka. Some seem to think the term is only appropriate when applied to "royal" heirloom pieces. Others are more generous with their interpretation and include all class levels of the population. However, this discussion isn't really about pusaka per se.
I am not sure i agree with Satria's limited application of the term (kraton keris) as i would tend to apply it to all keris that have a kraton association. Not all the owners of such keris would necessarily be of the royal family, nor would their keris be named ones in the royal regala.

Alam Shah · 21st May 2006, 11:52 PM

In my opinion, Satria comments is valid, but not conclusive. It's one of the classification of Kraton pieces, the Royal Pusakas category.

There are other classes as well... but I'll leave it to the more knowledgable to comment.

Pangeran Datu · 22nd May 2006, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

In my opinion, Satria comments is valid, but not conclusive. It's one of the classification of Kraton pieces, the Royal Pusakas category.

There are other classes as well... but I'll leave it to the more knowledgable to comment.

so, would you classify Tameng Sari as Royal Pusaka? After all... it only belonged to Hang Tuah

doecon · 22nd May 2006, 12:37 AM

In case Royal Pusaka keris, can be seen as a category of keraton keris, we are back to zero in my opinion.

As mentioned a pusaka keris can have its origin anywhere. Sometimes its has been kept for generations and exact origin might be completely unknown or even fabricated.

BluErf (not kai) mentioned that some Pusaka pieces even look very common (no quote). This is very true.

I happen to posses a few keris Pusaka (which, for reasons privacy and respect, I will not share). If I would compare it to other keris I would class them as very "average". History of those keris is completely known for the last 10 generations (11 when my son is old enough) but I personally can't say they are high quality. The Mpu is unknown as well, and in my opinion could have been anybody.

So if I would take 5 random keris (including 2 of my pusaka) all over 300 years old, there is nobody who can pick the right ones. I seriously wonder how you would set up criteria to do the job.

nechesh · 22nd May 2006, 01:40 AM

Doecon, i think you are missing the point. From my perspect at least (and MY reason for starting this thread) i couldn't care less about determining which one of your random 5 is a pusaka keris And i will say it again, a pusaka keris is not necessarily a court piece. A keris that has been in ANYBODY's family and passed down over 10 generations is certainly a pusaka keris in my book, but that doesn't make it a kraton keris. It may very well not have a clear origin, or that history might be exaggerated or even made up. It is less likely that the history of a royal court piece would be as unclear.
What i am interested in is this: given there is provenence for the keris, what would qualify it as a kraton keris. Without provenence you can speculate until the cows come home about the origins of any particular piece. To state that such a keris (without provenence) is a kraton keris is at best misleding since you don't and probably never will know for sure.
BTW, mpus can't be "just anybody". They are in service to the kraton and are obviously there due to their skills and lineage. Many of the keris in our collections are actually pandai made,not by mpus, which isn't to say that pandai haven't made some very nice keris.......and some very bad or mediocre keris. I would image that the vast majority of royal pusaka are mpu made, not something done by a village smith. Some of the blades might be very unassuming. Many are nor masterpieces. But they are mostly well made. Certainly if one were to compare an old keris blade made by a good pandai and one made by the kraton mpu of the same time they might not be able to tell which is which unless the kraton work was a supurlative piece made by the master on a good day. But this isn't the question at hand.

Andrew · 22nd May 2006, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doecon

In case Royal Pusaka keris, can be seen as a category of keraton keris, we are back to zero in my opinion.

As mentioned a pusaka keris can have its origin anywhere. Sometimes its has been kept for generations and exact origin might be completely unknown or even fabricated.

BluErf (not kai) mentioned that some Pusaka pieces even look very common (no quote). This is very true.

I happen to posses a few keris Pusaka (which, for reasons privacy and respect, I will not share). If I would compare it to other keris I would class them as very "average". History of those keris is completely known for the last 10 generations (11 when my son is old enough) but I personally can't say they are high quality. The Mpu is unknown as well, and in my opinion could have been anybody.

So if I would take 5 random keris (including 2 of my pusaka) all over 300 years old, there is nobody who can pick the right ones. I seriously wonder how you would set up criteria to do the job.

BluErf's name is "Kai Wee".

I'm interested in hearing your opinion on what else (aside from royal pusaka) qualifies as a "Kraton keris".

Alam Shah · 22nd May 2006, 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu

so, would you classify Tameng Sari as Royal Pusaka? After all... it only belonged to Hang Tuah

Hello Pangeran Datu,
Taming Sari did belonged to Hang Tuah, Admiral of the Malaccan Sultanate. The keris still exists today and is part of the regalia of Sultan Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak, Malaysia.
http://www.perak.gov.my/sultan/english/keris_taming.htm

What do you think?

Btw, the question is about Kraton keris (Javanese), not about Malay Sultanate keris. Let's go back to the main question, "What Constitute a Kraton Keris?" shall we?

nechesh · 22nd May 2006, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew

BluErf's name is "Kai Wee".

Thanks for noticing that Andrew. Frankly i didn't realize what Doecon was on about.

VANDOO · 22nd May 2006, 02:52 AM

IF THE TERM ROYAL IS ADDED IT MUST BELONG TO A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. THE ROYAL FAMILYS UNDOUBTABLY HAD MORE KERIS THAN THE COMMON MAN. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH KERIS AS WELL AS OTHER WEAPONS AND ITEMS AS GIFTS FROM OTHER RULERS,FAMILY MEMBERS, RICH FAMILYS AND FRIENDS AND PERHAPS FROM MPU WHO WANTED TO SHOW THEIR BEST WORK. THEY MAY HAVE ALSO AQUIRED THEM IN WAR AND TOOK THEM FROM A WORTHY ENEMY. THESE ALL QUALIFY AS ROYAL. SOME MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO PEOPLE WHO SERVED THEM WELL OR OTHER RULERS AND MAY HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY OWNED BY A ROYAL PERSON. OTHERS WERE PROBABLY MADE TO BE GIVEN AS GIFTS AND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SEEN OR HANDLED BY A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY SO WOULD PROBABLY NOT QUALIFY AS ROYAL.

KERIS MADE IN THE KRATON BY THE MPU WHO WORKED THERE WERE PROBABLY ALLOWED TO MAKE KERIS AND TOOLS FOR USE BY THOSE WHO WORKED FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY. THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED KRATON KERIS BUT NOT ROYAL AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MADE THERE SHOULD NOT INCREASE ITS WORTH. THE THING THAT SHOULD MAKE IT WORTH MORE WOULD BE THE WORKMANSHIP AND THE SKILL OF THE MPU AS HE SHOULD BE THE BEST AROUND TO BE CHOSEN TO MAKE THE ROYAL ARMS. UNDOUTABLY HE HAD APPRENTICES WHO WERE LEARNING MAKE MANY KERIS AND TOOLS AND SOME MAY HAVE BEEN POORLY MADE AND DEFECTIVE. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN SOLD OUTSIDE OF THE KRATON, SUPPLYED TO WORKERS OR REMELTED.

