East Javanese Keris(es) - Discussion

[Bjorn]

For some reason I find keris from East Java quite fascinating. Perhaps this thread could serve as a photo thread so people can form a clearer picture of East Javanese keris and as a platform for discussion on what defines East Javanese keris.

What sets them apart? What historical, cultural, and economic factors influence their appearance (e.g. simple mendak; are they the result of a lack of craftsmanship or of aesthetic values?)? Are the wrongkos derivative (copies of central Javanese models) or are there also true East Javanese designs? Do the Hindus in East Java have their own keris culture different from the rest of East Java and Bali?

For clarity: I use the term East Java here as referring to the mainland of East Java, i.e. excluding Madura. Madurese keris would likely warrant their own topic; but it would be relevant and interesting to explore the influence of Madura on continental East Javanese keris.

Bring up anything you like here as long as it relates to East Javanese keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

This sounds like a worthwhile project Yuuzan, hopefully it might fly.

[David]

For clarity: I use the term East Java here as referring to the mainland of East Java, i.e. excluding Madura. Madurese keris would likely warrant their own topic; but it would be relevant and interesting to explore the influence of Madura on continental East Javanese keris.
Can Madura be separated from East Java in such a discussion? It has always been my understanding that Madura is considered a part of East Java.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes David, that is correct, Madura is a part of East Jawa, and before these modern administrative boundaries came into being, it was regarded as a part of Jawa. From the time of Majapahit, and possibly before that time, Madura smiths were producing keris and other products of the forge for people on the mainland.

It used to be a short ferry ride from Surabaya to Madura, but now they've got a bridge over the narrow strait.

However, I think I can understand why Yuuzan would like to keep Madura as a separate entity.

Madura blades do have certain distinctive features that do not occur in blades made on the mainland.

The forms of Madura dress are many and varied and are not reflected in dress used on the mainland.

On the other hand, blades and dress from other parts of East Jawa are often quite difficult to tell apart from blades and dress that originated in other parts of Jawa.

I do feel that it might be of more assistance to the bulk of our membership if we concentrated on East Jawa without Madura, because this is where the difficulty lays, in identifying point of origin for keris that are very close stylistically.

[simatua]

This "bringback" soldier keris, brouht to Netherlands by KNIL soldier begin '50. which i bought last week , is imo ans east Java keris (Balambangan). I have to wait for some better weather to bring the pamor out.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, Madura soldier keris, and a 100% typical Madura blade:-

steeply inwards sloping gandhik, whispy kembang kacang remnant, gonjo lacks substance over the blumbangan, the distance from the final luk to the point is inclined to be longish.

This is definitely not able to be classified as Blambangan. Sorry.

Looks like we're going to get Madura whether we want it or not. Inevitable I suppose, and I guess we'll get other keris posted that will be queried as East Jawa or not. Probably not a bad thing, because it shows what is not East Jawa.

[simatua]

Thanks for the feedback mr. Maisey. dont feel sorry to correct me ( i am here to learn) I did see the Maduran charasteristics, but i went on the wrong foot looking at the ukiran; the raksasa whith the crossed arms for his chest. I thought this is not very common in Madura.

What about this 3 luk keris, wilah ca 34 cm. ( without peksi). also ukiran raksasa, i have to mention, that the ukiran exsist of 2 parts, maybe not to see at the pictures . that te lowest part of the ukiran is a loose "ring".

longhaired at the backside; a little restauration at the head.

I bought it as it is. (mendak etc) the wilah lara sidua luk 3 ( according to Tammens) fits perfect. pamor beras wutah / bendo segodo

[Jean]

Pictures only, please feel free to comment and forget about the 2 Madurese ivory hilts which are not original.
Regards

[Sajen]

I want to show also some examples of maybe East Javanese keris but like already said it is sometimes very difficult to differ between Madura and East Java, so I am not sure.

Example 1

[Sajen]

Example 2

[Sajen]

Example 3

[Sajen]

Example 4

[Bjorn]

Looks like we're going to get Madura whether we want it or not. Inevitable I suppose, and I guess we'll get other keris posted that will be queried as East Jawa or not. Probably not a bad thing, because it shows what is not East Jawa.

I couldn't agree more. I hope this thread will contribute to increasing people's understanding of East Jawa keris, and a process of elimination can be a useful tool for discussion and learning.

Now that several photos have been placed, I am wondering about pendok on East Jawa blades. Is there anything that sets them apart from pendok in other parts of Jawa? Are specific types (e.g. blewah) used more than others, or conversely, rarely used?

And what about wood types? Are there any special preferences or are these the same as in central Jawa (e.g. pelet being highly appreciated; an angle of 45 degrees for the grain in the wrongko).

For the wrongko, most of us know that these look relatively bloated and lack the elegance of wrongkos from Solo and Jogya. What I find noticeable is that all the East Jawa gayaman seem to follow the Solo style, i.e. with the little upticked, pointy wave at the right-hand top of the wrongko. Are there also East Jawa gayaman that adopt the Jogya style?

And what about ladrang forms. I don't have any Jogya ladrang myself so I still find it difficult to identify these. Are the ladrang forms in the photos above in Jogya style? Do they also appear less elegant in comparison to those of Jogya?

