Mendhak Jogja and Solo

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Dear Michel,

The instructional of keris making in Haryono's book (page 110, 111, and 112), is really technical. Litterally, the "javanese" words -- yes, those are all javanese words -- may means different from the words. Like "nyawati" in the first picture (number 15). Literally means like "throwing stones to somewhere". Or "diwangun" (there are diwangun 1, diwangun 2, and diwangun 3) literally means forming the blade in order not to be "clumsy" (?) -- you may help me, Mas Boedhi. On "ngilap" and "ngleseh" these were really "plastical" javanese words, that needs to see the demonstration...

I think Alan could explain to you better on these really technical instructions of keris making -- the second stage of keris blade forming...

Ganjawulung

Without the book on my hand, I'm afraid I cannot give much explanation, Mas Ganja. But if I may suggest you, Michel, you should understand the meaning of "diwangun", "ngilap" of "ngleseh" simply as grinding, filing or shaping. Yes, there are some different purpose/stress on each step, but the action is almost the same. "ngluroni" is to anneal / normalize the blade. Furthermore, you don't miss much by not understanding the exact meaning of each steps in keris making, as long as you can 'grasp' the meaning

wish may help,

boedhi adhitya

[Michel]

Thank you Gentlemen,
You both helped.
To let you understand why is it important for me to understand some words of "Javanese" (and not Indonesian, as I had assumed), I am in the process of giving shape to a keris patrem. During my first steps (forging) I made few errors that were corrected by Alan, lemmythesmith, Ric, all forumnites. Before and during the long process of stock removal, I wanted to avoid new errors and the good images of Keris Jawa, are an excellent guide that can be improved by the understanding of the words :diwangun", "ngilap" of "ngleseh". as grinding , filing , shaping. It is a confirmation that my understanding was correct. But fig. 30 and 31 : Natah tikel alis and Natah sraweyan, would be even more useful !
Alan was also kind enough to supply a complete glossary of terms related to keris, which quite obviously do not cover very specific Javanese keris manufacturing terms.
Thank you to all, your help is appreciated.
Regards
Michel

[A. G. Maisey]

One of the big defects with my language skills is that I do not really know when I am speaking Javanese or when I am speaking Indonesian, I've never learnt either language formally, only picked them up from talking to people, mostly in Solo. If I read the instructions on pages 111, 112, it seems to me that I am reading a mixture of what many people in Solo will claim is Indonesian, plus some Javanese. These are not literate people, true, but this is what they will speak to me if I say--- sorry, I'm not following, could you use Indonesian please--- then I get these words mixed with other definitely Indonesian words. If you tell me its all Javanese, Pak Ganja, then its all Javanese, but its what a lot of people have used to me when I've asked for Indonesian.

The diagrams and captions given on these pages are only a very broad overview of a work flow. I wouldn't call any of it technical, its just like a schematic of the progress of making a keris, it certainly does not in any way tell you how to actually make a keris.Its just stuff like "put in the jalen", "bend the kembang kacang","soften", "chisel out the sogokan", "smooth the chisel work"--- and so on.And not everybody would necessarily agree with the order given. Not at all technical instructions, just a broad over-view of workflow.

As to my explaining these instructions, well, they're not really instructions.The workflow shown is more or less :- plan the work, design the work, roughly shape the work, cut the kembang kacang, put in the jalen, bend the KK, refine the form, cut the sogokan etc, smooth the chisel work, refine the work. As I said, its just a broad overview and doesn't really tell you anything at all about how to make a keris (particularly when it says "nglempeng ada-ada"---how the hell does one "nglempeng" an ada-ada in a waved keris? got me beat).However, for (a collector--deleted) those who do not know the process it will give some rough idea of the way in which the work proceeds. Some of the really vital things that you need to do are not even hinted at.

Incidentally Michel, the glossary I pointed you to is far from complete, its just something that has built up haphazardly over the years to answer questions.We could probably triple that glossary, and it would still be deficient.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

....However, for a collector who does not know the process it will give some rough idea of the way in which the work proceeds. Some of the really vital things that you need to do are not even hinted at..

Not just collector, Alan... Sometimes (me) a knife-seller too. Sometimes, I join to watch (watcher, then) my friend Yantono in Solo, making kerises in his "besalen" in Palur. Or making knife with pamor, commissioned by someone. Or sometimes "join" my old friend, Hajar Satoto (young artist in Solo) making "strange dhapur" kerises in Bekonang...

