Keris luk 9 - inviting comments

Jean · 14th August 2019, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, please see page 60 of the Surakarta Pakem. Balebang has two legitimate forms in the Surakarta Pakem, luk 7, luk 9.

There is something else too that we must not forget Jean:- dhapur, pamor, and just about everything else about the keris is not graven in stone, what one considers to be so is only correct in one specific dimension. The dimension I choose to use is Surakarta/Solo. I use this for a number of reasons, it is the senior branch of the House of Mataram, most of what I have learnt about keris has come from Solo, in a slip-sliding world of illogical, unfounded keris opinions, at least Surakarta/Solo stays consistently illogical, it does not change when the wind blows from a different direction.

You are correct Alan but the dapur Balebang shown on page 60 of the book "Dhapur" is quite different from the blade in question IMO, especially it includes a sogokan, twin lambe gajah, and kruwingan. As this blade was recently made it is not too surprising that it does not follow the standard pakem.
Jaga, by "EK" I am referring to the Ensiklopedi Keris written by the late Bambang Harsrinuskmo.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 14th August 2019, 10:03 PM

Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line.

If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong?

Actually, it means neither. Surakarta is always right, within its dimension.

All the others are also right, within their individual dimensions.

With the keris there are very few absolute rights & wrongs.

This is particularly so when we get to playing with names and that is a foundation stone of my personal philosophy that the names of things are unimportant, that which is important is the understanding, but very few people seem to be prepared tom devote the time necessary to grasp an understanding of the keris.

jagabuwana · 15th August 2019, 12:20 AM

Jean, Anthony - thank you !

Alan - Haha I did say to my partner "I bet half this stuff went through Alan's hands once.." when I saw the auction. There we go.
Understood loud and clear regarding the pendok. Knowing what I know now I no longer have any inclination to remove it.

I should also make clear that my reservations about it were entirely from a personal taste and aesthetic preference perspective (I have a general bias against to gold or shiny things

) , and certainly not on the pendok's suitability as a dressing or its quality. However my personal tastes and preferences have certainly been pliable as far as keris matters goes, so I hope that along the way I can appreciate this pendok more and come to see it in the same way as keris aesthetes.

A. G. Maisey · 15th August 2019, 12:39 AM

I understand what you're saying Jaga, and I agree, I personally don't much like this "bling-bling" style that was and is popular with many people in Solo, but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

jagabuwana · 15th August 2019, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

.. but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

Well said and a good reminder. Agreed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem"

Unfortunately I don't have the Surakarta Pakem / Dhapur books to reference, but it seems then that you would disagree with Jean's suggestion that this is dhapur Sempana Robyong. Would I be correct there? If so, I'd be interested to know how a different understanding of this could come about if you both use the same reference that is considered to be canon.

A. G. Maisey · 16th August 2019, 02:09 AM

Jaga, I do not know sempana robyong, Jean apparently does. I'm not going to debate the matter, Jean has found a source that provides this name, I do not search for sources or references, I run on what is in my head, and there is a great deal that is not in my head. I try to check things before I post, in fact, I usually do, but sometimes I just don't have time to check thoroughly.

Admitted, it always helps if a reference is quoted when we use a reference source, but its OK if we don't. The names are no big deal, really. I like Surakarta, but even there, there are things that I have been taught by knowledgeable people in Solo who do not agree with one another, or with kraton produced references. It is as I have said:- nothing is graven in stone.

You know what "diluar pakem" means, but does that include all pakems? In any case, any pakem is only a guide, it is not any sort of Holy Gospel. The reason it is regarded as "gospel" in western keris collecting circles is because it was produced within the Surakarta Kraton and published under the aegis of the kraton, but many Javanese ahli keris will disagree with some of the stuff in it.

Collectors in the west, and for that matter, within Indonesia, but not a part of the Central Javanese circles, tend to believe that if something about keris has been written by an Indonesian then that must be so. However, in Solo we constantly hear respected ahli keris bewailing the fact that the people who write about keris have failed to learn anything about keris before writing. The big name "Keris Experts" who have published books about keris in Indonesia, do not get nearly the same level of respect from genuine ahli keris in Solo that they get from Western collectors and people from Jakarta and Surabaya.

But why argue about it? It is far, far easier to agree with what is generally believed than to fight a battle about every minor difference. For example, the names I use for pamors, dhapurs, ricikan and so on when I post here, or produce a catalogue are names that I believe most people who read what I write will understand, but they are not necessarily the same names or words that I use in conversation in Solo.

The names are not important. The understanding is. I've said or written this more times than I can remember, but still all that anybody wants to do is to talk about empty, arguable, names. This is not keris knowledge and it is not keris study.

