Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > Keris Warung Kopi
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 3rd November 2022, 05:37 AM   #1
JeffS
Member
 
JeffS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 427
Default

Withdrawing my comment.

Last edited by JeffS; 3rd November 2022 at 11:29 PM.
JeffS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 06:00 AM   #2
JustYS
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 145
Default

Hi jagabuwana,

I agreed with you, I will try to get hold of this book as well.

Hi Alan,

Looking at the keris itself, my first impression is that the pawakan looks awkward. The sharp bent above the gandhik seems to me lack of harmony.
Attached Images
 
JustYS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 07:08 AM   #3
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,015
Default

Perhaps we might consider the dimensions & proportions?

Does this keris have a separate gonjo or is gonjo iras?

Have we looked closely at the pesi?

Have we considered the actual blade sculpting that is covered by the bronze overlay?

Lots of things going on here gentleman. Can we relate all these things to the Keris Buda form?

Harmony?

Well, from that perspective it is certainly no symphony.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 07:30 AM   #4
JustYS
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 145
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey View Post
Perhaps we might consider the dimensions & proportions?

Does this keris have a separate gonjo or is gonjo iras?

Have we looked closely at the pesi?

Have we considered the actual blade sculpting that is covered by the bronze overlay?

Lots of things going on here gentleman. Can we relate all these things to the Keris Buda form?

Harmony?

Well, from that perspective it is certainly no symphony.
Thank you for posing these questions Alan.

To my untrained eyes, Knaud Keris has round pesi, which would not be conform to Keris Buda that typically square pesi?

Last edited by JustYS; 3rd November 2022 at 07:39 AM. Reason: deleted the gonjo part
JustYS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 12:48 PM   #5
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,015
Default

Thank you for your comments JYS.

In fact, I've been looking at pictures of that Knaud for years, I mean literally years. I've probably looked at The Knaud pictures more than I've looked at any other keris or pictures of keris.

In spite of all that looking I could not make up my mind in respect of two little questions, just little questions, maybe most people would not think that these little questions were even questions, just idle, wandering curiosity. But to me these questions were the single biggest unanswered questions about The Knaud, and they were unanswerable, because The Knaud was lost, but then it just sort of magically reappeared again, it came into the hands of a highly respected writer on the keris, David Van Duuren, and a door opened.

Mr. Van Duuren took the whole legend apart, top to bottom, and in the process answered many questions, something that I am very grateful for. But he did not answer the two questions that had worked their way to the top of my question list.

So, after reading his book, I wrote to him and asked if the gonjo was round or square, most especially if it was round or square at the point where it exited the gonjo, I also asked if there was any evidence if it had ever had a metuk fitted, and if it had an integral (iras) gonjo or if the gonjo was separate to the blade.

Mr. Van Duuren responded promptly and without equivocation:-

1) the pesi is round
2) there is no evidence of a metuk
3) the gonjo is iras, ie, it was forged as integral with the blade

I currently have custody of four typical keris buda, well, three are typical, the fourth is much larger than typical, but also of typical buda form, one of the three has lost its original gonjo and its gonjo has been replaced. All four have or had gonjos that were forged separately to the body of the blade.

Apart from these four KB's I also have two transitional keris, that is, keris that bear some features of a KB and some features of the Modern Keris. Both these transitional keris have gonjos that were forged separately to the body of the blade.

In the past I have had other KB's that I passed on to other people. I have also handled KB's that belonged to other people, or that were for sale and I did not buy.

I have only ever seen one genuine old KB that had a gonjo iras and that keris was a cast bronze keris.

I have never seen a genuine old KB that had been made with a round pesi.

In Jawa, the very first thing that any keris literate person looks at in order to form an opinion on the age of a very old keris is the pesi at the point where it emerges from the gonjo. If it has a round pesi it is eliminated from consideration as being of extreme age.

So, is it possible for me to accept that a keris with a round pesi and an integral gonjo actually was produced prior to the collapse of Majapahit?

But the pesi and the gonjo are only two questionable characteristics, there are also other things that raise questions.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 05:17 PM   #6
Bob A
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 436
Default

I don't have the book, nor have I read it. The only information I have is from the posts here, and the pictures that I can see on my computer screen.

The question I have relates to the apparent wear on the carved figures: how might it have occurred, on an object that would presumably have haf great significance? It seems odd that this should be the case. Was it an intentional part of the design, to emulate the worn figures on carved stone statuary? On first glance, that was my impression.

My experience with sculpture from the area of its origin is nearly nil, as is most of my understanding of the keris, and indeed of the culture from whence it sprang, so I hope my effrontery in commenting will be viewed in that context, and forgiven for its lack of sophistication.
Bob A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2022, 08:32 PM   #7
Gustav
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,280
Default

While reeding van Duuren's booklet I was stunned how thin in fact the story of Charles Knaud's brothers grandson (who "was familiar with direct descendants existence, but not personally acquainted with them") is - not better and not worse then contemporary keris-selling-stories in Indonesia.

There surely are many questions about this object, because almost every physical part of it is a question. I would like to adress a small, seemingly unimportant feature.

On the Sogokan side of the bronze plaque there is depicted a carriage, drawn by two horses (?) and a single rider on a horse. My problem with this depiction is a following one: until now I don't know of any similar representation of carriages wheels in such spatial way in East-Javanese period art.

The same I can say about the representation of the dynamic motion of the horse with rider - I don't know the proper name of this motion, let's call it a leaping horse. It is something we can find in Middle-East/Indian/European art, perhaps in later Javanese manuscript illuminations or Wayang, but until now I haven't seen anything comparable from East Javanese period.

Also exactly the same spatial rendering of wheels of carriage (and the animals which are drawing it) can be find on Wayang Kulit figures, which date back to 19th century.

I also would like to address a section in van Duuren's conclusion I have a problem with. It defends authenticity of the object and he writes:

"Moreover, do so at a time when Javanese antiquities were only of value to a small number of ethnological museums and an extremely small circle of experts. After all, a commercial market for collectors, antique dealers and auctions where many Asian antiquities are handled - and where an Indo-Javanese keris presented as genuine would not attract a high price if nobody had realized it was a fake - did not exist."

In the collection of Raffles there are 132 metal figurines. Most of them are from Middle-/East-Javanese period, but over 20 are datable of end of 1700ties/beginning of 1800ties. They are very crude forgeries of art from earlier periods, collected in 1811-1816. That means that already at that time Javanese must have seen here a possibility of profit and started to make these again after a gap of about 300 years. How much more advanced the "art" could have been in 1880ties! Let's remember - the Knaud's keris entered the reality as a submission to "Exhibition of Products of Some Brances of Industry and Art", was given the second prize, and apparently was part of a collection, which "has never been described anywhere", not the best provenance we can think of.

I think, there is a quite high percent of possibility the Knaud's Keris is a hoax, and this percent did not become smaller with me after reading the booklet. On the other side, I must accept, that I actually know almost nothing. I would like to make an illustration of that feeling with another keris, the state heirloom of Kutai Kartanagara. The tradition says, it comes from time of Majapahit, it is depicted as drawing in Schmeltz's article from 1890. Regrettably this is the only photograph of it I could find - enjoy!
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Gustav; 3rd November 2022 at 08:43 PM.
Gustav is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.