New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

[ferrylaki]

I like to share with you guys.
a javanese keris with dhapur mundarang, pamor: kulit semongko.

[Marcokeris]

Nice keris.
What is the difference between dapur mundarang and pasopati?
What kind of wood is the ladrang?
Wood near pendok is sandalwood?

[A. G. Maisey]

Ferry, please forgive me, but I must raise this question.

It is my understanding that mundharang does not have a ron dha nunut.

Your keris does.

Is this not then diluar pakem?

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

Nice keris.
What is the difference between dapur mundarang and pasopati?
What kind of wood is the ladrang?
Wood near pendok is sandalwood?

pasopati dhapur has sogokan, and mundarang does not.
the ladrang made of trembalo wood and the wood near pendok is not sandalwood. I think its also trembalo but with light colour.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ferry, please forgive me, but I must raise this question.

It is my understanding that mundharang does not have a ron dha nunut.

Your keris does.

Is this not then diluar pakem?

I understand your thought about the ron dha nunut. in the book 'dhapur' which contain keris illustrations, you will find dhapur mundarang, pasopati, mangkurat with out ron dha nunut. but thats all just illustration . in the book 'keris jawa antara mistik dan nalar' by Mr.Haryono H. I find nom-noman kerises with pasopati dhapur using ron dha nunut. in other kerises photograph I also found ron dha nunut in every nom-noman kerises. Then I start to think that in nom-noman style keris ( PB IX or PB X style) the addition of ron dha nunut is very common. my personal thought, ron dha nunut make this keris even look better. so its not ' diluar pakem' in my opinion.

[A. G. Maisey]

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.

[ferrylaki]

I wrote this thread' title as new made keris, dhapur mundarang. I trully understand that this keris has ricikan which different from mentioned in the book 'dhapur' establised in 1920. thats why I consider this keris as a new creation with details/ricikan different from described in book 'dhapur'.

a month ago, I'd like to consider my keris as an old made keris with estimation period of making before the book 'dhapur' established, before 1920. I did not have the courage and knowledge to estimate the tangguh yet. It's just like 'too good to be true' for me. just imagine, a simply newbie in keris world finding a true PB keris ( this cant be happening, also considering the price I paid for this keris). that's what I said to my self.

this time I just personally happy with this keris, the dhapur,pamor,and the ricikan executed beautifully. make a fine example of PB style keris in my collection.

As I mention before about nom-noman kerises shows in the book 'keris jawa' by Mr.Haryono G. personally I never hold a genuine nom-noman keris my self. I'd like to, but the opportunity never comes to me. as I grew up in Surakarta, then acquiring a nom-noman PB keris would be my desire my dream, my obsession. We'll see if I can bring this dream come true.

Any other opinion regarding this keris?

[A. G. Maisey]

Ferry, please do not misunderstand me.

I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you.

I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem.

Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem.

Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno.

By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Ferry, please do not misunderstand me.

I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you.

I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem.

Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem.

Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno.

By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.

Alan, I'm perfectly understand that you're not criticising my keris, nor criticising on me.
your point is on the dhapur, this keris has ricikan which not suitable compared to the book 'dhapur'. since My personal understanding do not always from keraton point of view, then I only believe and acomodate the knowledge from what I can see and hold. In this case, I never saw and hold keraton keris. generally speaking in keris community here in Indonesia, we mention this keris as dhapur mundarang. as weel as pasopati dhapur with two ron dha plus ron dha nunut, compared with the book 'dhapur' which illustrated tha pasopati dhapur only having one ron dha with out ron dha nunut.

