New Keris/Keris baru

[Ismarsodo]

Dear Members,
Let me introduce first, my name is Ismarsodo, a new member here, Indonesian n living in Jakarta. I'm very interest to discuss more about keris, all kind of keris (Java, Madura, Sumatera, Malay, etc.), original old keris/keris sepuh or new made. Is there any thread for new keris here? If no, I would like this thread to be a special thread for sharing new keris/new made or some people call as keris tangguh kamardikan, and also for discussion @ anything new keris.
Let me share my collection first.. :D

Name of Dapur: Kalanadah - Luk 5
Name of Pamor: Kelengan
Warangka: Gayaman Solo Nagasari Wood
Garap/made by Mujiyono/Ki Mangir 2011
Besalen: Mangiran, Malang

Cheers,

[A. G. Maisey]

Good to see you here, Ismarsodo, and welcome.

Your proposal for an increase in serious discussion of recently made keris is in my opinion, well overdue. A long time ago there was a thread in our old forum that was directed at discussion of the elements that might be considered when a determination was being made as to whether a keris was "good", or "not good". The things that surfaced in this old thread are seldom, if ever, raised in discussion these days. There currently seems to be a fixation on whether or not a keris is "old", or in other words, "genuine", and thus of value, or whether it is "fake", meaning "recently produced".

It saddens me when I see these sort of comments, and I have virtually stopped giving any attention to threads that fail to regard keris which have been recently produced as a legitimate continuation of cultural expression.

Recently made keris can be some of the very finest expressions of keris art that have ever been produced. By "recent", I mean since WWII.

The vast bulk of older keris that become available on the open market are in most cases not much more than junk. Certainly an older piece of high quality can be a very satisfying thing to either see, or have custody of, but the simple fact of the matter is that there are very few older keris of high quality, and when they do become available the price is almost always very high.

If one prefers old junk rather than recent high quality, then that is of course always a matter of personal preference. However, if one is a student of the keris, then to ignore the quality that is available in recently produced keris is clearly an attitude that contributes to a failure to increase knowledge.

Possibly many people do not wish to become students of the keris, but merely collectors of keris. I would suggest that to indulge in collection of anything in the absence of attempts to increase knowledge in that subject is an almost certain way to suffer financial loss.

I do hope that this thread you have started will attract some serious attention.

[David]

I agree whole-heartedly with Alan's post. While i do prefer a keris with history i think it is important that we do not disregard excellent work simply because the work is recent. Some of the finest examples of keris art is being produced today.

[dbhmgb]

I do find this interesting, because, I too, am very new to the keris and I am in the process of not only learning about it, but deciding what, or how, I want to collect.

I have a couple of relatively new kerises in my collection, one being my wilah with the Udan Mas (http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15448) pamor. I am really fond of this example and fully appreciate the skills needed to create it.

But, I'm torn at this point. Do I want a keris solely for it's technical aspects or am I attracted to the romantic (for lack of a better term) aura of an old blade. I do like to think, as I hold an older keris, about a Javanese man holding the same blade with great reverence many years ago.

Am I over analyzing this or do other folks have the same thoughts?

[Rick]

Am I over analyzing this or do other folks have the same thoughts?

There is no spoon, Neo ... ;) :D

I feel that if you want to experience the living art form that is the keris the (un-aged) new work shows you what can be accomplished .

Sometimes I feel that when we look at old keris we view mere shadows .

Esoteric stuff aside .... :)

[A. G. Maisey]

I started to collect edged weapons more than 60 years ago, when my collecting life was given a kick-start by my grandfather who passed his collection of edged weapons to me when I was 12 years old.

When I began to add to this collection with my own purchases, I did not have the confusing factor of recently produced keris (or other weapons). Everything available was old. Over time my interest polarised and for a long time now I have been principally interested in the keris.

When the keris culture began its renewal in Jawa during the 1970's, I had already been making regular visits to Jawa for some years. When the makers of Central Jawa began to increase in number, and then the makers of Madura and East Jawa began their rise, I was there to see it happen. I myself had already made keris before the Madura enclave had become a factor in the market-place.

The early attempts at making keris in the modern era were not particularly impressive, but this was more than 30 years ago. The quality of the best keris blades produced at the present time is equal to, or better than anything produced in the past.

In the case of keris dress, the hilts, scabbards, and other dress items, the quality of the very best production of recent years is without parallel.

In the past, only very wealthy people with the right connections could own very high quality keris, and the same is still true in the case of old keris (pre-WWII). Old keris of any quality are almost never seen for sale in the open market, and can only be reliably obtained if one has the right connections. And good, old keris do not come cheap. Pressure is on this segment of the market, and the price of anything old and good seems to increase every time I turn around.

However, very good recent keris are within the range of affordability that most people can aspire to.

Just because a keris is old, that does not make it a worthwhile acquisition. The vast bulk of old keris were never produced as something special, and most certainly were not produced by empus, nor with any spiritual intent. Old keris are simply that:- old. In appraising their worth or otherwise they should be subjected to evaluation of their characteristics, not just accepted because they have some age.

Take as a parallel, antique furniture. Two hundred years ago furniture was produced in various qualities, just as it is today. The best of this furniture is now highly regarded, but within the trade, it is well accepted that a piece of furniture of inferior quality when it was produced, is still of inferior quality now:- it was junk when it was made, and just because it is old does not make it of any higher quality now.

Would we prefer good quality new furniture, or junk quality old furniture?

Some people do have a preference for old things. In some respects I'm a bit this way myself. However, if one is a keris student/collector, as distinct from just somebody who likes old things, one does oneself a great disservice by failing to pay attention to, and appreciate the fine quality keris that are currently being produced.

How to structure a collection?

To my mind, there is only one answer to that:- we collect what we like, because ultimately each of us has to live with his collection.

This attitude of course gives the green light to the those who only want to collect old keris, no matter the quality, and this is fine, because that's what they like:- old. However, it is notable that as a collector's knowledge of the keris increases he usually reaches a point where he can see the mistakes in his early purchases, and at the same time appreciate the quality of recently produced keris. Time and experience will sometimes alter attitudes.

EDIT:-

I just noted your "shadows" reference Rick.

Absolutely spot-on.

I have just had the opportunity to closely examine very old keris in original condition.

There is no doubt that the vast bulk of old keris that we see now are just ghosts. The difference between a typical 17th century Mataram keris as found in Jawa now, and a 17th century Mataram keris that went to Europe when it was still close to new is immense. The new one is a solid, beefy substantial weapon; the one that we see in Jawa is a light, flimsy heavily eroded piece. A ghost.

[dbhmgb]

The vast bulk of old keris were never produced as something special, and most certainly were not produced by empus, nor with any spiritual intent.

Alan,

Thank you for your reply - very enlightening. I quoted the one line because it is something I don't think I have ever read before. For me, it is quite profound and produced an attitude adjustment. There is quite a bit of "romanticism" enmeshed in all the keris lore and sorting the wheat from the chaff is part of the learning process and makes it all the more interesting.

Dan

[A. G. Maisey]

Dan, the romantic aspect of I think perhaps all edged weapon collecting is something that I think of as "the Silk Road Syndrome" .

Its the old "Sun Comes up Like Thunder" --- Raffles --- Kipling --- Lord Jim thing that some of us --- me included --- have floating around in the back of our minds.

It can take a few different forms, and these forms will usually reflect our own personal characteristics, but at base its a form of escapism --- and there ain't nuttin wrong with that. Helps us cope with the insanity of modern life.

This attitude does seem to be extremely prevalent when it occurs in partnership with the keris, and it can be noted not only with collectors in the western world, but also in Jawa, where they have their own version of reference points --- obviously Kipling is not going to work in Surakarta.

[dbhmgb]

Alan,

As a collector by nature, every interest that I have has a romantic allure of some nature. I think it's a healthy aspect and part of the joy of collecting - it varies by subject and the keris is not found wanting on the scales! In my opinion, the romantic aspect needs to be tempered with a realistic approach and knowledge of the item, though some folks don't seem to care.

I love your analogy - it's perfect!

Dan

[drdavid]

Hello and welcome to the forum Ismarsodo,
thank you for posting your very elegant piece to start this thread. Please excuse my ignorance, I am a novice ....could you explain the term 'kamardikan' for me. Does it refer to a specifically modern time frame of construction or is it more the modern style/nature of the piece. Many thanks
DrD

[Gustav]

The same question two weeks ago, with a correct answer:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15541

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually Sukarno and Hatta declared Independence from Dutch overlordship on 17 August 1945.

Indonesians regard this as the gaining of freedom, or "merdeka".

The word "kamardikan" derives from "merdeka", so a kamardikan keris is one dating from the era of Merdeka, ie, after 1945.

It is a relatively recent term, coined to give a legitimate classification to recently produced keris.

[Jean]

And I would add that a kamardikan kris should normally be a good quality kris, so it does not include the fake or replica krisses ;)
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Good quality?

Looks like we've come full circle.

Let me ask the question:-

What is a good keris?

Then we have the other two very obvious questions:-

What is a replica keris?

What is a fake keris?

There you are, three very nice questions sitting there awaiting answers. Should keep us going for the rest of this year.

At least.

[David]

Good quality?

Looks like we've come full circle.

Let me ask the question:-

What is a good keris?

Then we have the other two very obvious questions:-

What is a replica keris?

What is a fake keris?

There you are, three very nice questions sitting there awaiting answers. Should keep us going for the rest of this year.

At least.
Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is. :shrug: :)

[ariel]

I might approach this question indirectly: what criteria do we use in choosing an item for our collection of arms?

Keris, IMXO, is a thing apart. It had never been used as a weapon first and foremost. It was made, chosen and kept for its artistic value and for its mystical intangible aura: protecting the owner, bringing good luck, threatening enemies, communicating with the dead etc. The former requires good taste, money, skills and knowledge of decorating and forging techniques. The latter is a matter of personal beliefs. Thus, both can be achieved by a combination of superb contemporary mastery of the craft and superstitions of the owner. Old or new - they all are worthy and comparable to their 15th century brothers. This is what I think A.G. Maisey meant when he defended and extolled modern kerises.


Examples from other cultures are primarily concerned with the "weapon" dimension: shamshir, khyber, kindjal, yataghan,- you name it, - were weapons first and foremost. Their artistic component is important, but secondary to their fighting usage. In those swords we look for stories of battles, bloodshed ( real or not), famous military owners, etc. Thus, no modern replica would qualify for an object of interest, no matter how artistically-pretty or richly embellished. We are looking for history, not for the spiritual aspect. Keris criteria would be simply not applicable. It is either antique or junk. Would anyone here buy a contemporary Syrian-made pala, despite the fact that its modern steel alloy blade might be better than the original one from the 17th century and carries profuse golden inscriptions? Or a Cold Steel khyber that is mechanically better than the village-made old Afghani one?


