a Sengkelat worth of knowing to me

Moshah · 11th June 2012, 01:16 AM

In other words, we can say this keris is newly made, alan?

It is not that I despise newly made keris, but as I try to grow my collection, I would really need to know which is which, hence I can have a really good look at examples such as a true old kerises, a newly made kerises sold as new, a newly made kerises deceived to be old kerises, and so on...

The understanding of metallurgy, especially for Javanese kerises is something I really lacking of, nor that I have nice examples to teach which is good or bad

A. G. Maisey · 11th June 2012, 01:26 AM

Based upon what I can see in these photos it is my opinion that this is current era keris.

Moshah · 12th June 2012, 11:57 AM

Well, thanks Alan for your opinion.

The reason I'm asking is because few of my javanese keris collecting friends indicating it is Mataram. I am no expert in Javanese keris, as I have pointed, and find that different views by different people is bringing a new interesting dimension in the learning of keris.

A. G. Maisey · 12th June 2012, 01:53 PM

Please note what I have said:-

"based upon what I can see in these photos"

what I can see are a number of indicators that point towards a recently made blade, however, photographs can be misleading, if I handled this keris I might change my mind, but I don't think so.

However, when we classify a keris as "Mataram", that by itself is insufficient, because Mataram refers to the dominant style of the keris, for example Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo is a current era maker who stopped working about 12 or 15 years ago, and he made many Mataram style keris, which if we classify correctly are Mataram Kemardikan.

So, if we want to classify this keris as "Mataram" we need to designate the classification correctly. Is it Mataram Senopaten? Sultan Agung? Matesih? Or is it some other sub-division of Mataram?

I would most humbly suggest that the people who have given an opinion that it is a Mataram keris complete that opinion by naming the type of Mataram keris that it is, and the indicators that make it so.

Moshah · 12th June 2012, 05:12 PM

I am definitely aware of that, Alan. By downloading those pix, I am aware that one's judgement by only looking at still images is limited. Perhaps it could be accurate as well, but then again the limit is still there.

That was also why I called out for "opinion", by which I really favor the true opinion based from what you see, be it favorable or otherwise.

I could not recall which Mataram, really, but back here when we discussed about Mataram, we would never go as far as "Empu Pauzan's Mataram-styled keris". Javanese kerisology is not something easily, readily available around here, hence the referencing terminologies will go as direct as possible i.e Mataram is for Mataram, Pengging is for Pengging and so on.

As you pointed out, Mataram has to be downscaled into it's specific era, which is very true, but unfortunately I have not be able to recall which.

I am in a point of seeking each others' points and views on the discussed matters, which I believe would give me some foundation in understanding of Javanese kerises. Even though it will only yield me a drop of ink into the ocean, it was a good start nonetheless.

A. G. Maisey · 13th June 2012, 12:29 AM

Thank you for your clarification, Moshah.

In earlier posts I have attempted to give a very superficial explanation of the way in which the Javanese, or more correctly Solonese system of blade classification functions. Because of the nature of the keris it is always an opinion, and that is exactly what the Javanese name for the system:- "tangguh" means:- "opinion".

An opinion can only be formed on the basis of information received, and how well that information is understood, thus, when an opinion is given in respect of the classification, or tangguh, of any blade that opinion should be able to be supported by reference to the indicators used to help form the opinion, and by any argument that takes account of other factors.

Inherent in this system there are many difficulties.

For example, you have named the tangguh Pengging. Yes, everybody has heard of Pengging, but how many people know that Pengging was not a kingdom, it was at best a kabupaten that existed for a very short time and with a very small population of people who could have possessed keris?

Pengging existed in the late Majapahit era, and it was located near Pajang in Central Jawa, but I have known many very knowledgeable keris people to confuse the real Pengging with Pengging Witaradya, which is a mythical kingdom, and to place it in East Jawa.