We all understand perfectly that keris are made widely by empus inside and outside the keraton it self. for the empus outside the keraton, it is possible, they we not fully acknowledge or aware about this pakem determined/drawed in the book 'dhapur' (1920), Since the book it self didn't ment to be published. so how could the empus possibly know about the determined ricikan. I think that is a reasonable execuse and a trully reasonable reason why the keris did'nt made exactly like the book 'dhapur' illustrated.
do I make my self quite reasonable now. I'm trying to defend my opinion regarding this ron dha nunut matter.
I was trying to find another opinion regarding this keris age. not the tangguh, only an estimation whether this is an old one or not. then you gave a more interesting topic to discuss.
Alan, from this pictures, Do you have an opinion on its age? just an estimation or any thing. here are some more pictures for observation.

Regards,
FERRYLAKI

[A. G. Maisey]

It is far too difficult to comment on age from photos Ferry.

Yes, sometimes it is possible if you see certain distinct stylistic characteristics, but in the case of your keris I would not presume to comment on age unless it were in my hand.

Ferry, in respect "the keris community in Indonesia".

Which keris community?

Over the time I have been visiting Indonesia I have noted that there is not one single, homogenous keris community, but rather a number of keris communities. The people within these communities sometimes may share a common opinion about some things, but on many other things opinions will vary from community to community and even between individual people within a community.However, variation can usually be modified within a keris group by presence of the well documented Javanese heirarchical principles, with the end result that a concensus is reached within that community which has been determined by the heirarchy within the community.


I feel that perhaps I have failed to make myself clear.

My point is not that the ricikan of this keris do not agree with the ricikan for mundharang as noted in the Surakarta Pakem.

My point is that the ricikan as noted in the Surakarta Pakem is the documentation of what is acceptable by Surakarta Karaton standards.

Keris art is karaton art.

The karaton has the obligation and the right to define the standards that apply to its art.

This keris does not conform to Surakarta Karaton standards, even though stylisticly it is a Surakarta keris..

That is my point.

However, it is still a fine keris, and if you tell me that it does comply with the requirements for a mundharang according to some authority other than the Surakarta Karaton, I of course accept that.

It is not necessary to actually hold a karaton keris to be able to apply the presence of ricikan to determine a dhapur. A dhapur must comply with certain set parameters, and cannot move outside those parameters, if the dhapur is given in accordance with the pakem that is the point of reference.

However, if we disregard what is set down in a pakem, of course we can all form our own opinion as to what is correct and what is not.Regretably, my own instruction did not permit me that latitude:- I was told that where a karaton standard exists in respect of something, that standard must be followed.

Ferry, we are all entitled to hold our own opinions.

I have already said that I personally hold no opinion in respect of this keris. My knowledge and experience is insufficient to allow me to challenge that which is set down in a Karaton Pakem, and that which my teacher accepted as immovable.

However, I acknowledge completely your right to hold whatever opinion you wish.

Ferry, I've just noticed something in this keris of yours that I did not previously see,

Tell me, what shape is the blumbangan?

Is it boto adeg or is it more or less square?

It is difficult to be sure about this from a photo because a slight difference in angle can alter the result in the photo.

[ferrylaki]

the gandik is amboto rubuh / less square.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Ferry.

It sure doesn't look like mboto rubuh in the photos. That's the difference between a photo and actually having something in one's hand.

In fact, I've never seen a modern keris with mboto rubuh.

Mataram keris have an almost square blumbangan, Surakarta and Majapahit keris have a "brick standing up " ---mboto adeg---blumbangan, the most obvious mboto rubuh --- "brick fallen over" --- blumbangan is really only found in one of the divisions of Pajajaran, so to find one in a fairly recent keris like this one is a real surprise.

However, the important thing is this:- it is not a mboto adeg blumbangan, and Surakarta should have this, or at least, if not classic mboto adeg, it should be long, upright and narrow, this narrowness in turn creating a short gulu meled.

Additionally I cannot see very distinct kruwingan or kusen in this blade, there is a fairly obvious ada - ada, but it seems --- in the pic --- to create a more or less diamond cross section in the blade, whereas a Surakarta ada-ada should be nicely modelled, not abrupt.

There is a tungkakan, but in a Surakarta keris it should be rounded, in the photos I cannot see if it is rounded or not, it looks more like it has been formed by a rather sharp line. Additionally, if we look closely at the ron dha, there is some inconsistency evident, yes, the ron dha are Surakarta, but there is considerable variation in form, almost as if the maker was not accustomed to cutting this form, and was really trying hard to get it right from a drawing --- and the wadidang seems a little too high and too long, but this could easily be because of camera angle, it might look different in the hand.

Taking all these things together, I must say I am somewhat confused.

On the one hand we have a blade that appears to have a Surakarta pawakan, and Surakarta ron dha, but the other features that we would expect to see in a typical Surakarta blade appear to be absent.

According to what I have been taught a blade with this mix of characteristics must be under some suspicion as to origin.

We're coming dangerously close to playing the tangguh game here, and I absolutely refuse to commit myself on any dubious tangguh from photographs, but Ferry, you have this in your hand, may I suggest that you seek a few knowledgeable local opinions?

On the face of it, I believe this blade is worthy of very close inspection.

How is the ganja fixed? Does it use a key and keyway?

Does the pesi where it enters the ganja decline marginally? If there is a marginal decline, it cannot be SKA, and is likely to be Madura.

How long is the pesi, and how is the tip of the pesi finished?

Is the ganja sebit ron?

Is there a very marginal rounding of the buntut urang?

Is the palemahan flat, or is it a bit rounded? SKA should be flat.

Is there any filler present between ganja and wilah?

What is the nature of the pamor material?

What is the nature of the iron?

Has it been heat treated ?

How heavy is it?

Ferry, if you want to confirm if this is a Surakarta blade or not, these are some of the things you will need to look at and consider. There is no way, no way at all that this can be done through the medium of photographs, and it might be as well to seek more than one knowledgeable opinion.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thanks Ferry.

It sure doesn't look like mboto rubuh in the photos. That's the difference between a photo and actually having something in one's hand.

In fact, I've never seen a modern keris with mboto rubuh.

Mataram keris have an almost square blumbangan, Surakarta and Majapahit keris have a "brick standing up " ---mboto adeg---blumbangan, the most obvious mboto rubuh --- "brick fallen over" --- blumbangan is really only found in one of the divisions of Pajajaran, so to find one in a fairly recent keris like this one is a real surprise.

However, the important thing is this:- it is not a mboto adeg blumbangan, and Surakarta should have this, or at least, if not classic mboto adeg, it should be long, upright and narrow, this narrowness in turn creating a short gulu meled.

Additionally I cannot see very distinct kruwingan or kusen in this blade, there is a fairly obvious ada - ada, but it seems --- in the pic --- to create a more or less diamond cross section in the blade, whereas a Surakarta ada-ada should be nicely modelled, not abrupt.

There is a tungkakan, but in a Surakarta keris it should be rounded, in the photos I cannot see if it is rounded or not, it looks more like it has been formed by a rather sharp line. Additionally, if we look closely at the ron dha, there is some inconsistency evident, yes, the ron dha are Surakarta, but there is considerable variation in form, almost as if the maker was not accustomed to cutting this form, and was really trying hard to get it right from a drawing --- and the wadidang seems a little too high and too long, but this could easily be because of camera angle, it might look different in the hand.

Taking all these things together, I must say I am somewhat confused.

On the one hand we have a blade that appears to have a Surakarta pawakan, and Surakarta ron dha, but the other features that we would expect to see in a typical Surakarta blade appear to be absent.

According to what I have been taught a blade with this mix of characteristics must be under some suspicion as to origin.

We're coming dangerously close to playing the tangguh game here, and I absolutely refuse to commit myself on any dubious tangguh from photographs, but Ferry, you have this in your hand, may I suggest that you seek a few knowledgeable local opinions?

On the face of it, I believe this blade is worthy of very close inspection.

How is the ganja fixed? Does it use a key and keyway?

Does the pesi where it enters the ganja decline marginally? If there is a marginal decline, it cannot be SKA, and is likely to be Madura.