Keris is first and foremost object of art and spirituality, and is therefore always real. The rest are objects of history. Therefore, new keris is perfectly fine, whereas new shashka is either a replica or a fake.

[David]

Sorry Ariel, but i completely disagree with your downplaying of the historical aspects of the keris. History is not simply a matter of the battle capability of a weapon or whether or not a weapon has drawn blood (though in some Indonesian cultures such as the Bugis the keris had a much greater use as an actual physical weapon. I also believe that the keris began as a true physical weapon, first and foremost and developed it's spiritual attributes as it evolved). A keris that is pusaka can hold the "history" of many generations. If i were to be the custodian of such a keris i would say that clearly the history of that blade is of utmost importance. At least it would be to me. :)
I would also say that contemporary keris are much more objects of art and much less objects of spirituality. The days of the Mpu is for the most part past and the magickal qualities that were once their providence to impart on the blades though fasting, prayer and magickal incantation are lacking in today's modern keris. Most keris are not made by Mpus anymore, only skilled (sometimes highly skilled) metal smiths who do not have the knowledge or priestly lineage to create such keris. I do not believe that is a reason to dismiss modern keris by any means, but i did want to correct your impression just a bit.
As an expression of high Indonesian art the keris is a living art form and though the keris does not hold quite the same cultural importance it once did it still has a place to fill in Indonesian culture. That is the difference that i see between it and the other weapons you mention and what i see as a real reason to encourage it's continued growth as an art form.
In my own collection i have mostly antique keris, but quite a few recent ones. I collect keris that i like, first and foremost. A blade need not be a master work to attract my attention, but it must hold some kind of character that attracts my attention. But with the antique keris that i have collected i am most certainly interested in that link to the past, that connection to history.
As for what is or is not a "fake", i would say that all depends on how it is presented. Artificial aging of blades is not a sign of forgery in and of itself. The look is a preference for many collectors within the culture. If, however, you age a blade and then try to pass it off as an ancient weapon, that is indeed fakery. As for the term replica, i am not sure how that applies to keris. Keris form is often set by certain pakem. So a keris that follows that pakem will, for the most part, look like any other keris that follow that pakem, regardless of when they were made. I can't see how that would make the newer blades "replicas", especially in a culture that still has a place for the keris in it's traditions and cultural practices.

[dbhmgb]

David, you make some excellent points. It was the spiritual aspect of the keris that first attracted and fascinated me. As I've learned more, I have a growing appreciation for the fact that it is also an art form. At first I bought every keris as a because of it's spiritual history (I bought the story, not the blade), now I find I'm looking for something that peaks my interest - unless it's dirt cheap on eBay. ;) I still have a special affinity for the older kerises.

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[David]

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Yep, this is indeed what i would call a "fake" keris or a keris-like object (KLO)
:D
This hilt form can be found in much finer quality.

[dbhmgb]

This hilt form can be found in much finer quality.

There's not much about it that can't be found in finer quality... :D

[Jean]

Now here's an example of what what may be considered a fake keris. It's the Bali Tourist Special. The hilt is kind of cool, but overall, I consider it a caricature of a keris and I don't even keep it with my others. Correct me if I'm wrong.

A perfect specimen of fake kris indeed, what a pity that you have destroyed this fine "pamor"! :D
And as kris replica, I have in mind these roughly made naga krisses from Madura with brass kinatah for instance, or artificially aged copies of antique krisses.
Regards

[dbhmgb]

A perfect specimen of fake kris indeed, what a pity that you have destroyed this fine "pamor"! :D


Jean - LOL!!! That pamor! I could tolerate everything else, but that pamor was way, way over the top! :D

[Jussi M.]

Well, i'm not going to jump on board just yet here, but would be interested to hear just what folks think a "replica" or "fake" keris is. :shrug: :)

I´m game :) Now... I think that this is a way more complex a theme that one would first think of. First there is the underlying problem of semantics bested with the multiple of ways - viewpoints - one could use in trying to answer such a question. I´ll leave Mr. Maiseys first question regarding what constitutes a good keris aside and concentrate on the latter questions "replica" and "fake".

Replica in my opinion is something that could be found on the upper right hand corner of below matrix (which I "loaned" from a professor of marketing named Joseph Pine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RD0OZCyJCk) ). Thus a replica is "real real" - it is being treated openly as a replication of something that itself is not ("is what it says it is"), and it "is true to itself" as it is a truthful replica. If on the other hand we would think that in order to be true to itself an item has to be unique in its design (something a replica cannot be), we could think of replicas as "real fake", alike Disneyland is not really a magic land it portrays (being open about it) itself to be. Of course viewer discretion is yet advised, as just like with the keris, some people may take illusion as true despite it is not deliberately attempted (small children in Disneyland alike noobies in the kingdom of the keris cannot separate tale from truth). On the contrast - often times they, in their own minds, prolong the honest fantasy onto something that exceeds what was said, what happened etc. Call it imagination if you will :)


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w308/JCJM/authenticity.jpg

We are left with "fake fake" and "fake real". "Fake real" is an honest ripoff - a con if you will: somebody promotes something which has been purportedly design and manufactured to give an illusion that it "is not what it says it is", thus it "is true to itself". "Fake fake" is a bad fake, ie. a fake that can be recognized as one thus it cannot be "true to itself".

Easy, huh?

No. It gets more complicated now. - What about when you have, for example, a keris that has been honestly designed and executed as keris X following a Pakem Y, but the maker has not been able to follow the Pakem on precision needed for the keris to be classified by the court as yes, this is a "keris X according to Pakem Y"? This brings the issue of intent: what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding? Thus is it not true that one mans "real-real" cannot but be another mans "fake-fake" and all the other variations on the matrix?

Replica and fake out of the way, a good keris obviously needs to be "real real", or does it? Cannot a good keris also be a "fake real" if it is honest to itself despite the fact that the observer in question does not know what he is looking at, say for example when someone is looking at a worn out piece of junk (in his mind) which an expert would cherish as something extraordinary. Why? Because he understands what that worn keris once was ("real real"). Time thus can alter perception via accumulation of damage to the point that the story the keris tells changes alike it´s appearance does, hence altering from "is what it says it is" to "is not what it says it is" (to most).

Anyway, I think it would be futile to prolong this further from my part. I tried to prove the point that things really are not so clear cut what comes to this theme of categorizing stuff as "good, bad or ugly" :p

Thanks,

J.

[Gustav]

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

[Jean]

Well, it sounds good as a theory. What, when we are using it on keris of Ismarsodo as example in praxis (if he allows us to do it), going in to the small details?

IMO the kris from Ismarsodo is a honest/ typical keris kamardikan and not a replica. Howewer I would personally replace the pendok... :)
Regards

[sirek]

what was the intent of the maker - did he act on good faith and failed because of ignorance? Did he himself thought that he had followed the Pakem, only to be corrected by some of more understanding?

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression? :shrug:

[Jussi M.]

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression? :shrug:

I guess a "purist" would say that anything that deviates from Pakem (if the maker is following one in the first place that is) is not a keris but a keris like object. That said I guess the difficulty is in deciding where to draw the line between artistic freedom and tradition.

I guess we all weigh and measure these things differently depending on our abilities, motives and capabilities :shrug:

[Jean]

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression? :shrug:

A modern creation indeed but not a very good one IMO, the wadidang has an odd shape and I apparently see some filing marks on the gandik and pejetan? :shrug: But this is according to my personal taste only and you are fully entitled to disagree!
Regards

[David]

And as kris replica, I have in mind these roughly made naga krisses from Madura with brass kinatah for instance, or artificially aged copies of antique krises.
In some cases i guess i could indeed see these as "replicas", especially when made for a foreign market. Though i wonder if i would still look at it that way if one of these keris were to be used by a native of Jawa who is tight on cash and chooses one of these to dress himself for an low-economy wedding ceremony.
:shrug: :)

[David]

replica or fake is indeed not easy to define
if there is deviated from the traditional form, and we have to deal with the artistic spirit of the modern maker.
IMO its not a replica or a fake keris, but ? a modern impression? :shrug:
A certain amount of artistic interpretation has always been acceptable to the standards of pakem AFAIK. It can, of course, be taken too far, but that does not seem to be the case in your example.

[A. G. Maisey]

I'm going to stay out of this discussion, for a while, anyway, as I put the questions.

However, on the subject of keris used as items of formal dress. These are very often just pieces of flat iron that are used to hold the dress together. I've even seen cardboard used to hold dress together.

The standards that collectors in the western world use to judge a keris are not often used used by people in Jawa who need a dress keris. It most often comes down to what they can afford. At a grassroots level, all current production is directed at the local market. Keris sold to collectors in foreign lands are not really any sort of special or dedicated production.

[Rick]

Can you expand on what is the local market in Jawa, Alan ?

If many only need a paper stand-in for a wedding; who purchases contemporary work in Jawa ? :confused:
Only keris collectors ?

Maybe this is a digression; I would like to know; it might help how I see the keris .

[A. G. Maisey]

I saw the cardboard used by a very poor farm worker. I've seen flat iron (flat galvanised iron as used for chicken coops etc) used by a number of ordinary working people like school teachers, bus drivers etc. Based upon what I've seen in dealers kiosks in Central Jawa, the people who buy ordinary quality new keris are people who want a dress keris and can afford something better than flat iron. People who buy better quality new keris seem to be people who are collectors at one level or another.

My remarks are based on what I've seen, and discussion with friends in Solo who deal.

[Rick]

Alan, is the concept of pusaka from this time gone now ?

People would not purchase a new keris with the intent of it becoming a pusaka in future generations ?

[A. G. Maisey]

No, the pusaka idea has not disappeared. I know a number of people who have ordered new keris with the intent of those keris becoming pusaka, and two people --- one in Jakarta and one in Malaysia--- have placed orders through me for keris intended as pusakas. I'd say the concept is still alive and well.

[tunggulametung]

The title means Javanese who has lost his Javanese identity. These days, perhaps less than 10% of the household own a keris but 90% plus own one or more mobile phone (you can get an okay quality keris at the price of throw away phone). The reality is that life in Java has been more and more Westernized or Arabized-whatever that means.

