New Keris/Keris baru

dbhmgb · 1st June 2012, 07:26 PM

WOW - a fantastic thread for a new-comer to the keris! Thank you all for your contributions.

A. G. Maisey · 2nd June 2012, 12:11 AM

Yes David, all experts are not equal.

Brings to mind the old "oils ain't oils" ad.

Tangguh understanding is central to keris understanding, but even in Jawa many very highly respected people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" : "tangguh isn't real"

It doesn't matter if its real or not. It is a solid system of classification, and people of approximately equal knowledge will not vary very much in their assessments of an applicable tangguh, meaning that, for instance, a Surakarta keris from the 19th century will never be identified as a Pajajaran keris, or a Majapahit keris, or a Pajang keris. Whatever tangguh is agreed upon, that tangguh will give an indication of relative age. I stress "relative".

But at its foundation tangguh is about money. It is not about playing a game with keris to see who the smartest bloke in the room is.

It is also about keris of good quality.

At this point we enter the circle of reason, or put another way, circular reasoning.

We need to be able to identify quality in the absence of tangguh, and we do this by using the universals I've mentioned above, plus a few other indicators, such as cross section of sogokan, regularity and form of greneng, the nearness to mirror image of each face of the keris, the form and robustness of the gonjo --- etc. Little things that can tell us if this keris was really made by somebody with skill, or not.

If we decide that, yes, this is a nicely made keris, then we closely examine the indicators to try to place that keris into a legitimate classification, or tangguh, and tangguh is a system that was developed primarily to classify keris of quality. Investment property.

As I have said:- its all about money.

Salesmen will very, very frequently present a Koripan keris as Mataram, Sultan Agung. A Koripan keris has the same form as a Mataram SA, but it is marginally more coarse in some details, and it lacks "presence". The value of a Mataram SA is vastly more than a Koripan in equal condition.

The examples of misrepresentation go on and on. Gresik for Pajajaran, Tuban-Majapahit for Majapahit, Mataram-Matesih for Amangkurat --- and on, and on and on.

In Jawa, if you do not understand tangguh and you want to buy keris you are setting yourself up for not only considerable loss of money, but perhaps disappointment when you eventually discover the truth. In the Western World, this doesn't matter. You can go on believing that your Koripan is Mataram SA forever, and it is unlikely that you will ever be disillusioned. But in Jawa, sooner or later you will meet somebody with understanding and by then its too late to run back to the dealer. You've done your dough --- or you perpetuate the lie.

Keris collecting in the Western World, and in Jawa are very different entities. In the Western World we mostly do not outlay serious sums of money for keris. In Jawa the serious collector may outlay a sum of money equivalent to the cost of a house. Under these conditions it is imperative that there is some understanding of the system that sets the ground rules for value.

As for validation of an acquisition upon the basis of "I like it", I do exactly the same thing, a lot of my personal collection is comprised of "keris that I like". Not much value to anybody except me.

Jean · 2nd June 2012, 12:09 PM

Truly excellent threads Alan, you said it all, thank you!

David · 2nd June 2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

....you said it all....

Somehow i doubt that, but it's a good start...

A. G. Maisey · 2nd June 2012, 11:15 PM

Thanks for the vote of confidence Jean, but as David has indicated, what I have written is a very long way from everything that there is to be known about this facet of keris understanding.

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

ariel · 3rd June 2012, 04:41 AM

I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.

I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

Is it a naive question?

A. G. Maisey · 3rd June 2012, 05:45 AM

Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated.

I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.

Gardner did not claim that he showed the kerises concerned to experts, nor did he show them to Indonesians, he sought the opinion of a number of Malay people, logical, as he was working in old British Malaya during the colonial era. What he says is that these people seem to be guided by the shape of the hilt and the scabbard. The same thing would happen in Jawa if you only consulted ordinary people, and in fact to name a complete keris in accordance with its dress is the correct approach, for example, if we have a Javanese keris with Bugis blade, it is named as a Javanese keris, it is only when we draw the keris and begin the process of appraisal that we will designate the blade as Bugis.