How long is the pesi, and how is the tip of the pesi finished?

Is the ganja sebit ron?

Is there a very marginal rounding of the buntut urang?

Is the palemahan flat, or is it a bit rounded? SKA should be flat.

Is there any filler present between ganja and wilah?

What is the nature of the pamor material?

What is the nature of the iron?

Has it been heat treated ?

How heavy is it?

Ferry, if you want to confirm if this is a Surakarta blade or not, these are some of the things you will need to look at and consider. There is no way, no way at all that this can be done through the medium of photographs, and it might be as well to seek more than one knowledgeable opinion.

Thank You Alan,
I found so many Information from your reply. Those indicators that I've never realize before. I'll make a further observation on this keris by using the indicators you gave to me.
I bought this keris as a new made keris and also the price I paid for. our discussion gave me more actual knowledge and understanding to comprehence my lack of experience. this would take some time and effort to fully determine whether I will conclude this keris as a new product or an old keris. I'll also ask for more advises from mates who has more experience and knowledge about surakartan keris.
then I think we could end this discussion, exept another would like to continue.

for all forum mates, another opinion or question would just great.

FERRYLAKI

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ferry, I think that's the way to go.

Let a few experienced people handle it, seek their opinions, and then make up your own mind. Its just too, too hard to be very definite about some blades when all you have is a photo.

Most of the people that I have met in Jawa who play with tangguh just look at a keris and get a feeling for it. Pak Parman is the only person I ever met who had actually codified all of the indicators of a tangguh, so he might look at a blade and immediately say --- Oh yes, Tangguh such and such. But if he was asked, he could then explain at great length exactly why he had this opinion. This is something I have not seen in any other ahli keris.

Much of what is in my previous post is from Pak Parman's notes on indicators for a Surakarta keris, and if anybody should have known this, it would be him, as he was the Surakarta Karaton empu for a number of years.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Yes Ferry, I think that's the way to go.

Let a few experienced people handle it, seek their opinions, and then make up your own mind. Its just too, too hard to be very definite about some blades when all you have is a photo.

Most of the people that I have met in Jawa who play with tangguh just look at a keris and get a feeling for it. Pak Parman is the only person I ever met who had actually codified all of the indicators of a tangguh, so he might look at a blade and immediately say --- Oh yes, Tangguh such and such. But if he was asked, he could then explain at great length exactly why he had this opinion. This is something I have not seen in any other ahli keris.

Much of what is in my previous post is from Pak Parman's notes on indicators for a Surakarta keris, and if anybody should have known this, it would be him, as he was the Surakarta Karaton empu for a number of years.

I have set my mind fitsr before I ask another person. reading and viewing more photos would be the first action.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

... 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.

Dear Alan,
First of all, apologize me for my lack of information on this matter. Did Mr Bambang Harsrinuksmo -- in his Ensiklopedi Keris -- make mistake in mentioning, that Empu Suparman's formal title was Empu Suparman Wignyosukadgo (1922-1991)? Or the gentleman Mr Harsrinuksmo had mentioned in his Ensiklopedi, was another Suparman?

According to you, empu Suparman was KRT (Kanjeng Raden Tumenggung) Supowijoyo. But Mr Harsrinuksmo (page 452, Ensiklopedi Keris) wrote, Empu Suparman had been awarded an empu's rank in Karaton Surakarta as Mantri Pande Duwung (minister of keris making) by Sri Sunan Paku Buwono XII -- the late king of Surakarta, with title name of Ki Ngabehi Suparman Wignyosukadgo...

In 1975, KRT Hardjonagoro -- the late keris expert of Surakarta -- and Ki Suparman went to Yogyakarta, to watch the keris making in Jitar, Godean, Yogyakarta by Empu Djeno Harumbrodjo. And in 1979, Ki Suparman began to make his own keris in his home, with keris making tools made by himself. (Ensiklopedi Keris)...