To my knowledge, these days in Java (also true to Sumatra & Bali), keris worn by the bridegroom are mostly rented/supplied by the bridal shop as part of the attire/make up package. So it really depends on the bridal shop, some provide better keris than the other-true there are many bridal shops who supplied KLO just like what Alan said, but no cardboard to my knowledge (what year is that Alan?), mostly just simple thin metal. Even if someone own a keris, it is not always the one he worn at the wedding ceremony. Not to mention that in Java there are less and less traditional wedding ceremony being replaced with somewhat more Islamic attire where keris is no longer present (these are often more affordable as far as the budget goes). Same to the wedding entertainment where traditional shows like wayang which had been widely replaced by more modern entertainment like orgen tunggal or dangdut (often with DJ!).

I completely agree with Alan regarding the buyer of better quality keris which mostly are collectors but I have different observation regarding pusaka concept which is in general nearly no longer existent in Java, but the concept of family keris as pusaka is alive in Bali especially in the extended family level (not every household own a keris).

Attached is a wedding photo of RI president's son not so long ago (Java-Palembang intermarriage). He obviously came from a family who should be able to afford the best available keris in the market but it looks like a KLO to me (I hope I'm wrong). There's another notable three days wedding ceremony last year (Hamengkubuwono's daughter, Lampung-Java intermarriage) which may represent the royal family or ningrat wedding where proper keris is usually being worn. It is interesting to note that in one of the ceremony where RI 1 present, all keris except Hamengkubuwono's and the bridegroom's are being tied down as part of the presidential protocol.

[A. G. Maisey]

The year of the cardboard keris would have been somewhere in the early 1990's, place was outside Karangpandan Jawa Tengah.

The community I live in when I'm in Jawa is a semi-rural perumnas outside Palur. Still plenty of traditional weddings there, that keep everybody within earshot awake for a week. But as with trad weddings in the western world, modern entertainment has to a large extent replaced the entertainment that amused our grandparents. We don't see Viennese waltz at modern western weddings too often these days, and we don't see a lot of wayang at Jawa weddings.

Any culture must change if it is to stay alive.

Its true that not a lot of people in Jawa own keris any longer, its also true that superficial appearances have changed. You don't see nearly as many people in traditional dress any longer --- men hardly ever except for formal occasions, and women usually only older generation on a day to day basis. But the people still hold the same values as their parents and grandparents, and still behave in the same way. Only the superficialities have changed.

In respect of the pusaka concept. It is a simple fact of life that not all people in any community will subscribe to tradition.

Another fact of life is that not everybody can afford to subscribe to tradition.

When we come to the pusaka concept, we are at the most traditional level really only talking about the elites in society. It is something that is not relevant to people at the lower end of the social scale.

That some of the people to whom the concept can apply should wish to continue the tradition is to me, evidence that traditional culture in Jawa is not dead, only the outward appearances have changed.

Weddings can cost one hell of a lot of money. I know of weddings involving my own relatives that went on for a week and involved over 6000 guests. For one of these weddings they hired a major hotel in Surabaya --- I think it was Surabaya Hilton --- to accommodate the guests. And that was only one of the weddings. Then they had another one in Sydney for all the people in Oz who were unable to attend in Surabaya. This girl's sister was not to outdone. For her they booked all available accommodation in Selecta.

At the other end of the scale there was the son of my housekeeper:- registry office, two days in Tawamanggu, and back to work on Monday.

People act in accordance with their means. If a lot of people prefer to own a mobile phone rather than a keris, its because a mobile phone is more relevant in today's society. But this does not change the fact that they are still Javanese, and still behave like Javanese.

[tunggulametung]

Very true, that someone can act in accordance with their means and I'm agree that culture is a dynamic entity (but to what extent before we can't recognize it anymore?) In a society when you get frowned because you own a keris and get frowned by not having a cell phone? What next, should in another decade or two we see a smart phone representing a bridegroom when he cannot attend the wedding? Okay maybe it's not going to happen :D or that I'm a bit too far with my analogy, but believe me that keris culture in the society is not as alive as it look on the superficial level, I'm sorry, I really hope that I'm wrong.

Anyway, good keris (old or new)? I believe that everybody here who has been long enough collecting/studying keris knows what good keris are, maybe we can't put it in words, we don't have to, but there's something beyond words that exist, good keris. Lastly as a keris enthusiast I do hope to see more good taste keris kamardikan in the future, be it inspired by the classic or contemporary formulated.

[A. G. Maisey]

Tunggalametung, you very probably move in slightly different circles to the ones I move in. I have not at any time experienced any level of disapproval from the people I know in Jawa because of my involvement with keris. True, I'm not an Indonesian, but I am certainly sufficiently well established in my own areas of the society that I do get honest reactions from people, a courtesy that is very often not offered to a bule.

Sure, in much of Indonesia, not just Jawa, there is a movement towards a life style that varies from tradition, but this is not universally true.

As for "good keris". Well, on a personal basis every keris that a keris fancier buys is a good keris for that person, or he would not have bought it, but appraised on an objective basis, it may not be so. There have been a great many words spent on this subject, and I feel that there is still not a definitive answer.

[A. G. Maisey]

We've been talking a lot about quality, I thought it was about time we had a look at what I mean by quality.

This keris was made in Solo about 20 years ago. It is, I believe, the first keris made in modern times using meteoritic pamor

[Battara]

What a beautiful and impressive piece, thanks Alan for posting this.

[Jean]

We've been talking a lot about quality, I thought it was about time we had a look at what I mean by quality.

This keris was made in Solo about 20 years ago. It is, I believe, the first keris made in modern times using meteoritic pamor

Hello Alan,
Excellent kris indeed, can you tell us who was the maker? :)
Regarding meteoritic iron, I assume that the materials is now imported from abroad and when did the use of local meteoritic pamor disappear? (I mean except in the kratons).
Unless the subject was already raised in another thread, how do you identify meteoritic pamor? Besides the look and touch feeling, some Indonesians claim that they can feel a sort of electric wave by passing the hand just above the blade, what do you think about it? I tried it with a match but am not sure about the results although I am an amateur dowser.....

Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, I gave very careful consideration to the question of naming the maker, and I have decided that it is in the best interests of all that I do not. This man was for a while possibly the best pandai keris of conventional dhapur in the modern era, however, he has become somewhat disinterested in his work in recent years, and to avoid any annoyance to him, or backlash to myself, it is probably best to leave him unnamed.

However I can name the person who made the pamor material. It was me. That's how I can be certain that it is meteoritic pamor:- I made the block of meteoritic material that went into it.

In fact there is no absolutely guaranteed way to identify meteoritic material. In my opinion it probably has a slightly prickly feel, but who is to say that some other material does not have a similar feel?

We all know that the use of meteoritic material in Central Jawa was tied to the Prambanan meteorite. I seem to recall that Pak Djeno (Alm.) made a blade using meteoritic material, probably from the Prambanan meteorite, so it hasn't really stopped, its just a long time between drinks. Maybe it slowed down during the PBX era.It is probable that Jayasukadgo still made some meteoritic blades.

As far as I am aware, no meteoritic blades were ever made in Jawa Tengah except for people who were connected to either Surakarta or Jogjakarta karaton, and who had access to the karaton empus. All this business about meteorite has been gone over many, many times. Bronson is the best source.

[Jean]

Alan,
Thank you for your reply and I understand your reasons for not naming the maker, but congratulations to him and to you! :)
Thank you also for killing the myth about meteoritic iron which is used by many sellers but without any proven evidence.
Best regards

[dbhmgb]

Alan,

Thank you for the pictures of that fantastic keris.

It's fascinating how the use of meteoritic iron is so tightly woven into the legend of the keris. It's all these myths and legends that, even though they're mostly debunked, make the keris such an alluring object.

Dan

[David]

Thank you also for killing the myth about meteoritic iron which is used by many sellers but without any proven evidence.
Jean, i think that the myth about meteoric iron and keris was killed years ago for those with ears to hear, but that will never stop unscrupulous or ignorant sellers from continuing to use this misinformation to hawk their wares. :)
If you have not seen this extensive thread from back in 2005 you will probably find it of interest.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=269&highlight=meteorite+keris

[Jean]

David,
Thanks for referring me to this interesting thread, I do not remember it as I was still a kid at that time :D
Regards

[David]

David,
Thanks for referring me to this interesting thread, I do not remember it as I was still a kid at that time :D
Regards
Yep, i thought it might be from before your time... ;)

[Rick]

Since the thread started with one . :)
This work always gives me great pleasure when it is examined/studied.

The wrongko is like a thunderstorm portrayed in woodgrain .

I will call this a 'good keris' ; I'm proud to be its keeper in my lifetime .
My Son will receive it someday . :)

[rasdan]

G'day Alan,

When I started out collecting, I go for a quality old keris. Quality comes first since if we screwed up on its age, we still have quality. Nowadays, quality and age still plays a role, but there's a bit of an addition. I just keep what I like; for a keris may have all the quality and age, but if i didn't like it, I wont keep it. What others think about it does not matter since I'm the one that will be looking at it day after day. Well, keris collecting had started to sound like living with our significant other isn't it? :)

I found both yours and Rick's keris very handsome looking keris and I love them both. My questions are:

1. How do we measure quality? For instance, your keris have a different ratio of sorsoran width to its length when compared to Rick's keris. The sekar kacang is also different. (It's entirely different probably) How does the shape of the ricikan justifies quality?

2. If we take tangguh as age, how can we apply the quality measures to keris with different tangguh? If we take tangguh as style of keris, can we still use the same parameters?

My questions are probably circling around the same thing. It reflects how confused I am right now. :)

Best regards,
Rasdan

[Timo Nieminen]

In fact there is no absolutely guaranteed way to identify meteoritic material. In my opinion it probably has a slightly prickly feel, but who is to say that some other material does not have a similar feel?


It can be done well enough for practical purposes, if the material hasn't been heated enough to change the original crystal structure, and the meteorite has distinctive crystal structure from very slow cooling (i.e., Widmanstätten structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widmanst%C3%A4tten_pattern)). E.g., this study of iron blades in Shang bronze axes (http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-KGXB197602000.htm). Widmanstätten structure is supposed to be able to survive cold working, and moderate heat. 1000C is too much.

A nice paper on the topic of trying to identify meteoric iron: E. Photos (1989): The question of meteoritic versus smelted nickel‐rich iron: Archaeological evidence and experimental results, World Archaeology, 20:3, 403-421 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1989.9980081).

[A. G. Maisey]

Timo

Yes, no problem at all identifying meteoritic material before its been used. None.

We're talking about identifying meteoritic material after it has been forge welded probably no less than 8 or 10 times, then combined with some other ferric material, then forge welded to a core, forged to shape, and carved.

This type of ID is a slightly different ball game.

Rasdan

I can answer your questions, and they are good and valid questions, but I'm probably going to use a lot of words in doing so. I don't have time right at the moment, but I'll post an answer as soon as I do have time to write it.

