New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

ferrylaki · 23rd June 2009, 09:23 AM

I like to share with you guys.
a javanese keris with dhapur mundarang, pamor: kulit semongko.

Marcokeris · 23rd June 2009, 12:32 PM

Nice keris.
What is the difference between dapur mundarang and pasopati?
What kind of wood is the ladrang?
Wood near pendok is sandalwood?

A. G. Maisey · 23rd June 2009, 03:40 PM

Ferry, please forgive me, but I must raise this question.

It is my understanding that mundharang does not have a ron dha nunut.

Your keris does.

Is this not then diluar pakem?

ferrylaki · 24th June 2009, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ferry, please forgive me, but I must raise this question.

It is my understanding that mundharang does not have a ron dha nunut.

Your keris does.

Is this not then diluar pakem?

I understand your thought about the ron dha nunut. in the book 'dhapur' which contain keris illustrations, you will find dhapur mundarang, pasopati, mangkurat with out ron dha nunut. but thats all just illustration . in the book 'keris jawa antara mistik dan nalar' by Mr.Haryono H. I find nom-noman kerises with pasopati dhapur using ron dha nunut. in other kerises photograph I also found ron dha nunut in every nom-noman kerises. Then I start to think that in nom-noman style keris ( PB IX or PB X style) the addition of ron dha nunut is very common. my personal thought, ron dha nunut make this keris even look better. so its not ' diluar pakem' in my opinion.

A. G. Maisey · 24th June 2009, 07:59 AM

Ferry, my opinions on keris are very limited. I feel that I have insufficient knowledge and experience to form my own opinions in respect of many matters to do with keris. True, I have studied the keris for more than 50 years, but unlike my teacher I have not been in daily contact with keris, and with repositories of keris knowledge during that time.

Thus, in many things to do with the keris, I do not state my own opinions, but merely repeat the opinions of the people who have taught me, principally Pak Parman (alm.).

Now, what I was taught is that the art of the keris is Karaton art. For Pak Parman (alm.) there was only one karaton, and that was the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat.

To the best of my knowledge, the most recent pakem to have the backing of the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat is the book of drawings of keris dhapur produced under the patronage of GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, the son of PB X. This book was produced in 1920.

I was also taught that for compliance with dhapur not a single feature may be added, nor removed from the specified ricikan for that dhapur. Once there is an addition or subtraction of ricikan that keris is classified as diluar pakem, or outside the accepted parameters. In absolutely strict terms, not really a keris.

This being so, I feel that it is safe to accept that according to the recognised standards of keris art within the Karaton Surakarta in the year 1920, a keris of dhapur mundharang could not possess a ron dha nunut.

And as I have said:- keris art is karaton art. The relevant karaton is the only authority on what is, and what is not correct.

The matter of what is and what is not a nom-noman keris is something that is perhaps open to debate. Some hold that it is those keris which follow Mataram Sultan Agung, others bring the date much further forward. However, I have not yet heard of anybody advancing the date for a nom-noman keris past the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus, I believe that we can comfortably accept that the Karaton Surakarta Pakem would reflect the Karaton Surakarta opinion of the correct ricikan for all dhapur listed in the year 1920, which is well into the 20th century, and by implication, must include keris nom-noman.

I freely accept that not all will agree with the pakem produced under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta, but if the art of the keris is Karaton art, then within the limits of Karaton Surakarta influence, only the pakem as accepted by that Karaton is valid.

I further accept that any other Karaton may establish its own pakem, the parameters of which are applicable within the area of influence of that karaton.

Now, in this present day, when we all know that the Karatons of Jawa have lost much of their power and influence, it could be argued that the standards set by these karatons in times past are no longer relevant. It could be argued that the art of the keris is no longer a karaton art, but has been captured by the people, and it is now up to the people to decide what is and what is not correct.

Yes, it could be argued thus, but I am afraid that in the face of this argument I would recall what I once heard Panembahan Harjonegoro once say about the extremely beautiful creation of young pandai keris:- "Yes, it is a work of art. But it is not a keris."