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, when I used the word "collector" I was not in any way referring to you.

In fact, you were the furthest thought from my mind.

I was referring to the general public with an interest in keris but who do not understand the making process. Perhaps I should have written :-
"but for those who do not know"

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Originally Posted by Michel

Thank you Gentlemen,
You both helped.
To let you understand why is it important for me to understand some words of "Javanese" (and not Indonesian, as I had assumed), I am in the process of giving shape to a keris patrem.

Well, now I see why you desperately want to understand those terminologies/step.

What you really need is, IMHO, a stong 'mental image' on how the keris shape suppose to be. Then, try to realize it. It is very important. Take particular attention to proportion of length, width, thickness and angle (the condong-leleh), in whole, in every details (ricikan), and on proportion of each detail compared each other (for example, between the sekar kacang and jalen, and sekar kacang, jalen, and gandhik, and so on). Make a picture, or model as a guide. Ki Yosopangarso described it as Wujud =a finely defined details/ricikans, and Wangun ='proper harmony', 'balance' of each ricikan and the blade as a whole, including the pamor appearance. It also describe the word 'diwangun' = to make it 'wangun', to 'harmonize'. Wangun is deeply connected to your feeling/rasa. 'Wangun' or 'not wangun' is judged by your feeling. You must have a feeling for wangun in every step of keris making. So, wheter you are forging, grinding, filing or chiseling the blank, and even etching, you must make 'wangun' as your main consideration.

Ngilap and ngleseh is part of cold/benchworking process (not so 'cold', I think ). So I assume you've made a keris blank.

After you make a keris blank, the next step is 'silak/nyilak waja ' : to reveal the core/steel. Etching the edge will help. Examine the position and thickness of the core (wheter it is properly centered or not and the thickness is even and thick/thin enough). If problem encountered (very likely), you solve it by 'ngilap'= fine forging. Then you do the nyilak waja again or 'nyawati' to see wheter the problems has been solved or not. The difference between 'nyilak waja' and 'nyawati' is : on 'nyilak waja' you simply make a blunt, perpendicular edge, while in 'nyawati' you make a very acute edge/bevel. Nyawati is the refinement of nyilak waja. It also make a rough edge.

Repeat the process : Nyilak waja/nyawati - ngilap - nyilak waja, until all core centered and has even thickness. Some other works may be done in between, including 'diwangun'. After all core centered, the next step is 'ngleseh'. Ngleseh is simply to reveal the pamor by filing/grinding the blank. While nyilak waja/nyawati and ngilap concentrated on the edge, 'Ngleseh' start the process of shaping the whole blade. You may do some ngilap too, if needed.

As Pak Alan said, not every body agree to the order given. You may customize your own process, as needed. But the principle may be the same : working the edge/core, the blade, then the details/ricikan. When and where each process would overlap each other, depends 100% on you.

It is worth to note that not everybody, even today's keris maker, would recognize all the name of the process. Nglanji or pidakan are quite common, but ngilap, I think, is not.They just simply don't bother . It is useful if an empu try to communicate some of the process to his assistant, such as "please do some ngilap again here and here.." and so on, but not every keris maker has assistant today.

Other book describing the keris making process is The World of Javanese Keris by Garret and Bronwen Solyom, among other.

I made some hasty illustration that I wish may help.

Good luck !

[Michel]

Thank You Mas Boedhi,
You really did a nice job and translated many words. These instructions will join those of Alan in my references and I think I will complete, for my own purpose, the glossary of Alan, with all these new words and concepts that you have translated.
Your work is very much appreciated.
Kind regards
Michel

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Boedhi, when I read your most recent post I found myself wondering how you had managed to extract the information you provided in your diagrams from the captions and diagrams in Haryoguritno's book.

I asked myself what it was that I was missing. What I can see in Pak Guritno's book are diagrams where I can see a workflow, and words that by twisting the meanings as I understand them, I can relate to the workflow, but I cannot see anything that relates to your explanation of truing up the core. Then I realised that you do not have the book and diagrams in front of you, and you are quoting from a different source. Your explanation of truing up a blade core is good, but it is not conveyed by the diagrams and captions in Haryoguritno's book; this is something that you have learnt from a different source--- as you say:- you do not have the book with you.

