Very large (East?) Javanese Keris for Comments

Athanase · 18th February 2021, 05:25 PM

For me the notch on the internal face of the Ganja was made during forging to give its domed profile on each side, while starting from a thin piece of metal, in the but to save material.
After that do not say if it is the original Ganja or a replacement.

Originally it was rust welded to the blade, but after a vinegar bath to remove the rust it became free again.

A. G. Maisey · 18th February 2021, 06:58 PM

Kai, the removal of material from the underside of the gonjo is done to facilitate fitting.

The gonjo might have been replaced, it is not fitted at the moment and I'd need it in my hand before I could give a supportable opinion, but whether it was or was not replaced , it is a west Jawa gonjo, and in my opinion this is a west Jawa wilahan.

Just read Athanase's post.Sounds like an original gonjo.

But Athanase, this removal of material from the bottom of a gonjo is not the result of forging, it is stock removal for the reason I've given, and it is common. We cannot, in any case, forge minor details like this.

Jean · 19th February 2021, 09:49 AM

What is the reason for the sloppy & blurred patras, religious reason or just poor craftsmanship?
Regards

kai · 21st February 2021, 06:08 PM

Hello Jean,

Quote:

What is the reason for the sloppy & blurred patras, religious reason or just poor craftsmanship

Missing, highly stylized or "empty" patra seem to be an early development and examples are seen in a few of the extant early keris hilts.

In this case, I believe the hilt was not done by a specialized carver (maybe rather done by one of the former owners). The base of the hilt appears to have seen some wear or intentional thinning out (already a good while ago) - this may have contributed to the uneven lines teathering out towards the base.

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 21st February 2021, 07:48 PM

Kai, I need to explain something:- if I give an opinion, I like to be able to support that opinion. It is not difficult at all to look at superficiality in a photograph and put forward a few ideas, but it is difficult to look at a photograph and form a supportable opinion --- well, at least for me it is.

So, the gonjo.

Yes, it is a different colour to the colour of the body of the blade, this is because it is different material to the material we can see on the body of the blade, and it has been worked in a different way.

The material that forms the blade has been made up of a number of layers that are comprised of iron and a contrasting material that is very likely to be nickelous material, possibly from Luwu. Erosion has removed parts of some of these layers.

The gonjo has been made from only iron, and the sides of the gonjo display the edge of the forged material. The gonjo was carved from a very much larger bakalan, so what we see on the sides of the gonjo is iron that has the edges of a small piece of material exposed by cold work, ie, carving.

We cannot compare the colour of the gonjo in total with the colour of the blade body in total, we might, perhaps, be able to compare the colour of some exposed areas of iron in the blade body, but even then, we need to have both pieces of material that we are comparing in precisely the same light, and we would need to be able to find an area of exposed iron that had not been affected by heat treat. I would need to use magnification.

Is it even remotely possible to compare the colour and qualities of the iron in the blade body, with the iron in gonjo, using as reference a photograph?

For me, it is not. That is one of the things that I am unable to give a supportable opinion for.

The other thing I cannot give a supportable opinion on is the authorship of the gonjo. It is unfitted. It & the blade have been through a cleaning process, the warangan is far from perfect. The gonjo appears to have suffered some damage.

What sort of opinion can I form in these circumstances?

Not one that I could support and that is certain.

In respect of relieving the underside of the gonjo.

It is much easier to mate narrow strips along the edges of the meeting surface of the gonjo than it is to try to get the entire bottom face of the gonjo to meet perfectly with the mating base of the blade. Sometimes the central portion of the mating blade base will also be marginally relieved.

I'm not guessing here, this is something that I know with absolute certainty.

Why?

Personal experience.

The absence of cecekan on the hilt is, as Kai has remarked, something that is not uncommon in early examples of this hilt form. The planar hilt form is a very old form in Jawa, and the Javanese form that we are now familiar with had its roots in the Demak era. Going back to this era and before it was not unusual for a man to carve his own keris hilt. This was widespread across Maritime SE Asia and can be thought of as a display of the artistic side of a man's nature in much the same way that weaving was a measure of a woman.

It would be of interest to know the provenance of this keris, my feeling is that it has been outside its originating culture for an extended period of time.

Athanase · 21st February 2021, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

It would be of interest to know the provenance of this keris, my feeling is that it has been outside its originating culture for an extended period of time.

I bought this kriss on the internet a year and a half after having bought the kriss pictured below from the same seller (which I have already presented on the forum).
Unfortunately, I have no other information that they were both purchased in France from individuals who had them for a long time.

A. G. Maisey · 22nd February 2021, 02:08 AM

Thank you Athanase

kai · 23rd February 2021, 06:51 PM

Hello Alan,

Thanks for your explanation regarding the fitting of a gonjo!