[Bjorn]

Pictures only, please feel free to comment and forget about the 2 Madurese ivory hilts which are not original.
Regards

Jean, I really love the blade pictured on the 2nd photo. Simple elegance at its best! Thanks for sharing!

[Jean]

And what about ladrang forms. I don't have any Jogya ladrang myself so I still find it difficult to identify these. Are the ladrang forms in the photos above in Jogya style? Do they also appear less elegant in comparison to those of Jogya?

Hello Yuuzan,
The ladrang sheaths from Yogya are called branggah, I attach a typical example. They are finer and more elegant than those from East Java.
I have tried to show representative specimens of the 3 main types of East Java sheaths (gayaman, ladrang, and sandang walikat).
Regards

[Jean]

Jean, I really love the blade pictured on the 2nd photo. Simple elegance at its best! Thanks for sharing!

Hello Yuuzan,
Thanks. The darker line along the blade is not a defect but a slight discoloration which appeared after the warangan treatment (pamor kelengan).
Regards

[Sajen]

And what about ladrang forms. I don't have any Jogya ladrang myself so I still find it difficult to identify these. Are the ladrang forms in the photos above in Jogya style? Do they also appear less elegant in comparison to those of Jogya?

Jeans second and my third examples are ladrang sheaths typical for East Java but for Madura as well. The style is very similar to the Jogya branggah sheaths like Jean has shown.

Regards,

Detlef

[Bjorn]

Sajen, Jean,

Thank you for your contributions. From what I understand, the situation for the branggah style is analogous to that of the gayaman, i.e. the court styles (Solo, Jogya) are highly developed and elegant while the East Javanese styles are cruder copies of these refines court styles.

What I find interesting now is that it appears that in East Java the common style for gayaman wronkos is modelled on the Solo style while the ceremonial wrongkos (branggah) are derivative of the Jogya style.

Does anyone have any knowledge or theories on why this is? Why don't we see both styles being used (Solo gayaman and ladrang derivatives as well as Jogya gayaman and branggah derivatives)?

And relatedly, why is it that no local designs were developed in East Java? Madura features the East Java-type branggah - and possibly also the East Java-type gayaman - but also developed different styles unique to Madura. Were there less skilled craftsmen in East Java possibly? Was it too much of a backwater (Madura had 1 or 2 courts which would have contributed to finer and more refined wrongkos) without the presence of local courts? Or did people consider Solo and Jogya as paradigms of Javanese culture worthy to be emulated?

A lot of questions, and I hope we can slowly but steadily find some answers!

[A. G. Maisey]

Well, it looks as if this thread is well and truly flying, however, I do not have time to keep up with it.

At the moment I'm more than a little busy, and in 9 days I fly out to Solo.

The posts that have already been made to this thread could keep me busy for probably half a day.

If I get a little time further down the track I'll float a few of my opinions, but in the meantime, how about if somebody else floats a few opinions, along with the reasons for the opinions?

[A. G. Maisey]

As I have already said, I'm very short on time.

Here are some very quick, first impressions along with the usual qualification that if I had it my hand I could well say something different.

Post 8.

pic #1
Stylistically majapahit---long slow luk, boto adeg, thus classifiable as East Jawa, wrongko east Jawa.

#2

Madura is fond of capu kagok as is Solo. This keris doesn't look Solo to me, I think maybe coastal East Jawa, wr. Madura.

#3

mamas SW , complex pamor in light blade, probably Jatim/ Maduro

Post 9

#1

Jateng, Solo and maybe a Koripan wilahan --- can't be positive without physical insp.

post 10

#1

very tempted to give Jatim, wilah might be Pjjrn.:- pamor, boto adeg, but only stylistically and it might look different in the hand.

post 11

capu kagok---Maduro

wilah very possibly Tuban, but cannot be definite unless handled, stylistcally a bit of a mix, wouldn't surprise if Tuban style but Maduro manuftr. Actually, this is a pretty interesting blade, I'm not sure, but I think I can see a "fallen brick" blumbangan, and this can point towards Pjjrn. but there are other things that do not say Pjjrn. As is often the case I'd really need to handle it.

post 12

need to handle it

[Jean]

Hello Yuuzan,
Alan has given very interesting opinions about the posted krisses and it shows how difficult it is to properly identify a kris from continental East Java.
By the way when he refers to Jatim it means Jawa Timur or East Java and he rightly compares the ladrang sheaths from East Java to the (thick) kagog capu style from Solo, see attached picture.
Regards

[Bjorn]

Alan, as always, your opinions are greatly appreciated. I look forward to hearing more when you have more time.

Jean, many thanks for that beautiful photo of the capu kagog style (; do you happen to know the literal meaning of these words?). I find this little tidbit of knowledge to be of great value as I had no idea that this style actually originated in Solo. It's lovely to see how this Solo example clearly features an elegant curve on the right part of the wrongko while this feature is largely absent in those from Madura/East Jawa.

It thus seems that I made a completely incorrect inference in one of my earlier posts: the East Jawa-type ladrang being based on the Jogya branggah. In fact, it seems that style is very much based on a Solonese style.

Then it would seem that East Jawa wrongkos are completely modelled on Solo types. This, to me, raises interesting questions as to the diffusion of these styles over time. As Alan has mentioned in other threads, there were ties between the keraton of Solo and Sumenep (Madura); and the capu kagok style was popular on Madura as well (likely as a result of these ties). But how did this style diffuse to East Jawa? Did it come straight from Solo, or did it reach the hinterland of East Jawa via Madurese traders/contacts?