Actually, if the forging of the blade is carefully carried out, the core will usually be found to be fairly well centered; it is only with careless forging that a core will be so far off centre that we need to make a large compensatory adjustment. Usually you can carry out any necessary adjustment as you go along, without making a special process of it at the beginning of the blade carving. If it is necessary to make major corrections, you would finish up with a blade that was far too thin, which is a well known fault in the work of one particular very well known empu of the current era.

Since the keris book is in Indonesian, and these captions are not standard Indonesian, it occurred to me that perhaps Pak Guritno had supplied a glossary, so I had a quick run through the book, and lo and behold, there on page 98 is a glossary of terms used in making keris.

I have taken the liberty of providing translations of the meanings given in this glossary for the words under discussion.As the languages involved are not my native languages, I would appreciate any corrections you see fit to advise upon.

nyawati--- file the edge of the blade at an angle
diwangun---to shape, to correct, to make perfect
ngilap--- forge lightly to smooth the surface
ngleseh--- not in glossary, but in correct Javanese, not jargon, it means "to spread something out on the ground"
ndudut--- forge out
ngisi--- not in glossary, to put in
ngeluk--- bend
mekak--- sharpen the form ( cut precisely)
ngluroni--- soften (anneal)
natah--- cut with a chisel, carve
ngelus--- not in glossary, to smooth or refine something
nglempeng--- not in glossary, but in correct Javanese "to go in a straight line"; when spoken with accented "e"'s, to make thin and flat.
ngrata--- level the surface
nglanji--- fit with precision
ngrapetake--- not in glossary, to fix tightly
gawe--- not in glossary, a job, nggawe is to make or construct
nglamak--- not in glossary, in this sense, nglamakake is to even up, to make the same with; "nglamak" is jargon from this word.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

You are correct, Pak Alan. It wasn't possible to draw the silak waja, nyawati and ngilap's illustration/explanation from Pak Guritno's book alone. I was using 'another sources'. Not really another sources, actually, as it also came from Empu Djeno. It is a note on "Urut-urutan Panggaraping Dhuwung" or "The Sequence of Keris Making", consist of 75 steps from "masuh" to "marangi", with approximate times needed for every step, which totally takes 113,5 days. He needed 1 silak waja, 2 nyawati and 2 ngilap in between. He employed 11 'kewangunan'/diwangun through all process, and the last kewangunan takes 3 days alone.

The times tables is obviously too long for 'contemporary smith', as the 2005 Keris Making Competition proved that it is possible for experinced keris maker to 'carve' a keris from the blank in 3 days, with good result. Angle grinders and other power tools were in charge, though.

The note was presented by Empu Djeno himself in Pametri Wiji Meeting somewhere in 90's. Pametri Wiji is keris lover club founded in 1983, based in Jogjakarta, and still held regular meeting once a month until now.
Fortunately, I accidentally brought this note along with other to U.K., as there are some work that I must finish.

Originally Posted by A.G. Maisey

Actually, if the forging of the blade is carefully carried out, the core will usually be found to be fairly well centered; it is only with careless forging that a core will be so far off centre that we need to make a large compensatory adjustment. Usually you can carry out any necessary adjustment as you go along, without making a special process of it at the beginning of the blade carving. If it is necessary to make major corrections, you would finish up with a blade that was far too thin, which is a well known fault in the work of one particular very well known empu of the current era.

You are right, Pak Alan. This particular well-known empu told me that he was intensionally using an uneven, convex Javanese anvil (on the contrary with European Anvil, known as 'paron londho'='dutch anvil'), as it adds more 'activity' to pamor such as beras wutah. Not all Javanese anvil is uneven. We (and he, surely) know that the activity came directly from forging unevenness. So, he chose consciously to make his blank uneven! Well, of course there is a prize which he must pay. And yes, this particular empu's works should have been better, in term of aesthetical standard. But I admire his works for it's wasuhan and it's ability to show some 'guwaya'. (Guwaya is a very complex term. Perhaps, it could be translated as 'charisma', but not exactly the same).

The reason of why he couldn't reach such a high standard could only be hypothesized. I assume it was simply because he lacked of good examples, while his father didn't fully transferred all the knowledges, as he himself admitted. His father, believe me, was a truly capable empu. Mbah Kamdi (Grandpa Kamdi, as Sukamdi nicknamed), a well-known Solonese keris maker, simply commented,"If it really is Supowinangun's work, then undoubtely, he was a real empu", when I showed him Supowinangun's work, which it's attribution is beyond doubt. Supowinangun passed away in an old ages in 1960's. He left no notes, no drawings, nor any of his works to his family. A very unfortunate event.
I think we all agree that studying many good examples is an important step to produce good kerises. Court's empus could do better because they had access to Court's Pusakas, the best examples as it could be. They event copied it, in 'Mutrani' tradition. The same step is taken by Maduranese or Solonese makers. But never Djeno. I don't know why. Despite his work's flaws, I sincerely honor him for devoting his life to keris world and traditions.

