View Single Post
Old 14th May 2018, 11:46 PM   #15
A. G. Maisey
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,675
Default

Yes Jean, the difficulty in classification of this blade is the first stumbling block that we meet if we wish to appraise it. The elements that you mention are not any sort of impediment by themselves, but when we consider other elements, too many questions seem to arise.

It comes back, I think, to the idea of "quality":- that which one person, or group of people consider to indicate "quality" is not necessarily what a different group of people consider to indicate "quality".

If we consider this keris in its totality, not just the wilah, we have an example , a very good example, of a particular type of classical Javanese keris, thus in my opinion, it is reasonable to apply classical Javanese standards to any appraisal of the keris.

In its totality, it is not just any keris that was put together for some farmer or fisherman or small trader who has had a windfall. It is the type of keris that could be worn by an aristocrat at a formal gathering. It deserves to be considered in a formal way, not just as some sort of interesting collectable.

In respect of tangguh Kahuripan.

As you mention Jean, Kahuripan refers to a very ancient period in Javanese history. Kahuripan was Erlangga's kingdom, it lasted for about 20 years in East Jawa near the Brantas river, it had disappeared before 1025AD.

Can anything at all be reasonably linked to this era? Let alone a particular form of modern keris ("Modern Keris" = post Hindu-Buddhist Jawa).

The classification "Kahuripan" for a keris is simply a name, it does not and cannot refer to a keris that originated over 1000 years ago. At that time the keris as we now know it did not exist. Even 300 years later the Modern Keris probably had not yet appeared. It is not until we get into the 14th-15th century that keris and keris-like weapons with blades of similar form to those of Modern Keris begin to appear in the monumental evidence.

It is possible that in the sense of a tangguh classification, "Kahuripan" might refer to the historic area where Kahuripan was supposed to exist, thus, when the tangguh system began to develop in Central Jawa, it was believed that keris that possessed certain features originated from this area. Over time, this geographic reference became a time reference.

However, in respect of indicators for the tangguh "Kahuripan". What Harsrinuksmo says is this:-
"--- luknya tidak merata, makin ujung, makin rapat."
This can be understood as:-
"--- the luk are not even, the closer they get to the point, the closer they become."
He does not mention anything about where the luk begin.
He says other things as well, none of which appear to agree with the indicators used in Solo during the 1980's to classify a blade as Kahuripan. When we use EK as a reference we must never forget that Bambang Harsrinuksmo was a journalist with an interest in keris. He collected information from various informants, assembled it and published it. I did not know a single highly placed ahli keris in Solo who had a high regard for the contents of EK.

Harsrinuksmo published a number of little booklets that led up to EK. The two men whom I regarded as the most knowledgeable people I knew in the subject of keris both questioned his sources for the content of these booklets. One of these men had some small regard for Harsrinuksmo's first hardcopy keris book, the "Ensiklopedi Budaya Nasional", but he laughed openly at EK. The first book was published in 1988, EK was published in 2004. Both were attempts to ride the keris popularity wave.

Harsrinuksmo's most important contribution to the World of the Keris is that he has given keris fanciers a lexicon that permits exchange of ideas across barriers of language.

But to get back to Kahuripan luk. In Paul's keris we have a blade where the luk do not begin until about halfway up the blade. In Solo a blade of this style would be referred to as "campur bawur". The feature that EK mentions would refer to a blade where the luk commenced at the normal place, immediately after the sorsoran, but as they approached the point they came closer together.

This raises one of the things that causes me to have doubts about the originality of this blade. The blade proportions are not what we would expect to see in a Javanese keris:- the upper part of the blade is too narrow for the lower part of the blade. This could be just a maker's style, especially somebody who was working in an area away from kraton influence.

However, the edges of this blade are perfect and show no fragmentation, even though the gonjo has begun to show grain, similarly, the blade surface does not show grain. This absence of grain and edge fragmentation indicates that the edges of the blade have been cleaned up --- a normal maintenance procedure --- and that the blade surface has been refinished, which is not a normal maintenance procedure.

For a very long time, probably going back into the 19th century, if not before, the very large North Coast blades of Jawa have been reworked into smaller blades that are a more appropriate size for dress wear. These very large North Coast blades usually had pamor sanak, or a simple low contrast wos wutah. One of the ways in which these blades were reworked was to put luk into a straight blade, these luk were forged in, and this forging inevitably left evidence on the edges and surface of the blade, this evidence needed to be removed.

Blue has apparently handled this blade as he tells us that the blade has a heavy cross section but that it does not feel heavy in the hand. If it does not feel heavy in the hand, and it has a substantial blade, that means that there is a concentration of weight in the sorsoran. This is precisely an indicator of a blade that began life as a much larger blade and was re-worked into a smaller blade.

For comparison, consider the classical Surakarta blade:- it has very substantial proportions and is thick and heavy. It feels heavy when you hold it. These heavy Surakarta blades are jokingly referred to as "linggis" = "crowbars". If you fail to stab your victim to death, you can beat him to death with it.

There is another thing that has to be considered when a large blade is reworked into a smaller blade with luk:- the closer the luk get to the sorsoran, the more difficult it becomes to forge in luk without causing damage to the blade that cannot be corrected. As a consequence big, old blades that have been reworked to have luk often have the luk starting further up the blade than is usual.

So I think we get back to the idea of "quality".

What is "quality"?

Well, my ideas on quality are very obviously somewhat different to the ideas of some other people. For my failure to agree in this respect I most sincerely apologise.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote