Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

A. G. Maisey · 28th November 2021, 08:25 PM

I have been asked the reason why I do like this keris as Madura, so I will clarify a little.

First, it is best to understand that if I had this keris in my hand my opinion could be different to the opinion I can give from a flat image on a flat computer screen:- all that can be seen in any photo is just one face of the keris, we cannot feel the surface, we cannot adequately judge the material, we cannot see what the gandhik looks like from the front, we cannot see what the gonjo looks like from the top.

There a lot that we cannot know about a keris if all we have to form an opinion on is a photograph.

It is a bit like looking at a photo of a man and asking what his personality & character are like and what language or accent he speaks with.

So when we look at a photo we need to form an opinion based on only a couple of dominant characteristics.

Overall, this keris does have a tendency towards some Madura characteristics:- the distance from the last luk to the point is rather long, the pamor motif is common in older Madura keris, there is no ada-ada, the kembang kacang is thin and whispy. The blade cross section looks like rotan, no kruwingan .

Yeah, it does look a bit Maduraish.

But the gandhik has no inwards leaning angle at all, something that cannot be clearly seen until the orientation of the blade has been changed, the pawakan of the keris is not typical Madura, older Madura blades are stiff, too upright, this blade has a nice, gentle forward lean, again, something that cannot be seen until it has been viewed in the correct position for appraisal. The blumbangan is not shallow, and it is clearly defined, the gandhik edge is sharp and clear, moreover the keris has a tikel alis, and that is clearly defined where it meets the blumbangan. All of this is not at all typical of a Madura keris.

Then we get to the gonjo. This gonjo looks as if it is original, it does not look like a replacement. Older Madura keris have a straight, stiff gonjo, but this gonjo is nicely curved. I'd like to see the top of the gonjo, but just looking at the side profile there is no way this gonjo would sit well in a typical Madura wrongko. The keris is shown with a Solo wrongko, and that wrongko looks to be perfectly normal, perfectly according to correct form, if this keris sits well in the wrongko, it cannot be Madura.

I have given this keris as Mataram, by this I mean that stylistically it fits better in Mataram than in Madura. I do not mean it is Senopati, nor is it Sultan Agungan. It is to me, generic Mataram, probably from somewhere towards the North Coast, or towards East Jawa, but it is not stylistically Madura.

This is an opinion, and twenty other people might have twenty other different opinions. That is why we call this game "tangguh" = "opinion".

28th November 2021, 08:25 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,704	I have been asked the reason why I do like this keris as Madura, so I will clarify a little. First, it is best to understand that if I had this keris in my hand my opinion could be different to the opinion I can give from a flat image on a flat computer screen:- all that can be seen in any photo is just one face of the keris, we cannot feel the surface, we cannot adequately judge the material, we cannot see what the gandhik looks like from the front, we cannot see what the gonjo looks like from the top. There a lot that we cannot know about a keris if all we have to form an opinion on is a photograph. It is a bit like looking at a photo of a man and asking what his personality & character are like and what language or accent he speaks with. So when we look at a photo we need to form an opinion based on only a couple of dominant characteristics. Overall, this keris does have a tendency towards some Madura characteristics:- the distance from the last luk to the point is rather long, the pamor motif is common in older Madura keris, there is no ada-ada, the kembang kacang is thin and whispy. The blade cross section looks like rotan, no kruwingan . Yeah, it does look a bit Maduraish. But the gandhik has no inwards leaning angle at all, something that cannot be clearly seen until the orientation of the blade has been changed, the pawakan of the keris is not typical Madura, older Madura blades are stiff, too upright, this blade has a nice, gentle forward lean, again, something that cannot be seen until it has been viewed in the correct position for appraisal. The blumbangan is not shallow, and it is clearly defined, the gandhik edge is sharp and clear, moreover the keris has a tikel alis, and that is clearly defined where it meets the blumbangan. All of this is not at all typical of a Madura keris. Then we get to the gonjo. This gonjo looks as if it is original, it does not look like a replacement. Older Madura keris have a straight, stiff gonjo, but this gonjo is nicely curved. I'd like to see the top of the gonjo, but just looking at the side profile there is no way this gonjo would sit well in a typical Madura wrongko. The keris is shown with a Solo wrongko, and that wrongko looks to be perfectly normal, perfectly according to correct form, if this keris sits well in the wrongko, it cannot be Madura. I have given this keris as Mataram, by this I mean that stylistically it fits better in Mataram than in Madura. I do not mean it is Senopati, nor is it Sultan Agungan. It is to me, generic Mataram, probably from somewhere towards the North Coast, or towards East Jawa, but it is not stylistically Madura. This is an opinion, and twenty other people might have twenty other different opinions. That is why we call this game "tangguh" = "opinion".