Sheath Motive
 

dear Kerislovers,

I am deeply inspired by Gonjo's posting in the Kalawija thread, especially his shealth motive. So remarkable. Thank you, Gonjo, for posting it.

I would like to invite all of you to share by posting pictures of sheath we have. So, we can enjoy this weekend by watching the art of Keris sheath.

Bon weekend

Usman

dear kerislovers,

I also would like to invite you to continue our discussion in the thread "Keris & Spirit". If talking about keris and spirit, a thing is still undiscussed there: Nayuh/Tayuh (anyone knows a term in English for Nayuh/Tayuh/Tayuhan)

Okay, see you there.

Usman

Pelet Kendhit
 

Dear Raden,

Your Yogyakartanese sheath in the picture, bearing a "kendhit" (like belt motive) either in the "pelokan" (?) or the hilt. Say it in English, "belted motive sheath?" and "belted motive hilt"...

There are some kinds of "kendhit". It depends on the belt motive. There is also "kendhit rante" (chain-belt). Some people believed that keris sheath with "kendhit rante" is good for people with profession of: prosecutor, judge, police. But full kendhit like yours, some believed that's good for everybody who are searching for success (See in Bambang Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi, cf "kendhit" or kendit).

Tha "wanda" (special style) of your sheath model, is "gayaman mangkurat" (supposed to be from Amangkurat era's model). And the hilt's model is "narada kandha" (maybe like the figure of Narada -- name of a god -- in wayang, which has big belly).

The pendhok (scabbard?), bears "slorok" (you can slide the ornamented part from the pendhok)..

Ganjawulung

Dear Gonjo

The pendok motif "Semen Jlegut", I'm wrong?

Dear Gonjo

The pendok motif "Semen Jlegut", I'm wrong?

see another refreshing motive for this night

You will also sometimes find "kendhit" as pamor on the gonjo.
The ensemble of this first keris is quite striking, with the matching "kendhit" on hilt and wrongko. Very nice. I would love to see better photos where the flash doesn't blow out the image. :)

Yes David,
We called it "ganja kendit mimang". According to Bambang Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi Keris, such ganja has good "tuah" or "angsar" (good effect?) to the owner. Good to protect against theft, good to guard your house...

David,

I m sorry. This keris, now, is in Yogya while I am in Dakar. So... perhaps next time if there is an opportunity to be in Yogyakarta, I will take a picture one more and share with you.

Usman

Kendit Rante?
 

I have a kendit sheath, but not better than Raden's. I hope, this one is a "kendit rante" (chain-belted) sheath. Or at least, "kendit wurung" according to Bambang Harsrinuksmo's Ensiklopedi.

Kendit rante, believed to be good for people with profession of prosecutor, police... But if kendit wurung, then it will only be good for hope, hope, and hope of good fortune...

The keris also has a kendit pamor in the middle of the blade. Please look at the close up this Majapahit era keris which bears dhapur "jangkung mayat" with three luks or the jangkung of the dead body... Oh, but I'm still wanting to live longer...

Ganjawulung

Two others gayaman with kendit inside

Hi Marco,

The sheath, I prefer the first one. The kendit is quite perfect. But the hilt, I would rather choose the second (tayuman) one, with "mendak" (hilt ring) of "meniran" type. Yogyakartanese hilt, is better without selut. Simplicity, is the philosophy of Yogyakarta. Contrary with Solonese, which is more "gebyar" or glamour than Yogyakartanese..

About kendit:
My dear Yogya friend, a person mention many times in first and second Enciclopedia Keris, told me that there are two kinds of kendit : real kendit and fake kendit: if i have uderstood well, the difference depends on the cut of the piece of timoho's wood relatives to the black timoho's stains in the wood itself.
Silakan could Ganya or some other forum's friend explain in the correct way this difference?
Thanks

Fake or true Kendit?
 

Marco, true kendit is easy to prove. Just look at the keris hole, whether the black stripe of kendit goes through the wood or not. Very simple isn't it? The black colour of true kendit will even goes through the back side of the sheath.