In the meantime, try to answer these questions:-

Are the sculptures of Michelangelo Buonarroti generally regarded as work of exceptionally high quality?

If yes, why is this so?

[Jean]

This work always gives me great pleasure when it is examined/studied.

The wrongko is like a thunderstorm portrayed in woodgrain .

I will call this a 'good keris' ; I'm proud to be its keeper in my lifetime .
My Son will receive it someday . :)

Hi Rick,
I agree that this is a very good keris kamardikan, may be the work from Mpu Sukamdi? :)
Regards

[rasdan]

Timo

Are the sculptures of Michelangelo Buonarroti generally regarded as work of exceptionally high quality?

If yes, why is this so?

Thank you for your reply Alan.

I think because it resembles the real thing very closely and a lot people say that it is of high quality (generally looks good)? But in human sculptures, we know exactly how its supposed to look like.

Well, ok, I think I'm starting to get some idea here. If I add an extra ricikan to a keris, it may look nice and a lot of people will think it is nice, but it can not be considered valid since the pakem (of the Javanese keris) is being decided by the keraton and therefore they are the one that can say or set the benchmark that this according to the specs or not... :shrug:

But still, we probably can only use the current specification for keris that were made, say, 1800s and above? Probably for older ones the quality are not so much on shape (probably judged by how many people thinks it looks good), but measured by material, forging skill etc.?

[A. G. Maisey]

OK, let's try another question.

If we were appraising an artistic work from the 15th century, and an artistic work from , say, the late 19th century, would we use the same criteria to determine the excellence or otherwise of both those works?

[David]

OK, let's try another question.

If we were appraising an artistic work from the 15th century, and an artistic work from , say, the late 19th century, would we use the same criteria to determine the excellence or otherwise of both those works?
Excellent question Alan, and my answer would be yes and no. Some criteria would remain the same, mostly, does the work "move" me. Art is not merely a technical contrivance. How a work makes me feel and think is as important as the level of technical excellence with which it is crafted. However, for the most part the criteria for technical execution alone would indeed be very different between, say, a 15th century master work and that of one of the master impressionists of the 19th century.

[rasdan]

I for one would still appraise it in terms of how good it resembles of the real thing it that tries to depict. If the tools and materials are the same, the artist should be able to draw good paintings whether in 19th or 20th century. Which make me wonder about older drawings from say, the 10th century or the Chauvet cave painting (on the extreme side:) ) .

This would certainly be different.. Haven't really given much thoughts on this one, but if this is the case, we should probably use a different standard. However the keris had probably developed in a shorter time frame where we can accept that the tools and general artistic skill of people can be considered pretty much the same and hence use the same ruler in quality.. :confused:

By the way, Alan, I am really intrigued with the pendok design. Do you design it and why do you choose that design?

[Jussi M.]

Excellent question Alan, and my answer would be yes and no. Some criteria would remain the same, mostly, does the work "move" me. Art is not merely a technical contrivance. How a work makes me feel and think is as important as the level of technical excellence with which it is crafted. However, for the most part the criteria for technical execution alone would indeed be very different between, say, a 15th century master work and that of one of the master impressionists of the 19th century.

Agreed. However this is somewhat contradictory what comes to the level of technical execution as many times guys in the old days did unbelievable works of art that can hardly be copied nowadays despite the excellence in technical ability. Appears to me that what can be achieved nowadays in many occasions is being less well done - the how - than what was done in the old days with lesser capable tool etc. Knowing the limitations of technology used on sculpting, forging etc something on a given time gives a more well-rounded base to form opinion on whether something is "good, bad or ugly". Of course this does not necessarily make how something appears personally to someones taste any different. Or something. Sorry. Rambling here. Must be the long day and red wine I opened a while ago :p

Thanks,

J.

[David]

Appears to me that what can be achieved nowadays in many occasions is being less well done - the how - than what was done in the old days with lesser capable tool etc. Knowing the limitations of technology used on sculpting, forging etc something on a given time gives a more well-rounded base to form opinion on whether something is "good, bad or ugly".
While i am not going to dismiss technical execution as a criteria for judgement, i believe the point Alan was trying to make with his art reference was that technique can be specific to a particular time as well. Consider Botticelli's Birth of Venus and van Gogh's Wheat Field with Cypress. The first is late 15th century and the second late 19th century, just 400 years apart. The technique is vastly different and one could never assess each of these works based upon a specific criteria for technique. Yet both, at least in my estimation, can be seen as master works though van Gogh's technique would never have been accepted in Botticelli's day and in fact was hardly accepted during his own life time.

[Rick]

Ahh, why did you have to bring up Vincent, David .

Botticelli was a great technician for his time; but Vincent; Vincent was a gift from God .

Like Mozart .

[David]

Ahh, why did you have to bring up Vincent, David .

Botticelli was a great technician for his time; but Vincent; Vincent was a gift from God .

Like Mozart .
I agree, but my point is that Vincent's work and technique would never have been acceptable for Botticelli's time. His work work be viewed as crude and unschooled in that period. I could just as easily compared his work to da Vinci or Rembrandt with the same conclusion. :)

[Jussi M.]

I agree, but my point is that Vincent's work and technique would never have been acceptable for Botticelli's time. His work work be viewed as crude and unschooled in that period. I could just as easily compared his work to da Vinci or Rembrandt with the same conclusion. :)

Yes. However in the case of keris the parameters and boundaries that the "art piece" must fit in to and meet in the manufacturing process are much closer than is the case with the presented paintings which I see as completely different art forms - they are so separated from each other. Keris is my opinion is "just one" art form with multiple subcategories. I think the painting analogy would benefit of thinking how a given painting or at least a style of painting could had been been in different eras. - Different materials, different technology, different set of skills, yet painting the same thing.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you gentlemen.

It seems I no longer need to write 10,000 words to answer Rasdan's questions. To a large extent, I feel those questions have already been answered, but answered within relative context.

Yes, we all like representations of things to look like what they represent. Problem is that very, very few artists set out to do this. The painters and sculptors of the Renaissance did not produce art works that looked like real people:- they produced idealised images of human form that pleased their clients and patrons.

Similarly, the post-impressionists did not produce works that looked like what they used as a subject. The images were idealised in a different way.

But both these different types of artists produced great art, as David has demonstrated. Art is something that touches the human soul. Great art touches the human soul deeply.

Michelangelo did not produce works that looked like real people. He produced idealised images, with distorted proportions that were intended to be viewed from a certain angle in a certain place, at which time and place they would look correct. I think it is his "David" that has a disproportionately large head, because it was intended to be viewed from below in the open air, in a square.
Portrait painters do not produce photographically correct images of their subjects --- if they did they'd never get any commissions. They idealise the subject.

This is called "art".

To understand any art we need to learn to understand it. I have friends who tell me that Jackson Pollock's works are wonderful. Personally I can't see it, but I did not go to university and get a degree in art appreciation. I am not qualified to comment on Jackson Pollock, because I don't understand his work.

The same applies to other art forms. Take classical ballet as an example. I loath ballet. This is my personal taste. I do not understand ballet, I know nothing about it, but I do know that I don't like it. I don't like classical ballet.

The point I am trying to make is this:- to understand any art form, one needs to be taught how to understand and appreciate that art form, otherwise it becomes a matter of personal taste, as with my dislike of ballet. I can certainly say if I like ballet or not, but I am not qualified to say if a performance of ballet is any good, or not.

The keris as an art work is no different.

We can all express an opinion as to whether we like a keris or not, but very few of us can give an informed opinion as to whether it is any good --- or not.

Here are Rasdan's questions:-

1. How do we measure quality? For instance, your keris have a different ratio of sorsoran width to its length when compared to Rick's keris. The sekar kacang is also different. (It's entirely different probably) How does the shape of the ricikan justifies quality?

2. If we take tangguh as age, how can we apply the quality measures to keris with different tangguh? If we take tangguh as style of keris, can we still use the same parameters?

The first question, a couple of questions actually, 'how do we measure quality', and 'how does the shape of the ricikan justify quality'

Probably the place to start is to ask another question:-

define quality

but I'm not going to do that, I will assume that Rasdan is asking his questions in an artistic sense.

Firstly we need to classify the keris. We do not apply the same standards to a Senopaten keris, as we do to a Surakarta keris.

Then we appraise in accordance with the standards of the classification.

How do we know the standards of the classification and how to apply in appraisal?

As with any art form, we need to learn those standards. There is no easy way. There is no nice neat mechanical formula that allows us to use specific measurements. We need to learn the classifications and standards from the ground up. In my experience, the only truly effective way to do this is to find an ahli keris and convince him to teach you. Otherwise you are locked in the standards of personal opinion forever.

Since it is not really possible for everybody to get the tuition that is needed to truly understand quality in a keris, perhaps the best approach is as Rasdan has said, to collect what you like, because ultimately it is you who has to live with the keris.

However, with all that said, there is one universal that applies in all art, and in all keris:- craftsmanship. A good keris will never display shoddy craftsmanship. Superb craftsmanship may not necessarily indicate that you have a good keris in your hand, but if the craftsmanship is less than excellent, the keris cannot be a good one.

The second universal that applies, especially with older keris, is condition. A good older keris will not be a worn out ghost. A very worn older keris may be appreciated for other reasons, and some very worn older keris can command pretty impressive prices, but the reasons for appreciation of such a keris need not incorporate an overall appraisal of "good".

The third universal is material:- no matter if we are looking at an old keris, or a brand new keris, the material must be good. Good iron is dense with tight grain, and stains to a good dense black. It is not open pored and grey. Good pamor is artistically correct; it conforms with the pamor standard. Good steel is able to be hardened (evidenced by the sepuh line) and is not brittle or given to cracking.

The traditional way to appraise quality is to appraise in terms of classification (tangguh), form, and features. But then you need to appraise the pamor, steel, iron, craftsmanship, and feeling.

You cannot do any of this appraisal in the absence of adequate instruction from somebody who understands all of this. An ahli keris.

That's the answer Rasdan, and it is not at all the one you wanted. To be able to appraise a keris you need to learn the keris. There is no easy way to do this. You need an ahli keris who will agree to teach you, then you need an immense amount of time and perseverance. You need to be prepared to sacrifice time and money and many other things in your life. There is no formula, no secret method, no mechanical matrix. Its like any other field of art, you need to learn the art. To do this you need time and a teacher.

In any field of art there are the laymen, and there are the authorities. Usually it is the authorities who lead, and the laymen who follow. No different with keris. When Empu Suparman was alive there was a constant stream of people to his door seeking his opinion on keris that they wanted to buy or sell. He was the authority, the expert, the ahli keris. People sought his opinion, and he was paid for this opinion. Exactly the same with art in the western world:- very often a buyer will seek the opinion of an expert before purchase of an art work.