Thanks a lot in advance, Alan,

GANJAWULUNG

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, you have requested some clarification in respect the gentleman to whom I refer as "Pak Parman".

I will be delighted to oblige.

The man whom I usually refer to as Pak Parman was born on the 3rd September 1922.
He went to school in Kebalen in Solo. He left school in 1934, and in 1935 he was apprenticed to Pak Sangkapinilih to learn shoemaking.

In 1940 he joined the army (Legiun Mangkunegara), he was in the army for two years, then Indonesia was occupied by the Japanese. During the Japanese occupation he and his wife shifted to Ujung Pandang and worked as singers.

In 1944 he shifted back to Solo and took up work as a shoemaker again, then in 1945 he went to Sragen to learn goldsmithing. In March 1945 his son Sarwanta was born.

From 1945 to 1949 he once again was in the military, but with a somewhat different orientation.

In 1951 he worked as a shoemaker for Sadinu, and began prospecting for agates. During this time he was also involved in writing kroncong songs.

His interest in keris began around this time, and during 1952 he began to seek knowledge about keris. It was not long before he began to renovate damaged keris and improve the garap of badly carved keris. At this time he was dealing in semi-precious stones and polishing these stones for sale, and making rings. His involvement in music had not stopped and he was also writing songs and performing as a kroncong singer. This was pretty much Pak Parman's life for the next 5 years, and in 1957 he left Sadinu and began fulltime work as a renovator of keris, and lapidary and jeweler.

In 1966 Pak Parman moved to Kampung Komplang, in Solo. The land attached to this house was quite spacious, and he recognized that he could now expand some of his activities. He had continued his lapidary and jewellery work, and had become well known for his renovation work on keris, but after he shifted to Komplang he began to study old books about the making of keris, and between 1966 and 1971 he began his first attempts at making keris.

Pak Parman's attempts at forging keris were hampered by his lack of capital. His work was known to R.T. Harjonegoro ( later to become Panembahan Harjonegoro), and after Djeno and his brothers with the assistance of Dietrich Drescher began to make keris again in Jogja, R.T. Harjonegoro and Pak Parman went to Jogja to see how the forge was set up. Following this visit R.T. Harjonegoro managed to obtain a grant from the Ford Foundation that was to be used for the re-establishment of keris production in Solo. Ultimately, the way in which this grant was administered after it was received by R.T.Hardjonegoro started a long running animosity between R.T.Hardjonegoro and Pak Parman, which had repercussions extending beyond the central matter.

In any case, Pak Parman did receive sufficient from the grant to allow him to set up a very modest forge at his home in Kampung Komplang, and on 28th September 1979 he began the complete manufacture of keris there.

From this point forward Pak Parman's life was that of a maker of keris and other tosan aji.

Up until this time Pak Parman's name was Soeparman Martosuwignjo (Suparman Martosuwignyo). However, in 1980 he was accepted into the hierarchy of the Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat with the rank of Lurah Karaton, and the title of Ki Lurah Wignyasukadga.

In 1983 he was raised to the rank of Mantri pandhe dhuwung, with the title of M. Ng. Wignyasukadga.

In 1986 he became a Penewu in the Karaton, with the rank of M.Ng.Prajasukadgo.

In 1987 he was raised to the rank of Bupati Anom with the title of R.T. Supawidjaya.

On the 17th January 1991 Pak Parman, also known to his close friends as Pak Mendung, and to others as Empu Suparman, was raised to the rank of Bupati Sepuh, with the title of Kanjeng Raden Tumenggung Supowidjoyo.

On 20th. July 1995 Pak Parman attended a funeral and later received four visitors. He then fell ill and on 28th July 1995 he returned to his Father's House.

Until 1988 Pak Parman had made 45 keris, all of which were given away as gifts, sometimes to people within the Surakarta Karaton, sometimes to government officials, sometimes to friends, and on one occasion to somebody he had only just met, as a gift for her husband.