This discussion is definitely providing me with a lot of food for thought!

[A. G. Maisey]

On the subject of kagok capu.

In real life, on the ground, in Solo, we might refer to these as kagok, as capu, as kagok capu, or as capu muda.

There is slight variation in form between capu muda and kagok capu, and there is slight variation in form between CK from Solo and CK from Madura, also slight variation between these two "leaders", and the other places that use this overall form, those other places are just about anywhere that is not under direct influence of a kraton, places like along the north coast, Madiun etc, etc, etc.

In Solo this form used to be a form favoured by older men. The actual name "capu kagok" is not particularly flattering it implies roundness and clumsiness --- possibly something that we more senior people have in ample quantities.

There may be somebody who can positively identify variation between these intermingled forms, but I've never met him, or anybody who knows him. Thus, if we encounter this form we tend to just label it as CK, even though it might strictly be something else. If it has a wooden gandar it will probably get labelled Maduro, if a pendok, especially a Solo or Jateng pendok it will get labelled as Solo, but then if that Solo outfit has a Maduro wilah there will be an about face and it will be a Maduro deal. If there are no definite indicators you start to look a little harder and little more critically until you eliminate everything except a couple or three choices, and then you flip a coin.

However, let me make this point:- it is in my experience only hobbyist collectors outside of Jawa who are particularly concerned about this ID of dress. In Jawa itself it is something of academic interest but certainly not a matter of any importance, what is important is the classification of the blade and the overall quality of workmanship and material.

Why is it so?

Because as with any investment vehicle it is the bottom line that counts:-

how much is it worth?

what the entire keris is worth is based upon classification of the wilah and overall quality of workmanship.

The dress only has substantial value if it is of excellent quality.

The wilah only has substantial value if it has excellent quality, the degree of value then is determined primarily by tangguh.

What we're talking here is Javanese standards, and these are standards that are ingrained into the keris market in Central Jawa, and into the students and collectors of keris in Central Jawa. What goes on outsaide Jateng might as well be going on in outer space as far as people in Central Jawa are concerned. This idea of classification based on origin of dress is vaguely interesting, but it is totally unimportant to the real world, because the real world is based on money. Money is something that Javanese people understand very, very well.

What we're involved in with this thread, and the concept at its foundations is something that I regard as a wholly outside of Jawa attitude. I say "outside of Jawa", because this attitude seems to be prevalent with collectors in Jakarta too.

The questions that Yuuzan has raised are undoubtedly valid questions to his mind, and probably to the minds of others who engage in our discussions here, but for me, these are all very much side issues and frankly not something I ever give much thought to. When I look at any keris, the first thing that enters my mind is the quality question:- am I looking something of quality, or am I looking at a piece of garbage? Only later, sometimes much later, will I begin to note indicators that might give some indication of geographic point of origin.

When we engage in the tangguh game, one of the first things that we look at is the gonjo, not just the sirah cecak which is a very important indicator, but also the angle of the top of the gonjo. Have a look at post #9. Unquestionably Jateng. Why? Look at the top of the gonjo. A Jateng wilah matches the curve in a wrongko virtually always. A Wilah from the west, or the east, or most particularly from Maduro is very often flat, thin ugly. This #9 wilah is a poor copy of a M'ram keris --- well, it is still M'ram, but not what it might look like. It has characteristics of M'ram SA, but very much more coarse. In the markets in Jateng most salesmen would try to pass it off as M'ram SA. But its not. Its most likely Koripan, might be Godean, might be something else, but what I can see in the pic says Koripan.It sure ain't M'ram SA.

Look at the 7 luk wilah in the mamas SW. You will never, ever see a straight ugly gonjo like this on a Central Jawa blade. So where is it from? Jatim wr., Maduro style pamor --- if it looks like a duck it most probably is one, especially when we know with certainty that it sure ain't a rooster.

Jean considers I've floated some "interesting" opinions. I don't think so. What I've done is put in writing the sort of first impressions that anybody who understands this game would probably form. Minor variations perhaps, but the rules of the game are pretty well known, well, at least in Jawa they are, and if you have a few people with similar levels of knowledge, the disagreement is mostly in the detail, not in the big picture.After a while, this ID business becomes second nature, you don't really think too much about it, you look at something and it fits the template in your mind, but then you should be able to explain why it fits the template, and this is something that a lot of people cannot do.

[Jean]

Jean considers I've floated some "interesting" opinions. I don't think so.

Hello Alan,
Sorry, rather than "interesting" I rather meant "valuable" because I personally learnt something new and useful, and I believe that most of the members also! Thank you for your continuous and vital support to this forum and have a pleasant trip to Solo!
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your good wishes Jean.

My "first impressions" was done by glancing quickly at the keris, going into the writing page and scribbling down what I thought I saw, then going backwards and forwards using the 'edit' function..

My idea was that I'd shoot from the hip and then later, as I had time, come back and look carefully one by one at each pic and see if there was enough information in the image for me to analyse. My analysis could produce something different to my first impression. Maybe by laying out the process of classification it would be possible to understand my approach and this could help others when trying to come to a decision about something.

