Origin of this keris .

danny1976 · 22nd June 2013, 11:57 PM

Hello ,

After months of not being bussy with my collection I have sine yesterday a new keris in my home .
But i hope someone can help pointing me in the right direction for the origin of this keris . I have problems to see of it is à keris from Sumatra or from Malysia ?

And I have my doubts about the pendok , the pendok does not run op till the under part of the waranka . Or is this something that can be common ?

The pendok and the sheat have some age when i look at the patin , i cleaned one side of the pendok and it seems to be silver .
The pendokok is missing and the blade is in à bad condition , i have to clean it first.

There is à carving in both sides of the waranka , maybe it can help to find out the region .

The photo's are bad because I take them with artificial light.

asomotif · 23rd June 2013, 12:23 AM

Hello Danny,

Well, your pictures are already a lot better than those taken by the seller.
If he had posted these pictures I would have taken a shot at it as well.

My first thought is "Gayo".
But...
There are a few odd things.
- the ivory buntut. maybe a later replacement ??
- the floral decoration on the wrangka, maybe added on Borneo ?
- the hilt, jawa demam, but not very Gayo in style.

Here a few pictures of gayo keris from Museum collections.

As you can see, the pendokok not running upto the wrangka is absolutely normanl for this type.

Ps. don't overclean the blade. If this ensemble is Gayo, the blade will not be very special and this is the normal state for them to be in. It is not a javanese keris

Best regards,
Willem

danny1976 · 23rd June 2013, 01:09 AM

Hi Willem ,

Thanks for answering , I also have the idea that the buntut Could be à replacement but if it is it happend à long time ago but maybe the sheat was ment to be like this . If we look at sewars from Gayo we can find also this kind of ivory "buntut"

It wassen't me that did buy the keris from the seller , but it is mine now .

Don't worry About the blade i will not stain it but i will remove the biggest part of the rust to protect the blade.

My thought was also going in the direction of Gayo but not sure yet , especialy because the info from the seller ( no collector ) is that this keris was à gift from a malysian friend long time ago.

Sajen · 23rd June 2013, 12:09 PM

Hi Danny,

nice to have you back here! Very nice small keris. Agree with Willem, look like a Gayo keris because the pendok, only other posibility would be Minangkabau but the pendok and buntut are untypical for Minang. I am as well would remove the corrosion from the blade.

Anyway, nice addition to your collection.

Regards,

Detlef

asomotif · 23rd June 2013, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danny1976

Don't worry About the blade i will not stain it but i will remove the biggest part of the rust to protect the blade.

Hello Danny,

I am looking forward to pictures of the complete blade.

Jean · 26th June 2013, 11:10 AM

Hello Danny,
I agree with others that this interesting kris seems to originate from Northern Sumatra but the carvings on the sampir and the style of buntut may indicate a Batak influence? The hilt is from East Sumatra or Malaysia so in principle it is not matching with the kris.

Regards

A. G. Maisey · 26th June 2013, 12:53 PM

This comment is not directed at anybody's comments in this thread, nor is it directed at any person, nor is it directed at the opinions of any other people.

I am not attempting to generate any sort of debate or conflict or confrontation.

This comment is in the nature of a general observation that may be taken as anybody sees fit.

During my years of keris interest I have had a very great number of keris in my possession. A lot of those keris have come to me direct from the people who collected them in the first place. This started with items that I was given by my grandfather, each and every item he passed to me was collected from its place of origin, not bought from a dealer or other person outside the place of origin.

WWII seemed to produce a lot of items that came from little out of the way places, like fishing villages and poor urban kampungs. I have acquired more than a few keris that were WWII bring-homes, and along with the keris I also got a story, mostly a reasonably believable one, or at least one that a confirmed skeptic such as I am would be prepared to accept as probably true.

My mother's cousin lived for a lengthy period in rural Malaya at the cessation of WWII and he sent several keris to his mother. I saw and handled these keris frequently when I was a child, and through until the death of my mother's aunt when I was in my teens.

Since I've been going to Indonesia --- approaching 50 years now --- I have acquired keris that have been bought direct from villages and direct from the children or grand children of their original owners.