Having had my share of training in filing a flat/even metal surface, this approach certainly makes sense.

Quote:

Kai, I need to explain something:- if I give an opinion, I like to be able to support that opinion. It is not difficult at all to look at superficiality in a photograph and put forward a few ideas, but it is difficult to look at a photograph and form a supportable opinion --- well, at least for me it is.

So, the gonjo.

Yes, it is a different colour to the colour of the body of the blade, this is because it is different material to the material we can see on the body of the blade, and it has been worked in a different way.

The material that forms the blade has been made up of a number of layers that are comprised of iron and a contrasting material that is very likely to be nickelous material, possibly from Luwu. Erosion has removed parts of some of these layers.

The gonjo has been made from only iron, and the sides of the gonjo display the edge of the forged material. The gonjo was carved from a very much larger bakalan, so what we see on the sides of the gonjo is iron that has the edges of a small piece of material exposed by cold work, ie, carving.

We cannot compare the colour of the gonjo in total with the colour of the blade body in total, we might, perhaps, be able to compare the colour of some exposed areas of iron in the blade body, but even then, we need to have both pieces of material that we are comparing in precisely the same light, and we would need to be able to find an area of exposed iron that had not been affected by heat treat. I would need to use magnification.

Is it even remotely possible to compare the colour and qualities of the iron in the blade body, with the iron in gonjo, using as reference a photograph?

For me, it is not. That is one of the things that I am unable to give a supportable opinion for.

The other thing I cannot give a supportable opinion on is the authorship of the gonjo. It is unfitted. It & the blade have been through a cleaning process, the warangan is far from perfect. The gonjo appears to have suffered some damage.

What sort of opinion can I form in these circumstances?

Not one that I could support and that is certain.

I realize that material/color/laminations/surface texture need to be compared from the correct orientation and hopefully in similar surface condition as well as the need to take into account different stages of forging when (and if) the gonjo got removed from the bakalan.

I wasn't commenting on color/etc. in my earlier posts. Rather, I focused on what I described as vastly different craftsmanship. While the buntut urang (including the greneng) exhibits quite acceptable condition and style, the sirah cecak does not seem anything close to what I would expect to see considering the well sculpted gandik. As this is about the strongest part of the gonjo, I have a really hard time to imagine how this part could have been damaged without damaging the blade or other parts of the gonjo (short of crushing in a vice - again without damaging any other, much more fragile parts...).

Like already mentioned, an old replacement of apparently lesser craftsmanship seems to be a much more plausible explanation to me.

Regards,
Kai

A. G. Maisey · 23rd February 2021, 08:31 PM

Kai, my problem is this:- I cannot see nearly enough from an image on a computer screen to be able to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that this gonjo has been replaced or not, and in fact in this case it is not something that I regard as of much importance.

I think that we are probably looking at a very old blade here, it has been subject to the ravages of time and it has been cleaned, the gonjo is not mounted, the blade is out of stain, or at least not adequately stained.

I simply cannot see enough to give a solid supportable opinion. The best I can do is to look at the image on my screen and try to measure it against what I can remember from the last 70 odd years or so, and I'm sorry, but for me, there is simply not sufficient evidence available in these images to be too sure of a lot.

Perhaps you can gain sufficient information from a photograph & a screen image to be able to support your opinions, but I cannot.

kai · 21st February 2021, 05:52 PM

Hello Gio,

I did have the same feeling in my earlier posting #8...

Regards,
Kai

kai · 21st February 2021, 06:01 PM

Hello Alan,

I hope your travel hasn't been too tedious?

Quote:

Kai, the removal of material from the underside of the gonjo is done to facilitate fitting.

I have to admit that I'm at a loss how this helps fitting the gonjo - could you please explain? (If anything, this might weaken the fit between gonjo and pesi, doesn't it?)

Quote:

The gonjo might have been replaced, it is not fitted at the moment and I'd need it in my hand before I could give a supportable opinion, but whether it was or was not replaced , it is a west Jawa gonjo, and in my opinion this is a west Jawa wilahan.

Just read Athanase's post.Sounds like an original gonjo.

Well, I have no qualms with it being old and possibly having been replaced in the originating culture.

However, the quality of craftsmanship does seem to be vastly different.

Regards,
Kai

GIO · 21st February 2021, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Athanase

For me the notch on the internal face of the Ganja was made during forging to give its domed profile on each side, while starting from a thin piece of metal, in the but to save material.
After that do not say if it is the original Ganja or a replacement.

Originally it was rust welded to the blade, but after a vinegar bath to remove the rust it became free again.

I have some doubts about the originality of the ganja: the colour is different than that of the blade and the sirah cecak is not aligned with the blade.