TO ME THE FACT OR STORY THAT IT WAS MADE IN THE KRATON ADDS NOTHING TO ITS VALUE, IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT COUNTS. IF THE WORKMANSHIP, QUALITY AND TECKNIQUE CAN BE PROVEN TO BE THAT OF A FAMOUS MPU WHO WORKED IN THE KRAYTON. THEN THE VALUE INCREASES BUT A STORY OR A UNPROVEN WORD DOSEN'T AMOUNT TO ANY ADDED VALUE ABOVE WHAT ITS QUALITY DESERVES.

THE PUSAKA CAN ONLY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE ONES WHO MAKE IT SO, TO ALL OTHERS IT IS JUST A KERIS. ANY POWER THE PUSAKA HAS COMES FROM ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE PERSONS OR FAMILY WHO HAVE VALUED AND CARED FOR IT. THAT IS WHY IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER TO GIVE A PUSAKA TO A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER WHO VALUES AND BELIEVES IN IT, AS ITS ORIGINAL OWNER HAS, THAN TO SELL IT FOR MERE MONEY. WHEN SOLD TO ONE WHO DOSEN'T CARE ABOUT OR BELIEVE IT IS MORE THAN A VALUABLE PIECE OF METAL AND WOOD IT IS NO LONGER A PUSAKA IT IS JUST A KERIS THAT USED TO BE PUSAKA. PERHAPS IT WILL SEEK AND AGAIN FIND A OWNER WHO VALUES IT PROPERLY IN THE FUTURE AND ONCE AGAIN BECOME A PUSAKA.

I LIKE KERIS BUT AM CERTIANLY NOT A EXPERT, CONNISOUR OR SCHOLAR OF THEM SO ONLY CAN SUPPLY OPINION, NOT FACT OR DEFFINITE KNOWLEGE. A INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE DESCUSSION LET IT CONTINUE IN A SERENE MANNER

Pangeran Datu · 22nd May 2006, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alam Shah

Hello Pangeran Datu,
Taming Sari did belonged to Hang Tuah, Admiral of the Malaccan Sultanate. The keris still exists today and is part of the regalia of Sultan Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak, Malaysia.
http://www.perak.gov.my/sultan/english/keris_taming.htm

What do you think?

Btw, the question is about Kraton keris (Javanese), not about Malay Sultanate keris. Let's go back to the main question, "What Constitute a Kraton Keris?" shall we?

Hello Alam Shah,
Do you mean Javanese palaces in general, or just the palaces of Yogya and Solo?( BTW, Yogya and Solo are both Sultanates too). I am aware of differences in keris protocols among palaces (even between Yogya and Solo), although I am unaware of any standard for their classification. Someone will no doubt enlighten me/us.

BTW,WRT Tameng Sari... The version of the legend I know:
Tameng Sari was the name of the owner of the keris, whom Hang Tuah defeated while on a visit to Java. The keris was subsequently presented to him by the king of Majapait.

Regards

Alam Shah · 22nd May 2006, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu

Hello Alam Shah,
Do you mean Javanese palaces in general, or just the palaces of Yogya and Solo?( BTW, Yogya and Solo are both Sultanates too).

Whichever you like or can comment about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu

I am aware of differences in keris protocols among palaces (even between Yogya and Solo), although I am unaware of any standard for their classification. Someone will no doubt enlighten me/us.

Let me clarify, when I mentioned classification, I'm refering to category for us to tell apart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pangeran Datu

BTW,WRT Tameng Sari... The version of the legend I know: Tameng Sari was the name of the owner of the keris, whom Hang Tuah defeated while on a visit to Java. The keris was subsequently presented to him by the king of Majapait.

Let's not talk about Taming Sari legends. There are many unconfirmed variation of the legend. Lets based on facts, shall we?

BluErf · 23rd May 2006, 03:38 PM

The book that I've read is simply entitled "Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat", or something like that. I don't have the book with me now. It was published in Indonesia, in English. Those of you staying in or near Singapore can head to the National Library near Bugis Street, S.E.A. studies reference section. Sorry, you can't borrow it, so you'll have to read it there.

I think everyone has brought up valid points for consideration. We don't have to agree with each other, but we should recognize the differences in interpretation of what a "kraton keris" could mean.

So what this could mean to us collectors is that when we purchase a keris described as such, dig further and find out what the seller meant, and make a judgement for yourself whether it is believable or not.

At any rate, like I (and some other collectors) always say - buy the keris, not the story, and no matter if it's a new keris or old keris, always buy quality kerises.

And please don't stop discussing here!

Rick · 23rd May 2006, 05:46 PM

" Buy the keris, not the story, and no matter if it's a new keris or old keris, always buy quality kerises. "

Well said !
Better one quality keris than a dozen inferior pieces .
Quality over quantity every time .

Boedhi Adhitya · 30th June 2006, 09:16 AM

Sorry for joining very late in this thread. Perhaps I may add some experiences regarding this subject. Before discussing this subject, I believe we have to define Pusaka terminology, which seems very familiar to us, but in fact, it isn't :

First, (and always

) the confusing "Pusaka" terminology. Usually, it is translated as "HEIRLOOM" in English. To become a heirloom, it must be inherited. In this context, the Pusaka isn't limited only to kerises, but also to houses, rice fields, pendant/ring, etc. Thus, it is very subjective matters.
But in "Tosan Aji" world, (and only in "Tosan Aji" perhaps), especially in Java as I experienced myself, the "Pusaka" terminology may mean 'the top-high quality blades', a little bit more than just 'masterpieces', but for the sake of simplicity, it may be translated to "MASTERPIECES" in English. It is an objective matters.
By clearly define this terminology, I believe, our discussion would be much more easier.

Quoting questions proposed by Nechesh (which was quoted from Kai Wee

):

1. Are kraton kerises referring to the royal pusaka, or simply any keris that may be used/worn by a person working in the kraton, including the guards?

Kraton kerises are kerises which were made (or assumed were made) by the kratons/courts' Empus, whether it were Jogja, Solo, Mataram, Majapahit, etc, and not a village Empus. The keris which were worn by the servants/guards in Kraton is not necessarily a kraton blades. It is the qualities of material and workmanship which define the kraton kerises or not.

2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality?