The misunderstanding was entirely due my haste and probably also to Jean's haste. I remembered the dhapur "Balebang", your keris is 9 luk, it looked like Balebang to me, I went straight to luk 9 keris in the pakem, glanced at the Balebang pic, confirmed my memory, continued writing, I noted that there were two versions of Balebang. But I missed the lack of sogokan.

When I write these posts I allow at most a few minutes for one, nearly everything comes out of my head, but I try to check before I write. Sometimes I'm not careful enough, and/or my memory has holes in it.

I'm guessing that Jean did something similar to me, but he missed the cross reference to the two types of balebang.

Jean · 16th August 2019, 09:30 AM

Jaga,
Interesting discussion and I will explain how I have arrived at my conclusion.
Your blade includes the following ricikan (carved details): Kembang kacang, jenggot, jalen, lambe gajah, pejetan, greneng sungsun or robyong (full greneng on the wadidang and ganja). Sorry for these terms but I believe that you are familiar with them or can find them easily in any kris reference book.
These ricikan exactly match with the description of dapur Sempana in the EK and book "Keris Jawa" with the exception of the jenggot (greneng above the kembang kacang) and the greneng on the wadidang, however in the book "Dhapur" dapur Sempana does not include greneng.
Because there is no sogokan I could exclude dapur Balebang for this blade. By the way dapur Balebang also exists with 5 waves according to the EK, and 11 or 13 waves according to the book "Keris Jawa"....
Because your blade basically meets the specifications of dapur Sempana with the exception of the jenggot and greneng robyong, I called it dapur Sempana Robyong although this dhapur is not a recognized one, but the term robyong is frequently used for describing the blades with jenggot, especially in Bali. You can check on page 86 of the book "Keris Bali bersejarah" for instance (dapur Sempaner Robyong, dapur Sinom Robyong).
Regards

PS: I would not mind to consider the dapur of this blade as "diluar pakem" (outside the standard) which is very common for contemporary blades. I have noticed the very deeply carved jenggot and greneng and the odd lambe gajah which are not typical of Java, maybe Alan knows the maker? The pamor pattern is very nice.

Jean · 15th August 2019, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line.
If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong?

Hello Alan,
This is the book in question (my favourite reference about dapur types) and it should constitute or be in line with the Surakarta Pakem which you mention.
I recommend this book to all the members who do not own it yet.
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 15th August 2019, 09:35 AM

Yes, you're right Jean, speed kills. No sogokan, I should have checked before rushing into print.

What you call the "Dhapur" book, I call the Surakarta Pakem. Its the same book.

Actually, many years ago, some time in the 1980's, I was offered the original of this book with all the hand drawn illustrations and hand written notes, it is a very big book. The price was way beyond me, but I was permitted to borrow it and photograph the pages.

I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem", which is the usual for these more recent keris. Pity.

Incidentally, the "greneng above the KK" is called a "jenggot", a beard.

15th August 2019, 12:20 AM	#3
jagabuwana Member Join Date: Jan 2018 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 290	Jean, Anthony - thank you ! Alan - Haha I did say to my partner "I bet half this stuff went through Alan's hands once.." when I saw the auction. There we go. Understood loud and clear regarding the pendok. Knowing what I know now I no longer have any inclination to remove it. I should also make clear that my reservations about it were entirely from a personal taste and aesthetic preference perspective (I have a general bias against to gold or shiny things ) , and certainly not on the pendok's suitability as a dressing or its quality. However my personal tastes and preferences have certainly been pliable as far as keris matters goes, so I hope that along the way I can appreciate this pendok more and come to see it in the same way as keris aesthetes. Last edited by jagabuwana; 15th August 2019 at 04:32 AM.

16th August 2019, 09:30 AM	#7
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Jaga, Interesting discussion and I will explain how I have arrived at my conclusion. Your blade includes the following ricikan (carved details): Kembang kacang, jenggot, jalen, lambe gajah, pejetan, greneng sungsun or robyong (full greneng on the wadidang and ganja). Sorry for these terms but I believe that you are familiar with them or can find them easily in any kris reference book. These ricikan exactly match with the description of dapur Sempana in the EK and book "Keris Jawa" with the exception of the jenggot (greneng above the kembang kacang) and the greneng on the wadidang, however in the book "Dhapur" dapur Sempana does not include greneng. Because there is no sogokan I could exclude dapur Balebang for this blade. By the way dapur Balebang also exists with 5 waves according to the EK, and 11 or 13 waves according to the book "Keris Jawa".... Because your blade basically meets the specifications of dapur Sempana with the exception of the jenggot and greneng robyong, I called it dapur Sempana Robyong although this dhapur is not a recognized one, but the term robyong is frequently used for describing the blades with jenggot, especially in Bali. You can check on page 86 of the book "Keris Bali bersejarah" for instance (dapur Sempaner Robyong, dapur Sinom Robyong). Regards PS: I would not mind to consider the dapur of this blade as "diluar pakem" (outside the standard) which is very common for contemporary blades. I have noticed the very deeply carved jenggot and greneng and the odd lambe gajah which are not typical of Java, maybe Alan knows the maker? The pamor pattern is very nice. Last edited by Jean; 16th August 2019 at 12:07 PM.

