keris identification with ganja wilut(sepang)urubing damar
 

hello here my keris please help me to tell me about it wat kind of keris it is
its in oil becauce it was rusty ,
hope the picture,s will help
greetings auk

Do you mean dhapur? geographic origin? tangguh? isi? tuah?

I cannot give positive answers from pictures, only probabilities or sometimes only possibilities, but it is a Javanese keris, probably East Jawa, in the hand it might be classifiable as Majapahit.

That's about as far as I'm prepared to go without much better photos.

hello thanks fore the reply i wil try to make better pics
yes i am curious about all informtion i can get about this keris
dhapur geographic origin tangguh isi tuah
thanx again fore the help and information
greetings auk

Thanks for the additional photos Auk. A very interesting keris. All i can add to what Alan has stated, even with the additional images, is that the dhapur appears to be some form of damar murub, with the three luks appearing at the very end of the blade as they do, but i have never seen one with quite these same features and can only assume that the dhapur here requires some other names to fully describe it. I would still like to see some clear close-ups of the gandik as i am having a hard time figuring out just what the form is here. If it is not simply that the form is eroded by time i do not quite recognize what is supposed to be from the photos. I can't tell if i am looking at a sekar kacang that has been eroded or pushed flat against the blade or if this is meant to represent a human figure as in a keris putut. Also interesting is the deep central fuller of the blade that blade that extends almost to the tip. These are features i have not seen on other damar murub blades. Perhaps Alan has some better ideas with these new photos. :shrug:

Hi david thanx fore the reply i think the keris is verry interesting to nice forms,
i dont think its a putut because like you said is was pushed flat .
the deep central fuller of the blade i like it verry much its verry nice and smooth.
i wil post another foto hope it wil be clear enough to help to identify the keris.
thanks again fore thinking.
greetings auk.

Thanks for the better pics Auk.

I really cannot add anything to what I've already said, except that based upon what I can see I would not give it a Majapahit classification.

I cannot give it a dhapur, but I am virtually certain it is East Jawa.

Rather a nice thing actually.

hello mr maisey thanks fore the replay
wat else can i do or maybe other foto,s so you or others can make a better judge greetings auk.

Could you make a picture frontal of the sekar kacang?

Hi henk excuse me wat means sekar kacang
greetings

I'm sorry Auk, but there is nothing more I can say about this keris. The form is unusual, but elements of that unusual form indicate to me an East Jawa origin. It is an old keris, but not immensely old, in your original pics the appearance was vaguely Majapahitish, but in the later pics I can see the material clearly, and I am unable to give it a Mojo label. I doubt that there is much more that anybody could say. I suggest that you should be content with having a nice, unusual , old Javanese keris in fairly good condition.

Frankly, I find it difficult to understand exactly what additional information you need. If you have any specific questions we might be able to provide answers.

Hi mr maisey thanks again fore the replay
i understand its hard to tell from foto,s wat the unusal aspects are.
you said probily from east java?
hoping i can get more judgement about dhapur? geographic origin? tangguh? isi? tuah wat the keris was ment for i wil try put some more information.
the lengt from top til ganja is 32 cm ganja lenght 8cm the peksi in thin not a thick one and at the end a little twisted also i like to know wat kind of pamor it is meanig etc i have a lot of questions hoping i get some more answer
thanks fore reading and thinking
greetings...

Auk, I mean the right side of your last picture but frontal on the edge.

Hi Henk thanks fore the reply hope this picture wil do
Greetings

Hello,
There are many possibilities but based upon what I can see I'm in the opinion that your keris has been repaired/altered--or even made to look unusual from day one, I'll call it dapur kreasi baru/owah-owahan or the like --contemporary/non standard dapur (might be once sepang-urubung damar combo which is okay, anything in that direction), tangguh kamardikan--modern/vintage, pamor wos wutah, origin Java-Madura somewhere, I don't have any opinion on tuah/isi. I could be wrong. Nice material but rather lacking on garap I would say, sorry. I wish better condition keris coming your way soon ;)