Jean · 21st February 2021, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIO

I have some doubts about the originality of the ganja: the colour is different than that of the blade and the sirah cecak is not aligned with the blade.

I also noticed that the gulu meled of the ganja (the part behind the sirak cecak) looks to be wider than the pejetan.
Regards

18th February 2021, 05:25 PM	#1
Athanase Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Location: Paris (France) Posts: 417	For me the notch on the internal face of the Ganja was made during forging to give its domed profile on each side, while starting from a thin piece of metal, in the but to save material. After that do not say if it is the original Ganja or a replacement. Originally it was rust welded to the blade, but after a vinegar bath to remove the rust it became free again.

18th February 2021, 06:58 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Kai, the removal of material from the underside of the gonjo is done to facilitate fitting. The gonjo might have been replaced, it is not fitted at the moment and I'd need it in my hand before I could give a supportable opinion, but whether it was or was not replaced , it is a west Jawa gonjo, and in my opinion this is a west Jawa wilahan. Just read Athanase's post.Sounds like an original gonjo. But Athanase, this removal of material from the bottom of a gonjo is not the result of forging, it is stock removal for the reason I've given, and it is common. We cannot, in any case, forge minor details like this.

19th February 2021, 09:49 AM	#3
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	What is the reason for the sloppy & blurred patras, religious reason or just poor craftsmanship? Regards

21st February 2021, 07:48 PM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Kai, I need to explain something:- if I give an opinion, I like to be able to support that opinion. It is not difficult at all to look at superficiality in a photograph and put forward a few ideas, but it is difficult to look at a photograph and form a supportable opinion --- well, at least for me it is. So, the gonjo. Yes, it is a different colour to the colour of the body of the blade, this is because it is different material to the material we can see on the body of the blade, and it has been worked in a different way. The material that forms the blade has been made up of a number of layers that are comprised of iron and a contrasting material that is very likely to be nickelous material, possibly from Luwu. Erosion has removed parts of some of these layers. The gonjo has been made from only iron, and the sides of the gonjo display the edge of the forged material. The gonjo was carved from a very much larger bakalan, so what we see on the sides of the gonjo is iron that has the edges of a small piece of material exposed by cold work, ie, carving. We cannot compare the colour of the gonjo in total with the colour of the blade body in total, we might, perhaps, be able to compare the colour of some exposed areas of iron in the blade body, but even then, we need to have both pieces of material that we are comparing in precisely the same light, and we would need to be able to find an area of exposed iron that had not been affected by heat treat. I would need to use magnification. Is it even remotely possible to compare the colour and qualities of the iron in the blade body, with the iron in gonjo, using as reference a photograph? For me, it is not. That is one of the things that I am unable to give a supportable opinion for. The other thing I cannot give a supportable opinion on is the authorship of the gonjo. It is unfitted. It & the blade have been through a cleaning process, the warangan is far from perfect. The gonjo appears to have suffered some damage. What sort of opinion can I form in these circumstances? Not one that I could support and that is certain. In respect of relieving the underside of the gonjo. It is much easier to mate narrow strips along the edges of the meeting surface of the gonjo than it is to try to get the entire bottom face of the gonjo to meet perfectly with the mating base of the blade. Sometimes the central portion of the mating blade base will also be marginally relieved. I'm not guessing here, this is something that I know with absolute certainty. Why? Personal experience. The absence of cecekan on the hilt is, as Kai has remarked, something that is not uncommon in early examples of this hilt form. The planar hilt form is a very old form in Jawa, and the Javanese form that we are now familiar with had its roots in the Demak era. Going back to this era and before it was not unusual for a man to carve his own keris hilt. This was widespread across Maritime SE Asia and can be thought of as a display of the artistic side of a man's nature in much the same way that weaving was a measure of a woman. It would be of interest to know the provenance of this keris, my feeling is that it has been outside its originating culture for an extended period of time.

22nd February 2021, 02:08 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thank you Athanase

23rd February 2021, 08:31 PM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Kai, my problem is this:- I cannot see nearly enough from an image on a computer screen to be able to know with a reasonable degree of certainty that this gonjo has been replaced or not, and in fact in this case it is not something that I regard as of much importance. I think that we are probably looking at a very old blade here, it has been subject to the ravages of time and it has been cleaned, the gonjo is not mounted, the blade is out of stain, or at least not adequately stained. I simply cannot see enough to give a solid supportable opinion. The best I can do is to look at the image on my screen and try to measure it against what I can remember from the last 70 odd years or so, and I'm sorry, but for me, there is simply not sufficient evidence available in these images to be too sure of a lot. Perhaps you can gain sufficient information from a photograph & a screen image to be able to support your opinions, but I cannot.

21st February 2021, 05:52 PM	#10
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	Hello Gio, I did have the same feeling in my earlier posting #8... Regards, Kai