![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 235
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 112
|
![]()
WOW - a fantastic thread for a new-comer to the keris! Thank you all for your contributions.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,048
|
![]()
Yes David, all experts are not equal.
Brings to mind the old "oils ain't oils" ad. Tangguh understanding is central to keris understanding, but even in Jawa many very highly respected people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" : "tangguh isn't real" It doesn't matter if its real or not. It is a solid system of classification, and people of approximately equal knowledge will not vary very much in their assessments of an applicable tangguh, meaning that, for instance, a Surakarta keris from the 19th century will never be identified as a Pajajaran keris, or a Majapahit keris, or a Pajang keris. Whatever tangguh is agreed upon, that tangguh will give an indication of relative age. I stress "relative". But at its foundation tangguh is about money. It is not about playing a game with keris to see who the smartest bloke in the room is. It is also about keris of good quality. At this point we enter the circle of reason, or put another way, circular reasoning. We need to be able to identify quality in the absence of tangguh, and we do this by using the universals I've mentioned above, plus a few other indicators, such as cross section of sogokan, regularity and form of greneng, the nearness to mirror image of each face of the keris, the form and robustness of the gonjo --- etc. Little things that can tell us if this keris was really made by somebody with skill, or not. If we decide that, yes, this is a nicely made keris, then we closely examine the indicators to try to place that keris into a legitimate classification, or tangguh, and tangguh is a system that was developed primarily to classify keris of quality. Investment property. As I have said:- its all about money. Salesmen will very, very frequently present a Koripan keris as Mataram, Sultan Agung. A Koripan keris has the same form as a Mataram SA, but it is marginally more coarse in some details, and it lacks "presence". The value of a Mataram SA is vastly more than a Koripan in equal condition. The examples of misrepresentation go on and on. Gresik for Pajajaran, Tuban-Majapahit for Majapahit, Mataram-Matesih for Amangkurat --- and on, and on and on. In Jawa, if you do not understand tangguh and you want to buy keris you are setting yourself up for not only considerable loss of money, but perhaps disappointment when you eventually discover the truth. In the Western World, this doesn't matter. You can go on believing that your Koripan is Mataram SA forever, and it is unlikely that you will ever be disillusioned. But in Jawa, sooner or later you will meet somebody with understanding and by then its too late to run back to the dealer. You've done your dough --- or you perpetuate the lie. Keris collecting in the Western World, and in Jawa are very different entities. In the Western World we mostly do not outlay serious sums of money for keris. In Jawa the serious collector may outlay a sum of money equivalent to the cost of a house. Under these conditions it is imperative that there is some understanding of the system that sets the ground rules for value. As for validation of an acquisition upon the basis of "I like it", I do exactly the same thing, a lot of my personal collection is comprised of "keris that I like". Not much value to anybody except me. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]()
Truly excellent threads Alan, you said it all, thank you!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,229
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,048
|
![]()
Thanks for the vote of confidence Jean, but as David has indicated, what I have written is a very long way from everything that there is to be known about this facet of keris understanding.
However, anybody who can absorb what I've written and who then uses it as a basis for increase of knowledge will be a long way along the road towards avoiding regrettable error. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
I remember an anecdote from Gardner's book how he repeatedly switched the handles of kerises from different areas and showed them to the same indonesian experts. Needless to say, they faithfully attributed the same blade with different handles to the origin of the handle.
I am also puzzled by the fact that neither Frey's nor Ghiringhelli's books ever mention or even discuss the potential ages of the kerises presented there, - obviously, the most outstanding examples of the genre. Instead, they repeatedly mention purely esthetic features of particular kerises, including wood coloring, quality of carvings, elegance of jewelry etc. Since as Mr. Maisey stipulated that it is all about money, one can recall that a heavily patinated and pockmarked authentic crusader's sword lacking original handle and scabbard would fetch infinitely more interest and money from professional collectors than an outstanding and complete 20th century rendition of the same. Would it be correct to say that, unlike all other fields of weapon studies and in the absense of inscribed and authenticated dating and signature, the field of indonesian kerises is largely "art appreciation" rather than historical study of weapons? Is keris more in league with, say, netsuke rather than with katana? Is it a naive question? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,740
|
![]() Quote:
![]() About acquiring a deep knowledge of the Javanese keris (understanding the tangguh system, etc) like you and the Solyom could do with strenuous efforts few decades ago, I tend to believe that this is a past opportunity as the ahli keris have become an endangered species.... Thank you again and best regards Last edited by Jean; 3rd June 2012 at 11:44 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|