That person to whom he gave the keris to pass to her husband was my wife.

My wife had heard of Pak Parman when she was visiting relatives in Solo ( she had already moved to Australia ). At that time I had been trying make pamor and keris in Australia , and had already succeeded in producing a small, very crude keris. My wife approached Pak Parman with the request that he accept me as a pupil. His answer was to give her the keris he had just finished and to tell her that provided he thought I had the necessary skill, he would teach me.

It took two years and a number of visits to Pak Parman, after this acceptance, before he actually committed to a commencement date for my lessons, but eventually he did teach me to make keris.

Following that initial tuition I received instruction in many aspects of keris manufacture, art, and tangguh, amongst other things, from Pak Parman. In 1993 he accepted me into his family.

After the passing of my adoptive father and teacher, my inheritance was his tools, his unfinished work, his pamor material, his note books, his books of kroncong lyrics, the last keris he had made, and a unique piece that he had made intending to present it to Sinuhun, but because of sickness and no suitable opportunity, he had been unable to do so.

I also received from Pak Parman as much of his knowledge as I was able to receive.

I trust that you now understand, Pak Ganja, who this man is that I call Pak Parman.

( In this text that I have written will be found a number of inconsistencies in the spelling of Javanese words; this is usual in writing Javanese that spans a number of years, and the spellings have been taken directly from Pak Parman's diaries, without alteration)

[ferrylaki]

Hi ganjawulung,
nice to see you here. I thought you gonna comment on my keris, but you're starting another interesting topic here.
Alan, thanks for your explanation about Pak Suparman. I never knew he was worked for 'sadinoe' the shoe maker. I'm wearing one of 'sadinoe' shoe right now.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

Hi ganjawulung,
nice to see you here. I thought you gonna comment on my keris, but you're starting another interesting topic here.

Yes Ferry, I will post this interesting topic on Pak Parman for another thread. About your keris, I think Alan has described it in a more comprehensive explanation.

The greneng part, IMHO, was not well executed. For comparison, I am sharing with you these pictures of one Solonese or Surakartan nom-noman keris and your keris' sor-soran part (sorry, copying your pic...)

GANJAWULUNG

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Yes Ferry, I will post this interesting topic on Pak Parman for another thread. About your keris, I think Alan has described it in a more comprehensive explanation.

The greneng part, IMHO, was not well executed. For comparison, I am sharing with you these pictures of one Solonese or Surakartan nom-noman keris and your keris' sor-soran part (sorry, copying your pic...)

GANJAWULUNG

I remember your picture. it is a keris made by Pak Kamdi. a very nice keris with PBX style.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

I remember your picture. it is a keris made by Pak Kamdi. a very nice keris with PBX style.

Not that one, but this one is made by Mbah Kamdi. Almost similar garap, and similar dhapur of Pasopati, but the "kelengan" (pamorless) is older. I don't even know who made it...

GANJAWULUNG

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Not that one, but this one is made by Mbah Kamdi. Almost similar garap, and similar dhapur of Pasopati, but the "kelengan" (pamorless) is older. I don't even know who made it...

GANJAWULUNG

pasopati with ron dha nunut, doublr ron dha....is this out of pakem?
beautiful keris you have there. I'd like to see it some day.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes!!

The ricikan assigned to each blade form were not assigned in a haphazard manner, nor were they assigned for artistic reasons. They were assigned to convey a meaning and for an esoteric purpose. Vary those ricikan in even the slightest degree and the keris has lost its esoteric value, and hence its meaning. If it has lost its meaning it follows that it has lost its name.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

pasopati with ron dha nunut, doublr ron dha....is this out of pakem?
beautiful keris you have there. I'd like to see it some day.

Someday I will ask Mr Haryono Guritno himself on this question too. Because, in his recent "Keris Jawa" book he described pasopati (in some pictures) with such ricikan. Including this 'wellknown' pasopati with "largangsir" pamor -- which he described as made in the period of PB IX (picture below, from "Keris Jawa" page 30)...