I've already said that I don't think this classification thing is all that important, but my views are slanted in a particular direction, and I do acknowledge that the views of others are often different.

I've got one more "first impression" and that is post #7:-

north coast; the blade might check out as Tuban-M'ram---declining gonjo, square blumbangan, but I cannot see the other things I need :- sirah cecak, is there an ada-ada or not?, material, the gambar (atasan) of the wrongko is not Solo workmanship, and it does look very like a couple I've seen that were positively identified as North Coast, the hilt looks North Coast.

This one was done a bit slower than yesterday --- probably because I'm still drinking my morning coffee, but its still a first impression.

[A. G. Maisey]

One of the things I do when I look carefully at a keris that is in a photo is to run that photo through Photoshop, alter contrast and brightness levels, crop a section of the image and increase size to what it will bear, sharpen. Often, but not always I use a big magnifying glass to look at the screen image.Sometimes, but not always it is possible to see more from a photo by doing this.
I've just tried it with Jean's first photo and I've finished up with an image that I cannot open, even though it was saved as JPG.

So any comments on Jean's photos will be made on only the basis of what I can see on the screen. I use a 13.5X10.5 screen.

keris #1. post 8.

I believe close examination would show this blade to be a robahan, that is, a blade that has been altered.
The carving at the gandhik is not something that I recognise as an old motif, it looks crisp, and I feel that microscopic examination might show a patch welded into this part of the blade. This patch might have been made from the original gonjo, as the present gonjo looks as if it might be a replacement.

Stylistically this blade looks Majapahit, but it is most definitely not Majapahit. The material looks a bit like Gresik, if it is Gresik it will have a slightly greasy feel to the pamor material, if its not Gresik then I cannot classify and substantiate as it does not appear to fit a major strand, and it has probably been altered anyway. My gut feeling is something done for the trade and originating around Surabaya.

The overall look of the wrongko , with all that nicely patterned wood, is what I think of as East Jawa, but the "S" shaped line that runs down the front of the gambar is a line that I have seen identified with Banyumas by people who know a lot more than I do, however, most Banyumas wrongkos that I've actually handled have been fitted with pendok. This is where we get into difficulties, and the reason is this:-

in a karaton setting the forms are fairly strictly structured and identified for use by whom and when, but when we move away from a karaton into a small town, or a village, that structure disappears and we have a situation where the form of the wrongko is limited by the skill of the carver and by the desires of the customer. Thus, when we try to classify these wrongko forms and styles that lack the guiding hand of tradition and authority, we are in a situation where we do not have guidelines that permit supportable identification of point of geographic origin.

Collectors like to, maybe need to, classify, but when we cannot support a classification what is the point?

We can certainly classify broadly:- Jawa, Bali, Bugis. But when we look at 50 wrongkos by 50 different pairs of hands in 50 different locations, how can we possibly classify? Under these conditions maybe the best we can do is what I did yesterday:- form a quick first impression.

Or, we could go the way that I've seen a lot of people go in Solo:- for a blade --- "outside Jawa", for dress--- "outside Surakarta, not Jogja"; what is left unsaid is "well, its not of any importance anyway, because its not from anywhere that counts, so who cares?"

The Javanese attitude to keris is just a wee bit different to the attitude of collectors outside Jawa who give equal importance to every keris, no matter what it is, or where its from.

Anyway, coming back to post 8 keris #1.

From what I can see, the blade has been played with and made more attractive; the blade and the wrongko are unlikely to be an original mating; my feeling is that I'm looking at a dealer's montage , but one put together with a great deal of care and expertise, possibly the wrongko was obtained first, then a suitable blade was found, the blade "improvement" was done, the gonjo was made so that it exceeded the size of the wrongko hole, which was probably small to begin with. I doubt that this was done recently. I think that this sort of alteration probably stopped in the 1960's early 1970's. I only ever knew one man who could do this sort of thing well, and he died years ago, probably well into his 80's --- he always reckoned he was the same age as myself, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't know when he was born. He lived in Jogja.

So, an old alteration, bit of a mixture, but the blade is stylistically Majapahit, and the impression of the wrongko, principally because of the very attractive wood, is East Jawa. A collector's keris rather than a keris that we can positively link to a specific local geographic area. I'd be happy with a classification of simply "Jawa" for this keris, because I cannot really substantiate anything more detailed, but again, my first impression is East Jawa.


See how confusing this game can get?

I'll look slow and careful at another keris when I have another hour to spare.

[Gustav]

Regarding Wrongko of post 8 #1, I have a feeling, also Gambar and Gandar perhaps don't really match together. The joint between them looks stiff to me, due to difference in size (at the joint line ) and color (dark Wrongko-light Gandar at the joint) and perhaps the position of the joint line itself (a little bit kaku).

For me as an absolute "bloke" difficult to say, if it's due to my limited personal taste, used in wrong place, or due of a possible "peripheral", less careful taste of the Mranggi. Yet I suppose, a person, who originally choses such beautiful piece of wood for Gambar would more carefully chose the matching Gandar.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, you're right, in the photo they do appear to be strangers to one another, but I did not want to comment on this because I could not Photoshop the image to try to help me see the details that are less than clear:- this appearance of uneven mating could be due to dark wood at the edges of the foot of the atasan.