The ordinary collector or investor in art cannot know everything. Usually he is the same as the ordinary collector of keris:- he knows what he likes, but when he wants to invest heavy money, he employs somebody who has the experience and/or qualifications to provide an opinion on the work before he buys it.

The upside of this is that anybody who truly wishes to gain the knowledge necessary to understand the keris can do this. But as with all education it costs time, and money, and sacrifice, and perseverance. It just depends on how badly one wishes to gain this knowledge.

[rasdan]

Thank you for the in depth reply Alan.

So now, different set of rules of quality for different tangguh. Meaning tangguh knowledge is on top priority and probably meaning that if a Javanese keris does not fit into a specific tangguh, it probably does not reach the minimum requirement.

When you say, "Superb craftsmanship may not necessarily indicate that you have a good keris in your hand", does this means that even if the keris can have superior material, workmanship and technical aspects (proportion etc), but it does not fit in certain tangguh hence posibly the keris is made by somebody that probably does not understand the keris? Are there any other reason for this?

[A. G. Maisey]

Short answer:- yes.

Whether one believes that tangguh is a true indication of real age, or whether one believes it is a classification that has a relationship with the passing of time, doesn't really matter, but one must have a knowledge and understanding of tangguh before one can adequately appraise a keris.

I don't know that it is a matter of "not reach minimum requirement"; I'd need to think about that and what it means, but it is certain that if one only understands, say, the Mataram Senopaten keris, one cannot adequately appraise either a Surakarta keris, or a Pajajaran keris, using the same guidelines.

When I wrote the lines on "superb craftsmanship etc" I had in mind certain recently produced keris that really are superb examples of art and metal carving, but in my opinion, and the opinions of some other purists, these works are not keris. Art, yes, maybe even great art, but keris? No.

[David]

Firstly we need to classify the keris. We do not apply the same standards to a Senopaten keris, as we do to a Surakarta keris.

Jussi, Alan's remark above is the my reasoning for the art comparison that i presented. Certainly paintings are not the same as keris, but i still think the analogy is still an effective one.
Alan, thank you for this excellent summary. While i realize much more can be said on the subject this is the best brief i have read on the subject to date. Unfortunately i would say that the greater number of us do not have either the resources nor the opportunity to approach this from the position of apprentice to a keris ahli. My only course of action is to continue to look, listen and learn where and when i can, to take advice from people i trust and continue to collect the keris that i feel "call" to me. I believe that i have developed some recognition of quality, but certainly do not have the knowledge of exactly what is to be expected from keris quality from all the different tangguhs. And while i feel that i do in fact know how to recognize quality in general i will openly admit that i have a few keris that i truly love despite their obvious lack of quality because in my own estimation they hold great "character".
Now i would like to extent the painting analogy just a step further and play a bit of devil's advocate if you all don't mind. Please understand Alan that i do absolutely agree with you in regards to all you say, including the need to study with a keris ahli for a complete understanding of these matters. But this brings to mind the question of authorities in all kinds of social hierarchy. Certainly one would need to find a teacher that they could trust and one whose knowledge was considered accurate and comprehensive by their peers. And this leads me to my next analogy. I have recently caught the BBC show Fake or Fortune? a number of times. One episode in particular attempts to authenticate a painting as a Monet that a fellow had owned for more than a decade. They go to great lengths on this show to get to the bottom of this mystery and find many experts who feel sure that the painting in question was indeed painted by Monet. I was convinced that they had established all the provenance necessary by the end of the show. But when they final had the opportunity to present the painting to the Wildenstein Institute, the accepted final word authority on all things Monet, they refused to authenticate the painting. Without their approval this painting will never be fully accepted as a real Monet regardless of what any other expert has to say about it. You can read about the case here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bords_de_la_Seine_à_Argenteuil
I realize that this is an extreme case, but i think it illustrates that experts are often at odds with one another. In the end i think i still must conduct my collecting based upon my own personal likes and dislikes. This does, of course, need to be an educated perspective. The more i "know" the more i am capable of appreciating. The more i learn, the more my understanding and appreciation can grow. But for now i simply must collect with my "gut". As a certain Monty Python skit once pronounced, "I may not know art, but i know what i like!" ;) :)

[Jussi M.]

Jussi, Alan's remark above is the my reasoning for the art comparison that i presented. Certainly paintings are not the same as keris, but i still think the analogy is still an effective one. (...) In the end i think i still must conduct my collecting based upon my own personal likes and dislikes. This does, of course, need to be an educated perspective. The more i "know" the more i am capable of appreciating. The more i learn, the more my understanding and appreciation can grow. But for now i simply must collect with my "gut". As a certain Monty Python skit once pronounced, "I may not know art, but i know what i like!" ;) :)

David - I am not in variance to what you are saying. It´s just that analogies can be a difficult means of communication as different people see and associate different things alike and vice versa, alike things differently. Now that I´ve read your answer above I see that I misunderstood what you meant. Possibly because I am handicapped at the English language as it is not my native language. It can, of course, also be that I simply look at things from a different perspective. This does not necessarily have anything to do with the way you presented your case; it´s on the other end where the interpretation is done. - Believe me, as a teacher I know how differently different people can interpret things said or written :shrug:

http://teflworldwiki.com/images/a/a7/Cartoon.jpg

[dbhmgb]

WOW - a fantastic thread for a new-comer to the keris! Thank you all for your contributions.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, all experts are not equal.

Brings to mind the old "oils ain't oils" ad.

Tangguh understanding is central to keris understanding, but even in Jawa many very highly respected people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" : "tangguh isn't real"

It doesn't matter if its real or not. It is a solid system of classification, and people of approximately equal knowledge will not vary very much in their assessments of an applicable tangguh, meaning that, for instance, a Surakarta keris from the 19th century will never be identified as a Pajajaran keris, or a Majapahit keris, or a Pajang keris. Whatever tangguh is agreed upon, that tangguh will give an indication of relative age. I stress "relative".

But at its foundation tangguh is about money. It is not about playing a game with keris to see who the smartest bloke in the room is.

It is also about keris of good quality.

At this point we enter the circle of reason, or put another way, circular reasoning.

We need to be able to identify quality in the absence of tangguh, and we do this by using the universals I've mentioned above, plus a few other indicators, such as cross section of sogokan, regularity and form of greneng, the nearness to mirror image of each face of the keris, the form and robustness of the gonjo --- etc. Little things that can tell us if this keris was really made by somebody with skill, or not.

If we decide that, yes, this is a nicely made keris, then we closely examine the indicators to try to place that keris into a legitimate classification, or tangguh, and tangguh is a system that was developed primarily to classify keris of quality. Investment property.

As I have said:- its all about money.

Salesmen will very, very frequently present a Koripan keris as Mataram, Sultan Agung. A Koripan keris has the same form as a Mataram SA, but it is marginally more coarse in some details, and it lacks "presence". The value of a Mataram SA is vastly more than a Koripan in equal condition.

The examples of misrepresentation go on and on. Gresik for Pajajaran, Tuban-Majapahit for Majapahit, Mataram-Matesih for Amangkurat --- and on, and on and on.

In Jawa, if you do not understand tangguh and you want to buy keris you are setting yourself up for not only considerable loss of money, but perhaps disappointment when you eventually discover the truth. In the Western World, this doesn't matter. You can go on believing that your Koripan is Mataram SA forever, and it is unlikely that you will ever be disillusioned. But in Jawa, sooner or later you will meet somebody with understanding and by then its too late to run back to the dealer. You've done your dough --- or you perpetuate the lie.

Keris collecting in the Western World, and in Jawa are very different entities. In the Western World we mostly do not outlay serious sums of money for keris. In Jawa the serious collector may outlay a sum of money equivalent to the cost of a house. Under these conditions it is imperative that there is some understanding of the system that sets the ground rules for value.

As for validation of an acquisition upon the basis of "I like it", I do exactly the same thing, a lot of my personal collection is comprised of "keris that I like". Not much value to anybody except me.

[Jean]

Truly excellent threads Alan, you said it all, thank you!

[David]

....you said it all....
Somehow i doubt that, but it's a good start... ;) :)

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Jean, but as David has indicated, what I have written is a very long way from everything that there is to be known about this facet of keris understanding.

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

[ariel]

I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.

I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

Is it a naive question?

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated.


I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.


Gardner did not claim that he showed the kerises concerned to experts, nor did he show them to Indonesians, he sought the opinion of a number of Malay people, logical, as he was working in old British Malaya during the colonial era. What he says is that these people seem to be guided by the shape of the hilt and the scabbard. The same thing would happen in Jawa if you only consulted ordinary people, and in fact to name a complete keris in accordance with its dress is the correct approach, for example, if we have a Javanese keris with Bugis blade, it is named as a Javanese keris, it is only when we draw the keris and begin the process of appraisal that we will designate the blade as Bugis.

In this matter, there is another factor:- Gardner was classifying blades as:-

Northern Malay or Patani, Rembau, Jawa, Bugis, Sumatra.

When we are dealing with the Javanese, or more properly the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as tangguh, we are only dealing with blades made in the Land of Jawa. Blades made on the Island of Jawa, but outside the Land of Jawa, do not even get a mention, let alone blades from other locations.

Then there is another factor:-

the indigenous person and the white man.

Malay and Indonesian peoples will invariably give an answer that they believe the questioner expects, if that questioner is either an outsider, or a person of higher status. In these societies you do not get an honest answer until you are inside the society, and inside a family. This practice was even more widespread in colonial times than it is today. If Gardner presented a complete keris in Javanese dress, but with a Bugis blade, even if the person he asked recognised it for what it was, he would be very unlikely to provide an opinion that varied from the obvious, because on the face of it, it was a Javanese keris, and he would assume that his societal superior (Mr. Gardner) would be expecting to be told it was Javanese.



I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc.


The Frey and Ghiringelli books were written by people from western cultures, for people from western cultures. I corresponded with Edward Frey, and I can say with certainty that the keris was only one of his interests. He could not read nor speak Indonesian nor Javanese, he had only a very superficial understanding of the culture, and although he may (I am uncertain) have heard of tangguh, it is an absolute certainty that he did not have even the vaguest understanding of it. He wrote a good beginner's book for a western readership.

The First Invincible Keris book written by Vanna and Mario Ghiringelli is a good basic identification index, once again written for western collectors.

The second Invincible Keris book, written by Vanna Ghiringelli adopts a more in depth approach, which is indicative of the greater depth of knowledge in the western collecting community in 2007, as compared to 1991, but it is still a book that reflects a western collector's perspective, rather than a perspective that would be recognised by a Javanese ahli keris.

