Gustav, I'm not quite sure what you are setting forth here.
Are you saying that in your opinion this weapon does originate from a keris bearing culture, and is in fact just a variation of keris style?
I cannot see any evidence that this keris is not in its original state, based upon what I can see in the photos this keris appears to have been made with these blade lines.
The gonjo and sorsoran area have a Javanese feeling to them, so I am looking at this keris as if it were Javanese/Balinese.
To my eye there are three things that stand out as being non-typical of a keris that bears the stylistic elements that this one does. Firstly the really obvious abnormality is the pawakan; such a pawakan is very much at variance with Javanese aesthetics, it presents the feeling of distortion and physical disability, as would be seen in a cripple.
The kinatah work is of a style that I cannot relate to any Indonesian style that I can recall, but it does look quite similar to some Indian work that I've seen.
Then there is the length. At 10.25" this is a very short keris blade, however I cannot see any evidence that it has been shortened:- the kruwingan is still as it should be, the kinatah work finishes at the edge of the kruwingan, there is no distortion nor interruption to the flow of the lines; to me, everything looks as it should. But there is an abnormality in the cross section of the blade in that there is flat face to the blade as we would expect in a Bugis style keris.
At 10.25" this blade is short, but from the displayed image, the sorsoran and gonjo appear to be proportionate to the length.
I still doubt that this keris was made in the Peninsula or in any part of what is now Indonesia.
Having said that, I'm now going to qualify what I've said:- I've formed this opinion based on fairly inadequate photos; you may well be correct, this weapon might be a product of the Peninsula or Indonesia; probably the only way we could know with certainty would be to know the complete provenance, and that appears not to be available.
Whenever I see a "one off" I always remember Panembahan Harjonegoro and the Solo Keris Mafia. Harjonegoro was acknowledged as one of the most knowledgeable people of the 20th century in the field of Javanese art and most especially the keris. He was a very, very knowledgeable and clever man.
But whenever one of the Shifty Shonks in the SKM was short of money they'd simply come up with something new, unique and undoubtedly old --- even if it had been made yesterday. Harjonegoro was virtually always a certain buyer.
In keris art, genuine quality runs in pattern styles. Where something varies from the norm the red flags must go up. The further back in time we go, the more this must apply, simply because nothing in a keris is dependent upon the whim of the maker, he must conform if he is to produce a true keris.Old keris were loaded with symbolism, so when a keris varies from the norm, the symbolism is distorted and can no longer be read, and this means that the iconography of the keris no longer exists. If the iconography no longer can be read, the keris has lost its purpose. Thus, if I see something like this weapon, I ask myself:- " what is being said?" if I cannot hear an answer, I can only assume that the maker was not speaking in the correct language.
|