my last keris

[Gustav]

For Cengkrong and Cundrik the normal position in the sheath is reversed, because reversed is the Gonjo, not the hilt.

The general problem is, as I understand it, that Marco's Keris isn't Cundrik or Cengkrong.

Well, one of Pusaka of the Empu lineage from Magetan is a Pedang-like Keris, which isn't Cundrik or Cengkrong, because it has completely different Ricikan, with reversed, quite unconventional Gonjo. So the position of it in the sheath is reversed. It is traditionally dated back to the first Empu in Magetan lineage.

What I also understand is, that Marco's Keris is a more like a Dhapur, which normally sits in the sheath the common way.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Marco, I doubt that anybody here, or elsewhere, has any problem at all with a reversed hilt, this is not infrequent, it does occur.

The problem arises with a reverse mount to the wrongko.

In normal dress situations, and for several other reasons, this reverse mount to wrongko is simply impractical.

I do believe that there would be a reason for this reverse mount to wrongko, but whatever that reason might be, it falls outside of my experience & knowledge.

Sorry Alan, another ulterior example (image taken from the net)


1. Sheath and the keris resting over the ladrang (first pic)

2. then I ask myself the question: but how is the blade inserted?

3: I take the blade and turn it upside down
4. I take a second blade, turn it upside down and mirror it

4: I approach the two blades to the ladrang as if they were inserted and this is the result (second pic):

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav & Marco.

With cundrik & cengkrong, the hilt position is sometimes reversed, in my experience, the position of the blade in the wrongko is not.

The picture posted with the blade over the wrongko shows an incorrectly mounted blade in both positions, if the blade is original to the wrongko we will find that the top of the gonjo sits with the sirah cecak & the buntut urang both sitting within the top line of the atasan, it is permissible for a small part of the gonjo to rise above the top line of the gambar at its center, it is not permissible for the gonjo to sit as depicted.

I'm a bit with David here:- I simply do not understand the reason for this extended discussion on an aberration, I do not understand what the objective of the discussion is.

We have a couple of examples keris which by any normal standard are deviant from the norm.

So?

Some people have strange ideas, even in Jawa, if somebody wants his keris mounted back to front I guess he will not be strung between two saplings and gradually be pulled apart as they straighten.

We have a very definite anomaly.

Why not just accept it for what it is?

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gustav & Marco.

With cundrik & cengkrong, the hilt position is sometimes reversed, in my experience, the position of the blade in the wrongko is not.

The picture posted with the blade over the wrongko shows an incorrectly mounted blade in both positions, if the blade is original to the wrongko we will find that the top of the gonjo sits with the sirah cecak & the buntut urang both sitting within the top line of the atasan, it is permissible for a small part of the gonjo to rise above the top line of the gambar at its center, it is not permissible for the gonjo to sit as depicted.

I'm a bit with David here:- I simply do not understand the reason for this extended discussion on an aberration, I do not understand what the objective of the discussion is.

We have a couple of examples keris which by any normal standard are deviant from the norm.

So?

Some people have strange ideas, even in Jawa, if somebody wants his keris mounted back to front I guess he will not be strung between two saplings and gradually be pulled apart as they straighten.

We have a very definite anomaly.

Why not just accept it for what it is?

Sorry again Alan, with all my respect, but this is one of the answers which, unfortunately, slowly push collectors and scholars away from the VKF

[A. G. Maisey]

Marco, I would assess my post #93 as polite, and in my understanding absolutely factual.

I do acknowledge that my understanding is not perfect, nor is my knowledge, but it is understanding & knowledge gained in large part from two ranking empu in who were members of the Surakarta Karaton hierarchy, from several members of the original anak-anak ASKI, from 70 years of keris study, from around 60 years of buying and selling keris, both locally and internationally.

If you consider my style of writing to be offensive, then I suggest with the greatest good will, that you simply do not read what I write.

From the very beginning of my involvement in this discussion group, I have not participated with any intention of having fun, of amusing myself, or of making friends, my only objective has been to impart some of my knowledge & experience to others.

My training under the guidance of Empu Suparman Supowijoyo was not without a price, that price was my solemn vow that I would do two things, firstly I was required to swear that I would undertake the preservation & restoration of any keris I had access to & that needed this attention, secondly I was required to swear that I would to the best of my ability attempt to spread an understanding of keris culture as I knew it to be.

Marco, if you find my attempts at fulfilling my promises to be objectionable, well then, just ignore me.

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Marco, I would assess my post #93 as polite, and in my understanding absolutely factual.

I do acknowledge that my understanding is not perfect, nor is my knowledge, but it is understanding & knowledge gained in large part from two ranking empu in who were members of the Surakarta Karaton hierarchy, from several members of the original anak-anak ASKI, from 70 years of keris study, from around 60 years of buying and selling keris, both locally and internationally.