GANJAWULUNG

[Marcokeris]

I have too a Pasopati in my home (but without rondonunut).Imo it's another good keris with two color (largansir and ... beraswutan) .
I'll do a pic of this...when i'll come back home from indonesia

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

I have too a Pasopati in my home (but without rondonunut).Imo it's another good keris with two color (largansir and ... beraswutan) .
I'll do a pic of this...when i'll come back home from indonesia

do you ment two kind of pamor in one keris? wow that seem wonderful.
I guess my keris is possibly:
1. new made with bad greneng
2. old keris with altered shape. in greneng and wadidang

[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, I believe that Pak Haryono Haryoguritno has already declared his position in this matter:- he would not have published pictures and named the keris in those pictures as dhapur pasopati, had he not believed that dhapur pasopati could have a ron dha nunut.

I have no problem at all with this:- Pak Haryoguritno has decided that the Surakarta Pakem does not suit him, he has adopted a different pakem, or perhaps even written his own.

This is of course his right.

However, when that Surakarta Pakem was compiled in 1920, it clearly had the endorsement of Pakubuwana X.

Dhapur pasopati in that Surakarta Pakem has no ron dha nunut, thus, if a ron dha nunut is in evidence on a keris that bears sufficient other characteristics to classify it as a Surakarta keris, then clearly that keris fails to comply with the relevant Pakem, and it cannot be called a Surakarta Pasopati.

It can be called a Surakarta keris of un-named dhapur.

It can even be called a dhapur pasopati according to a different pakem, and in the style of Surakarta.

But it cannot be called a Surakarta Pasopati.

Each individual ricikan has a specific esoteric value. Variation of the allotted ricikan for keris alters the intended value of that keris.

This is not a matter of artistic appreciation , nor of opinion. The rules have been set, and within the area where those rules apply, they should be followed.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I have no problem at all with this:- Pak Haryoguritno has decided that the Surakarta Pakem does not suit him, he has adopted a different pakem, or perhaps even written his own.

This is of course his right.

However, when that Surakarta Pakem was compiled in 1920, it clearly had the endorsement of Pakubuwana X.

Dear Alan,
I have phoned Mr Haryono Guritno this afternoon, and told him about this discussion. (I am trying to express his response as I could...) He said, he knows your name, and of course Pak Parman as well.

He also has in his house in Rawamangun, Jakarta now, the book on Keris Pakem 1920 you mentioned -- in javanese scripture, also the pakem book which also used in Karaton Surakarta, the handwritings of Ranggawarsita from about a century ago (original).

He said, he also learned keris pakems -- directly -- from Gusti Hadiwidjaja, the son of PB X. He knew the styles of the keris maestros in the period of King PB X and PB XI namely Empu Supawijaya, Empu Jayasukadga, Empu Brajaguna and Empu Brajasetika -- their styles, and their garaps from Gusti Hadiwidjaja. Learning from looking directly from their masterpiece works, and having (collecting) some of their works, until now...

He admitted to know one 'tangguh lempoh' (means, knows sure the tangguh) of Empu Jayasukadga, from the much iron nikel pamor, and mainly from his garap, or work.

He admitted too, that there are always differences in understanding the "pakem" in keris. Which pakem, he said? Differences, even found in the karaton too, regarding the keris pakem. He learned from Gusti Hadiwidjaja, and also from the Ranggawarsita manuscript, that in the past -- in the Mataram era, there were differences too. Pakem in the era of Paku Buwono (PB) IV, was different with pakem of PB IX. And pakem of PB IX was different too with PB X.

Pakem, according to Mr Haryono Guritno, is not a 'dead' rule, that can not be interpreted. The ricikan "rong dha nunut" for instance. In pakem, there were no "rong dha nunut", except keris "with greneng" or "without greneng" in the "wadidang".