hmmm....can can you tell us why you think this is a contemporary keris?
I am also confused by you opinion that "your keris has been repaired/altered--or even made to look unusual from day one." These seem to be two diametrically opposed opinions in one sentence. Which do you believe, that it has been altered or that it was made this way from day one? I am not sure that i see where it has been altered from the photos provided.
Personally i don't think the workmanship (garap) is that bad. This is not a masterpiece keris by any means but i am in agreement with Alan that it is an nice, old and unusual keris that aside from what appears to be some damage in the gandik area is in pretty good shape (sheath not withstanding). Frankly, i like keris that don't fit clearly into the mold. It seems senseless to me to create some kind of composite name simply to have a dhapur to tag onto this piece. :shrug: :)

Actually Auk, i think that a 3/4th viewpoint might be more helpful here than the straight on shot Henk requested. :)

Hi thanks fore the replay i wil add two more foto,s
first i think the top pamor is welded in the iron you can see the twist in it not striacht wat you see when they to file it
second foto i leave it to the specialst :)
thanks fore the thinking greetings

Hello Chandra,
Thank you for your interesting opinion and personally I would not discard it too quickly as I also see some signs that this may be a recent or altered piece. I know your experience and as you live in Jakarta you are more familiar with the tricks of the trade than most of us. Personally I find this question of distinguishing between a genuine old blade from a recent and altered one as very difficult and primordial for a collector and any input on tis subject is welcome. So please elaborate more about the observations and findings which make you believe that this is not an old blade, we are listening! :)
Best regards

Yes, this is not a standard Central Javanese dhapur although as said by Chandra it could be called Sepang/ Damar Murub. The ganja sepang is not standard. Additionally the strange kembang kacang and grooves seem reminiscent of the Megantara dapur (see pictures). The maker should have been (or be) a very imaginative guy! :D
Regards

Hello thanks fore the new reply,s
is it helpfull if i post a picture from the peksi
also i was reading some older article of keris and found this on vikingsword
about the keris megantara like jean mentioned i see a little risemble in the blade specialy over the deep central fuller of the blade that blade that extends almost to the tip see the fifth picture on http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?p=99755
greetings auk :)

I've tried my best to enlarge and enhance this image. Still hard to know anything without this blade in hand.
Jean, perhaps you could share with us where you see signs of this being a recent or altered blade. Frankly i just can't tell what's up in that gandik area. :shrug:

Hi David,
Yes the gandik/ kembang kacang is odd indeed. As Chandra raised the subject of a possibly recent or altered blade I will let him reply first and complement the observations or impressions if needed. I have no definite opinion myself, and just want to exchange with the other forumites about this interesting subject.
Regards

OK Jean, no worries. I just thought that since you expressed some doubts yourself about this being and an old and/or original blade you might be able to explain your own reasoning. I certainly agree with you that discerning the indicators of an altered blade or new blades made to look old is of great importance to us as collectors.

Yes. David was right. It was too frontal. With these pictures we are quit sure there is no figure of what kind in the gandik.

Hard to classify this keris. I'm with David and Alan. I cann't either subscribe the meaning of tunggulametung. What I see is a very nice old keris. Not a masterpiece, but I love it.
Dhapur has a Damar Murub appearance and the pamor is wos wutah or beras wutah. I have an old dutch book that says when the dhapur cann't be named all different names of the individual parts should be mentioned. In the way tunggulametung did.

Anyway imho a very attractive older keris.

In any field of art, or collectables, when the buying public becomes aware that reproductions and forgeries are present in the market place they tend be very cautious in accepting as old and original any piece that fails to fit the pre-determined ideas of what is truly old and original.

This is particularly true of keris. Going back some years there was a very respected and indeed, famous connoisseur of Javanese art, and especially keris who lived in Solo. This gentleman was well known in the keris trade as being a very soft touch for any keris that looked old, original and unusual. As a consequence a little sub-industry grew up that specialised in creating and marketing exactly this type of forgery to this gentleman. At the time this was happening it was knowledge that was well known in the trade, but totally unknown outside the trade. In fact, I doubt that it was even suspected by the mass of keris buyers outside the trade.