If you consider my style of writing to be offensive, then I suggest with the greatest good will, that you simply do not read what I write.

From the very beginning of my involvement in this discussion group, I have not participated with any intention of having fun, of amusing myself, or of making friends, my only objective has been to impart some of my knowledge & experience to others.

My training under the guidance of Empu Suparman Supowijoyo was not without a price, that price was my solemn vow that I would do two things, firstly I was required to swear that I would undertake the preservation & restoration of any keris I had access to & that needed this attention, secondly I was required to swear that I would to the best of my ability attempt to spread an understanding of keris culture as I knew it to be.

Marco, if you find my attempts at fulfilling my promises to be objectionable, well then, just ignore me.

Alan I absolutely didn't want to be offensive as I think you didn't want to be you towards me but I thought it was also right to answer to you.

Ok, fine. I accept your answer. .. no problem, even if I don't think I wrote a heresy or something that clashes with a dogma.

BUT, I repeat, It's just a real pity that the VKF from what it was at the beginning: a new, good, interesting place in which to discuss or to post pics or even support, perhaps wrong things but in good faith, bringing evidence and without any hidden intent ... in short: a nice open café ......has become to my eyes something like a fortress with a drawbridge always ready to be raised immediately even when there is no one who, in reality, wants to attack it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Very well Marco, all understood, and for the record, I have not found any of your posts to be offensive. However, you do clearly find a post --- or perhaps more than one post --- of mine to be so objectionable in style that it has the potential to cause some people to go running in a direction away from us.

My attitude might be a bit old fashioned about this, but the fact is that nobody can please everybody, and if some people do not wish to learn, then nobody can make them learn.

Personally, I cannot see the fortress nor its drawbridge that you can see.

What I can see is fairly strictly regulated discussion group that was created out of the desire to remove impoliteness and the idiocy of on-line challenges to duels at dawn, from discussions about keris.

We all know what the rules are, and we nearly always play the game by these rules. I see this discussion group as a place where almost no nonsense surfaces but plain, ordinary old fashioned facts and opinions are given free reign.

One thing that does occur to me is this:- the keris itself is a difficult, a very difficult, artefact to come to terms with, there are many ways in which to think about the keris, and some of these ways are not necessarily inclusive of others.

The FB people seem to play the game by different rules to the ones that we adhere to here, so maybe what we are experiencing is something similar to a generation gap.

Our style here might well not suit the people from more recent generations.

But whatever the causes of a fall off in participation might be here, I doubt that anything will change, the people who want social involvement and a feel-good experience will continue with FB, the people who need a slightly more sober approach will continue their involvement with us.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Gustav & Marco.
With cundrik & cengkrong, the hilt position is sometimes reversed, in my experience, the position of the blade in the wrongko is not.

This statement, except the "in my experience" part, is an absolute opposite to everything I have seen, read, heard about this subject so far, with sources going back to at least the beginning of XX cent.

[Marcokeris]

excuse me all, and I appeal to anyone who reads this topic. Please make the effort to enter my way of thinking for a moment...I promise you won't go crazy:

1. I posted a kris (a kris of mine) reversed in the scabbard

2. I was immediately told that a kris had never been seen in that position. I was alone
3. I posted an old example, an example taken from vkf. Now I was no longer the only one but there were two of us
4. I posted other examples... now we were no longer two but 2%
5. I hypothesized the idea, I think with an unsubstantiated image, that the walikat could be the suitable scabbard for those types of kris if you want an insertion according to tradition
6. Finally, I reiterated my thoughts with a last image. That is, it could also be according to tradition that those dhapurs need a rotated head-to-tail insertion


Final result:

it is not possible to go against the rules of Surakarta Karaton hierarchy or anak-anak ASKI. Not possible!
Ok I accept these rules but I would like to see a written, a translation or visual proof of the rule that said that all the keris with these particular dhapur must be inserted in such way

[Marcokeris]

[QUOTE=Marcokeris;281692]excuse me all, and I appeal to anyone who reads this topic. Please make the effort to enter my way of thinking for a moment...I promise you won't go crazy:

1. I posted a kris (a kris of mine) reversed in the scabbard

2. I was immediately told that a kris had never been seen in that position. I was alone
3. I posted an old example, an example taken from vkf. Now I was no longer the only one but there were two of us
4. I posted other examples... now we were no longer two but 2%
5. I hypothesized the idea, I think with an unsubstantiated image, that the walikat could be the suitable scabbard for those types of kris if you want an insertion according to tradition
6. Finally, I reiterated my thoughts with a last image. That is, it could also be according to tradition, that those dhapurs need a rotated head-to-tail insertion


Final result:

it is not possible to go against the rules of Surakarta Karaton hierarchy or anak-anak ASKI. Not possible!
Ok I accept these rules but I would like to see a written, a translation or visual proof of the rule that said that all the keris with these particular dhapur must be inserted in such traditional way

[A. G. Maisey]

I do understand that your experience differs from my own, Gustav, and I do respect your right to hold an opinion that differs from my own.

