New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

A. G. Maisey · 24th June 2009, 07:59 AM

Ferry, my opinions on keris are very limited. I feel that I have insufficient knowledge and experience to form my own opinions in respect of many matters to do with keris. True, I have studied the keris for more than 50 years, but unlike my teacher I have not been in daily contact with keris, and with repositories of keris knowledge during that time.

Thus, in many things to do with the keris, I do not state my own opinions, but merely repeat the opinions of the people who have taught me, principally Pak Parman (alm.).

Now, what I was taught is that the art of the keris is Karaton art. For Pak Parman (alm.) there was only one karaton, and that was the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat.

To the best of my knowledge, the most recent pakem to have the backing of the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat is the book of drawings of keris dhapur produced under the patronage of GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, the son of PB X. This book was produced in 1920.

I was also taught that for compliance with dhapur not a single feature may be added, nor removed from the specified ricikan for that dhapur. Once there is an addition or subtraction of ricikan that keris is classified as diluar pakem, or outside the accepted parameters. In absolutely strict terms, not really a keris.

This being so, I feel that it is safe to accept that according to the recognised standards of keris art within the Karaton Surakarta in the year 1920, a keris of dhapur mundharang could not possess a ron dha nunut.

And as I have said:- keris art is karaton art. The relevant karaton is the only authority on what is, and what is not correct.

The matter of what is and what is not a nom-noman keris is something that is perhaps open to debate. Some hold that it is those keris which follow Mataram Sultan Agung, others bring the date much further forward. However, I have not yet heard of anybody advancing the date for a nom-noman keris past the beginning of the 20th century.

Thus, I believe that we can comfortably accept that the Karaton Surakarta Pakem would reflect the Karaton Surakarta opinion of the correct ricikan for all dhapur listed in the year 1920, which is well into the 20th century, and by implication, must include keris nom-noman.

I freely accept that not all will agree with the pakem produced under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta, but if the art of the keris is Karaton art, then within the limits of Karaton Surakarta influence, only the pakem as accepted by that Karaton is valid.

I further accept that any other Karaton may establish its own pakem, the parameters of which are applicable within the area of influence of that karaton.

Now, in this present day, when we all know that the Karatons of Jawa have lost much of their power and influence, it could be argued that the standards set by these karatons in times past are no longer relevant. It could be argued that the art of the keris is no longer a karaton art, but has been captured by the people, and it is now up to the people to decide what is and what is not correct.

Yes, it could be argued thus, but I am afraid that in the face of this argument I would recall what I once heard Panembahan Harjonegoro once say about the extremely beautiful creation of young pandai keris:- "Yes, it is a work of art. But it is not a keris."

Ferry, I acknowledge your right to your own opinion as to what is, and what is not the correct assemblage of ricikan for a keris of dhapur mundharang. If in your opinion a keris mundharang can have a rondha nunut, and that opinion is in agreement with a number of other modern authorities, then who am I to try to convince you otherwise? I will simply comment that this opinion is at variance with the opinion of Pakubuwana X, his son GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, and my principal teacher, KRT Supowijoyo (Empu Suparman).

As for myself, I have no opinion in this matter, my knowledge is insufficient to allow me to form an opinion. I simply repeat the opinions of others.

24th June 2009, 07:59 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Ferry, my opinions on keris are very limited. I feel that I have insufficient knowledge and experience to form my own opinions in respect of many matters to do with keris. True, I have studied the keris for more than 50 years, but unlike my teacher I have not been in daily contact with keris, and with repositories of keris knowledge during that time. Thus, in many things to do with the keris, I do not state my own opinions, but merely repeat the opinions of the people who have taught me, principally Pak Parman (alm.). Now, what I was taught is that the art of the keris is Karaton art. For Pak Parman (alm.) there was only one karaton, and that was the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat. To the best of my knowledge, the most recent pakem to have the backing of the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat is the book of drawings of keris dhapur produced under the patronage of GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, the son of PB X. This book was produced in 1920. I was also taught that for compliance with dhapur not a single feature may be added, nor removed from the specified ricikan for that dhapur. Once there is an addition or subtraction of ricikan that keris is classified as diluar pakem, or outside the accepted parameters. In absolutely strict terms, not really a keris. This being so, I feel that it is safe to accept that according to the recognised standards of keris art within the Karaton Surakarta in the year 1920, a keris of dhapur mundharang could not possess a ron dha nunut. And as I have said:- keris art is karaton art. The relevant karaton is the only authority on what is, and what is not correct. The matter of what is and what is not a nom-noman keris is something that is perhaps open to debate. Some hold that it is those keris which follow Mataram Sultan Agung, others bring the date much further forward. However, I have not yet heard of anybody advancing the date for a nom-noman keris past the beginning of the 20th century. Thus, I believe that we can comfortably accept that the Karaton Surakarta Pakem would reflect the Karaton Surakarta opinion of the correct ricikan for all dhapur listed in the year 1920, which is well into the 20th century, and by implication, must include keris nom-noman. I freely accept that not all will agree with the pakem produced under the aegis of the Karaton Surakarta, but if the art of the keris is Karaton art, then within the limits of Karaton Surakarta influence, only the pakem as accepted by that Karaton is valid. I further accept that any other Karaton may establish its own pakem, the parameters of which are applicable within the area of influence of that karaton. Now, in this present day, when we all know that the Karatons of Jawa have lost much of their power and influence, it could be argued that the standards set by these karatons in times past are no longer relevant. It could be argued that the art of the keris is no longer a karaton art, but has been captured by the people, and it is now up to the people to decide what is and what is not correct. Yes, it could be argued thus, but I am afraid that in the face of this argument I would recall what I once heard Panembahan Harjonegoro once say about the extremely beautiful creation of young pandai keris:- "Yes, it is a work of art. But it is not a keris." Ferry, I acknowledge your right to your own opinion as to what is, and what is not the correct assemblage of ricikan for a keris of dhapur mundharang. If in your opinion a keris mundharang can have a rondha nunut, and that opinion is in agreement with a number of other modern authorities, then who am I to try to convince you otherwise? I will simply comment that this opinion is at variance with the opinion of Pakubuwana X, his son GKP Harya Hadiwijaya, and my principal teacher, KRT Supowijoyo (Empu Suparman). As for myself, I have no opinion in this matter, my knowledge is insufficient to allow me to form an opinion. I simply repeat the opinions of others.