At least, he interpreted the pakem from the garaps or works of the maestro, such as the works of Supawijaya, Jayasukadga, Brajaguna and Brajasetika that he could see in the hands of Gusti Hadiwidjaja, or the 'penerus' (next generation of Gusti) such as Kanjeng Sumodiningrat (many of Sumodiningrat's collections, was used as illustration in the Jasper and Pirngadie book).

He said, even "Groneman Pakem" was different too, if you compare to "Ranggawarsita Pakem", for instance. Which one will you use? According to Mr Guritno, the real meaning of "pakem" is not "strict rule". But only "ancer-ancer" (sorry, I don't even know the English word of this...), Javanese is not a strict rule, sometimes multi-interpretation....

Anyway, he welcomes every different opinion. And he welcomes you too...

GANJAWULUNG

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by ganjawulung

Dear Alan,
I have phoned Mr Haryono Guritno this afternoon, and told him about this discussion. (I am trying to express his response as I could...) He said, he knows your name, and of course Pak Parman as well.

He also has in his house in Rawamangun, Jakarta now, the book on Keris Pakem 1920 you mentioned -- in javanese scripture, also the pakem book which also used in Karaton Surakarta, the handwritings of Ranggawarsita from about a century ago (original).

He said, he also learned keris pakems -- directly -- from Gusti Hadiwidjaja, the son of PB X. He knew the styles of the keris maestros in the period of King PB X and PB XI namely Empu Supawijaya, Empu Jayasukadga, Empu Brajaguna and Empu Brajasetika -- their styles, and their garaps from Gusti Hadiwidjaja. Learning from looking directly from their masterpiece works, and having (collecting) some of their works, until now...

He admitted to know one 'tangguh lempoh' (means, knows sure the tangguh) of Empu Jayasukadga, from the much iron nikel pamor, and mainly from his garap, or work.

He admitted too, that there are always differences in understanding the "pakem" in keris. Which pakem, he said? Differences, even found in the karaton too, regarding the keris pakem. He learned from Gusti Hadiwidjaja, and also from the Ranggawarsita manuscript, that in the past -- in the Mataram era, there were differences too. Pakem in the era of Paku Buwono (PB) IV, was different with pakem of PB IX. And pakem of PB IX was different too with PB X.

Pakem, according to Mr Haryono Guritno, is not a 'dead' rule, that can not be interpreted. The ricikan "rong dha nunut" for instance. In pakem, there were no "rong dha nunut", except keris "with greneng" or "without greneng" in the "wadidang".

At least, he interpreted the pakem from the garaps or works of the maestro, such as the works of Supawijaya, Jayasukadga, Brajaguna and Brajasetika that he could see in the hands of Gusti Hadiwidjaja, or the 'penerus' (next generation of Gusti) such as Kanjeng Sumodiningrat (many of Sumodiningrat's collections, was used as illustration in the Jasper and Pirngadie book).

He said, even "Groneman Pakem" was different too, if you compare to "Ranggawarsita Pakem", for instance. Which one will you use? According to Mr Guritno, the real meaning of "pakem" is not "strict rule". But only "ancer-ancer" (sorry, I don't even know the English word of this...), Javanese is not a strict rule, sometimes multi-interpretation....

Anyway, he welcomes every different opinion. And he welcomes you too...

GANJAWULUNG

thank you Ganjawulung.
you make it all clear now.

[David]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

thank you Ganjawulung.
you make it all clear now.

hmmmm....well, i am afraid that it is not all clear to me. It has been my understanding, perhaps a wrong one, that the word "pakem" as we in the world of keris expect it to mean refers to the rules of dhapurs of keris as determined by a particular keraton. I would expect that there might be some differences between the pakem of different keraton. I am willing to believe that pakem may change somewhat from one king to the next in the same keraton, but i am afraid i have a hard time excepting that there can be a "Gronemann pakem" or "Ranggawarsita Pakem".
Certainly there is no "David pakem".