[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you Gustav.

I was hoping that this might resonate with you, and yes, indeed it has. I was trying to get somebody to think seriously about this idea of the ron dha being the signature of an empu, and you have done just that.

In my post #31, I said:-
"--- We believe that the way in which a genuine empu cuts his greneng, and most especially his ron dha is more or less his signature to his work, and that it does not vary. Thus, the ron dha is the indicator of the empu who has made the keris.---"

The key word in this paragraph is "believe".

How many times have I said that:-

"keris knowledge is not knowledge as we understand the word, it is belief"

When it comes to classifying a keris according to geographic point of origin, or point of origin in time, we are dealing with a belief system, not all that much different to any system of religious belief. The whole thing depends upon circular reasoning. What I have witnessed more than once is that with a keris or other item of extremely high quality, a Javanese ahli keris (keris expert) will first attempt to classify the item according to the ruler during whose reign it was made, then if he is required to name an empu, he will assess the level of quality, if it is of extremely high quality, that item of tosan aji will be attributed to the leading empu of that particular era. The foundation is supposition, and all that follows is supposition, but it becomes generally believed supposition, with one supposition supporting the other.

The tombak that I posted and that Gustav has referenced was given as Jayasukadgo by two different ahli keris, at two different times. Neither was Empu Suparman, who had already left us at the time I acquired this tombak. However, the major identifier of this tombak as Jayasukadgo, was a recognised empu of the highest order --- and clearly his identification is at variance with Haryoguritno's.

Identification of a maker is a very high level of the practice of Tangguh classification, and it can greatly influence values.

The widely held belief amongst truly keris literate people is that a ron dha is the signature of the maker of a piece. Let us accept, for the sake of discussion, that this is so. Very few people sign their name in exactly the same way each and every time, in those circumstances where a signature becomes a proof of identity, we find that the examiner of the signature does not look for perfect repetition, but rather seeks to compare an overall form. So perhaps it might be the same with the ron dha, if it truly is the signature of the maker, we do not look for perfect conformity, but rather for overall consistency.

For me, the point of this whole issue is this:-

when we seek to classify a blade, in other words, to give it a tangguh, we cannot approach this exercise as if it was an exercise that is based in precision, we do have indicators that we can use, but when we identify an indicator in a keris, we must not expect it to be precisely the same as the written, or previously recorded form, all of the object that we seek to classify must be examined with the utmost care, and the indicators balanced one against the other. This is not something that can be learnt from written words of drawings, or photos. It can only be learnt by face to face tuition over a lengthy period and under the guidance of an acknowledged master.

There can never be a substitute for experience, and the field of keris is no different to the other fields of art. The person who is called upon to verify that Rembrandt was the man who painted that dirty, cracked little painting that turned up in Aunt Jessie's attic does not use an engineering approach in order to form his opinion, he uses defined indicators and his experience.

The indicators that we use in classifying a keris are only as good as the person who is using them.

But the bottom line is this:- the opinion of that experienced person will in most cases reflect the opinion of the bulk of other persons who possess a similar level of knowledge and experience, thus it becomes something that most people can believe, in other words, an item of belief.