Keris Jawa?

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I keep on telling you that you see things differently to the elite keris authorities of Central Jawa, and to me (but I am no Elite), but I have not yet explained how different.

Here is a short list of major indicators that we bring into consideration when trying to determine the classification of a keris blade.

Under each of these heads there are characteristics that can be representative of characteristics found in each established tangguh. I am not going to name these characteristics, nor attempt to explain them, the words & concepts are mostly Javanese and we need to adopt a Javanese frame of reference to achieve entry level understanding, usable understanding can only be achieved through personal tuition on a face to face basis and with access to good examples.

These days there is a multitude of tangguhs, and a lot of these have appeared over the last 30 or so years, they would not all have been recognised as legitimate, in Solo, during the 1980's.

Here I also provide a short list of major, recognised tangguh classifications.

Major Tangguh Classification Indicators as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo

Tanting
Besi
Pamor
Baja
Pawakan
Gonjo
Gandhik
Blumbangan
Sogokan
Ada-ada (odo-odo)
Kruwingan
Eluk-lukan
Wadidang

Major Tangguh Classifications as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo
Accepted as Javanese
Jenggolo
Pajajaran I
Pajajaran II
Mojopahit
Kahuripan
Pengging
Segaluh
Tuban
Pajang
Mataram Senopati
Mataram Sultan Agung
Tuban Mataram/Pajajaran/Mojopahit
Kartosuro
Surakarta
Koripan
Godean

Accepted as outside Jawa
Madura
Kupang
Bugis

It is important to note that these classification names cannot necessarily be understood in a way that the name itself would seem to indicate, classifications can refer to era, or geographic location, or society, or culture there are other un-named classifications.
Tangguh classification should be understood as the name of a classification only, other meanings should not be read into the name in the absence of expert guidance.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your elaborate response and the Tangguh summary.

My only aim at the beginning was to try to explain, why I don't believe the initial Keris of this thread could originate in South Sumatra, Palembang. I posted the three other Keris, because I (at this point or forever) guess, they all could be from roughly the same time period - end of 18th cent until at latest middle of 19th cent., and come from Central Java. I see and understand, why you doubt such geographical attribution for the initial Keris - oncemore thank you for your last three posts.

Just a clarification about the Keris from Wassing-Visser's book - it was part of King Willem's III collection, that means, most likely collected before 1860. She had help of K.R.T Hardjonegoro identifying items, so there is a possibility, that the identification of the Kinatah motif as orchid, and the estimation of blade as ancient type of Solo Keris be his.

And I have a question about Tungkakan. Can we indeed say, the initial Keris doesn't have one, in contrast to the other three? To me the size of it and at least that on Keris from V-W's book seems to be similar.

[Gustav]

On side line, regarding "early Pakualaman Keris" - perhaps I can imagine, why there is no classification for Keris from Pakualaman in Solo.

This one is later, already from around 1875. I am not sure we can say it looks like Godean.

If a long point on Keris Luk is a typical Godean characteristic, Karyodikromo's Keris don't have it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav for the images of keris for comparison.

At this point I'm a bit confused where this conversation is going, I sort of get the feeling that you are trying to demonstrate that the several keris that you have posted pics of all originate from the same place, and that place is the Pakulamanan in Jogja, and if that is correct, then the keris under discussion might also originate from the Pakualamanan in Jogja.

Is this correct?

If so, yes, it is a possibility, but to my eye none of them look like the keris under discussion, and I cannot form an opinion on the keris under discussion, nor of any of the keris of which you have posted photos. I have nothing to measure against, the photos are not particularly good, they have been through a printing process and then a second photographic process.

It is more than a little bit difficult to try to determine tangguh from a photo, and from my perspective all the keris you have posted photos of vary sufficiently to prevent me from forming an opinion on their relationship one to another, or on their point of origin.

Yes, the three keris you have posted images of do look to have originated somewhere in the Island of Jawa, I am reluctant to try to give any of these three keris a classification, but I do agree, they all appear to have originated in the Island of Jawa. None of the three have similarity to the keris under discussion, at least for me they do not.

Gustav, you keep on coming back to the gold work, but if we are trying to establish a classification for the blade, this gold work is totally irrelevant. The motifs are generic and can be found in multiple variation across a very wide area, I said something similar in an earlier post.

I just don't know where we're going.

I doubt that I can contribute anything further to this exchange that might be of some value.



However, just a couple of additional comments probably won't do any harm.


The keris on P.171 of "Royal Gifts" is certainly a Solo keris when it is dressed, however, looking at just the blade, the photos on P.171 are not big enough nor clear enough for me to be certain that the blade itself is a Surakarta blade.