All these books have value to a collector, especially a new collector, but they do not even begin to impart a Javanese understanding, the understanding that is provided is an understanding for western collectors, which is fine, but what I am touching on in my writing is an understanding that is closer to the way the keris is understood in Jawa.

Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money,

Yes, it is all about money, and since I am writing about the Surakarta system of blade classification that is known as "tangguh", the "it" concerned is that system. The tangguh system of blade classification is all about money.

one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same.

This analogy is not relevant. I am talking about a unique system of belief that only has any meaning within its originating society. This system has nothing at all to do with crusader's swords or the way in which collectors in the western world may regard those swords.


Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana?

The study of the keris may appear to fit within the envelope of "weapon study", but in fact only a small part of keris study involves the weapon function. There are a number of facets that need to be addressed when one sets out to learn the keris, its place in history as a weapon is one of those facets, however, of far greater importance in coming to an understanding of the keris are the societal and cultural aspects. Art is one of these aspects.

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.If all one wishes to do is to collect the object, but without attempting to gain an understanding of it, that is an equally valid approach, but in this case it is possibly best not to try to do more than simply identify and catalogue.

[Jean]

However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error.

Alan, this is exactly what I mean and what I need after having downgraded my original ambitions. :)
About acquiring a deep knowledge of the Javanese keris (understanding the tangguh system, etc) like you and the Solyom could do with strenuous efforts few decades ago, I tend to believe that this is a past opportunity as the ahli keris have become an endangered species....
Thank you again and best regards

[ariel]

"Ariel you have raised some seemingly interesting questions here, and I'll do my best to respond. My responses are interpolated."



Thanks for the explanations.
What I take out of it, is that real study of keris is essentially limited to the selective few individuals who made a conscious decision to immerse themselves into indonesian society in all its aspects, from language, customs, mode of interactions, religious and mystic beliefs etc, and only then start learning the specifics of keris as such, in all its technical, ethnic, artistic and evolutionary aspects. In short, to become a highly intelligent and educated native indonesian with deep knowledge of keris per se. The rest of us can only glimpse the superficial aspects..... Rather depressing....

Well, perhaps that explains and justifies my decision not to become a dedicated "kerisologist", but to concentrate on other weapon traditions.

With your permission, from time to time I shall still continue to ask naive keris-related question, and hope to get some snippets of education from the specialists.

With my highest respect and best wishes.

[dbhmgb]

For somebody new to the study of the keris perhaps the most useful approach is begin with a study of culture, history, language, society, before becoming too involved in trying to understand the keris, which is the blossom of a culture.


This quotes sums it up quite well. This thought has been hovering in the back of my mind and now it's been clarified. The cultural aspect of the keris is what first attracted me and then I started focusing on the object as opposed all that goes into making keris what it is. This is no small undertaking, but I see how it can bring rewards beyond just an appreciation of the keris. Thank you, Alan.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I can understand your frustration, or disappointment in finding that keris are not quite as easy to get a handle on as perhaps all other forms of edged weaponry. Yes, it does take a lifetime of consistent pursuit of knowledge to come close to the core of keris understanding, but in this respect the keris is no different from any other field of study:- competent surgeons do not emerge from university with the necessary skills to carry out successful brain surgery; competent engineers cannot design massive bridges after 5 years of uni and a bachelors degree. It takes time to gather skill and knowledge. Keris study is not even in the same street as surgery or engineering, but it still takes time and commitment to reach a level where there is a degree of understanding --- and there are different levels of understanding.

I have an old friend who is now 91 and in a nursing home. He began collecting weaponry when he was still in his teens. He has been regarded as the doyen of Australian eastern edged weapon collectors for perhaps 40 or 50 years. He can no longer collect, and in fact his collection is in storage, but for about the last 30 years of his collecting life his principal focus was the keris. He loved them. He knew almost nothing about them, he could differentiate on the basis of major societies --- Javanese, Balinese, Bugis --- he could tell the difference between Solo dress and Jogja dress, but that was about all. He had complete access to whatever I might have known at any time, but he was simply not interested in learning any of that:- his focus was the object itself, not everything that that goes with it. He was an old fashioned collector, pure and simple. He didn't need the cultural approach. I felt that he deprived himself of a great experience because of his disinterest, but he traveled a different road to the one I was on. He went to Bali once. Hated it. Couldn't get home quick enough.

Its horses for courses Ariel. One can collect for the sake of collecting, and simply appreciate the object, or one can treat the object as the key to a broader understanding. No way is right, no way is wrong, its a matter of personal taste.

[ariel]

Thanks!
We are in complete agreement.

[Paul Duffy]

Alan, Ariel,
I also thank both of you for an interesting discussion.I came to collecting keris as a collector of weapons.My interest was in the skill of working with metals to produce a piece that was so interesting.The blade was the centre piece of the keris,but the sheath and handle also came together to produce a work of art.
After seeing many examples I am still fascinated by the skill involved in planning and making a keris.I think this has been part of my fascination, which has led me into studying the culture and history of Indonesia.There are many segements of the culture and their religion which draw me into looking for examples of keris.
This then leads to wanting more information on how the keris fitted in with the society of Java,and the islands in earlier times.
Alan,your example of the elderly collector here in Australia is perfect.A good man, and a wonderful collection of keris and edged weapons.He was also a willing mentor for young collectors, and I agree he wasn't interested in studying the culture.
I don't know if he saw his collection as comprising works of art,but neither did he appreciate the music of Bob Dylon or Bill Frisell.
I must practice loading photos onto the site,the illustrations and comments about fakes etc have been interesting.

[ariel]

Are Groneman's and Holstein's books a good source of education for a novice?

[David]

Are Groneman's and Holstein's books a good source of education for a novice?
I am not familiar with the Holstein book, but i think Groneman's book (the latest re-issue) is well work acquiring. It is extremely well produced and illustrated. That is not to say that it is completely accurate, but i have yet to find any book about keris completely accurate. :)
It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about keris collecting Ariel. ;)

[A. G. Maisey]

I've never seen Holstein so I cannot comment. Groneman I find interesting from a historical perspective.

For somebody with an interest in the culture of the keris I believe that the best book to begin with is Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener.

For somebody more interested in the physical entity itself, The World of the Javanese Keris-Garrett and Bronwen Solyom, and The Kris-An Earthly Approach to a Cosmic Symbol-David van Duuren.

For somebody who wishes to explore the fields of knowledge which embrace the keris:- Krisses-A critical Bibliography-David van Duuren.

Here is a link to a reading list that is perhaps as good as anywhere to begin the accumulation of printed matter dealing with the keris:-

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/kerisinformation.html

you will find publishing details of the books I mention in this list.

[ariel]

David:
"It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about kerns collecting Ariel."


I got 2 interesting ( I think) ones that I showed here, and 3 old ones, Javanese, that were tangguh-ed by somebody as being very old ( down to 14th century!), which may not impress you :-), and they were discussed here years ago, and.... who knows:-)

[David]

David:
"It's starting to sound like you might be getting more serious about kerns collecting Ariel."


I got 2 interesting ( I think) ones that I showed here, and 3 old ones, Javanese, that were tangguh-ed by somebody as being very old ( down to 14th century!), which may not impress you :-), and they were discussed here years ago, and.... who knows:-)
....hmmm....does that mean i might be right? :D
(and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns" :o )

[David]

For somebody with an interest in the culture of the keris I believe that the best book to begin with is Visible and Invisible Realms-Margaret J.Wiener.
For somebody more interested in the physical entity itself, The World of the Javanese Keris-Garrett and Bronwen Solyom, and The Kris-An Earthly Approach to a Cosmic Symbol-David van Duuren.
For somebody who wishes to explore the fields of knowledge which embrace the keris:- Krisses-A critical Bibliography-David van Duuren.
From my own limited perspective, i concur... :)

[ariel]

David:

"....and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns"


Maybe it is the keris itself is trying to tell you something? You know, they have magical powers :-)

[ariel]

....hmmm....does that mean i might be right? :D
(and boy do i hate this auto-correct spelling...thinks when i write "keris" that i mean "kerns" :o )

Maybe it is the keris itself that is trying to tell you something? You know, they have magical powers :-)

[rasdan]

Thank you Alan for the kind explanation on the importance of tangguh system in evaluating the quality of a Javanese keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

You're welcome Rasdan.

[ariel]

Gentlemen,
I have mentioned earlier my 3 kerises that were once discussed on this Forum ( no special Keris section then :-))

Lew was kind enough to help me in locating this thread, so I am citing it here:


http://www.vikingsword.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001790.html

Please, feel free to comment.
Thanks in advance for your lessons.

[ariel]

Bumping it up for any new opinions about my older :-) kerises.

Many thanks in advance for any input.

[A. G. Maisey]

Ariel, I'd be happy to comment, but I cannot comment from the photos that you have already published, I cannot see the form of the wrongko & hilt in the first keris well enough to know what it is, I cannot see the hilt of the second keris, the third keris looks like a dealer's marriage, but again the photos are not sufficient for me to be certain.

If you could photograph all these again, in good light, open shade, and with your camera at right angles to the item photographed I might be able to comment.

[ariel]

Dear Mr. Maisey,
Many thanks for offering your help.
These are the best pics I could take. Hope they are OK for your eye.

[ariel]

Keris #2

[ariel]

Keris #3

[ariel]

Keris #3 additional pics

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Ariel.

I'll post a comment or two as soon as I have time.

Please address me as Alan.

Thanks.

[A. G. Maisey]

Post 94

keris is probably Madura sepuh (old Madura), dress Jogja branggah ( or ladrangan).

Tidy it up a little bit and this would be a pretty decent keris

Post 95

There is no full length photo of the keris or the scabbard

To comment accurately on keris from photos is very difficult, we need to see the keris full length + close up of the sorsoran (the blade base as far as the first luk), and we need to see the scabbard full length. Additional close ups can be useful, but without those full length pics we're only making even wilder guesses than are usual.

Here is my wild guess for post 95, which I might change if I see a couple of full length pics.

This is a dealer's montage. The top of the scabbard (atasan) is a Solo gayaman, but the motif on the pendok is a Jogja motif, I can't see the full pendok, but my bet is that its a Jogja pendok. We do not fit Jogja pendok to Solo scabbard. The hilt looks like some sort of Peninsula or Sumatera or Bugis hilt, I do not have sufficient knowledge of variation in this hilt style to comment accurately. The material might be shell, which would make it pretty desirable. The cup under the hilt ( I hesitate to call it a pendongkok) is totally incorrect, it doesn't belong here. It was probably made in East Jawa.
The keris itself (ie, the blade) looks like it might be pretty OK. From what I can see I'm guessing Pajajaran. Clean it, stain it, give it a decent set of clothes. If the hilt is shell, clean and mount as a cabinet piece, by itself.


Post 96

Another dealer's montage.

In spite of the crack this is a nice hilt. The hilt cup does not belong with this hilt. I'd suggest that you demount the hilt, give it a good hand rub with baby oil, and mount as a cabinet piece. Hilt is Madura of course, but it displays both Sumenep and Pamekesan characteristics, I'd need to think about this a bit before I committed myself on origin.
The atasan of the wrongko looks like somebody's idea of a Palembang atasan, the pendok is Central Jawa it has a Jogja motif, might be Jogja, might be Banyumas, need to see it full length, but whatever it is it does not belong with this scabbard or hilt.
The keris itself is possibly old Madura ( Madura Sepuh) and not bad.

The two keris in posts 95 and 96 should be stripped of their dress and given new decent quality scabbards and hilts. They are worth treating with a modicum of respect.
The keris in post 94 just needs a little bit of tidying up.

I do appreciate that you made an effort to give me pics I could work with Ariel, but those full length shots are essential.:- full length blade, full length scabbard, close up of sorsoran, camera at 90 degrees to subject; hilts can be difficult, because a Jogja hilt and a Solo hilt can easily be confused if the side profile cannot be clearly seen, with figural hilts we need to be able to see the front and side, possibly a front three-quarter shot is the most useful.

Actually, these three keris are nice start for a collection. It is not at all unusual for the various component parts of a full keris to be mixed as two of yours are. About the only way to avoid this is to buy from specialist dealers, and even then some incorrect mixing can occur, mostly to satisfy the whims of buyers.

[ariel]

Dear Alan,
Many thanks!
More questions:

- How does one recognize hilt material as "shell"? I am mostly into Islamic ( broadly speaking) swords and have never seen shell handle. Any specific features I should be looking for? How to clean it properly?


- Cleaning the blades. Even I understand that sandpaper is an absolute no-no :-) Would toothbrush with WD-40 be sufficient? How to stain them afterwards? Not arsenic, I hope?

- Based on what you see ( or any new pics, if needed), the condition of the blades, styles etc, any wild guess how old they might be?

[A. G. Maisey]

The "shell" used for keris hilts is the thick base section of giant clam. It is heavy, like stone, hard, white, dead cold in the hand. It is far heavier than ivory or bone or denatured antler.

To clean it depends on what is making it dirty. I usually start by rubbing with baby oil and work up from there to more volatile substances. You do need a bit of experience to understand what will help and what will hinder, but you've probably already got this from working on other weapons.

There have been thousands of words written in this forum on how to clean and stain keris blades. I don't know where all the threads are, but probably somebody who keeps notes will be able to help. Sorry, I don't keep any record or note of anything I just answer each matter as it arises.

Ariel, with keris we really don't talk in terms of "how old", we talk in terms of "classification", or "tangguh". Most people like to use the tangguh system as representative of age, and to a limited degree this can work, but the further back in time that we move from today, the less realistic is the estimate of age. I am not prepared to give an estimate of age on any of your keris, except to say that they are old. They are not "good keris", as has often been discussed here, but they are very solid examples that could form the basis of a serious collection.

[tunggulametung]

How does one recognize hilt material as "shell"? please search for tridacna, it might help, it has been discussed several times here ;)

[ariel]

Yup, you are correct. Same appearance.
Tridacna.... Never would have thought....
Thanks to both of you!

[Rick]

Yup, you are correct. Same appearance.
Tridacna.... Never would have thought....
Thanks to both of you!

Lucky bugger ... ;) :D

[ariel]

Are Groneman's and Holstein's books a good source of education for a novice?

I got the Groneman's book. Essentially, it is the translation of the original one into English, with all the original illustrations. Only the editors provided a lot of additional gorgeous color photographs from several Dutch museums and from private collectors. I guess the meaning of a "good keris" became a bit more understandable to me :-)

They are all with provenance, all came to the Netherlands al least in the beginning of the 20th century, with totally intact blades, a lot of gold, gems and even diamonds etc.

What is surprising to me, and totally consistent with what Alan said earlier, none have even the slightest attempt to pinpoint their age. Being a collector of other weapons, I am totally flabbergasted: such an omission would be unthinkable in the field of Middle Eastern/Indian/ Caucasian weapons, and AFAIK, the Chinese/Japanese/ and even European collectors would agree with me.

Oh boy.... You the "kerisologists" are way, way different from the rest of us.

I am still very uneasy with the idea of collecting ethnic weapons that were manufactured yesterday simply because they were made according to old traditions, or have a neatly carved handle, or a scabbard made of a particularly good wood, or putting a 500 y.o. weapon on the same scale of importance ( not necessarily monetary, but historic) with a 100 y.o. one....



Taking into account that keris was largely a ceremonial/magic object, perhaps what I am collecting is " historical weapons", while you are into " indonesian art/craft/ethnography". That was exactly what Groneman was trying to preserve when he wrote his articles.


Different languages, different criteria..... Fascinating...

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Ariel, the way you put it is certainly the way it would be seen by somebody who did not have a Javanese based understanding of the keris.

I'm going to try to clarify this seeming conundrum a little, but I cannot speak for all others here, so I'm guessing that there will be some remarks additional to mine.

Groneman wrote in the 19th century, and at that time collectors in the western world of Europe and the UK were flat out collecting exotic Eastern edged weaponry, and a lot of this eastern edged weaponry was still brand new at that time. It didn't seem to matter to those 19th century gentlemen whether the peshkabz, khanjar , tulwar, or keris was old or new, the main thing was it was exotic, and they wanted to drape their libraries with exotic Eastern weaponry.

At that time---19th century--- these swords and daggers were still being used to hack up the soldiers of Good Queen Vicki. They were current ethnographic weaponry.

I recently had the opportunity to closely examine a number of very early provenanced keris in European museums. Keris which had provenance going back in some cases to around 1600 or before. Some of those keris were still in pristine, just off the work-bench condition. These 300 year old plus keris originally belonged to people like the Medicis and the Danish Royal family. Seems they had no problem with having brand new keris in the curiosity cabinets.

The current preference of many weapons collectors for "old" can probably be explained by the fact that the weapons they collect relate to a past age, thus they are antique collectors with a preference for weaponry, rather than weapons collectors per se.

Fast forward to 2012. In Jawa and other keris bearing societies the keris is still current ethnographic weaponry, just as those other sharp pointy things were a couple of hundred years ago. However, they seldom get used to hack up pale skinned visitors these days. It is my experience that although people in western societies who collect keris do not discriminate against keris from the current era, many do have a preference for older keris. Most collections that I know of are a mixture of old keris and new keris, with the criteria usually being personal liking for a piece, followed by personal affordability.

But here is the problem with good, old keris:- there quite simply were never very many of them, and with the passing of time they have become less and less, and the truly old, truly good keris that are left today are almost all locked into a closed circle of elite collectors. When they change hands for actual money, the sums involved are frightening. Vastly more than most collectors in the Western world could, or would pay for a keris. So, if a collector wants a really good keris that is artistically pleasing he does not have any option other than to buy current era production, similarly if he wants perfect examples of complex pamor he must buy current era production; if he wants complicated dhapur, he must buy current era production.

On the other hand, if he is satisfied with worn, second rate keris that have somewhere between no and very little artistic excellence, provided they are old, then he can satisfy his collecting needs for "old", without a lot of difficulty.

Most people do appreciate good, old keris. It doesn't matter if those people live in Jawa or in a Western society, but good old keris are few and far between and they cost. Bigtime.

It is not accurate to say that keris collectors do not take any account of the concept of "old". They do, but the way in which they think of "old" is related to tangguh, not to time as you understand it. Javanese indigenous history is a mixture of probable fact and definite myth. This history is recorded in court histories called babads, it is often very difficult to determine where fact stops and myth or legend begins. These babads are related to the era of the ruler and kingdom in which they were produced, so if we were to ask a Javanese keris expert how "old" a particular keris was, and that keris was late 16th century from Central Jawa, the Javanese keris expert would not say "late 16th century, Central Jawa", he would say "Mataram Senopaten", provided the characteristics matched his idea of what a Mataram Senopaten keris looked like.

This system of classification runs all the way back 8th, 9th, 10th century, but here is the catch:- the further back in time you go, the less likely the believed age is to accurately relate to the actual time passed. Eventually you get back to a mythical era and location, and this is the ultimate test of the true believer.

Many, if not most Javanese keris experts take the supposed age based on tangguh with a grain of salt, but the precise age is not relevant, what is relevant is the supportable classification, and a part of the classification has to do with relative age. This means that an old tangguh classification will always relate to an old keris, and a new tangguh classification will always relate to a more recent keris, but the relationship is relative, not truly able to be defined in terms of years as you understand a year.

The Javanese and Balinese traditional mind still functions as a magic world-view in traditional matters.

So age is important, its just that it is thought of in a different way to the way in which you think of age.

Recent keris do not compete with old keris, but if a collector wants excellence then he really has no choice but to buy recent. When he does this he is collecting ethnographic art, which is as valid right now as it was 300 years ago when the Medicis were also collecting ethnographic art --- amongst other things, mainly power and money..

I apologise for the length of this post. I do hope you managed to get through it and that it has perhaps provided a slightly more rational position from which to consider the study and/or collection of keris.

[David]

Thanks Alan, you summed that up nicely... :)

[ariel]

Thanks, Alan, for a nice explanation. Every old thing in the world was new at some time. Even you and I were young many years ago :-)


As you said
"The Javanese and Balinese traditional mind still functions as a magic world-view in traditional matters.

So age is important, its just that it is thought of in a different way to the way in which you think of age."

That's exactly what I meant: there is a profound difference between the rational Western mind and the more "magic-oriented" Oriental one. Nothing derogatory here, just the fact. And of all the "Oriental" traditions, the Indonesian view of weapons is perhaps the most " magical" one. Even in India, Japan, or the Middle East newly-made weapons are not considered " authentic". Well, perhaps the Japanese are still willing to pay big money for newly-made swords of exceptional quality, but even they venerate only the really antique ones.

Collecting Kerises requires a dramatic reformatting of one's mind and scale of values.... Tough....
BTW, does the same applies to any other Indonesian weapons? Or is it only the keris that stands alone?

[Jean]

Groneman wrote in the 19th century...

Yes, he certainly did but his article "Der Kris der Javaner" was published between 1910 and 1913 so well into the 20th century and only few decades before my time.... :D
As David said, you wrote an excellent summary of the keris collector's dilemma, thanks!

