Banjarmasin keris?

[kai]

As promised I attach the pictures of my recently acquired Banjarmasin kris

Oh my, a lot of folks must have been sleeping - I for one certainly did!

Congrats, Jean, that's an outstanding nominee for the bargain of the year...

Maybe we can put this piece in a seperate thread? David, can you lend a helping hand with some mod magic?

The blade has a rough surface and it does not seem to be Javanese nor Buginese

The maintenance of the blade looks kinda (generic) Bugis style to me.

I can't read the blade well enough (and it probably never was intended to conform to kraton quality standards of central Jawa); I wouldn't exclude an East Java/Madura origin though.

Jean, could you please also post a pic of the other side of the blade (in standard upright posture)?

a specific feature is the presence of small dots of pamor (tambal) regularly spaced along the blade. This is also found on another kris from Banjarmasin shown to me by another collector, does it mean that this style of blade is indigenous to Banjarmasin?

Considering the huge amount of firearms as well as blades (multiple types!) of local Banjar/Negara production, there must have been some keris bladesmithing as well. I have not found any references on immigrated prominent empu or pande keris. Obviously, there were a lot of local talents (Dayak) available as well as a very strong Chinese community. For early grafting of specialized knowledge on keris blades, the Javanese North coast, Madura and East Jawa would be the most likely contenders. Later on, there was enough Bugis and Malay/Sumatran influence to also suspect exchange of skills or craftsmen.

I also have seen keris Banjar with similar pamor; will try to look for pics. Can you ask your friend to post his as well, please? For the time being, I'd agree that this pamor seems to have been en vogue. I don't think this feature is unique enough to claim this must be of local production though.

The hilt in Sumatra style is made from gilt brass and in excellent condition, the selut and virtually all the intens are still present.

While apparently based on Sumatran/Malay hilts, this evolved into a distinct Banjar style. I'd call it Banjar Garuda style if you want to differentiate it from the Banjar planar hilt (Jawa origin) and Banjar pangulu (Bugis origin).

The gayaman sheath is typical of Banjar, the gandar in 2 pieces is fully covered with very fine cotton thread which was replaced on the top part and a bit damaged at the tip but I will leave it in this condition.

Yes, agreed.

Regards,
Kai

[Jean]

Hello Kai,
Thank you for your kind and detailed comments;
Regarding the blade, I showed it from both sides actually and can't do better because the hilt is stuck on the peksi. May be later I will try to free it but I feel concerned about damaging the intens.
I will check with my friend if I can show the other blade with a very similar pamor but it seems to be part of a commercial site (please check your PM box).
I agree that the blade has some Bugis influence but the ganja and kembang kacang are not very typical of Bugis blades and this tambal pamor dots are unusual.
Best regards
Jean

[ariel]

I think that Alan hit the very head of the nail, and his comment rings true re. not only kerises, but ethnographic arms ( and not only arms :-)) in general.

Somehow, we all have iron-clad patterns, or "geshtalts", of what constitutes a particular type of weapon, be it its ethnic or tribal origin, defined name ( G.C. Stone, thank you! :-) ), age characteristics etc. We get apprehensive when we encounter something that does not seem to fit the agreed-upon pattern. This often leads us to either pronouncing the item a fake, or to our exultation of discovering a new and hitherto unknown example of native weaponry.

Ih fact, and that's exactly what Alan hinted at, any old weapons were not mass-produced according to some government-dictated standards, but were hand-made according to the professional level or inventiveness of the master, availability of the materials, wealth, desire and taste of the owner etc.

The variability is inevitable. It is seen in each and every culture, from Indian tulwars and their handles to Caucasian kindjals. Here an example from this Forum: a combination of a talibon-like blade and a gunong handle. Should we start looking for some deep meanings or just accept the fact that it is a very usable implement fully satisfying its owner's wishes, and no more? Occam's razor, anyone?

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17394

[Sajen]

Very very nice keris Jean! Congrats for this addition to your collection!

Regards,

Detlef

[David]

Originally Posted by ariel

Somehow, we all have iron-clad patterns, or "geshtalts", of what constitutes a particular type of weapon, be it its ethnic or tribal origin, defined name ( G.C. Stone, thank you! :-) ), age characteristics etc. We get apprehensive when we encounter something that does not seem to fit the agreed-upon pattern. This often leads us to either pronouncing the item a fake, or to our exultation of discovering a new and hitherto unknown example of native weaponry.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=17394

Ariel, i believe that in general you are correct, especially when dealing with other weapons around the world. What happens in the keris world is a little bit different however. The keris must be understood as a palace art first. From there it trickled down to the masses. As a palace art a keris should in fact "fit the agreed-upon pattern" of any particular keraton according to the pakem of that day. They did indeed have books filled with acceptable patterns for use during a particular kingdom's reign. Skilled smiths outside of the palace would also attempt as best they could to follow these same pakems to whatever level of success they were able. The people wanted to emulate the royal class in that regard. This is a good part of what allows the classification process known as tangguh that places certain blades to their origins. But as Alan points outs, many blades were also made that fall outside the pakem of the day. I think this happened more often due to ignorance (not fully knowing what the exacting patterns were) than the inventiveness of the smith or the particular tastes of the owner. If you were the Sultan, of course, you might do something outside the generally accepted pakem, but everyone else was looking to follow the tradition from the top, not break from them. Of course they still needed a keris and in cases of village work you got the best you could manage. Maybe you village pandai was highly skilled and well versed in the current pakem, maybe he wasn't. Most of the commoner probably never saw a court keris close enough to know if theirs conformed to the exacting patterns required by pakem or not. But i am with Alan, i like these out of pakem pieces. The problem arises when collectors expect ALL keris to adhere to some particular pakem. But certainly many, if not most do. Mpus could apply their inventiveness only so far when producing a keris for the court though.

[ferrylaki]

very nice Jean. the hilt and warangka is Kalimantan with bugis keris