Keris for identification

A. G. Maisey · 29th August 2022, 09:58 PM

Sorry Gustav, I misunderstood what you wrote, in truth, I just skimmed your text and looked at the images. I have handled quite a few Djeno keris, and less keris by Sungkowo, but looking at the images you posted what I saw was a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris.

In fact what I still see is a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris, in spite of the certificate.

Your wording of text in post #15 is I believe as it should be:- "supposedly".

There is something else I should mention too, not that it makes any real difference. Pak Sungkowo is Pak Djeno's nephew, not his son.

Yes, the word "anak" can be understood as "child" , but it can be understood in many other ways as well, it does not necessarily mean that if we refer to somebody as "anak saya" (my child) that "anak" is necessarily my own offspring.

Pak Parman (Empu Suparman) would refer to me as his "anak", but it was perfectly obvious to all who could see that there was no way I could be the blood child of Pak Parman.

David · 29th August 2022, 10:22 PM

Alan, given that you recognize the keris Gustav presented as a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris, what would your opinion be about the possibility that either man created Sid's keris that opened this thread.
What i see looking at these three keris is three very distinctive ways of rendering ron dha. Is this a significant and/or useful observance?

A. G. Maisey · 29th August 2022, 11:09 PM

David, I would prefer to reserve my opinion in respect of Sid's keris, there is nothing I wish to add to what is already very clear from what this thread contains.

Yes, the way in which the rondha has been executed in these three keris does vary very considerably, but there are multiple other differences as well in the work that has gone into these keris.

What Gustav has said about the variation in the characteristic workmanship of a single maker is true, I made a small number of keris and the way in which I cut the rondha in each of them is different, but in my case this was intentional, I made keris not to follow the profession of Pande Keris, but rather to better understand keris and how to look at and evaluate them.

Somebody who makes keris for a living has different objectives, if he wants his work to be valued he strives to make it recogniseable as his work. This objective can change if a piece of work is not turning out as he would like it to, in which case he will deliberately vary small details so that it is not instantly recogniseable as his own work.

Then we have the problem that some very clever pande keris will deliberately copy the work of other makers, this has been going on for as long as keris have been made, I believe.

In my opinion everything that we can see in the images presented in this thread is well worth taking note of.

29th August 2022, 09:58 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Sorry Gustav, I misunderstood what you wrote, in truth, I just skimmed your text and looked at the images. I have handled quite a few Djeno keris, and less keris by Sungkowo, but looking at the images you posted what I saw was a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris. In fact what I still see is a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris, in spite of the certificate. Your wording of text in post #15 is I believe as it should be:- "supposedly". There is something else I should mention too, not that it makes any real difference. Pak Sungkowo is Pak Djeno's nephew, not his son. Yes, the word "anak" can be understood as "child" , but it can be understood in many other ways as well, it does not necessarily mean that if we refer to somebody as "anak saya" (my child) that "anak" is necessarily my own offspring. Pak Parman (Empu Suparman) would refer to me as his "anak", but it was perfectly obvious to all who could see that there was no way I could be the blood child of Pak Parman.

29th August 2022, 10:22 PM	#2
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,211	Alan, given that you recognize the keris Gustav presented as a Djeno keris & a Sungkowo keris, what would your opinion be about the possibility that either man created Sid's keris that opened this thread. What i see looking at these three keris is three very distinctive ways of rendering ron dha. Is this a significant and/or useful observance?

29th August 2022, 11:09 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	David, I would prefer to reserve my opinion in respect of Sid's keris, there is nothing I wish to add to what is already very clear from what this thread contains. Yes, the way in which the rondha has been executed in these three keris does vary very considerably, but there are multiple other differences as well in the work that has gone into these keris. What Gustav has said about the variation in the characteristic workmanship of a single maker is true, I made a small number of keris and the way in which I cut the rondha in each of them is different, but in my case this was intentional, I made keris not to follow the profession of Pande Keris, but rather to better understand keris and how to look at and evaluate them. Somebody who makes keris for a living has different objectives, if he wants his work to be valued he strives to make it recogniseable as his work. This objective can change if a piece of work is not turning out as he would like it to, in which case he will deliberately vary small details so that it is not instantly recogniseable as his own work. Then we have the problem that some very clever pande keris will deliberately copy the work of other makers, this has been going on for as long as keris have been made, I believe. In my opinion everything that we can see in the images presented in this thread is well worth taking note of.