View Single Post
Old 29th June 2018, 10:21 PM   #6
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,675
Default

Based upon what I believe I can see in the photos, the gonjo might be a replacement, I cannot tell from the photo, and the blade classification is moving towards Tuban, but I would hesitate to give it as Tuban.

However, this brings us back to a continual problem with the Tangguh system of classification:- if it is not Tuban, what is it?

Is it in fact classifiable at all?

Well, I think it probably is classifiable but I'd need it in my hand to give any opinion, and that opinion would be based upon a balance of the indicators.

But is it Tuban Pajajaran?

No, sorry we cannot go there. As with just about all tangguhs, there are definite indicators that you can home in on as soon as you look at a blade, and then you try to confirm or discard those indicators by putting the other indicators on one side or the other of the balance.

In Tuban Pajajaran the lower gonjo tail below the buntut urang,that is, the area where we would look for a tungkakan if there was one, declines as it joins the wadidang. On Paul's keris the gonjo is straight, thus it cannot be classified as Tuban Pajajaran.

There are multiple other indicators that would need to be assessed in the hand, but that single "tungkakan" indicator disallows Tuban Pajajaran.

If we classify a blade as Tuban-Pajajaran, that does not necessarily mean that it originated in the Pajajaran era. The Pajajaran era ended in 1579.

The pamor at the gonjo sides is simply a random pamor that has had its appearance altered by forging to elongate the pattern, the wrongko is probably Cendana Jawa, that is unscented sandalwood.The jejeran is less than good,as also is the mendak, in fact these two items spoil the entire ensemble, which is actually pretty nice.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote