Keris Jawa?

[Green]

This keris went under the hammer in a recent auction for a very substantial price and way above the original estimated price. I wanted this blade to replace a poorer blade with my good sumatran sarong (ivory) but of course i did not win and not willing to pay such a high price.

Congratulation to the winner who must have a very deep pocket !

But I have a couple of questions:

1: this keris (without the sheath) was described as keris java from early 20th century. But is this javanese? looks more sumatran to me.

2: The kinatah , particulary the one on the blade looks familiar but I can not recall what it symbolize or an emblem of some sort. Can anyone tell?

The kinatah looks recent addition. Is this fair to say?

Thanks in advance for you explanation and comments

[kai]

Blade flipped into standard position:

[Gustav]

I am pleased that somebody finally has some questions about the only blade from that auction that actually deserves to be discussed.

Some more pictures from auction house:

[Gustav]

1) - it is Javanese and isn't from early 20th cent.

2) - the gold work is done in two different time periods.

[Marcokeris]

Very nice old Javanese keris, but I don't like the bottom of the hilt: it's too long and tapered

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

Very nice old Javanese keris, but I don't like the bottom of the hilt: it's too long and tapered

That means you don't like pre-1850 hilts.

[kai]

Hello Gustav,

I am pleased that somebody finally has some questions about the only blade from that auction that actually deserves to be discussed.

Maybe not exactly the only blade from that auction (even if limiting ourselves to keris here) - this one is certainly exceptional though...

Thanks for adding the additional pics!

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Nik,

I have a couple of questions:

1: this keris (without the sheath) was described as keris java from early 20th century. But is this javanese? looks more sumatran to me.

2: The kinatah , particulary the one on the blade looks familiar but I can not recall what it symbolize or an emblem of some sort. Can anyone tell?

The kinatah looks recent addition. Is this fair to say?

IMHO a very well preserved old blade. Never trust auction house descriptions - neither 20th century nor 21th century - needless to say that more than a few folks seriously went for it...

Regards,
Kai

[Marcokeris]

Originally Posted by Gustav

That means you don't like pre-1850 hilts.

Yes I don't know pre 1850 hilts. Mine was just a personal aesthetic evaluation. The kris is very nice as is the mendak which seems to be made by gold.

[Gustav]

Bungkul is elongated, as is the Mendak, on the old style combinations. The flow of this example is perfect.

[Gustav]

This Mendak has one peculiar detail and is second of the kind I have seen. The first is on a Keris, which with quite high possibility could be made in the same workshop.

[A. G. Maisey]

Below are my comments upon what I believe I can see in these photos. These comments are not to be read as a tangguh type classification, but they do represent some of the things that would come under consideration if I were to handle this keris.

This blade has probably had the gonjo replaced, the curvature of the gonjo is unsuitable for Central Javanese dress, it suggests West Jawa or South Sumatera, more likely South Sumatera, Palembang. The form of the top of the gonjo is compatible with Pajajaran. The pawakan is decidedly South Sumatera. The Palembang gonjo form is usually closer to a Mataram form, but in reality, there is no standard form that can be applied to Palembang.

Overall craftsmanship of this blade appears to be fine.

The gold work on the gonjo has been created by a different hand to the hand that created the gold work on the wilah (body of blade). The motifs used in the gold work are motifs I have not seen in Central Javanese kinatah work.

The hilt & mendak are pretty much stock standard old Ngayogyakarta. I cannot give a wondo for the hilt, the mendak is parijoto in some places, bejen in other places, where I went to school it is parijoto, & of very fine work, it could well be gold as suggested.

It is an older blade, but even in the hand I would hesitate to put an approximate date on it, there are simply not sufficient known indicators to support an opinion.

It is certainly not something from The Land of Jawa, possibly it might come from the Island of Jawa, Sunda, but I think my best guess would be South Sumatera.

[Gustav]

Alan, a question - which is the curvature of Gonjo, that is unsuitable for Central Javanese dress? Because, if you mean the spine of Gonjo, the curvature here is rather moderate. There are early Pakualaman Keris where it is much more pronounced. In fact early Pakualaman perhaps could be one guess for this blade.

