Keris Blambangan Pamor Nyekrak

A. G. Maisey · 13th December 2011, 08:53 PM

The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris.

Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang).

The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point.

The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square.

There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo.

The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo.

Sajen · 13th December 2011, 10:02 PM

Hello Alan,

only for my better understanding, do you mean a shape like shown in my pictures? I don't want to say that this is a Tuban blade but think that this is the shape you referring about.

Regards,

Detlef

A. G. Maisey · 13th December 2011, 10:42 PM

That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle.

Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion.

My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

Sajen · 13th December 2011, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle.

Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion.

My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

Like I have written was it my intention to know if I understand you correct. But here two pictures of the blade and a picture direct from up to the gonjo without handle.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 12:59 AM

Detlef, your photo is at an angle, I can't see any more from this than from the previous ones. What you are looking for is a straight line, without any inward curve, between gendhok and buntut urang. If you have that there is a very strong probability you're looking at Tuban, if do not have that, you might have Tuban, you might have something else.

All I can say is that you are moving towards the Tuban form.

A real life example is actually pretty useless for this game, because what we are trying to do is to set a standard and a standard is best set from a drawing. In an actual example there can a very great range of variation that can still fit within the parameters.

Clip the buntut urang square on a nguceng mati, and that is Tuban.It has the appearance of having been foreshortened.

Sajen · 14th December 2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Detlef, your photo is at an angle, I can't see any more from this than from the previous ones. What you are looking for is a straight line, without any inward curve, between gendhok and buntut urang. If you have that there is a very strong probability you're looking at Tuban, if do not have that, you might have Tuban, you might have something else.

All I can say is that you are moving towards the Tuban form.

Thank you Alan for your explanation. BTW, there is a very slight inward curve between gendhok and buntut urang. But again, my intention was to understand and learn, not to know which tanguh have this blade.

Regards,

Detlef

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.

ferrylaki · 14th December 2011, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris.

Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang).

The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point.

The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square.

There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo.

The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo.

Alan, I always admire the way you explain on tangguh. I have no doubt this keris is a tuban, and I quite sure of it.
Blambangan keris are quite famous between keris collectors and keris dealers here ini Indonesia. in my 6 years experience in keris, I only met a few blambangan keris which I can really sure it is indeed a blambangan.
I met The most magnificent blambangan keris in 2009, the dhapur is sepokal and the pamor is blarak.
I have some indication which that make me sure it is blambangan keris. and it has sebit rontal gonjo, the buntut urang is wide, the iron just similar to a good majapahit.
Since the keris was come with a splendid sandangan that I just cant afford.
the pendok was bunton krawang with 160 gram of 23 karat gold, the selut and mendak is 20 gram of 23karat gold. and the warangka is an original aromatic sandal wood surakarta ladrang iras. that's what I call A perfect harmony in a keris dress. and I just can't afford it. what a tragic story I have.
There's no picture, sorry .

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 02:52 AM

Yeah Ferry, I think its Tuban too, but I really dislike being too positive when I don't have the thing in my hand.

Photos can lie.

What happens if you get it your hand and you find it is short? or a thin, wimpy little thing? or the iron is wrong? there are a heap of keris out there that look like something in a pic, but as soon as you pick them up you realise you've got something made by some village smith in back of beyond, and you really couldn't give it a justifiable tangguh at all --- not that that stops a lot of people.

Yes, keris that can be classified as Blambangan are pretty few and far between.

The dress on that one you missed sounds quite exceptional, but its a fact of life that we can't have everything we might like.

Deprivation is good for the soul.

Karttikeya · 14th December 2011, 03:34 AM

Pak Alan ,thank you for your explanations. Detlef, thank you for sharing nice keris photographs.
In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture. The people who told me that this ganja is sebit rontal are experienced, surely more experienced than me because I am beginner on this. Pak Alan, I have no doubt with your knowledges and experiences in keris and Javanese culture, because you have said that you are 90% sure that this is Tuban blade, I appreciate your opinion.
Secondly I have not found Tuban keris with pamor nyekrak like this. If any member has Tuban blade with pamor nyekrak like my blade, kindly share with us, I am glad to learn much more in this forum. I have a blade, supposed to be Tuban, but I noticed this keris totally different different with this blade, iron, pamor, style are different.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 06:40 AM

Yes, the pamor is a problem. No doubt of it.

This is one reason why I say "90%'. Playing tangguh is difficult enough at any time, but from photos?

This is the reason I always qualify my statements:- "based on what I can see in the photograph ---"

Karttikeya · 14th December 2011, 08:58 AM

Pak Alan, for me score 90% shows that you have placed gonjo type on much higher position rather than iron, pamor, style characteristics in giving opinion of a blade. Gonjo shape, if we refer to gonjo type, sometimes we cannot expect 100% that the gonjo should fit drawing literatures, because empu is not only one and of course they will have different perception for every gonjo type. Most the empu who live in early era, probably they do not use guidebook in making blade, but the knowledges have been transferred orally, and it is possible every empu has different perception to translate the oral knowledges from their precursor.
Pak Alan, I am sorry, I have no intention to cornered you and led you to agree that my keris is Blambangan. I respect you and I learn many things from you.