Dear Marco,
Before we define the real and fake kendhit, it would be better if we define the proper wrangka’s cut first.

The properly cut sheaths/warangkas should have slightly angled wood grains/fibres, about 45 degrees, usually ascending from left to right if we look at the ‘face’ side of warangkas. Traditionally, it is called ‘ngiris tempe’ (slicing the tempe, in the ordinary way of slicing, certainly) or ‘mayat miring.’ (So, Mas Ganjawulung, ‘mayat’ not necessarily means corpse, but might also means ‘roughly 45 degrees angled.’ Mayat might also used to define the ‘condhong – leleh’ of the keris blade).

Another alternative to ‘mayat miring’ is slightly vertical grain. The sheath maker should decides the proper angle according to the ‘pelet’ (in Timoho wood) or the grain’s pattern (in Trembalo, Sandalwood, or any other woods) for the best artistical/aesthetical appearance. These grain directions are also the best from technical point of view.

Other alternatives, such as ‘mlumah’ (‘lay down’/’sleepy’, that is, the horizontal grain), is not acceptable in traditional standar.
A special exclusion is for ‘gembol’ wood, that is, the wood which come from the lowest part of the trunk, on the ground level, just before the root. It has a very twisted grain, so ones cannot easily define the grain’s direction. The Cahaya’s picture, left side, is an example. Regarding this wood, the sheath maker would be more concern to the holes it bears, as the gembol wood usually has many holes.

Now it comes to the real and fake kendhit.

To meet the traditional sheaths cuting standard (mayat miring or vertical grain), a real kendhit pattern should be perpendicular to the wood grain. In the other words, the pelet direction should cross the grain direction. It should also pass through the warangka, as Ganjawulung said. But as the dark pattern (pelet) in timoho wood tends to grow following the wood grain direction, a straight and perpendicular pelet would be quite rare. The same condition also apply to the ‘sembur’ pelet, which is, in fact, rarer than kendhit.

Thus, which one is considered as the fake kendhit ?
1. The kendhit pattern which is parallel to the wood grain (so we have a kendhit pattern on ‘mlumah’ sheath). Remember, the kendhit pattern may also go through the warangka in this circumstance
2. The kendhit pattern which was made by drawing it (certainly a fake).
3. The kendhit pattern which was made by patching the wood with pelet from another wood. Some minor patches in kendhit pattern would be acceptable, but if the majority of the pattern come up from patching, well, it can’t be classified as a real kendhit, can it?

Mas Ganjawulung, I believe the proper name in Jogjakarta’s style mendhak you previously referred as "meniran" type is ‘mendhak lugas’ (lugas = plain, that is, without stone). Mendhak with one tier stone is ‘mendhak kendhit’, and three tiers is called ‘mendhak robyong’. A one tier mendhak with alternatively white-and-red stone (diamond and ruby) is called ‘nyonyah nginang’ (a lady chewing pinang/sirih) and those with diamond, ruby and emerald (white, red and green) is called ‘rujak wuni’ (rujak=a fruit salad). IMHO, selut on the Marco’s first hilt is also reflecting Jogjakarta philosophy : simplicity :)

Actually, IMHO, the mendhak on the Marco's second hilt isn't Jogjakarta's style mendhak. If I'm not mistaken, it is Surakarta's 'bejen'. The first one is Mendhak kendhit. See carefully at the 'ungkat-ungkatan' (the tumpeng/gunung/ cone-shape between the ball/stones)

wish may help

boedhi adhitya

Dear Mr. Boedhi
A great explanation!
Thanks a lot

Dear Mas Boedhi,

I am still in my opinion, that the second Marco's mendhak is Yogyakarta's style mendhak. According to me, it is not the "parijata" type mendhak of Solo, but "mendhak uwer" with type "bejen". My mistake was, that I mention the part of the mendhak that called "menir" or very small balls surround the bottom/top of mendhak. Pls correct me if I'm wrong. Would you please compare the two type of mendhaks from these pictures. (1) mendhak "parijata" (with bigger balls if you compare with uwer bejen of Yogyakarta in the (2) picture below.
Anyway, thanks alot Mr "dictionary" Boedhi...

