[A. G. Maisey]

Gustav, you have commented:-

''Alan, I can imagine all this makes little to no sense for you.''

No Gustav, this is not quite so, the photos you have shown do make sense, these example keris do have indicators that would probably get them accepted as originating from somewhere in the Island of Jawa. However, these keris do not have sufficient indicators to tip the balance in favour of a specific tangguh classification.

The Wassing-Visser keris you have presented in two photographs, in one photo it looks like a poor attempt at a Surakarta style, in the other photo I would probably give it as generic Mataram --- I'm talking style here, not origin .

I have had to look at these two photos several times to confirm that I am in fact looking at the same keris.

This keris also has characteristics that place it outside Surakarta and also exclude it from Mataram, but do tend towards the group of keris that bear characteristics congruent with production of a "rare & unusual" keris produced especially for the collector market.

Harjonegoro was well known in the dealer community in Solo as a buyer for this type of keris. In addition he was not always, let us say, ''open'', evidence of this can be found in published works, evidence that is perfectly obvious as falsehood to some people but would be accepted as gospel by others.

The Robert Hales example is regrettably a very indistinct photo --- it might be a bit easier to see detail when I get home and can use a decent monitor. However, yes, I would accept the Hales keris as originating in the Island of Jawa, but I cannot see much agreement between the Hales keris and the keris we have been discussing, in simple terms they do not look similar, the major sticking point is pawakan.

A full length photo would be useful, an initial indicator for all keris is pawakan.

The keris with the loose gonjo I can also accept as Island of Jawa, but again no similarity with the keris under discussion.

To my eye, and using the parameters I was taught to work with, the three examples of keris that you believe to be similar in some way to the keris under discussion are not very similar to this keris at all.

The major deviation is pawakan, but there is also another, the three keris you have posted as examples all have tungkakan, the keris under discussion does not.

All three examples you have posted have greneng, there is very significant variation in these greneng.

Gustav, the things that you consider as binding indicators are not the things that I have been taught to use as binding indicators. For example, gold work of any type can be considered in a similar way to the way we consider dress, it is just makeup. We would never use either gold work or dress as an indicator for determination of blade classification.

In a previous post I wrote this:-

"--- similar motifs can be found in Javanese and other work --- keris & non-keris --- from multiple periods of time ---"

I do accept that all three examples you have posted have similarities, I also accept that all three examples you have posted might be able to be considered as originating within the Island of Jawa, however, my position with the keris under discussion is unaltered, I am not prepared to attempt a classification, there are too many conflicting indicators.

I have said that I cannot classify this keris and then defend that classification, this is so:- I cannot.

But equally, I cannot disallow a point of origin, the keris under discussion could be from almost anywhere, but I fail to see how a specific point of origin could be nominated and then that opinion defended --- at least defended in a way that would be accepted by people who have some understanding of the way in which the Central Javanese keris classification systems are used.