This P.171 keris does not appear to have Surakarta rondha, and the blumbangan appears to be square rather than boto adeg. I've said "appears to be", the blumbangan form is very important, and both the photographic process and the printing process can alter this shape. The variation in shape only needs to be very, very tiny for it to change an opinion on origin.

From what I believe I can see in this P.171 photo I think that upon close examination, this keris might prove to be Mataram --- generic, but still Mataram pattern.

As to identification of the kinatah motif, and the involvement of Goh Tik Swan (ie, Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.)).

The caption under the photo 162 on P.171 does not say that the blade of this complete keris is ancient, it says that the keris in the photo, ie, the entire keris, is an ancient type of keris. Yes, it is an old type, the ladrangan wrongko looks like a type that runs back into the 18th-19th century at least. But the blade? We do not have an opinion on the blade, only on the complete keris.

When we describe a keris in English, we only have one word --- "keris" --- to use for the keris + dress, and for the bare blade of the keris, an advanced collector will understand that if he wishes correctly describe a keris he must separate the description of the blade from the scabbard, would a writer who is a generalist have the same degree of understanding?

Wassing-Visser has shown a complete keris, blade + scabbard, the word "ancient" has been applied to both. I personally feel that the original word used in Dutch might have been "old", or even "very old", and the translator or proof reader has used "ancient", possibly for the sake of style. I have had exactly this same experience myself.

Wassing-Visser acknowledges the assistance of large number of people in production of "Royal Gifts", GTS might have been involved, he might not have been involved, but whether he was or not, no mention is made of the blade of the keris, and the motif might be interpreted as one of the million & one variations of this motif by anybody with some knowledge of Javanese motifs and a motif pattern book --- you need the book, there are far too many motifs & motif variations for anybody to remember. Wassing-Visser could well have interpreted this kinatah motif herself.

In another caption attached to photo 161, a close-up of the sorsoran of this same keris Wassing-Visser names the sogokan as a blood groove. This does not sound like the GTS whom I knew. I strongly suspect that the involvement of Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.) might have been marginal. The inclusion of noted personalities in an acknowledgement list is always a strong support for the material put forward in a published work.


Tungkakan?

I blew it. I was wrong.

The keris under discussion does indeed have a tungkakan. I failed to check the close-ups before writing, I only looked at the full length photo on the rather inadequate laptop screen I was using yesterday, and on this screen I was not able to see the tungkakan. I'm back to my desktop monitor and can see it clearly.

But in any case, sloppy work on my part, I should have looked at the close-ups, I did not.

Why does the list of major (& for that matter, minor) possible keris tangguh classificiations not include the name "Pakualam"?

Nobody has ever told me why, but I do have a pretty firm opinion, and that is because it seems to be very difficult for members of the Surakarta Hadiningrat Karaton hierarchy to even acknowledge the existence of the Karaton Ngayogyakarta, let alone the minor line of Pakualam.

The Pakualamanan is a very minor entity, in English terms it can be thought of as a duchy. The guidelines that set the standards for tangguh classification do not extend to an entity such as the Pakualamanan:- it is very recent (1810 est'd or 1813, I'm not sure which), there is no honour attached to it, it is even less important than the Mangkunegaraan in Solo, and that does not get included in worthy classifications either. Both these houses are simply not good investments from a Javanese point of view.

A whole swath of other minor nonentities are left out of consideration too, the only objective is in applying a classification that can carry some degree of honour, which will ensure that the keris concerned can act as a vehicle for protection of wealth. This is the reason why we only focus on major entities, or at least use the names of major entities.

I've tried to explain, I'll try again:-

the use of the Solo Tangguh Classification system is not to keep collectors happy by giving them something to do on empty Sunday afternoons. It has absolutely nothing to do with collectors from the perspective of the involved Javanese nobility. It has to do with wealth and how to hold wealth in a way that is both socially acceptable and likely to prevent erosion of that wealth.


Regarding the characteristic of a long point on a Godean keris with luk.

Did Karyodikromo make any keris with luk for Groneman?

I don't think I've seen a photo of a Karyodikromo keris with luk.

My memory is that Groneman commissioned 5 keris & his focus was pamor, not dhapur, all 5 keris --- again from memory --- were straight. I think I've still got the KITLV publication of a few years back, I'll see if I can find it and check. (NB, I have now checked, yes, Groneman commissioned five straight keris)

I do remember that when I first saw the kerises that Groneman had had made I thought that they looked a bit like Solo keris (I still do). Maybe Karyodikromo was using a Solo blak.

In my experience every smith of any kind, including keris makers, always use a blak --- ie, pattern, template --- when they make something, but in the case of keris, in the finished product we can usually find characteristics that indicate the school from which the maker has come.