Those who are familiar with the greater art market, the world market in paintings and sculpture, will be very familiar with the ideas I am presenting here. Very often there are only one or two people worldwide who are recognised as being reliable identifiers of works that have been prepared with intent to defraud --- and there are many instances on record where even these highly regarded authorities have later changed their mind about something.

With the rise of the Madura and East Jawa artisans, the revival of interest in the keris, and addition of new collectors to the ranks of those who buy keris, there is now a widespread awareness that there are deliberate forgeries in the market place, and very often those forgeries take an unusual form, deliberately created to tempt the buyer.

However, it is a regrettable truth that in the present day world of keris collecting there is a vast well of ignorance. The great holders of knowledge from before WWII are now no longer with us. Most of these men failed to pass their knowledge to the generation that followed, and where that knowledge was passed on, it was incomplete. The senior people of this generation simply do not have the same, or even similar foundations upon which to base their opinions of what is and what is not a legitimate keris.

How many people in today's generation of ahli keris in Jawa have ever heard of Bp. Pawirodihardjo, or know what his name within the keris trade was? If somebody does know who this man was, do they have any idea at all of what he was capable of? Yet this man was probably responsible for more, let us say "misleading" keris than any other person in the period following WWII. His creations were mostly special orders from less than honest dealers, and he was a master of his craft. But even he had limits to what could be done in order to create a forgery. This man moved to a different level quite a few years ago now, and so has his wife, his children are about as distant from the keris trade as it is possible to be, and that is the reason I have no problem with mention of his formal name.

The point I wish to make is this:- it is simply not possible for any person who is not an insider in the keris trade of Central Jawa to know with any degree of certainty what is likely to be a forgery and what is not likely to be a forgery. I use the word "likely" because the only way to be certain is if the forgery was observed whilst in production. It is not possible for any collector, and most second or third level dealers to have any certainty at all in what is and is not a forgery.

Then there is the problem of defining exactly what constitutes a "forgery".

Is a changeling necessarily a forgery, or can it be the result of cultural necessity, or personal belief?

So it is that when an unusual keris is seen, many if not most people err on the side of caution and pronounce it a forgery, or at least a changeling (robahan), but without really understanding the circumstances that can apply in the creation of a changeling.

Of course one way of gaining relative certainty of the authenticity or otherwise of a keris , or other art work, is to know where it came from. If we know that, then we can probably also predict with a fair degree of certainty whether it is, or is not what it purports to be.

After that rather rambling discourse on the intricacies of keris falsification, let me now address a couple of matters relating to this keris under discussion.

The question of dhapur.
At the present time it seems that Jack is as good as his master and anybody at all can create a keris and give it a name.

This is the modern attitude. It is not the traditional attitude.

Within traditional belief, the names of keris forms are locked into Javanese cultural mores. It is not the right, nor the privilege of any person other than a ruler to decree what the name of any keris form may be. I stress the term "Javanese cultural mores". The cultural mores of Indonesia outside the Land of Jawa are in many ways as foreign to Javanese thought as are the cultural mores of London, Paris and Rome.

It is incorrect to combine the names of various dhapurs and claim that by combination of these names we have named the dhapur of a keris that possesses the features of two or more dhapur. This practice is absolutely wrong. We may not do this.

What we can do is to say that an unusual keris has certain features that are similar to the features found in legitimate dhapurs.

In respect of the question of talismanic properties of this keris under discussion, or of any keris for that matter. The tuah of a keris comes in major part from its dhapur. In the absence of being able to give a keris a legitimate dhapur it is very difficult to determine its tuah. A person with psychic powers may be able to give an indication of tuah but it is not possible to do this from a photograph, only from making the acquaintance of the keris.

An adequate description of pamor for this keris is wos wutah.

Is this keris a new production, a changeling, a falsification of some sort, or is it a legitimate keris?