Today's keris makers would haphazardly 'wound' the blank with an angle grinder then forge it flat to achieve the same result. A keris maker which is a good friend of mine told me that he sometimes has to go back and forth to the local smith to adjust the core thickness to prevent him from getting 'kandas waja'(='beached to the steel/core'=the steel core is revealed in the place where pamor should be). He works on Madura's blanks (and on old blades too ), sometimes specially order the blank with a prescribed structure / construction.

Regarding your translation, I believe you have translated those word properly.
Ngleseh is, indeed, tricky word. Lesehan means sitting on the ground, preferably with a mat. But in keris making world, If I may suggest, it better be translated as 'cold-rasping'. You would feel the 'spreading' movement when you do it, and I think it is why it's called 'ngleseh', other than 'ngikir'=from kikir=file/to file.
Nglempeng ada-ada means to precisely center the ada-ada

[Michel]

Gentlemen you are impressing !
A question of vocabulary has now evolve in a discussion of specialists. So much information in your different messages. Thank you very much.
Even if you are unsure of some word translation, what you have given is already of a great help for me, because, as you now, the devil is in the details. The identification of chiseling instead of filing gives very valuable information on the process.
Mas Boeghi, you mention the 75 steps from "masuh" to "marangi" given by Empu Djeno and taking 113.5 days to complete. Has this list of successive steps of the process been published anywhere ? If it has, it was probably in the frame of Pametri Wiji and would not be accessible or understandable, by outsiders !
I personally think that such a document would be interesting for those studying keris and understanding Javanese and Indonesian !
Thanks again to both of you
Regards
Michel

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

As Pak Alan said, not every body agree to the order given. You may customize your own process, as needed. But the principle may be the same : working the edge/core, the blade, then the details/ricikan. When and where each process would overlap each other, depends 100% on you.

It is worth to note that not everybody, even today's keris maker, would recognize all the name of the process. Nglanji or pidakan are quite common, but ngilap, I think, is not.They just simply don't bother . It is useful if an empu try to communicate some of the process to his assistant, such as "please do some ngilap again here and here.." and so on, but not every keris maker has assistant today.

Dear Gentlemen,

I appreciate very much your valuable dialog on this keris making topic. Even in Indonesian keris forum, or Indonesian keris dialog, I think it never happened talking of keris making -- between "Jogja-school" and "Solo-school" (sorry, if it is not a proper term for you) -- in a friendly manner such this.

Once again, I appreciate very much of you both, Mas Boedhi and Pak Alan. You are both the best waroenger in this Warung Kopi, if I may praise you...
This dialog will not only be valuable for us all, waroengers, but also for the development of Indonesian keris, I think...

Thank you Gentlemen,

Ganjawulung

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Thank you, Pak Alan, for remind me that keris have always been commodity. Yes, it is, it was and it will. We both know that keris as a product could be divided roughly into two groups: Keris Gramen (made without any specific order=commodity which will be sold readily in open market) and Keris Yasan (Keris which is made under commision). Most of kerises, even the old ones, are gramen. The high-quality keris are not for everyone, as not many peoples could afford it. Even if ones could afford, in the old days, it would be restricted for him, and depended heavily on his social status. And in fact, keris knowledges were not for everyone, makes keris surrounded with many myths and stories.

I don't mind certain keris become commodity nor for keris artisans to develop his special ability and making money from it. It was done before. But it doesn't mean all have to be commodity and commercial. Today's keris 'industry' has gone too far. They're losing grip on the meaning of 'tosan aji'. It is not just about 'beauty'. It has a deep spiritual aspect in it. O'Connor in "Metallurgy and Immortality at Candi Sukuh" simply wrote, "The perfection of spirit is figured in the perfection of metal, and, in a sense, imposes itself in the poetic logic of the metal workers' physical operations." Without some 'spiritual involvement', it is imposible to make a real 'tosan aji'.