The kind of goldwork and its motifs are absolutely untypical for Palembang either.
Goldwork on Gonjo is only partly different from that on the blade - the part below Gandhik belongs to the ensemble on blade, the flat "paint" on sides and spine of Gonjo is an addition. So I don't see any hints of Gonjo being a replacement.

I have not seen any Keris with Kembang Kacang Bungkem outside Java until now.

Of course Mendhak is standard old Yogyakarta, but it has one peculiarity - instead of Meniran there is a flat rim. As I wrote, I am aware of one another Yogyakarta Mendhak with such feature until now, and it comes en ensemble with Keris possibly created in the same workshop. Moreover, the blade has the same kind of goldwork motifs and equally extravagant Ricikan.

[Gustav]

In fact the execution of the single Sogokan here is Javanese, not South Sumatran.
The execution of goldwork is also Javanese. Similar motifs can be found on Javanese Keris from th first half/middle of 19th cent.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, one of the great beauties of keris discussion is that it very frequently comes down to the expression of opinion, and one's opinion is usually formed by experience & tuition.

In spite of my 70 or so years of experience in the field of keris, experience that has involved more than 50 years of being directly involved with keris culture in Jawa & Bali, of 40 odd years of personal instruction from various keris craftsmen & collectors in Jawa & Bali, my personal training & instruction from Empu Suparman Supowijoyo (Alm.) of the Surakarta Karaton Hadiningrat, training that stretched over a 15 year period, in spite of this modest background in the culture, belief systems, and construction of the keris, I have not been able to form a solid, supportable opinion in respect of either the geographic location, nor the precise time period where this keris under discussion originated.

I have said as much in my post #12.

I congratulate you upon your incredible depth of knowledge that has permitted you to form such firm opinions in the absence the advantages that I have had.

You have my most earnest admiration.

I have somewhat similar admiration for one of my grandchildren who a couple of days ago, during a Christmas visit, blessed me by devoting some of his time to explain the intricacies of Quantum Mechanics to me. I did not learn very much from my 6 year old grandson's lecture, I was never much good at math, so I just kept agreeing with him & nodding my head. I'm always easily impressed by understanding that flows from instinctive knowledge, knowledge that has been gained in the absence of adequate time & experience & tuition.

[Gustav]

Alan, please don't be sarcastic.

We all are aware of your excellent pedigree meanwhile.

In your post #12 you said a lot more things, to which I responded.

I wouldn't call my knowledge instinctive.

[David]

Gentlemen! Let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please.
As someone who professes to have much less knowledge that either of you blokes i believe this discussion would be better served by presenting examples to support your positions rather than merely stating what you find suitable or unsuitable for classifying this keris. Though to be fair to Alan, he was fairly clear that his opinion was "not to be read as a tangguh type classification" and ended his comment in post #12 that "best guess would be South Sumatera".
However, one should still address questions directed at even personal opinion and guesses in a snark-free manner.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for bringing me back into line David. Yes, I agree, I was a little sarcastic in my previous post. I did not intend to be, I was trying to be gentle, but sometimes my ideas of "gentle" do seem to be at variance with the ideas of some other people.

Gustav, please accept my apologies for any remark in my previous post that you perceived to be sarcastic. As I have said to David, I was trying to be gentle, sometimes I do fail to be as unjudgemental & as forgiving as I might like to be. I understand that we all do the best we can with what we have, and we do not all have the same, or even similar resources to call upon. If I only want to make a passing comment on something I do tend to assume that I do not need to write about things that sort of fall into the area of basic keris understanding.

Gustav, you have asked me to respond to your comments. It is not something I want to do, in my previous post I thought I had made it very clear that I was unable to form a defensible opinion upon the item depicted in the photographs presented by Green. I read your earlier posts #13 & #14 as opinions, and your style seemed to indicate that you wanted me to defend my non-opinions.

However, since you have repeated your request for a detailed response, I'll do what I can to oblige.

"--- curvature of the gonjo is unsuitable for Central Javanese dress --- "


here I was referring to curve in the face of the gonjo that is closest to the mendak. The curve in the gonjo of the keris under discussion is not very pronounced, additionally the gonjo itself appears to be rather short. These two characteristics tend towards a Pajajaran classification, as does the profile of the gonjo when we look down onto the upper face.