Unless I handled this keris I could not give an answer that I could rationally support, however, based upon the presented photos this is what I think I can see:-

The grain of the pamor follows the luk form

The material has the appearance of older material

The way in which the pamor has been made has the appearance of a traditional manufacturing process

The topographic features of the blade have the appearance of having been put in place at the time of manufacture

The gandhik area may have been altered to create a sepang-like appearance; I am reluctant to regard this as something that removes authenticity from a keris, as it may have been done (if it was done at all) because of personal belief. Consider the talismanic implications of the sepang form. Such an alteration would be unlikely to be done as an attempt to raise value or deceive, a simple cost : benefit analysis will demonstrate this very clearly.

The gonjo is unlikely to be original to the wilah. The material is different to the wilah and the degree of erosion to the underside of the gonjo is not consistent with overall blade erosion.

This keris could have been re-manufactured from a much larger keris, that possibility exists, but the only type of keris that I know of that could give sufficient material to create what we see in this keris is the very large old Tuban keris, and the material in this keris is nothing like old Tuban material.

All of us have opinions, and we are all entitled to our own opinions. However, if we want others to accept our opinion we do need to present evidence or logical argument to support that opinion.

My opinion in respect of this keris is that it is an older keris, most likely from East Jawa, during its life it may have had some alteration carried out on it, this is not certain, it is only a possibility, but if this work was done it was more likely to be in the nature of an expression of belief rather than any attempt to falsify.

I am further of the opinion that what we now see in the body of the keris is original to the keris. I do not know of any older keris form of sufficient size and similar material that would permit the re-manufacture of this keris.

The gonjo appears to be a replacement.

Now my usual qualification:- my opinion could alter if I were to handle this keris; the opinion I have expressed here is based upon what I can see in the photographs.

Hello thanks fore the replays and the time you all take to write,thanks
i total agree it is hard to tel from photo,s its not the same as when you hold the blade and feel it,

Mr Maisey your story is verry helpfull i totaly agree your opinion about the old blades reproduction re manufactured in all those years its so much we must look so carefully wat we buy etc.
aditional i wil put some foto,s of the peksi and the gonjo,

Here you can see the peksi is twisted at the end not clear becuse of some rust but its twisted also in th egonjo you see a little hole next to the big hole its square verry tiny i think you can put a little peace of scuare metal in it so the gonjo stays at his place and wont move i just try it wit a verry little peace of wood and yes the gonjo cant move anymore so it seemt to serve as a kind of lock.

Also the gonjo fits perfectly and the blade have a core i can here
hope this wil be helpful in our further quest about this keris.
you all thanks verry much fore thinking
greetings

Yes, cutting a keyway in the pesi hole of the gonjo is one of the more common ways of fixing a gonjo in place, in fact, its the method I myself have always used on the kerises which I have made. Sometimes we find that a pesi hole will be made a very neat fit to the pesi, and then fixed by using a punch to squeeze the metal in around the pesi. Bugis keris seem to use this method fairly often.

I feel that perhaps these pics of the pesi may give a useful indication of the age of the wilah.

Hi Alan,
Thank you for you very interesting and detailed reply and I fully agree with you.
Actually the possible gonjo replacement was the first observation which I made (fancy shape, different metal, and impeccable interface line with the blade) and this seems confirmed by the additional pictures from Auk (rebuilt peksi base, perfect peksi hole, lock).
And I also suspected that the blade may have been re-shaped from a larger one because of the strange gandik and the pamor which fully extends to the edges of the blade.
Is there a way to assess if the luks at the tip are original or not?
Best regards
PS: Sorry, I did not read your last post before sending mine

Hi Alan,
Could you please elaborate more?
Regards

Hi jean thank fore the reply i think the luks at the top are original because the pamor goes with the waves.
i wil send a picture of it hope its clear enough because of some rust
greetings

I feel that perhaps the pesi is more eloquent than I could possibly be, Jean.

