Krisses Jalak Buda

Greybeard · 6th July 2010, 01:05 PM

Dear Jean,

I first thought that I cannot contribute to your thread, but now I notice one detail with the first keris you post that makes me wonder: Do I see a turned over mendak or is it a metuk, permanently fixed to the pesi (as seen on tombak)?

Best regards,

Heinz

Jean · 6th July 2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greybeard

Dear Jean,

I first thought that I cannot contribute to your thread, but now I notice one detail with the first keris you post that makes me wonder: Do I see a turned over mendak or is it a metuk, permanently fixed to the pesi (as seen on tombak)?

Best regards,

Heinz

Dear Heinz,
Both krisses are fitted with an integrated methuk (as it should be). The top one has some rust embedded in it but of course I did not do anything to it except applying anti-rust oil for future conservation.
Best regards
Jean

A. G. Maisey · 8th July 2010, 05:10 AM

Jean, the keris of which you show images are not pure keris budho, but rather of a type intermediate between keris budho and the early modern keris.

As to why they are given the classification designation of "Singosari", well, that's something that nobody can answer at this remove. But don't let it worry you, its only a classification, and might just as well be given any designation.

When we start to involve ourselves with tangguh, which you are doing with these questions, there are two major ways you can go:- accept everything as an item of faith, or reject everything as so much invention.

To be fair, there is a third way:- accept as more or less historically accurate those classifications that can be logically supported, and regard those classifications which cannot be logically supported as indicative of possibilities only.

Jean · 8th July 2010, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, the keris of which you show images are not pure keris budho, but rather of a type intermediate between keris budho and the early modern keris.

As to why they are given the classification designation of "Singosari", well, that's something that nobody can answer at this remove. But don't let it worry you, its only a classification, and might just as well be given any designation.

When we start to involve ourselves with tangguh, which you are doing with these questions, there are two major ways you can go:- accept everything as an item of faith, or reject everything as so much invention.

To be fair, there is a third way:- accept as more or less historically accurate those classifications that can be logically supported, and regard those classifications which cannot be logically supported as indicative of possibilities only.

Dear Alan,
Thank you very much for your reply which perfectly meets my expectations and reinforces my doubts. In a few lines you said it all!
My 2 pieces are typical specimens of this type of intermediate krisses, and I agree that they cannot be accurately dated, and that these pieces are probably from different periods as some of them have pamor for instance. Have you any picture of an original keris Budho to show us?
Regarding the judgement about the tangguh matter I fully agree with your cautious statement, personally I follow the intermediate (third) way and will use it in my new book.
Thank you very much again and best regards
Jean

A. G. Maisey · 8th July 2010, 11:22 AM

Jean, to be brutally honest, my approach to tangguh varies according to the company I am in.

If I'm in Jawa with gentlemen who are very traditional followers of Javanese culture and philosophy, I agree with everything that is said --- it is not my place to to attempt to lecture people on their own culture.

Shut up. Listen. Learn.

If I am with people who are convinced that they already know all there is to be known, I do the same thing:-

Shut up. Listen. Learn -- or perhaps be mildly amused.

If I am with gentlemen who can take a calm, balanced, and logical view of the world and all things in it, I am prepared to adopt the third way and attempt to justify my acceptance of this approach.

As to an image of a typical keris budho, I do have a number of these and I am probably prepared to provide an image. Leave it with me, I'll see what I can do.

Jean · 8th July 2010, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, to be brutally honest, my approach to tangguh varies according to the company I am in.

As to an image of a typical keris budho, I do have a number of these and I am probably prepared to provide an image. Leave it with me, I'll see what I can do.

Dear Alan,
You are a very wise man, I also try to adopt this approach but am less "Javanesed" than you so I can't help to give my careful opinion sometimes with people whom I know well ....
I am sure that all the forumites will be very interested to see the pictures of your keris Budho as this is not a common occurrence!
Thank you again and best regards
Jean

Mick · 8th July 2010, 04:50 PM

Jean

Here is basicly what they look like. There has been a market for reproductions of this pieces for a long time. Based on the sheath that was provided for this piece I imagine that this was assembled in the 1930's. Normally there was no pamor on the real pieces. This is a giveaway on this one.

8th July 2010, 04:50 PM	#7
Mick Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Orlando Posts: 104	Jean Here is basicly what they look like. There has been a market for reproductions of this pieces for a long time. Based on the sheath that was provided for this piece I imagine that this was assembled in the 1930's. Normally there was no pamor on the real pieces. This is a giveaway on this one. Attached Images

6th July 2010, 01:05 PM	#1
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Dear Jean, I first thought that I cannot contribute to your thread, but now I notice one detail with the first keris you post that makes me wonder: Do I see a turned over mendak or is it a metuk, permanently fixed to the pesi (as seen on tombak)? Best regards, Heinz

8th July 2010, 05:10 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Jean, the keris of which you show images are not pure keris budho, but rather of a type intermediate between keris budho and the early modern keris. As to why they are given the classification designation of "Singosari", well, that's something that nobody can answer at this remove. But don't let it worry you, its only a classification, and might just as well be given any designation. When we start to involve ourselves with tangguh, which you are doing with these questions, there are two major ways you can go:- accept everything as an item of faith, or reject everything as so much invention. To be fair, there is a third way:- accept as more or less historically accurate those classifications that can be logically supported, and regard those classifications which cannot be logically supported as indicative of possibilities only.

8th July 2010, 11:22 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Jean, to be brutally honest, my approach to tangguh varies according to the company I am in. If I'm in Jawa with gentlemen who are very traditional followers of Javanese culture and philosophy, I agree with everything that is said --- it is not my place to to attempt to lecture people on their own culture. Shut up. Listen. Learn. If I am with people who are convinced that they already know all there is to be known, I do the same thing:- Shut up. Listen. Learn -- or perhaps be mildly amused. If I am with gentlemen who can take a calm, balanced, and logical view of the world and all things in it, I am prepared to adopt the third way and attempt to justify my acceptance of this approach. As to an image of a typical keris budho, I do have a number of these and I am probably prepared to provide an image. Leave it with me, I'll see what I can do.