New keris?

[scratch]

G'day
I like this keris, it is striking to the eye feels nice in hand, to me.
In shape it is similiar to the earliar piece I posted. This keris would be late 20th C? Regardless, it is skillfully executed I think
Are there rules of thumb regarding identifying old v new keris?

Cheers,

Dan

[Rick]

Determining age can be a problem; many new keris are artificially aged and sold as antiques .

Your blade appears to come from Madura and may not have a core; hard for me to tell; if there is a core it is thin .
The blade seems to have been given a fairly heavy etching as it appears topographical . I have a similar Madura blade .
Here is that pamor type with a normal etch see pic below .

I don't think that this was done to deceive , rather more for effect .

I believe this is newer work .

Rick

Could I recommend a book or two ?

Garret and Bronwen Solyum .
The World of The Javanese Keris . (Erik's Edge has it)

David van Duuren
The Kris .

[PenangsangII]

dera Rick,

I can see the steel core in your keris, but Scratch's example looks like having no steel core, or simply the pamor layering is "nerjah landhep" which is considered bad

[Rick]

We must also remember that keris pamor Buntil Mayit is also generally a coreless blade .


Bad or good ?

[A. G. Maisey]

When we talk about blades with cores, and blades with no cores, we need to keep a few things in mind.

First is the age of the blade. Is it old? Current era? Brand new?

If it is an old blade, and it has a manipulated pamor, it will most certainly have a core.

However, a new or current era blade might have a core, or might not.

The blade with the core will be the superior blade to the one with no core, however, the blade with no core could well be a superbly made blade, with no weld flaws, and with beautifully executed pamor.

What you get, should be reflected in the value of the blade.

The new or current era blade with no core should cost less than an equally well made new or current era blade that has been constructed with a core.

Now, if we talk about older blades, and we look at manipulated pamors, those blades will often not be as well made as the more recent blades, they will certainly be in a lesser state of preservation, and if they are any good at all, the value will be multiples of the new or current era blade.

We need to be realistic in the appraisal of a keris.

Its no good simply saying that something is "good", or "bad", or anything else for that matter.

We need to appraise the blade within its applicable parameters.

This blade that Scratch has shown us is a current era blade; it appears not to have a core, however, the pamor has been well managed, and I cannot see any obvious flaws in the welding; the garap (coldwork) is good. Overall this is a good example of its type.

Yes, I agree, if it had been made on a core it would better. If it was pre-WWII it would also be better.

However, I'll put money on it that Scratch did not pay the price of a current era keris made on a core, nor did he pay the price of a pre-WWII keris.

This is a good example of its type, and it should not be criticised for being what it obviously is not.

[PenangsangII]

Thanks for your lengthy clarification Alan. Actually I was not trying to critisize Scratch's keris as being bad as I was rather trying to point out that nerjah landep is generally considered bad - aesthetically and esoterically. Furthermore, though of Jawanese ethnicity, I live in within Malay culture that considers keris first & foremost a weapon. So, I cannot imagine this type of keris being actually used..... I guess it is my bad

[A. G. Maisey]

Penangsang, its nobody's "bad"---whatever that might mean.

My comments were general, and not aimed specifically at you, had they been, I would have made it clear.

May I suggest a little less sensitivity?

As to the question of suitability of Scratch's keris as a weapon, again, we need to be realistic in the appraisal of a keris. This is a current era keris, made as art, not as weaponry. It is unrealistic to apply standards to this keris which the maker did not apply.

Were it an old keris, made with probable intent to be used as a weapon, it could be criticised for failing to satisfy this function. As a current era keris, made as artistic expression, such criticism cannot be applied.

Agreed, if the pamor enters the edge of a blade, or even enters its gusen, that is evidence of less than wonderful skill---or perhaps care--- on the part of the maker, however, in Javanese and Madurese keris, this deficiency will be found 9 times out of ten. The only blade form where we can almost certainly rely upon this fault failing to occur is the Bugis, and often the Peninsula forms, and this can be easily understood, as these blade forms have prioritised weapon functionality above artistic expression; the manner in which these blades are carved virtually guarantees that the pamor will not enter the gusen.

Realism in appraisal calls for standards specific to the blade identity being applied to the blade in question.

We do not appraise a keris of Pajajaran classification according to the same standards that we apply to a keris of Surakarta classification.Nor do we apply the standards of a Javanese keris to a Bugis keris--- or vice versa.