In fact, it is a reference to a high quality blades, which, not surpraisingly, may only came out from kraton armoury. 99.9% of the high quality blades would only came from kraton armoury. The reasons is kerises, lances or swords were considered as a powerful weapons in the old days. Any one who could made high quality weapons would be considered dangerous (as anyone who could made a nuclear bom today), the technology would be kept as secret and the materials trading would be limited. The court would always seek the finest/talented Empus possible to work to the court and supply the materials needed. The Senior Empus of the court would teach this secret to his trusted, choosen pupils. The talented empus who refused to work to the court would be sentenced to death. Sending away the empus out of the kingdom wasn't an option, because, well, you know why

This secrecy add fuels to the legends surrounding the kerises.
The fact that some of my fellow experienced-kerises connoiseurs claimed has found "the secret measurement formulas" of kerises, reinforced this hypothesis. By studying thousands of kerises, they argue that each and every court's empus had follow the same secret exact measurement principles on making the high-quality-court kerises, no matter from what court and age they came. ALL kraton kerises had the SAME 'vital measurement', which may not exhibited by the blade made by village empus. Now, they brought a vernier calipers to judge a keris!

3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu?

What 'kraton kerises' do you means? It is the ones belongs to Sultan, or to The Court ? Yes, in Jogjakarta, the Sultan's personal collections are different from The Court's Masterpieces (pusaka) collections. Today Court's collections which are kept in Gedong Pusaka (Pusaka Hall) consist of around 150's blades, less than 20's of them were made during the reign of HB I - VIII (1755-1940's) So, most of the collections are the old blades, made by the late Court's Empus before the Jogjakarta Sultanate. The 'Sepuh'/old is one of the preferred criteria. The Court collections may change from time to time, but since the late HB IX reign, there was no change had been made to the collection.

4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece?

Yes, it can. The Sultan HB V known for purchasing a lot of pusakas from outside of the Court to add the Court Collections. Many of them were a Court's Collection, but was gifted to the the princes by the late Sultans, and had handed down to their inheritor by the time the HB V reign. The HB V Court Armoury itself produced the finest Jogjakarta's blades ever made, known as Tangguh "Srimanganti", because the armoury took place in Srimanganti Hall, inside the palace. Some of the HB V armoury's masterpieces were kept on Pusaka Hall, right after they were made. The newly puchased kerises may also kept inside the Pusaka Hall. One thing the same, they must passed the very thight Court's Qualities Judgements. If we define Pusaka as only a Heirloom in this context, we would be confused.

A kraton piece is, IMHO, a kraton piece, even if it found outside the court. The quality, once again, tell.

5. "Rejected" kerises made by empu associated to a kraton - are these kraton pieces?

Yes, it is. A Kraton pieces, with a flaw, of course. As I mentioned before, the kraton ask for a very high qualities, perfect pieces. Something which we may not considered as a flaw, would became a flaw for kraton, and thus, cannot be kept inside the Pusaka Hall. In fact, the keraton always tried to add their Pusaka's Collections, but since the standard is very hight, it was very hard to find the keris which pass the quality judgement, even from the court armoury itself. Almost all the court armoury's blade (the nem-neman/young blades) I found outside the kraton had a flaw, or at least a reason, why it wasn't kept inside the Pusaka Hall, from the very-very-very minor ones to a major ones. This 'flaw' blade would be gifted to the royal families or court's servant, according to the ranks. Of course, the higher the rank, the better.

Quote:

And also, just to share - there is a book published by the Yogya kraton. It has good pictures of the principal keris attributed to the Sultan, the crown prince, the Eldest son and the chief minister. The Sultan's own keris is a rather 'unspectacular' straight keris with a little bit of kinatah work and a combong. And I have seen the keris blade of the super gold Bugis keris on the cover of "Court Arts of Indonesia". That is a "normal-looking" 7-waved Bugis blade. No doubt a good tough blade with good form, but nothing fancy that we would imagine.

It is 'a great leap' for the kraton to let the pictures of their pusaka taken. The book bear some error: the keris pictures inverted, and some swapped. The Sultan's keris is Kanjeng Kyai Ageng Kopek. This keris was a gift from Pakubuwono III of Solo on Sultan Hamengkubuwono I's Coronation. The 'combong' you see isn't a real combong (that is, the breaking/sepparation of the blade because of the forging flaw), but the worn out 'sraweyan' from hundreds years lime juice etching, which in the end eat up the blade and made a hole in sraweyan. The warangka made from sandalwood, 'gandar iras' and the pendhok from plain semi-gold (swasa), the handle is tayuman burus/plain tayuman wood. Why this keris attributed to the Sultan himself ? Isn't there any luxurious, gold encased blade, with naga form in The Court Collections ? Wasn't there any gold pendok with diamonds ? Any ivory or gold handle ? Yes there are those luxurious, old pieces in Court Collection, but The Sultan had very carefully and wisely choose the Kanjeng Kyai Ageng Kopek to identified himself, for a good reason, of course. We must be thinking that The Court Collection would full of gold with luxurious scabbard. In fact, the higher the blade rank, the more simple it would be, and may deceive you easily. But be careful, the blade's quality isn't as simple as it looks

Best Regards,

Boedhi Adhitya

nechesh · 30th June 2006, 01:43 PM

Thanks Boedhi Adhitya for adding your perspective to this thread. Better late than never.

I always look forward to your contributions on matters of the keris.

BluErf · 30th June 2006, 02:14 PM

Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge on this issue, Boedhi Adhitya.

We had almost given up hope of anyone discussing authoritatively on this issue.

The inverted pictures threw me off, and it took me a while before I realized what was wrong with them. I was surprised that they allowed these kerises to be published. There was an equivalent book published on the Surakarta kraton, and I noticed there were no direct pictures of the kraton's kerises, as expected.

I agree with your last remark - that there is more than meets the eye to the Sultan's keris, hence, I placed the word 'unspectacular' in quotation marks. The keris occupies both the seen and unseen world.

It is interesting to note that the Sultan's personal collection is not equivalent to the Court's collection. Is that to say that the Sultan's personal collection may sometimes hold kerises that do not pass the Court's standards for judging keris? (For example if the Sultan liked a certain keris that do not meet the Court's standard, but he acquired it anyway?)

Thank you.

Boedhi Adhitya · 1st July 2006, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluErf

It is interesting to note that the Sultan's personal collection is not equivalent to the Court's collection. Is that to say that the Sultan's personal collection may sometimes hold kerises that do not pass the Court's standards for judging keris? (For example if the Sultan liked a certain keris that do not meet the Court's standard, but he acquired it anyway?)

The Sultan's personal collection based mainly on his taste, and of course, his knowledge and interest. While every sultan (likes every royal family members)have personal collections, the qualities may vary since not all sultans (and royal family members) 'keris-literate', but most of them (the sultan collection, and immediate royal family members in the old day) honestly, are good. Yes, their collections may sometimes (or many times ?) hold kerises that do not pass the court's standards, but the court standards is so high that any blades which didn't pass was not necessarily bad. When the sultan pass away, his personal collection will be inherited by his sons, and so on, and so on. That's how a good blades 'seep' into the world

best regards,

boedhi adhitya

drdavid · 1st July 2006, 07:36 AM

Hi all, a very interesting thread.
Boedhi adhitya when you said:

Quote:

The book bear some error: the keris pictures inverted, and some swapped

which particular pictures were swapped, page numbers would be helpful if you have the book to hand. (Or maybe you can help Blue Erf).

