East Javanese Keris(es) - Discussion

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks for your good wishes Jean.

My "first impressions" was done by glancing quickly at the keris, going into the writing page and scribbling down what I thought I saw, then going backwards and forwards using the 'edit' function..

My idea was that I'd shoot from the hip and then later, as I had time, come back and look carefully one by one at each pic and see if there was enough information in the image for me to analyse. My analysis could produce something different to my first impression. Maybe by laying out the process of classification it would be possible to understand my approach and this could help others when trying to come to a decision about something.

I've already said that I don't think this classification thing is all that important, but my views are slanted in a particular direction, and I do acknowledge that the views of others are often different.

I've got one more "first impression" and that is post #7:-

north coast; the blade might check out as Tuban-M'ram---declining gonjo, square blumbangan, but I cannot see the other things I need :- sirah cecak, is there an ada-ada or not?, material, the gambar (atasan) of the wrongko is not Solo workmanship, and it does look very like a couple I've seen that were positively identified as North Coast, the hilt looks North Coast.

This one was done a bit slower than yesterday --- probably because I'm still drinking my morning coffee, but its still a first impression.

[A. G. Maisey]

One of the things I do when I look carefully at a keris that is in a photo is to run that photo through Photoshop, alter contrast and brightness levels, crop a section of the image and increase size to what it will bear, sharpen. Often, but not always I use a big magnifying glass to look at the screen image.Sometimes, but not always it is possible to see more from a photo by doing this.
I've just tried it with Jean's first photo and I've finished up with an image that I cannot open, even though it was saved as JPG.

So any comments on Jean's photos will be made on only the basis of what I can see on the screen. I use a 13.5X10.5 screen.

keris #1. post 8.

I believe close examination would show this blade to be a robahan, that is, a blade that has been altered.
The carving at the gandhik is not something that I recognise as an old motif, it looks crisp, and I feel that microscopic examination might show a patch welded into this part of the blade. This patch might have been made from the original gonjo, as the present gonjo looks as if it might be a replacement.

Stylistically this blade looks Majapahit, but it is most definitely not Majapahit. The material looks a bit like Gresik, if it is Gresik it will have a slightly greasy feel to the pamor material, if its not Gresik then I cannot classify and substantiate as it does not appear to fit a major strand, and it has probably been altered anyway. My gut feeling is something done for the trade and originating around Surabaya.

The overall look of the wrongko , with all that nicely patterned wood, is what I think of as East Jawa, but the "S" shaped line that runs down the front of the gambar is a line that I have seen identified with Banyumas by people who know a lot more than I do, however, most Banyumas wrongkos that I've actually handled have been fitted with pendok. This is where we get into difficulties, and the reason is this:-

in a karaton setting the forms are fairly strictly structured and identified for use by whom and when, but when we move away from a karaton into a small town, or a village, that structure disappears and we have a situation where the form of the wrongko is limited by the skill of the carver and by the desires of the customer. Thus, when we try to classify these wrongko forms and styles that lack the guiding hand of tradition and authority, we are in a situation where we do not have guidelines that permit supportable identification of point of geographic origin.

Collectors like to, maybe need to, classify, but when we cannot support a classification what is the point?

We can certainly classify broadly:- Jawa, Bali, Bugis. But when we look at 50 wrongkos by 50 different pairs of hands in 50 different locations, how can we possibly classify? Under these conditions maybe the best we can do is what I did yesterday:- form a quick first impression.

Or, we could go the way that I've seen a lot of people go in Solo:- for a blade --- "outside Jawa", for dress--- "outside Surakarta, not Jogja"; what is left unsaid is "well, its not of any importance anyway, because its not from anywhere that counts, so who cares?"

The Javanese attitude to keris is just a wee bit different to the attitude of collectors outside Jawa who give equal importance to every keris, no matter what it is, or where its from.

Anyway, coming back to post 8 keris #1.

From what I can see, the blade has been played with and made more attractive; the blade and the wrongko are unlikely to be an original mating; my feeling is that I'm looking at a dealer's montage , but one put together with a great deal of care and expertise, possibly the wrongko was obtained first, then a suitable blade was found, the blade "improvement" was done, the gonjo was made so that it exceeded the size of the wrongko hole, which was probably small to begin with. I doubt that this was done recently. I think that this sort of alteration probably stopped in the 1960's early 1970's. I only ever knew one man who could do this sort of thing well, and he died years ago, probably well into his 80's --- he always reckoned he was the same age as myself, but the fact of the matter is that he didn't know when he was born. He lived in Jogja.

So, an old alteration, bit of a mixture, but the blade is stylistically Majapahit, and the impression of the wrongko, principally because of the very attractive wood, is East Jawa. A collector's keris rather than a keris that we can positively link to a specific local geographic area. I'd be happy with a classification of simply "Jawa" for this keris, because I cannot really substantiate anything more detailed, but again, my first impression is East Jawa.