So we can have a Koripan keris that displays the indicators of a M'ram SA keris, in a photo that Koripan keris could be identified as M'ram SA, but once it is in the hand it usually becomes clear that it is Koripan. Exactly the same with Godean, the base characteristics come shining through, but we cannot pick these up from a photo, we need to handle the object.


Incidentally Gustav, what is the source of the photos in your post #28?

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your response again.

None of these Keris I posted are from Pakualaman to my current knowledge, except #28.

The Keris from #28, by Karyocurigo I, is in Museum Bronbeek, Netherlands.

In Groneman's plates from van Duuren's "The Javanese Keris", except for the five straight blades commissioned by Dr. Heger, Keris by Karyodikromo are, starting from p. 246 Fig. 11a, 12, 16a, 18, 19a. Starting from p. 264, Fig. 1, 3, 4. The colour photo on p. 233 is another Keris by Karyodikromo, this one from Groneman's heirs. They all are Keris Luk.

I happen to own two Keris Luk by Karyodikromo, so I have an idea how they are in the real life.

Regarding gold work. In #12 you wrote: The motifs used in the gold work are motifs I have not seen in Central Javanese kinatah work.

After your best guess for the original Keris was South Sumatra, I have presented three other Javanese Keris, which share some of the motifs seen on original Keris. Besides gold work three of the four are very close in execution of the Sogokan, which also isn't South Sumatran style. I think, my intent should be quite clear.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for that further information Gustav.

So only the keris in post #28 is definitely from a maker attached to the Pakualamanan, and this keris dates from +/-1875?

Very interesting, thank you.

You say that the five keris mentioned in "The Javanese Keris" were commissioned by Mr. Heger?

It seems I have misunderstood what is printed on P.45 of this book. There it tells us that some pieces of Prambanan meteorite were given to Mr. Heger by (I assume) the Sultan of Ngayogyakarta.

Groneman is the writer, and he refers to "our empu" in this text several times. I cannot find a mention of who actually did the commission the five blades, and have always assumed that Heger provided the material, Groneman commissioned the work for the purpose of documenting it.

But you know as a certainty that it was Heger who commissioned the work?

Again, interesting, & I thank you for this clarification.

Thank you for identifying the keris that you know for certain were made by Karyodikromo. I'm guessing that you have obtained this information from sources outside of "The Javanese Keris"?

I've perused the notes for the illustrated kerises & I cannot find a maker identified for kerises 11, 12, 16, 18, the notes only refer to "the empu". All these keris have a long point, bear in mind, this is Surakarta perspective, and the ideal Surakarta keris has a short point & buntut tumo form.

I can find makers identified for:-

Fig 17 --- Karyodikromo
Fig 15 --- Supotaruno
Fig. 19 --- Karyodikromo
Fig. 20 --- Supotaruno

Fig. 15 is a keris commissioned by Groneman , so we know that he was working with empus other only Karyodikromo.

Since you know for a certainty that these other keris that are not attributed to any particular empu in the notes, was in fact Karyodikromo, I assume you have information from sources other than only the book?

Or maybe I did not read sufficient or sufficiently carefully everything that is in the book? This is entirely possible, I start to read a keris book full of hope, then I find ridiculous and just plain wrong statements, and my hope just dribbles away.

The notes for the kerises shown in the plates (P.264, plate 8, 9, 10, Fig. 1, 3, 4) name Karyodikromo as the maker of the keris in Fig. 1, but there seems to be no mention of the maker of the two other kerises. Is this information included in the book "The Javanese Keris"?

The keris in the coloured photo shown on P.233 has indicators that incline substantially towards a Surakarta classification.

Interestingly, the keris in the plates, Fig. 1, 3, 4 all seem to bear characteristics that could see them considered for a Godean classification, but as I have previously commented, distortion of proportion occurs so frequently during the photographic process, and also during the printing process that it is frequently not possible to be confident about giving a classification from a published image.

To use tangguh classification correctly we really do need the keris to be in hand, there is only a very limited amount of information that can be transmitted by a photograph.

Gustav, you are extremely fortunate to have the custody of two keris produced by Karyodikromo, I do not know personally anybody who has custody of even one keris by this maker, and I have never seen --- except in photos --- nor handled a keris that could with certainty be attributed to this maker. I compliment you upon your good fortune.

[Gustav]

On commission - Groneman writes, p. 44: "I was permitted, in the name of the Austrian Senior Governmental Administrator Franz Heger, the well-known ethnologist and ethnographer, to commission the production of five krisses, each of which was to be decorated with one of the five ancient Javanese pamor motifs (...)"