In this matter, there is another factor:- Gardner was classifying blades as:-

Northern Malay or Patani, Rembau, Jawa, Bugis, Sumatra.

When we are dealing with the Javanese, or more properly the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as tangguh, we are only dealing with blades made in the Land of Jawa. Blades made on the Island of Jawa, but outside the Land of Jawa, do not even get a mention, let alone blades from other locations.

Then there is another factor:-

the indigenous person and the white man.

Malay and Indonesian peoples will invariably give an answer that they believe the questioner expects, if that questioner is either an outsider, or a person of higher status. In these societies you do not get an honest answer until you are inside the society, and inside a family. This practice was even more widespread in colonial times than it is today. If Gardner presented a complete keris in Javanese dress, but with a Bugis blade, even if the person he asked recognised it for what it was, he would be very unlikely to provide an opinion that varied from the obvious, because on the face of it, it was a Javanese keris, and he would assume that his societal superior (Mr. Gardner) would be expecting to be told it was Javanese.

I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.

The Frey and Ghiringelli books were written by people from western cultures, for people from western cultures. I corresponded with Edward Frey, and I can say with certainty that the keris was only one of his interests. He could not read nor speak Indonesian nor Javanese, he had only a very superficial understanding of the culture, and although he may (I am uncertain) have heard of tangguh, it is an absolute certainty that he did not have even the vaguest understanding of it. He wrote a good beginner's book for a western readership.

The First Invincible Keris book written by Vanna and Mario Ghiringelli is a good basic identification index, once again written for western collectors.

The second Invincible Keris book, written by Vanna Ghiringelli adopts a more in depth approach, which is indicative of the greater depth of knowledge in the western collecting community in 2007, as compared to 1991, but it is still a book that reflects a western collector's perspective, rather than a perspective that would be recognised by a Javanese ahli keris.

All these books have value to a collector, especially a new collector, but they do not even begin to impart a Javanese understanding, the understanding that is provided is an understanding for western collectors, which is fine, but what I am touching on in my writing is an understanding that is closer to the way the keris is understood in Jawa.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money,

Yes, it is all about money, and since I am writing about the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as "tangguh", the "it" concerned is that system. The tangguh system of blade classification is all about money.

one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

This analogy is not relevant. I am talking about a unique system of belief that only has any meaning within its originating society. This system has nothing at all to do with crusader's swords or the way in which collectors in the western world may regard those swords.

Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

The study of the keris may appear to fit within the envelope of "weapon study", but in fact only a small part of keris study involves the weapon function. There are a number of facets that need to be addressed when one sets out to learn the keris, its place in history as a weapon is one of those facets, however, of far greater importance in coming to an understanding of the keris are the societal and cultural aspects. Art is one of these aspects.

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.If all one wishes to do is to collect the object, but without attempting to gain an understanding of it, that is an equally valid approach, but in this case it is possibly best not to try to do more than simply identify and catalogue.

Jean · 3rd June 2012, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

Alan, this is exactly what I mean and what I need after having downgraded my original ambitions.

About acquiring a deep knowledge of the Javanese keris (understanding the tangguh system, etc) like you and the Solyom could do with strenuous efforts few decades ago, I tend to believe that this is a past opportunity as the ahli keris have become an endangered species....
Thank you again and best regards

ariel · 3rd June 2012, 01:46 PM

"Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated."

Thanks for the explanations.
What I take out of it, is that real study of keris is essentially limited to the selective few individuals who made a conscious decision to immerse themselves into indonesian society in all its aspects, from language, customs, mode of interactions, religious and mystic beliefs etc, and only then start learning the specifics of keris as such, in all its technical, ethnic, artistic and evolutionary aspects. In short, to become a highly intelligent and educated native indonesian with deep knowledge of keris per se. The rest of us can only glimpse the superficial aspects..... Rather depressing....