I have found at least one other thing in this book that I can't agree with and that is the Golok La Nggunti Rante (pge 79) which they say comes from Bali or perhaps Sri Lanka. I just discussed this piece with another forum member and we both agree it has to be a piha kheta which originated in Sri Lankan .

DrD

Mudi · 14th July 2006, 01:04 PM

This is good post Pak Nechesh

You ask

1. Are kraton kerises referring to the royal pusaka, or simply any keris that may be used/worn by a person working in the kraton, including the guards?

My reply is that any keris worn or in Kraton is Kraton keris. They may not be pusaka. All Kraton guards wear keris, but they are not all pusaka.

2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality?

My reply is that none of these are fact. There is no such kraton armoury, but all keris for kraton use are well made.

3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu?

Many keris in kraton very old. All made by empu.

4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece?

If Sultan buy keris then it is part of Kraton collection. Kraton koleksi di Yogyajakarta Surakarta have many keris not from Java.

5. "Rejected" kerises made by empu associated to a kraton - are these kraton pieces?

No.

Boedhi Adhitya · 25th July 2006, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mudi

This is good post Pak Nechesh

2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality?

My reply is that none of these are fact. There is no such kraton armoury, but all keris for kraton use are well made.

I do regret that I have to disagree with you, Pak Mudi. There were a kind of workshop which would be classified as 'Kraton Armoury' or in Javanese word 'Besalen' (which has no translation in Bahasa), the place where the empus worked. Every court in Java had it. The famous empus were Riyokusumo (Jogjakarta, HB V), Tarunadahana, Supadahana (HB VII - VIII), Jayasukadga, Wirasukadga (Surakarta PB IX-X), Karyodikromo (Jogjakarta, Pakualaman). The Besalen itself taken place inside the court, fully supported by the court, and their products were used by the court. Supowinangun was the empu of prime-ministry office of Jogjakarta. We see here, even the prime-ministry office (kepatihan) had empus. I could show you some anvil (or 'Paron', in Javanese, which, once again and strange enough, has no similar word in Bahasa to explain this massive block of iron) and hand-powered blower which still being kept in Jogjakarta Court, to show you some facts. Unfortunately, I cannot show you the court's kerises

It was the court responsibility to maintain and develop the 'arm and armour' technology, with obvious reason. After the occupation of Japan in Java and the struggle for Independence, the empu stop working and passed away before they handed down their knowledges, and the keris culture has fallen so deep, that it could be classified as 'extinct'. Today, after Empu Jeno Harumbrojo (the son of Supowinangun) passed away just 3 days before earthquake stuck Jogjakarta last May, once again, no empus works as they ancestor did. Even if someone do, some critical knowledges has realy lost, and this knowledge, unfortunately, has lost forever.

Quote:

3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu?

Many keris in kraton very old. All made by empu.

4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece?

If Sultan buy keris then it is part of Kraton collection. Kraton koleksi di Yogyajakarta Surakarta have many keris not from Java.

All made by empu is correct. 'very old' is debatable

There are NO Jalak/Bethok Budha, Pichitan, 'Sombro' or 'keris sajen/keris majapahit' in Jogjakarta Court's Pusaka Collection. All kerises are 'standard' kerises, with the best iron, steel, pamor and workmanship possible at the time the keris was made. And some could be considered as 'newly made', as it was made during the reign of HB VII/VIII, when the empus still work. NO kerises attributed from outside of Java was held in Bangsal Prabayeksa, the most sacred building in Kraton Jogjakarta where main pusakas (these are, 150's kerises, spears, 'The Holy Fire', etc) were kept.

About the book, drdavid, I could only comment on 'Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat' specifically on heirloom section. I don't know the pages, but the pictures which were swapped are Kyai Toyatinaban and Kyai Purboniyat. The one which captioned as 'Toyatinaban' should be 'Purboniyat', and vice versa.

As Rick said, " Buy the keris, not the story, and no matter if it's a new keris or old keris, always buy quality kerises."

wish may help,

boedhi adhitya

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2006, 12:23 AM

Pak Boedhi, I endorse your comments.

In my experience the Javanese courts did maintain armouries in both the English sense of a place where arms are kept, and the US sense of a place where arms are made. Note the variation in Standard English :"armoury", and US English: "amory".

The "armoury" where weapons were made was, as you note, a "besalen". I believe this would come into Bahasa Indonesia as "bengkel tukang besi" (or pandai besi).

It would come into English as "blacksmith's forge" or "smithy".

The "armoury" where weapons were kept would come into Bahasa Indonesia as "gudang persenjataan".

The Bahasa Indonesia for "anvil" is "landasan". A "paron" is an anvil, thus I feel that an adequate translation of "paron" to Bahasa Indonesia would be "landasan".

The hand powered blower used by smiths in the old days in Indonesia is called an ububan, it consists of two upright bambu tubes fitted with plungers set with feathers. Raising and lowering the plungers forces a stream of air into an expansion box which , when under pressure, delivers a continuous stream of air to the fire.

The fire itself was (and is) often no more than a depression in the ground, and was side blown.

The last time I saw ububan in use was about ten years ago in a coach builder's workshop in Kartosuro.

I`d guess some of the people in the blacksmith`s community up at Boyolali would still be using ububan.

An adequate translation of this word "ububan" to English would be "bellows".

Montino Bourbon · 26th July 2006, 03:53 AM

New things are discovered every day, and some of these are rediscoveries of old things.

Wootz technology, which seemed to disappear a long time ago, has been re-discovered and even improved upon. Certainly Richard Furrer and others have made new wootz which is as good as the old. All it lacks is antiquity, and that is only gained through time. Give one of Richard's works a few hundred years, and if it is kept in good condition it will even have that.

Likewise, spiritual rediscoveries are made even now; witness the 'tertons', the Tibetan spiritual rediscoverers of old yogas and other things that disappeared at one time only to emerge for a reason at this time.

So why not admit that the spiritual and physical art of the empus can be rediscovered, and has? I believe that there are masters now making objects that will in the future be considered 'pusaka'. Certainly the work that I put in with an object that responds to me makes it function as a pusaka, and I feel the energy from it. I may call it by another name, but the cause and effect are the same.

Now a 'kraton' keris is, no doubt, a keris that has a particular place in Javanese society, and a very refined and particular one. I believe, however, that in this thread we are talking about an energy more than anything else, and one that is part of a keris that is (or was) made in conjunction with a spiritual outlook and practice. I also believe that this type of energy is in various modern works, including some made right here in the USA. It may not have the exact flavor of a 'kraton; keris, but it is absolutely tangible and useable.