Ferry, I acknowledge your right to your own opinion as to what is, and what is not the correct assemblage of ricikan for a keris of dhapur mundharang. If in your opinion a keris mundharang can have a rondha nunut, and that opinion is in agreement with a number of other modern authorities, then who am I to try to convince you otherwise? I will simply comment that this opinion is at variance with the opinion of Pakubuwana X, his son GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, and my principal teacher, KRT Supowijoyo (Empu Suparman).

As for myself, I have no opinion in this matter, my knowledge is insufficient to allow me to form an opinion. I simply repeat the opinions of others.

ferrylaki · 25th June 2009, 04:13 AM

I wrote this thread' title as new made keris, dhapur mundarang. I trully understand that this keris has ricikan which different from mentioned in the book 'dhapur' establised in 1920. thats why I consider this keris as a new creation with details/ricikan different from described in book 'dhapur'.

a month ago, I'd like to consider my keris as an old made keris with estimation period of making before the book 'dhapur' established, before 1920. I did not have the courage and knowledge to estimate the tangguh yet. It's just like 'too good to be true' for me. just imagine, a simply newbie in keris world finding a true PB keris ( this cant be happening, also considering the price I paid for this keris). that's what I said to my self.

this time I just personally happy with this keris, the dhapur,pamor,and the ricikan executed beautifully. make a fine example of PB style keris in my collection.

As I mention before about nom-noman kerises shows in the book 'keris jawa' by Mr.Haryono G. personally I never hold a genuine nom-noman keris my self. I'd like to, but the opportunity never comes to me. as I grew up in Surakarta, then acquiring a nom-noman PB keris would be my desire my dream, my obsession. We'll see if I can bring this dream come true.

Any other opinion regarding this keris?

ganjawulung · 26th June 2009, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... I will simply comment that this opinion is at variance with the opinion of Pakubuwana X, his son GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, and my principal teacher, KRT Supowijoyo (Empu Suparman).

As for myself, I have no opinion in this matter, my knowledge is insufficient to allow me to form an opinion. I simply repeat the opinions of others.

Dear Alan,
First of all, apologize me for my lack of information on this matter. Did Mr Bambang Harsrinuksmo -- in his Ensiklopedi Keris -- make mistake in mentioning, that Empu Suparman's formal title was Empu Suparman Wignyosukadgo (1922-1991)? Or the gentleman Mr Harsrinuksmo had mentioned in his Ensiklopedi, was another Suparman?

According to you, empu Suparman was KRT (Kanjeng Raden Tumenggung) Supowijoyo. But Mr Harsrinuksmo (page 452, Ensiklopedi Keris) wrote, Empu Suparman had been awarded an empu's rank in Karaton Surakarta as Mantri Pande Duwung (minister of keris making) by Sri Sunan Paku Buwono XII -- the late king of Surakarta, with title name of Ki Ngabehi Suparman Wignyosukadgo...

In 1975, KRT Hardjonagoro -- the late keris expert of Surakarta -- and Ki Suparman went to Yogyakarta, to watch the keris making in Jitar, Godean, Yogyakarta by Empu Djeno Harumbrodjo. And in 1979, Ki Suparman began to make his own keris in his home, with keris making tools made by himself. (Ensiklopedi Keris)...

Thanks a lot in advance, Alan,

GANJAWULUNG

ferrylaki · 24th June 2009, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

Nice keris.
What is the difference between dapur mundarang and pasopati?
What kind of wood is the ladrang?
Wood near pendok is sandalwood?

pasopati dhapur has sogokan, and mundarang does not.
the ladrang made of trembalo wood and the wood near pendok is not sandalwood. I think its also trembalo but with light colour.

23rd June 2009, 09:23 AM	#1
ferrylaki Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 285	Javanese keris, dhapur Mundarang, Surakarta Ladrang I like to share with you guys. a javanese keris with dhapur mundarang, pamor: kulit semongko. Attached Images Last edited by ferrylaki; 23rd June 2009 at 11:03 AM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23rd June 2009, 12:32 PM	#2
Marcokeris Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Italy Posts: 928	Nice keris. What is the difference between dapur mundarang and pasopati? What kind of wood is the ladrang? Wood near pendok is sandalwood?

23rd June 2009, 03:40 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Ferry, please forgive me, but I must raise this question. It is my understanding that mundharang does not have a ron dha nunut. Your keris does. Is this not then diluar pakem?

