Banten? Keris

[kai]

quoted from another thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...2&postcount=41

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Séverin,

As you'll have noticed, you certainly lucked out on these 2 keris!



It is a relatively early JD hilt which still shows some features of it cousins from the northern Jawa coast. Very nice craftsmanship!


The second keris is exceptional and shows the classic workmanship. It exhibits a cunning similarity to keris #2886 from the Dresden museum (provenance dating from 1671): only the kruwingan of your piece are shorter; examples with a plain gandik combined with "full" greneng are quite rare, anyway. Keris #2899 from the Dresden museum (provenance dating from 1676) is also similar.

BTW, the mendak is also of special interest: I can't remember any close matches but some semblance might be seen here:
Jakarta museum E 261 (a gift of the Mataram court)
Zeevaartschool (Kweekschool voor de Zeevaart), Amsterdam [stolen] (provenance dating from 1692)

Close-ups with high resolution would be great for detailed discussions!

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Alan's post quoted from the other thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...9&postcount=42

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

These comments are relative to the blade only of the second keris.

In my opinion this is not a Banten blade.

Typically the Banten wilah has a boto adeg blumbangan, the blumbangan of this keris is square.

There are two possibilities:- Mataram or Pajajaran

Condition and garap of the blade implies Mataram, but the dress is contrary to this.

It is very difficult to consider Pajajaran as possible because I have never seen a blade accepted as Pajajaran in such fine condition as this one:- I have no basis for comparison. However, the slightly concave gandhik is not a feature usually found in a Mataram blade, and a ron dha of this style is not typically associated with Mataram. So, although difficult, my inclination is to give this blade as Pajajaran.

In any case, it is old, it is fine, it is a very desireable.

Dresden 2886 has a Mataram blumbangan, square but not particulary large; the body cross section is the typical Tuban rotan, it does not have a ron dha that is classifiable, ie, it does have a ron dha but that ron dha cannot be aligned to an accepted form, however, I note that there is a possibility of corrosive damage to the greneng of 2886, which has impacted the ron dha; 2886 lacks kruwingan. However, the pawakan is similar to the pawakan of the keris under discussion.

Kai, I can see no similarity at all between Dresden 2899 and the keris under discussion. Dresden 2899 even uses a metuk instead of mendak and is of totally different dhapur and garap. Can you please tell me what the similarities are? Thanks.

[kai]

Jean's reply from the other thread: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...6&postcount=43

Originally Posted by Jean

For those of you who have the Krisdisk from Jensen, the Dresden # 2886 kris is shown on page 28 of the Banten chapter for comparison with Athanase's kris.

Alan, the greneng/ ron dha (and the ganja to a lower extent) of Athanase's kris do not look in line with the drawing which you showed us recently?
Regards

[kai]

And the last post to bring all info over here: http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showpo...9&postcount=44

Originally Posted by kai

Hello Jean & Alan,

I was mulling over exactly the same apparent discrepancy!

Of course, the drawing are based on specimens which have been exposed to humid tropical climate and regular cleaning & etching - so we have to allow for quite a bit of erosion when comparing contemporary Jawa features with early collected museum pieces. A ron dha nunut is crafted from relatively thin metal and, thus, more prone to change from erosion and revision. However, the ron dha is usually crafted from fairly substantial metal and I have a hard time to fathom how the base could converge into the typical form unless by the helping hand of someone eager to implement change... (The tips and hooks are much more likely to degrade during routine maintenance, of course.)

In the mean time, Séverin posted a separate thread for this keris - maybe we can keep this thread for discussing Cirebon/North coast hilts and move the keris discussion over here?
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23514

Regards,
Kai

[kai]

Hello Alan,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

I, for one, wasn't necessarily suggesting Banten.

However, it is certainly interesting to have such an early blade with (apparently) its complete "original" fittings, even if these are of secondary importance...

In my opinion this is not a Banten blade.

Typically the Banten wilah has a boto adeg blumbangan, the blumbangan of this keris is square.

There are two possibilities:- Mataram or Pajajaran

Condition and garap of the blade implies Mataram, but the dress is contrary to this.

It is very difficult to consider Pajajaran as possible because I have never seen a blade accepted as Pajajaran in such fine condition as this one:- I have no basis for comparison. However, the slightly concave gandhik is not a feature usually found in a Mataram blade, and a ron dha of this style is not typically associated with Mataram. So, although difficult, my inclination is to give this blade as Pajajaran.

Dresden 2886 exhibits a concave gandik, too.

Any ideas how strictly controlled/enforced dapur was during the very early Mataram Senopaten court? During any major cultural transition, one might either expect pieces with mosaic features (alluding to different sources) or a (possibly fast evolving) "new style" to build a new social identity/cohesion?

Dresden 2886 has a Mataram blumbangan, square but not particulary large; the body cross section is the typical Tuban rotan, it does not have a ron dha that is classifiable, ie, it does have a ron dha but that ron dha cannot be aligned to an accepted form, however, I note that there is a possibility of corrosive damage to the greneng of 2886, which has impacted the ron dha; 2886 lacks kruwingan. However, the pawakan is similar to the pawakan of the keris under discussion.

I do see shallow kruwingan extending approx. to the third luk: The concave channels are more obvious next to the sogokan and rather quickly fading out after the 2nd luk or so (still, an ada-ada is visible between the kruwingan, too).

Kai, I can see no similarity at all between Dresden 2899 and the keris under discussion. Dresden 2899 even uses a metuk instead of mendak and is of totally different dhapur and garap. Can you please tell me what the similarities are?

I did not want to imply that these two keris have the same dapur nor that they are closely related. However, the concave gandik and very pronounced tikel alis appear to be similar features for a start. The apparently unique metuk (or metuk-like iron mendak?) does not preclude to compare this wilah with other keris blades, doesn't it?

Regards,
Kai

[David]

Kai,
Thank you very much for taking it upon yourself to transfer a few of the posts from the other thread to this thread. Be careful though, or Rick and i might just have to curse you with a moderator title for your trouble.

[David]

I would also ask, is anyone capable of presenting photos of these Dresden examples (2886 and 2899) here for these discussions? For many of us these conversations are useless without a visual illustration to follow along with these observations. Thanks!

[A. G. Maisey]

Kai, since yesterday I have moved away from my records and it will be at least 2, possibly 3, days until I can respond to you adequately.

My previous remarks have been made upon the basis of +/- 12 photos of the "Banten" keris, as well as notes made while I was handling it. I am not using Jensen, as I still do not have access to that work.

I will respond when I am able.