I hope that I have not strayed too far from the original purpose of this thread.

nechesh · 26th July 2006, 05:02 AM

Thanks for everyones input in this thread. Montino, just to be clear about my original purpose in starting this thread, it was a reaction to a now closed thread which brought into question the accuacy of the description of certain ebay auctions using the term "Kraton Keris" as a title and selling point. I started this thread in order to investigate the question removed from the connection to those specific auctions. We quite often will see kraton association stated or at least hinted at in ebay auctions. I do understand your thoughts about modern pieces and pusaka, but i would disagree "that in this thread we are talking about an energy more than anything else". The question of whether a keris is a kraton piece or not is a far more specific one than that.

Boedhi Adhitya · 26th July 2006, 05:12 AM

Thank you very much for your kind comments, Mr. Maisey. I have to admit that my English has not improve further than spelling A, B, C,

About the 'ububan' we discuss, it is certainly correct, as you describe. I choose to use 'hand-powered blower' to describe 'the things' belongs to Jogja Court because it is not a traditional 'ububan' style bellow as you describe, but an european-made bellow, likes a very big squirrel-cage blower, but powered by a single-hand. You just have to turn the pedal in circular motion. Technological improvement, I believe

A little bit to add, IMHO, 'ububan' is a javanese word. A non-javanese Indonesian would not understand the meaning easily. Believe me, because I myself is not a Javanese. It was the keris which push me to learn Javanese language, because all described in Javanese, not to mention if you meet some 'ningrat' (royal families), they may use the 'kromo' which make my head dizzy

'landasan' has general meaning in Indonesia, just like 'base' in English. It cannot translated exactly to 'anvil', unless you add a comment/context. Without context, it might means anything, likes 'landasan pesawat terbang' (runway). On the contrary, 'anvil' and 'paron' are a single word which directly describe 'the thing', that is a block of iron where the smith use to forge the iron. Any other meaning of 'anvil' and 'paron' may need a comment/context.

The reasons why I emphasize on this 'wording case' because some philosopher argue that the knowledges of someones or even a culture reflected from the words they have to describe a things. If they don't have a single word to describe 'the thing', than it is very likely that they don't familiar or even know 'the thing'. (please don't ask me the name of philosopher

)

Thus, IMHO, Indonesian culture in general, doesn't familiar with iron processing technology. You cannot just go to Jakarta and meet the peoples there and asking "Do you know the meaning of Besalen, Ububan, or Paron ?" Most of them see paron only on Roadrunner and Coyote Cartoon, but may only describe 'the thing' as 'a big-black-heavy-iron block where the smith forge the iron' or 'a big-black-seems heavy-block that crack the Coyote head', but not 'landasan' as most dictionary entries may describe

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2006, 06:03 AM

Sorry for my misunderstanding of the hand powered blower, Pak Boedhi. The type of thing you describe belongs to a later age than the ububan, certainly.

In fact, these days some smiths use broken electric blowers and power them with a strap driven by a bicycle wheel. Same sort of idea as the blower that you describe.

As for the word ububan, yes, I agree a lot of people of the present generation may not recognise this word, but that is not because of its origin, rather because it is something from a time past.

In fact, the word "ububan" has come into the Indonesian language, and is officially a Bahasa Indonesia word. At least, it is listed in Indonesian dictionaries, and Indonesian-English dictionaries, and in these is not identified as Javanese, even though "ubub" and "ububan" are Old Javanese words.

When I speak of "Old Javanese" I am speaking of the Javanese language as it was prior to the second Kingdom of Mataram.

Again, in respect of the other words---beselen, and paron---I agree, people of this generation, and most especially if from Jakarta might be a little confused by them, but only to the same extent as people on the streets of New York, or Sydney might be confused by the names of things of a time past. Present day confusion does not remove a word from a language, it just makes it a little more difficult to easily recognise.

Similarly with landasan. Landasan comes from "landas":- "base", or "substratum"; "landasan" when combined with another word can have various meanings, for instance:- "landasan kata"="proof","landasan udara"="landing strip", however, the word "landasan" used by itself has only one meaning, and that is "anvil".

In fact, the word "paron" comes from the Old Javanese "parwan" and is one of several alternative spellings in Old Javanese for this word. Zoetmulder translates paron, parwan, parean, paryen, and paren as paron and landasan.

Please forgive me for being so pedantic about this matter of word usage, however, although I am not a native speaker of Indonesian or Javanese, for about 30 years I have had close contact with smiths and pandai keris in Jawa, and have had to learn their language to communicate. Talk to me about Javanese dance, or wayang, and I do not have the vocabulary to communicate at all. As for Krama, and Krama Inggil--I just don`t want to know. My daughter speaks it to perfection ---so I have been told--- but that only happened after she got married.

Boedhi Adhitya · 26th July 2006, 07:46 AM

Quote:

So why not admit that the spiritual and physical art of the empus can be rediscovered, and has? I believe that there are masters now making objects that will in the future be considered 'pusaka'. Certainly the work that I put in with an object that responds to me makes it function as a pusaka, and I feel the energy from it. I may call it by another name, but the cause and effect are the same

Yes, Mr Montino, technically and ritually, keris making process may be easily duplicated. It has not extinct yet, as some documentation on Empu Djeno Harumbrojo has been made. It is 'The Traditional Iron Knowledges' that had been lost. As some traditional book on keris wrote, there were many kind of iron, e.g. Karangkijang, Pulasani, Balitung, Kamboja, etc, which each of them may have specific 'power'. The Empu then mix these iron on certain composition, according to what 'power' he wished. It is not only about the ritual or forging technique, but also about the materials, according to traditional knowledge, of course. Until now, many keris makers still pursue on how to make greenish color exhibited by many nem-neman keris, not to mention the 'sulak ungu' (slightly purple) or ngelar glathik (greyish iron). But they far from succed, at least until now. Empu Djeno admited that he didn't master this knowledges since his father has not taught him yet before he passed away. Without this knowledges, any keris made today could only classified as handycraft, a work of art, a heirloom (if inherited by someone) or a weapon (but I doubt, since many keris maker didn't quench their works today, considering the risk), but never 'tosan aji' or 'honorable iron' in traditional senses, since no one really knew what kind of iron he forges. But perhaps, this knowledges might only a myth.

Once again thank you for your comment, Mr. Maisey. I do agree that present day confusion does not remove a word from a language, but I'm afraid more discussion will bring us to Etymology, which certainly an unproper topic in this forum

(and certainly, I'm not the one to whom someone should discuss etymology

). Just a massage for your admirable daughter, if she please, she should learn one step further, the 'Bagongan' language, which is spoken only in Keraton, until today. It is easy (if you already master the krama), but it's limited use make it very exclusive. I cannot imagine how Javanese react if a foreigner spoke it

Best regards,

boedhi adhitya

A. G. Maisey · 26th July 2006, 08:10 AM

Yes, I think we`ve already wrung enough out of word useage, Pak Boedhi.

Daughter is actually step-daughter, although I was responsible for her from a very young age. She is most certainly not a bule, not even half a bule. She married into an old aristocratic family, and was forced to learn Krama and Krama Inggil just to communicate within the family. This family now have very little to do with the Surakarta Kraton, for reasons of their own.