24th June 2009, 07:59 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Ferry, my opinions on keris are very limited. I feel that I have insufficient knowledge and experience to form my own opinions in respect of many matters to do with keris. True, I have studied the keris for more than 50 years, but unlike my teacher I have not been in daily contact with keris, and with repositories of keris knowledge during that time. Thus, in many things to do with the keris, I do not state my own opinions, but merely repeat the opinions of the people who have taught me, principally Pak Parman (alm.). Now, what I was taught is that the art of the keris is Karaton art. For Pak Parman (alm.) there was only one karaton, and that was the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent pakem to have the backing of the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat is the book of drawings of keris dhapur produced under the patronage of GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, the son of PB X. This book was produced in 1920. I was also taught that for compliance with dhapur not a single feature may be added, nor removed from the specified ricikan for that dhapur. Once there is an addition or subtraction of ricikan that keris is classified as diluar pakem, or outside the accepted parameters. In absolutely strict terms, not really a keris. This being so, I feel that it is safe to accept that according to the recognised standards of keris art within the Karaton Surakarta in the year 1920, a keris of dhapur mundharang could not possess a ron dha nunut. And as I have said:- keris art is karaton art. The relevant karaton is the only authority on what is, and what is not correct. The matter of what is and what is not a nom-noman keris is something that is perhaps open to debate. Some hold that it is those keris which follow Mataram Sultan Agung, others bring the date much further forward. However, I have not yet heard of anybody advancing the date for a nom-noman keris past the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, I believe that we can comfortably accept that the Karaton Surakarta Pakem would reflect the Karaton Surakarta opinion of the correct ricikan for all dhapur listed in the year 1920, which is well into the 20th century, and by implication, must include keris nom-noman. I freely accept that not all will agree with the pakem produced under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta, but if the art of the keris is Karaton art, then within the limits of Karaton Surakarta influence, only the pakem as accepted by that Karaton is valid. I further accept that any other Karaton may establish its own pakem, the parameters of which are applicable within the area of influence of that karaton. Now, in this present day, when we all know that the Karatons of Jawa have lost much of their power and influence, it could be argued that the standards set by these karatons in times past are no longer relevant. It could be argued that the art of the keris is no longer a karaton art, but has been captured by the people, and it is now up to the people to decide what is and what is not correct. Yes, it could be argued thus, but I am afraid that in the face of this argument I would recall what I once heard Panembahan Harjonegoro once say about the extremely beautiful creation of young pandai keris:- "Yes, it is a work of art. But it is not a keris." Ferry, I acknowledge your right to your own opinion as to what is, and what is not the correct assemblage of ricikan for a keris of dhapur mundharang. If in your opinion a keris mundharang can have a rondha nunut, and that opinion is in agreement with a number of other modern authorities, then who am I to try to convince you otherwise? I will simply comment that this opinion is at variance with the opinion of Pakubuwana X, his son GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, and my principal teacher, KRT Supowijoyo (Empu Suparman). As for myself, I have no opinion in this matter, my knowledge is insufficient to allow me to form an opinion. I simply repeat the opinions of others.

25th June 2009, 04:13 AM	#6
ferrylaki Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 285	I wrote this thread' title as new made keris, dhapur mundarang. I trully understand that this keris has ricikan which different from mentioned in the book 'dhapur' establised in 1920. thats why I consider this keris as a new creation with details/ricikan different from described in book 'dhapur'. a month ago, I'd like to consider my keris as an old made keris with estimation period of making before the book 'dhapur' established, before 1920. I did not have the courage and knowledge to estimate the tangguh yet. It's just like 'too good to be true' for me. just imagine, a simply newbie in keris world finding a true PB keris ( this cant be happening, also considering the price I paid for this keris). that's what I said to my self. this time I just personally happy with this keris, the dhapur,pamor,and the ricikan executed beautifully. make a fine example of PB style keris in my collection. As I mention before about nom-noman kerises shows in the book 'keris jawa' by Mr.Haryono G. personally I never hold a genuine nom-noman keris my self. I'd like to, but the opportunity never comes to me. as I grew up in Surakarta, then acquiring a nom-noman PB keris would be my desire my dream, my obsession. We'll see if I can bring this dream come true. Any other opinion regarding this keris?