Keris Jawa?

[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.

[A. G. Maisey]

Rasdan

I agree with everything you have written Rasdan, and when it gets right down to it, you have set forth the the whole problem of giving the keris shown in Post #1 a classification:- it lacks a sufficient balance of indicators that would permit it to be placed in any broad classification.

I cannot say in even broad terms where it is from, and since I was taught that we achieve an opinion in respect of classification by eliminating all the examples that have features which preclude them from consideration, I cannot give an opinion where this keris might be from, nor can I give an opinion on where it might not be from.

Guesses I can do, opinions I cannot.

You're right about the Mataram classification, there is a multitude of sub-classifications for Mataram.

In my opinion you are also right about classification & quality:- we do not need to have an applicable tangguh classification to have quality in a keris. The two concepts differ.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you again for your very kind words. I must say though, that my Keris studies have extended beyond material available online or printed for some time already.

With the five Keris, Groneman was involved as middleman and Prince Pakualam did the commission, because Karyodikromo was subject of Pakualaman, a court empu. The Keris were made for an Austrian Museum and paid by Dr. Heger, Head of a Departement of that museum, and is in collection of that museum since arrival.

No english translation, but the translation of that citation is quite precise.

Regarding long point - the last Luk of Karyodikromo is typically very short and mostly doesn't have a perceptible concave curve on Gandhik side. For example, like on this 13 Luk Keris by Karyodikromo. Is it common to call a short last Luk a "long point" in Surakarta? Thank you for clarification.

This Keris on p. 233 wasn't attributed to Karyodikromo by museum in Leiden. It was commissioned to Karyodikromo through Groneman for Count O. van Limburg Stirum, and thus attributed to Karyodikromo by Groneman himself.


On matter of
Since Groneman was clearly using at least one other maker attached to the Pakualamanan

The other maker, Empu Supo Taruno, wasn't in any kind attached to Pakualaman. In fact, Groneman writes on Fig 15, "it was forged by the self employed Empu Supo Taruno". There was only one court Empu at that time, Karyodikromo. Groneman worked closely only with Karyodikromo, and when he commissioned something from another Empu, he did mention it.

[David]

Gentlemen. I have been following this interesting discussion very closely and want to thank both of you for keeping the tone essentially civil.
However, i am not blind to subtle sarcasm. Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming none exists in both your posts. So again, please, reel it in. As i stated, i am finding this discussion very interesting and don't want to have to shut down the conversation.

[A. G. Maisey]

David, you have issued warnings several times now, so I can only assume that you do indeed detect sarcasm in my writing.

I am very sorry that this is so.

It seems Gustav also thought I was being sarcastic at one point, so I offer my apologies to him.

My informal writing --- and in this Forum I do write in an informal style --- is pretty much the same as the way I speak. I admit that I have sometimes been accused of having a sharp tongue, so I have reviewed my contributions to this conversation between Gustav & myself to try to detect some objectionable remarks, not only from me, but also from Gustav.

I'm afraid I can find nothing at all objectionable in Gustav's posts. Yes, he does tend to be a little too positive in his writing style, yes, he does tend to assume a bit too much, but that is his style, there is nothing objectionable there. Not from my perspective in any case.

I have met Gustav and spent time with him. He is a well mannered, civil person, very astute and a careful observer. His contributions to this Forum indicate that he has applied himself well to gaining information from the sources available to him.

I can find nothing at all that I would consider to be objectionable in any of Gustav's posts to this thread.

In respect of my own posts to this thread.

In my post #15, I admit, I was less than sweet, I was getting bored with the presentation of what I thought of as irrelevant material, and with the almost total disregard for what I had already stated. Apart from that I posted those remarks at a time when I might have been well advised to write nothing and to keep my mouth shut. Between 24 December & 1 January, the area where I live is not a real great place to be --- not for locals anyway, but the visitors love it. Too much.

My post #15 was not respectful, and I do regret verging on behaving in an unacceptable fashion.

I have carefully reviewed my recent posts, #31 & #34 and I can detect not the slightest touch of sarcasm in these posts. By my own standards, standards that I employ in my professional writing, these posts are flat, unemotional and from my perspective, factual.

I most sincerely regret that you find both my style and Gustav's style to be other than civil exchanges between two people whom I do regard as civil, straightforward people.

Since you do not like our style David, perhaps it might be best to close this thread immediately.

If David does close this thread Gustav you are welcome to continue discussion with me through email if you wish. If you want my current email address please PM me.

[rasdan]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Rasdan

I agree with everything you have written Rasdan, and when it gets right down to it, you have set forth the the whole problem of giving the keris shown in Post #1 a classification:- it lacks a sufficient balance of indicators that would permit it to be placed in any broad classification.

I cannot say in even broad terms where it is from, and since I was taught that we achieve an opinion in respect of classification by eliminating all the examples that have features which preclude them from consideration, I cannot give an opinion where this keris might be from, nor can I give an opinion on where it might not be from.

Guesses I can do, opinions I cannot.

You're right about the Mataram classification, there is a multitude of sub-classifications for Mataram.

In my opinion you are also right about classification & quality:- we do not need to have an applicable tangguh classification to have quality in a keris. The two concepts differ.

Yes Alan, and then there are kerisses that is obviously not very high quality but is still appealing to me. Keris can be confusing at times.

[A. G. Maisey]

Once again Rasdan, you're dead right.

I have some keris that I believe any self respecting collector would not consider for one moment including in his collection.

But these are keris that for one reason or another I would not consider parting with.

I don't think this attitude is confusing, it is a matter of feeling, as opposed to rational judgement.