Two 17th century Keris at the Power and Fashion Exhibition in Dresden

David · 9th June 2017, 03:36 PM

Thanks Kai. Man, i now wish i had kept up with my high school German, but if you don't use it, you lose it i'm afraid.
But i agree that the detailed photographs of some of these old examples make it worth reviewing for the visual aspects alone.

Bjorn · 9th June 2017, 11:56 PM

I dislike reading in German, but I know I'll be able to understand a lot of it if I put my mind to it. Considering the subject matter, I'll save the pdf for future study.

A. G. Maisey · 10th June 2017, 12:26 AM

Kai,

your post #19:- no, not Blambangan

your post #18:-
I know there is a tendency amongst collectors in the Western World to classify keris in accordance with Western patterns of thought, but this does not work if we are trying to apply a classification system that has its roots in Central Javanese aristocratic mores.

To a traditionally orientated Javanese aristocrat, even today, the idea of "Jawa" means the "Land of Jawa", not the "Island of Jawa". All within the Land of Jawa is worthwhile and legitimate, all outside the Land of Jawa is --- oh well, isn't it a pity? In other words, not relevant, doesn't count.

So a Western based collector will look at a blade and think in terms of the Island of Jawa, or maybe he won't even focus on the blade, he'll take broad overall look at the entire keris and form an opinion that gives more or less equal weight to all parts of the entire keris.

However, the Surakarta based ahli keris will look at only the blade, and focus on tiny, seemingly inconsequential details. He will test the "tanting" (percieved weight and balance), he will look at it in all dimensions, he will flick it with his finger-nail, he will stroke it between thumb and index-finger, if possible he will give very close attention to the pesi and the procedure that has been used to fix the gonjo. Possibly he may ask to borrow the keris for a few days, in order to meditate with it, or sleep with it. If he gives an opinion he will be able to substantiate that opinion. Sometimes he will give no opinion, or qualify his opinion.

This is a very serious matter when it is applied at the highest level, because the ahli keris might be asked to provide a certificate over his signature, and his reputation can then rest on that opinion. Opinions from the top people do not come free. It is not a game, it is a profession, and the opinion is paid for. Depending on the value of the appraised keris, that payment can be very substantial.

To the Surakarta ahli keris, it is not a matter of "is it Javanese?", it is a matter of "my opinion in respect of point of origin in terms time and geographic location, expressed in the terms of the Surakarta keris belief system".

In other words:- "tangguh".

Once the tangguh is established, then he will be able to give an opinion as to whether the keris is from the Land of Jawa, or not. The process is the reverse of the way in which a Western based collector will consider the matter.

Now, Kai, I know a little bit about how to classify keris blades. I was taught by perhaps the most respected Surakarta ahli keris in post WWII Jawa. I try to classify in accordance with what I was taught.

I cannot give a proper opinion from an image on a computer screen. The best I can do is to give a very qualified opinion.

In my opinion, and based upon what I believe I can see, the keris shown in post #1 of this thread is stylistically Javanese, where "Javanese" is to be understood as "Island of Jawa". It appears to display characteristics that do not permit an opinion to be given as to a precise geographic point of origin. The pawakan (overall visual impression) tends towards Banten, but other characteristics tend towards East Jawa. I am not able to form an opinion on where it might have been made. To my mind, there is no certainty at all as to geographic point of origin.

kai · 11th June 2017, 12:46 PM

Hello Alan,

Thanks a lot for your response!

Quote:

To a traditionally orientated Javanese aristocrat, even today, the idea of "Jawa" means the "Land of Jawa", not the "Island of Jawa". All within the Land of Jawa is worthwhile and legitimate, all outside the Land of Jawa is --- oh well, isn't it a pity? In other words, not relevant, doesn't count.