However, I am not able to classify this keris as Pajajaran because I have not ever seen an example of a Pajajaran keris that has other characteristics that clearly mark it as Pajajaran, and that align with the characteristics of this keris under discussion.

In a Javanese context, we expect somebody who has the beginning of keris understanding to be able to form an opinion (ie, to give a tangguh opinion) upon the basis of what he can see of a keris when it is still in the wrongko. In the case of the keris under discussion we could perhaps expect to see a Pajajaran keris when it was removed from the gonjo, but we would not see that at all, so we have a wilah that stylistically does not match the gonjo fitted to it.

Why?

The general belief seems to be that such a gonjo has been fitted to the keris to replace a missing gonjo, or for any one of a number of other reasons.

We are aware that West Javanese cultural influences can extend into South Sumatera, there is also stylistic influence on keris form from Central Jawa, and from Bugis culture. Palembang itself is a bit of a melting pot for cultural styles.

Now, a keris of clear Pajajaran classification can have Solo or Jogja dress made for it, and when worn, it will not look out of place, however, if we take one of the off-the-shelf Central Javanese wrongkos and fit a Pajajaran keris to it, what we usually find is that the curve in the gonjo of the keris is insufficient to provide a good mating to the curve in the top of the gambar. On the other hand, keris that have been made according to Central Javanese styles do have sufficient curve to permit a neat mating to an off-the-shelf wrongko.There are some measures we can take to offset a poor mating, but these measures involve adjustments to gambar/gandar angles and proportions, which can result in the keris in a dress position looking less harmonious than it should.

Currently I am working on a laptop, the screen of this machine does not have anywhere near the resolution and clarity of my desktop monitor. On my desktop monitor I can see quite clearly the degree of surface erosion on the wilah itself, and on the unadorned surfaces of the gonjo, ie, the surfaces that are visible between the areas of gold application. These unadorned gonjo surfaces appear to be quite clean, in most places there is no apparent erosion at all.

These indicators of a gonjo that is stylistically variant from the wilah it is attached to, that appears to display a lesser degree of erosion, & that carries gold work that varies from the gold work on the wilah all tend to point in the direction of a gonjo that has replaced the original.

" --- early Pakualaman Keris --- "

Gustav, your mention of "early Pakualamanan keris" is difficult for me to come to terms with. In terms of blade classification, we do not have a tangguh classification of "Pakualamanan", I have never handled a keris that was identified by anybody as "Tangguh Pakualam". Based upon photos I have seen of keris that are attributed to makers who worked for & in the residence of the Pakualam these keris seem as if they would probably be classifiable as Godean.


" --- pawakan is decidedly South Sumatera ---"

When I mentioned "pawakan" :- "--- pawakan is decidedly South Sumatera ---" I was referring to the overall perceived form of the blade, this idea of pawakan is always a subjective judgement, and it takes into account the feeling generated by the blade as much as just the physical appearance. We can liken the opinion of pawakan of a keris to the overall visual impression of a man:- we see something, we feel something, we form an opinion of the man. It is the same with a keris, if I look at a keris, the impression I receive of the pawakan of that keris is based upon all the keris I have seen and handled during my lifetime.

Pawakan alone is not sufficient to permit the formation of an opinion in respect of tangguh, it is only one of a number indicators that we need to use in order to form an opinion that we can defend.

I cannot defend an opinion that this keris is of South Sumateran origin, or, indeed, of any specific origin, thus I have not given an opinion on tangguh, only on pawakan.



In my post #12 my comments on the gold work are:-

" The gold work on the gonjo has been created by a different hand to the hand that created the gold work on the wilah (body of blade). The motifs used in the gold work are motifs I have not seen in Central Javanese kinatah work."


I cannot add to this, I do not recognise the motifs, the actual work has been done by at least two different people, undoubtedly at different times. I cannot even form a non-opinion about this goldwork.

Gustav it seems that you are very certain about this goldwork:-

"The execution of goldwork is also Javanese"

As for the execution of the goldwork being Javanese, well, you are entitled to your opinion, personally I cannot see anything in the actual execution of this gold work that identifies it as having been done in any particular spot.