I don't mean every keris makers should become hermit or priest, or should conduct 'slametan' or give some offerings when working. What I mean is, they should consciously honor the tradition on keris making, or at least, bear in mind what they're doing. In some extend, I envy the Japanese traditional sword makers, and I wish keris makers could match their devotion.

Originally Posted by Ganjawulung

I appreciate very much your valuable dialog on this keris making topic. Even in Indonesian keris forum, or Indonesian keris dialog, I think it never happened talking of keris making -- between "Jogja-school" and "Solo-school" (sorry, if it is not a proper term for you) -- in a friendly manner such this.

Mas Ganjawulung, I don't think that there would be much differences in keris making between Jogja and Solo. Style, perhaps. But even so, I remember Empu Djeno once told me that his father used to sold his keris (gramen) in Pasar Gede, Solo. His father, certainly working under Jogja's school. And at the time he was living, there were much more 'keris literate' people in Solo than today, and the shadow of rivalry between Solo and Jogja should be much more felt than today. But he managed to sell it.

I don't understand the Solo School much. But I get impression, until now, that the Solo school emphasize on learning the technical aspects and details. OTOH, I get impression, until now, that Jogja school emphasize on learning about the 'perfect metal', mainly the iron (tosan) and 'overall appearance'. Under the Jogja school, it is the tosan (iron) which makes an iron object such as keris qualified as 'tosan aji' or not. Other things like dhapur, details/ricikan, pamor motif and tangguh come later. However, after the tosan meets the standart, those factor then come into account. But I must admit, it is practiced under a very limited circle only, mainly kraton-linked. It doesn't mean that Solo neglect tosan, and Jogja neglect the technical and detail. I've found Solo kerises which has good iron, too. It is just a different priority on keris appraisal.
Unaware of this different approach would certainly result in unnecessary endless debate, and possibly harasment.

Originally Posted by Rick

This raises a question for me ; I hope I can express it correctly .

When judging the work of an empu class artisan where does one draw the line between proper form/dhapur and individual creativity on the part of the maker ?

Is there room for imagination and innovation in the process ?

The proper form/dhapur in 'classical keris school' has already prescribed. It is hard for today empu, or even the old times empu, to make a new dhapur, as 'classic dhapur' aren't just about beauty, but more importantly, it have symbolic meaning. The Javanese empus could not easily alter the shape of greneng, as it was done by Sundang maker for example, as greneng has a prescribed form as 'dha' character. But as your handwriting, it is open for creativity, as long as it could be recognized. For example, you have your own stroke and shape to write 'd' as I have mine, but our 'd' shouldn't go too far from prescribed 'd' universally agreed. So, there are rooms for creativity, such as 'sogokan kandas palemahan/waja' (sogokan was made deep enough until the steel core revealed), square shape pejetan, sogokan 'nyucuk dhandang' ('crow beak' sogokan), tikel alis nerjang/nratas gandhik (tikel alis cut acros gandhik) etc. If some particular details was executed by a particular group of empus attached to a Kraton/Kingdom or certain area, then it might become a Tangguh's marks. But there are so many details in keris, that tangguh would leave some 'unprescribed'. Some of this particular details might be specially prescibed by the court, though, and thus, not an empu's creativity. But it is also possible that some particular style of ricikan/details once belonged to certain empu, then copied by another makers, since it looked beautiful, or was preferred by 'the market'. It's about 'fashion's trend' then.
Alternatively, empu might invented or employed a special technique or 'character' on forging, especially when applying the pamor. He might make the pamor look bolder or tighter or to reflect chatoyancy, etc. Dimension, could be also 'played'. However, as Pak Alan said, ones need an ample artistic talent and experience to appraise/identify whether a particular keris was the work of empu or not.

I understand that under Surakarta's Court, the keris shape was stricly prescribed. I've been told that there are 'master keris models' found in Kraton Surakarta, made of wood/bronze/brass (?). Master models, that every Court's empus had to conform. I know today's respected Solo keris maker who used to bring vernier caliper, and make his keris to exact milimeter and angle.
Kraton Yogyakarta, on the other hand, seemed not so strickly prescribe it's keris measurement as Surakarta did. Until now, no keris model has ever found. Empu Djeno worked without a 'master model' as long as I know, and so did his father. But it didn't throw the Yogyakarta keris to the chaotic order. The style was prescribed and strickly controlled, but the control was based more on 'rasa/feeling' rather than from model. It was important for both court to produce a high quality kerises, as it reflected it's cultural sophistication. Which one is better ? Both are.