At the risk of being refered to as Mr. "dictionary" David ;) :D , i have always been under the impression that "uwer" is a Balinese term for the hilt ring. I have never heard it used in association with Javanese mendaks. Can someone explain further? :shrug:

Dear David,
You may read in Mr Haryono Guritno's book (Keris Jawa). Please see page 281 on mendhaks. He mention mendhak/uwer Yogyakarta pola Bejen, mendhak/uwer Yogyakarta pola kendhit, and also mendhak/uwer Yogyakarta pola Robyong...

On page 278, Mr Guritno also mention clearly, "Mendhak atau uwer, merupakan bentuk cincin ... " etc (Mendhak or uwer, is a form of ring...) Mr Guritno also mentioned about the difference between Surakarta's mendhak and Yogyakarta's mendhak. According to Mr Guritno, mendhak (Surakarta) and uwer (Yogyakarta) ... etc

Ganjawulung

Type of Mendaks
 

Hai dear all...
Sugeng enjang, Mas Boedhi... :)

I just want to make this thread more interesting... so I try to give my opinion by some pictures. I hope can explain more clear about what I mean.

Indeed that the mendak have many variations. And many people also called as usually used at their region. So that why sometimes we hear different name of a mendak :confused: .

Mas Boedhi, I think the mendhak on the Marco's second hilt is Mendak Meniran Jogja. That because this mendak has no beads. Mendak Benjen have beads (stones) ;)

Rgds,

Sheath Motive
 

Oh ya, also want to post some pictures of wrangka with different motif as per title of this thread...
---------------------
p.s.: wrangka kendhit now belong to my friend ;)

David, the words "uwer" and "mendak" are both Javanese words, and use of either is probably legitimate in a Javanese context to refer to the keris fitting, however, I cannot ever recall hearing a Javanese person use the word "uwer" when talking about a mendhak. In my experience I have only ever heard the word "mendhak" used by Javanese people.

Again in my experience , the words I hear used in Bali to refer to the ring between the hilt of a keris, and the gonjo of a keris, are "uwer", and "cin-cin" ("ring", Indonesian); I have never heard "mendhak" used in Bali.

Bambang Harsrinuksmo notes that the word "uwer" is mostly used in Bali, but also used in parts of Jawa

Haryono Haryoguritno seems to consider that "uwer" is a valid alternative to "mendhak", and in a book of the nature of his publication, it would be only natural to try to cover your bases.

However, it would not be a good idea to go wandering around Solo asking dealers what sort of uwer they have available--- you'd be likely to be offered a piece of rolled up palm leaf, a bit smaller than your little finger.

Dear David,
In Jogjakarta, ‘uwer’ is the ‘krama’ form (‘higher language’, a more polite form) of mendhak. As Alan said, it is not widely use. In fact, I met only several peoples (no more than 5) who use this word, all are court’s families. Stick to ‘mendhak’ when you dealing with ‘ordinary’ peoples or dealers. ‘Kandhelan’ is the krama form of ‘pendhok’ and ‘sekar’ (bloom/flower) is for ‘pamor’.

Sugeng enjang, Mas Hidayat,

Thank you very much for the pictures. It seems we have a different approach to define Surakarta’s or Jogjakarta’s mendhak. You used the ‘small triangle’ as the indicator (Jasper & Pirngadie refered it as ‘ri pandan’/pandanus torn, see pg. 200, but please remind, I don’t speak Dutch), while I used the ‘ungkat-ungkatan’ form (the cone-shaped metal between the balls/stones. The balls/stone called ‘widheng’ by Jasper& Pirngadie)..