See how confusing this game can get?

I'll look slow and careful at another keris when I have another hour to spare.

[Gustav]

Regarding Wrongko of post 8 #1, I have a feeling, also Gambar and Gandar perhaps don't really match together. The joint between them looks stiff to me, due to difference in size (at the joint line ) and color (dark Wrongko-light Gandar at the joint) and perhaps the position of the joint line itself (a little bit kaku).

For me as an absolute "bloke" difficult to say, if it's due to my limited personal taste, used in wrong place, or due of a possible "peripheral", less careful taste of the Mranggi. Yet I suppose, a person, who originally choses such beautiful piece of wood for Gambar would more carefully chose the matching Gandar.

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes Gustav, you're right, in the photo they do appear to be strangers to one another, but I did not want to comment on this because I could not Photoshop the image to try to help me see the details that are less than clear:- this appearance of uneven mating could be due to dark wood at the edges of the foot of the atasan.

[Jean]

Hello Alan and Gustav,
Thanks for your detailed evaluation of my kris, I will post more detailed pictures of the sor-soran, ganja, and sheath joint later today if the weather permits and will add my visual observations.
Jut for reference I acquired this piece in 1995 from an antique shop in Balikpapan (East Kalimantan); the piece was probably brought there by a Javanese or Madurese transmigration worker and it was originally fitted with an old Madurese hilt.
Best regards

[Jean]

Attached are the detailed pictures of the blade shown in post 8#1.
My visual observations are as follows:
. The blade was in rust-free but unstained condition when I received it. After warangan treatment in Solo, the ganja colour appears clearer than the blade itself but it does not seem to be a recent replacement (greneng worn-out) and it fits quite well with the blade.
. The figure carved on the gandik (putut?) does not seem to have been welded as the pamor lines show a good continuity but it could have been carved-out from a larger blade.
. The atasan matches perfectly with the gandar but the slot has been reduced in sized with some putty so the blade and sheath were not originally matching.
Your further observations or questions will be welcome.
Regards

[A. G. Maisey]

Thanks Jean, that's a lot better.

Re the blade. There is no doubt at all in my mind that the blade is a changeling. I'd need to handle it to know exactly how it was changed, but it is certain that the puthut is not original, and certain that the gonjo is not original.

As you remark, the blade grain does show good continuity, but if the smith had a full gonjo to work with it would be possible to create an impression of continuity by running the split gonjo up either side of the original gandhik, or as might have been done with this blade, using all the gonjo on one side only and reforging the base. Note how the carving goes into the core on one side of the blade?

This sort of thing that was done in the 19th and early 20th centuries was very, very skilful. I've got two singo barongs that are perhaps the most skilful forge work of this type that I've seen. I ran one of them past a gentleman who is an extremely experienced and very highly regarded keris authority, I told him there was something wrong with the blade, he homed in on the singo barong, because obviously if a simple blade has been played with and it has SB, that's where they've been playing. He could not find any fault with this blade --- not until I gave him a 3X loupe and pointed out the weld joint. Incidentally, I bought the blade as old and genuine, it was only when I examined it closely at home that I found the evidence of alteration. Those oldtime smiths were very, very clever.

Just because a blade is a bit old, and ron dha are worn, or other evidence of age is present, or it came from what might seem to be a genuine local source, that is absolutely no guarantee that we're looking at something old and genuine. It is my belief that this sort of alteration has been going on for at least 200 years. But as I've already said, I'm pretty sure it has not been going on for the last 40 or 50 years. Its easier now for the shonks to build a fake from the ground up.

The gandar might be original to the atasan, or it might not. Yes, there is a bit of variation in the two pieces of material, but very often it is simply not possible for a carver to perfectly match the atasan and the gandar. To my mind this question over the wrongko is neither here nor there. Its OK. But as Jean has said, it is not original to the blade anyway --- again, no big deal. Its asking a bit much to expect to find totally original totally matched, totally perfect two hundred or 300 hundred year old ensembles in modern Indonesia.

Its not a bad keris, but its not what it pretends to be, and as a collectable it is valuable because it demonstrates the way in which blades can altered. I have kept all the really skilful alterations that I have encountered over the years as part of my core collection. They tell you things you'll never find in books.

[simatua]

a several years in my collection, but still not figured it out. The wilah of this keris ca 30 cm. with a relative simple but with some very detailed parts (tooth) naga. Got it as it is. blades fits good, although the peksi is not exactly in the middle of the waranka. The blade seems to me Buginese ; curved shape and gusen. The dress seems to be more (East?) Java.

Maybe a composed keris, but not done lately by a collector or dealers choice imo.