Keris Jawa?

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your detailed response, and for being even more gentle then usual - I very much appreciate that.

I would like to say, that I never in my life have felt a wish to give Tangguh to something, and that includes this particular Keris. I only would like to try to find some clues which possibly could help to narrow down the time and space window for this Keris, and that in my childish approach includes an attempt to find some existing parallels.

I want to make some points, or better, add some details for possible discussion, and I will need a couple of posts for it, because I would like to address one such detail at time, with pictures.

At first, on goldwork, and goldwork on blade and Gonjo.

On the execution - as naive it sounds, I simply am not aware at this point of such meticulous execution of smallest details in high relief outside of island of Java. Of course there is more to Palembang goldwork on Keris then the frequently seen applied gold foil on spine of Gonjo and Gandhik, but this simply is outside of the Palembang capabilities. The closest example, which comes to my mind is the Sultans Keris from Museum Pusat, E 253/13957, close in many other aspects, but in fineness of goldwork detail it doesn't reach this Keris.

Now to the goldwork on Gonjo. As I said in #4 and Alan in #12, the goldwork has been done intwo different time periods. But that applies only to the flat applicated gold on sides and spine of Gonjo, and of course, sides and spine have been smoothened and prepared in some other way (more apparent on spine - in fact I wonder, if the goldwork on spine is yet from another, third period) to apply it. The goldwork on Gonjo under the Gandhik is stylistically and technically analogous to goldwork on blade, and, perhaps difficult to recognise from picture, but the surface here corresponds to the surface of blade.

[Gustav]

I would like to introduce three other blades. At first, an example from Robert Hales book, page 124. We see some correpondences in goldwork motifs, mainly - the lotus motif in the middle of blade, at the end of middle ridge at Gonjo;
- the ball with five rays; on blade discussed in this thread on Gandhik, on blade from book above Poyuhan.

We see a correspondence in execution of single Sogokan - in both cases the "middle ridge" actually goes slightly out of the middle to the other half of blade, so that we have impression, Odo-Odo starts from the middle of Sogokan and not from Janur. I am quite sure, such handling of single Sogokan we most likely wouldn't find on a Palembang blade.

It perhaps doesn't say anything and is just a coincidence, but there we have another old high quality Mendhak with Meniran Polos, which I haven't seen often so far (I also am quite sure the Mendhak of Keris in question is made from gold).

Well, the attribution of Mr. Hales for this blade is Yogyakarta, 18th cent.

[Gustav]

Why I post yet another Keris - on this example, mounted in Solo style, we see the same rendition of single Sogokan, and above the Poyuhan the same motif as on Keris of this thread, yet reversed. Wassing-Visser identifyes it as an orchid - we may argue about it, but she apparently had assistance of K.R.T. Hardjonegoro on some matters.

As different as this Keris may be, in overall shape of Sorsoran it has similar feeling of a little bit high and too short Gonjo, but of course much less extreme then Keris from this thread.

[Gustav]

The last Keris of this row may be superfluous - it may not share much characteristics with Keris from this thread, the goldwork of it is less in quality, yet I nevertheless see some relation between them. The closest point it gets similar in execution is the motif above Poyuhan. Overall in motifs and overall picture of goldwork, prominent longer lines combined with some "old style" vegetal motifs, it goes close to the Keris from Mr. Hale's book. The goldwork on Gonjo belov the Gandhik is identical to it.

The hilt of this Keris and the original of this thread have very similar elongated shape, not only regarding Bungkul.

[Gustav]

Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.

From my side thanks for your last post #18, that's all perfectly clear for me.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, you have commented:-

''Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.''

No Gustav, this is not quite so, the photos you have shown do make sense, these example keris do have indicators that would probably get them accepted as originating from somewhere in the Island of Jawa. However, these keris do not have sufficient indicators to tip the balance in favour of a specific tangguh classification.

The Wassing-Visser keris you have presented in two photographs, in one photo it looks like a poor attempt at a Surakarta style, in the other photo I would probably give it as generic Mataram --- I'm talking style here, not origin .

I have had to look at these two photos several times to confirm that I am in fact looking at the same keris.

This keris also has characteristics that place it outside Surakarta and also exclude it from Mataram, but do tend towards the group of keris that bear characteristics congruent with production of a "rare & unusual" keris produced especially for the collector market.

Harjonegoro was well known in the dealer community in Solo as a buyer for this type of keris. In addition he was not always, let us say, ''open'', evidence of this can be found in published works, evidence that is perfectly obvious as falsehood to some people but would be accepted as gospel by others.

The Robert Hales example is regrettably a very indistinct photo --- it might be a bit easier to see detail when I get home and can use a decent monitor. However, yes, I would accept the Hales keris as originating in the Island of Jawa, but I cannot see much agreement between the Hales keris and the keris we have been discussing, in simple terms they do not look similar, the major sticking point is pawakan.

A full length photo would be useful, an initial indicator for all keris is pawakan.

The keris with the loose gonjo I can also accept as Island of Jawa, but again no similarity with the keris under discussion.

To my eye, and using the parameters I was taught to work with, the three examples of keris that you believe to be similar in some way to the keris under discussion are not very similar to this keris at all.

The major deviation is pawakan, but there is also another, the three keris you have posted as examples all have tungkakan, the keris under discussion does not.

All three examples you have posted have greneng, there is very significant variation in these greneng.

Gustav, the things that you consider as binding indicators are not the things that I have been taught to use as binding indicators. For example, gold work of any type can be considered in a similar way to the way we consider dress, it is just makeup. We would never use either gold work or dress as an indicator for determination of blade classification.

In a previous post I wrote this:-

"--- similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time ---"

I do accept that all three examples you have posted have similarities, I also accept that all three examples you have posted might be able to be considered as originating within the Island of Jawa, however, my position with the keris under discussion is unaltered, I am not prepared to attempt a classification, there are too many conflicting indicators.

I have said that I cannot classify this keris and then defend that classification, this is so:- I cannot.

But equally, I cannot disallow a point of origin, the keris under discussion could be from almost anywhere, but I fail to see how a specific point of origin could be nominated and then that opinion defended --- at least defended in a way that would be accepted by people who have some understanding of the way in which the Central Javanese keris classification systems are used.

[A. G. Maisey]

*****