Well, perhaps that explains and justifies my decision not to become a dedicated "kerisologist", but to concentrate on other weapon traditions.

With your permission, from time to time I shall still continue to ask naive keris-related question, and hope to get some snippets of education from the specialists.

With my highest respect and best wishes.

3rd June 2012, 05:45 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated. I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle. Gardner did not claim that he showed the kerises concerned to experts, nor did he show them to Indonesians, he sought the opinion of a number of Malay people, logical, as he was working in old British Malaya during the colonial era. What he says is that these people seem to be guided by the shape of the hilt and the scabbard. The same thing would happen in Jawa if you only consulted ordinary people, and in fact to name a complete keris in accordance with its dress is the correct approach, for example, if we have a Javanese keris with Bugis blade, it is named as a Javanese keris, it is only when we draw the keris and begin the process of appraisal that we will designate the blade as Bugis. In this matter, there is another factor:- Gardner was classifying blades as:- Northern Malay or Patani, Rembau, Jawa, Bugis, Sumatra. When we are dealing with the Javanese, or more properly the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as tangguh, we are only dealing with blades made in the Land of Jawa. Blades made on the Island of Jawa, but outside the Land of Jawa, do not even get a mention, let alone blades from other locations. Then there is another factor:- the indigenous person and the white man. Malay and Indonesian peoples will invariably give an answer that they believe the questioner expects, if that questioner is either an outsider, or a person of higher status. In these societies you do not get an honest answer until you are inside the society, and inside a family. This practice was even more widespread in colonial times than it is today. If Gardner presented a complete keris in Javanese dress, but with a Bugis blade, even if the person he asked recognised it for what it was, he would be very unlikely to provide an opinion that varied from the obvious, because on the face of it, it was a Javanese keris, and he would assume that his societal superior (Mr. Gardner) would be expecting to be told it was Javanese. I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc. The Frey and Ghiringelli books were written by people from western cultures, for people from western cultures. I corresponded with Edward Frey, and I can say with certainty that the keris was only one of his interests. He could not read nor speak Indonesian nor Javanese, he had only a very superficial understanding of the culture, and although he may (I am uncertain) have heard of tangguh, it is an absolute certainty that he did not have even the vaguest understanding of it. He wrote a good beginner's book for a western readership. The First Invincible Keris book written by Vanna and Mario Ghiringelli is a good basic identification index, once again written for western collectors. The second Invincible Keris book, written by Vanna Ghiringelli adopts a more in depth approach, which is indicative of the greater depth of knowledge in the western collecting community in 2007, as compared to 1991, but it is still a book that reflects a western collector's perspective, rather than a perspective that would be recognised by a Javanese ahli keris. All these books have value to a collector, especially a new collector, but they do not even begin to impart a Javanese understanding, the understanding that is provided is an understanding for western collectors, which is fine, but what I am touching on in my writing is an understanding that is closer to the way the keris is understood in Jawa. Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, Yes, it is all about money, and since I am writing about the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as "tangguh", the "it" concerned is that system. The tangguh system of blade classification is all about money. one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same. This analogy is not relevant. I am talking about a unique system of belief that only has any meaning within its originating society. This system has nothing at all to do with crusader's swords or the way in which collectors in the western world may regard those swords. Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana? The study of the keris may appear to fit within the envelope of "weapon study", but in fact only a small part of keris study involves the weapon function. There are a number of facets that need to be addressed when one sets out to learn the keris, its place in history as a weapon is one of those facets, however, of far greater importance in coming to an understanding of the keris are the societal and cultural aspects. Art is one of these aspects. For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.If all one wishes to do is to collect the object, but without attempting to gain an understanding of it, that is an equally valid approach, but in this case it is possibly best not to try to do more than simply identify and catalogue. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 3rd June 2012 at 06:48 AM. Reason: clarification

1st June 2012, 07:26 PM	#1
dbhmgb Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Maryland, USA Posts: 112	WOW - a fantastic thread for a new-comer to the keris! Thank you all for your contributions.