[Jean]

Hello Alan and Gustav,
Thanks for your detailed evaluation of my kris, I will post more detailed pictures of the sor-soran, ganja, and sheath joint later today if the weather permits and will add my visual observations.
Jut for reference I acquired this piece in 1995 from an antique shop in Balikpapan (East Kalimantan); the piece was probably brought there by a Javanese or Madurese transmigration worker and it was originally fitted with an old Madurese hilt.
Best regards

[Jean]

Attached are the detailed pictures of the blade shown in post 8#1.
My visual observations are as follows:
. The blade was in rust-free but unstained condition when I received it. After warangan treatment in Solo, the ganja colour appears clearer than the blade itself but it does not seem to be a recent replacement (greneng worn-out) and it fits quite well with the blade.
. The figure carved on the gandik (putut?) does not seem to have been welded as the pamor lines show a good continuity but it could have been carved-out from a larger blade.
. The atasan matches perfectly with the gandar but the slot has been reduced in sized with some putty so the blade and sheath were not originally matching.
Your further observations or questions will be welcome.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, that's a lot better.

Re the blade. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the blade is a changeling. I'd need to handle it to know exactly how it was changed, but it is certain that the puthut is not original, and certain that the gonjo is not original.

As you remark, the blade grain does show good continuity, but if the smith had a full gonjo to work with it would be possible to create an impression of continuity by running the split gonjo up either side of the original gandhik, or as might have been done with this blade, using all the gonjo on one side only and reforging the base. Note how the carving goes into the core on one side of the blade?

This sort of thing that was done in the 19th and early 20th centuries was very, very skilful. I've got two singo barongs that are perhaps the most skilful forge work of this type that I've seen. I ran one of them past a gentleman who is an extremely experienced and very highly regarded keris authority, I told him there was something wrong with the blade, he homed in on the singo barong, because obviously if a simple blade has been played with and it has SB, that's where they've been playing. He could not find any fault with this blade --- not until I gave him a 3X loupe and pointed out the weld joint. Incidentally, I bought the blade as old and genuine, it was only when I examined it closely at home that I found the evidence of alteration. Those oldtime smiths were very, very clever.

Just because a blade is a bit old, and ron dha are worn, or other evidence of age is present, or it came from what might seem to be a genuine local source, that is absolutely no guarantee that we're looking at something old and genuine. It is my belief that this sort of alteration has been going on for at least 200 years. But as I've already said, I'm pretty sure it has not been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Its easier now for the shonks to build a fake from the ground up.

The gandar might be original to the atasan, or it might not. Yes, there is a bit of variation in the two pieces of material, but very often it is simply not possible for a carver to perfectly match the atasan and the gandar. To my mind this question over the wrongko is neither here nor there. Its OK. But as Jean has said, it is not original to the blade anyway --- again, no big deal. Its asking a bit much to expect to find totally original totally matched, totally perfect two hundred or 300 hundred year old ensembles in modern Indonesia.

Its not a bad keris, but its not what it pretends to be, and as a collectable it is valuable because it demonstrates the way in which blades can altered. I have kept all the really skilful alterations that I have encountered over the years as part of my core collection. They tell you things you'll never find in books.

[A. G. Maisey]

I've finally been able to get one of Jean's JPGs through Photoshop --- don't know why they wouldn't cooperate previously. Anyway, if you look at this pic you'll see the pamor grain comes to a peak just about where I've drawn a line, now look at the other side of the blade and you can see a lot of core material in this area of the blade.

Consider this:- take a nice little billet of gonjo material, weld it to one side of the blade and then even up the blade so that there is equal material on each side of a centre line. Result is you've got a thick little lump of material at the gandhik, so you then carve a puthut --- or whatever else you like--- into that thick little lump, but one side of the lump has pamor, the other side does not.

If the welded on lump is tapered down into the body of the blade it passes a cursory inspection as part of the original material.

[Jean]

Thank you very much Alan for this detailed inspection and evaluation of my blade, it is truly amazing and I did not notice anything abnormal myself except the clearer colour of the ganja and that the putut figure is not symmetrical!
Regarding the fact that you could not easily photoshop my pictures, it might be due to the compression software (Light Image Resizer 4) which I am using for reducing the picture size.
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, it would be unreasonable to expect that you would see this. Ric Furrer possibly would, and I can see it, but to understand a blade you need to know how to make a blade. That was the only reason I spent time learning how to make keris, so I would understand them.

But I you might be able to pick this sort of thing next time around. Yes?

The previous image files opened just fine and I could work on them in Photoshop, but when I transferred those files to My Pictures, they stayed locked. I had a close look at the properties on your images and there is a message there that says something about the files came from a different computer and might be protected. So I changed the name and did a few copies before I Photoshopped it, that seemed to get me around any problems.

[A. G. Maisey]

#2

Madura is fond of capu kagok as is Solo. This keris doesn't look Solo to me, I think maybe coastal East Jawa, wr. Madura.

#3

mamas SW , complex pamor in light blade, probably Jatim/ Maduro


Post 8, keris #2 and keris #3

not a lot I can say about either of these.