Dr. Heger, Head of the Anthropological-Ethnographical Department of the Imperial Art History Museum in Vienna, writes in his report: "Thanks to the friendly mediation of Dr. Groneman, the reporter was introduced to the representative of Prince Paku Allam in Djokja, who commissioned his court blacksmith to produce five kris blades with the main Pamors for the Court Museum in Vienna"

This Pakualaman representative is Pangeran Arjo Noto di Rodjo.

The five straight blades still are in Vienna, the Museum is now called Welt Museum.

Groneman served as a middleman also for other persons, ordering Keris from Karyodikromo.

Most of Keris Groneman were given, had acquired, or commissioned for himself after his death were given to the Museum in Leiden.

I hope this clarifies the matter.

Regarding the last Luk, I would like to object - Keris 11, 12, 16 don't have a long last Luk, the shape of this last Luk is typical for Karyodikromo. Keris 18 is here an exeption.

Incidentally, description of Keris on p. 233 in museums online catalogue includes the mention it has been made by Karyodikromo.

For the other Keris in collection, which are 1 and 3, no such mentions can be find.

I can assure you, that, when Groneman mentions "the Empu" or "our Empu" without a name in descriptions of plates or in other articles devoted to smithing in Pakualaman, he means Karyodikromo.

Of course I am avare of the fact, that a word of a person with knowledge that has been gained in the absence of adequate time & experience & tuition means as much as a lecture of 6 years old child on the intricacies of Quantum Mechanics. I guess I must live with this bitter yoke, which surely will last forever on me.

I am very pleased to be able to accept your compliments.

[rasdan]

From what I see, I think 19th century keris from Jogja probably does not adhere to the tangguh specification/standard from Solo. It is known that Jogja follows the Mataram pattern, but in some sense I think they are probably not as strict in following the Mataram pattern in terms of consistencies.

And then we have kerises that were made outside of Kraton. Those kerises can also be seen as nice kerisses, but they very frequently will have mixed indicators; again when looked from Solo point of view.

This does not only apply to Jogja keris. It applies to all "newer" keris outside of the Solo tangguh and quality system; Palembang etc. they can be nice kerises, but the indicators will be mixed.

So we have a bulk of nice 19th century kerises that appears to be Javanese, but of unknown origin and we frequently have to determine the origin using the dress. If we take any of the blades and put it in a different dress, chances of tracking is quite slim. Of course some keris we can still see indicators of origin, but but for many, there is a very slim chance of knowing for sure.

As a collector, the important part in my opinion is knowing how to assess quality. Something can be from anywhere, but if the quality is OK then it is OK.

From what I understand, the Solo specifications are very strict and the kerises are of a very high standard. It is no joke. If you apply quality standards from Solo (that I myself do not understand) I think it will be very difficult to find a matching keris. Even to get a chance to purchase a good quality Solo keris is already an honour.

So when I see a nice keris, I will try to place it in a classification. If it does not fit, it is OK; and if I can afford it, I'll buy it. Origin is not really important for me, as long as it has the age and respective quality that set as minimum and I can afford it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your response Gustav.

So in "The Javanese Keris" Groneman states that he commissioned the five keris, but in Heger's report Heger states that Prince Pakualam actually did the commissioning.

Thank you for this clarification Gustav.

I guess the Heger report is not available in English?

In respect of "long last luk", Gustav, I think you mean "long point"? and yes, all these keris do in fact have a long point, but as I tried to point out, that point is a long point from the Surakarta perspective, the fact that it is typical for Karyodikromo, simply strengthens the possibility that Karyodikromo was perhaps from the Godean school. He had to come from somewhere, and Godean --- a district in Ngayogyakarta --- is very close to the Pakualamaman, perhaps in past times it was under the administration of the Pakualamanan.

Thank you for advising that the keris on P.233 has been attributed to Karyodikromo by the museum which holds it.

Gustav, I do not for one moment doubt your assurances that Groneman invariably was referring to Karyodikromo when he used the terms "the empu" or "our empu", I assume you do have some sort of evidence to support your assurance?

Since Groneman was clearly using at least one other maker attached to the Pakualamanan , it would be really nice if we could have some sort of evidence as to whom he was writing about when he failed to mention a name. Perhaps you have access to some unpublished, or obscure reports written by Groneman?

Gustav, I feel that in your last paragraph you are being far too hard on yourself. In my opinion you have gained an enormous amount of keris knowledge & keris related knowledge simply by the diligent examination of published material, whether on-line or in hard copy. I have come at this subject over a 70 or so year period, and my efforts have cost me a couple of small fortunes, no education comes free, yes, I have covered ground that believe would now be impossible to cover. But you have come at the subject from a very different angle and have used different sources and within the restrictions under which you have been forced to work, you also have also covered a lot of ground. Don't be hard on yourself, you should be quite pleased with the progress you have achieved.