The other classification you have named is Mataram. Along with Majapahit, Mataram is probably the most over-used tangguh designation. Why? Because an enormous number of keris from various unknown sources carry characteristics that allow them to be identified as "Mataram", and everybody is very familiar with the name "Mataram":- a big, important, resounding , Javanese historic designation.

Interestingly, we are still in the "Mataram" era. The ruling houses of Jawa are of the Mataram line. The two major divisions of this line are Surakarta, which can be seen as the "trunk", and the Jogjakarta house, which can be see as a "branch". The styles of these two major Mataram lines have diverged, not only in respect of keris, but in respect of all things associated with the house concerned.

If we consider only keris style, what we find is that the Surakarta line chose to imitate to a significant degree the keris style of Majapahit, the historic foundation of the line, whilst Jogjakarta imitated the style of Mataram Senopati. This resulted in the tangguh that is Surakarta , or Pakubuwanaan, and Jogjakarta, or Hamengkubuwanaan. Thus, in the present day Jogjakarta keris we have a legitimate sub-division of the overarching Mataram classification, and in future times I have no doubt at all, that if the tangguh system of classification survives, the work of makers of the current era, such as Djeno Harumbrojo and Pauzan Pusposukadgo, will be identified as Mataram Kemardikan.

The most prolific producers of current era keris in the style of Mataram are the craftsmen from East Jawa and Madura. It would be perfectly legitimate to classify these keris as "Mataram Kemardikan Madura ".

I can understand that in the absence of a detailed understanding of the tangguh system, that it is very tempting to use the "bucket" approach, and that if something looks like a particular tangguh it is acceptable to throw it into the relevant bucket. This can work to a limited degree, but it really has very little relevance to the proper application of the system of tangguh. In this situation, where insufficient knowledge and understanding exist to permit proper application of the system, it might perhaps be best to refer to a keris such as the one under discussion as a keris "which displays some characteristics of a Mataram keris". Such a description effectively divorces it from the tangguh system and prevents it from being associated with an even more erroneous estimate of age than is usually the case.

11th June 2012, 01:16 AM	#1
Moshah Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 171	In other words, we can say this keris is newly made, alan? It is not that I despise newly made keris, but as I try to grow my collection, I would really need to know which is which, hence I can have a really good look at examples such as a true old kerises, a newly made kerises sold as new, a newly made kerises deceived to be old kerises, and so on... The understanding of metallurgy, especially for Javanese kerises is something I really lacking of, nor that I have nice examples to teach which is good or bad

11th June 2012, 01:26 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Based upon what I can see in these photos it is my opinion that this is current era keris.

12th June 2012, 11:57 AM	#3
Moshah Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 171	Well, thanks Alan for your opinion. The reason I'm asking is because few of my javanese keris collecting friends indicating it is Mataram. I am no expert in Javanese keris, as I have pointed, and find that different views by different people is bringing a new interesting dimension in the learning of keris.

12th June 2012, 01:53 PM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Please note what I have said:- "based upon what I can see in these photos" what I can see are a number of indicators that point towards a recently made blade, however, photographs can be misleading, if I handled this keris I might change my mind, but I don't think so. However, when we classify a keris as "Mataram", that by itself is insufficient, because Mataram refers to the dominant style of the keris, for example Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo is a current era maker who stopped working about 12 or 15 years ago, and he made many Mataram style keris, which if we classify correctly are Mataram Kemardikan. So, if we want to classify this keris as "Mataram" we need to designate the classification correctly. Is it Mataram Senopaten? Sultan Agung? Matesih? Or is it some other sub-division of Mataram? I would most humbly suggest that the people who have given an opinion that it is a Mataram keris complete that opinion by naming the type of Mataram keris that it is, and the indicators that make it so.