#2 is pretty featureless; in the pics it seems to have a "fallen brick" blumbangan, which looks like about the only indicator I can see; the stain is not wonderful, and this might be material or might be the warangan or might be the lack of skill in the person who did it; top of the gonjo might give a clue, feel of the weight distribution and texture of material might give a clue.
Thinking in terms of major strands of influence, yes, Solo and Madura are both known for this scabbard form, but realistically it could be just about anywhere away from strong direct kraton influence.
The hilt is not Solo work, but it uses a Solo style for a model, it also doesn't strike me as Madura work.

I think I'd opt for "Javanese" only for this one.

#3 presents as a typical Madura blade both stylistically and in respect of pamor; the blumbangan looks to be "brick standing", the luk at the point is fairly longish which is not particularly known as a Madura characteristic, but is accepted as an East Jawa characteristic. Maybe a Madura blade made for East Jawa mainland ?
The scabbard form --- mamas SW --- is strongly associated with East Jawa.

I think I'll stay with my hip shot on this one:- East Jawa/Madura

[Jean]

Thank you Alan and I deeply appreciate your expert analysis as usual.
I have other supposedly East Javanese krisses to show but will leave the floor to others. :)
BTW do you consider Tuban style blades as Jatim or Jateng?
Best regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Actually Jean, I consider Tuban blades as Tuban:- Tuban is a legit tangguh. This "Jatim"/"jateng" thing is an artificial construct that we're using here because it suits the way the collecting community here thinks, it really has very little --- maybe nothing --- to do with the way Javanese people classify keris.

[Jean]

Actually Jean, I consider Tuban blades as Tuban:- Tuban is a legit tangguh. This "Jatim"/"jateng" thing is an artificial construct that we're using here because it suits the way the collecting community here thinks, it really has very little --- maybe nothing --- to do with the way Javanese people classify keris.

Hello Alan,
Thanks, very clear and understood.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Post 9

#1

Jateng, Solo and maybe a Koripan wilahan --- can't be positive without physical insp.

post 10

#1

very tempted to give Jatim, wilah might be Pjjrn.:- pamor, boto adeg, but only stylistically and it might look different in the hand.


The keris in post 9 is overall a Solo keris, everything about it is Solo.
I’ve given the blade as possibly Koripan, which is a smithing village between Solo and Jogja. For a very long time the smiths in this village produced rough copies of M’ram SA keris, and very frequently these rough copies get sold as the real thing, ie, Mataram Sultan Agung.

Stylistically a Koripan keris has almost the same features as M’ram SA, but it is more crude and lacks refinement.

However, there are a number of other keris classifications that look very, very similar and it is not always possible to be absolutely certain what one of these generic Mataram blades should be classified as, so it is probably safer to dump them all in one basket and call them “late Mataram”.

I reckon “Surakarta/Late Mataram” is the safest classification for this keris.


Post #10
For the overall keris I’d be happy with just “Jawa”. The wrongko could be anywhere, it doesn’t look like Surakarta work, but it could be, just not under direct kraton influence. Could be East Jawa, could be anywhere in between.
But the blade is a pretty nice example of an older “everyman’s” keris.

The more I look at it the more Pajajaran seems likely, but if it truly is classifiable as Pjjrn., it is in remarkably good condition; it might be a Gresik copy of Pjjrn. You can usually pick Gresik by the pamor which has a greasy feel to it, it doesn’t grip your finger tips like most other pamor does, even though it might be quite worn.

The big fat-like exposure of pamor, the long gandhik, whispy kembang kacang, gonjo style, luk style:- to my eye everything about this blade looks Pjjrn., which of course places it as a West Jawa blade, and in the corresponding period, you could say north coast, so I guess a lot of people would give it as Cirebon these days.

Cirebon has become a popular classification in recent years, but in Solo 30 years ago I never heard it mentioned. At that time it seemed that the focus of all the truly knowledgeable people was on the classic descent of kingdoms classifications(tangguhs) along with the well known copies of these, so mostly if something didn’t quite fit into the guidelines based on Pangeran Wijil’s “Turun Temuruning Para Empu Tanah Jawi” a blade got classified as “diluar Jawa” (outside Jawa) and pretty much disregarded or devalued. Possibly not a logical approach, but we need to remember that everything about keris in Central Jawa is part of a culturally based belief system, if something is outside the culture, it doesn’t count.

A good tell for Pajajaran is the edge of the pamor where it meets the steel core. In a genuine Pjjrn. blade there will be a microscopic separation of steel core and pamor. I use a 3X loupe to see this, its not really possible to see it with the naked eye --- well, its not possible for me, for some others it might be.

I’d be happy with a generic “Jawa” classification for this keris; I’m very tempted to give the blade as Pajaran, but I could not do this unless I handled it.

[simatua]

a several years in my collection, but still not figured it out. The wilah of this keris ca 30 cm. with a relative simple but with some very detailed parts (tooth) naga. Got it as it is. blades fits good, although the peksi is not exactly in the middle of the waranka. The blade seems to me Buginese ; curved shape and gusen. The dress seems to be more (East?) Java.

Maybe a composed keris, but not done lately by a collector or dealers choice imo.

[Sajen]

a several years in my collection, but still not figured it out. The wilah of this keris ca 30 cm. with a relative simple but with some very detailed parts (tooth) naga. Got it as it is. blades fits good, although the peksi is not exactly in the middle of the waranka. The blade seems to me Buginese ; curved shape and gusen. The dress seems to be more (East?) Java.

Maybe a composed keris, but not done lately by a collector or dealers choice imo.


