Keris Blambangan Pamor Nyekrak

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 08:43 PM

Yes, I understand your intention Detlef, but real life examples are much less satisfactory than drawings to understand the parameters of tangguh classifications. The reason for this is that the interpretation of a feature can vary within a fairly wide range, and the blade can still be given one tangguh or another.

Neither your gonjo, nor Karttikeya's gonjo are pure Tuban, but if they are not Tuban , you then need to ask what they are. There are only so many classifications to choose from --- well, legitimate classifications. Once that rounded sirah cecak comes into the picture, you've virtually got nowhere else to go, other than Tuban.

If all that can be seen is the sirah cecak, you can consider Segaluh, but true Segaluh is nguceng mati, so when the buntut urang does not come to a point, you simply have nowhere else to go, other than Tuban.

But there can be variation, because only the smiths who were central to the classification would maintain that central standard. Unlike most other tangguh, Tuban was a trading center, not a kraton nor an administrative center, and the blades that we classify as Tuban would have been produced over a wide area , along the north coast, and for a little way into the hinterland, then brought to Tuban city to trade.Additionally, Tuban covered an extended time period. But the constant indicators seem to be the gonjo of a particular form, and the cross section of the blade, which is rounded, like rotan.

Within Tuban major classification there are a number of sub-classifications, and the indicators can vary through a very wide range for these.

Very, very seldom do we get a blade that is a textbook example of any tangguh, it is virtually always a matter of looking at all the indicators and forming an opinion based on those indicators. For instance, to carry out a full appraisal of a blade that on primary examination appears to be Tuban, I would need to closely examine and consider a minimum of 13 indicators. From a photograph I can only do a partial evaluation of perhaps 3 or 4 indicators.

Apart from legitimate tangguh classifications there are thousands, probably millions of blades out there that should never be given a tangguh at all. These blades are the product of smiths of greater or lesser talent who were working away from the direct influence of a major center that had a distinct style. Thus we get strange combinations and muddled interpretations. In fact, if we stick with the original concept of tangguh classification, 99.9% of all blades that we encounter probably could not be blessed with a tangguh.

This current obsession with tangguh is the product of a number of factors, firstly there is innate desire of people to classify, and collectors and Javanese people in particular are very given to this desire, then there is the motivation of dealers. If we can attach a tangguh to a blade it gives an additional selling point, and a degree of legitimacy, very often undeserved legitimacy, this of course translates into money.

People in Jawa who hold deep knowledge of the keris have a little saying when the subject of tangguh comes up for discussion:-

tangguh nggak sungguh = tangguh isn't real

and of course in most cases it is not:- it is an opinion, and everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. But as with all things, all opinions are not equal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

14th December 2011, 08:43 PM	#23
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,992	Yes, I understand your intention Detlef, but real life examples are much less satisfactory than drawings to understand the parameters of tangguh classifications. The reason for this is that the interpretation of a feature can vary within a fairly wide range, and the blade can still be given one tangguh or another. Neither your gonjo, nor Karttikeya's gonjo are pure Tuban, but if they are not Tuban , you then need to ask what they are. There are only so many classifications to choose from --- well, legitimate classifications. Once that rounded sirah cecak comes into the picture, you've virtually got nowhere else to go, other than Tuban. If all that can be seen is the sirah cecak, you can consider Segaluh, but true Segaluh is nguceng mati, so when the buntut urang does not come to a point, you simply have nowhere else to go, other than Tuban. But there can be variation, because only the smiths who were central to the classification would maintain that central standard. Unlike most other tangguh, Tuban was a trading center, not a kraton nor an administrative center, and the blades that we classify as Tuban would have been produced over a wide area , along the north coast, and for a little way into the hinterland, then brought to Tuban city to trade.Additionally, Tuban covered an extended time period. But the constant indicators seem to be the gonjo of a particular form, and the cross section of the blade, which is rounded, like rotan. Within Tuban major classification there are a number of sub-classifications, and the indicators can vary through a very wide range for these. Very, very seldom do we get a blade that is a textbook example of any tangguh, it is virtually always a matter of looking at all the indicators and forming an opinion based on those indicators. For instance, to carry out a full appraisal of a blade that on primary examination appears to be Tuban, I would need to closely examine and consider a minimum of 13 indicators. From a photograph I can only do a partial evaluation of perhaps 3 or 4 indicators. Apart from legitimate tangguh classifications there are thousands, probably millions of blades out there that should never be given a tangguh at all. These blades are the product of smiths of greater or lesser talent who were working away from the direct influence of a major center that had a distinct style. Thus we get strange combinations and muddled interpretations. In fact, if we stick with the original concept of tangguh classification, 99.9% of all blades that we encounter probably could not be blessed with a tangguh. This current obsession with tangguh is the product of a number of factors, firstly there is innate desire of people to classify, and collectors and Javanese people in particular are very given to this desire, then there is the motivation of dealers. If we can attach a tangguh to a blade it gives an additional selling point, and a degree of legitimacy, very often undeserved legitimacy, this of course translates into money. People in Jawa who hold deep knowledge of the keris have a little saying when the subject of tangguh comes up for discussion:- tangguh nggak sungguh = tangguh isn't real and of course in most cases it is not:- it is an opinion, and everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion. But as with all things, all opinions are not equal.