The 'gramen keris', from Karsten's Krisdisk

[A. G. Maisey]

Many of our most earnestly held beliefs are the result of a point of view.

And many earnestly held beliefs seem to generate an unwarranted degree of heat.

For more than 30 years I have been witness to very learned and very respected authorities on the keris, whose beliefs were centered around the Solo school, become vitriolic when discussing the Jogja point of view, and the level of Jogja knowledge, relating to keris.

I have had less exposure to what goes on behind closed doors in Jogja, but from the limited contact I have had, and the snide, thinly cloaked slurs I have heard from Jogja orientated people, I rather suspect the private discussion in Jogja of the Solo point of view might generate just as much slanderous comment.

I rather feel that within this discussion group we might do well not to become too involved in discussion of differences between Jogjakarta and Surakarta points of view . There is ample to criticise in both points of view, and very little to be gained from discussion of either. These are things that concern people living in Solo and Jogja:- I feel that these things need not concern us here.

As to the "spirituality" of the keris, this is something that is within the heart of the members of the society, it is not something that is dependent upon the keris, but rather something that is dependent upon the culture. Over time, the needs of a culture change:- nothing stays frozen in time, and a living culture is no different. The keris remains a part of Javanese culture, but its role in the culture now is not the same as it was 1000 years ago, nor even 500 years ago.

Yes, O'Connor wrote on the spirituality of iron working, but he was dealing with a 14th century perspective. Any culture that does not move on, and adapt, will die. As will the elements of that culture.

Some time after 1812 Raffles wrote that in Jawa the keris had assumed a position analogous to the position of the short sword in mid 18th century Europe. In other words, in the first quarter of the 19th century the keris in Jawa had become primarily an item of dress. The old literature, and inscriptions tell us that the keris was the symbol of the male. Well, in the Jawa of Raffles' time it still held its position as a male symbol, even if a somewhat diluted one. In Bali, it took another 100 years for the keris to become what it already was in Jawa in 1812.

In today's Jawa the keris is still a living part of the culture, but Javanese culture itself has lost the fundamental understanding of "tosan aji" or "wesi aji", just as it has lost the understanding of the original concept of the pusaka. Comprehensible, because in today's world , where is the necessity for such understanding?We can wring our hands and mourn the loss, or we can try our best, and in our own ways to support for a little bit longer something that we value.The keris is still a part of today's Javanese culture. Yes, its role has changed, it is no longer understood in the same way it might once have been understood.But this is true of the keris throughout its history:- it has changed its nature in accord with the demands of its society.
Rather than cry for the passing of lost values, let us accept the current framework of the society and its culture and work within it.

Several years ago I read the opinion of a professor at one of the universities in Central Jawa. He put forward the proposition that within a generation or two the Javanese language would have to all intents and purpose have disappeared, corrupted beyond recognition by Bahasa Indonesia. He predicted that before long, Javanese would become a language that would only be understood by academics.

If the primary identifier of a culture is to disappear, what hope is there for the continuance of secondary identifiers?

As students of the keris we have a unique opportunity to support the continuance of this blossom of Javanese culture. Let us provide this support, rather than mourn the loss of values that no longer exist. We cannot change a society, but if we value an element of the culture of that society, we can support that element. We can do this by attempting to gain a valid understanding of the keris and its nature, as it has moved through time, and by providing support for today's artists and artisans involved in the continuance of the keris traditions.

[Raden Usman Djogja]

Dik Budhi, Pak Alan & Pal Gonjo,

if there is a collaboration amongst you, there will be a new book of keris.
all of you have opened what somebody said "ilmu sinengker" (secret knowledge).
the world of keris will thank to you and your effort, I am sure.

warm salam,
OeS

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by Boedhi Adhitya

Mas Ganjawulung, I don't think that there would be much differences in keris making between Jogja and Solo. Style, perhaps. But even so, I remember Empu Djeno once told me that his father used to sold his keris (gramen) in Pasar Gede, Solo. His father, certainly working under Jogja's school. And at the time he was living, there were much more 'keris literate' people in Solo than today, and the shadow of rivalry between Solo and Jogja should be much more felt than today. But he managed to sell it.