You are correct, it is a composed keris. Also when the fit inside the sheath seems good there is to much free space, special in the back. Hilt and sheath are East Jawa/Madura and the very nice blade is Bugis IMHO.

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

post 11

capu kagok---Maduro

wilah very possibly Tuban, but cannot be definite unless handled, stylistcally a bit of a mix, wouldn't surprise if Tuban style but Maduro manuftr. Actually, this is a pretty interesting blade, I'm not sure, but I think I can see a "fallen brick" blumbangan, and this can point towards Pjjrn. but there are other things that do not say Pjjrn. As is often the case I'd really need to handle it.


Thank you very much for comment Alan. Someone else with a very good knowledge has told me before that this is a possible Tuban blade. So the attribution East Jawa seems correct. What do you mean by "fallen brick"? Maybe I can try to take different pictures to show it better.
How do you would call the pamor? Udan mas?

Regards,

Detlef

[Sajen]

The keris in post 9 is overall a Solo keris, everything about it is Solo.
I’ve given the blade as possibly Koripan, which is a smithing village between Solo and Jogja. For a very long time the smiths in this village produced rough copies of M’ram SA keris, and very frequently these rough copies get sold as the real thing, ie, Mataram Sultan Agung.

Stylistically a Koripan keris has almost the same features as M’ram SA, but it is more crude and lacks refinement.

However, there are a number of other keris classifications that look very, very similar and it is not always possible to be absolutely certain what one of these generic Mataram blades should be classified as, so it is probably safer to dump them all in one basket and call them “late Mataram”.

I reckon “Surakarta/Late Mataram” is the safest classification for this keris.


Also here, thank you very much for the detailed comment. This blade have been every time a a big interrogation mark for me. That it isn't a Mataram SA blade have shown me the lack of refinement so my best guess have been that it is a village made keris from East Java. So the Koripan attribution seems to my eyes nearby. Very very good learning lesson for me.

Regards,

Detlef

[A. G. Maisey]

Fallen brick is when the blumbangan is wider than it is tall.

Yes, I'd give this pamor as udan mas, but it is possible that the blade is very thin, if this is the case it is most likely a Tuban blade that started life as a wos wutah and was turned into udan mas to make it more saleable.

Tuban was trading port and blades came from all over to sell as trade items both to locals and for export, styles change a bit depending on when made, but because Tuban blades were good beefy blades in their original form, they were also the blade of choice for re-manufacture when that was being done.

100% original Tuban blades are now pretty scarce, and because of this they seem to have been elevated a bit in price, simply because of scarcity.

[Sajen]

Post #10
For the overall keris I’d be happy with just “Jawa”. The wrongko could be anywhere, it doesn’t look like Surakarta work, but it could be, just not under direct kraton influence. Could be East Jawa, could be anywhere in between.
But the blade is a pretty nice example of an older “everyman’s” keris.

The more I look at it the more Pajajaran seems likely, but if it truly is classifiable as Pjjrn., it is in remarkably good condition; it might be a Gresik copy of Pjjrn. You can usually pick Gresik by the pamor which has a greasy feel to it, it doesn’t grip your finger tips like most other pamor does, even though it might be quite worn.

The big fat-like exposure of pamor, the long gandhik, whispy kembang kacang, gonjo style, luk style:- to my eye everything about this blade looks Pjjrn., which of course places it as a West Jawa blade, and in the corresponding period, you could say north coast, so I guess a lot of people would give it as Cirebon these days.

Cirebon has become a popular classification in recent years, but in Solo 30 years ago I never heard it mentioned. At that time it seemed that the focus of all the truly knowledgeable people was on the classic descent of kingdoms classifications(tangguhs) along with the well known copies of these, so mostly if something didn’t quite fit into the guidelines based on Pangeran Wijil’s “Turun Temuruning Para Empu Tanah Jawi” a blade got classified as “diluar Jawa” (outside Jawa) and pretty much disregarded or devalued. Possibly not a logical approach, but we need to remember that everything about keris in Central Jawa is part of a culturally based belief system, if something is outside the culture, it doesn’t count.

A good tell for Pajajaran is the edge of the pamor where it meets the steel core. In a genuine Pjjrn. blade there will be a microscopic separation of steel core and pamor. I use a 3X loupe to see this, its not really possible to see it with the naked eye --- well, its not possible for me, for some others it might be.

I’d be happy with a generic “Jawa” classification for this keris; I’m very tempted to give the blade as Pajaran, but I could not do this unless I handled it.

And again, thank you very much for the time you have taken to comment. And also here I have learned something i don't have known before. The separation from pamor and core for a good tell to to attribute a blade to Pajajaran is new for me. This blade have it indeed but not the greasy feel.
So it could be indeed a genuine Pjjrn. blade.
So maybe I should change the hilt by a Cirebon hilt which would fit more better for this keris?

Thank you again,

Detlef

[Sajen]

Fallen brick is when the blumbangan is wider than it is tall.

Yes, I'd give this pamor as udan mas, but it is possible that the blade is very thin, if this is the case it is most likely a Tuban blade that started life as a wos wutah and was turned into udan mas to make it more saleable.

Tuban was trading port and blades came from all over to sell as trade items both to locals and for export, styles change a bit depending on when made, but because Tuban blades were good beefy blades in their original form, they were also the blade of choice for re-manufacture when that was being done.