21st May 2006, 04:22 PM	#1
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	What Constitutes a Kraton Keris? OK folks, here it is, the long awaited Kraton Keris thread!!! Kai Wee gave this a good start in the now locked thread so i will just copy his questions over: 1. Are kraton kerises referring to the royal pusaka, or simply any keris that may be used/worn by a person working in the kraton, including the guards? 2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality? 3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu? 4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece? 5. "Rejected" kerises made by empu associated to a kraton - are these kraton pieces? And also, just to share - there is a book published by the Yogya kraton. It has good pictures of the principal keris attributed to the Sultan, the crown prince, the Eldest son and the chief minister. The Sultan's own keris is a rather 'unspectacular' straight keris with a little bit of kinatah work and a combong. And I have seen the keris blade of the super gold Bugis keris on the cover of "Court Arts of Indonesia". That is a "normal-looking" 7-waved Bugis blade. No doubt a good tough blade with good form, but nothing fancy that we would imagine. So what does it mean to be a kraton piece? And what are the conceptions that we have of the way a kraton piece must look? Personally i have no preconceived notions of how a kraton blade must look. I do usually assume that the quality will be good, but it needn't be anything fancy. As Kai Wee points out, there are some rather unassuming blades to be found within the fancy dress of some highly provenenced court pieces.

22nd May 2006, 02:52 AM	#12
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	IF THE TERM ROYAL IS ADDED IT MUST BELONG TO A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY. THE ROYAL FAMILYS UNDOUBTABLY HAD MORE KERIS THAN THE COMMON MAN. THEY WERE PRESENTED WITH KERIS AS WELL AS OTHER WEAPONS AND ITEMS AS GIFTS FROM OTHER RULERS,FAMILY MEMBERS, RICH FAMILYS AND FRIENDS AND PERHAPS FROM MPU WHO WANTED TO SHOW THEIR BEST WORK. THEY MAY HAVE ALSO AQUIRED THEM IN WAR AND TOOK THEM FROM A WORTHY ENEMY. THESE ALL QUALIFY AS ROYAL. SOME MAY HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO PEOPLE WHO SERVED THEM WELL OR OTHER RULERS AND MAY HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY OWNED BY A ROYAL PERSON. OTHERS WERE PROBABLY MADE TO BE GIVEN AS GIFTS AND MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SEEN OR HANDLED BY A MEMBER OF THE ROYAL FAMILY SO WOULD PROBABLY NOT QUALIFY AS ROYAL. KERIS MADE IN THE KRATON BY THE MPU WHO WORKED THERE WERE PROBABLY ALLOWED TO MAKE KERIS AND TOOLS FOR USE BY THOSE WHO WORKED FOR THE ROYAL FAMILY. THEY COULD BE CONSIDERED KRATON KERIS BUT NOT ROYAL AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE MADE THERE SHOULD NOT INCREASE ITS WORTH. THE THING THAT SHOULD MAKE IT WORTH MORE WOULD BE THE WORKMANSHIP AND THE SKILL OF THE MPU AS HE SHOULD BE THE BEST AROUND TO BE CHOSEN TO MAKE THE ROYAL ARMS. UNDOUTABLY HE HAD APPRENTICES WHO WERE LEARNING MAKE MANY KERIS AND TOOLS AND SOME MAY HAVE BEEN POORLY MADE AND DEFECTIVE. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN SOLD OUTSIDE OF THE KRATON, SUPPLYED TO WORKERS OR REMELTED. TO ME THE FACT OR STORY THAT IT WAS MADE IN THE KRATON ADDS NOTHING TO ITS VALUE, IT IS THE QUALITY OF THE WORK THAT COUNTS. IF THE WORKMANSHIP, QUALITY AND TECKNIQUE CAN BE PROVEN TO BE THAT OF A FAMOUS MPU WHO WORKED IN THE KRAYTON. THEN THE VALUE INCREASES BUT A STORY OR A UNPROVEN WORD DOSEN'T AMOUNT TO ANY ADDED VALUE ABOVE WHAT ITS QUALITY DESERVES. THE PUSAKA CAN ONLY BE IDENTIFIED BY THE ONES WHO MAKE IT SO, TO ALL OTHERS IT IS JUST A KERIS. ANY POWER THE PUSAKA HAS COMES FROM ITS ASSOCIATION WITH THE PERSONS OR FAMILY WHO HAVE VALUED AND CARED FOR IT. THAT IS WHY IT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER TO GIVE A PUSAKA TO A FRIEND OR FAMILY MEMBER WHO VALUES AND BELIEVES IN IT, AS ITS ORIGINAL OWNER HAS, THAN TO SELL IT FOR MERE MONEY. WHEN SOLD TO ONE WHO DOSEN'T CARE ABOUT OR BELIEVE IT IS MORE THAN A VALUABLE PIECE OF METAL AND WOOD IT IS NO LONGER A PUSAKA IT IS JUST A KERIS THAT USED TO BE PUSAKA. PERHAPS IT WILL SEEK AND AGAIN FIND A OWNER WHO VALUES IT PROPERLY IN THE FUTURE AND ONCE AGAIN BECOME A PUSAKA. I LIKE KERIS BUT AM CERTIANLY NOT A EXPERT, CONNISOUR OR SCHOLAR OF THEM SO ONLY CAN SUPPLY OPINION, NOT FACT OR DEFFINITE KNOWLEGE. A INTERESTING AND INFORMATIVE DESCUSSION LET IT CONTINUE IN A SERENE MANNER Last edited by VANDOO; 22nd May 2006 at 03:20 AM.

23rd May 2006, 05:46 PM	#16
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,290	One Great Truth " Buy the keris, not the story, and no matter if it's a new keris or old keris, always buy quality kerises. " Well said ! Better one quality keris than a dozen inferior pieces . Quality over quantity every time .

26th July 2006, 03:53 AM	#25
Montino Bourbon Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Santa Barbara, California Posts: 301	Rediscovery New things are discovered every day, and some of these are rediscoveries of old things. Wootz technology, which seemed to disappear a long time ago, has been re-discovered and even improved upon. Certainly Richard Furrer and others have made new wootz which is as good as the old. All it lacks is antiquity, and that is only gained through time. Give one of Richard's works a few hundred years, and if it is kept in good condition it will even have that. Likewise, spiritual rediscoveries are made even now; witness the 'tertons', the Tibetan spiritual rediscoverers of old yogas and other things that disappeared at one time only to emerge for a reason at this time. So why not admit that the spiritual and physical art of the empus can be rediscovered, and has? I believe that there are masters now making objects that will in the future be considered 'pusaka'. Certainly the work that I put in with an object that responds to me makes it function as a pusaka, and I feel the energy from it. I may call it by another name, but the cause and effect are the same. Now a 'kraton' keris is, no doubt, a keris that has a particular place in Javanese society, and a very refined and particular one. I believe, however, that in this thread we are talking about an energy more than anything else, and one that is part of a keris that is (or was) made in conjunction with a spiritual outlook and practice. I also believe that this type of energy is in various modern works, including some made right here in the USA. It may not have the exact flavor of a 'kraton; keris, but it is absolutely tangible and useable. I hope that I have not strayed too far from the original purpose of this thread.