Yes, I am aware of this Mataram lineage bias (and the mutual display of ignorance regarding the other descendant line). I note though that considering Mojo and earlier periods, the restriction on Orang Jawa does not seem to apply to the tangguh system. I'd guess that the early formative years (late Mojo, early Mataram, Blambangan, Banten, early Bali, etc. are probably not the forte of the tangguh system - especially when looking at well-preserved blades from old European collections...

Quote:

I cannot give a proper opinion from an image on a computer screen. The best I can do is to give a very qualified opinion.

In my opinion, and based upon what I believe I can see, the keris shown in post #1 of this thread is stylistically Javanese, where "Javanese" is to be understood as "Island of Jawa". It appears to display characteristics that do not permit an opinion to be given as to a precise geographic point of origin. The pawakan (overall visual impression) tends towards Banten, but other characteristics tend towards East Jawa. I am not able to form an opinion on where it might have been made. To my mind, there is no certainty at all as to geographic point of origin.

Thanks heaps, Alan!

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 12th June 2017, 12:03 AM

I don't think I fully understand your first comment Kai. However, it is important to understand the roots of tangguh.

Why did the system arise? Was it just to keep people with a very low level of keris education amused? Or was it maybe for some solid socially based reason?

When did the system arise?

Was it always intended to be used as it is used today?

What does it actually do as opposed to what many people believe it does?

You have given examples of :- Mojopahit, Mataram, Blambangan, Banten

Mataram is very well recognised and has numerous sub-classifications. There would be somewhere between "very little", and "no" disagreement on a Mataram classification, but the sub-classifications are a totally different matter, difficult, varied, not a lot of mutual agreement.

Mojopahit, the indicators are probably well known, but the population of blades that can reasonable be classified as Mojo is very small, which means that although the indicators may be widely known, almost nobody has seen sufficient blades of this classification to enable them to form a good knowledge base. In my opinion Mojo is the ultimate expression of tangguh belief, because we will sometimes find blades that on the basis of the indicators, are inarguably Mojo, but on the basis of condition cannot possibly be 500+ years old.

Blambangan attracts various opinions.

Banten doesn't count:- it is not from the Land of Jawa.

Bali, in terms of the Solonese tangguh system, is almost totally irrelevant. It is recognised, but its place is to permit recognition of a Bali keris so that we can immediately disregard it and not waste time on appraisal or opinions.

You did not mention Bugis, but it should be mentioned; Bugis blades are recognised as very functional blades, as it was once put to me:- "weapons that look a little bit like a keris but are not really keris". This was Javanese opinion from a very respected Javanese ahli keris, to him, and others like him, all keris from outside Jawa that had a vaguely Bugis form were Bugis, because these blades were primarily weapons that could never really claim to be recognised as "proper keris". The keris has for a very long time been a weapon with a spiritual nature, to the Javanese keris literate person the Bugis keris lacks spirituality.

Kai, I found out more than 30 years ago, that for tangguh to make any sense at all you need to be able to adopt a Javanese mode of thought, you cannot do that just for keris, you have to be able to do it for everything in your world. If you try to understand tangguh from the foundation of a culture or society that is not Javanese, you cannot, and that makes of tangguh a pretty useless tool for any collector who bases his collecting on non-Javanese ideas.

If one is not Javanese and has not received close personal instruction from somebody who understands the system, the best way to think about the tangguh system is that it provides a relatively easy guide that will permit an older blade to be distinguished from a younger blade.

You mentioned a "Mataram bias". I cannot see this. The second kingdom of Mataram had a very dubious foundation that the early rulers spent a lot of time and effort in attempting to legitimise.They claimed descent of legitimacy from Majapahit, but in fact that relationship to Mojo came through the female line and was rather remote. We probably would not have the Modern Javanese language as it is today if it had not been for the efforts of the early rulers of Mataram to demonstrate that they were in fact entitled to be rulers.

If there is an overall cultural, or societal bias amongst Javanese people, it is a bias towards honour and towards Majapahit. Periods and people identified as honourable deserve respect and are of value. People and periods identified as lacking honour are of little or no value and do not deserve respect. But to determine exactly how to identify that which is worthy of respect requires a Javanese take on the world and on that which has occurred in the past.