You advise that;-

"Similar motifs can be found on Javanese Keris from the first half/middle of 19th cent."

The motifs are generic lung-lungan motifs, similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time, but nothing I can recall having seen on any keris is the same as what I can see on this one.

Gustav, you have said:-

" I have not seen any Keris with Kembang Kacang Bungkem outside Java until now."

Neither have I, but a kembang kacang is only one characteristic, and that is the problem with this keris:- it does not fit an accepted style, at least not one that I can recognise. A tangguh opinion is always formed upon the balance of indicators, with this keris the indicators are a dogs breakfast, I cannot form an opinion in respect of classification.

Gustav, you have also said:-

" In fact the execution of the single Sogokan here is Javanese, not South Sumatran."

Now, the sogokan. Gustav, all the carving work in the sorsoran appears to be of a high standard, how high I cannot tell from a photo, the overall appearance of this garap does indeed suggest that it could have been done in the Island of Jawa, but it could equally have been done by any skilled artisan anywhere, in fact, I myself am capable of duplicating this carving, and I am certainly not Javanese.

In the practice of tangguh, when we set out to form an opinion on the origin of a keris blade we begin our process of appraisal by eliminating the geographic areas, and/or the eras from which it could not have come.

The way in which I was taught to do this was by applying the major tangguh indicators in order to reach a decision on whether the keris is indeed Javanese, or whether it originated outside Jawa.

By "Javanese" what is meant is that it originates from within The Land of Jawa, not that it originates from within the Island of Jawa.

This is an important first step, because if it comes from outside the Land of Jawa, it has automatically gone into the "who cares?" box. The system is Jawacentric.

So, having eliminated non-Javanese keris by random application of the indicators used to determine a classification, we then look one by one at each blade and try to confirm our initial opinion that we do indeed have a bundle --- or one --- Javanese blades to deal with.

Often during this second step we will identify other blades that just do not fit into the system. At the conclusion of step two we should have blades that have a high possibility of being able to be classified into a Tangguh classification. This is the point where we can say that we are looking at one or more Javanese blades.

With the keris under discussion, using the tangguh system as I have been taught to use it, I possibly would not be able to move the keris under discussion past step one, I certainly could not move it past step two.

To move away from the blade and consider the mendak.

Gustav, you have mentioned the meniran polos as an exceptional feature.

This is usually found in the work of a jeweller rather than a specialist mendak maker. The granulation technique that produces the little "grains" or balls that we find on mendak is a technique that was not possessed by all jewellers but was possessed in the past by many makers of Central Javanese mendak.

We usually find this meniran polos treatment in lower quality mendak, I have also encountered it on horn & ivory mendak, but in the case of this mendak under discussion, we are dealing with a mendak of fine quality, there are a few details in the fabrication of this mendak that set it above the general run, I very much doubt that these details would be worthwhile attempting in brass, or even in silver. I would be a bit surprised if this mendak was not made of gold.

When keris appraisal is carried out correctly it is a very meticulous skill, perhaps "art" is a better word. We need to apply relatively rigid parameters to very fine details, details that the vast bulk of keris fanciers are not even aware of. We cannot adopt a freewheeling approach that produces nothing but good ideas and guesses. When it gets right down to it, with tangguh we are talking about value:- what is the value of a Kartosuro keris, as compared to a Mataram Sultan Agungan keris? What is the honour factor? What is the gold price? It is business, and if you make mistakes in your buying & selling, you will eventually go bankrupt. It is not a fun game to play to try to display just how clever you are, or to fill in empty time with ego trips.

All of the above is the reason I was not, & am not, prepared to offer a Tangguh classification for this keris. From a collector perspective its not a bad keris, in spite of comments to the contrary I do not consider the sale price to be beyond reason. But would I want it? No, I would not, and I have a number of reasons for this, which I am not prepared to waste time on setting forth.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your detailed response, and for being even more gentle then usual - I very much appreciate that.

I would like to say, that I never in my life have felt a wish to give Tangguh to something, and that includes this particular Keris. I only would like to try to find some clues which possibly could help to narrow down the time and space window for this Keris, and that in my childish approach includes an attempt to find some existing parallels.