26th July 2006, 05:12 AM	#27
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Thank you very much for your kind comments, Mr. Maisey. I have to admit that my English has not improve further than spelling A, B, C, About the 'ububan' we discuss, it is certainly correct, as you describe. I choose to use 'hand-powered blower' to describe 'the things' belongs to Jogja Court because it is not a traditional 'ububan' style bellow as you describe, but an european-made bellow, likes a very big squirrel-cage blower, but powered by a single-hand. You just have to turn the pedal in circular motion. Technological improvement, I believe A little bit to add, IMHO, 'ububan' is a javanese word. A non-javanese Indonesian would not understand the meaning easily. Believe me, because I myself is not a Javanese. It was the keris which push me to learn Javanese language, because all described in Javanese, not to mention if you meet some 'ningrat' (royal families), they may use the 'kromo' which make my head dizzy 'landasan' has general meaning in Indonesia, just like 'base' in English. It cannot translated exactly to 'anvil', unless you add a comment/context. Without context, it might means anything, likes 'landasan pesawat terbang' (runway). On the contrary, 'anvil' and 'paron' are a single word which directly describe 'the thing', that is a block of iron where the smith use to forge the iron. Any other meaning of 'anvil' and 'paron' may need a comment/context. The reasons why I emphasize on this 'wording case' because some philosopher argue that the knowledges of someones or even a culture reflected from the words they have to describe a things. If they don't have a single word to describe 'the thing', than it is very likely that they don't familiar or even know 'the thing'. (please don't ask me the name of philosopher ) Thus, IMHO, Indonesian culture in general, doesn't familiar with iron processing technology. You cannot just go to Jakarta and meet the peoples there and asking "Do you know the meaning of Besalen, Ububan, or Paron ?" Most of them see paron only on Roadrunner and Coyote Cartoon, but may only describe 'the thing' as 'a big-black-heavy-iron block where the smith forge the iron' or 'a big-black-seems heavy-block that crack the Coyote head', but not 'landasan' as most dictionary entries may describe Last edited by Boedhi Adhitya; 26th July 2006 at 06:25 AM.

21st May 2006, 05:16 PM	#2
Satria Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 11	In my humble opinion.....kraton keris means Royal Pusaka which having a name ( ex.Kanjeng Kyai Sengkelat...etc ), having history and having "silsilah" (family tree? ). That is my opinion..correct me if I am wrong.

21st May 2006, 05:51 PM	#3
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	Royal Pusaka are found in many forms. It doesn’t even have to be a keris. Pusaka are items inherited trough generations that are said to contain certain powers. In case it’s a keris it could still come from anywhere or being made by anybody.

21st May 2006, 08:26 PM	#4
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Doecon, Satria is saying that he believes that in order to be called a Kraton keris that it must be a royal pusaka. He is not saying that ALL pusaka are keris, a fact that i believe most of us here are aware. Somehow i doubt that most royal pusaka would "come from anywhere or be made by anyone". Of course, just as people are bound to have different opinions about what a karton keris is they are also bound to have varying opinions on pusaka. Some seem to think the term is only appropriate when applied to "royal" heirloom pieces. Others are more generous with their interpretation and include all class levels of the population. However, this discussion isn't really about pusaka per se. I am not sure i agree with Satria's limited application of the term (kraton keris) as i would tend to apply it to all keris that have a kraton association. Not all the owners of such keris would necessarily be of the royal family, nor would their keris be named ones in the royal regala.

21st May 2006, 11:52 PM	#5
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	In my opinion, Satria comments is valid, but not conclusive. It's one of the classification of Kraton pieces, the Royal Pusakas category. There are other classes as well... but I'll leave it to the more knowledgable to comment.

22nd May 2006, 12:37 AM	#7
doecon Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 63	In case Royal Pusaka keris, can be seen as a category of keraton keris, we are back to zero in my opinion. As mentioned a pusaka keris can have its origin anywhere. Sometimes its has been kept for generations and exact origin might be completely unknown or even fabricated. BluErf (not kai) mentioned that some Pusaka pieces even look very common (no quote). This is very true. I happen to posses a few keris Pusaka (which, for reasons privacy and respect, I will not share). If I would compare it to other keris I would class them as very "average". History of those keris is completely known for the last 10 generations (11 when my son is old enough) but I personally can't say they are high quality. The Mpu is unknown as well, and in my opinion could have been anybody. So if I would take 5 random keris (including 2 of my pusaka) all over 300 years old, there is nobody who can pick the right ones. I seriously wonder how you would set up criteria to do the job.

22nd May 2006, 01:40 AM	#8
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Doecon, i think you are missing the point. From my perspect at least (and MY reason for starting this thread) i couldn't care less about determining which one of your random 5 is a pusaka keris And i will say it again, a pusaka keris is not necessarily a court piece. A keris that has been in ANYBODY's family and passed down over 10 generations is certainly a pusaka keris in my book, but that doesn't make it a kraton keris. It may very well not have a clear origin, or that history might be exaggerated or even made up. It is less likely that the history of a royal court piece would be as unclear. What i am interested in is this: given there is provenence for the keris, what would qualify it as a kraton keris. Without provenence you can speculate until the cows come home about the origins of any particular piece. To state that such a keris (without provenence) is a kraton keris is at best misleding since you don't and probably never will know for sure. BTW, mpus can't be "just anybody". They are in service to the kraton and are obviously there due to their skills and lineage. Many of the keris in our collections are actually pandai made,not by mpus, which isn't to say that pandai haven't made some very nice keris.......and some very bad or mediocre keris. I would image that the vast majority of royal pusaka are mpu made, not something done by a village smith. Some of the blades might be very unassuming. Many are nor masterpieces. But they are mostly well made. Certainly if one were to compare an old keris blade made by a good pandai and one made by the kraton mpu of the same time they might not be able to tell which is which unless the kraton work was a supurlative piece made by the master on a good day. But this isn't the question at hand.

23rd May 2006, 03:38 PM	#15
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	The book that I've read is simply entitled "Keraton Ngayogyakarta Hadiningrat", or something like that. I don't have the book with me now. It was published in Indonesia, in English. Those of you staying in or near Singapore can head to the National Library near Bugis Street, S.E.A. studies reference section. Sorry, you can't borrow it, so you'll have to read it there. I think everyone has brought up valid points for consideration. We don't have to agree with each other, but we should recognize the differences in interpretation of what a "kraton keris" could mean. So what this could mean to us collectors is that when we purchase a keris described as such, dig further and find out what the seller meant, and make a judgement for yourself whether it is believable or not. At any rate, like I (and some other collectors) always say - buy the keris, not the story, and no matter if it's a new keris or old keris, always buy quality kerises. And please don't stop discussing here!

