[marto suwignyo]

I feel it is rather difficult to be able to attach any certainty to the tangguh or classification of any keris blade based upon what can be seen in a photograph.

All one can see in a photo is an outline, and sometimes, if it is a good photograph, an indication of the blade features.

When we attempt to determine the tangguh of a blade we need a lot more information than is available to us from a photograph.

It may be a legitimate exercise to propose a tangguh from a photo in the case of some blades, as for instance a Sigaluh blade which is unique in its proportions and was very seldom a subject for later copies, but to affix a Pajajaran tangguh from a photo is something that is quite impossible to do , as even with the blade in the hand, Pajajaran and Mataram Senopaten are often confused, even by people experienced in the application of the parameters which can indicate a tangguh.

Pajajaran blades were subject to copy by Gresik, and it is difficult to tell a Gresik copy from an original Pajajaran unless you feel the texture of the blade surface:- Gresik pamor has a greasy feel to it, Pajajaran does not. Also, Pajajaran blades tend to have a tiny gap between the blade core and the pamor, this can often only be seen under magnification.

Then we have Tuban-Pajajaran blades, and Pajajaran itself is split into two distinct classifications, one having a blumbangan that is boto adeg (brick standing), one having a blumbangan that is boto rubuh (fallen brick ). Again , some ahli keris maintain that there are in fact three distinct categories of Pajajaran keris, not just two.

There are about a dozen indicators that must be considered before we can confidently give a tangguh for a blade, and be able to defend our decision that the blade in question could be of that particular tangguh. An outline from a photograph is simply not enough to go on, especially when there are so many possibilities, as is the case with blades of tangguh Pajajaran.

Also, it is wise to bear this in mind:- the word "tangguh" means "estimate". Even if you have twenty ahli keris in agreement that a blade carries the features of a particular tangguh, it is still just an opinion. It can never be graven in stone, unless the provenance of the particular blade is known.

Additionally there is no evidence that the tangguh classification that attaches to extremely old blades, such as Sigaluh, Pajajaran, or Jengala is representative of that blade having a point of origin in time that equates to the historic period from which it takes its name.

As many ahli keris in Central Jawa will say:- "tangguh ngak sungguh". Roughly, "tangguh is not real". The tangguh system is a good and a necessary system to allow us to classify keris, but it should be used within the context for which it was developed.

As for Palembang, there are several styles of blade that can be associated with Palembang, but the one style that we can be certain of as Palembang in origin, and not a blade that has come into Palembang by trade, is the Palembang blade style having the features of a Central Javanese blade, but with variations in material and execution. The Palembang court had an association with Central Javanese courts from the time of Sultan Agung.

When we wish to give a tangguh, or a classification to a keris blade, it is always best to very cautious. In the case of the blade in this thread, perhaps the best we can say is that it has shallow waves similar to the waves of a Pajajaran blade. But it also has the steeply angled gonjo that we associate with old Madura blades. Personally, I would not be prepared to attempt to give a classification for this blade unless I held it in my hand, and it was freshly stained.