Marco, I doubt you will ever see what you would like to see, my own opinion is primarily based upon what I have owned, seen, & sold, as well as the opinion of a tukang wrongko who came from a long line of m'ranggis & who worked for me for around 12 years.

The few sources of information I quoted in a previous post are overall my most important sources of information, but I cannot recall that this particular topic under discussion ever arose with these people to whom I referred.

And after all of this, I still cannot understand what this thread is all about.

I think I might bow out of this discussion, I've been in Bali & Jawa for the last three weeks, I'm on holidays, and it will be another week at least before I get home, so I think I'd rather talk to the people here about keris than continue trying to understand what we're trying to do here.

[David]

Marco, i want to be very clear about this.
Nothing you have posted pertaining to your keris has been offensive to me. As to your point #2 i will maintain that until now this was something that i had indeed never seen before. Others responded similarly. None of us were lying to you. In all our personal experiences this was new. None of us made any attempt to deny that you had such a keris. How could we, as the photographic evidence was clear.
As to point #3, it does seem to me that other examples that you have shown us mostly appear to be cengkrong or cundrik style blades, not regular keris. I and other still seem to maintain that YOUR keris is not a cengkrong/cundrik. Alan and Gustav seem to have a difference of opinion and experience about how often, if ever, cengkrong/cundrik are mounted in a wrongko in reverse position. To my mind that argument is moot, as it does not apply to a keris blade that is NOT a cengkrong/cundrik. Perhaps you believe your keris blade IS a cengkrong/cundrik, but personally i don't think it qualifies. I could be wrong, but that is my opinion.
So...if your could, perhaps, make and effort to enter MY way of thinking for a moment...
It seems to me that your major complaint about the way this discussion has unfolded has more to do with the fact that not enough members agree with your position, not the manner in which discussion takes place here. Everyone has been patient, polite, and informative as per their own knowledge base and experience. But we have our own opinions supported by our own years of experience collecting and handling keris. Some of us obviously have more years and better connected experience in the world of keris than others, but we still all have our opinions. I am sorry that this is not a place where members will simply go "ooh and aah" and not question or challenge something that seems outside the normally accepted traditions of the Javanese keris society. I personally don't have enough experience with cengkrong/cundrik to know whether Alan or Gustav is correct about how those blades might be positioned in a wrongko. I respect both of their opinions and if this really is more common for that form than Alan seems to believe then possibly Gustav can find something to present that can be seen as more convincing evidence than the very few examples that have been shown in this thread. But from my perspective i have always viewed the cengkrong/cundrik form to be somewhat outside the sphere of regular keris. And again, i do not see YOUR example to be a cengkrong or cundrik. So from my perspective it still remains an oddity in the traditions of the Javanese keris world. I have viewed thousands of keris in my 40 years collecting. Alan, many thousands more. If this were normal for Javanese keris (and i'm talking keris here, not cengkrong/cundrik), then surely we would have seen many more of these. The fact is that we haven't. So i will continue to view this as an aberration until a much larger body of examples can me produced.
But here is my problem with your part of this discussion and where i really do take quite a bit of offense. You have used this thread, and your disappointment with the lack of support for your theories, to launch an attack on this site and attempt to sow discontent amongst it's members. Your continual swipes at the very nature of this forum and the type of discussion that takes place here and your implication that it is the style and manner in which certain members engage in discussion that has driven traffic away from this site is not only unnecessary, inaccurate and off-topic, but rude and disruptive. You have made not just one, but several remarks disparaging this forum. If you are really that unhappy with the site why are you here? Clearly there are other places you can show your keris where they will tell you exactly what you want to hear. I don't wish to shut down this discussion, but i will not continue to tolerate such remarks on these pages. I hope you understand that this is not my way of telling you to go away. I have always considered you a valuable member who brought interesting content to these pages. But i am not willing to put up with you trash-talking this forum.

[ganjawulung]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

dapur Maeso Slurung / Nabrang

IMHO it is a rare Chengkrong Pandawa keris.

[ganjawulung]

Last Thursday (01/06/2023) I went to the Radyapustaka Museum in Solo. In a museum showcase, I saw a keris quite similar to Marco's keris – not precisely similar, but it had three curves or luks. It is a Cengkrong Jangkung, if Marco's keris luk five, it is a Cengkrong Pandawa.

The Cengkrong Jangkung keris is on the far right in the showcase in front of me.

[ganjawulung]

The cengkrong dhapur on the Javanese keris, is the only dhapur that is a panjingan (omah-omahan, keris hole) in its special position. Unlike the other dhapur kerises. Keris hole in its sheath, is reversed. The front becomes the back, the back becomes the front of the sheath.