When we look at old European collections we are looking at keris that have already been corrupted by commonality and the Islamic influence.

When was the peak of Majapahit?

When did Majapahit die?

When was the first keris brought to Europe?

When were the "very early kerises" brought to Europe?

Where did these kerises come from?

European ideas and values have very little place in understanding how a traditional, keris literate Javanese person considers the keris.

I'm not passing any judgements here, I'm not saying that one approach is right and the other approach is wrong. Rather, I'm trying to say that a collector outside of the keris sub-culture as it is in Central Jawa has a different way of looking at and thinking about keris than does a person who is a part of that Central Javanese sub-culture.

9th June 2017, 03:36 PM	#1
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Thanks Kai. Man, i now wish i had kept up with my high school German, but if you don't use it, you lose it i'm afraid. But i agree that the detailed photographs of some of these old examples make it worth reviewing for the visual aspects alone.

9th June 2017, 11:56 PM	#2
Bjorn Member Join Date: Jan 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 188	I dislike reading in German, but I know I'll be able to understand a lot of it if I put my mind to it. Considering the subject matter, I'll save the pdf for future study.

10th June 2017, 12:26 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Kai, your post #19:- no, not Blambangan your post #18:- I know there is a tendency amongst collectors in the Western World to classify keris in accordance with Western patterns of thought, but this does not work if we are trying to apply a classification system that has its roots in Central Javanese aristocratic mores. To a traditionally orientated Javanese aristocrat, even today, the idea of "Jawa" means the "Land of Jawa", not the "Island of Jawa". All within the Land of Jawa is worthwhile and legitimate, all outside the Land of Jawa is --- oh well, isn't it a pity? In other words, not relevant, doesn't count. So a Western based collector will look at a blade and think in terms of the Island of Jawa, or maybe he won't even focus on the blade, he'll take broad overall look at the entire keris and form an opinion that gives more or less equal weight to all parts of the entire keris. However, the Surakarta based ahli keris will look at only the blade, and focus on tiny, seemingly inconsequential details. He will test the "tanting" (percieved weight and balance), he will look at it in all dimensions, he will flick it with his finger-nail, he will stroke it between thumb and index-finger, if possible he will give very close attention to the pesi and the procedure that has been used to fix the gonjo. Possibly he may ask to borrow the keris for a few days, in order to meditate with it, or sleep with it. If he gives an opinion he will be able to substantiate that opinion. Sometimes he will give no opinion, or qualify his opinion. This is a very serious matter when it is applied at the highest level, because the ahli keris might be asked to provide a certificate over his signature, and his reputation can then rest on that opinion. Opinions from the top people do not come free. It is not a game, it is a profession, and the opinion is paid for. Depending on the value of the appraised keris, that payment can be very substantial. To the Surakarta ahli keris, it is not a matter of "is it Javanese?", it is a matter of "my opinion in respect of point of origin in terms time and geographic location, expressed in the terms of the Surakarta keris belief system". In other words:- "tangguh". Once the tangguh is established, then he will be able to give an opinion as to whether the keris is from the Land of Jawa, or not. The process is the reverse of the way in which a Western based collector will consider the matter. Now, Kai, I know a little bit about how to classify keris blades. I was taught by perhaps the most respected Surakarta ahli keris in post WWII Jawa. I try to classify in accordance with what I was taught. I cannot give a proper opinion from an image on a computer screen. The best I can do is to give a very qualified opinion. In my opinion, and based upon what I believe I can see, the keris shown in post #1 of this thread is stylistically Javanese, where "Javanese" is to be understood as "Island of Jawa". It appears to display characteristics that do not permit an opinion to be given as to a precise geographic point of origin. The pawakan (overall visual impression) tends towards Banten, but other characteristics tend towards East Jawa. I am not able to form an opinion on where it might have been made. To my mind, there is no certainty at all as to geographic point of origin.