By studying the pictures you and Mas Ganjawulung have posted, we could see that the Surakarta’s mendhaks have a tall, thin and fang-like ungkat-ungkatan (no. 5,4,3,9 and unumbered silver mendhak pic, also the first pic by Ganjawulung) while Jogjakarta’s have a shorter, thicker, cone-shaped ungkat-ungkatan, resembling ‘tumpeng’/rice cones (pic. No. 1,2 and unumbered gold mendhak, 2nd pic by Ganjawulung but slightly too tall.Recent?). However, by using the same pictures, it’s also proven that Mas Hidayat approach also true.

If we look carefully at Marco’s 2nd pic, we could see, based on the pictures only, that the ungkat-ungkatan of Marco’s mendhak is much taller and slighly thinner than it should for Jogjakarta’s style. So I conclude, it’s Surakarta’s. I can not see any ‘ri pandan’, but if you see it (or even if you don’t), I would like to propose an explanation for this unusual mendhak : It is widely known (especially by experienced collectors) that some dealers used to ‘reassembly’ a mendhak from several broken old mendhaks. They may pick an intact parts, sometimes without caring of what style it was, and reassemble them into one ‘useable’ (or saleable) mendhak. Some parts may match, but many don’t. This would also explain why the ungkat-ungkatan doesn’t fit exactly between the widheng (the widheng is not between the cones, but go ‘behind’ it), and why the mendhak’s overall posture looks too ‘short’ (the widheng is too small). If it is the case, then it is useless to define the style, as it might be ‘mix-up’. Some call this mix-up style as ‘Klaten style’, just for a joke and not seriously (Klaten is a small city between Jogja and Solo). But I believe it’s worth to discuss it. It’s also worth to note that Jasper&Pirngadie included the ri pandan as part of ‘mendhak tjara Solo’ (page 202).

Dear Mas Ganjawulung,
I wish I really have knowledge of a dictionary :)

I must admit that I was guessing when I classify Marco’s as ‘bejen’ mainly because I don’t have an opportunity to ‘play’ with many Surakartas’, but I wasn’t guessing when classifiying it as Surakarta’s, or more exactly, as non-Jogjakarta’s. Regardless of what Guritno wrote, I would call your 2nd mendhak as ‘mendhak lugas’. I’ve never heard ‘bejen’ in Jogjakarta’s style, and the classification I’ve already posted is the classification used by Jogjakarta Court to make their Pusaka’s Inventory. Considering the vast varieties of Surakarta’s styles, Jogjakarta’s is very limited. Regarding this, I would like to quote MC Ricklefs in ‘Yogjakarta Di Bawah Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; Sejarah Pembagian Jawa’ (Jogjakarta under Sultan Mangkubumi 1749 – 1792 ; A History of The Division of Java ) :

‘..Berbeda dengan Surakarta, Yogyakarta adalah kota yang kurang bersedia menerima dominasi Eropa dan lebih siap beradaptasi dengan peluang-peluang yang dibawa oleh perubahan zaman. Namun, dalam kehidupan kulturalnya, Yogyakarta dengan sadar melestarikan bentuk-bentuk tradisional, menganggap keseniannya lebih “autentik” ketimbang kesenian Surakarta, sementara yang terakhir ini menganggapnya lebih “kuno”..”

“..Unlike Surakarta, Yogyakarta is a city which was less willing to accept European domination and more ready to adapt to opportunities which is brought by the change of time. But in cultural life, Yogyakarta consciously retains the traditional form, and see their art as more ‘authentic’ than Surakarta, while the later see it as ‘old-fashioned’..” (page 671).

According to some elders, when Java divided into 2 Courts, (1755, Giyanti Treaty), Sultan Hamengkubuwono I (Mangkubumi) inherited all the Mataram’s art, while Surakarta made a ‘new style’. Some said it is written in Babad Giyanti / Babad Palihan Negari, but I haven’t confirm this.

I do apologize for this exhausting post.

Best regards,

Boedhi Adhitya

Thank you all. I am finding this thread quite interesting.
Especially thank you Alan and Boedhi for clarifying my understand of various keris terms. :)
And thank you Mans for these excellent photos as examples in this discussion. Good illustrations always make these discussions clearer. :)

Sorry Bos... :D