a Sengkelat worth of knowing to me

[Moshah]

I had this piece down back the road of my early days in keris collecting. As a newbie back then (nor that I was seasoned enough now..), I was easily distracted by other upcoming potential until I somehow neglected this piece.

So here it is, I was told it was of tangguh Pajang but IMHO it's Mataram, at best. The most puzzling part is the gonjo, where the purpose of wilut and execution of kanyut at the ekor cicak was beyond my comprehension.

Hope anybody can give some input, comments or critics wherever necessary. Any of that would be much welcomed, and is pretty much vital in my need to understand this keris better.

Otherwise, enjoy some pictures, buddies...

[Moshah]

hmm...was this keris a kamardhikan? Or badly repaired?

[David]

Originally Posted by Moshah

hmm...was this keris a kamardhikan? Or badly repaired?

I won't speak to the age of this keris, but where do you see a repair?

[Moshah]

Well, maybe besutan at the edge, or a replacement gonjo?

I can only guess, coz I don't really know, Dave.

[Jean]

From the pictures I don't see any steel core and the gonjo seems to properly match with the blade both physically and colour-wise. In spite of the worn-out pamor and iron pitting, the ricikan look neat and sharp (kembang kacang, greneng, etc) so I would assess the blade as probably recent but other opinions are welcome.
Regards

[asomotif]

I like the worn out pamor.
And the pendok, Is it suassa ?

Best regards,
Willem

[A. G. Maisey]

Look very closely at the joint between the gonjo and the base of the blade, especially directly under the pesi, now look at the degree of erosion to the greneng.

Draw your own conclusions.

[Moshah]

I really couldn't tell if the pendok is really suassa...how to test it?

If the gonjo was a replacement, was it recently made?

Under my untrained eyes, the besi of the blade looks identical to the besi of the gonjo...

[Rick]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Look very closely at the joint between the gonjo and the base of the blade, especially directly under the pesi, now look at the degree of erosion to the greneng.

Draw your own conclusions.

What I see is very little erosion to the greneng, and what looks like filler between the blade & gonjo .

[dbhmgb]

Originally Posted by Rick

What I see is very little erosion to the greneng, and what looks like filler between the blade & gonjo .

That's what I see.

[drdavid]

The greneng seems very clean. The junction of the base of blade and gonjo seems to show quite a lot more erosion, particularly when you look at the 4th photo. I see either there is filler or something else has happened to remove the layering on the base of the blade. Not so easy to judge given the focus on the pictures but the erosion on the kembang kacang is more like that on the blade than that of the greneng
drd

[A. G. Maisey]

Since epoxy resins became available in Jawa they have been mixed with iron filings and used on keris to fill the gap between the blade base and the gonjo. This was being done long before the keris revival that took place in the mid-1970's and the prolific production that commenced during the late 1980's and continues until today.

There is nothing wrong with a filler between the gonjo and the blade base.

Its original use was to preserve old keris and to protect the blade base and gonjo from further erosion. With current era keris its use has a similar purpose, but where filler is used in a recent keris, it should be as thin as possible, it should not be used as substitute for a poor fit.

In this keris there is very little erosion to any of the ricikan, and especially not to the greneng, but the gap between the gonjo and the blade base is what we could expect to see in a very old keris that had been neglected. Since this is not an old keris, what we are looking at is sub-standard workmanship.

This is quite an acceptable keris for use with formal Javanese dress, and the wrongko does appear to be very nice. As a collectable? We all have our own likes and dislikes.

[Moshah]

In other words, we can say this keris is newly made, alan?

It is not that I despise newly made keris, but as I try to grow my collection, I would really need to know which is which, hence I can have a really good look at examples such as a true old kerises, a newly made kerises sold as new, a newly made kerises deceived to be old kerises, and so on...

The understanding of metallurgy, especially for Javanese kerises is something I really lacking of, nor that I have nice examples to teach which is good or bad

[A. G. Maisey]

Based upon what I can see in these photos it is my opinion that this is current era keris.

[Moshah]

Well, thanks Alan for your opinion.

The reason I'm asking is because few of my javanese keris collecting friends indicating it is Mataram. I am no expert in Javanese keris, as I have pointed, and find that different views by different people is bringing a new interesting dimension in the learning of keris.

[A. G. Maisey]

Please note what I have said:-

"based upon what I can see in these photos"

what I can see are a number of indicators that point towards a recently made blade, however, photographs can be misleading, if I handled this keris I might change my mind, but I don't think so.