30th June 2006, 01:43 PM	#18
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Thanks Boedhi Adhitya for adding your perspective to this thread. Better late than never. I always look forward to your contributions on matters of the keris.

30th June 2006, 02:14 PM	#19
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Thank you for sharing your vast knowledge on this issue, Boedhi Adhitya. We had almost given up hope of anyone discussing authoritatively on this issue. The inverted pictures threw me off, and it took me a while before I realized what was wrong with them. I was surprised that they allowed these kerises to be published. There was an equivalent book published on the Surakarta kraton, and I noticed there were no direct pictures of the kraton's kerises, as expected. I agree with your last remark - that there is more than meets the eye to the Sultan's keris, hence, I placed the word 'unspectacular' in quotation marks. The keris occupies both the seen and unseen world. It is interesting to note that the Sultan's personal collection is not equivalent to the Court's collection. Is that to say that the Sultan's personal collection may sometimes hold kerises that do not pass the Court's standards for judging keris? (For example if the Sultan liked a certain keris that do not meet the Court's standard, but he acquired it anyway?) Thank you.

14th July 2006, 01:04 PM	#22
Mudi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Makassar, (Ujung Pandang), Sulawesi, Indonesia Posts: 38	This is good post Pak Nechesh You ask 1. Are kraton kerises referring to the royal pusaka, or simply any keris that may be used/worn by a person working in the kraton, including the guards? My reply is that any keris worn or in Kraton is Kraton keris. They may not be pusaka. All Kraton guards wear keris, but they are not all pusaka. 2. Must kraton kerises necessarily come out of the kraton armoury, or is it a reference to a certain level of quality? My reply is that none of these are fact. There is no such kraton armoury, but all keris for kraton use are well made. 3. Are kraton kerises made by empus, or could they have been kerises owned by founding sultans/sunans of the kraton, which may not have been made by an empu? Many keris in kraton very old. All made by empu. 4. Can kraton pieces be 'inducted'? i.e. purchased from somebody and added to the armoury? If so, how long must it be inside the kraton to be considered a kraton piece? If Sultan buy keris then it is part of Kraton collection. Kraton koleksi di Yogyajakarta Surakarta have many keris not from Java. 5. "Rejected" kerises made by empu associated to a kraton - are these kraton pieces? No.

26th July 2006, 12:23 AM	#24
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,886	Pak Boedhi, I endorse your comments. In my experience the Javanese courts did maintain armouries in both the English sense of a place where arms are kept, and the US sense of a place where arms are made. Note the variation in Standard English :"armoury", and US English: "amory". The "armoury" where weapons were made was, as you note, a "besalen". I believe this would come into Bahasa Indonesia as "bengkel tukang besi" (or pandai besi). It would come into English as "blacksmith's forge" or "smithy". The "armoury" where weapons were kept would come into Bahasa Indonesia as "gudang persenjataan". The Bahasa Indonesia for "anvil" is "landasan". A "paron" is an anvil, thus I feel that an adequate translation of "paron" to Bahasa Indonesia would be "landasan". The hand powered blower used by smiths in the old days in Indonesia is called an ububan, it consists of two upright bambu tubes fitted with plungers set with feathers. Raising and lowering the plungers forces a stream of air into an expansion box which , when under pressure, delivers a continuous stream of air to the fire. The fire itself was (and is) often no more than a depression in the ground, and was side blown. The last time I saw ububan in use was about ten years ago in a coach builder's workshop in Kartosuro. I`d guess some of the people in the blacksmith`s community up at Boyolali would still be using ububan. An adequate translation of this word "ububan" to English would be "bellows".

26th July 2006, 05:02 AM	#26
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Thanks for everyones input in this thread. Montino, just to be clear about my original purpose in starting this thread, it was a reaction to a now closed thread which brought into question the accuacy of the description of certain ebay auctions using the term "Kraton Keris" as a title and selling point. I started this thread in order to investigate the question removed from the connection to those specific auctions. We quite often will see kraton association stated or at least hinted at in ebay auctions. I do understand your thoughts about modern pieces and pusaka, but i would disagree "that in this thread we are talking about an energy more than anything else". The question of whether a keris is a kraton piece or not is a far more specific one than that.

26th July 2006, 06:03 AM	#28
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,886	Sorry for my misunderstanding of the hand powered blower, Pak Boedhi. The type of thing you describe belongs to a later age than the ububan, certainly. In fact, these days some smiths use broken electric blowers and power them with a strap driven by a bicycle wheel. Same sort of idea as the blower that you describe. As for the word ububan, yes, I agree a lot of people of the present generation may not recognise this word, but that is not because of its origin, rather because it is something from a time past. In fact, the word "ububan" has come into the Indonesian language, and is officially a Bahasa Indonesia word. At least, it is listed in Indonesian dictionaries, and Indonesian-English dictionaries, and in these is not identified as Javanese, even though "ubub" and "ububan" are Old Javanese words. When I speak of "Old Javanese" I am speaking of the Javanese language as it was prior to the second Kingdom of Mataram. Again, in respect of the other words---beselen, and paron---I agree, people of this generation, and most especially if from Jakarta might be a little confused by them, but only to the same extent as people on the streets of New York, or Sydney might be confused by the names of things of a time past. Present day confusion does not remove a word from a language, it just makes it a little more difficult to easily recognise. Similarly with landasan. Landasan comes from "landas":- "base", or "substratum"; "landasan" when combined with another word can have various meanings, for instance:- "landasan kata"="proof","landasan udara"="landing strip", however, the word "landasan" used by itself has only one meaning, and that is "anvil". In fact, the word "paron" comes from the Old Javanese "parwan" and is one of several alternative spellings in Old Javanese for this word. Zoetmulder translates paron, parwan, parean, paryen, and paren as paron and landasan. Please forgive me for being so pedantic about this matter of word usage, however, although I am not a native speaker of Indonesian or Javanese, for about 30 years I have had close contact with smiths and pandai keris in Jawa, and have had to learn their language to communicate. Talk to me about Javanese dance, or wayang, and I do not have the vocabulary to communicate at all. As for Krama, and Krama Inggil--I just don`t want to know. My daughter speaks it to perfection ---so I have been told--- but that only happened after she got married.

26th July 2006, 08:10 AM	#30
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,886	Yes, I think we`ve already wrung enough out of word useage, Pak Boedhi. Daughter is actually step-daughter, although I was responsible for her from a very young age. She is most certainly not a bule, not even half a bule. She married into an old aristocratic family, and was forced to learn Krama and Krama Inggil just to communicate within the family. This family now have very little to do with the Surakarta Kraton, for reasons of their own.