[A. G. Maisey]

I don't think that we can use comparisons of attitudes to other weaponry to try to find similarities with the keris. A newly made keris can still be authentic, but it depends upon the aspect under consideration. It is even possible for a newly made keris to be regarded in the same, or similar light to a pusaka keris, if that newly made keris has incorporated a part of a pusaka keris into its forging, or if the essence of a missing pusaka keris is called into its newly made vessel. This is perhaps what happened with the pusakas that disappeared after the sacking of Kartosuro and then reappeared again in Surakarta some years later.

When we set out to collect, or to study, the keris, there are at least two different roads that we can take:- we can simply collect and focus on the object itself, or we can attempt to understand the object. To understand the object we probably need to gain at least a minimal understanding of the culture surrounding it. However, if we progress past that level of minimal understanding it is possible that we may find that our rational Western mind is in fact no more rational than the mind of the people who are a part of keris culture.

Our Western rationality has developed within the framework of our society, and within that framework it is realistic to accept that the way we think and reason is rational. However, our Western rationality is to a large degree irrational and thus non-functional in a society that is based upon different precepts and concepts.

Some of the values that apply to the keris also apply to other Indonesian weaponry, however, the keris is unique in its position as a societal icon.

[Bjorn]

Just to revive this thread on keris kemardikan I'd like to share a photo I came across on Toni Junus' Facebook page.


This keris won the SNKI Keris Award for The World in 2010.

Name: Kanjeng Kyai Singa Kura
Dhapur: Singa Kura Bener
Pamor: Jarot Asem

My main attraction to this keris is due to its slender shape and intriguing pamor, which is at the same time simple and complex. I think I would have liked the blade better without the singa-kura gandik, but that's personal preference. Does anyone know if there is any symbolism behind the lion-tortoise combo or is it just for show?

Hopefully other members will have more interesting modern keris to share.

[shadejoy]

Unfortunately I can't give any insights on what the animal characters represent or symbolize. But I agree, beautiful pamor and a complex one at that. A Balinese Empu (Pande) recently finished creating a Keris with this fine pamor on my request. I couldn't be happier.

[A. G. Maisey]

A Balinese pande made a keris with this pamor?

Incredible!

The lion-tortoise on the keris shown is purely for artistic ornamentation, however if interpreted in older representations, the lion can be associated in Hindu belief with warriors, in Chinese belief they are a protective motif.

Prajapati, the First Being became a tortoise to have a child, and he supports the universe. I think that the elements of the universe also are carried by his body --- not certain on this.

Later, Wisnu became a tortoise (Second Incarnation) so his shell could support Mount Mandhara.

Both these motifs are loaded with symbolism, its just a matter of how they are interpreted.

[shadejoy]

A Balinese pande made a keris with this pamor?


Interesting interpretation.

Yes, Pande Made Gde Suardika.

It took a little over 11 months and as strange as it may sound (..or careless, depends on how you look at it) never once did I ever communicate with him in person during the time.

I very much agree in one of the old threads implying that Kamardikan Kerises seldom get much appreciation as what they truly deserve compare to old Kerises.

[A. G. Maisey]

So Shadejoy, this keris that you have shown us is the product of Pande Made Gde Suardika ?

Superb work, and an immense advance upon the work that I have previously seen attributed to this maker. Truly incredible.

Thank you very much for permitting us to see this keris.

[shadejoy]

So Shadejoy, this keris that you have shown us is the product of Pande Made Gde Suardika ?

That is correct.

Are you implying that you've seen his past work(s)? You make me real curious. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could share any documentations.

To be frank, I had never seen his work before. All things that lead me to him were just some articles and pages I came across courtesy of the big world wide web.

The other reason was because I was so disappointed of an Empu from Imogiri, Yogyakarta (I'm pretty sure I mentioned him in my old posting). He originally took my request but communication was so horrible and I had to end it. Strangely enough, I think you had forewarned me about doing any deals with Javanese which I didn't take it too seriously back then.

Anyhow, I am lucky to have known Bli Pande (Pande Made Gde Suardika) and think of him nothing but high regards.

One of the pics was taken during recent Tumpek Landep day on Oct 18, 2014 right before he sent me the Keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

No, I'm not implying I've seen blades attributed to him, I'm stating that I've seen blades attributed to him.

I've also seen the work of several other makers from Bali, as well as the work of most makers from Central Jawa who have worked from the mid-1970's through to the present time, in addition I have seen the work of a great many makers from Madura. I have no documentation of most of these makers. That's not what I do, and frankly, I find it completely unnecessary. However, I have spent several months every year in Jawa and Bali for over 40 years, I've seen a lot of makers working, I know several of them as personal friends, and 30 odd years ago I was taught by a couple of the legendary ones.

What amazes me with this keris you have posted photos of is that Pande Suardika could have created this pamor. It is an extremely complex pamor, the Balinese makers in general are known more for the excellence of their carving, rather than their ability in complex pattern welding, and this pamor is about as complex as it gets. For a pamor like this to come from a foundation of next to nothing is purely incredible. The blades I have seen that were attributed to Pande Suardika were very simple mlumah pamors, not highly complex pamors like this one.

Additionally, Pande Suardika is known for his commitment to the creation of blades with a spiritual content, he is not known for creating blades as a commercial undertaking, but rather for creating blades intended for use as a pusaka. His blades are usually quite heavy, and he has a reputation for very detailed work.

However, if I had been asked who I thought might have made this blade Pande Suardika would not have entered my mind.

This keris is an exceptionally fine piece of current era work, but it stuns me that it was produced by Pande Suardika.

[Jean]

Top artistic piece (similar to those displayed in the Neka museum) but frankly this very nice pamor pattern Jarot Asem looks strange to me, as if it was applied on the iron and not traditionally welded, look how perfect the edges are? :confused:
Regards

[Rick]

I agree Jean, the pamor looks somehow ....odd . :confused:

[shadejoy]

No, I'm not implying I've seen blades attributed to him, I'm stating that I've seen blades attributed to him.

Good for you.

The blades I have seen that were attributed to Pande Suardika were very simple mlumah pamors, not highly complex pamors like this one.

Several months ago (or probably last year) I saw one article mentioning him being commisioned to create a Pusaka for one of the Puris (Temples) in Bali. The Keris was indeed quite simple. I think the pamor that I saw was Pedaringan Kebak, a common pamor in my opinion.

Additionally, Pande Suardika is known for his commitment to the creation of blades with a spiritual content, he is not known for creating blades as a commercial undertaking, but rather for creating blades intended for use as a pusaka. His blades are usually quite heavy, and he has a reputation for very detailed work.

You are right, Pande Made Gde Suardika doesn't have 'inventory'. I certainly consider the Keris that I showed you as Pusaka. But whether the Keris has spiritual content or not is a subjective matter. For me, I couldn't help to admire Bli Pande for his dedication and his disclipine in preserving the esoteric values in Keris-making. Moreover, I wouldn't know a thing about spiritual plane as I am not a spiritual nor religious person. But I don't deny the existence of other form of being that are unseen.

It is also quite interesting to realize once I got the Keris in my hand. The Keris seems to have darker blade compare to Javanese Kerises that I had which brings more contrast to its Pamor. It is without a doubt heavier than any Kerises that I have come across in my possesion and it could be for many reasons. But I do have a perspective that in general, Balinese Kerises tend to be stockier and heavier than Javanese Kerises. But anyone can dispute it as I have also seen a Balinese Keris that is small in size and comparable to Javanese Keris.

Thank you very much Alan and Jean for your appreciation. I am glad I can share this with you.

[HughChen]

I'm going to stay out of this discussion, for a while, anyway, as I put the questions.

However, on the subject of keris used as items of formal dress. These are very often just pieces of flat iron that are used to hold the dress together. I've even seen cardboard used to hold dress together.

The standards that collectors in the western world use to judge a keris are not often used used by people in Jawa who need a dress keris. It most often comes down to what they can afford. At a grassroots level, all current production is directed at the local market. Keris sold to collectors in foreign lands are not really any sort of special or dedicated production.

Hell, Maisey. As you said all current production is directed at the local market, I heared that in 1900s, many Keris were produced specially and deliberately for export to Europe. Is that really?

[A. G. Maisey]

I do not believe that we should lump the entire 20th century into one basket.

Pre-WWII tourism does seem to have resulted in the production of not only keris, but many types of ethnographic artefacts that were intended for sale to visitors to the old Dutch East Indies.

During the period between more or less 1940 & 1950 there were probably a very few keris made and these would have been intended exclusively for local use.

The revival of keris culture began in the late 1960's or early 1970's, as it has progressed it is probably true that all actual making of keris has been for local consumption, every Javanese man who wishes to dress in formal attire must wear a keris, so this local need for keris is the biggest single factor in keris production.

But not all keris made were prepared for sale to only the local market, nor were keris produced only as items of formal attire. The collector market in Indonesia is extremely active, many keris were & are prepared for this market. Some keris were & are made as sophisticated works of art.

In fact, the market for keris outside Indonesia is something that receives very little attention from Indonesian craftsmen & dealers, the local market is where the money is.

Visitors to Indonesia who wish to take one or more keris home to their own country with them face quite a few hurdles, so sales to tourists are now so few that general dealers who once sold keris now focus on more easily transportable items.

[HughChen]

I do not believe that we should lump the entire 20th century into one basket.

Pre-WWII tourism does seem to have resulted in the production of not only keris, but many types of ethnographic artefacts that were intended for sale to visitors to the old Dutch East Indies.

During the period between more or less 1940 & 1950 there were probably a very few keris made and these would have been intended exclusively for local use.

The revival of keris culture began in the late 1960's or early 1970's, as it has progressed it is probably true that all actual making of keris has been for local consumption, every Javanese man who wishes to dress in formal attire must wear a keris, so this local need for keris is the biggest single factor in keris production.

But not all keris made were prepared for sale to only the local market, nor were keris produced only as items of formal attire. The collector market in Indonesia is extremely active, many keris were & are prepared for this market. Some keris were & are made as sophisticated works of art.

In fact, the market for keris outside Indonesia is something that receives very little attention from Indonesian craftsmen & dealers, the local market is where the money is.

Visitors to Indonesia who wish to take one or more keris home to their own country with them face quite a few hurdles, so sales to tourists are now so few that general dealers who once sold keris now focus on more easily transportable items.

Thank you, Maisy. So in conclusion, in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, there were probably more keris supplied to Western exotic enthusiasts, while in the second half of the 20th century, after World War II, keris were mainly supplied to the local market. Is that correct?