The long and the short of it is that I have had a lot of keris through my hands that were not associated with palace culture, nor with major societal dictates, but rather were keris of ordinary people most often living well outside the area of influence of any major cultural influence other than that of their own village or kampung environment.

What I have found is that these "poor-man's keris" have seldom complied with the cultural dictates of the nearest major cultural influence. In most cases they have given the impression that the original owner tried to upgrade his keris with whatever slightly better component that came into his hands.

So it is that I have had keris with Javanese blades housed in Bugis scabbards and with Bali hilt, but reliably reported as coming from the North Coast of Sumatera. This is just one example that comes to mind easily, but it serves to illustrate the point:- the keris owned and worn by an ordinary person in a village or other lower social strata environment does not/did not necessarily reflect the style of the dominant keris form in that area.

The keris of the ordinary man can be, and often is, a mish-mash of bits and pieces that is sufficient to serve the purpose, and if that purpose is an attempt at display and the possibility of hierarchical challenge (ie, appearing to do better than your next door neighbour), then the bits and pieces will be the best that he could get hold of, no matter where they originally came from.

With a keris that purports to represent a palace or societal tradition, then everything about that keris should conform to the relative tradition, except perhaps for some ruler's keris, because sometimes rulers made their own rules and did whatever they felt like doing.

However, where a keris is very clearly less than one which we could see coming from a palace environment, and is more likely to have come from a lower stratum of society then it is possibly advisable to look very critically at the way in which that keris is presented and if possible consider its provenance, in order to try to determine if that keris has come to us in the form it was used in its last indigenous environment.

Rather than simply saying that such and such a component is incorrect for the scabbard or whatever, we might be better advised to attempt to determine if this keris, in this form was actually used and worn in a particular area at a particular time.

This approach would be a reversal of what most of us now do. We tend to look at styles and forms and say that such and such belongs somewhere or other and then we change components to bring the particular keris into compliance with a particular type. I've done this, and I believe we all have.

A better approach would be to reverse this way of thinking and try to build a case for keeping the keris as it is. The argument against this approach is of course the role of the ignorant dealer, whether in the homeland, or outside it. Many less than admirable dealers tend to gaily mix and match simply to produce more marketable products.

As I said at the outset of this post:- I'm not having a go at anybody, I'm simply putting a few of my thoughts on this subject up for others to think about.

22nd June 2013, 11:57 PM	#1
danny1976 Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Holland Posts: 245	Origin of this keris . Hello , After months of not being bussy with my collection I have sine yesterday a new keris in my home . But i hope someone can help pointing me in the right direction for the origin of this keris . I have problems to see of it is à keris from Sumatra or from Malysia ? And I have my doubts about the pendok , the pendok does not run op till the under part of the waranka . Or is this something that can be common ? The pendok and the sheat have some age when i look at the patin , i cleaned one side of the pendok and it seems to be silver . The pendokok is missing and the blade is in à bad condition , i have to clean it first. There is à carving in both sides of the waranka , maybe it can help to find out the region . The photo's are bad because I take them with artificial light. Attached Images

23rd June 2013, 12:23 AM	#2
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,225	Hello Danny, Well, your pictures are already a lot better than those taken by the seller. If he had posted these pictures I would have taken a shot at it as well. My first thought is "Gayo". But... There are a few odd things. - the ivory buntut. maybe a later replacement ?? - the floral decoration on the wrangka, maybe added on Borneo ? - the hilt, jawa demam, but not very Gayo in style. Here a few pictures of gayo keris from Museum collections. As you can see, the pendokok not running upto the wrangka is absolutely normanl for this type. Ps. don't overclean the blade. If this ensemble is Gayo, the blade will not be very special and this is the normal state for them to be in. It is not a javanese keris Best regards, Willem Attached Images

26th June 2013, 11:10 AM	#6
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Hello Danny, I agree with others that this interesting kris seems to originate from Northern Sumatra but the carvings on the sampir and the style of buntut may indicate a Batak influence? The hilt is from East Sumatra or Malaysia so in principle it is not matching with the kris. Regards Last edited by Jean; 26th June 2013 at 05:16 PM.