I want to make some points, or better, add some details for possible discussion, and I will need a couple of posts for it, because I would like to address one such detail at time, with pictures.

At first, on goldwork, and goldwork on blade and Gonjo.

On the execution - as naive it sounds, I simply am not aware at this point of such meticulous execution of smallest details in high relief outside of island of Java. Of course there is more to Palembang goldwork on Keris then the frequently seen applied gold foil on spine of Gonjo and Gandhik, but this simply is outside of the Palembang capabilities. The closest example, which comes to my mind is the Sultans Keris from Museum Pusat, E 253/13957, close in many other aspects, but in fineness of goldwork detail it doesn't reach this Keris.

Now to the goldwork on Gonjo. As I said in #4 and Alan in #12, the goldwork has been done intwo different time periods. But that applies only to the flat applicated gold on sides and spine of Gonjo, and of course, sides and spine have been smoothened and prepared in some other way (more apparent on spine - in fact I wonder, if the goldwork on spine is yet from another, third period) to apply it. The goldwork on Gonjo under the Gandhik is stylistically and technically analogous to goldwork on blade, and, perhaps difficult to recognise from picture, but the surface here corresponds to the surface of blade.

[Gustav]

I would like to introduce three other blades. At first, an example from Robert Hales book, page 124. We see some correpondences in goldwork motifs, mainly - the lotus motif in the middle of blade, at the end of middle ridge at Gonjo;
- the ball with five rays; on blade discussed in this thread on Gandhik, on blade from book above Poyuhan.

We see a correspondence in execution of single Sogokan - in both cases the "middle ridge" actually goes slightly out of the middle to the other half of blade, so that we have impression, Odo-Odo starts from the middle of Sogokan and not from Janur. I am quite sure, such handling of single Sogokan we most likely wouldn't find on a Palembang blade.

It perhaps doesn't say anything and is just a coincidence, but there we have another old high quality Mendhak with Meniran Polos, which I haven't seen often so far (I also am quite sure the Mendhak of Keris in question is made from gold).

Well, the attribution of Mr. Hales for this blade is Yogyakarta, 18th cent.

[Gustav]

Why I post yet another Keris - on this example, mounted in Solo style, we see the same rendition of single Sogokan, and above the Poyuhan the same motif as on Keris of this thread, yet reversed. Wassing-Visser identifyes it as an orchid - we may argue about it, but she apparently had assistance of K.R.T. Hardjonegoro on some matters.

As different as this Keris may be, in overall shape of Sorsoran it has similar feeling of a little bit high and too short Gonjo, but of course much less extreme then Keris from this thread.

[Gustav]

The last Keris of this row may be superfluous - it may not share much characteristics with Keris from this thread, the goldwork of it is less in quality, yet I nevertheless see some relation between them. The closest point it gets similar in execution is the motif above Poyuhan. Overall in motifs and overall picture of goldwork, prominent longer lines combined with some "old style" vegetal motifs, it goes close to the Keris from Mr. Hale's book. The goldwork on Gonjo belov the Gandhik is identical to it.

The hilt of this Keris and the original of this thread have very similar elongated shape, not only regarding Bungkul.

[Gustav]

Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.

From my side thanks for your last post #18, that's all perfectly clear for me.

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, you have commented:-

''Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.''

No Gustav, this is not quite so, the photos you have shown do make sense, these example keris do have indicators that would probably get them accepted as originating from somewhere in the Island of Jawa. However, these keris do not have sufficient indicators to tip the balance in favour of a specific tangguh classification.

The Wassing-Visser keris you have presented in two photographs, in one photo it looks like a poor attempt at a Surakarta style, in the other photo I would probably give it as generic Mataram --- I'm talking style here, not origin .

I have had to look at these two photos several times to confirm that I am in fact looking at the same keris.

This keris also has characteristics that place it outside Surakarta and also exclude it from Mataram, but do tend towards the group of keris that bear characteristics congruent with production of a "rare & unusual" keris produced especially for the collector market.

Harjonegoro was well known in the dealer community in Solo as a buyer for this type of keris. In addition he was not always, let us say, ''open'', evidence of this can be found in published works, evidence that is perfectly obvious as falsehood to some people but would be accepted as gospel by others.