However, when we classify a keris as "Mataram", that by itself is insufficient, because Mataram refers to the dominant style of the keris, for example Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo is a current era maker who stopped working about 12 or 15 years ago, and he made many Mataram style keris, which if we classify correctly are Mataram Kemardikan.

So, if we want to classify this keris as "Mataram" we need to designate the classification correctly. Is it Mataram Senopaten? Sultan Agung? Matesih? Or is it some other sub-division of Mataram?

I would most humbly suggest that the people who have given an opinion that it is a Mataram keris complete that opinion by naming the type of Mataram keris that it is, and the indicators that make it so.

[Moshah]

I am definitely aware of that, Alan. By downloading those pix, I am aware that one's judgement by only looking at still images is limited. Perhaps it could be accurate as well, but then again the limit is still there.

That was also why I called out for "opinion", by which I really favor the true opinion based from what you see, be it favorable or otherwise.

I could not recall which Mataram, really, but back here when we discussed about Mataram, we would never go as far as "Empu Pauzan's Mataram-styled keris". Javanese kerisology is not something easily, readily available around here, hence the referencing terminologies will go as direct as possible i.e Mataram is for Mataram, Pengging is for Pengging and so on.

As you pointed out, Mataram has to be downscaled into it's specific era, which is very true, but unfortunately I have not be able to recall which.

I am in a point of seeking each others' points and views on the discussed matters, which I believe would give me some foundation in understanding of Javanese kerises. Even though it will only yield me a drop of ink into the ocean, it was a good start nonetheless.

[A. G. Maisey]

Thank you for your clarification, Moshah.

In earlier posts I have attempted to give a very superficial explanation of the way in which the Javanese, or more correctly Solonese system of blade classification functions. Because of the nature of the keris it is always an opinion, and that is exactly what the Javanese name for the system:- "tangguh" means:- "opinion".

An opinion can only be formed on the basis of information received, and how well that information is understood, thus, when an opinion is given in respect of the classification, or tangguh, of any blade that opinion should be able to be supported by reference to the indicators used to help form the opinion, and by any argument that takes account of other factors.

Inherent in this system there are many difficulties.

For example, you have named the tangguh Pengging. Yes, everybody has heard of Pengging, but how many people know that Pengging was not a kingdom, it was at best a kabupaten that existed for a very short time and with a very small population of people who could have possessed keris?

Pengging existed in the late Majapahit era, and it was located near Pajang in Central Jawa, but I have known many very knowledgeable keris people to confuse the real Pengging with Pengging Witaradya, which is a mythical kingdom, and to place it in East Jawa.

The other classification you have named is Mataram. Along with Majapahit, Mataram is probably the most over-used tangguh designation. Why? Because an enormous number of keris from various unknown sources carry characteristics that allow them to be identified as "Mataram", and everybody is very familiar with the name "Mataram":- a big, important, resounding , Javanese historic designation.

Interestingly, we are still in the "Mataram" era. The ruling houses of Jawa are of the Mataram line. The two major divisions of this line are Surakarta, which can be seen as the "trunk", and the Jogjakarta house, which can be see as a "branch". The styles of these two major Mataram lines have diverged, not only in respect of keris, but in respect of all things associated with the house concerned.

If we consider only keris style, what we find is that the Surakarta line chose to imitate to a significant degree the keris style of Majapahit, the historic foundation of the line, whilst Jogjakarta imitated the style of Mataram Senopati. This resulted in the tangguh that is Surakarta , or Pakubuwanaan, and Jogjakarta, or Hamengkubuwanaan. Thus, in the present day Jogjakarta keris we have a legitimate sub-division of the overarching Mataram classification, and in future times I have no doubt at all, that if the tangguh system of classification survives, the work of makers of the current era, such as Djeno Harumbrojo and Pauzan Pusposukadgo, will be identified as Mataram Kemardikan.

The most prolific producers of current era keris in the style of Mataram are the craftsmen from East Jawa and Madura. It would be perfectly legitimate to classify these keris as "Mataram Kemardikan Madura ".

I can understand that in the absence of a detailed understanding of the tangguh system, that it is very tempting to use the "bucket" approach, and that if something looks like a particular tangguh it is acceptable to throw it into the relevant bucket. This can work to a limited degree, but it really has very little relevance to the proper application of the system of tangguh. In this situation, where insufficient knowledge and understanding exist to permit proper application of the system, it might perhaps be best to refer to a keris such as the one under discussion as a keris "which displays some characteristics of a Mataram keris". Such a description effectively divorces it from the tangguh system and prevents it from being associated with an even more erroneous estimate of age than is usually the case.