A. G. Maisey · 14th December 2011, 09:35 AM

Karttikeya, I would ask you to understand this:-

My opinions in respect of tangguh are not formed from my own experience, except in the case of Banten.

Any other time I give an opinion on tangguh I am only repeating what I have been taught by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo, and the writings of the old time ahli keris such as Darmosoegito and Wirasoekadgo.

I don't invent things. I don't form opinions based on the discussion of last Sunday afternoon with some keris group or other. I only repeat what I have been taught.

It is impossible for you, or for anybody else to offend me in even the slightest degree when it comes to a discussion on tangguh, because the opinions I put forward are not children of my own conception.

Those opinions are come from far more knowledgeable people than I, all I do is repeat their opinions.

It took me better than 15 years to reach even a very basic understanding of tangguh, and since I reached that "kindergarten" level, it has taken me about another 15 years to reach where I am now. That 30 years of learning has resulted in only the ability to see something as my primary teacher would want me to see it.

So you see Karttikeya, any disagreement with what I may say, is not really a disagreement with me.

I have said time and time and time again that it is not possible to adequately settle a question of tangguh from pictures on a computer screen.

I doubt that many people believe this, because continually people like you post photos and ask "is this Sultan Agung?" or "is this Blambangan?"

If I put forward my opinion it is based upon what I can see.

No more. No less.

There is absolutely not the slightest doubt that your blade does display some characteristics of tangguh Tuban, but is Tuban? Probably, but I cannot say for certain unless I hold it in my hand.

Is it Blambangan? Very, very, very unlikely, but again, I cannot say with certainty unless I hold it in my hand.

However --- the wonderful thing about the tangguh game is that it is a game based on opinion. Anybody can have his own opinion. However, if one wishes one's opinion to be taken seriously, one must be able to defend that opinion --- but only if one wishes others to accept it.

If you, Kartttikeya, wish to believe that your keris is Blambangan, I have not the smallest problem with that :- it is your keris, and you can believe it is Blambangan if you wish. What you may believe is none of my concern:- I neither gain nor lose from your beliefs.

But your difficulty may arise in convincing others that it is Blambangan.

Jean · 14th December 2011, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karttikeya

In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture.

Sebit Ron versus Sebit Ron Tal
According to the EK (page 413), the term Sebit Ron designates a ganja with a "waist" on the back side when looked from the top and as shown by Alan, while the term Sebit Ron Tal designates a ganja which has a shape which curves downwards on the back side when looked from the front. So the 2 terms designate different features.
IMO the kris from Karttikeya has a gonjo wuwung (see EK page 537) in which the top and bottom lines are more or less parallel when looked from the front.
Best regards

13th December 2011, 08:53 PM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	The images shown with this post come from Ensiklopedi Keris. Sebit rontal gonjo have a "waist" between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates (gendhok), and the narrow end of the gonjo (buntut urang). The other major type of gonjo is the nguceng mati form, it has a buntut urang that comes to a point. The classic Tuban gonjo is neither nguceng mati, nor sebit rontal, it looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off, so it has flat sides like nguceng mati, no waist, but the buntut urang is cut off more or less square. There are sub-types of Tuban blades, :- Tuban -Mataram, Tuban -Pajajaran, even Tuban-Majapahit, and all these sub-types display minor differences from mainstream Tuban, these minor differences include variation in the form of the gonjo. The Tuban gonjo is particularly recognizable because the sirah cecak is noticeably rounded, and of course, because of the shape of the rest of the gonjo, which is quite different to any other gonjo, except perhaps Segaluh, but Segaluh has the pesi placed differently, so it is easy to identify. This is the reason why experienced keris people are confident to name a blade as Tuban while it is still in the wrongko, and all they can see is the top of the gonjo. Attached Images

13th December 2011, 10:02 PM	#2
Sajen Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Germany, Dortmund Posts: 9,165	Hello Alan, only for my better understanding, do you mean a shape like shown in my pictures? I don't want to say that this is a Tuban blade but think that this is the shape you referring about. Regards, Detlef Attached Images