The Robert Hales example is regrettably a very indistinct photo --- it might be a bit easier to see detail when I get home and can use a decent monitor. However, yes, I would accept the Hales keris as originating in the Island of Jawa, but I cannot see much agreement between the Hales keris and the keris we have been discussing, in simple terms they do not look similar, the major sticking point is pawakan.

A full length photo would be useful, an initial indicator for all keris is pawakan.

The keris with the loose gonjo I can also accept as Island of Jawa, but again no similarity with the keris under discussion.

To my eye, and using the parameters I was taught to work with, the three examples of keris that you believe to be similar in some way to the keris under discussion are not very similar to this keris at all.

The major deviation is pawakan, but there is also another, the three keris you have posted as examples all have tungkakan, the keris under discussion does not.

All three examples you have posted have greneng, there is very significant variation in these greneng.

Gustav, the things that you consider as binding indicators are not the things that I have been taught to use as binding indicators. For example, gold work of any type can be considered in a similar way to the way we consider dress, it is just makeup. We would never use either gold work or dress as an indicator for determination of blade classification.

In a previous post I wrote this:-

"--- similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time ---"

I do accept that all three examples you have posted have similarities, I also accept that all three examples you have posted might be able to be considered as originating within the Island of Jawa, however, my position with the keris under discussion is unaltered, I am not prepared to attempt a classification, there are too many conflicting indicators.

I have said that I cannot classify this keris and then defend that classification, this is so:- I cannot.

But equally, I cannot disallow a point of origin, the keris under discussion could be from almost anywhere, but I fail to see how a specific point of origin could be nominated and then that opinion defended --- at least defended in a way that would be accepted by people who have some understanding of the way in which the Central Javanese keris classification systems are used.

[A. G. Maisey]

*****

[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, I keep on telling you that you see things differently to the elite keris authorities of Central Jawa, and to me (but I am no Elite), but I have not yet explained how different.

Here is a short list of major indicators that we bring into consideration when trying to determine the classification of a keris blade.

Under each of these heads there are characteristics that can be representative of characteristics found in each established tangguh. I am not going to name these characteristics, nor attempt to explain them, the words & concepts are mostly Javanese and we need to adopt a Javanese frame of reference to achieve entry level understanding, usable understanding can only be achieved through personal tuition on a face to face basis and with access to good examples.

These days there is a multitude of tangguhs, and a lot of these have appeared over the last 30 or so years, they would not all have been recognised as legitimate, in Solo, during the 1980's.

Here I also provide a short list of major, recognised tangguh classifications.

Major Tangguh Classification Indicators as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo

Tanting
Besi
Pamor
Baja
Pawakan
Gonjo
Gandhik
Blumbangan
Sogokan
Ada-ada (odo-odo)
Kruwingan
Eluk-lukan
Wadidang

Major Tangguh Classifications as used by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo
Accepted as Javanese
Jenggolo
Pajajaran I
Pajajaran II
Mojopahit
Kahuripan
Pengging
Segaluh
Tuban
Pajang
Mataram Senopati
Mataram Sultan Agung
Tuban Mataram/Pajajaran/Mojopahit
Kartosuro
Surakarta
Koripan
Godean

Accepted as outside Jawa
Madura
Kupang
Bugis

It is important to note that these classification names cannot necessarily be understood in a way that the name itself would seem to indicate, classifications can refer to era, or geographic location, or society, or culture there are other un-named classifications.
Tangguh classification should be understood as the name of a classification only, other meanings should not be read into the name in the absence of expert guidance.

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your elaborate response and the Tangguh summary.

My only aim at the beginning was to try to explain, why I don't believe the initial Keris of this thread could originate in South Sumatra, Palembang. I posted the three other Keris, because I (at this point or forever) guess, they all could be from roughly the same time period - end of 18th cent until at latest middle of 19th cent., and come from Central Java. I see and understand, why you doubt such geographical attribution for the initial Keris - oncemore thank you for your last three posts.

Just a clarification about the Keris from Wassing-Visser's book - it was part of King Willem's III collection, that means, most likely collected before 1860. She had help of K.R.T Hardjonegoro identifying items, so there is a possibility, that the identification of the Kinatah motif as orchid, and the estimation of blade as ancient type of Solo Keris be his.