As photographed (01/06/2023)in this keris belonging to the Radyapustaka Museum in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia...

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your input Ganja.

Radyapustaka sounds pretty authoritative, but it still gets down to the opinion of one man.

Here is re-posting of an earlier post of mine:-

The SKA pakem cengkrong lacks kruwingan, whilst the SKA pakem dhuwung does have kruwingan, also a cengkrong does not need to have the back edge sharp, whereas the dhuwung does.

The subject keris has a sharp back edge and kruwingan.

Using the SKA pakem it cannot be anything other than dhuwung luk lima, but I have no idea at all what it might have been called at the time & in the place where it was made.

I do not think this is a Central Javanese keris, more likely East Jawa, and over there it could have a half dozen other names.

Actually, if we did allow that it was a cengkrong with 5 luk, in spite of the fact that it does not quite satisfy the requirements for a cengkrong, it would then be a Pandowo Cengkrong, not a Cengkrong Luk Lima.

I don't think I have a firm opinion in respect of dhapur, but its nice to see another genuine old example.

However, it is difficult to see detail of your example , I also have some photos of this display case, but my pics are maybe more indistinct than yours.

For me, it gets down to only one thing:- what does the SKA pakem say?

We can have 50 people look at the same thing and all come up with maybe 50 or more different opinions, it is always nice to be able to back up an opinion with some sort of authority.

Marco's keris (post #17) shows a back that in English we would call a pipe back, in the keris this pipe back blade is found in dhapur dhuwung, it is not found in any other dhapur.

Does the Radyapustaka example have a pipe back blade?

If so it is similar to Marco's blade and according to the SKA pakem it qualifies as dhuwung.

If it does not have a pipe back blade then it is not similar to Marco's keris and cengkrong might well apply, in which case the reverse mount is correct in the RP example, the comment in the SKA pakem is "--- ganja kuwalik".

[ganjawulung]

I tried to open the book "Dhapur" (Damartaji, 1998) which was copied from the original manuscript "Buku Gambar Dhapuripun Dhuwung saha Waos" (Picture Book of Keris and Tombak Dhapurs, 1920) which was in the hands of the late Kanjeng Gusti Prince Harya (KGPH) Hadiwijaya son King of Surakarta Paku Buwana X (1866-1937).

The book contains drawings of the Surakarta version of the Javanese keris (SKA) collected from palace manuscripts by Gusti Hadiwijaya, the son of the Surakarta king. I tried to open an image of Cengkrong's dhapur lined up with Cundrik's dhapur. And Cundrik Pandawa in the form of Cundrik's dhapur with five curves.

The picture is as follows:

[ganjawulung]

The source of the book used by Gusti Hadiwijaya was the palace (kraton) manuscripts made by Raden Tumenggung Sastradiningrat. And Gusti Hadiwijaya later copied it in his book which became the reference for examples of dhapur kerises among the Surakarta Palace and keris fans. Hadiwijaya's book was published in 1920 in Surakarta.

In 1998 the Javanese script was Latinized by the Damartaji keris fan association (Tosan Aji Fans Brotherhood).

[ganjawulung]

The Dhuwung dhapur is different from the Cengkrong dhapur. Cengkrong's gandhik is at the back, while the gandhik of Dhuwung dhapur is normal at the front position.

I took an example of the picture in the same book from Gusti Hadiwijaya, son of the King of Surakarta Paku Buwana X

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, that is the reference I mentioned.

I actually had the original of that in my possession for a few days back in the 1980's, it was offered to me but I could not afford the price tag, I photographed all the pages though. A very big hand drawn book. I had those photos printed professionally as large hardcopy photos, these are what I used to use before the commercial blue cover ripoff became available.

The book I use now is the blue cover one that you mention.

We are both using the same reference, and that reference shows a Cundrik Pandowo as picture #85.

Now, if we look at picture #27 what we see is a Cengkrong, on the Cengkrong, the hilt has been reversed, next to the Cengkrong at pic #28 we have Cundrik, and the hilt on that has been reversed also.

On all three blades, the hilts have been reversed, ie, the batuk of the jejeran sits above the buntut urang of the gonjo, it does not sit above the sirah cecak of the gonjo as is the case in a normal mounting of the jejeran. Of course, the Cundrik Pandowo does not have a gonjo, so in this case the batuk sits above the wadidang, which in a normal keris is directly below the buntut urang.

It is the hilt that is reversed, nothing else.

Neither the Cengkrong nor the Cundrik keris form has a pipe back, however, the Dhuwung form does have a pipe back, see picture #30.

Marco's keris has a blade back that is compatible with the dhuwung classification, not with Cengkrong & not with Cundrik.

In accordance with the guidance of this reference that we are both using, Marco's keris is a Dhuwung classification, not Cundrik, not Cengkrong.