12th June 2017, 12:03 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	I don't think I fully understand your first comment Kai. However, it is important to understand the roots of tangguh. Why did the system arise? Was it just to keep people with a very low level of keris education amused? Or was it maybe for some solid socially based reason? When did the system arise? Was it always intended to be used as it is used today? What does it actually do as opposed to what many people believe it does? You have given examples of :- Mojopahit, Mataram, Blambangan, Banten Mataram is very well recognised and has numerous sub-classifications. There would be somewhere between "very little", and "no" disagreement on a Mataram classification, but the sub-classifications are a totally different matter, difficult, varied, not a lot of mutual agreement. Mojopahit, the indicators are probably well known, but the population of blades that can reasonable be classified as Mojo is very small, which means that although the indicators may be widely known, almost nobody has seen sufficient blades of this classification to enable them to form a good knowledge base. In my opinion Mojo is the ultimate expression of tangguh belief, because we will sometimes find blades that on the basis of the indicators, are inarguably Mojo, but on the basis of condition cannot possibly be 500+ years old. Blambangan attracts various opinions. Banten doesn't count:- it is not from the Land of Jawa. Bali, in terms of the Solonese tangguh system, is almost totally irrelevant. It is recognised, but its place is to permit recognition of a Bali keris so that we can immediately disregard it and not waste time on appraisal or opinions. You did not mention Bugis, but it should be mentioned; Bugis blades are recognised as very functional blades, as it was once put to me:- "weapons that look a little bit like a keris but are not really keris". This was Javanese opinion from a very respected Javanese ahli keris, to him, and others like him, all keris from outside Jawa that had a vaguely Bugis form were Bugis, because these blades were primarily weapons that could never really claim to be recognised as "proper keris". The keris has for a very long time been a weapon with a spiritual nature, to the Javanese keris literate person the Bugis keris lacks spirituality. Kai, I found out more than 30 years ago, that for tangguh to make any sense at all you need to be able to adopt a Javanese mode of thought, you cannot do that just for keris, you have to be able to do it for everything in your world. If you try to understand tangguh from the foundation of a culture or society that is not Javanese, you cannot, and that makes of tangguh a pretty useless tool for any collector who bases his collecting on non-Javanese ideas. If one is not Javanese and has not received close personal instruction from somebody who understands the system, the best way to think about the tangguh system is that it provides a relatively easy guide that will permit an older blade to be distinguished from a younger blade. You mentioned a "Mataram bias". I cannot see this. The second kingdom of Mataram had a very dubious foundation that the early rulers spent a lot of time and effort in attempting to legitimise.They claimed descent of legitimacy from Majapahit, but in fact that relationship to Mojo came through the female line and was rather remote. We probably would not have the Modern Javanese language as it is today if it had not been for the efforts of the early rulers of Mataram to demonstrate that they were in fact entitled to be rulers. If there is an overall cultural, or societal bias amongst Javanese people, it is a bias towards honour and towards Majapahit. Periods and people identified as honourable deserve respect and are of value. People and periods identified as lacking honour are of little or no value and do not deserve respect. But to determine exactly how to identify that which is worthy of respect requires a Javanese take on the world and on that which has occurred in the past. When we look at old European collections we are looking at keris that have already been corrupted by commonality and the Islamic influence. When was the peak of Majapahit? When did Majapahit die? When was the first keris brought to Europe? When were the "very early kerises" brought to Europe? Where did these kerises come from? European ideas and values have very little place in understanding how a traditional, keris literate Javanese person considers the keris. I'm not passing any judgements here, I'm not saying that one approach is right and the other approach is wrong. Rather, I'm trying to say that a collector outside of the keris sub-culture as it is in Central Jawa has a different way of looking at and thinking about keris than does a person who is a part of that Central Javanese sub-culture.