14th August 2019, 10:03 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Jean, I do not have the book you mention, but it would make no difference if did, I always try, insofar as possible to follow the Surakarta line. If you care to go through the Surakarta Pakem and match the various forms and the names given these forms, to common belief, you will find that more than one Surakarta dhapur varies from common belief. Does this mean that the Surakarta Pakem is often wrong, or does it mean that other people and other writers are often wrong? Actually, it means neither. Surakarta is always right, within its dimension. All the others are also right, within their individual dimensions. With the keris there are very few absolute rights & wrongs. This is particularly so when we get to playing with names and that is a foundation stone of my personal philosophy that the names of things are unimportant, that which is important is the understanding, but very few people seem to be prepared tom devote the time necessary to grasp an understanding of the keris.

15th August 2019, 12:39 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	I understand what you're saying Jaga, and I agree, I personally don't much like this "bling-bling" style that was and is popular with many people in Solo, but it is perhaps not correct to over-rule a taste or style that we do not find particularly appealing and substitute a style that we personally like. The substitution might be more pleasing to us, but is it more pleasing to the people of the culture that owns the artifact? After all, we indulge ourselves in "ethnic collection", not in the collection of things that are our own interpretation of what is ethnically pleasing to us.

16th August 2019, 02:09 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Jaga, I do not know sempana robyong, Jean apparently does. I'm not going to debate the matter, Jean has found a source that provides this name, I do not search for sources or references, I run on what is in my head, and there is a great deal that is not in my head. I try to check things before I post, in fact, I usually do, but sometimes I just don't have time to check thoroughly. Admitted, it always helps if a reference is quoted when we use a reference source, but its OK if we don't. The names are no big deal, really. I like Surakarta, but even there, there are things that I have been taught by knowledgeable people in Solo who do not agree with one another, or with kraton produced references. It is as I have said:- nothing is graven in stone. You know what "diluar pakem" means, but does that include all pakems? In any case, any pakem is only a guide, it is not any sort of Holy Gospel. The reason it is regarded as "gospel" in western keris collecting circles is because it was produced within the Surakarta Kraton and published under the aegis of the kraton, but many Javanese ahli keris will disagree with some of the stuff in it. Collectors in the west, and for that matter, within Indonesia, but not a part of the Central Javanese circles, tend to believe that if something about keris has been written by an Indonesian then that must be so. However, in Solo we constantly hear respected ahli keris bewailing the fact that the people who write about keris have failed to learn anything about keris before writing. The big name "Keris Experts" who have published books about keris in Indonesia, do not get nearly the same level of respect from genuine ahli keris in Solo that they get from Western collectors and people from Jakarta and Surabaya. But why argue about it? It is far, far easier to agree with what is generally believed than to fight a battle about every minor difference. For example, the names I use for pamors, dhapurs, ricikan and so on when I post here, or produce a catalogue are names that I believe most people who read what I write will understand, but they are not necessarily the same names or words that I use in conversation in Solo. The names are not important. The understanding is. I've said or written this more times than I can remember, but still all that anybody wants to do is to talk about empty, arguable, names. This is not keris knowledge and it is not keris study. The misunderstanding was entirely due my haste and probably also to Jean's haste. I remembered the dhapur "Balebang", your keris is 9 luk, it looked like Balebang to me, I went straight to luk 9 keris in the pakem, glanced at the Balebang pic, confirmed my memory, continued writing, I noted that there were two versions of Balebang. But I missed the lack of sogokan. When I write these posts I allow at most a few minutes for one, nearly everything comes out of my head, but I try to check before I write. Sometimes I'm not careful enough, and/or my memory has holes in it. I'm guessing that Jean did something similar to me, but he missed the cross reference to the two types of balebang.

15th August 2019, 09:35 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Yes, you're right Jean, speed kills. No sogokan, I should have checked before rushing into print. What you call the "Dhapur" book, I call the Surakarta Pakem. Its the same book. Actually, many years ago, some time in the 1980's, I was offered the original of this book with all the hand drawn illustrations and hand written notes, it is a very big book. The price was way beyond me, but I was permitted to borrow it and photograph the pages. I guess I'd have to go with "diluar pakem", which is the usual for these more recent keris. Pity. Incidentally, the "greneng above the KK" is called a "jenggot", a beard.