[A. G. Maisey]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

" --- early Pakualaman Keris --- "

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


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

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

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

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



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

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


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

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

"The execution of goldwork is also Javanese"

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

You advise that;-

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

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

Gustav, you have said:-

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

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

Gustav, you have also said:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To move away from the blade and consider the mendak.

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

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

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

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

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