OK Alan, I hope that I interpret you correctly and it illustrates again the difficulty to assess a blade especially from pictures. I would like to get the reactions from the other contributors to this thread.
Regards

Keris connoisseurs, first here’s a little joke for you:
1. If you are presented with a keris (presumably with some luks) and you don’t know how to count how many luk it has, or you have to manually count the luk before you can decide how many luk it has, than you are fairly new to keris collecting. I'm fairly sure that none of us in this forum fall into this category.

2. If you are presented with a keris (presumably luk 3-9), and you can quickly name how many luk it has without manually counting it, and/or you made some mistake especially on luk 7 or 9 (but that's okay!) then you are an apprentice. I think I fall in this category :D

3. If you are presented with a keris (presumably luk 11-13), and you can quickly name how many luk it has without manually counting it, then you are a journeyman. I think many of this forum member fall in this category

4. If you are presented with a keris (luk 15 onwards), and you can quickly name how many luk it has without manually counting it, then you are a master. Yes I'm speaking about the silent majority :p

5. If you are presented with a sheathed keris, be it luk or straight, and you can tell whether it is luk or straight, and/or you at least once in your lifetime decide to (would have) buy a sheathed keris without seeing the blade then you are a grand master. This title reserved for few, few, select, seasoned collectors only ;) :D

Anyway...

Yes I can. The unusual dapur make a good indication, its condition doesn't look natural, garap in my opinion indicate contemporary keris--see my comment about garap further below. Material and pamor work looks good, but that doesn't always equal old keris (read antique/great age).

I’m sorry if my opinion confused you, I meant to say either, including its combination. I won't be surprised if the keris was made to look unusual intentionally.

I believe there are general consensus on that but garap can be very subjective matter to judge, so I have no further comment on that.
I have abandoned (or only loosely based my view on) some popular classification like tangguh, pamor, dapur, etc... so for me a good keris can be just about anything, I'm open to variations etc and to have some tasteful surprise sometime is nice, but the mold is there for a good reason, think of doughnut, baguette or croissant.

Jean, unfortunately I don't have any easy solution or claim that I can distinguish between the two, sorry. I doubt that geographic location and familiarity on some 'tricks of the trade' help much. I just based my view on general/universally accepted indicator. Some are easily distinguishable, some are not so, some are indistinguishable. In this matter I doubt that I’m any better than you or anyone in this forum ;)

Thank you Chandra
Sajen successfully achieved this recently, congratulations to him for getting the grand master medal! :D
Regards

:D :D :D :D

I am fairly sure that I am at best a apprentice but maybe a good "poker player"!
:p ;) :D

Tunggulametung, I like that little sketch of the way in which to assess a master. However, I cannot agree that this method of assessment is useful to assess whether a person is learned in the keris, or not. What it does tell us is how familiar that person is with handling keris. For example, a dealer who handles many keris on a daily basis could reasonably be expected to reach level 4 in 100% of cases, and to reach level 5 in most cases.

But this is not the equivalent of the understanding of the keris that is required of a true ahli keris --- or perhaps I should say it is not the equivalent of the understanding of the keris that was required of a true ahli keris.

So yes, I do agree that such a standard applied as an indicator of keris understanding is indeed a joke, and quite a good one.

I do note that you use the word "collector", but the true keris master is not the collector, nor the dealer. The true master is the Ahli Keris. The man to whom both dealers and collectors alike turn for guidance.

Here below is a free translation of part of a lecture given to (I believe) the Boworoso Tosan Aji in the late 1970's or early 1980's. The lecture was given in Javanese, and it reflects the opinions of noted ahli keris of the era between about 1880 and 1940.

QUOTE:-

" In the understanding of keris there are three levels:-
1. To learn the features (keadaan lahir)
2. To learn the form
3. To learn the feeling.

The way that was used in olden times to assess the features of a keris was to understand the period, the shape and the condition (sepuh, tangguh, wutuh).
Another guide that was used was mor-ja-si-rap-ngun :- mor=pamor, ja=waja, si=wesi, rap=garap, ngun=wangun.

Good pamor has the following features:- the pamor on both sides of the blade is the same and covers the same amount of the blade. The exception to this rule is pamor tangkis.
Good waja does not bend or break easily
Good wesi is fine grained and smooth , not easily damaged and is assessed independent of the pamor and the waja.

Good garap should be deep. For example, the kruwingan should be deep; the bend of the tikel alis should be deep and refined; the sogokan should be deep and have a cross section like a round bottomed cooking pot, the shape of the sogokan should be formed like the shape of a wading bird's beak (burung bango), the gulo milir should be deep and refined.

A good overall visual impression (pawakan) will give a harmonious feeling when viewed at arm's length. The pawakan will not lean forward too much and will not stand too straight.

Included in this first level of learning is the learning of tangguh. This is the understanding of the characteristics of the blade in a way that will give an indication of the period to which it belongs according to the decisions given to us by our ancestors who studied keris.
For example , tangguh Mataram Senopaten has the meaning that the keris was made in the Mataram period, under the rule of Panembahan Senopati. The tangguh indicators would be:- light weight, shallow waves, thin pawakan, pamor visible in the sogokan and the blumbangan, square blumbangan, the gonjo slightly bent and sometimes tending to nguceng mati but if the keris is the work of Mpu Guling the gonjo should be rontal.

To learn all that is included in level one will use a number of years, and when perfection has been reached in level one it becomes possible to proceed to level two.

In level two it is necessary to gain an understanding of the ideas of guwaya and wanda.

Guwaya is of two types:- guwaya cebleh and guwaya mendasar.

If a keris has guwaya cebleh the blade will remain pale and unattractive after it has been stained; if it has guwaya mendasar it will appear prestigious and attractive after it has been stained. We should be able to know the guwaya of a keris before it has been stained. (diwarangi)

Wanda is the personality or the feeling of a keris. A keris can cause different feelings in different people, in the same way that a man can be judged differently by different people. Examples of the feeling presented by a keris could be:- wild, brave, angry, proud, friendly, quiet, bad, afraid.

When perfection has been reached in the second level of keris understanding it becomes possible to try to reach the third level of keris understanding.

When this level has been reached it is not necessary to see a keris to judge that keris. A person who is skilled at level three of keris understanding will judge the keris from vibration alone and can receive a clear impression of the esoteric qualities of the keris. For example, it can be understood whether this keris would be good for a person in authority to own, or whether it will give safety to its owner during a journey, whether it will be good for trade, and so on.

The spirit (batin) of a keris is not necessarily the same as the judgement which comes from appraisal of the form or features of the keris. For example, a keris could be of poor or unattractive features and form, but its spirit could be good."

END QUOTE

The man who delivered this lecture was Mpu Suparman Wignyosukadgo.

My question now is this:-

In accordance with the standards that applied in times past, how many people in today's keris world have qualified as having an understanding of the keris at the most basic level?

I am addressing this subject from a Javanese perspective, because I think that in this case this is the approach that should be taken. By taking this approach I am accepting the elements of the keris belief system, as those elements are accepted in Javanese tradition.

In other words I'm not interested in getting involved in discussion about whether what I have recounted is correct or incorrect. From the Javanese traditionalist perspective it is beyond challenge and stands as an unassailable truth.


In respect of the specific keris under discussion.
All and any opinions formed of this keris are based upon photographs .
Based upon what I believe I can see in those photographs, my opinion remains as stated. The elements of the form and material are in accordance with examples of older keris that I have seen, handled and own. The weight of photographic evidence indicates age with the possibility of some alteration.

Others are of course entitled to their own opinions, however, in the absence of the physical presence of the keris itself, all opinions must be subject to the same qualification --- unless, of course, any of us has personal knowledge of the keris concerned.

Thank you for quoting the interesting lecture.
To answer your question I must say I don't know.

Yes, I believe we are all agree with that.

Hi sorry fore the late replay i was away fore some time
thanks to you all about the information about this keris verry helpfull
and again fore al the great lecture that is given tanks alot
greetings auk