New Keris for info

mariusgmioc · 28th May 2019, 10:49 AM

Thank you for all the comments!

I am a novice in terms of knowledge about the keris. However, I noticed very often that kerises we see today are in most cases mixtures of different elements and influences, to the point it becomes very difficult to point the origin of a keris. So, we have "Balinese" kerises that are in fact Javanese but in a Balinese dress, we have "Buginese" kerises made in Solo and so on...

So a Sumatran keris with a Tajong style hilt, shouldn't come as a surprise.

Or am I wrong in my conclusion as it is based on my ignorance and a flawed observation?!

PS: I am certain this is a fairly new keris (maybe around 50-60 years old as it was in a collection for the last 40+ years).

A. G. Maisey · 28th May 2019, 01:08 PM

Marius, the component parts that make up a complete keris have always been a case of "mix & match". Always.

Mostly we see Javanese blades in dress from various other places, this is so because Jawa was a major exporter of keris and other weapons, but the people of the Archipelago also moved all over the place, traders, farmers looking for land, craftsmen looking for employment, men marrying into a different society, women marrying into a different society, mercenaries hired by lords both great and small. So, movement of trade goods, and movement of people.

The various societies and groups of people did not stay in separate, exclusive little groups. They mixed.

Trade goods moved from one place to another.

Where a society or a group within a society --- such as a kraton and its members --- had influence over a society, keris tended to be uniform in their various component parts, or at least in their dress styles. But the further you get from the influence of a kraton, the greater the variation in the component parts of a keris.

In small, isolated groups of people, such as fishing villages or isolated farming communities you will often find complete keris that have been made up from component parts that come from every point of the compass.

I think that it is perhaps an almost universal desire of keris collectors to have all component parts of a keris matching the geographic point of origin. But in the real world things are a bit different to this.

In Bali, what we find is that the pusaka keris or krises held by a family are quite often Javanese keris, in Balinese dress, certainly, but the blades are Javanese.

This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.

David · 28th May 2019, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.

I certainly have no argument with anything that Alan has said here, but feel it is important to emphasize this last sentence since, after all, it is THIS keris that Marius has brought to us and asked questions about.
I do really like this blade Marius and yes, i believe it is of the contemporary era. Malaysian keris are not my forte, but since a couple of others have chimed in that they feel the tajong hilt on this keris is relative new and not carved by a Malaysian i will tend to agree with my first suspicion. While Alan is completely correct about how and why various mixed dress keris have come into being over the centuries, i believe what we have here is a relatively new ensemble that has simply been dressed in a mix of relatively new parts that very possibly were all made in Jawa. I think that is quite a different thing from the scenario that Alan has described for keris that have actually seen a societal life in places isolated from centers of keraton power.
One thing i have noted with modern era keris making is a tendency to homogenized keris form across the archipelago. I have seen many new blades that mix elements for different areas of keris making and it is becoming more difficult with some of these new forms to easily identify their place of origin. Frankly i find this a bit sad, but maybe that is just me. I suppose when this keris was assembled that they saw nothing wrong with placing a blade with many Javanese indicators into a sheath that is somewhat Palembang with a hilt that is clearly meant to be a Malaysian form. I know a lot of Malaysian collectors who would particularly scream over this since the tajong form is rather specific to both the type of sheath and blade that it belongs with. And many of them are not too fond of Javanese and Madurese made copies of their traditional Malay hilt form.
All this said, this is your keris now and you should dress it as you will and see fit. For my own personal sensibilities i would probably swap out the tajong hilt for something more appropriate for the keris panjang form as i already showed since that is a pretty easy "fix". But i don't thing anyone would blame you for keeping it as is. It's still a beautiful keris in my eyes.

28th May 2019, 10:49 AM	#1
mariusgmioc Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Location: Austria Posts: 1,903	Thank you for all the comments! I am a novice in terms of knowledge about the keris. However, I noticed very often that kerises we see today are in most cases mixtures of different elements and influences, to the point it becomes very difficult to point the origin of a keris. So, we have "Balinese" kerises that are in fact Javanese but in a Balinese dress, we have "Buginese" kerises made in Solo and so on... So a Sumatran keris with a Tajong style hilt, shouldn't come as a surprise. Or am I wrong in my conclusion as it is based on my ignorance and a flawed observation?! PS: I am certain this is a fairly new keris (maybe around 50-60 years old as it was in a collection for the last 40+ years).

28th May 2019, 01:08 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,856	Marius, the component parts that make up a complete keris have always been a case of "mix & match". Always. Mostly we see Javanese blades in dress from various other places, this is so because Jawa was a major exporter of keris and other weapons, but the people of the Archipelago also moved all over the place, traders, farmers looking for land, craftsmen looking for employment, men marrying into a different society, women marrying into a different society, mercenaries hired by lords both great and small. So, movement of trade goods, and movement of people. The various societies and groups of people did not stay in separate, exclusive little groups. They mixed. Trade goods moved from one place to another. Where a society or a group within a society --- such as a kraton and its members --- had influence over a society, keris tended to be uniform in their various component parts, or at least in their dress styles. But the further you get from the influence of a kraton, the greater the variation in the component parts of a keris. In small, isolated groups of people, such as fishing villages or isolated farming communities you will often find complete keris that have been made up from component parts that come from every point of the compass. I think that it is perhaps an almost universal desire of keris collectors to have all component parts of a keris matching the geographic point of origin. But in the real world things are a bit different to this. In Bali, what we find is that the pusaka keris or krises held by a family are quite often Javanese keris, in Balinese dress, certainly, but the blades are Javanese. This keris under discussion here is not really a very old keris, so what I have just written does not apply to it, but in general terms, and stretching back into time, it is not at all uncommon to see both blades and dress components mixed.