100% original Tuban blades are now pretty scarce, and because of this they seem to have been elevated a bit in price, simply because of scarcity.

Now I understand! :D Yes, blumbangan is a little bit wider than it is tall, maybe 1,5 until 2 mm. The blade is still thick. I get this keris with a other handle but with this sarung in very poor condition and was very astonished when I have seen the blade new stained. The sarung was restored much later because it was also in a very very poor condition.

[Jean]

You are correct, it is a composed keris. Also when the fit inside the sheath seems good there is to much free space, special in the back. Hilt and sheath are East Jawa/Madura and the very nice blade is Bugis IMHO.

Regards,

Detlef

I am not sure that the naga figure is original, it looks odd as well as the front side of the ganja which is too short? :confused:
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Detlef, any blade can go into any dress, and once there, you match the hilt to the scabbard, and you call it a such& such keris in accordance with the scabbard & hilt, but if you then remove the blade so it can be seen, you classify the blade into the appropriate tangguh.

Bearing in mind that we don't really know exactly where this scabbard is from, it is probably OK to fit a north coast hilt.

[A. G. Maisey]

You might be right Jean. I haven't been able to have a good look at this blade yet, I've exceeded my usage allowance and the net has slowed to a crawl. I won't comment on this blade until I can download it and play around a bit with it in PS

[simatua]

another figural keris...... Iam nor sure this is an old one ( modifacation ?) or an kamardikan Madura keris.

[Amuk Murugul]

Hullo everybody!

Just a few thoughts which occurred while reading this thread.
I decided to post them, just in case something means something to somebody. :). On the other hand, everything may be totally irrelevant!:(
If it's all useless info, i.e. garbage, then my post can be deleted:

- As I often like to mention, there are a lot of different keris protocols out there.
Some older than others.

Alan, I believe, adheres to the Kartasura/Surakarta protocols.
The governing manuscripts are composed no earlier than 19thC.(with the exception of one of those dealing with keris forms; attributable(?) to Sunan Kalijaga composed in c.1482).
It appears that they have become the de facto, de jure, protocol of the mainstream.
It saddens me that even those who have their own protocols choose to abandon them and join the mainstream.
But, I suppose that's the way of the world today.

- Pangeran Wijil's manuscript on the history of empus was composed c. 1726-45. So not long ago in terms of keris history.

- As regards Cirebon:
The Sunda still regard Cirebon as Sunda, albeit considered to be highly 'Jawa-nized'. It is interesting though that many members of its royal family still consider themselves Sunda, while a majority(?) of the people consider themselves as 'Cirebon'.
It was a centre of Muslim power and recognized the political sovereignty of Mataram via a treaty in 1590.
Hanyokrokusumo referred to the Sultan of Cirebon (who also became his father-in-law) as 'teacher'.

- Pajajaran: I consider a Jawa-construct. There is no reference to a 'Pajajaran' kingdom in Sunda manuscripts.
The name only appears in Jawa manuscripts, of anonymous authorship and composed/compiled no earlier than late 19thC.

- Bear in mind that many 'primary sources' may be 'anonymous' and 'oral tradition' as well as historiology.

- Again, it boils down to what one believes in/ has faith in or what one wants to believe in/wants to have faith in.


Please excuse the interruption.

Best,

[A. G. Maisey]

I doubt that anybody who has looked closely at keris related matters will argue with much of what you've written, Amuk Murugul. In fact, I think most of what you've said has been published in various past threads on this forum.

However, none of it has a lot to do with what this thread was supposed to be about, which was the possible identification of keris from East Jawa.

Admitted, I've given tentative classifications of a some of the keris shown, and these classifications are based on the Surakarta mainstream. That mainstream has become wider in recent years, with the inclusion of quite a few classifications that do not seem to have been part of the original Surakarta system, but admitted, the mainstream system still has at its foundations the system that was developed in Surakarta.

Back in the 1970's Garrett Solyom made this same point, that the system which is mostly used in the study of keris is a Solonese, rather than an all encompassing Javanese system.

Whether or not this is a valid approach is a question that could generate unending discussion, however, it is beyond question that the Karaton Surakarta is the senior royal house of Jawa, and as such its protocols and beliefs do tend to take precedence, as they have done for a long time.

The way in which the keris has developed as a societal icon in Jawa has resulted in it becoming a part of, and possibly central to the beliefs which form a part of Kejawen beliefs. This does not mean that we need to disregard other systems of belief, but if I were to start talking about the keris as it is now, in terms that ceased to apply after the demise of Javanese-Hindu society, nobody would have the slightest idea of what I was raving about. Thus, if I wish to be understood it is probably adviseable that I try to couch what I write in terms that most people will understand.

That keris knowledge, as it exists within Javanese society, is a system of belief is undoubtedly true.

However, in this thread, we are not really addressing keris knowledge as such knowledge is understood in Jawa, rather, we are using a recogniseable geographic area and attempting to identify the keris types which may originate from that area.

My little forays into Tangguh Land are really a side issue.

[Bjorn]

I'm curious, are or were bondolan hilts ever used in East Java? I seem to recall reading that they were and that they are squat and thick, like the bondolan found on Madura. But perhaps I simply remembered incorrectly?