2nd June 2012, 12:11 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Yes David, all experts are not equal. Brings to mind the old "oils ain't oils" ad. Tangguh understanding is central to keris understanding, but even in Jawa many very highly respected people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" : "tangguh isn't real" It doesn't matter if its real or not. It is a solid system of classification, and people of approximately equal knowledge will not vary very much in their assessments of an applicable tangguh, meaning that, for instance, a Surakarta keris from the 19th century will never be identified as a Pajajaran keris, or a Majapahit keris, or a Pajang keris. Whatever tangguh is agreed upon, that tangguh will give an indication of relative age. I stress "relative". But at its foundation tangguh is about money. It is not about playing a game with keris to see who the smartest bloke in the room is. It is also about keris of good quality. At this point we enter the circle of reason, or put another way, circular reasoning. We need to be able to identify quality in the absence of tangguh, and we do this by using the universals I've mentioned above, plus a few other indicators, such as cross section of sogokan, regularity and form of greneng, the nearness to mirror image of each face of the keris, the form and robustness of the gonjo --- etc. Little things that can tell us if this keris was really made by somebody with skill, or not. If we decide that, yes, this is a nicely made keris, then we closely examine the indicators to try to place that keris into a legitimate classification, or tangguh, and tangguh is a system that was developed primarily to classify keris of quality. Investment property. As I have said:- its all about money. Salesmen will very, very frequently present a Koripan keris as Mataram, Sultan Agung. A Koripan keris has the same form as a Mataram SA, but it is marginally more coarse in some details, and it lacks "presence". The value of a Mataram SA is vastly more than a Koripan in equal condition. The examples of misrepresentation go on and on. Gresik for Pajajaran, Tuban-Majapahit for Majapahit, Mataram-Matesih for Amangkurat --- and on, and on and on. In Jawa, if you do not understand tangguh and you want to buy keris you are setting yourself up for not only considerable loss of money, but perhaps disappointment when you eventually discover the truth. In the Western World, this doesn't matter. You can go on believing that your Koripan is Mataram SA forever, and it is unlikely that you will ever be disillusioned. But in Jawa, sooner or later you will meet somebody with understanding and by then its too late to run back to the dealer. You've done your dough --- or you perpetuate the lie. Keris collecting in the Western World, and in Jawa are very different entities. In the Western World we mostly do not outlay serious sums of money for keris. In Jawa the serious collector may outlay a sum of money equivalent to the cost of a house. Under these conditions it is imperative that there is some understanding of the system that sets the ground rules for value. As for validation of an acquisition upon the basis of "I like it", I do exactly the same thing, a lot of my personal collection is comprised of "keris that I like". Not much value to anybody except me.

2nd June 2012, 12:09 PM	#3
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Truly excellent threads Alan, you said it all, thank you!

2nd June 2012, 11:15 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,990	Thanks for the vote of confidence Jean, but as David has indicated, what I have written is a very long way from everything that there is to be known about this facet of keris understanding. However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

3rd June 2012, 04:41 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle. I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc. Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same. Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana? Is it a naive question?

3rd June 2012, 01:46 PM	#9
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	"Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated." Thanks for the explanations. What I take out of it, is that real study of keris is essentially limited to the selective few individuals who made a conscious decision to immerse themselves into indonesian society in all its aspects, from language, customs, mode of interactions, religious and mystic beliefs etc, and only then start learning the specifics of keris as such, in all its technical, ethnic, artistic and evolutionary aspects. In short, to become a highly intelligent and educated native indonesian with deep knowledge of keris per se. The rest of us can only glimpse the superficial aspects..... Rather depressing.... Well, perhaps that explains and justifies my decision not to become a dedicated "kerisologist", but to concentrate on other weapon traditions. With your permission, from time to time I shall still continue to ask naive keris-related question, and hope to get some snippets of education from the specialists. With my highest respect and best wishes.