12th June 2012, 05:12 PM	#5
Moshah Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 171	I am definitely aware of that, Alan. By downloading those pix, I am aware that one's judgement by only looking at still images is limited. Perhaps it could be accurate as well, but then again the limit is still there. That was also why I called out for "opinion", by which I really favor the true opinion based from what you see, be it favorable or otherwise. I could not recall which Mataram, really, but back here when we discussed about Mataram, we would never go as far as "Empu Pauzan's Mataram-styled keris". Javanese kerisology is not something easily, readily available around here, hence the referencing terminologies will go as direct as possible i.e Mataram is for Mataram, Pengging is for Pengging and so on. As you pointed out, Mataram has to be downscaled into it's specific era, which is very true, but unfortunately I have not be able to recall which. I am in a point of seeking each others' points and views on the discussed matters, which I believe would give me some foundation in understanding of Javanese kerises. Even though it will only yield me a drop of ink into the ocean, it was a good start nonetheless.

13th June 2012, 12:29 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,989	Thank you for your clarification, Moshah. In earlier posts I have attempted to give a very superficial explanation of the way in which the Javanese, or more correctly Solonese system of blade classification functions. Because of the nature of the keris it is always an opinion, and that is exactly what the Javanese name for the system:- "tangguh" means:- "opinion". An opinion can only be formed on the basis of information received, and how well that information is understood, thus, when an opinion is given in respect of the classification, or tangguh, of any blade that opinion should be able to be supported by reference to the indicators used to help form the opinion, and by any argument that takes account of other factors. Inherent in this system there are many difficulties. For example, you have named the tangguh Pengging. Yes, everybody has heard of Pengging, but how many people know that Pengging was not a kingdom, it was at best a kabupaten that existed for a very short time and with a very small population of people who could have possessed keris? Pengging existed in the late Majapahit era, and it was located near Pajang in Central Jawa, but I have known many very knowledgeable keris people to confuse the real Pengging with Pengging Witaradya, which is a mythical kingdom, and to place it in East Jawa. The other classification you have named is Mataram. Along with Majapahit, Mataram is probably the most over-used tangguh designation. Why? Because an enormous number of keris from various unknown sources carry characteristics that allow them to be identified as "Mataram", and everybody is very familiar with the name "Mataram":- a big, important, resounding , Javanese historic designation. Interestingly, we are still in the "Mataram" era. The ruling houses of Jawa are of the Mataram line. The two major divisions of this line are Surakarta, which can be seen as the "trunk", and the Jogjakarta house, which can be see as a "branch". The styles of these two major Mataram lines have diverged, not only in respect of keris, but in respect of all things associated with the house concerned. If we consider only keris style, what we find is that the Surakarta line chose to imitate to a significant degree the keris style of Majapahit, the historic foundation of the line, whilst Jogjakarta imitated the style of Mataram Senopati. This resulted in the tangguh that is Surakarta , or Pakubuwanaan, and Jogjakarta, or Hamengkubuwanaan. Thus, in the present day Jogjakarta keris we have a legitimate sub-division of the overarching Mataram classification, and in future times I have no doubt at all, that if the tangguh system of classification survives, the work of makers of the current era, such as Djeno Harumbrojo and Pauzan Pusposukadgo, will be identified as Mataram Kemardikan. The most prolific producers of current era keris in the style of Mataram are the craftsmen from East Jawa and Madura. It would be perfectly legitimate to classify these keris as "Mataram Kemardikan Madura ". I can understand that in the absence of a detailed understanding of the tangguh system, that it is very tempting to use the "bucket" approach, and that if something looks like a particular tangguh it is acceptable to throw it into the relevant bucket. This can work to a limited degree, but it really has very little relevance to the proper application of the system of tangguh. In this situation, where insufficient knowledge and understanding exist to permit proper application of the system, it might perhaps be best to refer to a keris such as the one under discussion as a keris "which displays some characteristics of a Mataram keris". Such a description effectively divorces it from the tangguh system and prevents it from being associated with an even more erroneous estimate of age than is usually the case.