14th December 2011, 09:35 AM	#13
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Karttikeya, I would ask you to understand this:- My opinions in respect of tangguh are not formed from my own experience, except in the case of Banten. Any other time I give an opinion on tangguh I am only repeating what I have been taught by Empu Suparman Supowijoyo, Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo, and the writings of the old time ahli keris such as Darmosoegito and Wirasoekadgo. I don't invent things. I don't form opinions based on the discussion of last Sunday afternoon with some keris group or other. I only repeat what I have been taught. It is impossible for you, or for anybody else to offend me in even the slightest degree when it comes to a discussion on tangguh, because the opinions I put forward are not children of my own conception. Those opinions are come from far more knowledgeable people than I, all I do is repeat their opinions. It took me better than 15 years to reach even a very basic understanding of tangguh, and since I reached that "kindergarten" level, it has taken me about another 15 years to reach where I am now. That 30 years of learning has resulted in only the ability to see something as my primary teacher would want me to see it. So you see Karttikeya, any disagreement with what I may say, is not really a disagreement with me. I have said time and time and time again that it is not possible to adequately settle a question of tangguh from pictures on a computer screen. I doubt that many people believe this, because continually people like you post photos and ask "is this Sultan Agung?" or "is this Blambangan?" If I put forward my opinion it is based upon what I can see. No more. No less. There is absolutely not the slightest doubt that your blade does display some characteristics of tangguh Tuban, but is Tuban? Probably, but I cannot say for certain unless I hold it in my hand. Is it Blambangan? Very, very, very unlikely, but again, I cannot say with certainty unless I hold it in my hand. However --- the wonderful thing about the tangguh game is that it is a game based on opinion. Anybody can have his own opinion. However, if one wishes one's opinion to be taken seriously, one must be able to defend that opinion --- but only if one wishes others to accept it. If you, Kartttikeya, wish to believe that your keris is Blambangan, I have not the smallest problem with that :- it is your keris, and you can believe it is Blambangan if you wish. What you may believe is none of my concern:- I neither gain nor lose from your beliefs. But your difficulty may arise in convincing others that it is Blambangan. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 14th December 2011 at 09:51 AM.

13th December 2011, 10:42 PM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	That is moving towards the shape, Detlef, but it still seems to have a slightly less than straight side between gendhok and buntut urang --- maybe its camera angle. Also bear this in mind:- there are parameters within which the gonjo can fall, and still be classifiable as one form or another. This is the foundation of tangguh:- opinion. My opinion, based upon what I can see in your photos is that this gonjo is not pure Tuban, but in the hand, it might be. One thing is certain, your gonjo is not sebit rontal, neither is it nguceng mati --- but is it Tuban? Maybe, maybe not. In the case of your gonjo I would want to see and handle the blade before I was certain.

14th December 2011, 12:59 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Detlef, your photo is at an angle, I can't see any more from this than from the previous ones. What you are looking for is a straight line, without any inward curve, between gendhok and buntut urang. If you have that there is a very strong probability you're looking at Tuban, if do not have that, you might have Tuban, you might have something else. All I can say is that you are moving towards the Tuban form. A real life example is actually pretty useless for this game, because what we are trying to do is to set a standard and a standard is best set from a drawing. In an actual example there can a very great range of variation that can still fit within the parameters. Clip the buntut urang square on a nguceng mati, and that is Tuban.It has the appearance of having been foreshortened.

14th December 2011, 08:43 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	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.

14th December 2011, 02:52 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yeah Ferry, I think its Tuban too, but I really dislike being too positive when I don't have the thing in my hand. Photos can lie. What happens if you get it your hand and you find it is short? or a thin, wimpy little thing? or the iron is wrong? there are a heap of keris out there that look like something in a pic, but as soon as you pick them up you realise you've got something made by some village smith in back of beyond, and you really couldn't give it a justifiable tangguh at all --- not that that stops a lot of people. Yes, keris that can be classified as Blambangan are pretty few and far between. The dress on that one you missed sounds quite exceptional, but its a fact of life that we can't have everything we might like. Deprivation is good for the soul.

14th December 2011, 03:34 AM	#10
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Pak Alan ,thank you for your explanations. Detlef, thank you for sharing nice keris photographs. In my opinion, we cannot strickly apply the features of ganja sebit rontal ideally like the above reference, probably empu intend to make ganja sebit rontal but final result is not like ideal ganja sebit rontal with significant waist between the wide part of the gonjo that the pesi penetrates, and the narrow end of the gonjo and looks like nguceng mati that has been cut off. Some people told me that this ganja can be classified as ganja sebit rontal, although the shape is not so ideal as ganja sebit rontal like your picture. The people who told me that this ganja is sebit rontal are experienced, surely more experienced than me because I am beginner on this. Pak Alan, I have no doubt with your knowledges and experiences in keris and Javanese culture, because you have said that you are 90% sure that this is Tuban blade, I appreciate your opinion. Secondly I have not found Tuban keris with pamor nyekrak like this. If any member has Tuban blade with pamor nyekrak like my blade, kindly share with us, I am glad to learn much more in this forum. I have a blade, supposed to be Tuban, but I noticed this keris totally different different with this blade, iron, pamor, style are different.

14th December 2011, 06:40 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Yes, the pamor is a problem. No doubt of it. This is one reason why I say "90%'. Playing tangguh is difficult enough at any time, but from photos? This is the reason I always qualify my statements:- "based on what I can see in the photograph ---"

14th December 2011, 08:58 AM	#12
Karttikeya Member Join Date: Oct 2011 Posts: 54	Pak Alan, for me score 90% shows that you have placed gonjo type on much higher position rather than iron, pamor, style characteristics in giving opinion of a blade. Gonjo shape, if we refer to gonjo type, sometimes we cannot expect 100% that the gonjo should fit drawing literatures, because empu is not only one and of course they will have different perception for every gonjo type. Most the empu who live in early era, probably they do not use guidebook in making blade, but the knowledges have been transferred orally, and it is possible every empu has different perception to translate the oral knowledges from their precursor. Pak Alan, I am sorry, I have no intention to cornered you and led you to agree that my keris is Blambangan. I respect you and I learn many things from you.