I don't understand the Solo School much. But I get impression, until now, that the Solo school emphasize on learning the technical aspects and details. OTOH, I get impression, until now, that Jogja school emphasize on learning about the 'perfect metal', mainly the iron (tosan) and 'overall appearance'. Under the Jogja school, it is the tosan (iron) which makes an iron object such as keris qualified as 'tosan aji' or not. Other things like dhapur, details/ricikan, pamor motif and tangguh come later. However, after the tosan meets the standart, those factor then come into account. But I must admit, it is practiced under a very limited circle only, mainly kraton-linked. It doesn't mean that Solo neglect tosan, and Jogja neglect the technical and detail. I've found Solo kerises which has good iron, too. It is just a different priority on keris appraisal.
Unaware of this different approach would certainly result in unnecessary endless debate, and possibly harasment.

Dear Mas Boedhi,

I am Solonese, born in Solo, grown up in Solo. But yet, admire much the Jogjanese "nom-noman" (keris with "young" tangguh, Hamengku Buwanan for instance). Sri Manganti keris, (and) "ping piton" (The Seventh, to mention keris with tangguh Hamengku Buwana VII -- 1877-1921) are the ones of my admiration. You may compare with the Solonese "nom-noman" from about the same era, of Solonese Paku Buwana IX (1861-1893) or Paku Buwana X (1893-1939). I cannot describe the details, because it is a matter of "visual and rasa or feeling appreciation".

If I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I'm misled with my understanding), "nom'noman" of Hamengku Buwana style is more "mataram" style, while the Paku Buwanan are "new style" -- in form of ganja, and the whole appearance of the blade.

According to you, which Hamengku Buwanan style is more specific? The seventh? Or the older Hamengku Buwana? What is the most specific characteristic of Sri Manganti, Mas Boedhi?

Ganjawulung

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, you have addressed your question to Pak Boedhi, and it will interest me to see his response, however, please permit me to present my opinion as well. I emphasise that this is my opinion. I have never heard anybody else voice a similar opinion.

If we study closely the details of Jogja style blades what we find is a reflection of the Mataram style, most noticeable in the square blumbangan, but also able to be supported in the form of some other ricikan.

But with the Surakarta style, what we have is a reflection of the Majapahit style. In fact, not a "new" style, but a style pre-dating Mataram.

We are used to thinking of blades classified as Majapahit as being rather light ,but much of this fragility is the result of erosion. However, we do have examples of the direct descendants of the Majapahit form in the Banten, and the Bali forms, which are still in close to original condition.These Banten and Bali keris, although displaying ricikan which are broadly of similar style to the ricikan of Majapahit blades , are of much more substantial proportions than the Majapahit blades, primarily because they have not been subjected to ongoing erosive conditions.

The Surakarta form of keris most closely resembles the Banten and the Bali blade form. These two forms are continuations of the Majapahit form, and the Surakarta form similarly reflects a Majapahit style, just as the Jogjakarta blade form reflects a Mataram style.

The single blade feature that anchors the proportion of a blade is the blumbangan:- the form taken by the blumbangan dictates the proportions and placement of the other ricikan; get the form and proportion of the blumbangan wrong, and everything that follows will be wrong.

The blumbangan of the Surakarta blade form is a direct reflection of the Majapahit blumbangan; this same elongated blumbangan can be seen in the Banten blade form, and in the Bali blade form.

An inconsistent variation between Jogjakarta and Surakarta keris will be noted in the form of the ron dha/greneng , however, this is a superficial difference that has no effect on the form of the rest of the blade.

The Surakarta blade form is not a "new" style, rather it is a reflection of an older style of blade, a style that pre-dates Mataram.

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Yes, Pak Alan, I understand your point. We are on the same train, and if there are some minor differences, surely because we see through a different angle, as you are sitting on the different seat. You are not sitting on my lap, aren't you ?

Let's moving forward...

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Dear Mas Boedhi,

I am Solonese, born in Solo, grown up in Solo. But yet, admire much the Jogjanese "nom-noman" (keris with "young" tangguh, Hamengku Buwanan for instance). Sri Manganti keris, (and) "ping piton" (The Seventh, to mention keris with tangguh Hamengku Buwana VII -- 1877-1921) are the ones of my admiration. You may compare with the Solonese "nom-noman" from about the same era, of Solonese Paku Buwana IX (1861-1893) or Paku Buwana X (1893-1939). I cannot describe the details, because it is a matter of "visual and rasa or feeling appreciation".

If I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I'm misled with my understanding), "nom'noman" of Hamengku Buwana style is more "mataram" style, while the Paku Buwanan are "new style" -- in form of ganja, and the whole appearance of the blade.