[scratch]

G'Day Gentlemen,
I lost a more detailed reply, sorry for brevity of post.
Thank you Rick, PanangsangII, A G Maisey for your communication, candor and clarity.
I have found discussion and photo of quality new keris very useful.
I have acquired a small keris collection unexpectedly. It may or may not have been a foolish decision I do like the collection and am enjoying learning more from all the informative posts and threads Thanks to All for sharing.
A G Maisey Thanks for sharing cengkrong info and visuals in my first post. Looking at the photos you povided and the picture in Kris Gli Invincibili, pg 41, I believe I have an example. are these uncommon? 18 5/8 blade, 24 3/4 in scabbard. Quality wise/weapon wise this is at the higher end I feel.
I am enjoying the posts, past and present very much. Thank you to All for sharing. I hope to post a few pieces to get other opinions and try to guage what I have.

Sincere thank and regards

Daniel

[Henk]

That's a nice balinese keris. Dapur cundrik if I'm not mistaken. The mendak is missing. The scabbard has a pendok.
Nice piece. Congrats!

[scratch]

Cheers Henk I had thought this blade to be "straight but with an unusual slant". Piece has a seperate gongo. Balinese

[Rick]

That looks like a keris pedang or Ligan .

[Marcokeris]

Mr. Ganjawulung gave me this gift (sarong and pendok) some time ago. At that time the gajaman was not till completely finish (there was not the final polishing). Slowly slowly i have finish the work and then i have find a blade....but i don't remember what kind of wood is this and what is the name!
Dear Ganja please can help me to know the name?

[Marcokeris]

Sorry I wanted to do a new thread but i have do a mistake

[A. G. Maisey]

I dislike intensely getting involved in dhapur discussion, because there is this tendency to apply Javanese dhapur names to keris forms from various other places, where the same name often will not apply, and also because even within Jawa itself opinions on the salient features of particular dhapurs can vary greatly.

However, this keris is an interesting form, and I will throw a comment into the ring.

The pawakan of this blade is certainly very like unto a cundrik or cengkrong, but it appears to have a rolled edge, or back-pipe as the continuation of the wadidang, so I don't think we can apply these names.

I think it might be able to be called a ligan, as Rick suggests.

Yes, there is no uwer fitted, however, in my experience, uwer are very seldom in evidence in the vast majority of Balinese keris, especially older ones.

[Henk]

[QUOTE=A. G. Maisey]there is this tendency to apply Javanese dhapur names to keris forms from various other placesQUOTE]

Alan, you are completely right. I noticed among fellow collectors here in Holland that we use the Javanese names for the dhapur and other parts on keris not from Java, because we all know what we mean. In that case we speak the same language.
Using Javanese names is because we simply haven't the knowledge to use the names belonging to the parts of keris originated outside Java.

Maybe a list of names for Balinese, Madura and Sumatran keris parts could be useful. This part of kerisknowledge is disapearing.

[A. G. Maisey]

I think maybe it has already disappeared Henk.

It probably doesn't matter a great deal if collectors in Holland or collectors in US, or collectors in Australia use Javanese names to describe a dhapur or pamor, or ricikan---as you say the person you're talking to knows what you mean. For that matter you could use Dutch, or English or any other language, they'd all serve the same purpose of conveying an idea from one person to another.

However, the whole problem with this name game of dhapur and pamor is that there is only one name that is correct, and that is only correct according to the pakem that defines it, and within the cultural framework that produced the pakem. Move 40 miles down the road and the rules change.

To be honest, I gave up on dhapur and pamor names maybe 30 years ago. As soon as I realised that people in different keris study groups and different cultural alignments in Jawa itself cannot agree over a lot of the supposedly "correct" names, I asked myself why I, a bule with no affiliation with any keris study group, or any Javanese cultural group, should bother to be too pedantic about which is the supposedly "correct" name, and which is not. Yes, I tend towards the parameters set by Surakarta, but that it a tendency, it is not iron-bound.

Yes, many of the common forms and motifs will have the same name in various places, but I once listened to a debate between two ---or maybe three--- very respected ahli keris as to what the correct ricikan for a particular dhapur--- I think it was Anoman--- were. It went on interminably, it amounted to no more than opinion, and it left one of these gentlemen fuming and frothing at the mouth.There was no resolution.All concerned went away believing he was correct and the others were uneducated fools.

I don't think we can use Javanese names for many, if not most keris from places outside Jawa, because even though a Balinese keris might be close to a particular Javanese dhapur, it will probably vary in some minor detail, and in any case, the pawakan is wrong before you go anywhere. Then you need to ask yourself which Javanese pakem you're using.

In my opinion it is better to describe any but the most simple keris forms in terms of their characteristics, rather than by trying to affix a dhapur name that even in Jawa itself, as applied to a Javanese blade, many people will have differing opinions on.

[Henk]

I already thought so that this knowledge was gone for the greatest part, Alan. Still you speak about uwer and not about mendak. May i assume that uwer is balinese for mendak, or is an uwer a complete different object compared to the mendak?

About trying to give names to the parts of a keris or weapon. I completely agree with you. As a matter of fact I do remember I posted a chopper. In that discussion the object got about three different names. In this village it was called that, and in that village it was called that. And is it worth quarreling about the name of an object? Only when a sword is called a spear the mistake is definitely clear.

In an old Dutch book about keris you can find a few dhapur names, but the author says the same you said. Describe the keris in terms of their characteristics. I think we might better stick to that, although we humans wish to categorize things.

[David]

Henk and Alan, i can see both your points. I brought a related question up just recently in regards to the proper name of the selut-like part of this Sumatran keris that was being called a mendak in this thread:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6923
Perhaps this part on this Sumatran keris no longer has a name in that culture that anyone can remember, but it certainly isn't a mendak even if we all know what we mean when we say it. Yet no one on that thread seemed to want to explore what it's true name might be. It seems that Javanese terms are the catch-all for all things keris these days. The same terms even get applied to Moro kris at times. I agree with Alan that many times our own languages can provide us with the words needed to describe different parts of the keris, but sometimes our own languages fail us. Also, as students of the keris it is just nice to learn what is "correct" or at least as close to "correct" as we can possible be. I would rather have a few arguable choices for this selut-like part on this Sumatran keris than to call it a mendak.
Oh, and yes Henk, uwer is the Balinese mendak.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, I believe the correct name for a Balinese keris ring is uwer; I think this name is used in Jogja too, however this Jogja usage is probably corrupted, because the original meaning in Javanese for uwer in relation to keris was to refer to the carving of a ring around the bottom of the jejeran---over the years it seems as if maybe people in Jogja have now applied it to the mendak.

In my experience everybody in Bali seems to call the uwer a cincin---"cincin" simply means "ring", which is an accurate enough description. But the formal, correct word does seem to be uwer.

David, I do not know of a published reference for Sumatra keris, and I myself have no experience in that area, but Gardner calls the two types of fitting, both the shallow Bugis-like one, and the deeper South Sumatra one, by the same name:- pendongkok.This may or may not be correct in the local South Sumatra dialects, but its probably a bit more accurate than "mendak".

This whole "name game" is something I've been opposed to for most of my life, and those who know me well will attest to this.

Indonesian is a "new" language, in that it was artificially imposed as an official language on the many groups of people who were drawn together to form the modern country of Indonesia.The foundation of the language is a form of Malay that is spoken in South Sumatra. Thus the "correct" names of many items, not just weaponry or keris, must come from the dialect of the area from which the item originates.

Now, if we look at the Javanese language, we find that linguists tell us---and my own experience bears this out---that we are looking at a non-standardised language, the speakers of which each seem to regard the words they use as their own personal property which can be changed, altered, manipulated for one reason or another, provided the meaning remains more or less clear.

Within the boundaries of the area where Javanese in one form or another is spoken, the name given to a specific implement can often vary.An implement which may look exactly the same as another implement, but with a minor imperceptible variation, can have a different name. In one village something may be called one thing, in another village the same thing may be called something else, however, it appears that for the most part, all these varying names are mutually intelligible.

I have a working knowledge of the Javanese language, and I probably know more of the history and theory of the Javanese language than do most speakers of this language, and what I can see is that the language is used as a medium for both social communication and social exclusion.

I do not know much at all about the other languages of Indonesia, but if they are in any way like Javanese, then once again we will see non-standardised languages.

With this background, I simply cannot see any real use in being pedantic about the name of anything.

In application to weaponry and keris, if we wish to give something a name that comes from an Indonesian cultural source, then perhaps we should specify the source and the time frame when we use the name.The time frame is also important, because the application of words to objects alters over time.

I think that it is probably true that Javanese terminology is in the process of achieving domination of keris terminology in all keris cultures. This is simply a continuation of the thread of history:- the keris came from Jawa in the first place, when it went into other areas perhaps the Javanese terminology did not follow it, a local keris vocabulary developed, but now that the modern world has compressed distance, the Javanese terminology is once again being wedded to the object which originated from Jawa.

However, the purpose of language is to move an idea from one person's mind, to the mind of another person.
Provided the idea is moved, language has served its purpose.
It may be of academic interest to know, and to be able to use the many and various words that constitute the keris vocabulary as it is spread across South East Asia.
However, for the sake of communication, I personally believe that it is quite acceptable to call a jejeran an ukiran, or a gagang, or a pegangan, or hilt, or a handle.
A wrongko can be a warangka, or a sarung, or scabbard, or even a sheath.
A wilah can be a mata, or a blade.
The word I would use would depend upon the person I was speaking with and the situation.

I would like to suggest that we do not become too particular about the words we use when we are talking about keris.Yes, I agree there is a degree of interest in knowing the various names of things, but when we lack the social and cultural background to understand the the meaning, either actual or implied of a particular word, of what use is the word?

Many of us can name the various ricikan of a keris.
How many of us know the meanings, actual, implied and symbolic, overt and covert of those names?

Let's not get too tied up with words.