Gustav, you have very nicely given a perfect example of something that I believe most of us understand:- it is very difficult, sometimes impossible to provide supportable comment on an object in the absence of adequate information. When complete data concerning an object is not provided we tend to assume that what we can see in a photograph is indicative of what we cannot see in a photograph.
In the case of the wrongkos you have shown it was unknown prior to your post #21 that these wrongkos had a reverse face that differed from & was unknown in Balinese wrongkos. Now we have that information, then we must question whether this kekandikan form was indeed produced in Bali, and I can now agree with you that these wrongkos were probably not produced in Bali.
The longish gambar extension is not unknown in Balinese wrongkos, but it certainly is not common. I have seen & owned a few Balinese wrongkos with a longish gambar extension, I tend to think that most of, if not all the ones I have seen were most probably Bali-Lombok.
So now we have a Balinese form of wrongko that has been made & used somewhere else. You have offered West Jawa & North Coast Jawa as possibilities. That seems to me to be a reasonable hypothesis. All we need now is some sort of solid evidence that this kekandikan form was used by Javanese or Sundanese people.
I do not know the norms attached keris wear in Sunda, nor in North coast Jawa, but I do know the norms that are attached now, & in the past, to the wearing of a keris in Central Jawa. If this form of wrongko were to be worn anywhere, who do we think might have worn it, or for what type of wear would it be suited?
When we think about wrongko forms, both in Jawa & in Bali, we need to relate the form to the person who will use it and to the occasion where it can be worn & cannot be worn. It is not just a matter of personal preference. Thus, when we encounter a wrongko form that is not able to be fitted into the rank/occasion matrix, we are left with questions as to just how legitimate that aberrant form may be. On the very few occasions when I have seen a wrongko in use that does not fit the rank/occasion matrix, that wrongko was being worn by a Chinese businessman.
Since the mid-18th century the keris in all of the Island of Jawa has occupied the place of an item of dress, so all forms of keris dress need to be associated with either a particular societal rank, or a particular occasion for wear. Where do we think this particular form of wrongko might be acceptable for wear & by whom?
When you do comb the bigger data bases, if you find that you can provide answers to my questions it would be much appreciated.
One last question. The Singapore keris. Is the Singapore keris the 7 luk blade with kinatah & an ivory hilt & Ngayogya pendok?
If so, why do you think it is a Javanese interpretation of a Balinese form? To me, this keris seems to be classifiable as condong campur, & tangguh PBX. The greneng is a variation, certainly, but a keris of this quality would have been produced to specific order & in such cases the client has the freedom to specify whatever he wants, & the higher up the pecking order, the greater that freedom was & still is.
This raises another question, a couple of these Jawa kekandikan have pendok fitted, those pendoks appear to be Ngyogya pendoks, the hilts also appear to be Ngyogya.Perhaps Ngyogya might be worth a closer look. But then it becomes a bit difficult to relate Ngayogyakarta to Sunda & the North Coast.
In respect of green kemalo (enamel) this does not indicate a high rank, it indicates a middle rank, that of mantri.
|