[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your clarification, Moshah.

In earlier posts I have attempted to give a very superficial explanation of the way in which the Javanese, or more correctly Solonese system of blade classification functions. Because of the nature of the keris it is always an opinion, and that is exactly what the Javanese name for the system:- "tangguh" means:- "opinion".

An opinion can only be formed on the basis of information received, and how well that information is understood, thus, when an opinion is given in respect of the classification, or tangguh, of any blade that opinion should be able to be supported by reference to the indicators used to help form the opinion, and by any argument that takes account of other factors.

Inherent in this system there are many difficulties.

For example, you have named the tangguh Pengging. Yes, everybody has heard of Pengging, but how many people know that Pengging was not a kingdom, it was at best a kabupaten that existed for a very short time and with a very small population of people who could have possessed keris?

Pengging existed in the late Majapahit era, and it was located near Pajang in Central Jawa, but I have known many very knowledgeable keris people to confuse the real Pengging with Pengging Witaradya, which is a mythical kingdom, and to place it in East Jawa.

The other classification you have named is Mataram. Along with Majapahit, Mataram is probably the most over-used tangguh designation. Why? Because an enormous number of keris from various unknown sources carry characteristics that allow them to be identified as "Mataram", and everybody is very familiar with the name "Mataram":- a big, important, resounding , Javanese historic designation.

Interestingly, we are still in the "Mataram" era. The ruling houses of Jawa are of the Mataram line. The two major divisions of this line are Surakarta, which can be seen as the "trunk", and the Jogjakarta house, which can be see as a "branch". The styles of these two major Mataram lines have diverged, not only in respect of keris, but in respect of all things associated with the house concerned.

If we consider only keris style, what we find is that the Surakarta line chose to imitate to a significant degree the keris style of Majapahit, the historic foundation of the line, whilst Jogjakarta imitated the style of Mataram Senopati. This resulted in the tangguh that is Surakarta , or Pakubuwanaan, and Jogjakarta, or Hamengkubuwanaan. Thus, in the present day Jogjakarta keris we have a legitimate sub-division of the overarching Mataram classification, and in future times I have no doubt at all, that if the tangguh system of classification survives, the work of makers of the current era, such as Djeno Harumbrojo and Pauzan Pusposukadgo, will be identified as Mataram Kemardikan.

The most prolific producers of current era keris in the style of Mataram are the craftsmen from East Jawa and Madura. It would be perfectly legitimate to classify these keris as "Mataram Kemardikan Madura ".

I can understand that in the absence of a detailed understanding of the tangguh system, that it is very tempting to use the "bucket" approach, and that if something looks like a particular tangguh it is acceptable to throw it into the relevant bucket. This can work to a limited degree, but it really has very little relevance to the proper application of the system of tangguh. In this situation, where insufficient knowledge and understanding exist to permit proper application of the system, it might perhaps be best to refer to a keris such as the one under discussion as a keris "which displays some characteristics of a Mataram keris". Such a description effectively divorces it from the tangguh system and prevents it from being associated with an even more erroneous estimate of age than is usually the case.