And I have a question about Tungkakan. Can we indeed say, the initial Keris doesn't have one, in contrast to the other three? To me the size of it and at least that on Keris from V-W's book seems to be similar.

[Gustav]

On side line, regarding "early Pakualaman Keris" - perhaps I can imagine, why there is no classification for Keris from Pakualaman in Solo.

This one is later, already from around 1875. I am not sure we can say it looks like Godean.

If a long point on Keris Luk is a typical Godean characteristic, Karyodikromo's Keris don't have it.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav for the images of keris for comparison.

At this point I'm a bit confused where this conversation is going, I sort of get the feeling that you are trying to demonstrate that the several keris that you have posted pics of all originate from the same place, and that place is the Pakulamanan in Jogja, and if that is correct, then the keris under discussion might also originate from the Pakualamanan in Jogja.

Is this correct?

If so, yes, it is a possibility, but to my eye none of them look like the keris under discussion, and I cannot form an opinion on the keris under discussion, nor of any of the keris of which you have posted photos. I have nothing to measure against, the photos are not particularly good, they have been through a printing process and then a second photographic process.

It is more than a little bit difficult to try to determine tangguh from a photo, and from my perspective all the keris you have posted photos of vary sufficiently to prevent me from forming an opinion on their relationship one to another, or on their point of origin.

Yes, the three keris you have posted images of do look to have originated somewhere in the Island of Jawa, I am reluctant to try to give any of these three keris a classification, but I do agree, they all appear to have originated in the Island of Jawa. None of the three have similarity to the keris under discussion, at least for me they do not.

Gustav, you keep on coming back to the gold work, but if we are trying to establish a classification for the blade, this gold work is totally irrelevant. The motifs are generic and can be found in multiple variation across a very wide area, I said something similar in an earlier post.

I just don't know where we're going.

I doubt that I can contribute anything further to this exchange that might be of some value.



However, just a couple of additional comments probably won't do any harm.


The keris on P.171 of "Royal Gifts" is certainly a Solo keris when it is dressed, however, looking at just the blade, the photos on P.171 are not big enough nor clear enough for me to be certain that the blade itself is a Surakarta blade.

This P.171 keris does not appear to have Surakarta rondha, and the blumbangan appears to be square rather than boto adeg. I've said "appears to be", the blumbangan form is very important, and both the photographic process and the printing process can alter this shape. The variation in shape only needs to be very, very tiny for it to change an opinion on origin.

From what I believe I can see in this P.171 photo I think that upon close examination, this keris might prove to be Mataram --- generic, but still Mataram pattern.

As to identification of the kinatah motif, and the involvement of Goh Tik Swan (ie, Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.)).

The caption under the photo 162 on P.171 does not say that the blade of this complete keris is ancient, it says that the keris in the photo, ie, the entire keris, is an ancient type of keris. Yes, it is an old type, the ladrangan wrongko looks like a type that runs back into the 18th-19th century at least. But the blade? We do not have an opinion on the blade, only on the complete keris.

When we describe a keris in English, we only have one word --- "keris" --- to use for the keris + dress, and for the bare blade of the keris, an advanced collector will understand that if he wishes correctly describe a keris he must separate the description of the blade from the scabbard, would a writer who is a generalist have the same degree of understanding?

Wassing-Visser has shown a complete keris, blade + scabbard, the word "ancient" has been applied to both. I personally feel that the original word used in Dutch might have been "old", or even "very old", and the translator or proof reader has used "ancient", possibly for the sake of style. I have had exactly this same experience myself.

Wassing-Visser acknowledges the assistance of large number of people in production of "Royal Gifts", GTS might have been involved, he might not have been involved, but whether he was or not, no mention is made of the blade of the keris, and the motif might be interpreted as one of the million & one variations of this motif by anybody with some knowledge of Javanese motifs and a motif pattern book --- you need the book, there are far too many motifs & motif variations for anybody to remember. Wassing-Visser could well have interpreted this kinatah motif herself.

In another caption attached to photo 161, a close-up of the sorsoran of this same keris Wassing-Visser names the sogokan as a blood groove. This does not sound like the GTS whom I knew. I strongly suspect that the involvement of Panembahan Harjonegoro(Alm.) might have been marginal. The inclusion of noted personalities in an acknowledgement list is always a strong support for the material put forward in a published work.