According to you, which Hamengku Buwanan style is more specific? The seventh? Or the older Hamengku Buwana? What is the most specific characteristic of Sri Manganti, Mas Boedhi?

Ganjawulung

I agree with Pak Alan, that PB didn't make a 'new from the scratch' style. It was hard, even today, to 'invent' a new style. Keris aesthetical standart has developed as such that it has strict senses on what is acceptable and what isn't. Thus, PB was adopting another standart which already exist. We must also bear in mind, that there was a time when Jogja and Solo shared the same style. Thus, the differences between the two courts follow an evolutionary path. What we see today is the latest development, mainly come from late-19 C - early 20 C, that is, when PB IX-X and HB VII-VIII reigned.

What style PB did adopt, therefore, debatable, as there is no clear documentation about it. But from my limited knowledge on PB blades, I always feel it has some Madura influences. I make my conclusion mainly on the 'global proportion' of the blade, mainly between the high/length of gandhik, the width of sraweyan and wadidang slope compared to the overall length of the blade. I didn't take account of the details/ricikan, as it might come in various way, and most straight Madura's blade has very limited detail. Please don't mix it up with new Madura's blade. The old one is a good blade. Well define and having bold, strong character. Madura has many famous and powerful empus, which has made keris at least since Majapahit eras, and even earlier. Even in some way, the HB I blade also has some Madura influences, among other. HB I also an admirer of Madura's bravery. He composed a dance for it, named Beksan Lawung Trunajaya. (Trunajaya was Maduras Prince, which in fact, attacked and caused the fall of Mataram under Amangkurat I)
Historically, Solo has a tight connection to Madura. Some Madura's princesses were married to Solo royal families, if not the Susuhunan himself. Not to mention, the famous Empu Brajaguna came from Madura, and the family of Brajaguna worked for the court for the long time. Wasn't it possible, that there was another empus who also emigrated to Solo ? Through Bengawan Solo river, Madura was easily reached.

My objection to Pak Alan conclusion is simply because the what-so-called Banten blade was very likely unknown in late 18c. in Java. Serat Centhini, which was composed in early 19c, has already described tangguh Majapahit as we would accept now, as a light and slightly small blade. But if we use only the blumbangan as the indicator, it might be true. But I think Madura's blade also has an elongated blumbangan too.

Yogyakarta, in the other hand, claiming themself as an inheritor of Mataram, and in fact, located in Mataram, surely would adopt the Mataram style. But not without modification, though.
HB I is some kind of the mixture between Mataram, Madura and Tuban/Pajajaran. It's unique features is a very deep and wide blumbangan. It is very rare.
HB V is a mixture of Majapahit and Mataram. It has 'tight' (kenceng), but calm and confidence in appearance. Keris, in HB V eras who reign during and after Dipanegara war, was an important tool to support his legitimacy. He withdrew all pusakas which belong to old Pangerans, to suppress their influence. He made and gave pusakas to those who support him. No room for error. It's also known as Tangguh Srimanganti, as it was forge in Srimanganti hall, inside the court. The most noticeable feature is it's pamor. It is incredibly tight/lembut, without losing it's line. It also shows chatoyancy effect. In some blade, it literally look like peacock feather. It is regarded as the best Jogjakarta's blade ever made, but unfortunately, it is rare. I haven't seen the pictures of the real HB V's blade ever published.
HB VII, on the other hand, made quite a lot of kerises, in some grade of qualities. The high quality blade only bestowed to the Princes, while the lower one to the lower rank servant, accordingly. It has a mixture of Tuban and Mataram style, and slightly bigger than HB V. Pamor comes in vary.
HB VIII's blade was almost the same with HB VII, as the same empus was employed. The most noticeable difference are the blade is very slightly smaller and the pamor is more coarse.

Here, I attached the pictures of K. Tamansari, which was published in Keris Magazine and Haryono Guritno's book.

www.heritageofjava.com/keris

It is a well-published keris, but regarded as Mataram. According to some in Jogja, it is HB VIII. The material, kinatah and pamor style doesn't fit the Mataram Tangguh. It is a good example of HB VIII keris. Tamansari is the Water Castle, built during the reign of HB I. Once a very beautiful garden with under water tunnel, man-made island, etc, but now only ruin. It's beauty depicted in batik's motif, and also in this keris' kinatah.

Other pictures in the comparison between Madura and Surakarta keris. It can not, however, replace the real blades.