23rd June 2013, 01:09 AM	#3
danny1976 Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Holland Posts: 245	Hi Willem , Thanks for answering , I also have the idea that the buntut Could be à replacement but if it is it happend à long time ago but maybe the sheat was ment to be like this . If we look at sewars from Gayo we can find also this kind of ivory "buntut" It wassen't me that did buy the keris from the seller , but it is mine now . Don't worry About the blade i will not stain it but i will remove the biggest part of the rust to protect the blade. My thought was also going in the direction of Gayo but not sure yet , especialy because the info from the seller ( no collector ) is that this keris was à gift from a malysian friend long time ago.

23rd June 2013, 12:09 PM	#4
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 8,779	Hi Danny, nice to have you back here! Very nice small keris. Agree with Willem, look like a Gayo keris because the pendok, only other posibility would be Minangkabau but the pendok and buntut are untypical for Minang. I am as well would remove the corrosion from the blade. Anyway, nice addition to your collection. Regards, Detlef

26th June 2013, 12:53 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	This comment is not directed at anybody's comments in this thread, nor is it directed at any person, nor is it directed at the opinions of any other people. I am not attempting to generate any sort of debate or conflict or confrontation. This comment is in the nature of a general observation that may be taken as anybody sees fit. During my years of keris interest I have had a very great number of keris in my possession. A lot of those keris have come to me direct from the people who collected them in the first place. This started with items that I was given by my grandfather, each and every item he passed to me was collected from its place of origin, not bought from a dealer or other person outside the place of origin. WWII seemed to produce a lot of items that came from little out of the way places, like fishing villages and poor urban kampungs. I have acquired more than a few keris that were WWII bring-homes, and along with the keris I also got a story, mostly a reasonably believable one, or at least one that a confirmed skeptic such as I am would be prepared to accept as probably true. My mother's cousin lived for a lengthy period in rural Malaya at the cessation of WWII and he sent several keris to his mother. I saw and handled these keris frequently when I was a child, and through until the death of my mother's aunt when I was in my teens. Since I've been going to Indonesia --- approaching 50 years now --- I have acquired keris that have been bought direct from villages and direct from the children or grand children of their original owners. The long and the short of it is that I have had a lot of keris through my hands that were not associated with palace culture, nor with major societal dictates, but rather were keris of ordinary people most often living well outside the area of influence of any major cultural influence other than that of their own village or kampung environment. What I have found is that these "poor-man's keris" have seldom complied with the cultural dictates of the nearest major cultural influence. In most cases they have given the impression that the original owner tried to upgrade his keris with whatever slightly better component that came into his hands. So it is that I have had keris with Javanese blades housed in Bugis scabbards and with Bali hilt, but reliably reported as coming from the North Coast of Sumatera. This is just one example that comes to mind easily, but it serves to illustrate the point:- the keris owned and worn by an ordinary person in a village or other lower social strata environment does not/did not necessarily reflect the style of the dominant keris form in that area. The keris of the ordinary man can be, and often is, a mish-mash of bits and pieces that is sufficient to serve the purpose, and if that purpose is an attempt at display and the possibility of hierarchical challenge (ie, appearing to do better than your next door neighbour), then the bits and pieces will be the best that he could get hold of, no matter where they originally came from. With a keris that purports to represent a palace or societal tradition, then everything about that keris should conform to the relative tradition, except perhaps for some ruler's keris, because sometimes rulers made their own rules and did whatever they felt like doing. However, where a keris is very clearly less than one which we could see coming from a palace environment, and is more likely to have come from a lower stratum of society then it is possibly advisable to look very critically at the way in which that keris is presented and if possible consider its provenance, in order to try to determine if that keris has come to us in the form it was used in its last indigenous environment. Rather than simply saying that such and such a component is incorrect for the scabbard or whatever, we might be better advised to attempt to determine if this keris, in this form was actually used and worn in a particular area at a particular time. This approach would be a reversal of what most of us now do. We tend to look at styles and forms and say that such and such belongs somewhere or other and then we change components to bring the particular keris into compliance with a particular type. I've done this, and I believe we all have. A better approach would be to reverse this way of thinking and try to build a case for keeping the keris as it is. The argument against this approach is of course the role of the ignorant dealer, whether in the homeland, or outside it. Many less than admirable dealers tend to gaily mix and match simply to produce more marketable products. As I said at the outset of this post:- I'm not having a go at anybody, I'm simply putting a few of my thoughts on this subject up for others to think about.