Tungkakan?

I blew it. I was wrong.

The keris under discussion does indeed have a tungkakan. I failed to check the close-ups before writing, I only looked at the full length photo on the rather inadequate laptop screen I was using yesterday, and on this screen I was not able to see the tungkakan. I'm back to my desktop monitor and can see it clearly.

But in any case, sloppy work on my part, I should have looked at the close-ups, I did not.

Why does the list of major (& for that matter, minor) possible keris tangguh classificiations not include the name "Pakualam"?

Nobody has ever told me why, but I do have a pretty firm opinion, and that is because it seems to be very difficult for members of the Surakarta Hadiningrat Karaton hierarchy to even acknowledge the existence of the Karaton Ngayogyakarta, let alone the minor line of Pakualam.

The Pakualamanan is a very minor entity, in English terms it can be thought of as a duchy. The guidelines that set the standards for tangguh classification do not extend to an entity such as the Pakualamanan:- it is very recent (1810 est'd or 1813, I'm not sure which), there is no honour attached to it, it is even less important than the Mangkunegaraan in Solo, and that does not get included in worthy classifications either. Both these houses are simply not good investments from a Javanese point of view.

A whole swath of other minor nonentities are left out of consideration too, the only objective is in applying a classification that can carry some degree of honour, which will ensure that the keris concerned can act as a vehicle for protection of wealth. This is the reason why we only focus on major entities, or at least use the names of major entities.

I've tried to explain, I'll try again:-

the use of the Solo Tangguh Classification system is not to keep collectors happy by giving them something to do on empty Sunday afternoons. It has absolutely nothing to do with collectors from the perspective of the involved Javanese nobility. It has to do with wealth and how to hold wealth in a way that is both socially acceptable and likely to prevent erosion of that wealth.


Regarding the characteristic of a long point on a Godean keris with luk.

Did Karyodikromo make any keris with luk for Groneman?

I don't think I've seen a photo of a Karyodikromo keris with luk.

My memory is that Groneman commissioned 5 keris & his focus was pamor, not dhapur, all 5 keris --- again from memory --- were straight. I think I've still got the KITLV publication of a few years back, I'll see if I can find it and check. (NB, I have now checked, yes, Groneman commissioned five straight keris)

I do remember that when I first saw the kerises that Groneman had had made I thought that they looked a bit like Solo keris (I still do). Maybe Karyodikromo was using a Solo blak.

In my experience every smith of any kind, including keris makers, always use a blak --- ie, pattern, template --- when they make something, but in the case of keris, in the finished product we can usually find characteristics that indicate the school from which the maker has come.

So we can have a Koripan keris that displays the indicators of a M'ram SA keris, in a photo that Koripan keris could be identified as M'ram SA, but once it is in the hand it usually becomes clear that it is Koripan. Exactly the same with Godean, the base characteristics come shining through, but we cannot pick these up from a photo, we need to handle the object.


Incidentally Gustav, what is the source of the photos in your post #28?

[Gustav]

Alan, thank you for your response again.

None of these Keris I posted are from Pakualaman to my current knowledge, except #28.

The Keris from #28, by Karyocurigo I, is in Museum Bronbeek, Netherlands.

In Groneman's plates from van Duuren's "The Javanese Keris", except for the five straight blades commissioned by Dr. Heger, Keris by Karyodikromo are, starting from p. 246 Fig. 11a, 12, 16a, 18, 19a. Starting from p. 264, Fig. 1, 3, 4. The colour photo on p. 233 is another Keris by Karyodikromo, this one from Groneman's heirs. They all are Keris Luk.

I happen to own two Keris Luk by Karyodikromo, so I have an idea how they are in the real life.

Regarding gold work. In #12 you wrote: The motifs used in the gold work are motifs I have not seen in Central Javanese kinatah work.

After your best guess for the original Keris was South Sumatra, I have presented three other Javanese Keris, which share some of the motifs seen on original Keris. Besides gold work three of the four are very close in execution of the Sogokan, which also isn't South Sumatran style. I think, my intent should be quite clear.